Wow!
This is in response to the time line on post 425 by
@Kristin Esq. I lost the quote box.
Not minimizing the behavior of the shooter or his parents, but the school was in the wrong here, IMO, independently of others.
1st, CPS is not a punishment, or an “or else,” tool to control parents. Either the school suspects medical neglect at this time, or it doesn’t.
And either CPS will find that the parents have been neglectful, or not. CPS can only take the info it is given, generally from the school and the parents. The parents do not have to consent to interviews, although it works with family court, not punitive judicial court, and the family court system has the ability to help families. So it is not a situation where the parents have nothing to gain by cooperating, depending on the circumstances.
The parents are far less likely to be forthcoming to CPS, or allow interviews at all, if the agency was introduced like that! The school was inappropriately using CPS; CPS is not the school’s enforcement team. The school was interfering with CPS’s ability to work with the family.
All the school can learn from CPS is if CPS found neglect on their particular allegation or not. CPS is also not the school’s PI.
Personally, I would have told the parents after they declined to follow up themselves that I would like parental consent to get at least a psychological assessment done by the school, to make sure their son is not in pain.
If they declined that I would explain that I plan to immediately call in a CPS report, or even consider calling it in with them in the room, if the interview were not too contentious. I would explain that I don’t feel comfortable that the child is safe and not in pain, given the drawing, and especially since the parents are not getting him psychologically assessed.
I would explain that CPS is going to want to make sure the child is safe, they are not a punitive agency. That it could be a helpful agency, possibly with ideas the school, the child and the parents haven’t thought of- and recommend that the parents and child are honest and make use of the investigation to meet their needs. I would re-iterate that I am not trying to stress out the kid or the parents, but just trying to make sure he is okay.
In the meantime, the superintendent was off base when he said he couldn’t send the kid home against the parents wishes since he didn’t have any prior disciplinary issues. At that point, he hadn’t done anything wrong, still. The superintendent kind of confirms that they were going for an “informal suspension” rather than saying your kiddo is displaying symptoms that need to be checked out. If the kid were physically ill, and the parents would not bring him home, they would probably isolate him in a nurses office. They should have done the same for this explicit expression of pain by the kid, although maybe it would be more appropriate to supervise him non punitively elsewhere, not with a school nurse. This was an acute non-disciplinary issue. WTF does his disciplinary record, spotless, atrocious, or anything in between have to do with anything?
IMO. MOO.