Costly Reporting Delay

A kindergarten teacher in Wichita, Kansas, was forced to resign and her teaching license was revoked because she delayed reporting suspected child abuse to authorities.  Donna Ford had taught for 17 years when she failed to comply with her school's policy requiring her to report suspected abuse "on the same day the suspicion arises."

Apparently, Ford informed the school principal, social worker, and counselor about her suspicion that a 6-year-old girl in her class was being abused by a teenager who was living in the child's home.  However, when she tried to report her suspicions to state authorities, her computer malfunctioned and it was over a week later when she finally submitted her report  — after the girl's mother advised Ford and other school officials that the teenager no longer lived with them.

Ford's supporters say she was unfairly punished, while a national support group for abuse victims called it "a powerful statement that protecting children is not something to be taken lightly."

In our previous post, we wrote about the Connecticut Supreme Court case that denied a school principal the right to sue after being fired for reporting child abuse.  When confronted with conflicting laws, policies, and people's reactions to child abuse, these cases remind us to keep focused on the children:  as a spokesperson for the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services said, "When you're talking about the well-being – and survival, in some cases – of a child, it's better to err on the side of caution."

Can Report But Can't Sue

All 50 states, the US territories, and the District of Columbia provide legal immunity from lawsuits or criminal prosecution for reporting suspected child abuse. In addition, many states also protect employees who report abuse from workplace retaliation.

While some states make it relatively easy for employees to sue to enforce their rights, others may require a state agency to take legal action.

One Connecticut school principal learned this lesson the hard way. Under Connecticut law, employers are forbidden from retaliating against an employee who reports suspected child abuse. If they do, the law authorizes the state Attorney General to sue the employer.

So, when principal Carmen Perez-Dickson was demoted and later suspended after reporting two incidents of suspected child abuse, she sued the school board for retaliation. After a trial, the jury awarded her over $2 million.

Unfortunately for the former principal, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned her verdict. Although Perez-Dickson was correct in principle that she could not legally be fired for reporting abuse, she erred by assuming that she could sue to vindicate her rights. Instead, the Court ruled that only the Connecticut Attorney General was legally authorized to prosecute employers who retaliate against employees for reporting child abuse. [Perez-Dickson v. Bridgeport (CT 2012)]

Senior Scams

The IRS has issued an alert warning seniors that they are the target of yet another scam.

With April 15th looming, the con artist tells seniors they are entitled to a tax refund or stimulus payment but - as many scams go - in order to get the money they need to pay an upfront fee. Of course, the tax refund or stimulus payment never arrives and the upfront payment is never seen again.

This is a new spin on a list of scams that still work so they bear repeating. One scam that has stood the test of time involves the trickster who claims to be a "grandson" (or "granddaughter"), and who calls grandpa (or grandma) frantically explaining that they've been in an accident, arrested, and need money sent quickly to get out of jail. The phone is handed to the kid's "lawyer," who directs the grandparent to send thousands of dollars via Western Union.

This scam only works when worried elders are so rattled that they suppress their legitimate doubts. Don't fall for it!

Here is a list of the Federal Trade Commission's 10 tips to avoid fraud:

• Remember, once you wire money, you can't get it back.
• Don't send money to anyone you don't know.
• Don't respond to any message - phone call, text or otherwise - that asks for personal of financial information.
• Don't play foreign lotteries.
• Don't deposit checks from someone you don't know and then wire money back, no matter how convincing the story.
• Read monthly bills and statements carefully.
• After a crisis or disaster, give to established charities.
• Talk to your doctor before buying health products or signing up for treatments.
• Know where an offer comes from and who you're dealing with.

FTC Video: Sharing Information

In today's world of smart phones, smart grids, and smart cars, companies are collecting, storing, and sharing more and more information about you. In fact, as illustrated by a new video from the Federal Trade Commission, you might not realize just how often companies do so.

Another "Gray" Area

In our last post, we discussed what is a "reasonable" suspicion for reporting child abuse. This is the same standard used for reporting elder abuse, which can be an equally difficult judgment call.

A case in point involves Mr. Dowdall, a 70-year-old man who suffers from an advanced form of dementia and was not supposed to be driving. However, when he was left at home alone one day, he drove his older model car down to the dealership and traded it in on a brand new convertible. Described as a "frugal man" before the onset of dementia, Dowdall signed a purchase contract for $62,130, including $10,000 of dealer add-ons, without negotiating.

The dealership helped him finance the purchase, obligating Mr. Dowdall to make $923 monthly payments that his wife said he could not afford. So, she hired an attorney to determine if her husband was the victim of elder abuse.

The salesman "acknowledged that something had seemed amiss with the man," but said there was nothing he could do once the sale was completed.

Later, the dealership agreed to take back the car after being "inundated with angry phone calls and emails" in response to media reports of this incident.

What's a "Reasonable Suspicion"?

Deciding to call the authorities because you suspect a child risks being harmed requires a judgment call about what's a "reasonable suspicion."

For example, our first story involves a four-year-old girl who drew a picture at school of a man with a gun. Does this raise a reasonable suspicion of child mistreatment?  Her teacher in Ontario, Canada, thought so and called the child protective agency.  When her father arrived to pick up his children, he was handcuffed, arrested, and strip searched. However, after searching the family's home, the only gun found was a toy.

Or, do you have reasonable suspicion of a child predator if you see an older white man wearing a camouflage jacket and blue jeans standing at a school bus stop? After one mom in a Philadelphia suburb approached the man offering help, he walked away without saying anything — so she called the police. The police notified the school, children were kept in their classrooms during recess, and an email alert was sent to parents asking them to call 911 immediately if they saw this "suspicious" person. It turns out that the man was a new resident of the community and, instead of being welcomed with a plate of cookies, he was questioned by police about why he was standing at a school bus stop.

The third story involves a text message about a Georgia school that was sent by an unknown sender: "gunman be at west hall today." Does this raise a reasonable suspicion of a planned school shooting? After law enforcement learned of the text message, they told school officials to go into lockdown. It turned out that the sender was all thumbs: the auto correct feature on the sender's cellphone had changed "gunna" to "gunman," and the corrected message was accidentally sent to the wrong number. The fact that this happened three days after a school shooting in Ohio helps explain the concern.

Finally, what about a four-year-old girl who was punished by rubbing her mouth until her lips swelled? Even though the abuse was reported to the police in the summer of 2011, the first prosecutor to review the girl's case decided that her mother's boyfriend hadn't violated North Dakota's corporal punishment law. The police continued their investigation, finding that the girl also had bruises on her face and neck which she said happened when she slipped in the shower. Also, the mother's boyfriend first told investigators that the girl injured herself while riding her bike, and then later admitted that he had rubbed her face because she wet the bed. The second prosecutor who reviewed the case charged the boyfriend with felony child abuse, punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

So, when deciding if you've got "reasonable suspicion," ask yourself:

"Would someone with average judgment, who saw or heard what I did, also be suspicious?"

If so, it's reasonable. And while you may not always be right, when you are, a child may be saved from harm.

Guilty Verdict for Grandpa

In our previous post, we told you about Christopher Carlson who was on trial for child abuse charges because he kicked and yelled at his three young grandsons to keep them going while hiking the Grand Canyon in triple-digit August heat.

After deliberating for two days, the jury found Carlson guilty on the three of the six charges.

Carlson was 15 years old when the boys' mother was born, and is now 45 years old facing life in prison.

His sentencing is scheduled for June 1.