Child Needs Help

[cdwjava]

Following the investigation there was no doubt in the mind of the prosecuter that this was a case that could be won.

Then what has prevented them for proceeding. I don't know how a social worker's portion of the case could possibly impede that unless this was the person who conducted the forensic interview and that person messed up with leading questions or some other foul up.

It's no wonder this kid has learned not to trust what adults say, he was told he'd be protected and would receive justice.

That's something we in law enforcement keep trying to get social workers to do - stop promising things that we may not be able to deliver. Never make a promise that you cannot keep yourself.

I'm sure your wife is a wonderful teacher. However, when there is an IED because of PTSD, if the teacher is not qualified to teach this student he/she causes more harm than good. If a teacher is trained in PTSD he/she will not be assaulted by the student.

My wife's case was not so simple. the children were intentionally (for funding and due to parental denial) categorized as needing some special assistance, but not such that they were even categorized as special education so no special training or credential was required. Though, according to the principal, the aid, and the superintendent she has been the only teacher in three years to get any academic work out of those particular children (7 of them).

As for the PTSD situation note that unless your district is flush with money and specially trained staff, the odds of a person trained in your child's particular ailment are very slim. Also, teachers usually don't have a say in these assignments. The school or the district looks at the person either filling the position most closely related to the problem or a person who has qualifications meeting the legal sufficiency, and the child is placed. If the teacher says, 'No', they likely don't have a job next year.

There just is not enough money floating around to pay and hire teachers to handle everything. Maybe the teacher mis-handled this child's situation. But, I doubt that anyone could expect the district to have an especially trained teacher at every school free to handle these students. Unless the IEP specifically stated that the child would be taught by someone with specific training and certification, you get who you get.

The kid didn't assault the teacher. He reacted.

But, on its face it is assault and battery. His situation is why the prosecutor will have to evaluate the total case and the circumstances to determine if there is a crime he can prosecute. In my state, for someone under 14 years of age we have to establish the intent of the child to strike out and do harm ... I am certain the law is similar where you are.

Again, I doubt you will see a criminal complaint go forward, but that does not mean the teacher was wrong in reporting it. To her it was battery, and to most people it would be seen as such ... just as to most people a person yelling at you and threatening to kick your tail might be thought to be criminal threats - but, it's generally not the case (by itself).

This person claims she does, but has not completed one step of the IEP all year. There is a check list of do's and don'ts for a teacher to follow for a student with PTSD, she ignored every one of them.

It sounds like you need to go back to the administration and compel them to comply with the IEP they agreed to. However, this might require a new placement for the child at another location.

Sadly, every other parent with a child in this class feels the same, and they don't get help from outside professionals either.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but in mine there is a lot lacking in this area. Special education needs are nearly bankrupting my county's educational system. Two school districts and the county office of education are all floundering because of skyrocketing special ed. expenses, and it is to the point that they may fold up that tent and end up shipping out many of the special needs students to another county every day ... or, they might consolidate all special ed. in one city to help conserve costs - though transportation will have to be provided, and this could become an issue.

Bottom line, if a teacher is not qualified to teach children with disorders, they have no business trying it for any length of time. There is no excuse for adding trauma, needlessly, because a well-meaning teacher doesn't have a clue.

This is an administration problem and something that needs to be dealt with by the bean-counters. The teacher may not have had any say in the situation. And, if the teacher is not adequate, you - as a parent - do have other options. How viable those options are is debatable.

- Carl

[cdwjava]

They and the detective - who were so confident at the start, now say the same thing you have, that these cases are so difficult to prove.

They are. Their initial optimism may have been tempered by what they uncovered - or, were unable to uncover - during the course of the investigation.

A certain amount of optimism is good at first to try and put the victim and the family at ease. But, things can change as facts come to light. What might sound great at first can quickly deteriorate into a steaming pile o' doo. Only the detective or the DA can explain what caused their change of opinion.

That can only mean one of two things. Either it is not in the best interests of the state to prove he is a danger, because of the social worker releasing their location. (he has been seen driving around their city and their house many times since then)

Has the family sought a restraining order? That should put an end to that driving through.

If that is not the case, then it can only mean that detectives, social workers, therapists, da's will tell a family whatever they have to in order to chalk up payable hours, knowing in the end these cases are difficult to prove.

That's simply not true.

There are only three of types of arrests/convictions that come to mind which give a cop and a DA true pleasure - that which involves a child molester/abuser, a rapist, and a killer. These are also the only cases worth going the extra mile to pursue. The problem is that they ARE difficult to prove and can often take many months and sometimes years to build. In the meantime, you have victims or their kin pressing for details or information, and we just can't give any out. Sadly, victims and their families often torpedo cases if we give them much info. Nothing like having the mother of a minor rape victim call a suspect up and tell him that he's going to prison and outline what a detective told her just before the suspect is to come in for an interview ... the suspect in that case clammed up, got an attorney, and we were never able to hammer him with his conflicting statements and try to get a confession.

If there is any viability to the case, it will be pursued.

They now live in fear. Should kids really "tell"? They were much better off before they did, they were happy and functioning. They were a joy. Now they are being dismissed by the very people who got the ball rolling.

Internalizing it will not have benefited them.

In my day and age you did not tell anyone about this sort of thing. There was a child molester on my street who molested almost everyone I grew up with - including my sister. This did not come to light for about 15 years - not until all the victims were well into adulthood and the SOL had expired. Almost every one of these kids had suppressed their experiences and many fell into alcohol and drug abuse, depression, severe weight problems (likely due to self-esteem issues) nightmares, ad nauseum. If they kept inside they would likely have grown up with some kind of problem, and then would almost certainly have had the memories sparked at some point in adulthood.

No, it was right that they came forward.

The suspect can be subject to a restraining order. He can also be sued in civil court. the advantages of a civil suit is that the police investigation might be able to be brought out as part of that, and the burden of prof in a civil matter is much lower than that needed for a conviction in a criminal case (a-la OJ Simpson).

The DA and the detective probably should not have been SO optimistic ... but, I have seen cases that I would have bet the farm on, too ... only to watch them fall into poop as the investigation unfolded. It's likely they found some issues that will be difficult to work around - perhaps conflicts in specific dates, times and events (i.e. he has alibis) ... perhaps credibility issues ... perhaps the mental state of the victims now makes them very un-credible witnesses before a jury ... no one knows.

If it were my child, I would arrange a sit down with the DA and ask what is going on and why the change of heart.

- Carl

[Titletown]

The DA and the police were confident about a conviction before and after the investigation. We didn't talk to the DA until after the investigation, and were told not to worry, charges would be pressed. The only thing that changed is that the social worker gave the abuser the children's location. Other social workers have said this is grounds for a law suit. Because of that, it would be better for the state if he were not charged and deemed a threat to society. As I said, the social worker's father is a congressman.

Their abuser has no respect for the law. The restraining order does not stop him. He shows up and runs, it's their word against his.

His current wife is divorcing him for the same reason, and also had to get a restraining order. He's living with another woman with children. He was kicked out of the air force for assaulting a female officer. He blackmailed his 1st mother-in-law, trading her money for the safety of her grandchild. His list of sins is long, and he'll remain free to commit more. Justice is not only blind, it's deaf and dumb.