A bit of a vent- unexpected expense. Update

[daughtersrus]

OP, without addressing any of the other issues, I am surprised that your DD's glasses do not come with any type of warranty. I have purchased glasses from 3 different optic centers for my DS, and all 3 have replaced eyeglasses for free for one year if they were damaged.

In one case, DS's glasses were bent, and I tried using a wrench to bend them back in place. I ended up breaking the entire side of the glasses off (whoops). When I took them to the eye doctor to order a new pair, they told me they were covered for a year and would be replaced for free despite the fact that I had caused the damage. That particular pair of glasses we had to have replaced a second time (for free under warranty) due to the lenses popping out because DS had gotten them so bent out of shape from falling asleep with them on.

That was the only pair we have had to use the warranty, and we are currently on pair number 5, but all 3 places we have bought his glasses from cover kids' glasses for a year. Maybe that is something that is unique to our area, but you may want to check around and consider taking your daughter's prescription to another trusted optic center in order to have extra protection.

There is a one year coverage but not for abuse. Both temples were broken off and the plastic by the bridge of the nose was twisted into a spiral.
The lenses were also scratched and that is not covered. The frame was $150 and the rest is for lenses. I know it sounds like a lot for lenses but that is because of the bifocal prescription, poly-carb material and transition sunglasses.

Nice post. Not an attorney, don't believe that this situation calls for one. My frustration is that when the position that the employer should pay, we are the employer. It isn't that we shouldn't assist, the issue is that we have an ever shrinking group of contributors with an ever growing group needing assistance. It is unfortunate, but true, we do not have an endless supply of money to fund everything.

So if a bus driver rear ends you and totals your car, you wouldn't expect their insurance to pay because it was an accident and the driver didn't intend to cause damage? It would be unfortunate but since there isn't an endless supply of taxpayer money you wouldn't get a lawyer involved and would pay for a new car yourself?

And if you paid with them with a credit card, there is a good chance that the warranty is doubled through them. So few ppl ever use their free purchase protection that comes with most cards.

OP, I believe that the student who broke your dd's glasses should be responsible for buying new ones. The aid was negligent, but not responsible... That was the other student. Everyone has given analogies... Here's mine. A security guard allows a precious work of art to be stolen by being negligent on the job- looking away when he wasn't supposed to. Who is responsible? The thief or the guard? The thief. The guard might be fired (and the aid was removed from the position, and was probably disciplined), but it's the thief who is going to jail.

I am a teacher and I have taught many students with exceptional needs and who are on spectrum and in my professional opinion, in this situation can be held responsible for the financial liability here.

There is no warranty with a debit card purchase from my bank.

The problem I have with your analogy is that the student's disability is severe enough that he attends
this private school (familyoffive might be upset but it's at the expense of taxpayers) instead of one of the schools within our school district. He has a bus monitor as well that is supposed to escort him to/from his seat when entering/exiting the bus. That did not happen. There is video documenting the incident.

 

[Skywalker]

If I looked away from my DD and someone punched her or took the glasses off of her face and broke them, then I would be responsible.

Responsible financially? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't most people go after the person that actually broke the glasses to get reimbursed?

The aide may have looked out the window for good reason, like, maybe she thought she was witnessing a child get abducted and was trying to get a description, I mean who knows! The fact that you think someone could keep their eye on your child for literally every second of the day is not realistic. Try it yourself. It won't be long before that becomes really awkward and then impossible.

I think no matter what, there is no written document that can give you a 100%guarantee that your child and their property would always be safe. If so, where can I sign?

Bottom line for me is yes your daughter's property damage should be paid for, by the child's family that caused the damage. And I would also be requesting that child be moved from the bus since he is the one that cannot be trusted around others.

 

[Gracie09]

Responsible financially? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't most people go after the person that actually broke the glasses to get reimbursed?

The aide may have looked out the window for good reason, like, maybe she thought she was witnessing a child get abducted and was trying to get a description, I mean who knows! The fact that you think someone could keep their eye on your child for literally every second of the day is not realistic. Try it yourself. It won't be long before that becomes really awkward and then impossible.

I think no matter what, there is no written document that can give you a 100%guarantee that your child and their property would always be safe. If so, where can I sign?

Bottom line for me is yes your daughter's property damage should be paid for, by the child's family that caused the damage. And I would also be requesting that child be moved from the bus since he is the one that cannot be trusted around others.

Seriously. The aide is there during bus rides to prevent exactly this from happening. She doesn't have to keep an eye on her every second but for the bus ride the aide is paid to do just that. Especially when other kids are moving on the bus. There is a plan in place, put in place by a legally binding document. You too could get one for your child when you show your school district that she is disabled to the extent op's daughter is. But then you would have to take everything else goes along with it. Of course it doesn't apply to accidents, but except for one poster I think we all agree this wasn't an accident. And if the school district won't release the name of the child that did the damage citing privacy how would you like the op to get the other family to pay for the damage?

Oh and there are 1:1 aides whose job it is to watch and help child they are assigned to all day, every day. They generally have a break for lunch when another aide takes over their duties for that time. Like everything else if someone doesn't like their job they are free to find another, but if you choose to accept this type of position you have to accept all the responsibilities that go along with it.

 

[averysmom]

There is a one year coverage but not for abuse. Both temples were broken off and the plastic by the bridge of the nose was twisted into a spiral. The lenses were also scratched and that is not covered. The frame was $150 and the rest is for lenses. I know it sounds like a lot for lenses but that is because of the bifocal prescription, poly-carb material and transition sunglasses. So if a bus driver rear ends you and totals your car, you wouldn't expect their insurance to pay because it was an accident and the driver didn't intend to cause damage? It would be unfortunate but since there isn't an endless supply of taxpayer money you wouldn't get a lawyer involved and would pay for a new car yourself? There is no warranty with a debit card purchase from my bank. The problem I have with your analogy is that the student's disability is severe enough that he attends this private school (familyoffive might be upset but it's at the expense of taxpayers) instead of one of the schools within our school district. He has a bus monitor as well that is supposed to escort him to/from his seat when entering/exiting the bus. That did not happen. There is video documenting the incident.

Then we'll agree to disagree. I keep thinking about the students that I teach, who are significantly disabled, and in this situation it would still be the child who is financially responsible, not the division. Again, the aide was removed from the position and was probably disciplined, so I think the division has responded appropriately.

 

[daughtersrus]

Then we'll agree to disagree. I keep thinking about the students that I teach, who are significantly disabled, and in this situation it would still be the child who is financially responsible, not the division. Again, the aide was removed from the position and was probably disciplined, so I think the division has responded appropriately.

The school district will not let us watch the video nor will they identify the student because they say doing so will violate the privacy rights of the student.

My older DD's are SpEd teachers. One autism the other behavior disability. They have never had the family of one of their students pay for damage that they have caused.

Do the students that you teach have specific duties that their 1:1 is responsible for listed in their IEP?

 

[daughtersrus]

The fact that you think someone could keep their eye on your child for literally every second of the day is not realistic. Try it yourself. It won't be long before that becomes really awkward and then impossible. .

Again, not every second but I do expect them to so that when she is in a dangerous situation that had already been identified.

I think no matter what, there is no written document that can give you a 100%guarantee that your child and their property would always be safe. If so, where can I sign?

You need to start the IEP process to identify if your child has a disability that impacts their ability to learn. You need to put your request in writing. The school district needs to respond to your request within a specific amount of time. The eval process will begin. After they are completed you will be given notice telling you when/where the IEP meeting will be. At the meeting you will hear what your child's current levels are and then you will hear how far they are behind their peers. Goals will be discussed as well as accommodations that are needed. This is when you request the 1:1 as it is generally put in the accommodations portion of the IEP. There is also a parental concern portion in the IEP. This is where we have reiterated our concern for DD's safety.

Bottom line for me is yes your daughter's property damage should be paid for, by the child's family that caused the damage. And I would also be requesting that child be moved from the bus since he is the one that cannot be trusted around others.

As I've said many times, they will not allow us to view the video nor will they identify the student.

Also as I said before this is the second student on the bus to hurt DD. They refuse to put DD on a different bus saying that the detailed plan listed in the IEP will protect her. We have an rip meeting scheduled. If that doesn't work we will need to file for a Due Process hearing with the state board of Ed. This will cost the district much more money as lawyers are involved at that point. Having dealt with the school district over IEP issues for 15 years now I learned that the administration likes to make things as difficult for parents as they can so that they don't have to provide the services that the student needs. They hope that the parent will give up.

 

[djmeredith]

No, not necessarily. Like I explained in my last post, there are many times when a third party is liable for resulting damages because of intervening factors such as duty and negligence.

The aide may have looked out the window for good reason, like, maybe she thought she was witnessing a child get abducted and was trying to get a description, I mean who knows! The fact that you think someone could keep their eye on your child for literally every second of the day is not realistic.

As awful as is this is going to sound, it still boils down to whether or not a legal duty was breached in this scenario. In your what if scenario, the assistant would not have had a legal duty to protect a child being abducted. (Obviously legal duty and moral responsibility are two different things.) However, it sounds like she probably did have a legal duty to protect the child assigned to her on the bus. If she had that duty and it was breached by her inattention then she and possibly her employer would be responsible for the damages regardless of why she was inattentive.

I think no matter what, there is no written document that can give you a 100%guarantee that your child and their property would always be safe. If so, where can I sign?

You are 100% correct that no document can keep someone physically safe. However, the written document exists to minimize the risk, but it also often creates that duty I spoke of before. Once the duty is established then if an injury occurs because of negligence, the document has set forth who is responsible for resulting damages.

As far as signing up, if you have a child enrolled in school then you're already signed up. All parents "sign up" for their child's protection when they entrust their child (disabled or not) to a school's care. Schools have a legal duty to protect ALL the children in their care whether or not they have an IEP or not. This legal doctrine is called In Loco Parentis. For example, there are lots of security measures in place in every school because the school's know they have a duty to protect the children in their care. Of course those written safety documents cannot 100% prevent a tragedy. It requires the employees to carry out certain duties to enforce the safety measures, like having visitors sign in at the school office, etc. If an employee fails to enforce those written safety measures because of negligence and injuries occur, that employee and the school would be liable. The IEP that disabled children have merely sets forth extra duties to protect in some cases.

Bottom line for me is yes your daughter's property damage should be paid for, by the child's family that caused the damage.

Regardless of that duty/negligence issue I've described; that legal doctrine of In Loco Parentis basically means that the school steps into the role of the parent while a child is in its care. Therefore, in most situations at school, for legal purposes, the school is considered the parent and will be held responsible. A child's actual parent will rarely be legally responsible for their child's actions while the child is at school.

 

[sukhakuli]

Again, not every second but I do expect them to so that when she is in a dangerous situation that had already been identified.




You need to start the IEP process to identify if your child has a disability that impacts their ability to learn. You need to put your request in writing. The school district needs to respond to your request within a specific amount of time. The eval process will begin. After they are completed you will be given notice telling you when/where the IEP meeting will be. At the meeting you will hear what your child's current levels are and then you will hear how far they are behind their peers. Goals will be discussed as well as accommodations that are needed. This is when you request the 1:1 as it is generally put in the accommodations portion of the IEP. There is also a parental concern portion in the IEP. This is where we have reiterated our concern for DD's safety.


As I've said many times, they will not allow us to view the video nor will they identify the student.

Also as I said before this is the second student on the bus to hurt DD. They refuse to put DD on a different bus saying that the detailed plan listed in the IEP will protect her. We have an rip meeting scheduled. If that doesn't work we will need to file for a Due Process hearing with the state board of Ed. This will cost the district much more money as lawyers are involved at that point. Having dealt with the school district over IEP issues for 15 years now I learned that the administration likes to make things as difficult for parents as they can so that they don't have to provide the services that the student needs. They hope that the parent will give up.

That last bit is absolutely true. Districts don't want to spend the money (even though the lions share of special needs funding is federal, not state, and comes from a different pot than funding for general ed), even if they are required to.

I think you would have gotten better responses if you had posted on a forum for parents of disabled children. Parents who do not deal with disabilities every day just don't understand the ins and outs here, and they don't understand what severe autism looks like. Blaming the child and the parents is something you do if the child is neurotypical, not severely autistic. My son is not severely autistic, however, I can see that he could impulsively grab the glasses and twist them up. Not out of aggression, but out of impulse control. Look, something shiny!! Crunch. It is the responsibility of the aids on the bus to keep these things from happening.

Your district is failing both of these kids. It sounds like your child is medically fragile, and as such, it might be prudent to ask for more restrictive transportation for her, for her own safety. I understand that you are entitled to transportation, but is there any way you can drive her yourself? 2 incidents like that would leave me livid. They clearly need more supervision on that bus, but you might not be able to get it without a major fight.

 

[kymom99]

No, not necessarily. Like I explained in my last post, there are many times when a third party is liable for resulting damages because of intervening factors such as duty and negligence.



As awful as is this is going to sound, it still boils down to whether or not a legal duty was breached in this scenario. In your what if scenario, the assistant would not have had a legal duty to protect a child being abducted. (Obviously legal duty and moral responsibility are two different things.) However, it sounds like she probably did have a legal duty to protect the child assigned to her on the bus. If she had that duty and it was breached by her inattention then she and possibly her employer would be responsible for the damages regardless of why she was inattentive.



You are 100% correct that no document can keep someone physically safe. However, the written document exists to minimize the risk, but it also often creates that duty I spoke of before. Once the duty is established then if an injury occurs because of negligence, the document has set forth who is responsible for resulting damages.

As far as signing up, if you have a child enrolled in school then you're already signed up. All parents "sign up" for their child's protection when they entrust their child (disabled or not) to a school's care. Schools have a legal duty to protect ALL the children in their care whether or not they have an IEP or not. This legal doctrine is called In Loco Parentis. For example, there are lots of security measures in place in every school because the school's know they have a duty to protect the children in their care. Of course those written safety documents cannot 100% prevent a tragedy. It requires the employees to carry out certain duties to enforce the safety measures, like having visitors sign in at the school office, etc. If an employee fails to enforce those written safety measures because of negligence and injuries occur, that employee and the school would be liable. The IEP that disabled children have merely sets forth extra duties to protect in some cases.



Regardless of that duty/negligence issue I've described; that legal doctrine of In Loco Parentis basically means that the school steps into the role of the parent while a child is in its care. Therefore, in most situations at school, for legal purposes, the school is considered the parent and will be held responsible. A child's actual parent will rarely be legally responsible for their child's actions while the child is at school.

Good job explaining this. I tried bringing this up yesterday, but my computer lost connection after I had it all set to post.

 

[MSLRAC]

The school district will not let us watch the video nor will they identify the student because they say doing so will violate the privacy rights of the student. My older DD's are SpEd teachers. One autism the other behavior disability. They have never had the family of one of their students pay for damage that they have caused. Do the students that you teach have specific duties that their 1:1 is responsible for listed in their IEP?

While I do understand what you are saying, there is a difference in damage done to school property and damage done to another students property. The other student's parents need to be made aware of this and asked to cover the cost. I would honestly tell the school that you did not care about the other student's privacy rights because your DD's right we're violated by that student and that they either provide you with the contact info for the parents or you will file a police report to obtain the info.

 

[pinoke]

Wow- what a thread! Way back when it started I asked the children's ages, and the OP said it didn't matter. Well- it is a very different matter if the child is 3 or 20 as far as the ability/expectation of the para to keep everyone totally safe.
The para was hovering over the child, but glanced away? So she was in position to be a barrier, but the other child reached her anyway? If she had been looking- is she authorized to put her hands on the other child and prevent him from doing something? Again- is he 3 or 20? A very different situation. I would think if the para was up front talking to the driver- she'd be in trouble. But she was right beside the child.
The para for the aggressive child did what? Where was that adult?
If the OP's child needs to be safe- for whatever reason- why isn't she boarded last, and taken off first? There should be nobody near her.
But what happens in a classroom. Certainly other children may be near her, and aggressive kids in a sped setting are possible-
It is not possible to be certain of safety. But an aggressive child's plan has been looked at carefully as well and both the parents and the school have decided that is an appropriate placement. Not so if he's doing this, though. That girl could have been blinded. Seriously.
The school is responsible if the plan is not followed, but there can never be a guarantee. If the aggressive child's parents have put him in this placement it must be assumed he can manage it, and if not, he shouldn't be there. They should also be responsible for his actions.
I hope you have some peaceful resolution soon, OP. I can't imagine your worry

 

[manning]

Wow- what a thread! Way back when it started I asked the children's ages, and the OP said it didn't matter. Well- it is a very different matter if the child is 3 or 20 as far as the ability/expectation of the para to keep everyone totally safe.
The para was hovering over the child, but glanced away? So she was in position to be a barrier, but the other child reached her anyway? If she had been looking- is she authorized to put her hands on the other child and prevent him from doing something? Again- is he 3 or 20? A very different situation. I would think if the para was up front talking to the driver- she'd be in trouble. But she was right beside the child.
The para for the aggressive child did what? Where was that adult?
If the OP's child needs to be safe- for whatever reason- why isn't she boarded last, and taken off first? There should be nobody near her.
But what happens in a classroom. Certainly other children may be near her, and aggressive kids in a sped setting are possible-
It is not possible to be certain of safety. But an aggressive child's plan has been looked at carefully as well and both the parents and the school have decided that is an appropriate placement. Not so if he's doing this, though. That girl could have been blinded. Seriously.
The school is responsible if the plan is not followed, but there can never be a guarantee. If the aggressive child's parents have put him in this placement it must be assumed he can manage it, and if not, he shouldn't be there. They should also be responsible for his actions.
I hope you have some peaceful resolution soon, OP. I can't imagine your worry

I believe the OP would be correct to say age doesn't matter. These are special need children here who need special supervision.

 

[pinoke]

Of course they need supervision! But an aggressive young child is very different than an aggressive older/larger one. Particularly when paras are responsible for stopping aggression and keeping a particularly vulnerable child safe.

 

[mrsklamc]

Of course they need supervision! But an aggressive young child is very different than an aggressive older/larger one. Particularly when paras are responsible for stopping aggression and keeping a particularly vulnerable child safe.

The para didn't meet their responsibility. It doesn't matter why.

 

[pinoke]

Of course it does! Would a teacher with 25 students be held responsible if one broke another's glasses?

 

[mrsklamc]

Of course it does! Would a teacher with 25 students be held responsible if one broke another's glasses?

That is not remotely related to this situation. Your teacher with 25 students is not assigned 1:1 to protect a student. Her job is to teach. If teaching doesn't happen, she's responsible for that.

The para is assigned to protect OPs daughter and do nothing else. The para did not do that. It doesn't matter what age the students were or how difficult it was, the job didn't get done.

 

[pinoke]

I am not at all saying that someone isn't at fault. Obviously the OP's child deserves to be safe and I very much feel for her and her DD. But I also think when there are 2 paras- and one is assigned to the aggressive child/group- that is a factor. There's no way the OP should be having to pay for new glasses- and I would also think that an alternative transportation plan is in order- not just ANOTHER para. Nobody should be near that child if they are unpredictable and/or aggressive. But, if the 1:1 para had seen him coming, and tried to intervene but the child was still was assaulted, there would still be the issue of fault.
I simply asked about the age initially, because there is a difference as to how a para can handle a situation based on the size of the children. It was just a question- I was hoping to be able to help the OP using my own experience and wanted to understand.
It seems like this transportation arrangement has been a problem since the beginning and the OP has every right to be fuming and upset!

 

[hambirg]

Well, transporting a medically fragile child on a bus full of severely autistic children is not an appropriate placement. . .it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[daughtersrus]

I don't have anything to update. School is closed today due to extreme cold so our district office will be closed as well. It looks like tomorrow is going to be worse so I assume that school won't resume until Wed.

I didn't go into some details earlier but since questions have been asked, I will now.

DD is 19 years old. I have no idea how old the other student is. He could be anywhere from 3-21 since that is the age range that school districts are required to provide services. DD's age is also deceiving because of the genetic disease she has, she is about the size of a 6yo~ 48lbs and about 50" tall. She can not test, so we don't know her exact cognitive age. That is part of the reason that I said age doesn't matter.

Paras in this situation are CPI (restraint) trained by our school district.

The school DD attends is a private school being paid for by our school district because they can not meet her needs in a program within our district. The school district is required by law to provide transportation. The same is true for the other students on the bus she rides.

The school has two campuses on one large piece of land. One is for multi-needs students like my DD. The other is specifically for students with autism. All of the children in DD's class are in wheelchairs.

DD has only been attending this school since after Thanksgiving. In that short time, she has been hit by one student and then this incident by another student.

There are several buses from our district bringing students to the school. I have asked that they put her on a different bus but they will not. I assume it's because it will cost the district more money to add an additional bus. I even spoke with Our State Board of Ed in Springfield and they told me that as long as the IEP includes specific procedures to keep DD safe, we can not force them to change the bus.

We REALLY like the school. The issue we have is with the district provided transportation.

Due to the location of our house, it would add significant time to the route (it's already close to 90 mins) to have her be the last one on and the first one off at home. But, when they get to school, the procedure is that she is supposed to be the first one off. I'm not sure that is happening because on Friday, the driver asked if it would be OK to take DD's glasses off of her face when they got to school so that the student wouldn't be tempted to pull them off again when he got off. I just about flipped out. I told her NO! My DD is supposed to be the first off. There is no way I want any of the students walking past her without her glasses on . What if one of them poked her in the eye. The driver's response was "Oh, they would never do that" I quickly pointed out that she never thought the other student would punch her or that this student would take the glasses. So, it's apparent that the procedure still isn't being followed. My call to transportation has not been returned yet.

I fully understand that for some people with autism a specific routine needs to be followed because they have difficulty with change. I'm not sure if that is the case here or if the driver is just doing her own thing.

Anyway, not much of an update but I wanted to clarify a few things.

No word yet from the Ophthalmologist's office as to when the replacement glasses will be ready.

 

[clanmcculloch]

My challenge would be for you to prove that you have never looked away from your child while she was within your care! I highly doubt that you could prove it!

I would put money on the fact that in every situation where there has been proven imminent threat to her child she doesn't take her eye off her child. That's what this situation is. Her 1:1 was supposed to act as a barrier between her and other children WHEN THE CHILD IS GETTING ON THE BUS. This is a very brief time. It is not difficult to remain 100% focused during such a brief interval of time. Her DD has been hurt when a child was getting on the bus in the past so this was added to the IEP. It is irrelevant if OP never looks away from her DD ever. In a situation where her DD has been hurt in the past, you'd better believe she doesn't take her eye off for even a split second until they're through that situation until her DD is once again in an environment where there's no immediate threat.