Friend was fired 'cause she's involved w/a sex offender. What do I say?

In My Humble Opinion
121

A couple of folks have questioned whether it was necessary to fire her, or whether they could have at least warned her first that she would lose her job if Shelley didn’t break it off with Jame…uh Rick. That’s being very fair and compassionate towards both Shelley and Rick, and I honestly applaud that. Not only is it the kind thing to do, job and lifestyle stability and a support system helps to decrease the risk that a sex offender will reoffend, so that sentiment is good all around. That said, It’s also a good thing to put yourself in the school’s shoes as well. Imagine that you’re an administrator at Shelley’s school and were inquiring with the lawyer the school keeps on retainer. You want to know about your possible liability if you warn Shelley that she will be fired if she doesn’t break it off with Rick and quit living with him. The lawyer tells you to consider the best and worst case scenarios.

Best case scenario:
Shelley does break it off with Rick and nothing happens.

Worse than best case scenario:
Shelley says she’ll break it off with Rick, but she doesn’t. Word gets out that Ms. Shelley is living with a convicted child molester and there is a mass exodus of students being removed from the school. The school suffers financially.

Worst case scenario:
Shelly says she’ll break it off with Rick, but has no intention of doing so. Why should she? She knows that Rick is innocent of the awful crime he was convicted of, and they just don’t know the same sweet, caring, decent man that she knows Rick to be. They get Rick an apartment that he reports as his address, but he continues to spend most of his time at Shelley’s house, pretty much de facto cohabitating. Because they’re in need of money, Shelley does what many pre-K teachers do for extra income: she babysits students in her class when parents need a night out on the town. She knows it’s okay to leave the kids with Rick to run to the store for pizza or sodas because Rick has never actually committed a sex offense. While she’s away, Rick sexually assaults a child at her house. Maybe it’s just while she’s in the bathroom. He gains the child’s silence by using the trust he has previously gained from the child by telling her that she will be in trouble if she tells anyone, or that he will. Alternatively, maybe he just tells her that if she tells anyone he will kill her parents. Sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime and the second most underreported crime of all, so like 60 to 90 percent of sexual assaults Rick’s crime goes undetected. Rick isn’t caught until he’s offended against multiple children and one of them finally makes an outcry. The school is sued out of existence and the school administrators are sued personally for effectively everything they own. They will never work in that line of work again and will be lucky if they can find a dry bridge to sleep under. They also get to live with the knowledge that they could have prevented children from being sexually assaulted and didn’t.

Maybe this is all fantastically unlikely, and maybe Rick really never will offend against another child. Maybe he’s even telling the truth and never did. The school administrators don’t know Rick, though, and the possible consequences of misplacing trust in Rick or Shelley either one are catastrophic. I don’t blame them for not rolling the dice.

122

What we see here is a man who fulfills the cliche about babysitter’s boyfriends, and a teacher who takes a self-confessed pedophile’s word over his own criminal record, let alone the word of a child.

She already was babysitting:

123

“Not far off”??? Calling someone a pedophile (albeit in a weasel way, but leaving no doubt whatsoever what was meant) is “not far off” from being insulting?

It’s the same kind of vastly stupid as well as insulting thinking, that if you’re defending someone being persecuted because they are X, you must also be X. But I guess there are “rules” here as well as rules.

124

Wow, so she was. Well there you go.

125

Again, if you are free to make a BBQ Pit thread against any poster you want to, if you wish.

And f you wish to discuss the rules further, feel free to make a topic in ATMB (About This Message Board)…but please don’t hijack this thread with a discussion about what an insult is or isn’t.

126

I’m wearying of this but I’ll just say thanks again to the folks who at least see why I’m not posting the links, and why I don’t feel comfortable asking Shelley for details and so on, and why I would rather stay at a friendly but not pals kinda relationship here. There are some things it’s better for me not to know.

And thanks, Nawth Chucka, I forgot about that! :slight_smile: Yes, not an under-bridge denizen. Although considering this thread has discussed SROs being forced to live under bridges, that’s not even all that humorous a joke.

I’m not sure Chimera was including me in that “we’re getting played” bit, however. Surely s/he would’ve said “I think the OP is getting played” rather than “we,” no? If it really was including me, I don’t see how I could be played since I’m getting most of my info from the sites that are virulently anti-pedo to the point where they dissect every last detail that’s available and then pass it forward in public. I can’t believe this is anything but the worst possible info about him. The ONLY ameliorating info on his side has been this: that Shelley says he says he was falsely accused. I guess there’s also the lack of a second offense on record, but that’s negative information, and the lack of it doesn’t really mean much; obviously he could have flown under the radar all these years. I just don’t know.

Annnnnd now he’s a murderer too. Can we please not invent worse and worse worst-case scenarios and then take them as gospel? I mean why not just say that he’s actually hiding fifteen kids in Shelley’s basement?

Oh my God, at the kid’s home. Not at her home. She’s naive but she’s not going to risk Rick getting in deep shit trouble. Even if she believes him innocent she knows the rules he has to live by, and she doesn’t want him to run afoul of them.

If I’ve depicted her as some scatterbrain ditz, that’s bad reportage on my part. She is young and sheltered and thinks the best of him, which is naive but loyal, but that does not mean she is so dumb she would put the guy in a position where he could get in trouble with his P.O. or the conditions of his probation or parole or whatever. Yipe I don’t even know if he actually served jail time for this; I do remember one of the blogs mentioning that he had to wear an ankle bracelet for the first 30 days, but they didn’t mention prison.

Anyway, point is, please don’t think that she’s having kids over to her house. From what little she’s mentioned of the way Rick lives his life, he seems to be doing what is necessary. At the very least, I know he goes to regular counselling, FWIW. If he’s in regular contact with a P.O., I can only hope that this P.O. is keeping very close track of what Rick does and where Rick goes, and what he’s allowed to do.

Man this is tiring. I can’t even imagine if Shelley were actually someone in my family, or God forbid me.

You know, I just reread my OP. And there’s basically nothing that most of you “the school was right!” people are saying that I didn’t already grant in that first post. I said I understood that they have to protect their reputation, they have to protect their kids, and it’s understandable that they did it. I also said she risked this same thing happening if she keeps trying for childcare-related jobs.

I will maintain that firing her without even a day’s notice so she could say goodbye sucks, because we’re not talking about some company where a fired employee must leave immediately lest s/he take any company secrets or files with him or her. I wish they’d given her one last class, let the kids get some closure, and let her feel like a human instead of dirt they’re washing off their feet. So, yay to firing her, boo to doing it in a way that’s hurtful to both the kids and Shelley.

All right, sigh, that’s all from me for now. Thanks again.

127

I’m sure some of it is the bogeyman behind the bushes- but I’m also sure some of it has to do with Shelley herself. This is apparently a private pre-school, with parents who pay tuition. Parents who pay tuition expect a certain level of control regarding the people their child comes into contact with , and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with danger to the child. I might decide not to send my child to a preschool because they employ an anti-vaxxer or creationist as a teacher , not because he/she will put my child in danger but because those aren’t role models I want for my child.
The problem with Shelley is that although he has admitted to being a pedophile, she believes his story that his brother-in-law successfully framed him. There are two issues with this. First off, why in the world would I believe she will never have him pick her up from work? She doesn’t think he’s guilty I have enough professional experience with former inmates to know that relatives/girlfriends of convicted child molesters often don’t believe in their guilt and don’t restrict their access to children.

Secondly ( and more importantly) this is the information that we have about Shelley- she apparently believes that Rick is a pedophile who has never molested a child yet told his family he was a pedophile (why?) and that information was subsequently used by his brother-in-law to frame him. OK , there's a non-zero chance that's true. However, it's much more likely that Rick never told his family any such thing and it was made up to explain to Shelley *why* his brother-in-law would frame him. I don't think I would have wanted my kid taught by someone who believes the least likely option. Gullible people can't protect themselves or anyone else- and gullible is the best case scenario.
128

I understand that you wish she could have stayed one more day to say goodbye, but here’s the thing- I have never heard of anyone getting notice when they are being fired. People who are losing their jobs because there’s no work or because a location is closing, they get notice. People who are losing their job because of something particular to them don’t get notice whether they are in a position to take company secrets or not. Even if there’s a contract that entitling them to two weeks notice, they end up with two weeks pay and get walked out immediately. And in this case , one more class is one more day at risk- not only at risk that Rick will act inappropriately, which is exceedingly small for a particular day but at risk that the parents will find out that the school allowed her to return after they became aware of the situation, which is not so small.

129

No, that’s just fine. As others have said, that would be a fine thing to do. No need to apologize. I meant the “IF” sincerely, not to insist that’s what you SHOULD do.

130

Again, accepted that realistically the response of parents would be such that she had to go. But you’d not go to a preschool because you care about what private beliefs a preschool teacher has outside the school? Now promoting her agenda in the classroom or to parents outside the classroom is another story. And if she was in a higher grade level teaching science or even social studies, sure, I can see that. But what does a preschool teacher privately being a creationist or anti-vaxxer have to do with how warm and fuzzy she can be, how well she can teach kids to play well together, teach songs, foster creativity, or even teach shapes, colors, letters, numbers, etc.? At-will employment, it is allowable, but why?

Meanwhile, let’s expand this discussion to a hypothetical.

A family has been a member of a congregation and the father is caught by a sting meeting up with someone he thought was 15. He is clearly now a sex offender. Turns out he has had multiple past affairs, no evidence of any other under age but who knows? His wife stands by his side. The mother helps out with the preschool.

Should he, pending trial, be allowed to attend services with kids in the same congregation? To pick up his kids from religious programming pending the trial or not allowed within a thousand feet of the building? Should the mother and kids be dismissed from the congregation by virtue of their continued support of him? Just not allowed to work with kids anymore? The congregational membership is in an uproar, scared that there has been a sex offender in their midst, what should the leadership say and do?

In broader terms, how much do those who love a sex offender need to be punished? How much beyond what the courts impose should “we” punish the offender and those who care for him/her?

131

It’s standard procedure for all companies to immediately lead the fired employee to the door, after watching them clean out their desk. Everyone here has been there at least once, I believe.

Sadly, anti-vaxxers & intelligent designers fall under the umbra of Free Religion, more or less, and the law is required to give them a wide berth despite how fucking crazy and dangerous they are. Frankly, I’d love to see people like Jenny McCarthy and Fred Phelps on a list akin to sex offenders, but what can ya do?

132

Because as a parent, I get to decide which private school I pay tuition to. And I don’t have to pay the preschool which employs a teacher who is unacceptable to me , for whatever reason he or she is unacceptable. I can choose another preschool or skip preschool altogether. For certain groups, we as a society expect the school (or any other business) to close down rather than cater to the customers’ preference , but SOs of convicted sex offenders isn’t one of those groups. And BTW, my point was that it might not be fear of the bogeyman in the bushes- it might just be that parents choose not to entrust their children to someone with such poor judgement. Warm and fuzzy is not necessarily the only thing parents want in a preschool teacher.

You look at it in terms of punishing those who love the offender- but not everyone does. Other people look at is as their freedom to choose who they wish to associate with. Let’s change the situation a bit- I’m Shelley’s friend, not just an acquaintance. If she tells me the that Rick is an admitted pedophile who has been convicted of molesting a child, but of course, he didn’t really do it , am I punishing Shelley if I withdraw from the friendship? Am I somehow obligated to maintain a friendship with a person no matter how s/he behaves or what opinions s/he holds?

133

That depends on what being a friend means to you I guess.

I would, in protest, leave a congregation that turned its back on the woman and kids in my example given, for example. I would not turn my back on my sister if that was the man she loved. And I would not suddenly stop being a friend.

Maybe being a friend means something different for you than for me. Fair 'dat.

We differ quite a bit here. Few are more annoyed with anti-vaxxers than I am but I see no correlation between that sort of idiocy and how good someone could be as a preschool teacher so long as they keep those beliefs out of the way of their job and shut up about it at work. At work you comply with making sure kids are vaccinated according to state laws and you do not promote your agenda in any way? Fine. I’ll judge you based on how you do your job so long as you keep your private life private. And others bringing it to my attention is not you breaking that rule.

134

I don’t think so really. I think you probably don’t see that for every instance where you frame the issue as “punishing the person” there are others who frame it as “choosing who I want to associate with” and vice versa. Certainly everybody has different lines - after all, the only difference between you leaving the congregation and the congregation turning its back on the woman is the nature of the behavior causing the association/friendship to end. You don’t feel obligated to maintain a relationship with members of the congregation regardless of how they behave or what they believe. I’m sure you don’t feel that you would be inappropriately punishing the members of the congregation who did not turn their individual backs on the woman but chose not to leave a congregation - but I can almost guarantee that someone does.

135

“Choosing who I want to associate with” is exactly my point of view. Years ago there was a local high-profile case involving a man who was caught red-handed torturing his girlfriend’s dog using oven cleaner (his defense was he was jealous of the dog). He was found guilty and punished.

A short time later he came into my business. An employee recognized him and alerted me. I confirmed he was the dog torturer and asked him to take his business elsewhere and to stay off of my property or I’d call the cops. He left.

136

doreen, so what do you think should be the answers in my hypothetical?

The difference between me turning my back on the congregation (and choosing to no longer associate with them based on their behavior and values) and the congregation not supporting the wife are pretty clear to me. To spell it out:

  1. The spouse’s behavior that they are rejecting is her loving her husband, not a behavior that most would object to otherwise even in the face of a husband having committed a variety of other crimes. Yes, we can think she is allowing herself to be a doormat for continuing to love him. We can think that she should kick him to the street. Such would be rational but love is not rational. We generally understand that.

  2. The spouse needs the support of her community and friends at that particular point in time and will suffer significantly for its lack. With that support she might even feel secure enough to dump him; without it, well he is all she has. The congregation OTOH will not miss a beat for me and mine no longer being members. A few might take pause but that would be as far as it would go. My job to not let the door hit me on my way out.

kayaker would also kick out his brother? And if his girlfriend stayed with him, her? That’s the analogy here. No one is talking about hiring the RSO or letting him on or near school grounds. The discussion is regarding that those who choose to associate with him are, by virtue of having done that, people who should not be allowed near our children.

137

That’s exactly what I mean by we all draw the lines in a different place. The difference is only in the behavior that is objectionable. It’s not that you continue to be friends with people no matter how they behave or what they believe. Maybe you stay friends with the wife of the sex offender, but not with the friend who marries a racist - although she loves him just as much as the wife in your example. Or you stay friendly with her, but not the other friend who joins her husband in demonstrating for or against SSM ( whichever position is opposite yours). Or you stay friendly with her, but another friend suddenly begins to spout creationism and you decide that you can’t be friends with someone you think is an idiot.There isn’t an objective right or wrong and I’m certainly not saying anyone must end any association with Shelley- all I’m saying is that the people doing so generally don’t view it as punishment , in the same way that you don’t see leaving the congregation as punishment.

Not really- I didn’t see anyone advocating that Shelley have some legal restriction requiring her to stay away from children. I came in to point out that although the school would certainly lose students, it wouldn’t all be because parents were afraid of the bogeyman. Some of it would be because parents didn’t want their children near Shelley. Which is not the same as keeping Shelley away from children- I can want to keep my children away from Shelley while allowing you to have Shelley babysit yours, if that’s what you choose.

138

No, I’m in business to make $$, so any degrees of separation would be fine.

However, as I’ve said before, if I found out a daycare employed the spouse/gf of a RSO I would take my business elsewhere.

139

Clearly, Shelley must make a choice: (I) Stay with Rick, the proud yet possibly falsely accused child molester, and never work with children again; or (II) Kick Rick to the curb like a bad drug habit, and attempt to restore her career. (Although the ship’s probably sailed on that final part – sadly, this event will probably follow her career path for the rest of her life.) She CANNOT have both, ever.

140

Hey. Keep debating, I’m just letting these conversations sort of bubble around me. It’s an interesting discussion divorced from my thankfully distant emotional connection to it.

However, I got the latest news bulletin from Shelley and it does bother me.

  1. Apparently at her job (the first one, the religious nursery school) the employees are all reading Rick’s rap sheet on their phones, letting everyone know that this is why Shelley was fired. So there’s no privacy to her firing; these good religious folks don’t care about no privacy.

  2. This morning, someone (with a blocked number) called and left a message on Shelley’s landlady’s voice mail about Rick. Rick is probably going to have to move out, according to the landlady, because the person on the message made it clear that s/he will tell everyone about the pedo in the building.

I’m sure many of you will say that’s a-okay, the caller was just helping out the landlady and protecting society from scum. I think that it’s reached the level of harassment and hounding and it fucking sucks.

It’s my understanding that legally, these sex registries are not supposed to be used to harass the people on it–I know there’s some legalese related to that, anyway. Of course, Shelley isn’t on the list, so she’s not “covered” by that rule. I guess she has the negatives of being an SRO herself but none of the few protective measures.

Yeah, Shelley could end all her problems by dumping Rick–but even doing that won’t help her much if she stays in this town.

Well, have at it. Just thought I’d throw another bucket of chum in the water. Sigh.