Irrate Parents and Youth Protection

[Beavah 205]

Sorry, Eagle92, an irate "sideline parent" is not somethin' that falls under any reporting statute. That stuff (and da protection for incorrect reports made in good faith) does not apply in this case. Nor does da BSA "report to the SE" guidance. That's for stuff like molestation, battery, fatalities on a trip. As Eagledad says, your SE really isn't goin' to take this off your hands.

 

When yeh run a youth services program like a troop, somebody in the program has to have some cojones and take responsibility for handling poor behavior by youth or adults. That's part of da world of workin' in youth programs, and neither da State nor the Council nor local Animal Control is going to do our job for us if we scouters don't do it.

 

And that's all this is, eh? It's poor adult behavior. No different than da sideline behavior of some adults at youth sports matches. (My "call the cops" thing, Eagledad, was referring to a direct, credible physical threat that crossed over into legal assault, eh? Somethin' where yeh had some real concern about future physical violence to the lad. That's not what we're talkin' about here, I agree).

 

So someone in da unit has to step up and protect the kids from the poor behavior of this adult. Yeh do that by removing the adult... first from the situation, then from the unit if need be.

 

But let's not pretend it's da same thing as child abuse or neglect.

 

Beavah

 

[The Blancmange 67]

 

I must respectfully disagree with not informing the SE as soon as possible. YP guidelines do state that we need to contact the SE.

I think there are two different assumptions being made in this thread about what must be reported to the SE and child protective services. First off, there is variance among the states about what must be reported, and that is why every council provides information specific to its jurisdiction in the course of YP training. Generally speaking, it is suspected sexual or physical abuse, or neglect that must be reported. I doubt that any jurisdiction would consider a single incident of an adult raising his voice to an unrelated youth as crossing the threshold.

Someseem to be suggesting that any violation of one of the "bold face" youth protection rules must be reported. That sounds fine on its face until you actully look at what is included in those rules. For example:

 

Junior leader training and supervision. Adult leaders must monitor and guide the leadership techniques used by junior leaders and ensure that BSA policies are followed.

is included in the rules. Now, I am not suggesting that youth leadership training is not an important part of the pie. But does your SE want to know about every SM who has not run a proper TLT course based on the current syllabus? Other innocent actions that might technically violate the rules have been discussed beofore, like the SM who awakens from his nap at summer camp to find a lone scout sitting in the campsite. Should he tell the scout to move on and find his buddy or the program area where he belongs, or should he get on the phone to the SE and DCFS and turn himself in?

As in all issues, common sense needs to prevail.

[eagle90 125]

I think we are missing an important point here - THE SCOUT DREW A KNIFE ON ANOTHER SCOUT. YP or not, that is the crux of this situation. The safety and protection of the scouts is more important than "Did the dad violate youth protection?" This scout is a danger to the other boys. We had a scout do this exact same thing at Summer Camp, and our Troop just made a very difficult decision and removed the scout from the troop. The safety of the other scouts is more important than one unpredictable scout.

 

Dale

[The Blancmange 67]

Sorry, Beavah. I was trying to say essentially the same thing, but you beat me to it. Need to work on those typing skills!

[Eagle92 110]

Beav and Blanc,

Sorry should have been more specific I was referring to this. If it is an actual YP issue, then yes contact the pros. I do not think this is a YP issue as described, but I wasn't there and describing something, especially over the 'net, can be challenging.

 

Alsoi admit I misread the statement, my apologies to SD on that matter. Anytime YP comes up, it gets to me b/c of what I had to deal with, and I sometimes relive, for lack of a better word, those events adn sometimes blockout everythign else.

 

[Twocubdad 665]

I don't get too wound up over the actual reporting criteria. I have a relationship with my district executive -- and to a lesser extent the scout executive -- that I could call up and say, "I know this is probably not a big deal, but I have an issue in the troop I need to run by you."

 

If nothing else those guys appreciate the heads' up so when the irate parent calls them, they're not blind-sided. And if they know both sides of the story, they're much more likely to be in a position to give good advice (usually to the benefit of the unit) instead of having to say to the parent, "I'll look into it and get back with you."

 

It's more than erring on the side of caution, which we should all do. It's about a good working relationship and good lines of communication.

[evmori 11]

ED,

I must respectfully disagree with not informing the SE as soon as possible. YP guidelines do state that we need to contact the SE.

 

What YP guideline was violated? None. If you are gonna call your SE you should be calling him about the Scout pulling a knife!

[The Blancmange 67]

Twocubdad wrote:

 

I don't get too wound up over the actual reporting criteria.

Perhaps he should. Most state mandatory reporting laws provide civil and criminal immunity to those who make a good faith report of suspected abuse. Reporting something whichobjectively falls outside of the requirements, even if done "out of an abundance of caution" may take the reporter outside the bounds of good faith, and potentially subject the reporter to defamation or other claims. The immunityis intendedto protect those who make reports of events that could be considered "close calls," not those using a shotgun approach. Even outside the realm of liability, we have all heard anecdotal accounts of Scouters who were removed based on unfounded reports. Why subject someone to that possibility if it is not warranted?

[Twocubdad 665]

Whitehair -- you misunderstood my point and/or perhaps I wasn't too clear.

 

I don't get too wound out about the fine points about what I should and should not report to the because my DE and I frequently talk about all sorts of stuff. I would have given him a heads' up on SMB's irate parent whether or not I thought it was a youth protection violation.

 

Without question, anything that comes up which could be marginally construed as a real youth protection violations will result in a phone call.

[The Blancmange 67]

Twocubdad, it's great that you have such a good working relationship with you DE, and he appears to "get it." I don't think all (or even most) leaders share that experience with their pros.

[ScoutMythBuster 10]

I love hearing eberybody's thoughts on subjects like this. Especially when so many of you have had similar situations. After the situation happened I went home and sent out an email describing the events of the evening to my DE, unit and District Commissioners and my SE. (I did not BCC - I CC, so everybody knew who knew) My DE actually became upset that I did not just contact him. He said now the SE knew we had to take it seriously. I did not think there was any other way to handle the situation. At some point, we were asked to give them yet another chance because they did not understand repercussions of their actions. On a side note, 2 weeks after the Scout and father was removed, the boy attacked his teacher and the father sued the school system over his expellsion. Yes, I agree it was a hopeless situation.