Victim of Domestic Abuse Fired

[Lilliputian]

That's a very sad situation with no good way to solve it. The man has already proven that he'll show up there despite being forbidden by law to do so. Responsible parents won't keep paying money to send their kids to a school that has to go on lockdown repetitively due to a specific revengeful guy. If the teacher stays, the students will leave, and then they'll have to lay off other teachers.

Since it is a church school, I hope that they've offered her money and support finding a job through their benevolence fund.

 

[robinb]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

 

[clarkshel]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

I agree 100%. I hope she is able to sue the school and win for wrongful termination.

 

[JaneBanks]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

My guess is , is when a school full of children needed to be put on lock down because he violated the RO.

It is unfortunate for this woman and her children but they aren't the only ones that need protecting in that school.

 

[Robinrs]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

That was his plan and he WON.

Hey Church... WWJD???

 

[Heidict]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

 

[robinb]

My guess is , is when a school full of children needed to be put on lock down because he violated the RO.

It is unfortunate for this woman and her children but they aren't the only ones that need protecting in that school.

So, will the diocese do background checks on all the families of people who can enter their schools for the safety of the children? Will they check all the employees, priests, nuns, laymen, volunteers and even the children? They need to protect the school, after all. Or is that only reserved for those who have committed the sin of d-i-v-o-r-c-e?

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Not really sure how I feel about this. While on the one hand I think it's abhorent, on the other I can't imagine how I would feel if my child was in this school. Curious to hear other points of view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3&pLid=330387

My thoughts on this is that there is no protection from psycho's when you are a victim.

As far as her being fired, it is just a response to how things are today. School cannot accept the risk. While I hate it, I can't see how you can allow that type of situation at your school.

Those poor kids.

 

[Arielle22]

So, will the diocese do background checks on all the families of people who can enter their schools for the safety of the children? Will they check all the employees, priests, nuns, laymen, volunteers and even the children? They need to protect the school, after all. Or is that only reserved for those who have committed the sin of d-i-v-o-r-c-e?

Schools are required to run background checks on employees and volunteers here in MA. If you are a parent and volunteer in the classroom, you have to be screened first.

Let's change this situation around and have it be a private non-denominational school. Do you think it would have done any differently?

The children were probably asked to leave the school because their enrollment was a condition of her employment.

 

[CaliBear]

I don't agree with this at all. The woman is the victim here. The husband should be locked up.

The school should already have security in place to keep people out. Firing the teacher won't keep other crazies from hurting kids if their security stinks.

This is ridiculous.

I would seriously like to see what Pope Francis's reaction to this would be.

This, exactly this. I find this blame the victim firing disgusting. It's no different from racial profiling airline passengers: "security theater" playing on people's fears and prejudices.

 

[robinb]

Schools are required to run background checks on employees and volunteers here in MA. If you are a parent and volunteer in the classroom, you have to be screened first.

Of course they are, but that's my point. I'm sure that Carie Charlesworth had a background check done on her and since she was a teacher she passed it. But what about the families of employees and volunteers in MA? Are background checks made on them? On spouses, children, siblings, ex-spouses? Carie was fired because of her ex-husband, not because she did anything wrong.

 

[JaneBanks]

Say they didn't let her go and the husband did come back and shoot up the school and killed a bunch of kids. The school knew about the risk but didn't take any action to prevent it. IMO, they would be hearing about how they could have prevented the deaths and did nothing when they saw the signs.

That's what people are trying to do. See the signs and do something about it before we have another Newtown. I really can't blame the school for thinking this way. Who knows, maybe they just saved a bunch of lives.

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

I think it's ridiculous that this poor woman and her kids are victimized twice. Once by her ex (and their father) and then by a church that is supposed to support their parishioners. Since when is "no crazy ex's (spouses, parents, siblings, etc) a condition of employment? Or of being accepted into a school? Are the families of the other teachers and students required to submit to background checks in case there might be some scary skeletons in their closets?

And in the meantime, her abusive ex sits in his jail cell and crows "Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner ! I ruined my ex-wife's life! Yee-haw !"

I agree 100%. I hope she is able to sue the school and win for wrongful termination.

That was his plan and he WON.

Hey Church... WWJD???

So, will the diocese do background checks on all the families of people who can enter their schools for the safety of the children? Will they check all the employees, priests, nuns, laymen, volunteers and even the children? They need to protect the school, after all. Or is that only reserved for those who have committed the sin of d-i-v-o-r-c-e?

This, exactly this. I find this blame the victim firing disgusting. It's no different from racial profiling airline passengers: "security theater" playing on people's fears and prejudices.

Really folks? Yes, it sucks for her, but what about the other students at that school who have been faced with lockdown because of the husband? There's nothing in any of this about divorce, or any kind of profiling, she's got no grounds for a lawsuit, and any good lawyer will tell her so, California is an at will employment state. Stop with the knee jerk reactions and assumptions. She was on paid leave for a couple of months at the end of the school year because of the situation, the school did a risk assessment, and decided that the school would be more secure if she wasn't teaching there any longer. Her kids going to school there was probably a perk of employment, so unless she wants to pony up for tuition, next year they'll go somewhere else. We don't have any information on what, if any, assistance the school has provided her, beyond being on paid adminstrative leave for 2 months after the incident, so how do you know they didn't help her out, just like they would be counselled to in the WWJD?

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

Of course they are, but that's my point. I'm sure that Carie Charlesworth had a background check done on her and since she was a teacher she passed it. But what about the families of employees and volunteers in MA? Are background checks made on them? On spouses, children, siblings, ex-spouses? Carie was fired because of her ex-husband, not because she did anything wrong.

If the California schools are like most others, no, she simply didn't have her contract renewed. She wasn't fired. She didn't do anything wrong, but represent a large risk to the school. It's not fair to the other kids or parents to ask them to attend school when they know that the ex is already willing to violate a restraining order violently.

 

[FireDancer]

The problem doesn't seem from the article to be that she had an abusive relationship with her ex. The problem is that combined with the fact that the ex showed up at the school before. It is unfortunate and I do feel bad for her and her kids but in the current climate the school had to do what it thinks is best for the safety of the students. If that means firing her or not renewing her contract that is what it means. It was basically a no win situation for them. Take the bad press now or the much worse press if the guy shows back up a second time and does something to anyone at the school, including her.

Claiming it is profiling or that all employees could have a relationship with an abusive person loses all relevance because of the ex actually showing up once before. That moved the scenario from speculation to reality. A one strike and your out rule so to speak.

ETA: The church/spiritual aspect of this story is completely separate from the employment aspect. The church can still minister to her and help her even if they were not willing to assume the already demonstrated risk of employing her.

 

[CaliBear]

You mean a one strike and your innocent victim is out rule. The teacher here doesn't have any strikes as she did not do anything wrong.

The school needs to protect their students from all threats, which means having adequate security in place. If they do, this shouldn't be a problem. If they don't, firing this teacher isn't the solution.

 

[FireDancer]

The school needs to protect their students from all threats, which means having adequate security in place. If they do, this shouldn't be a problem. If they don't, firing this teacher isn't the solution.

Sandy Hook had what they though was adequate security. How did that work out?

They made the tough decision to sacrifice one to better protect (at least in their opinion) the many. It is unfortunate but it is what it is. In our imperfect world sometimes there is no good way to tackle a problem and you just have to make the least bad decision. I don't think this school wanted to get rid of this teacher because of what the ex did but I think they were facing a group of choices that were all bad and made the one they thought was best out of the bunch.

 

[mrsklamc]

I saw two letters she released to the press; one obviously had the bottom cut off. I have to wonder what the missing part contains.

 

[Bojo]

Sandy Hook had what they though was adequate security. How did that work out?

They made the tough decision to sacrifice one to better protect (at least in their opinion) the many. It is unfortunate but it is what it is. In our imperfect world sometimes there is no good way to tackle a problem and you just have to make the least bad decision. I don't think this school wanted to get rid of this teacher because of what the ex did but I think they were facing a group of choices that were all bad and made the one they thought was best out of the bunch.

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

I think the school was within its rights--they have to protect the children, or they're going to lose "customers". It's unfortunate, but I can see their point of view. What they don't say is, if the church or diocese helped the mom relocate or find other work. Obviously, that's something they wouldn't want to make public, but it's quite possible that they didn't just drop the teacher in the dirt.