Do the childrens' parents disagree w/ this policy?

I tend to agree that we're in the midst of an hysteria, but these policies are not simply efforts to reduce liability.

Parents seem to favor them, believing that any measure that prevents even one incident is warranted. At least that's the most frequent opinion I've encountered.

Outside of the circles of people who follow these trends, and are critical of them, there are many more who grudgingly accept them. They may feel that their personal inconvenience is undeserved but otherwise accept the logic of these policies. So this is the world that they wish to live in.

Well, it's NOT the world I wish to live in. This is more bullshit hysteria being shoved down our throats. It's crap. And if it weren't for the crazy-ass lawyers who encourage all kinds of bullshit litigation just so THEY can make money from it, this wouldn't even be an issue. I'm still so pissed off at the stupid bitch who spilled hot coffee on herself AND her lawyer who brought the case to court, AND to the idiot judge who ALLOWED the case to be heard AND the idiot jury that granted her damages!! If your stupid enough to put a cup of HOT coffee between your legs, you deserve to get burned!! Case closed.

Our church's insurance company requires that every volunteer who interacts with kids undergo a background check, or it will raise our premiums. It sounds like this school is in a similar situation.

People who want to molest kids seek out opportunities to interact with potential victims, so child care providers (even when it's just an hour of nursery once a week) tend to be especially vigilant. Some churches don't even allow married couples to serve in the nursery together, on the theory that someone might enable a spouse's molestation.

I agree that a class party is not a likely venue for molestation to occur.

You're at a class party in a room filled with people, and a child is going to be molested? Come on.

Exactly!! In all my years of going to school myself, and going to various functions at my daughters' schools, never, ever has there been even ONE instance of a child getting molested by any parent at any classroom party or any other school function. Where do these people who think that such a thing would happen come from?? o.O

One thing this story illustrates in spades is the "cooling effect." The insurance company posits that volunteers at a place where kids are must have background checks. It's a blanket statement, even though they mean people who volunteer enough to be regular staff. But the insured entity decides, sometimes with legal assistance that the rule must apply to everyone just to be safe, bcause one lawsuit can cripple.

and so it goes. A background check only works for those who have been caught, IF its a thorough one.

So? How do you fix it? You work with the insurance company to find a tier where an Authorized Supervisor is allowed to oversee a group of un-checked volunteers for certain situations. Like a school party, ESP. where the volunteers are parents of students in the class.

Or, you stop having volunteers, and parties. Perhaps you encourage parents to organize their own parties outside of school/church. then the liability issue goes away because it's about free will...

I can honestly say that I've never even performed a criminal background check on any babysitter that I've used (a couple of positive references is enough). I bet that I'd be considered the ultimate negligent mother by some for this oversight. If any parents think that this classroom policy is ok, how far do they take this paranoia in their personal life? For example, do they do background checks on all the parents of their children's friends?

I guess what people don't really understand is that in something like 95% of molestation cases the molester is a member of the family or a close friend. We lull ourselves into a false sense of security when we believe that molesters are only found in classrooms or churches. Yo, they're in your own home!

You're at a class party in a room filled with people, and a child is going to be molested? Come on.

Obviously not.

My point is that these policies are not simply excessive attempts to mitigate some ill-defined liability. They derive from the express preferences of parents. If you were to waive the liability entirely, it's likely that the policies would still remain. So complaining about insurance companies, and cowardly administrators misses the point.

This phenomenon is cultural - this is the way that many people think that interactions between adults and children should be mediated.

So if you want to address this problem, you've got to deal with the attitudes and assumptions that have motivated it.

This was started in my district about 4 years ago. I think it's a part of a statewide law put in place after a little girl, Jessica Lunsford, was buried alive by a neighbor who had targeted her. He stole her from her trailer. It had nothing to do with school, so I'm not sure why background checks of all volunteers was made a part of the law. I believe it's called "Jessica's law". The schools don't have a choice but to comply.

Not having kids, I would suspect that one of the best ways to protect them from sexual goofballs would be to meet 'n' greet the parents and children they'll be dealing with.

Some parent please tell me if I'm wrong: Don't you get vibes about other parents who you don't want your kid to hang out with? Is that vibe more or less reliable than a "background check", especially when the check is a half-hearted, non-professional investigation, one that most people won't submit to because it's a pain in the ass?

More – I agree with Tena, and suspect this stuff is almost always drunken stepfathers and stepbrothers.

Every now and then I go to this website just to check on the neighborhood. The photos alone will scare the shit out of you. (None within six blocks, and thanks for asking.)

I should have done that before taking the last date to the basement of the Pentagon for lunch, right before getting the "Muhammad was not doing anything bad, the FBI just hated the wrong Palestinians in Albuquerque at the time," story.

Not saying this is right though . . .

I remember reading Brave New World as a child, and wondering how it could possibly ever come to pass that children might one day be raised by centralized authorities ... it seemed absurd, I couldn't imagine how that could ever possibly happen. It no longer seems ridiculous to me; I can now clearly see all the individual steps a society can take that can lead it, small step by small step, to such an absurd result --- at this rate, we're only a few steps away. The concept of only allowing government-certified individuals to be allowed to watch children - is already being contemplated as a realistic idea in some societies as if it's quite reasonable.

People are too dim to realise they're in yet another witchhunt phase - will we ever grow out of this crap as a species.

People are too dim to realise they're in yet another witchhunt phase - will we ever grow out of this crap as a species.

No. The last election should have told you something about Americans. At least 52% of them would rather be kept than be free.

And you know what happens when the majority of the people in a democracy want something?

They get it. Good and hard.

Well, Mouse, it's not exactly "witchhunt". There are true pedophiles out there. The difference is that we parents hear about a pedophile on the 6:00 news in CA, and it seems like it just happened in our own small neighborhood. We are far more cautious than our grandparents, who never knew of the pedophile in CA. They let us run free, without fear of such a rare occurence.

That said, I think it's a good idea not to have known pedophiles in schools, because they could target and stalk your child - and I had to do a background check to be a GAL, which makes sense - but what happens if you just had a petty misdemeanor 15 yrs ago? Are you not allowed to attend your kid's class party? I don't know the answer to that under these laws.

Eh, the paranoia has been around for a long, long time. I worked for a city parks and recreation 25 years ago and not only did I have to pass a background check, it was an FBI background check. My next door neighbor was in the highway patrol and warned all my neighbors to take it very seriously. Apparently the FBI doesn't have a sense of humor. I worked in the front office and also taught water fitness, but every once in awhile I was around a lot of kids, especially at the special events, but still, there were plenty of other adults around. I also had to undergo a background check to volunteer with SMART and the local library. I just told them my finger prints are already on file with the feds.

Funnily enough, when I taught at University for 12 year, because I was an adjunct I didn't have to undergo a background check, leaving me free to warp the minds of college freshmen!

And yet school teachers are sleeping with their students in record numbers. Think that would have shown up in a background check?

Does "horny" come out in a background check?

1. "And yet school teachers are sleeping with their students in record numbers."
How much of this is a difference in reporting?

2. Would Mr. Clinton qualify to volunteer, being a felon?

Well, Rad, I think that if any of my peers had scored with a teacher, everyone would have known.

These kinds of things didn't happen 20-30 years ago when teachers were actually professional. You might have had the odd freak, but nothing like today. Especially with the women!

And to think that men were drummed out of primary education due to the stupid belief that the only men that could possibly be interested in working with children are those who want to molest them.

Replying to myself:

I agree that a class party is not a likely venue for molestation to occur.

Unlikely is not impossible, of course. Volunteers at a class party might be asked to take a kid to the bathroom. The policy we have to conform to when it's our turn to do nursery at church is that a volunteer is never alone with a kid, even in the bathroom, so if the kid needs assistance and there's only one adult, they need to open up the bathroom door and the stall door so that any passersby can hear what's going on.

Molesters frequently try to build a special relationship with a potential victim (which is why it's so frequently somebody the family knows). Organized activities like this are opportunities for that, and we're told to be on the lookout for adults who seem to like particular kids (other than their own) more than expected.

Molestations do happen "in our neighborhood"; I don't know all of the people personally who work at our church, and when our son is old enough to go to school I won't know all of the parents of all of the kids in his class. Furthermore, as pointed out, lots of molestations are committed by close friends or family members.

I don't know what level of paranoia is appropriate, but I appreciate it when people I entrust my son to are more paranoid than necessary.

Hmm. I can see it now.

"The background check came out OK. He's a priest, you know."

This is an issue that a parent is trying to raise in our school. He is a police officer. I happen to disagree with forcing volunteers to do backround checks, but I am able to distance myself from my position enough to understand that it isn't always about protection from law suits. The thought process started when more was understood about pedophiles and how they work. Many are parents or people working in positions close to children. Many are the person you never could believe it was. They don't all look like the crypt keeper. In a misguided attempt to prevent circumstances where a pedophile can build a closeness with a child or even the family, the schools ask for backround checks in hopes of catching the pedophiles. Unfortunately many have never been caught and do not have records.
There is a hysteria regarding many things in our current times. I believe that our so called age of information actually isn't so wonderful. With 24 hour news on 100 channels, and the internet, there is such a competition for newsworthy stories. Yes, there are bad things in this world and bad people, and yes we have the right to be informed, but I for one am starting to miss the innocent good ole days where we didn't hear about every single crime ad nauseum. People actually interacted and socialized in person. Life wasn't about who has a better social site and how many backround checks can you pass. I always meet the parents of my children's friends, but I also accept that while I can be vigilant, there may always be a crack for someone to slip through. All I really can do is hope that I've raised my children to trust their instincts and to be careful. That being said, unfortunately I cannot keep them in a bubble and have to let them out in the real world.

Here in my hometown, we had a case where a couple of years ago, a star basketball player for UConn, who was now married with children, was coaching recreational basketball and had an affair with one of his (then underage) players. Gods, the headlines that it made and the lives that were torn apart - his, his family's, the victim's, her family's, the friends and other people involved. The stuff of nightmares. Cocaine use, presents, trysts in out of town/state hotels, it all came out. He spent 18 months in jail, he had to register as a sex offender, he can't be in the same house as his underage daughter. I mean, he's a creep (I knew him in high school)and I still don't know how he got away with what he did, but it does go to show, you just never know.

Do the teachers have to submit to a background check? The principal? The lunchroom ladies?

Would Mr. Clinton qualify to volunteer, being a felon?

If you're speaking of Bill, I don't believe he was convicted. He was impeached (roughly equivalent to an indictment) and censured by the Senate - not sure if that is equal to a felony conviction.

He was also banned from arguing before the US Supreme Court for ethics violations (lying to a grand jury) and lost his New York law license for two years.

"I don't know what level of paranoia is appropriate, but I appreciate it when people I entrust my son to are more paranoid than necessary."

Our children are being raised in an alienating, lonely world in which nobody can be trusted, everyone's a suspect, and everyone is assumed to be a freak out to do them some harm. You might think it's great for children to be raised like that, I think it's disgusting. You people are completely hysterical.

"The thought process started when more was understood about pedophiles and how they work. Many are parents or people working in positions close to children."

And this is *exactly* the completely flawed logic that leads to these hysterics: "Most pedophiles work in positions close to children. Eeeek! Most people who work in positions close to children are therefore suspect!!! Eeeeek!!!"

It's irrational, wrong, illogical, and absurd. The concept "most pedophiles are (X)" is mentally confused with "most (X) are pedophiles" by the human brain that has not been trained to *think* (no, thinking does not come naturally, it's a skill that has to be taught and regularly practiced, like anything else in life). It may be that most pedophiles work close with children, but that is copmletely and utterly irrelevant to anything at all - the only question is what percentage of people who work with children are pedophiles, and the answer is probably only a tiny, miniscule percentage.

That doesn't mean you should not go after those few people who are, but getting into hysterics and becoming over-paranoid is just stupid and *yes* harmful to children. I was raised to be scared of strangers, and I remember even as a small child that I understood the concept that any stranger talking to me might've been somebody out to do me harm. Kids take that in. Now I look back and think, that's absurd, and it probably has done me more harm than the good of preventing the tiny chance that somebody would've actually done something to me.

"Unlikely is not impossible, of course."

So do we only stop implementing ever more draconian measures when we have absolute 100% safety for all children? When it's truly "impossible"?

Thanks but no thanks, I wouldn't want to raise my child in such a society - it would require dramatic changes and reductions to quality of life to get from 99% safe to 100% safe.

Mouse, You are twisting my words. I do not believe that all people working close to children are pedophiles. I do believe that many pedophiles do try to find positions close to children whether it is teaching, custodian, coach, etc. I do not agree with the backround checks for many reasons, but I can understand the logic. I can also understand that it started out as well-intentioned but misguided. Everything is overblown in our society and this is no different. I do not tell my children to be afraid of strangers, but I do teach them to be aware. My children and I were abused by their father. He happens to be a "hero" police officer with a wonderful reputation. He was not a pedophile but he is an abuser. That will never show up in any backround check. After spending a little time with him, people see him for what he is despite the outward appearances. It is just important to always be aware.

As Kristen that the checks do not cover all the bases or catch all the people who can harm children. Checks are just being used to alleviate fears and cover future insurance claims.

Here in South Korea the English teachers aka ESL teachers had about two years ago the "Christopher Paul Neil" scandal. Google him if you want to know more. Simple story is Interpol found some disgusting pictures of a man diddling some Thai boys who had disguised his face digitally. After reversing the disguise they posted the pics and soon was picked up worldwide. The found the man working in Korea as a ESL teacher. He tried to run when he saw his ass was wanted made it all the way out of the Korea to Thailand. Anyways after that the whole ESL industry changed in Korea for the good, but mostly for the bad. Soon the government required all future teachers to submit background checks as among other changes. Okay "I" think it should be done as we are teaching children for a few hours a day not just volunteering. But regulations demanded so much that getting a background check would require either to wait a couple of months or having to spend 1000 dollars or more to get a CRC (Criminal Record Check) because you had to fly you ass home to do it. In an industry that where a day or more is too long and schools just can not or do not want to wait. So the new Visa rules happen and all the little things start to mess everything up. Like thus - Sorry a web based check will not be accepted. Also the paper had be apostilled (verified as a government document) so that takes another 100 dollars or another week or two. Or the check had be fingerprint based, etc, etc. Then you are fnding out people where being refused entry for having OLD pot convictions from 20 years ago. Okay drug related, got to protect the children - go away. DUI's nope go away, assault charges for fighting in a bar fight, NOPE got to go away. Parking tickets and not showing up to court - sorry you are danger to kids in Korea (please ignore how we park on the sidewalk here in Korea). Even worse somebody had a bus/car accident in Korea thru bad luck, culture misunderstanding and language barrier he end up with a Korean record and he got refused. Were you arrested but in the end never convicted you will be refused. I could go on. In the end you have anything on your record you were refused a Visa.

The whole ironic thing is the whole massive change to protect the kids started with one man and in the END even if he had applied for a job in Korea AFTER the changes- HE WOULD STILL NOT HAVE BEEN CAUGHT OR REFUSED HIS JOB/VISA.

All it takes is a little common sense!

Every time there is a news story about a kid being molested at school or by a school employee, the pervert in question has always passed a background check. This is all about CYA for the school and making parents feel good without actually making their kids any safer.

> but it does go to show, you just
> never know.

So what's your bottom line, then? You have good judgment and you were able to protect your kids without getting them all spooked. Aren't most parents like that?

> Now I look back and think, that's
> absurd, and it probably has done
> me more harm than the good of
> preventing the tiny chance that
> somebody would've actually done
> something to me.

A radio guy I mention a lot named Prager made that point once: He wants his kids to talk to strangers. Almost everyone they'll ever know will be a stranger for a time. While no one would want their children to suffer molestation, it's also true that no judgment of strangers will develop without practice.

I sincerely believe that weird, daydreamy ideas about boundaries as we saw expressed by McElroy come from people who aren't permitted to experience challenging, sometimes-disappointing encounters with others during their development.

So what's your bottom line, then? You have good judgment and you were able to protect your kids without getting them all spooked. Aren't most parents like that?

My bottom line? Yeah, I like to think I have good judgement and am able to protect my kids from assholes like that without them feeling the need to distrust everyone. I'd like to think most parents are like that, but damn, Crid, you should meet some of the parents of my daughters' friends. Their blantant idiocy frightens me. Wanna talk herd mentality? These people live it. And aren't ashamed of it. Scary.

I am on the same page as Crid's radio guy. I have always taught my children to be friendly and say hello. While I'm not throwing them to the wolves, I am teaching them that there are many different kinds of people in this world and they will only learn to judge by meeting and getting to know them. There are so many different kinds of crime and it will never be eradicated so we have a choice to either hide away from the world or experience it and learn to navigate through.