The old saying, “No good deed goes unpunished,” is proving true for some administrators and teachers sued by parents whom they reported to child welfare authorities for suspected child abuse. On January 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals imposing personal liability on a public school administrator for reporting suspected child abuse. The case provides some food for thought.
Facts In This Case
The father of an intellectually disabled high school student M.W. sued his daughter’s special education co-teachers, the Director of Pupil Services, and the district superintendent after the Director reported him to the Franklin, Ohio County Children Services (CCS) for suspected sexual abuse of his daughter. The teachers and superintendent were eventually removed from the list of defendants, but the father alleged that the Director had reported him in retaliation for his advocacy for changing his daughter’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to include more opportunities for socialization.
The facts of the case did raise suspicions that something aberrant was occurring. Seventeen-year-old M.W. had major communication and social deficits, but had, over an extended period of time, reported rather bizarre acts attributed to her father. For example, M.W. contended that her father showered naked with her, attended to her genital hygiene, and scooted naked across the floor with her. One of her special education teachers documented these comments, but a team decision was made not to report them to CCS.
In the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Nancy Schott took over as Director of Pupil Services. She and M.W.’s father Peter Wenk met for the first time at an IEP meeting for M.W., at which, according to Schott, Wenk aggressively demanded the formation of a “special ed prom” to increase the social interaction his daughter was receiving. Wenk also contacted the state Department of Education to stress that his daughter needed more social interaction than the school was providing.
Other tension-filled interactions followed between Schott and Wenk. Schott expressed her feeling in emails to the team that Wenk assumed that “what he wants, he gets.” The situation percolated until the special education teacher who had documented M.W.’s unusual comments became concerned about the reports relating to the Sandusky scandal, and shared M.W.’s comments with Schott. At some time after hearing these reports, with the elapsed time in dispute, Schott called CCS and reported Wenk for sexually abusing his daughter. Schott also conveyed to CCS her distaste of Wenk’s unkempt appearance, that team members found him “creepy,” and that Wenk was a bully to her staff and denigrating to his wife.
The Wenks filed suit in June 2012, alleging that Schott’s report to CCS was in retaliation for Wenk’s advocacy for his daughter, and that the retaliation constituted a violation of his First Amendment and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the Wenks and Schott appealed, stating she was entitled to qualified immunity as a mandated reporter.
On appeal, the court noted that Wenk was actually a licensed practical nurse, that M.W.’s special education teachers had never been disciplined for not reporting M.W.’s unusual comments about her father, that the teachers disputed certain comments that Schott said they communicated to her, and that Schott herself may have waited up to three weeks before contacting CCS after learning of the daughter’s comments.
All of these facts added up against Schott. The court said that Schott’s report to CCS was an adverse action, which, whether true or false, would have prevented a person from engaging in further conduct protected by the First Amendment. That is, the court looked to the report itself, not to its truth or falsity, and then examined Schott’s motivation in making the report. The court cited previous court rulings to establish that if a retaliatory motive is any part of the reason for filing a report of child abuse, whether the report is true or false, the reporter is liable. Schott claimed qualified immunity as a mandated reporter, but the court said Schott should have realized that she violated the Wenks’s constitutional rights by her report, whether the report was true or false, because of her demonstrated animus toward Mr. Wenk, which the court saw as bad faith.
Bottom Line
Although the Supreme Court declined to review this decision, the ruling of the Sixth Circuit provides some advice for mandated reporters in all jurisdictions.
First, if a mandated reporter reasonably believes that child abuse is occurring, the report to the appropriate authorities must be made immediately. Schott’s delay in reporting what the special education teachers told her about M.W’s comments worked against her claim of good faith reporting.
Second, comments that could be reasonably considered as expressing animus towards the suspected abuser should never be communicated in writing. Schott’s email comments to her staff about Wenk’s getting “what he wants,” and her comments to CCS about Wenk’s appearance and demeanor, were unnecessary and prejudicial to her own case.
Finally, the mandated reporter must report facts, not his or her interpretations and embellishments about what the putative abuser’s comments and/or behaviors were that prompted the reporting. The special education teachers who reported their concerns to Schott testified under oath at depositions that they never told Schott all the “facts” that Schott reported. Truth will out.
Mandated reporting is an important safeguard for the children who attend K-12 public schools. When mandated reporters in Pennsylvania report reasonable suspicions of child abuse in good faith, they are protected from civil or criminal liability. However, when reporting is delayed, or when improper motivation is any part of a mandatory report, even if the report turns out to be true, the mandated reporter may forfeit that protection. When the mandated reporter lies by embellishing the facts, liability is even more certain if the accused sues. As one commentator has so aptly stated, for parents who are reported as suspects of child abuse, the process itself is the punishment.
If you have any questions regarding the mandatory reporting of child abuse in Pennslyvania, please contact your solicitor or one of the education attorneys at KingSpry.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the school law attorneys of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
