Should he stay or should he go?

[GernBlansten 10]

Scenario: Active, registered, dedicated adult leader is arrested for violating a temporary restraining order while embroiled in a nasty divorce. No violence involved (that we are aware of). Not sure the nature of the RO, but she didn't want him near the house. He went in to get something and she called the cops. Bamm. Now he has been charged with a criminal offense. The temp RO has been lifted after the first hearing so it looks like it was unnecessary to begin with. Its gonna take a while to clear it up, probably a year before trial.

 

The perp called myself and the CC aside to explain the situation. It was decided that we needed to bring this up to the CO's IH and COR. The adult and CC are setting up a meeting. No one else in the unit is aware of the situation.

 

I've known this adult for years and in no way do I feel he is a threat to the youth.

 

Question: Should this leader step down from his leadership position until convicted or exonerated?

[FScouter 24]

Adults should be removed when they are a threat to kids, or a detriment to the program, or ineffective. Is he?

[Lisabob 13]

At the end of the day I think this is your CO's call to make. But if I were the CO, among other things I would ask whether this is likely to be a major distraction to the troop, if he stays. Will his name and the lurid details of the matter be all over the small-town papers? In that case, how will he respond if one of the boys asks him about it? Will his continued, active involvement result in his son being in the spot light in a negative way (assuming he has a son in the troop)?

 

Other than stay/go, there is also the possibility of stay, but take a somewhat less visible role. Maybe hold a committee assignment for a while, for example. Just a thought. Sounds like a tough situation all around.

[evmori 11]

I agree with FScouter! If he is not good for the kids, bye bye!

[local1400 10]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[eisely 13]

I am not aware of any hard and fast rules regarding these kinds of situations. Several years ago an adult volunteer in our council was indicted on some charge and the council disappeared him from the ranks of volunteers. The charges were resolved favorably and he subsequently re appeared a few years later. If the individual is not a threat to the youth or the unit, he should not be punished twice for something like this. Having said that, the adult volunteer himself might be better off taking a few months "leave of absence" without formally withdrawing from membership until this thing is cleared up.

[scoutingagain 20]

I agree with FScouter. This is a judgement call by the COR, IH and CC, with input from the SM.

 

Bottom line is, will involvement of the adult in the unit be a positive or negative for the scouts. If he is not a threat to the scout's safety and can help with the program, keep him on. If not, he goes.

 

SA

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Threat to the scouts? Absolutely not.

Distraction? Absolutely so. In fact its one his main concerns with the troop.

Would he allow the distractions to effect his role? Don't know.

 

One thing, scouting is everything to this man. Perhaps too much, to the point of marital problems, although I'm sure it isn't the only issue between him and his wife. We are his extended family. It would be tragic if we had to send him away.

 

Innocent until proven guilty has a nice ring to it, but we rarely apply it evenly. Just think how we'd react if he was accused but not convicted of child abuse or lewd behavior.

[GernBlansten 10]

forgot to add,

I doubt this will make the local paper. In fact, I doubt it will make it to anyone in the unit (especially scouts) besides the CC and myself unless he decides to make it public.

 

But this guy is always above board and that's why he brought it to our attention. He wanted to air it to the full committee but we recommended going to the CO first.

[scoutldr 726]

I think the control point is the annual adult reapplication and background check. If he is not an immediate threat and hasn't been convicted (in other words, he's still innocent), then it's nobody's business. He should answer the questions truthfully when he re=registers and let the system do its job. We had a similar situation, and someone reported it to COuncil...the DE asked me about it and all I said was "well, there were no charges pressed." The DE said, "thanks, that's all I need to know."

[Eagledad 2777]

Well, if he is as Gern discribes, I would let him stay. There is a lot of game playing in divorces today and this situation is surprisingly common. And I think myself very picky about adults who role model my sons and my scouts.

 

Barry

[Beavah 205]

Yah, this is da CO's call, eh? But it might be worth goin' to the station and getting the police report. Raw data, not seen through anybody's "lens". Even havin' a short phonecall with the local DA. Yeh have to do your due diligence.

 

Aside from that, if everything is as stated, I think it's fine to be understanding about minor legal issues surrounding a contentious divorce, and most folks would probably recognize that. If the guy doesn't meet FScouter's "drop him" tests, then stayin' involved in Scouting can be a healthy "home" for him in a tough time. Just stay alert to the effects stress might have on his performance/work with the boys.

 

I'd keep this at the CO level, too. Not something that needs to go to a parent committee. At most, if yeh think the issue might become public, a simple statement that "Mr. Jones informed us of some legal issues surrounding his divorce. The CO reviewed the legal record and determined that these do not pose any concern and should not affect Mr. Jones' fine work with the troop in any way. We nonetheless thank Mr. Jones for being up front about bringing it to our attention."

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn 61]

This is best left with the CO.

If the CO feels that the BSA (Local Council) needs to be involved? That's their call.

Ea.

[nldscout 18]

Before you talk to the CO, you need to get ALL the facts from an unbiased party, police, the Court or the DA.

 

Speaking from experiance as a Judge who has issued many many Orders of Protection,ie Restraining Order , depending on state. Violation of one can be a serious offense. In NY, Violating an OP like you described is a Felony. Usually these are not issued lightly and with out good reason.

 

Without knowing why he did what he did, be very careful about saying it was unnecessary to begin with.

[GernBlansten 10]

I would agree that violating a restraining order is a serious offense, however I don't agree that TEMPORARY restraining orders are not giving out lightly. Any woman who goes before a judge and says she feels threatened by her husband can get one, correct? There's no burden to prove that threat, just claim it. In the subsequent hearing, both sides are heard and a better evaluation of the case is made. In this situation, the order was vacated because the threat was found to be bogus.