<p>I guess I just see the email differently. I see the “after talking to Joe” email as a change in the plan to include telling Sandusky they are going to Second Mile and CPS. And telling him not to come around the lockers. I think it can be read as changing the order of the next steps to be taken. I think it could have been a casual conversation, not a formal interview. </p>
<p>I think they are all creepy people who did not care about the childern. One thought does not preclude the other. And if they had some lawyer (who also seems to work with Second Mile) telling them there was no legal duty to report, well I guess it’s an explanation. Which does not make it the right thing to do. And still doesn’t explain why no one took the keys/changed the locks/didn’t find the child to see if he needed assistance. All this over football… why on earth did Mr. Paterno not follow up. Yes, I know he was protecting the football program, blah, blah, blah. But it’s a football program These are childern. Pick up the phone. stop by the police station, tell someone.</p>
<p>"…but even the revised plan, post Paterno’s input, suggested that if Sandusky didn’t “cooperate” THEN they would go to reporting. But they never did anything further. And I can’t see how Curley et al could convince anyone that Sandusky’s complete denial of the incident could be construed as ‘cooperating’." </p>
<p>What did “cooperating” mean? Did it mean stop molesting boys? How would they know? Did it mean not cause them any problems? If so, he cooperated for about 10 years.</p>
<p>So the attorney had a connection to second mile and seemingly advised not to report? Holy cow…that’s scary</p>
<p>You would hope he would have said, well, legally you may be able to get away with doing nothing, but I would hope you would do the right thing to protect the very children I am trying to help.</p>
<p>@Hunt. The problem is anyone who works with or has access to children in their work (especially teachers, administators and coaches) is required by law to report any suspicion of child abuse to CPS. I think if a lawyer advised not to report, that would be malpractice.</p>
<p>I worked with adolescents years ago, and the requirement to report any suspicion was made very clear. I have also volunteered with Boy Scouts and for religious education and was required to take training, which covered this. We were also required to report even if only volunteering with children.</p>
<p>Are you saying that a teacher, administrator or coach is not required to report any suspicion of child abuse? That is contrary to anything I have ever heard for the past 30 years.</p>
<p>I wasn’t in any way supporting their plan to gain Sandusky’s “cooperation” because there was NO way to do so, I was simply pointing out that their own ridiculous plan to get his “cooperation” wasn’t even followed. In other words, if Sandusky acknowledged any inappropriate behavior, and agreed to get help. Of course I know they still needed to report the witnessed abuse, but I’m just saying, they didn’t even attempt to work their own crooked plan. I believe this can also hurt them legally, because as the senior leaders at PSU they devised their own agreed upon plan but then didn’t follow it through, making them liable for ignoring the situation outright, in addition to not reporting it to authorities.</p>
<p>I am just wondering how they themselves defined “cooperating” because there was no way for them to know whether he was or not, unless “cooperating” meant not causing THEM any trouble (which he did not do for a decade).</p>
<p>Also, the required reporting I referred to is in Ohio and we were required to report directly to CPS.</p>
<p>Ohiomom3000 - I believe that the mandatory reporter rules (WHO must report, WHAT must be reported, and TO WHOM the report must be made) vary for every state.</p>
<p>It seems like something that ought to have a model national ordinance.</p>
<p>The Girls Scouts were all over this when I was trained. (To the idiotic point that when we went camping the tents were all supposed to be arranged in a circle with the openings facing toward the center; a requirement that could only have been written by a lawyer in DC who’d never camped in the mountains or in windy/wet conditions.)</p>
<p>This was the year 2001…they knew what they should have done. But they gave in to paterons power and “wisdom”. As educators they should have gone above and beyond what the law required. The very fact they saw Sandusky around with children and did nothing is nauseating.</p>
<p>Long time (well, lifetime) Girl Scout. And every training we are all over this issue. Never a girl alone with only one adult. Never a girl with two adults who are related/live in the same household. Everyone background screened. No girls in the same tent as an adult. We even cover similar issues at Cookie Training…no girl at a booth sale with one adult. Two adults all the time. (The only exception is if the only girl present is the daughter of the adult present. Who is back ground screened.)<br>
As a Girl Scout Council we spend a lot of money on back ground screening (Council pays the bill) and training (again free to volunteers). And it’s worth every penny to protect the kids as best we can.</p>
<p>I think this is part of the problem I am having with all this. I don’t understand why anyone would not report, report, report. There are children involved.</p>
<p>Maybe because this involved men? Like the church? Men don’t report men? or men dnt see it as abuse? Women abusers is so much rarer yet we seem to take it much more seriously.</p>
I’m saying that I read the Pennsylvania law and it doesn’t appear to me that they were mandated reporters under the applicable state law. Obviously, the prosecutors thought differently, at least to the extent of indicting Schultz and Curley. But we will see if they pursue the charges, and if there is a conviction.</p>
<p>Hunt–I located this on the thread pg 51
"Required reporters— </p>
<p>(i) Persons who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession come into contact with children and have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse." </p>
<p>A child is defined in Pennsylvania as anyone under the age of 18.</p>
<p>Required reporters include school administrators and school teachers.</p>
<p>Looks like they all had legal responsiiblity to report this immediately.</p>
<p>As the Grand Jury report says, Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law “provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours to the Department of Public Welfare of the Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania…The failure to report is a violation of the law which was graded a summary offense in 2002…”
Last edited by dadinator; 11-10-2011 at 10:21 AM.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the child in question was “a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity.” Obviously, the prosecution will argue to the contrary–if it pursues the charge. As I said, this would be an expansive reading of the statute. My point in bringing this up is that the outside counsel may have had the same interpretation of the law that I have, and that’s what he may have told them.</p>
<p>This is an incredibly weak law if the administrators of one of the largest and most prestigious universities in the nation have no legal obligation to report a witnessed rape of a child on its premises. </p>
<p>Most would agree that these men had an ethical and moral duty to report this atrocity. Just because one is not a mandated reporter does NOT mean that he cannot report. It’s absolutely sickening that they did not.</p>
<p>If nothing else comes of this whole disaster, perhaps Pennsylvania will improve the language and force of their mandatory reporting laws.</p>
<p>The Boy Scouts have similar rules, no boy is to be alone with an adult Leader, etc. The reason these laws and codes exist is to protect vulnerable children. Image a school teacher not reporting some type of sexual abuse. Even suspicion is to be reported so that it can be investigated. I’m not certain, but I think a teacher could lose their certification for something like that.</p>
<p>And they did know they were required to report as Spanier’s email states they might “become vulnerable for not having reported it.”</p>
<p>Not to mention Spanier’s official statement from last year that he and everyone at Penn State would of course report child abuse immediately. They knew what the right thing was to do. They just didn’t do it. And more children were victimized.</p>