In Texas, two school employees have been sued after they allegedly verbally abused a boy for being “smelly” and forced him to strip and shower in front of them. The boy was just eight years old and attended Peaster Elementary School. The child’s parents, Amber and Michael Tilley, also filed a police report but no charges were brought against the employees. The lawsuit names Peaster Independent School District and Peaster Elementary School employees Julie West and Debbie Van Rite in federal court in Fort Worth.
The complaint alleges that the boy was taken to the nurse’s office where the employees “began violently washing his body with a washcloth, scrubbing him over a large portion of his body, stuck cotton balls in his ears, all while ridiculing and harassing him about being ‘dirty.'”
If the complaint allegations are true, the treatment of the third grader is truly shocking. Indeed, I cannot imagine adults showering a child without parental notice and consent absent some immediate medical emergency. The case raises a curious line between civil and criminal laws. If a teacher forces a student to strip for pleasure, he is criminally charged. However, if he did so for “bad hygiene” and proceeded to hand wash the child, it is not a crime? I am not necessarily disagreeing with the decision not to charge the employees criminally. I have been critical of the over-criminalization of conduct and intent should be the dominant factor in such an analysis. I simply find it interesting in how such cases are divided between the civil and criminal dockets.
I believe the case probably does belong on the civil side and furthermore I cannot see a viable defense to such an action. A boy in the third grade would be highly traumatized by such an act. As the father of three boys and a girl under 13, I can attest to the intense privacy notions that kick in early with children. You can add feelings of shame and self-loathing that would likely come from such an extreme act. Expert testimony in the case could be devastating for the school district.
It will be interesting to see if the District tries to portray the two employees as “rogue employees” who acted without permission.
Such measures also warp a student’s sense of not just autonomy but authority. The school’s motto “Preparing Today’s Youth for Tomorrow” has a chilling ring if this is what students are being taught about their rights as individual vis-à-vis the state.
Source: Courthouse News
Of course it doesn’t surprise me that there were seven stories, all in line with each other. I mean, Duuuuuuuh!!
If I had to figure out what happened here (I don’t) I would bet that they forcibly showered the kid, because offering him deodorant does NOT sound like something they did. Also, had the police checked into this the following day, if they found that the seven stories were all alike, that would certainly explain the parents’ belief that they couldn’t rely upon the school to change its tactics or protect the kid from further humiliation or harm, wouldn’t it?
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/19/4044047/peaster-school-officials-deny.html#storylink=omni_popular
From the above link:
“There was no violation of the law,” said Danie Huffman, spokeswoman with the sheriff’s department. “We spoke with seven people and all of their stories were consistent; all witness statements were corroborated with each other.”
She said that deputies were told by school district employees that the child was offered a stick of deodorant and allowed to put it on himself but that at no time was he ever showered. She said he was offered a shower if he wanted but that the employees didn’t bathe him.
The suit also alleges that, every morning after the incident, the student was told when arriving at school that he would be “sprayed” so he would not smell. When he asked what they were going to spray him with, the two defendants responded, “I can’t tell you, but it will kill you,” the suit says.”
FULL DISCLOSURE: Debbie VanRite is my aunt.
She has been working at the school for decades without so much as a whisper of trouble, and any and everyone who knows her, the administration, and the atmosphere of the school knows these accusations are unfounded and laughable. And, anyone who reads this article without falling for its false sensationalism–riding on the waves of the most lamentable Sandusky coverage, perhaps?–should be applauded for recognizing the reporter’s small concessions that the circumstances of the case are alleged/claimed/unproven (ridiculous?).
Of course, what’s sad about the case is the issue of bullying in any instance; but it’s fairly difficult to believe that this isn’t a case of misdirected parental embarrassment, neglect of the child at home, and likely taunts (and maybe worse) at the hands of young classmates. But a longtime school nurse? And a teacher just starting her career? In a public office surrounded by other employees, students, administrators? I’d have a hard time buying this story, my aunt or yours.
The thing that stinks in this article is the reporting. If accusations are alleged, they should be well documented as such; whether trolls buy into the story or not, would at least like to see a little less speculation pass for reporting. Oh, internet, I once loved you so…
Town is pronounced Pee-ster…right next door to Poo-ville. I sh*t you not.
Did these two female teachers Julie West and Debbie Van Rite have a male teacher to monitor this? Sounds like they didn’t follow proper protocol. No one knows what they really did to him. They shouldn’t have been in there anyway. Freaks.
@ John —
Why there would be an argument about criminal charges does not have to do with what was done to that child; it has to do with:
(a) who the child abusers are;
(b) who the prosecutor is;
(c) who the child’s parents are;
(d) who the principal is;
(e) who is on the Board of Education;
(f) who…etc.
(g) who…etc.
Unfortunately, the “prosecutorial discretion” thing is so strong that ONLY when massive publicity surrounds a situation is there EVER a non-political evaluation of what constitutes a crime in any particular jurisdiction, and even then, what particular crime it constitutes, and even then, whether there will be charges, a summary dismissal, a plea deal, a trial, or…
And it is the only game in town.
Huh!??! WHY would there be ANY argument about criminal charges!?!?
I don’t give a rat’s ass WHAT their excuse is, because I have seen abusers come up with some duzies….and I don’t care WHAT the problem with the kids was.
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE KID….NOW GET THIS—YOU CALL IN HIS PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!
Then if a resolution is not forthcoming you inform the PARENTS that either the PROPER authorities will contacted, or the kid will be out of school until the situation is resolved.
CLH — take six deep breaths and think of the Pope. 🙂
“…I surely should have brought them up to you but I was too busy polishing my nails and leading my band of merry vaginocrats.”-Malisha
Band of merry vaginocrats =D
I had to type this three times, I was laughing so hard!
The degree of dirtiness of the child is not really relevant to the action taken. If he was so unbearably dirty that action of some sort had to be taken, then the day BEFORE this event, he was so unbearably dirty that action of some sort had to be taken SOON. On that day before, the action should have been to contact parents and/or caretakers, and if necessary, bring in social services to make sure the kid was provided with adequate opportunity to be self-respecting with regard to his hygiene and his personal space. Failing that is failing in his education in the extreme.
To compound the school’s failure, they commit a mortifying abuse against the child who has already been neglected in some fashion. Typical but utterly disgusting and yes, I believe criminal.
Oh Anon, although your view of history is obviously correct in all respects, there were a few times in the distant past when some actual wrongs were actually committed by men, and in those cases, I surely should have brought them up to you but I was too busy polishing my nails and leading my band of merry vaginocrats.
Mike,
“However, I’d like to know why the boy was so dirty in the first place?”
I’m not quite sure that I’m willing to trust the judgement of people who think it’s o.k. to strip and mock a child. He may not in fact have been “so dirty.”
Gyges,
I agree. In 2nd grade I had diarrhea and didn’t get permission to go to the boy’s room in time. I had to sit in my seat for what seemed like an interminable time in my own mess. When that damned teacher finally recognized my hand up and let me go, it probably was because she had smelled me. I felt so humiliated that I bolted from school and ran home even though it was 1:30pm.
Going back the next day wasn’t easy. I can well feel for this kid and the insensitivity with which he was treated
Correction- Failure to report is a criminal offense as well, Class A mis. except in certain cases.
This country is all about freedom of speech. But we should not have freedom to use our children as pawns to sue a school for being concerned over a childs neglectful parents.some of the us need to get the facts straight before we assume anything. Does it not occur to anyone that if this child had actually been stripped that these school employees would be in jail? Or they would have charges filled against them, or would even had been interviewed by law enforcement or cps? Does it not bother anyone that this family that made these accusations never even bothered to remove this boy from the school where this supposedly happened? Sounds a little orchestrated to me
Given the economic circumstances of the time, I wonder if the family of the child might be living on the street or in a car with limited access to bathing facilities. There’s a lot we don’t know about the circumstances of the child. Whatever, it’s no excuse for how he was treated.
News: third-grader strip-searched by principal after being accused of stealing, Creepy news: principal hugs the student after proven wrong
http://www.fark.com/comments/7169609/News-third-grader-strip-searched-by-principal-after-being-accused-of-stealing-Creepy-news-principal-hugs-student-after-proven-wrong
Here’s another tale of sexually predatory women victimizing male children under the guise of authority. Typical, typical, typical, but often covered up by feminists.
Where is our society to drive these predators out of town on a rail?
Female principal strip searches 10 year old student after he was FALSELY ACCUSED BY WOMEN of stealing $20. Worse: after the principal was proven wrong, she insisted on hugging the child.
FALSE ACCUSATIONS against men are real, and significant, and disgusting, and are abuse, regardless of what your feminists pals tell you.
Here we can see how the vaginocracy instills fear in male children and normalizes adule female male child rape behaviors.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/11221117/
Clinton third-grader strip-searched after being accused of stealing
Clinton, N.C. — The mother of a Clinton third-grader says a school administrator went too far when she strip-searched her child after accusations that he stole from another student.
Clarinda Cox says her 10-year-old son, Justin, a student at Union Elementary School, was ordered to take off everything but his T-shirt and boxer shorts on June 1 after a girl and several other students accused him of taking $20.
Justin told his mother that a girl dropped the money and that he picked it up and gave it back to her, she said.
“If I felt he needed to be searched, I would have brought him into the bathroom,” Cox said. “You could have had a witness in the bathroom with me. I would have searched my son.”
The female assistant principal, Teresa Holmes, did not find the money, Cox said, and hugged Justin and apologized to him afterward. Holmes said the money was found underneath the lunchroom table.
With the serious problem with bullying it is not a far stretch to say the teathers could have saved this kids life. The parents shouldnt even be aloud to have a dog if they cant even take care of a kids basic needs. Are these the same people that sued mcdonalds for having coffee that was too hot? Get real.
Idealist, your questions about children’s rights:
Children have no property interests and no liberty interests.
Therefore, all they have constitutionally are LIFE INTERESTS yet there is ZERO LIFE INTEREST litigation in American case law.
None. Nada. Zilch. Zerooooo.
“Life interest” is a term of art in the probate law, ONLY.
The only people who have an “expressible” life interest are convicts on death row who have a measurable life interest until the time of their appointed deaths.
Wow, thinka that.
Bodily integrity — not in the constitution.
Life interest — IN the constitution, but not expressible because never litigated.
Go hire a lawyer to bring that one into court one day. Yeah. Go find one.
pete,
You are the bee’s knees!