- Moderator
- #441
Did he have proof that notifying the parents would put the child in danger?
Read.
I've already said, several times in several different ways that neither you nor I know what the family situation was. You haven't a clue. I haven't a clue. I'm asking a rhetorical question because you are making a blanket judgement that the parents should always be notified.
No, he didn't. Therefore, he had a moral and ethical duty to notify school administrators or the parents directly.
And...you know that how? Oh wait. You don't.
I do agree though that he should have notified the school administrators and it was poor judgement not to do so.
IF, he had proof that notifying the parents would put the child in danger, then it would be his moral and ethical duty to notify social services of both the danger of the parents, and the dangerous behavior that the child was engaging in.
That's iffy because it's usually not that black and white clear. The parents might not harm the child but the child's life could be made a misery and there is nothing illegal about that that he could notify social services. As far as the child's behavior - again, the child was of the age of consent and there isn't a thing social services can do.
He had no proof, therefore his moral and ethical obligation was to notify chool administrator or the parents directly.
You know that how?
He was obviously an educated man. A teaching professional who knew what his moral and ethical obligations were. He failed on every level.
He was 24 years old and new in the job.