School officials don't report abuse, charged

It's quite rare for actual charges to be laid under this legislation, although warnings of charges and/or reporting to the appropriate professional college are quite common.

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

I am unsure precisely what the charge may be. However, it is not clear that the principal, etc, had any such duty. But it may be that the facts are different than what is reported.

I think the relevant law is par. 72(1) of the Act:

quote:

---

If a person, including a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children, has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the following, the person shall forthwith report the suspicion and the information on which it is based to a society:

---

and the sex abuse paragraphs: You must report, as above, where

quote:

---

3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.

---

So, unless the principal, etc suspected that the effective PARENT ("person having charge of the child", above, FAILS TO PROTECT THE CHILD from sexual molestation, then there is no duty to report.

I think the intention of the section is to have principals report on parents who let another parent or lover abuse a child. I doubt it is meant to turn principals into roving police officers, required to report any rumoured sexual abuse among students.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]I just finished reading the legislation and see their point, however, during the school day they were the people in charge of the child, and the child was in need of protection under the law as a result of their (the administrators) failure to protect. Both the principal and the VP's were aware of the issue, and it is alleged they did nothing. They had a duty to report eachother.[/b]

---

I think there is way too much tolerance by staff of sexual harassment and assault among students. I am glad they are being charged and this issue is being clarified.

Is the "person having charge of the child" necessarily only the parent, etc? When I send my kids to school I entrust them to the care of their teachers and ultimately, the school principal. If these authorities have knowledge of sexual offences being committed against my child [i]at the school[/i], there is no question in my mind that they should be legally required to report it to me and the police.

(ETA: Sorry oldgoat, I see that you have already made this point.)

Also, if the teachers and principal know or ought to know of this taking place at the school, and they fail to report it to the parent or guardian and police, would that not expose the staff and the school board to the possibility of a civil suit?

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

[url=http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c11_e... 79:[/url]

In this section,

“abuse” means a state or condition of being physically harmed, sexually molested or sexually exploited.

(2)No person having charge of a child shall,

(a) inflict abuse on the child; or

(b) by failing to care and provide for or supervise and protect the child adequately,

(i) permit the child to suffer abuse.

So the teacher and principal have a duty to protect the student.

Note, by the way, that the duty to report "applies to every person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children including,

(a) a health care professional, including a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist and psychologist;

(b) a teacher, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, operator or employee of a day nursery and youth and recreation worker;

(b.1) a religious official, including a priest, a rabbi and a member of the clergy;

(b.2) a mediator and an arbitrator;

(c) a peace officer and a coroner;

(d) a solicitor; and

(e) a service provider and an employee of a service provider."

“service provider” means,

(a) the Minister,

(b) an approved agency,

(c) a society,

(d) a licensee, or

(e) a person who provides an approved service or provides a service purchased by the Minister or an approved agency.

"Service" means,

(a) a child development service,

(b) a child treatment service,

(c) a child welfare service,

(d) a community support service, or

(e) a youth justice service; (“service”)

That's a lot of whistle blowers who have to report each other. As it should be.

Doesn't sound like it to me if this is true:

quote:

---

[b](2)No person having charge of a child shall,[/b]

(a) inflict abuse on the child; or

(b) by failing to care and provide for or supervise and protect the child adequately,

[b](i) permit the child to suffer abuse.[/b]

---

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080110.wschool0110/...'Culture of fear' plagues Toronto schools[/url]

quote:

---

Since Jan. 13, 2006, the panel says it found 177 violent incidents in schools across the district — they include gun incidents, robberies and sexual assaults. The panel found there were guns in select schools across the city “in non-trivial numbers.”

At Westview Centennial secondary school near the corner of Jane and Finch, the panel found that one of every three female students said they have been the victim of sexual harassment at their school over past two years. Almost 30 per cent of female students at the school said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact over that period of time.

Twenty-nine female students said they had been victims of major sexual assault at the school.

At C.W. Jefferys, almost 20 per cent of female students said they had been the victims of sexual assault, the report said.

---

quote:

---

One of the most shocking side effects of the panel's investigation over the past few months was the discovery of the alleged sexual assault of a female Muslim student at C.W. Jefferys. The final report sheds more light on the incident, which took place in October, 2006.

According to the report, several students approached a female teacher to report that a Muslim girl had been sexually assaulted in the second-floor boys washroom by a group of boys.

“The students came forward because they were concerned that the boys involved were targeting girls who were unpopular and isolated,” the report says.

The female teacher and the students told a vice-principal about the alleged attack, but neither police or her parents were informed, the report says.

As more students heard about what happened, however, the female student was further harassed by other students, although steps were taken to curb abuse, the report says.

The female student was eventually transferred to another school at the request of both her and her father. But no steps were taken to remove the alleged attackers from school, the report says.

The former principal and two vice-principals at C.W. Jefferys have been charged under Ontario's Child and Family Services Act with failing to report an alleged sexual assault on a student, Toronto District School Board education director Gerry Connelly confirmed this week, before the final report's release.

---

Disgusting lack of spine by those in authority.

In history, there has never been an instance of an intellectually superior progressive society conquering an inferior primitive society.

It is incumbent upon a progressive society to protect vulnerable individuals,not succumb to a culture of victimhood, where the root causes of perpetrators of violence are considered more important than the suffering of the victims.

If progressive types don't have the spine to report assaults,they should be held accountable. They should also have the resources to counter growing anarchy in schools.

The article isn't very clear about what those charged knew about the sexual assault and when they knew about it.

Having said that, I think one of the huge problems we have in protecting kids and other vulnerable people is that managers of both public and private institutions attempt to cover up crimes against such people in effort to protect the institution in which, or under which, the crimes took place.

It's a subtle bit of evil, and if the people charged here turn out to be of that ilk, then I'm happy they are charged. And I will be happy to see them found guilty if the evidence confirms this kind of thing.

But, since the courts are as bad at this kind of evil as any other institution, I will not hold my breath.

The law is a capricious thing, and a stranger to justice.

Your link should have had a warning, Michelle.

It broke the needle on my bullshit detector.

Oh, I'm sure they'll weigh in if they haven't already.

On the larger issue of the violence in Toronto schools, there may be a place for such a voice. To keep this short, suffice to say that you can't address this issue without addressing countless others. It's an understatement to say it is "complex".

But on the other issue of a student coming forward to complain about a sexual assault or abuse, or harassment, people need to stop thinking of themselves as "teachers" or "union members" or anything other than just a person.

I do not have a glorious occupation. But there was a time, years ago when I had to do periodic quality checks on certain truck components. If they were the wrong size, or certain angles were not correct, they could potentially end up killing members of the public, and/or people who service those components. We know this because faulty components had killed, and maimed before.

There were times when I'd find something wrong, which meant that one of my friends, one of my coworkers, one of my union brothers had screwed up, and were in line for discipline.

To protect the public-- which also includes my friends, co-workers and other union brothers and sisters and their families, I couldn't put the short sighted relationships before that. It never crossed my mind.

I'm not trying to say that what I used to do-- and continue to do-- is some heroic function. It's rather mundane, ordinary, and in the grand scheme of things not terribly important.

But it strikes me that this simple and no brainer kind of ethic must get somehow siphoned out of people's brains when they get a professional degree. Then the priority seems to protect the institution, or their "professional association brothers and sisters". At the public's expense.

And, quite regularly, and without much negative comment, at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Teachers are blaming parents, which is probably fair enough in most cases. But I hope when it really counts, teachers are teachers second, and people first.

quote:

---

However, a "person" cannot be charged with failure to report anything.

---

A woman was just recently sentenced to around seven years for being a witness to on going abuse of another woman, and not reporting it.

I remember back to a trial here in London where a good number of people were charged with premeditated murder, even though they did not directly participate in it. They happened to have been at the table at the bar when those who did commit the murder planed the crime. It was the Baxbaum case, which had some national profile for a time.

Charges were dropped in return for testimony.

But I think, yes, persons can be charged for not reporting something.

And well they should.

Here's the link to the report in the Toronto Star.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/247572]from the star[/url]

And we discussed it [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001244]h...

As for the Bauxbaum case, That was many years ago, and I doubt there'd be links to anything about people in the presence of the planing of the murder being charged. I found one reference to the others charged, but the site it linked to was down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]

However, a "person" cannot be charged with failure to report anything. A "person" will listen to an allegation, decide whether there is enough to it to do something about it, and then either report, or not report.

As soon as you make it an offence for certain categories of people to fail to do something, it's too late to ask them to react out of pure human kindness.[/b]

---

True enough. The expectation of "pure human kindness" is folly. People will react out of duty and compulsion - like food and paycheques - however. I'm all for semi-objective measures in this sort of case: If you hear about it, report it. Full stop. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 dollars (until the next pay period, of course...) We need to operate based on imaginings of the [i]worst possible scenario[/i] and not hope for a sliver of intelligence and conscience out of pack animals concerned for the welfare of the pack and their place in it first and foremost. Something we all become in one way or another.