Tag Archives: Child Abuse

I ADMIT THAT I DON’T LIKE THIS GUY. BUT THAT’S NOT THE REASON I FILED THE CHILD ABUSE REPORT.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the making of a child abuse report is an “adverse action.” According to the court, this is true whether the report is true or false. Thus if the report is made in retaliation for the exercise of protected rights, it is an act of illegal retaliation. The critical question then becomes motivation.  Key Quote:

Under this rule, then, a report of child abuse—even if it is not materially false and there is evidence in the record that could support a “reasonable basis” to suspect child abuse—is actionable if the reporter made the report “at least in part” for retaliatory motives.

This is a decision sure to cause some anxiety among educators who are legally required to report child abuse.  The court took that into account, but still held that even a truthful report of child abuse is “actionable” if improperly motivated.

How would the court conclude that your report is improperly motivated?  In this case, the court was required to assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint. That’s because the Director of Pupil Services/defendant in the case had filed a Motion to Dismiss based on an assertion of “qualified immunity.”   To assess a MTD, the court assumes that the allegations in the complaint will turn out to be true. The court also is required to review the evidence in the light “most favorable” to the party opposing the Motion.  The question then becomes: is there any possibility that the plaintiff can prevail in this case?  Is there a legitimate “cause of action” here?

Here, the court said that there was a case.  The complaint alleged that the report of child abuse was embellished and in some parts entirely fabricated.  Furthermore, the court cited a few emails the defendant had sent that “suggest that she harbored animus against [the plaintiff] as a result of his advocacy about [the child’s educational plan.” The court held that the complaint should not be dismissed. Moreover, since the law on this is “clearly established” the director of pupil services who reported the alleged abuse was not entitled to qualified immunity.

This case may go to the Supreme Court.  NSBA (National School Boards Association) has filed a brief asking the Court to take up the case and reverse this decision.  The Circuit Court’s decision is the first high level court to identify a non-malicious report of child abuse as an “adverse action,” thus opening the door to retaliation lawsuits.  The Supreme Court will consider taking up this case on September 28th.

Here in Texas we live in the 5th Circuit, and this decision by the 6th Circuit does not create a binding precedent for us. Nevertheless, the case should serve as a caution.

You have to report suspected child abuse. You have to do it if the parent is your best friend.  You have to do it if the parent is a constant thorn in your side.  But let this case be a caution: be sure that your report sticks to the facts. Do not embellish or fabricate those facts. Relay the facts that caused you to make the report honestly, completely, and promptly.

 

The case is Wenk v. O’Reilly, decided by the 6th Circuit on April 15, 2015.  We found it at 65 IDELR 121.

DAWG BONE: YOU HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM IF YOU DON’T REPORT CHILD ABUSE.  SOMETIMES YOU HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM WHEN YOU DO.

SOMETIMES YOU CAN TELL HOW THE COURT WILL RULE FROM THE OPENING LINE OF THE OPINION.

When I was in law school, our torts professor told us of an opinion that opened by describing the plaintiff as “The widow Jones.”  You know right away, she’s going to win.  Otherwise, she would be “Mrs. Jones.”

Same thing in a recent Supreme Court case.  The opening line of Justice Alito’s opinion introduces us to Darius Clark:

Darius Clark sent his girlfriend hundreds of miles away to engage in prostitution and agreed to care for her two young children while she was out of town.

You just know that Mr. Clark is going down.

The Court held that a three-year old’s statements to his preschool teachers about the abuse he endured from Mr. Clark was admissible in the criminal prosecution of the man.   The case is about the 6th Amendment and its Confrontation Clause. That’s the provision that guarantees that a person prosecuted for a crime “shall enjoy the right….to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

In this case, the little boy did not testify, but the court admitted into evidence the statements that he made to his preschool teachers.  With that damning evidence in the record, the jury sentenced Mr. Clark to 28 years in prison.  Mr. Clark took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that the judge never should have allowed the little boy’s testimony to be admitted into evidence.  The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Mr. Clark’s argument was based on the state law that required teachers to report suspected child abuse. The argument was that this law effectively transformed preschool teachers into agents of the police.  Thus when the teachers asked the little boy about what had happened, and how he got the bruises and black eye, they were supposedly acting as agents of the police, gathering information for the district attorney.  This would make the little guy’s statements “testimonial” and thus barred from admission at the trial.

You will probably be pleased to hear that the Supreme Court easily rejected that argument, describing it as “off-base” and “inapt.”  Key Quote:

The teachers’ pressing concern was to protect L.P. [the three-year old] and remove him from harms’ way.   Like all good teachers, they undoubtedly would have acted with the same purpose whether or not they had a state-law duty to report abuse. 

Teachers are not acting on behalf of the police when they question a student to determine if abuse has occurred. They are not criminal investigators hot on the trail of a suspect.  They are educators, carrying out their legal, moral and ethical duty to guard against child abuse.

It’s good to see the Supreme Court recognize that.  The case is Ohio v. Clark, decided by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2015.

DAWG BONE: THOSE MANDATORY REPORTING LAWS DO NOT TRANSFORM TEACHERS INTO COPS.

 

 

CAN A COUNSELOR BE FIRED FOR NOT REPORTING POSSIBLE CHILD ABUSE? WHAT IF THE CHILD IS HER OWN?

Judson ISD proposed the termination of Maria Ruiz, a counselor, based on Ms. Ruiz’s failure to report suspected child abuse.

The independent hearing examiner assigned to hear Ms. Ruiz’s case, recommended that she not be fired.  But the board fired her anyway.

So Ms. Ruiz appealed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner affirmed the board’s decision to terminate Mr. Ruiz’s employment.

So Ms. Ruiz took her appeal to state court in Bexar County.  There, she won.  The judge ordered that she be reinstated with back pay and benefits.

So the district appealed to the 4th Court of Appeals.  That court has now ruled in favor of the district.

What makes the case particularly interesting is that the child in question was Ms. Ruiz’s daughter, a freshman at Judson High school.  The suspected abuser, Carlos Reyes, was the girl’s mariachi instructor, who was also a paraprofessional and substitute teacher employed by the district.  When Ms. Ruiz came across sexually explicit and inappropriate text messages between her daughter and Mr. Reyes, she and her husband immediately met with Mr. Reyes and his wife and insisted that there be no further communication with their daughter, unless it was specifically about music.

That is a step that most parents would probably take.  But the problem for Ms. Ruiz was that she was not just a parent in this situation. She was also a school employee, subject to policies and laws pertaining to the reporting of suspected abuse. She did not report Mr. Reyes’s conduct to school officials, the police or the child abuse authorities.  About six weeks later, another counselor found out about these text messages, and she reported it to school administrators. They reported to Child Protective Services, and investigations ensued.  Mr. Reyes promptly resigned. Ms. Ruiz did not.

The initial hearing examiner in this case concluded that Ms. Ruiz “did not believe abuse or neglect had occurred” and therefore “did not believe it necessary to contact the police regarding the incident.” But as this case points out, that subjective belief about whether or not “abuse or neglect” has occurred is not the whole story.  The standard is that we must report if we have “cause to believe” that “abuse or neglect has occurred or may occur.” The court’s opinion emphasizes the concern about future abuse: “Thus a finding that Ruiz did not subjectively believe abuse had occurred in the past does not contradict and is not inconsistent with Ruiz having had cause to believe abuse may occur in the future.”

The fact that the child in this case was the counselor’s daughter does not figure in the decision. Child abuse is child abuse, regardless of whose child it is.  The law requires people who have “cause to believe” that abuse or neglect has occurred to do so.  This mandate applies to all of us, but for teachers and counselors the stakes are higher.  For them, the failure to report suspected abuse is a violation of state law, but also, grounds for termination of employment.

The case is Judson ISD v. Ruiz, decided by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio on March 31, 2015.  We will have more to say about this case tomorrow.

DAWG BONE: FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED ABUSE OR NEGLECT CAN COST YOUR JOB.