Should sex abuser get teaching license back?

I've thought long and hard about your excellent post, Thomas.

But I still disagree.

There is something kind of skunky about the staute of limitations when it comes to crimes against children.

Kids often don't really know that what is happening to them is actually a crime.

I'm sure they're threatened about telling -- "I'll hurt you.", "I'll hurt your family." -- so they don't tell.

They're taught to trust adults. Their parents gave over their care to this person for a specific period of time. It has to be hugely confusing.

Perhaps the limitation should kick in beginning at the time the child reaches majority.

As to her "honesty", well, she'd actually been dishonest for years and years. She didn't admit to it until confronted. I don't believe she deserves any kudos for that.

Not only was she dishonest in receiving her teaching license, she was dishonest about adopting a child. Having been through that process I know she would never have been allowed to adopt had she been honest.

So I'm right back to where I started -- she shouldn't be teaching. I wouldn't want my kid anywhere around her.

1 Reply

Thanks, soz, for your insight into the deaf community.

Quote:

But offhand I'd say that it's possible that there would be even more barriers than in most situations, in terms of telling other adults, if this was the main adult contact/ authority figure these kids dealt with.

This is what I was thinking.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

Quote:

Not only was she dishonest in receiving her teaching license, she was dishonest about adopting a child. Having been through that process I know she would never have been allowed to adopt had she been honest.

Having gone through the adoption process myself, I know how much emphasis
is put on the integrity of adoptive parents, she would have been disqualified
immediately. Which makes me wonder now, what is going to happen to her
child?

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Quote:
Not only was she dishonest in receiving her teaching license, she was dishonest about adopting a child. Having been through that process I know she would never have been allowed to adopt had she been honest.

Having gone through the adoption process myself, I know how much emphasis
is put on the integrity of adoptive parents, she would have been disqualified
immediately. Which makes me wonder now, what is going to happen to her
child?

unless there are new charges of abuse/neglect nothing will happen (in any legal sense) to her adopted child. Finalized adoptions are not revocable.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You are more forgiving than I am - but I would not want to chance this on my child.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Quote:

unless there are new charges of abuse/neglect nothing will happen (in any legal sense) to her adopted child. Finalized adoptions are not revocable.

Dys, even though they were made under false pretense?

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Quote:
unless there are new charges of abuse/neglect nothing will happen (in any legal sense) to her adopted child. Finalized adoptions are not revocable.

Dys, even though they were made under false pretense?

correct. the issues is "finalized"adoption which is legally no different than giving birth. There are different legal adoptions in various states that address such issues as guardianships etc.

0 Replies

Thank you, dys for the info.

0 Replies

I am of the mind that America's draconian sex offender laws need to be separated into two groups:

1) The non-traumatic one time inadvertent act of indecent exposure that is never repeated or the cases of statutory rape of say a willing 17-year-old girl with her 18-year-old boy friend. Such benign 'crimes' should not carry a lifetime stigma or ramifications as they are almost certainly not pathological or deviant in nature and they present no more likely danger to anybody than do those with no such history.

2) The crimes that traumatize, victimize, brutalize, or otherwise harm people--rape, child molestation, or any such inappropriate behavior.

Given the high rate of ricidivism for the latter group of sex offenders, it would be good if we had a crystal ball to know when a person had truly repented and had been 'cured' and was no longer a danger to anybody.

Since we can't know that, however, it is imperative that any error be on the side of caution and we should not knowingly put any child at such risk.

The woman should not be allowed in any profession where she has access to children.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Since we can't know that, however, it is imperative that any error be on the side of caution and we should not knowingly put any child at such risk.

The woman should not be allowed in any profession where she has access to children.

Fully cognizant with respect to the potential dangers [and to ward off the Set's and OB's], is that not, in and of itself, draconian, Foxy? The law developed to prevent these types of abuses and, allowed, when it comes to children we have to be more careful, much more careful, but the woman [from what we know] has no criminal record.

It is not inconceivable that this woman is truly safe and the children are in much greater danger from other teachers considered safe.

If our concern is so great, why not subject all teachers to lie detector tests.

1 Reply

@JTT,

The woman admitted that she did it for three years. Whether or not she was convicted of any crime, she has established herself as a repeat offender. This is commendable on her part actually. Some other offenders are on record that they do not want to be offenders and request that they be restrained or otherwise prevented from temptations that they know they cannot or will not resist.

The protection and welfare of children trumps any possible injustice done to an adult who admits to such propensities. We should not knowingly put children at greater risk.

The woman should not be in a position where she interacts with children.

0 Replies

Sozobe wrote:

The article Boomer linked to is really vague in several directions. (Ex: How bad was the initial abuse? [Though, by your own standards, it doesn't matter since the statute of limitations has run out, right?])

There are several reasons why the license shouldn't have been revoked. Just because one of the reason means we needn't consider the others, that doesn't mean the others aren't there. Plus, the statute of limitations is kind of a technical argument, and I know from experience that technical arguments lack traction when people discuss emotional issues like child abuse.

Calamity Jane wrote:

the school board has every right to revoke a teachers license if there is reasonable doubt that the welfare of its children is in jeopardy, despite the absence of a judicial verdict.

Does it? Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US constitution, the state cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. By revoking the license, the school board is depriving a person of her livelihood, without any legal process, and with school board deliberation serving instead of it. Does that count as "due process of the law"? As an interested layman in legal matter, I don't see that it does. Indeed, I think the answer is more likely than not to be "no". As a citizen, in any event, I find the process dubious in principle and counterproductive in practice, given the severity of the consequences.

Calamity Jane wrote:

In court he could prove reasonable doubt and was not convicted, however the hospital did revoke his privileges, as they felt that their fiduciary responsibility is with the nurses ; they needed to protect them.

That's a different case. The government did not revoke the doctor's license to practice medicine. The hospital, on the other hand, is a private actor who can hire and fire whomever they want. As long as the teacher keeps her license, I have no problem if her old school decides to fire the teacher. I also have no problem with other schools deciding not to hire her. But that wasn't Boomerang's question. Her question was if the teacher should get her license back.

Boomerang wrote:

I've thought long and hard about your excellent post, Thomas.

But I still disagree.

No problem. I get that all the time. Very Happy

Boomerang wrote:

I'm sure they're threatened about telling -- "I'll hurt you.", "I'll hurt your family." -- so they don't tell.

But there is no showing in your article that that was the case.

Boomerang wrote:

As to her "honesty", well, she'd actually been dishonest for years and years. She didn't admit to it until confronted. I don't believe she deserves any kudos for that.

And still, she is much worse off today than she would be, had she remained dishonest all along and denied the allegations. Because of how this case played out, other child abusers in her position will take note, keep lying , keep their jobs, and continue to threaten your children without you knowing it. Is that what you want? (This is the third time I'm asking the question, but nobody has answered it yet.)

Foxfyre wrote:

I am of the mind that America's draconian sex offender laws need to be separated into two groups:

I agree. That's why I'm so pissed that the article never specifies what kind of crime was actually committed.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

We can only go on the theory that the offense was severe enough to justify not exposing children to this person. Churches, schools, and other organizations have come under heavy criticism for not dealing with and protecting children from repeat offenders and perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction now, but we can be certain for every offense that is exposed, there are likely others that are not reported. My opinion on this is based on the assumption that the firing was justified.

Again, protection of the children must always be the first priority.

But if the woman has been conducting herself in an appropriate manner for years, perhaps they wished to protect her from unnecessary publicity at this time and chose not to publish any more embarrassing details than were absolutely necessary.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We can only go on the theory that the offense was severe enough to justify not exposing children to this person.

Why? To channel my real life neighbor Frank Apisa, if you don't know, there's no point in going on some theory just to go on something. Instead, we should go on the fact that we don't know. That's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength!

Foxfyre wrote:

My opinion on this is based on the assumption that the firing was justified.

To repeat: per se I have no problem with firing her. I have a problem with revoking her license. Boomerang had asked about her license, so that's what I responded to.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, protection of the children must always be the first priority.

Why? The fact that they're children don't extinguish other people's civil rights -- including their right to due process of the law.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Why? The fact that they're children don't extinguish other people's civil rights -- including their right to due process of the law.

The fact that they are children at the mercy of adults to grant them civil rights is the basis for the application of extra care and caution. An adult can find another job or redirect his/her life. A child cannot easily prevent being abused by an adult in authority nor regain lost trust, innocence, or happiness when that is forcibly taken from him/her. Our first duty is to protect the children always.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

This is the third time I'm asking the question, but nobody has answered it yet.)

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I think that you are a marvelous writer.

I believe that this, above, underlined, is German bleeding through, Thomas. We don't use the present continuous to denote three separate events.

This is the third time I've asked the question, ... .

0 Replies

Following (I didn't want to open this thread, having to do with mood).

0 Replies

@Thomas,

The article is vague, but is far more suggestive of quite "serious" ( and where the heck you get the notion that exposure is a negligible event that only a "draconian" and unreasonable system would have concern about in those interacting daily with kids about I have no idea Thomas...got any idea of the kind of effect that a teacher doing that might have on kids, of the effect anyone doing that can have, of the kinds of pogression that is common in exposers???) abuse than it is of anything ambiguous.

Professional bodies are not bound by the same kinds of limitations as "the state".

This is just one of those things about being a professional that, for all the crap associated with it, is supposed to protect those being professed at from abuses of the status, power and opportunities that being a professional brings with it.

There is a higher expectation of conduct than there is from the average person...eg one has to be a fit and proper person and such. I can potentially be fired, for instance, for public drunkenness and such. While this is doubtless frequently more honoured in the breach than the observance, I have no problem with it being so and being enforced. Being a "professional" doesn't bring with it a lot of money these days, but it can potentially give one enormously privileged access to people at their most vulnerable.

One can be denied practice rights for numerous sorts of behaviour (such as sub-standard practice) that would NEVER be considered in a criminal arena.

Are you suggesting that unless I can be taken to criminal court and convicted that there is nothing I can do which ought to suspend my right to practice?

What nonsense.

This woman is NOT being denied a licence for telling the truth...she is being denied it for admitted long-term sexual abuse of two children.

I have no way of knowing whether she is currently safe in the classroom.

Neither do you.

I am not venturing an opinion in the matter...but I think your arguments are uncharacteristically ignortant and meritless.

This woman abused at least two children (she has admitted only to those who came forward). There is no evidence she has done anything specifically to address this. Having a long-term partner is nice...but so do way more than half the sexual offenders running around going to church and generally looking innocent and "nice". She made no move to admit her crimes until busted. She taught under false pretences.

The teaching board is not bound to the standards of criminal courts.

That being said, she may now be harmless. I do not know. I certainly do not believe that all sexual offenders are immoveably dangerous. But, there is a damn fine argument that she ought not to be teaching little kids, and I do not think you have given any proper thought to this because of your legalistic approach.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

The article is vague, but is far more suggestive of quite "serious" ( and where the heck you get the notion that exposure is a negligible event

I don't. I'm getting the notion that the article isn't telling. And knowing people's knee-jerk reflex to turn into lynch mobs as soon as sex and children are involved, I refuse to take mere suggestions in an article at face value. But I'll grant you this: The fact that we don't know what the teacher actually did isn't an argument for saying she should keep her license. It's an argument for saying we don't know if she should keep her license. (This throws me back on the statute of limitations, which I didn't want to rely on -- sigh.)

dlowan wrote:

Professional bodies are not bound by the same kinds of limitations as "the state".

But this is explicitly about an act of the state, not of a professional body. Kindly re-read the first two words in the very first sentence of Boomerang's article: "State officials are privately weighing whether to grant a new teaching license ...". It was the state who revoked the license; it is the state who is now weighing whether to give it back. So your arguments about what's appropriate for professional organizations are beside the point. To repeat, I take no position on what should happen under private law. If schools don't want to employ her, and if her union or her teachers' association wants to expel her, that's a different case. But this story is about an organ of the state who has taken a teacher's livelihood. Therefore, although it had good reasons for doing so, it couldn't break the teacher's constitutional right to due process of the law.

dlowan wrote:

Are you suggesting that unless I can be taken to criminal court and convicted that there is nothing I can do which ought to suspend my right to practice?

If the alleged reason for your suspension is that you have committed a crime, then yes.

dlowan wrote:

This woman is NOT being denied a licence for telling the truth...she is being denied it for admitted long-term sexual abuse of two children.

I'm sure that's the intent. But as a practical matter, as a matter of the incentives this sets for other abusers, her license is being taken away because she told the truth.

dlowan wrote:

But, there is a damn fine argument that she ought not to be teaching little kids, and I do not think you have given any proper thought to this because of your legalistic approach.

I am not necessarily saying that she ought to be teaching little kids. If she keeps her license, and if schools hire her to teach someone other than little kids, that's fine with me. It's even fine with me when schools don't hire her at all. My only beef is with the state revoking the license.

You dismiss my approach to the subject as legalistic. Let me say a few words in favor of legalistic approaches, because they respect a crucial fact that you and most of the others are too happy to forget: We live in a civilized society, in a country of laws. And sometimes this means that bad people get off the hook. By respecting our right to free speech, for example, the state lets Nazis get away with saying horrible things about Holocaust survivors; things that probably traumatize many of them. Also, when police officers overstep their boundaries in a search or a seizure, the court will suppress the evidence they found in the search -- and often that means that murderers, drug dealers, and other bad people get away with their crimes. The reason we put up with this isn't that we want Nazis to traumatize Holocaust survivors all over again. It isn't that we want murderers and drug dealers to roam our streets freely. It's that we want to live in a society with civil rights, and crap like that is a price worth paying for it.

The analogy to this case is exact: I don't want child abusers to teach children. But I do want to live in a society that respects civil rights. Sure, this means that one teacher -- out of what, a million? -- gets away with abuse. I don't like that. But just as in the case of the Nazis, murderers and drug dealers who get away, I accept it as the price of a society that respects our rights.

3 Replies

Update:

Quote:

Oregon will not grant a new teaching license to an admitted child sex abuser who asked to return to the classroom, the state licensing board decided Friday.

The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission unanimously rejected a petition by Kimberly Horenstein, who taught deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Portland for 21 years, to get her license back.

........

The commission also voted publicly to deny a new license to another educator who admitted inappropriate sexual contact with students.

Jason Pool, who taught English at Mark Twain Middle School in Silverton from 1995 to 2002, lost his license in 2004 for kissing a 15-year-old student. Several middle-school girls told police he failed to maintain professional teacher-student boundaries with them, and he pleaded guilty to harassment for the kissing incident. Last year, Pool asked for his teaching license back, but he was unanimously turned down by the commission Friday.

0 Replies

Should sex abuser get teaching license back?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know