Son accused of sexual harassment

[CdwJava]

According to the poster, under the age of consent. Which in PA, is 16. Which is why I'm steadfast in she was not able to give consent to the sexual behavior.

However, consent may not be the issue here at all except as it might apply to the definition of "sexual harassment." We are talking about the wording of a school policy and not a criminal violation. In fact, I doubt that under the circumstances you could make a criminal case at all.

Folks, we are not talking about a sexual assault, rape, groping or fondling, we are talking about the non-criminal juvenile behavior of a teenage boy. A violation of school policy at best, and even that might be iffy if the school has failed to properly articulate the offense in their policies or it is not defined well enough to cover this act in the law.

Rude, stupid, and even crude acts should receive appropriate penalties - in this case, a 3 day suspension is likely sufficient. Expelling the boy for this would be, in my opinion, excessive - unless he had prior offenses and then progressive discipline might very well apply.

 

[stealth2]

As the parent of two teens (one of each gender), ITA with Carl. Kids do stupid things. This is one of them. Is what kiddo did right? No, of course not. But it wasn't what I would call horrific - just stupid - and really doesn't warrant the hysteria. Hopefully, his parents will ensure that those three days off school are used for him to ponder how seriously this type of behavior is viewed, especially if the recipient is not someone who may encourage his actions. (I suspect, however, that the three days will be full of "Atta Boy!"s from Dad and much patting on the head and tutting sympathetically from Mom, while The Prince plays video games and munches on Big Macs.)

I would also hope that the girl's parents enforce a time-out between their daughter and The Prince for the duration of the suspension, and try to instill in her the understanding that it is not the sort of behavior that she should (a) encourage or (b) tolerate. It's one thing to "show your bloomers" while performing on the field (and that's why the girls wear cheer shorts - so they don't show their undergarments), and quite another to have someone else show them for you off-field. There are boundaries - and this should be one of them. And what an appropriate reaction to such a transgression would be. Of course, the reaction I'd be okay with would likely land the girl with a similar (or worse) disciplinary action. But I'd be okay with that.

 

[mistoffolees]

See... I don't worry about that. My girl would handle it her own self. (Her (male) PE teacher has actually told boys to stand down from her, because she will take care of business and he's not sure he's strong enough to stop her. She doesn't take a lot of you-know-what from anyone.)

And what she didn't finish? Her brother would. She is the one person people don't mess with, as far as he's concerned. That goes both ways. It's a beautiful thing.

OT, but I hope your kids realize that they shouldn't be taking things into their own hands and should let the authorities deal with it. I don't care how big and strong they are, a gun is stronger.

No. But, if the definition of "sexual harassment" as used in school policy or relevant state codes requires the action be UNWANTED or UNWELCOME, then her opinion on the matter is entirely relevant.

Note that her opinion does not make the actions proper, but it may cause the act to be unactionable by the school.

I think that's the point. We don't have any idea what the charges are or what the rules say. If it's a school policy violation, then it's not going onto his permanent record, anyway. If it's a criminal violation, then OP really needs an attorney.

As the parent of two teens (one of each gender), ITA with Carl. Kids do stupid things. This is one of them. Is what kiddo did right? No, of course not. But it wasn't what I would call horrific - just stupid - and really doesn't warrant the hysteria. Hopefully, his parents will ensure that those three days off school are used for him to ponder how seriously this type of behavior is viewed, especially if the recipient is not someone who may encourage his actions. (I suspect, however, that the three days will be full of "Atta Boy!"s from Dad and much patting on the head and tutting sympathetically from Mom, while The Prince plays video games and munches on Big Macs.)

I hope Dad and Mom don't act that way. It's inappropriate by any standard.

The real concern for me is whether it's a one time deal or recurrent. If it was a one time, stupid move, I'd agree with you that it was a stupid thig and not horrific. But if it was something that he does regularly, more serious penalties are probably warranted.

I would also hope that the girl's parents enforce a time-out between their daughter and The Prince for the duration of the suspension, and try to instill in her the understanding that it is not the sort of behavior that she should (a) encourage or (b) tolerate. It's one thing to "show your bloomers" while performing on the field (and that's why the girls wear cheer shorts - so they don't show their undergarments), and quite another to have someone else show them for you off-field. There are boundaries - and this should be one of them. And what an appropriate reaction to such a transgression would be. Of course, the reaction I'd be okay with would likely land the girl with a similar (or worse) disciplinary action. But I'd be okay with that.

And there's the crux of the issue. The school is trying to enforce a 'keep your hands where they belong' policy. I would expect that reasonable parents would agree with that policy, at least in principle. Now it's up to the parents to enforce the same policy in their household.

 

[BOR]

According to the poster, under the age of consent. Which in PA, is 16. Which is why I'm steadfast in she was not able to give consent to the sexual behavior.

Yes, but the AOC is not concerned with lifting up a skirt flirtaciously. It addresses the hard stuff.

If such were to be deemed a crime if she objected, it may be on an order of disorderly conduct or such.


Possibly, extended law may claim it was simple assault. One does not necessarily have to touch the "person" to be charged. If I grab your coat to haul you back to me, that is assault.

Here again, she has to object, and even though the AOC is 16, she is still in High school, although a minor, consent to such is still possible.

Carl, you remember the case about 7 years ago of that Florida Deputy Sheriff pulled over on 95, who caused a ruckus? The trial was televised on Court TV.

He was charged with assault because when he grabbed his driver's license out of the deputy's hand, it hit the clipboard, although he never touched his person.

 

[CdwJava]

And that FL incident dealt with unwelcome behavior as well.

This is a mountain being made out of a molehill. The kid was stupid, and pulled a childish prank on his girlfriend. The school seems to have an issue with it, and I am not surprised. Whether it falls under their rules for "sexual harassment" or is more appropriate to some rule about "horseplay" I don't know because I have not seen the school rules. Mom wants to keep the 3 day suspension off of junior's record, and I can understand that. So, now she will have to appeal the suspension through the appropriate process (likely through the school admin. and then the district if they lose). I suspect it will all boil down to what the rules say and how the rules are interpreted.

 

[BOR]

And that FL incident dealt with unwelcome behavior as well.

I see you do remember it, yes it was unwanted behavior.

I scanned PA's sex crimes laws and even though she is under 16, I saw none that is applicable, none.

I also read the simple assault (non sex crimes laws) statute and it defined it as bodily harm, so that would not apply.

The only thing I saw that might apply, if she objected, is a Disorderly Conduct charge.

I read no statutes such as Voyeurism or Upskirting or related acts to even attempt a charge.

 

[CdwJava]

But, since this is not about a criminal charge, only a school violation, the definitions will be those that are included in the relevant education codes and school policies. The PA codes are a bear to read through as they are not centrally located on line (at least I have not found a source that is easy to navigate).

In any event, no one will know more unless the OP posts back as to what the school says about the rules and the definitions.

 

[BOR]

But, since this is not about a criminal charge, only a school violation, the definitions will be those that are included in the relevant education codes and school policies. The PA codes are a bear to read through as they are not centrally located on line (at least I have not found a source that is easy to navigate).

In any event, no one will know more unless the OP posts back as to what the school says about the rules and the definitions.

Right, I was just checking the criminal code anyway, I found a good easy source, I think it is new.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/18.HTM

As I said, a school suspension is scrutinized under the Due Process Clause.

If the suspension for "sexual harassment" is to stick, some direct words or words that have aquired a particular meaning in jurisprudence phraseology must be met, agreed.

Putting aside any right or wrong on a politically correct mode, IF the govt. is the charging entity, they must prove thier case under DP.

 

[CdwJava]

That link is for but ONE of the many titles the PA codes have. There is no good single index that I have discovered that allows easy browsing AND search modes. Searching, yes, but then you have a single section or subsection without the ability to readily search another without opening numerous windows. It can be a real pain to research PA codes.

And what they call "sexual harassment" may actually be defined as any horseplay of a sexual nature - and lifting a skirt could fall under such a broad definition.

These rules are not always as clearly defined under the statutes or case law as the Penal Codes might be, likely because there are fewer appeals resulting in published case law forcing a revision or clarification of these regulations.

 

[cyjeff]

Aren't there many things that a child can do that warrant school punishment that do not rise to the level of crime?

I can look at the principal and say, "you are a doody McDoody pants and smell like a pine forest threw up on a wet dog".

I have not committed a crime. I may still be punished by the school.

 

[csi7]

A suspension is one specific punishment the school can use.
Not the best one in this situation.
One school decided to have the students involved in the situation put on a teacher, administrator, parent, and drama instructor directed rehearsed skit in the auditorium for everyone to attend. The skit put the idea in all the students' brains that horseplay of any sort would result in serious consequences for everyone.
Behavior of all students improved, since detention, suspension, expulsion were NOT one of the choices allowed for the skit. The students did not lose their eligibility for scholarship awards.

 

[CdwJava]

Aren't there many things that a child can do that warrant school punishment that do not rise to the level of crime?

I can look at the principal and say, "you are a doody McDoody pants and smell like a pine forest threw up on a wet dog".

I have not committed a crime. I may still be punished by the school.

But those things that can result in a suspension tend to be covered in very broad ways by state law. They may not be clearly delineated like criminal statues might be, but they could be broad as in "disruptive behavior." What might constitute such disruptive behavior can vary and be quite subjective, but the state's laws will likely allow for a suspension for a school's finding that an act was "disruptive behavior."

Calling the principal a "doody McDoody" might be considered disrespectful and disruptive and as such covered under one or more Ed. codes allowing for a suspension.

 

[CdwJava]

A suspension is one specific punishment the school can use.
Not the best one in this situation.
One school decided to have the students involved in the situation put on a teacher, administrator, parent, and drama instructor directed rehearsed skit in the auditorium for everyone to attend. The skit put the idea in all the students' brains that horseplay of any sort would result in serious consequences for everyone.
Behavior of all students improved, since detention, suspension, expulsion were NOT one of the choices allowed for the skit. The students did not lose their eligibility for scholarship awards.

Quite creative and innovative. Unfortunately, not every school administration is so creative or has the time, resources, or ability to do this. Then, of course, the student(s) involved may prefer not to be held up to such public display. I think my oldest son would prefer suspension over such a thing.

But, I like the thinking involved.

 

[mistoffolees]

A suspension is one specific punishment the school can use.
Not the best one in this situation.
One school decided to have the students involved in the situation put on a teacher, administrator, parent, and drama instructor directed rehearsed skit in the auditorium for everyone to attend. The skit put the idea in all the students' brains that horseplay of any sort would result in serious consequences for everyone.
Behavior of all students improved, since detention, suspension, expulsion were NOT one of the choices allowed for the skit. The students did not lose their eligibility for scholarship awards.

In our case, the school made SD clean the locker room and football practice field. She never misbehaved again.

 

[stealth2]

OT, but I hope your kids realize that they shouldn't be taking things into their own hands and should let the authorities deal with it. I don't care how big and strong they are, a gun is stronger.

Well... actually... both of them stand up for what they believe in, rather than expecting someone else to deal with it. Confronting wrong may not always be the smart thing to do, but it is very often the right thing to do.

I hope Dad and Mom don't act that way. It's inappropriate by any standard.

The real concern for me is whether it's a one time deal or recurrent. If it was a one time, stupid move, I'd agree with you that it was a stupid thing and not horrific. But if it was something that he does regularly, more serious penalties are probably warranted.

I also hope Mom & Dad don't act that way.

Part of growing up is learning what sort of behavior is appropriate in what sort of group. Swearing like a sailor may be okay in the Navy (or the school-ground with the guys) - not so much at Grandma's on Thanksgiving.

Flicking up the g/f's cheer skirt at home, around friends, etc? Still not really that cool, but... okay. Doing it in front of teachers? Stupid.

Some behaviors are simply inappropriate for public consumption. (And boy, could I tell you stories!)

And there's the crux of the issue. The school is trying to enforce a 'keep your hands where they belong' policy. I would expect that reasonable parents would agree with that policy, at least in principle. Now it's up to the parents to enforce the same policy in their household.