Comments on: Kevin Jennings and Brewster revisited in light of Exodus discussion

By: ken

ken — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:46:53 +0000

“I am not sure I understand what difference this question makes. I see reporting a â€œreasonable suspicionâ€ of child abuse as a moral obligation, not primarily a legal one.”

The question is relevent in determining what constitutes reportable abuse.

What if you were to have a 16 year-old tell you that he was having sex with a 30 year old man, he met in a chat room? Is that reportable in PA? If so why?

By: Michael Busseee

Michael Busseee — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:58:29 +0000

Michael Airhart asked: “What was the exact and complete wording of the 1987-88 era state law regarding reporting?”

I am not sure I understand what difference this question makes. I see reporting a “reasonable suspicion” of child abuse as a moral obligation, not primarily a legal one. Of course, as a mandated reporter, I am required to do it. But, as a private citizen, I would still do it, even if it was not required by law.

If my neighbor’s house were on fire, I would call the Fire Department. If a kid is in harm’s way, I don’t need exact legal wording before I report it. It’s simply the right thing to do.

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:07:56 +0000

George Archibald did the investigating on the 1987-88 child abuse reporting law. I also reviewed the statute but do not have the reference handy. Teachers were mandated reporters at that time. As I noted in my paper, the school officials reviewed the paper and indicated that school policy was to report such things. Those I spoke with indicated that at the least a teacher in that circumstance would have been required to report this to the school. Saying I am reporting half-truths implies you know that what I am reporting is half-false. But all you have done here is ask questions, not shown anything I have written to be false. There are several things that Mr. Jennings declined to address when asked by Mr. Archibald for his Washington Times story. In fact, I witnessed him walk away from Mr. Archibald on the floor of the NEA exhibit hall when Mr. Archibald again asked him to explain the discrepancies in his accounts.

What specific legal provisions were in place in 1987-88 to safeguard the confidentiality of a report so that Brewster would not face certain humiliation from its public disclosure?

Mike this is irrelevant. You could ask the same question now about any reporting dilemma.

As I mentioned, Mr. Jennings declined to provide details when asked by a reporter on multiple occasions and so we may never know the answers to some of these questions.

Jim said: But with one simple change, that of the gender of the younger participant, and reactions are very different. Perhaps that reaction is more appropriate, and perhaps that reaction should also be applied to the opposite sex couple, but it generally isnâ€™t.

I am not sure, perhaps you are generally correct. I do know that in my practice, I have never taken the genders of the perps or the victims into account when making this decision. In Portsmouth, when I practiced there, I reported this stuff frequently.

By: Michael Airhart

Michael Airhart — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:52:31 +0000

What was the exact and complete wording of the 1987-88 era state law regarding reporting?

What were the rules at the school in 1987-88?

What specific legal provisions were in place in 1987-88 to safeguard the confidentiality of a report so that Brewster would not face certain humiliation from its public disclosure?

These are basic questions, and I don’t see them being researched here. What I see thus far are a series of seedy half-truths.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:31:44 +0000

Q: Should Mr. Jennings have reported the behavior Brewster told him about?

A: Basic rule of thumb– when in doubt, DO.