The mother, the child, the school board and the psychic

[Jazzmoose]

But if you scroll back to posts #104 and #107, I have cited quotes from that same article which flatly refute your sorry attempt at having to be right all the time.

This is one of those pot/kettle jokes, right?

[Jazzmoose]

I would have loved to see the headlines of having a teacher or anyone else for that matter getting sued because he did not listen to the ramblings of a psychic , wonder what would have been the reaction of a judge hearing the case

Please.

The issue is reporting or not reporting child abuse irrespective of who has an opinion about the source the TA consulted.

Apples and oranges, VB.

Bull. Shit. The issue is reporting or not reporting allegations of child abuse based on the ramblings of a psychic and the first letter of a possible child's name.

[Van Basten II]

I would have loved to see the headlines of having a teacher or anyone else for that matter getting sued because he did not listen to the ramblings of a psychic , wonder what would have been the reaction of a judge hearing the case

Please.

The issue is reporting or not reporting child abuse irrespective of who has an opinion about the source the TA consulted.

Apples and oranges, VB.

Bull. Shit. The issue is reporting or not reporting allegations of child abuse based on the ramblings of a psychic and the first letter of a possible child's name.

Couldn't have said it better myself

By the way if it turns out that you have 5 childs having their name starting with that letter, do you report all of them ?

By the way, i'm not trying to make fun of you, i just find this way of logic so flawed, it's basically someone hiding behind rules to avoid taking any decisions and have any accountability. Problem in that case, it backfired because they looked foolish and were showcased in a negative way by refusing to take what was the obvious decision. Unfortunately in workplaces where there is an important hierarchical bureaucracy this way of thinking is too often present, where people are more interested of covering their ass than actually do what is in the best interest of every party.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Van Basten II

[Tom Storer]

Leduc's weird tale began on May 30, when she dropped young Victoria off for class at Terry Fox Elementary and headed in to work, only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away.

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the CAS had been notified.

How did they come by such startling knowledge? Leduc was incredulous as they poured out their story.

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

Victoria, who is non-verbal, had also been exhibiting sexualized behaviour in class, actions which are known to be typical of autistic behavior. (See other typical actions here) That lead authorities to suspect she had a bladder infection that may have somehow been related to the 'attack.'

I've just been reading this thread. In the story as recounted in the article, the "educational assistant" was told by a psychic that a little girl whose name begins with V was the victim of abuse by a man aged 23 to 26. It was only at this point that the school authorities considered her "sexualized behavior" and, bizarrely, suspected a bladder infection caused by the hypothetical attack.

So, to answer Alexander's speculation, it seems they weren't even on the ball enough to pay any attention to the "sexualized behavior" at all until a voice from the spirits made them think about the letter V. Although I can well understand the take-no-chances attitude of school staff, given the draconian effects of the law, it does seem clear to me that the original allegation, that of the psychic, did not even concern a specific individual, let alone count as a "known instance of abuse." The educational assistant unjustifiably interpreted this vision, by someone who had presumably never set eyes on Victoria, as being a serious allegation. Surely it was up to the teacher and principal to say "this is not actually an allegation about Victoria at all, it is a psychic spouting off about an unidentified child. Therefore to hell with it."

Again, I understand the atmosphere in which a teacher or principal would say, "The word abuse has been spoken, and that's all it takes. No way am I going to file this without action. It could conceivably come back to haunt me even though it is laughable to think for a minute that this psychic has any knowledge at all about Victoria. Let the higher-ups take any risks."

But it's also kind of like saying, "Hey, we received an anonymous letter that Mr. So-and-so is actually an alien from another planet who takes children into another dimension and abuses them there, with no traces visible here in this dimension. We'd better fire him at once, then report him to the police and have him arrested. Better safe than sorry."

Edited June 24, 2008 by Tom Storer

[Dan Gould]

By the way if it turns out that you have 5 childs having their name starting with that letter, do you report all of them ?

I asked this question above. Timmy never answered. Wonder why.

But we are lucky there was no Vicky or Violet in the class, too.

[Niko]

By the way if it turns out that you have 5 childs having their name starting with that letter, do you report all of them ?

I asked this question above. Timmy never answered. Wonder why.

But we are lucky there was no Vicky or Violet in the class, too.

wonder what they had done if the psychic had said all children at the school were abused except for one...

[Dan Gould]

And if there's any doubt, just let me highlight these two passages:

"I challenged them and asked if the other children in the class with autism exhibited these behaviours. They said, 'Oh yes, all the time.' But they were not reported to the CAS because they didn't have the psychic's tip."

The Simcoe County District School Board confirmed the CAS has closed its file on the matter.

Lindy Zaretsky, the board's superintendent in charge of special education programs, said she could not discuss the circumstances of a specific case.

"School staff and administrators have a duty to report, under the Child and Family Services Act when there is suspected abuse and if they believe there is reasonable grounds. However, it is the CAS that weighs any package of evidence and they make the determination whether to proceed with an investigation," said Dr. Zaretsky.

"I can say that historical and current and future practice from the board's position is that psychic readings are not regarded as evidence," she said.

There you go, Tim - its not the Welfare people declaring that the word of a psychic doesn't constitute evidence. Its the Board of Ed saying it. The Teacher and the Administration should have never acted. Period. End of discussion.

OK.

Whatever, Dan.

I can train a monkey to edit out sections to prove your own twisted bent on things. But if you scroll back to posts #104 and #107, I have cited quotes from that same article which flatly refute your sorry attempt at having to be right all the time.

I don't work for the child welfare people or anybody's two-bit opinion on the matter...I work for the school district. I have to adhere to their rules, not the CPS after-the-fact-you-blew-it back peddle. Get it?

The day those hyper-vigilant CPS guys protect my ass from prosecution from some bombastic asshole hell bent for a lawsuit because of a non-report of child abuse is the same day I ignore suspected child abuse allegations.

You are absolutely out to lunch on this one and You are a complete idiot if you think we teachers are going to disobey our own bosses.

Grab a clue once, Dan....fer crissakes.

Amazing ignorance.

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.

Read it again.

The BOARD OF EDUCATION is stating that the word of a psychic does not constitute evidence:

"I can say that historical and current and future practice from the board's position is that psychic readings are not regarded as evidence."

So, if you are "obeying your employers" - then what is the problem?

Oh, I get it. This was a "test case". The policy was not broadly understood, until now, that psychic readings do not mandate reporting, right? Glad they sent out that memo.

But Timmy, here's the question:

Today, you hear from your TA that her psychic told her that one of your students is being abused.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

You know about this case in Canada - but has your Board made it clear that as a matter of policy, psychic readings don't constitute evidence in YOUR district?

WHAT DO YOU DO, TIMMY?

I am quite sure you play the game of COVER MY ASS and REPORT IT, DAMNIT! You won't be second-guessed by non-professionals! REPORT! REPORT!!!!

[Tim McG]

Jazzmoose and Dan,

If I don't report, I am disobeying the law and my superiors and school board policy. I could be fined, jailed or lose my job. Why don't you consider those possibilities first, eh? Now, if you guys have a alternative solution to the legal constraints we work under...I'm all ears.

And Jazzmoose, the argument has been the same from the get go. Because I offer a different angle for the same argument it is not changing anything. It is offering new insight, evidence or thought processes.

Now then, I am off to celebrate our 25th Anniversary by taking my Lovely Betrothed, Mrs. GoodSpeak, to the Coast for three days. Try not to go sideways on me until I get back, OK? Play nice, or I may have to do a report on you two.

Edited June 24, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Alexander]

But the teacher and the administration should not be punished for this. Whatever else may have happened, whatever shaky grounds there were for suspicion in the first place, they WERE only acting in the child's best interests. As Tim has said, if this had been a case of abuse where the teacher and the TA had turned a blind eye, people would be (rightly) calling for their heads. It was a Catch-22 situation. The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Sorry, but "covering your ass" is not the same thing as "acting in the child's best interests".

Once again, would you be willing to take the chance that the child was not being abused? When the consequences, both to the child and to you, are so great? Yes, they were "covering their asses" but they were ALSO "acting in the child's best interests."

[Tim McG]

But the teacher and the administration should not be punished for this. Whatever else may have happened, whatever shaky grounds there were for suspicion in the first place, they WERE only acting in the child's best interests. As Tim has said, if this had been a case of abuse where the teacher and the TA had turned a blind eye, people would be (rightly) calling for their heads. It was a Catch-22 situation. The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Sorry, but "covering your ass" is not the same thing as "acting in the child's best interests".

Once again, would you be willing to take the chance that the child was not being abused? When the consequences, both to the child and to you, are so great? Yes, they were "covering their asses" but they were ALSO "acting in the child's best interests."

Exactly.

It is, if I may be so bold, the very reason the law is there in the first place: To make certain no child is needlessly suffering abuse.

Well said, Alexander.

Edited June 24, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

It is, if I may be so bold, the very reason the law is there in the first place: To may certain no child is needlessly suffering abuse.

Well said, Alexander.

It seems pretty clear that NOBODY'S arguing that point. Nobody wants to see a child suffering, clearly. That goes without saying. If that's what you believe you're defending against the hordes of Org board members who think children *should* be abused, we're clearly not speaking the same language.

What is being argued and you are about the only one defending is the credibility of a psychic's word. Again, a psychic's word is no more believable than a person who plays with a ouija board or someone who reports abuse because the giant purple spaghetti monster told them a kid with pig tails is being abused.

[Noj]

I saw Dan Gould with the Devil! I saw GoodSpeak with the Devil! I saw Aggie87 with the Devil!

[John Tapscott]

The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Certainly not true. Read the original article. The mother herself has suffered harm. I think she should sue the School Board big time. And the TA should be fired. What the TA does on his or her own time is his/her own business, but a person who allow a psychic's word to be the basis of, or to influence their professional judgement, well, that person has no place in the classroom IMO.

Even if the administration felt they had to do something, don't you think a more subtle approach should have been used, rather than the six guns blazing approach, like do a little bit of quiet behind-the scene investigation, and make sure there are reasonable grounds for the allegation, over and above the wild-eyed speculation of some friggin' pyschic. A friggin' pyschic, for heaven's sake. Hey I'm a psychic, too. The price of gas is going up tomorrow!

[aparxa]

I saw Dan Gould with the Devil! I saw GoodSpeak with the Devil! I saw Aggie87 with the Devil!

That would make a nice tune!

[Tom Storer]

Once again, would you be willing to take the chance that the child was not being abused? When the consequences, both to the child and to you, are so great? Yes, they were "covering their asses" but they were ALSO "acting in the child's best interests."

But doesn't it seem that there was no greater chance that Victoria was being abused than that any other child in the class was being abused? If there had been any evidence that sparked the interest of the educational assistant or the teacher, definitely, err on the side of caution. But here there was no evidence. The "sexualized behavior" had not alarmed the adults--it was only after a voice from the spirits mentioned the letter V that it was reinterpreted.

The rhetorical question was asked above, what if the psychic had said all the kids in the class were being abused, or, say, all the kids whose names began with A through L? Would it have been wise in that case to report all those cases to the authorities? And if would not be in that case, why would it be if only one letter were singled out?

[Jazzmoose]

But the teacher and the administration should not be punished for this. Whatever else may have happened, whatever shaky grounds there were for suspicion in the first place, they WERE only acting in the child's best interests. As Tim has said, if this had been a case of abuse where the teacher and the TA had turned a blind eye, people would be (rightly) calling for their heads. It was a Catch-22 situation. The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Sorry, but "covering your ass" is not the same thing as "acting in the child's best interests".

Once again, would you be willing to take the chance that the child was not being abused? When the consequences, both to the child and to you, are so great? Yes, they were "covering their asses" but they were ALSO "acting in the child's best interests."

Based on a vague utterance of a psychic who had never had any contact with the child? Yes, I would be willing to take that chance. Give me a break. That's no chance at all.

[Jazzmoose]

I saw Dan Gould with the Devil! I saw GoodSpeak with the Devil! I saw Aggie87 with the Devil!

Calm down, Noj; these are antlers, not horns...

[Jazzmoose]

So, Goodspeak (when you get back), if I tell you that the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it? I mean, wouldn't you feel kind of foolish? But then you'd be covering your ass, and wouldn't have to do any thinking on your own, so I guess you would...

[Tim McG]

Once again, would you be willing to take the chance that the child was not being abused? When the consequences, both to the child and to you, are so great? Yes, they were "covering their asses" but they were ALSO "acting in the child's best interests."

But doesn't it seem that there was no greater chance that Victoria was being abused than that any other child in the class was being abused? If there had been any evidence that sparked the interest of the educational assistant or the teacher, definitely, err on the side of caution. But here there was no evidence. The "sexualized behavior" had not alarmed the adults--it was only after a voice from the spirits mentioned the letter V that it was reinterpreted.

The rhetorical question was asked above, what if the psychic had said all the kids in the class were being abused, or, say, all the kids whose names began with A through L? Would it have been wise in that case to report all those cases to the authorities? And if would not be in that case, why would it be if only one letter were singled out?

Tom,

I get your point, but not reporting this and on the basis of what a district empolyee alledged to the teacher is against the law and against school board policy.

We don't get to make that determination. We are given one option: Reprt it or suffer the consequences.

IMHO, it is easy for those not in the teaching biz to say this should be done this way or that could have been handled another way, etc. As school district employees we simply do not have that luxury.

There is a lot of stupid shit we, as teachers, must do because we are told to. Sure, I could go aginst all that but I'd eventually lose my job or worse, my job life could be made into a living hell. Where I am sorry for that girl, I know that her limited suffering pales in comparison to the thousands of children helped because of this law. That is my stand and no matter what anyone here says I will perform my duties with the children in mind first, adult issues last.

[Tim McG]

So, Goodspeak (when you get back), if I tell you that the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it? I mean, wouldn't you feel kind of foolish? But then you'd be covering your ass, and wouldn't have to do any thinking on your own, so I guess you would...

This was not a random reporting, Jazzmoose.

Yours, however, is.

Besides, school's out for the summer

[Niko]

So, Goodspeak (when you get back), if I tell you that the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it? I mean, wouldn't you feel kind of foolish? But then you'd be covering your ass, and wouldn't have to do any thinking on your own, so I guess you would...

This was not a random reporting, Jazzmoose.

Yours, however, is.

if I tell you i am a psychic and the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it?

hope you had great holidays!

[Alexander]

The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Certainly not true. Read the original article. The mother herself has suffered harm.

I read the article. I said that there was no "lasting" harm done. The mother will recover.

[Dan Gould]

I would like everyone to know that I am no longer upset with Tim, or Alex over this thread.

However, I am seriously pissed at van basten. You see, the Paul Simon tune "Mother & Child Reunion" has been stuck in my head for most of the last eight days, and only now have I realized that its his fault.

A pox on your house, sir.

[Tim McG]

So, Goodspeak (when you get back), if I tell you that the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it? I mean, wouldn't you feel kind of foolish? But then you'd be covering your ass, and wouldn't have to do any thinking on your own, so I guess you would...

This was not a random reporting, Jazzmoose.

Yours, however, is.

if I tell you i am a psychic and the third child back in the second row of your first class is being molested by their uncle, you would immediately report it?

hope you had great holidays!

Hum a few bars and I'll let you know.

And thanks....our trip was very nice, indeed.

Edited June 27, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

The teacher and the administration did what they believed was right and ultmately, there was no lasting harm done.

Certainly not true. Read the original article. The mother herself has suffered harm.

I read the article. I said that there was no "lasting" harm done. The mother will recover.

Indeed.

Into one's life some rain must fall, yes?

BTW...I had to report on two instances of child abuse this past school year. One ended up being a kid getting "jumped in" by his gang and the second invloved a knife his father used to cut his son. This is some serious shit, Guys. And if the cost is one mother being rightfully upset by an imperfect system, I'm OK with it.

Edited June 27, 2008 by GoodSpeak