Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 12/8/11

Analysis of Evidence in the Sandusky Grand Jury Presentment

By       (Page 3 of 8 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   6 comments
Message Robert Long

(a)  General rule.--A person"shall report or cause a report to be made [to child protective services] when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child"is a victim of child abuse".

(c)  Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person is"a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility or agency.

Note that paragraph (c) explicitly sets forth obligations for those involved: Paterno, if he suspected child abuse, was required to report the suspected abuse to his superior, and if, then, his superior suspected child abuse, he was required to make any needed report of suspected abuse to child protective services.  Second, note that paragraph (c) explicitly charges exactly one person with the obligation to report: the person designated by the words "the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. " This chapter does not require more than one report from any such institution, school, facility or agency."  Why both Curley and Schultz have been charged with failure to report is a curiosity.  And was either of these men in March 2002 "the person in charge of the institution"or the designated agent"?

 

According to the Presentment, Paterno was not sure what to make of McQueary's report.  Paterno had no prior reason to suspect Sandusky of abusing children, and McQueary seemed unsure of what he had seen.  Nevertheless, Paterno thought it best to pass on McQueary's report to his superior, Curley.  And when Curley and Paterno were meeting to discuss this matter, they called in Schultz.  The Presentment does not say why Schultz was called in, but it does say he was in charge of the Campus Police, so maybe that is the reason.  Be that as it may, once Paterno reported the allegation to his superior, Paterno had no further legal reporting requirement.

 

Now the Presentment gives no reason to believe that either Curley or Schultz had any prior reason to suspect that Sandusky was abusing children.  As mentioned above, Schultz knew of the 1998 incident in which Sandusky admitted behaving inappropriately with a child, but there is no indication in the Presentment that Curley knew even this.  And besides, as also mentioned above, the prior activity argues in favor of Sandusky's innocence, not his guilt.

 

The question I now address is whether Curley or Schultz had a legal obligation to report suspicion of child abuse in this case. 

 

Just because someone claims he saw child abuse does not mean that he did see child abuse, and not every such claim is reasonable cause to suspect child abuse.  It was therefore the sole duty of either Curley or Schultz, whichever of these the law designates as "the person in charge," if either was, to assess McQueary's truthfulness, and then to assess whether his description of what he saw constituted "reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child"[was] a victim of child abuse." 

 

Note that the law requires the person in charge to use his discretion.  A person is required to report suspected child abuse only if he suspects it.  He is not required to report suspected child abuse because someone else suspects it.  The criteria he is required to use when assessing whether information available to him rises to the level of suspicion of child abuse is, "when the person [in charge] has reasonable cause to suspect [abuse], on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience. (Text in brackets added.)" 

 

The presentment does not tell us anything about the medical, professional, or other training Curley and Schultz had when they were assessing McQueary's report to them.  But it does provide information about their experience.  Based on what is in the Presentment, it is pretty clear that (1) McQueary's report to them was ambiguous; and (2) up to that time, neither Curley nor Schultz had any reason to believe that Sandusky was a child molester; and (3) Schultz had reason to believe that Sandusky had in the past done things that caused some people to suspect him of child abuse, but which proved to be nothing more than legal activity that most people would consider inappropriate for an adult.  Many a reasonable person with this information in hand would not suspect Sandusky of child abuse.  They would instead suspect that Sandusky was still a bit of a kid, and that McQueary had misinterpreted what he saw.  And Curley and Schultz, apparently having concluded these very things, acted accordingly.  They alerted The Second Mile, and they restricted Sandusky's use of the facility, not because they suspected child abuse, but because they considered Sandusky's actions inappropriate.

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Robert Long Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Robert Long is a retired computer programmer.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Analysis of Evidence in the Sandusky Grand Jury Presentment

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend