Child Protection Training Glitches

[TAHAWK]

I just took the online CPT so I could be trained for the fourth time on this subject.

 

I have some issues.

 

1. The teaching portion states that Scouts "never handle discipline issues." Only adults are to handle discipline. I take it the author(s) had a very narrow definition of "discipline" that excludes something like, "No game until the dishes are washed." Nevertheless, the AV says what it says, and beyond the shear imposibility of it, it contradicts the Handbook for Patrol Leaders: "t is your responsibility to step aside with that Scout and discuss with him why his behavior is not acceptable."

 

Question 10 of the quiz portion of the training gives "unit leaders" as the persons who "monitor" behavior and "stop inappropriate" behavior. I suspect the author(s) do not think of Scouts are ever being "leaders." If so, they are saying that Scout leaders may not even "monitor" the behavior of their patrols and troops. That would leave it to the adults to see everything at all times. Again, not possible.

 

Question 18 of the quiz reinforces that Scout leaders are not to administer "discipline," even in the absence of adults.

 

2. The instructional portion of the AV says that adults are to "immediately confiscate" the digital device of a Scout when the adults believes it has been used for taking offensive pictures. In my state that is an activity lawful only when performed by sworn law enforcement personnel or those acting in loco parentis. People are fairly aggressive about asserting legal rights these days, and if the device cost enough, you are looking at felony theft. If the Scout Executive takes possession, and you are supposed to give it to him, he may be Receiving Stolen Property. Without suggesting that the consequences will in fact be dire or that there is anything ethically wrong about "confiscating" the allegedly offending device temporarily, there must be a smarter policy.

 

3. Question 23 of the Quiz shows a boy either climbing or repelling. He is not wearing a safety helmet or gloves. Effectively, you are asked if there is an "attire" problem or a preparation and equipment problem. Only the second is accepted as correct. Depending on whether he is climbing with a unit or in a district or council activity, different publications apply and none of their contents is covered in the instructional portion of the materials. Hopefully you will spot the lack of helmet and decide a helmet is not "attire."

 

Comments appreciated.

 

Anyone have a way to actually communicate with Irving? I tried the "Help Line," and got the usual brushoff.

[Oak Tree]

I agree on point one; you have two publications that say opposite things. I would interpret the "Scouts never handle discipline issues" as referring to serious discipline issues.

 

Question 10 - I'd say that while Scouts can get others to stop inappropriate behavior, it's the expectation and ultimate responsibility that adults may have to step in.

 

Scouts should not hand down punishments. But saying things like "no games until cleanup is done" is not a punishment, although it could be interpreted as a way of administering discipline.

 

2. IANAL, but I cannot believe that this would be illegal. Adults in charge of kids remove things from their possession regularly. It could be a knife. It could be a noisemaker. Whatever. In this case, I just cannot believe that it would be illegal.

 

3. This question, and others throughout the training, are poorly worded. I decided just to roll with it. Quizzes have trick questions; so be it.

 

Words have different definitions in different contexts. It can be hard to take the way it is used in one context and expect it to apply precisely the same way in another context. That's just language. Makes it hard for computers to do a good job translating things.

[TAHAWK]

Don't be amazed. The idea that the law takes a dim view of taking people's property away from them against their will is not novel. We are not privileged to take the property of another simply because we are adult leaders of a youth program, be it Scouts, Little League, Catholic Youth organization, 4-H, or whatever. It's is theft in Ohio and I suspect all 50. Don;t we tell the kids, "Not yours; keep your hands off." ?

 

Not even danger of death or serious bodily harm in such a situation to support a claim of exigent circumstances.

 

What if the kid resists "confiscation"? Do you use physical force? That's Theft with violence - AKA mugging.

 

Ohio courts have specifically held that Scout leaders do not stand in the place of parents, and parents cannot give you that status. Only the courts or legislature can. That is the majority view in the U.S.

 

Will the prosecutor prosecute? Will the parents file a criminal complaint? Why put yourself in a position to find out?

 

"Johnny, I don't want to make taking obscene pictures more serious for you. If you give me the cell phone, we can try to deal with this as a matter between Scouts and your family and try not to get the police involved."

 

"Johnny, give me the cell phone or I call your mom and dad right now and have them come and get you."

 

 

As for the third issue, why test on off-topic matters? This is not a training course on G2SS, or "Climb On Safely," "Climbing and Repelling," or "Topping Out." It's on Child Protection. If you can't think of 25 question on-topic, go with 24.

 

 

[perdidochas]

I don't think that a Scout Leader would be prosecuted for taking a digital device away from a minor Scout, provided that he/she states that it will be returned to the Scout's parent. That is what school officials in my county do all the time.

[TAHAWK]

School officials, unlike Scout, 4H, or C.Y.O. adults, ARE "in loco parentis" and have the protection that status provides.

 

And you may be right. You may not be arrested. If you wrench the item away, you may just be sued for battery.

[Oak Tree]

Tahawk,

 

I'm curious. Do you have an example of a youth leader being prosecuted for such a confiscation?

 

I do like your two alternative ways of stating the possible solution to the problem. But with the first option, aren't you now guilty of blackmail? "Give me something of value, or I will release information about you to someone that you don't want to know about it."

 

 

[perdidochas]

Well, if I ever get to a point where a youth wouldn't give up a digital device (with the proviso that I will give it to their parents) to me, I have lost my authority as an adult Scout leader. I wouldn't wrench it away. I would call the scout's parents on my cell phone and demand they take their child home immediately, and that the police would be on the way (this is going by the assumption that there was suspicious material on the phone (aka child porn). I would do nothing but tell the child to put it away if there wasn't presumption of offensive pictures). Second call would be to the police. The victim of the picture deserves that.

[TAHAWK]

"Tahawk,

 

I'm curious. Do you have an example of a youth leader being prosecuted for such a confiscation?

 

I do like your two alternative ways of stating the possible solution to the problem. But with the first option, aren't you now guilty of blackmail? "Give me something of value, or I will release information about you to someone that you don't want to know about it."

 

As to the first, no. The notable cases involve many confiscations by government -- usually schools. I never would have thought McDonalds would be sued over serving hot coffee. Conditiona are not what they were when I was first a Scouter.

 

As to the second point, if you threatened to report the Scout to the police for violation of the law unless he gave your ownership of the phone, as opposed to temporary custody, then you have all the elements of extortion. I didn't suggest that you say you will not contact the police -- if there is a crime -- or propose to regard the phone as your property.

 

And we don't actually know, in the training AV context, that a crime has been committed. The description of what has happened is pretty vague. The implication is that pictures of a sexual nature have been taken.

 

I suggest that we do not confuse ourselves with government officials or parents solely by virtue of our role as Scouters.

 

Also, we of course need to be sure of our facts before making accusations.

 

"Well, if I ever get to a point where a youth wouldn't give up a digital device (with the proviso that I will give it to their parents) to me, I have lost my authority as an adult Scout leader. I wouldn't wrench it away. I would call the scout's parents on my cell phone and demand they take their child home immediately, and that the police would be on the way (this is going by the assumption that there was suspicious material on the phone (aka child porn). I would do nothing but tell the child to put it away if there wasn't presumption of offensive pictures). Second call would be to the police. The victim of the picture deserves that."

 

I respectfully suggest that you have not lost your authority unless you staked it on getting someone else's child to surrender possession of their property (or their parent's or sibling's) property to you. I think you can get that result without staking your authority on the outcome.

 

I think your suggested course of conduct may be warranted if the Scout does not want the mater handled within Scouting. And the matter may have to be handled by government if is is likely that the law has been violated.

 

Beyond sexual issues, the device may have been used for other unacceptable conduct, such as cyberbullying (which can be criminal under several statutes in my state, depending on the facts).

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Tahawk,

 

As long as we're talking about theoretical possibilities here, I'm going to hold you to what you might theoretically reply. I don't think blackmail is any more a concern than being prosecuted for theft, but your response to my concern does not match your initial statement.

 

What you suggested: "If you give me the cell phone, we can try to deal with this as a matter between Scouts and your family and try not to get the police involved."

 

Then: " I didn't suggest that you say you will not contact the police " - well, you said you would try not to. Pretty much has the same implication.

 

" unless he gave your ownership of the phone, as opposed to temporary custody," - in your initial statement, all you said was "give", not "let me retain temporary custody of" or "let me have it until we sort this out".

 

I think if your argument of theft is right, then the argument of blackmail is also right. But IANAL.

 

I would never try to take it from him physically if he didn't give it up. Things could get complicated pretty quickly though if you add in other hypotheticals. What if he says, "You can't make me. In fact, I'm going to email this picture I just took to a whole bunch of people."

 

In practice, it might also depend on how big he is and how easily I might just snatch the phone out of his hands for an inspection, or whether or not I could coerce him into going with me to see some other authority (his Scoutmaster, the camp director).

 

This isn't McDonalds, which burned half the skin off a woman's thighs.

 

You're right that we aren't government officials. But even if we're not legally acting in loco parentis, it still feels like there's a lot of semi-parenting that has to be done.

[TAHAWK]

So how does this work, in practice, as a clear set of instructions for the real world: Confiscate the device and turn it in to your Scout Executive.

 

As for the law, if you find that it presents distinctions that you find to be without a difference, you belong to a large club.

 

Details do count. If the state cannot prove that you demanded ownership of the item (in our hypothetical) in return for not reporting a crime, they have not proved extortion. How do they "prove" that case? Especially how to they prove it if you never actually said there was a quid-pro-quo? They might argue that the circumstances prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your intent was to keep the item even if you did not say so in so many words. You would offer the BSA policy and say you were following it and had no intent to enrich yourself in return for silence that you never expressly promised. Indeed, you were not sure there was a crime because the boy may have only pretended to take the potentially offensive pictures.

[Oak Tree]

Indeed. And that's the same thing I'd do if they charged theft in the simpler case.

 

You do raise an interesting point, and I don't claim to know the answer as to the official limits of my responsibility as a Scout leader. I do know that I expect to be able to demand that Scouts turn over items to me in various situations. That's how I read the requirement - to say that you should demand the Scout turns it over, not that you should physically wrest it from his hands.

 

I'm not too worried about it - as long as I'm using reasonable judgment, I don't think the cops are going to be the problem. I don't know what someone acting in loco parentis could do that I can't do. Or even from the actual parents. I mean, sure, they can use corporal punishment and I can't. They can send their kid to boarding school and I can't. They can change their kid's medication, and I'm not going to do that. But I can demand that the boy changes his clothes, or takes a shower, or put away his iPod. I believe that I could search through a Scout's possessions. I can't recall any time that a Scout openly defied any request that I made of him, and obviously there are limits to how I could deal with that.

[evmori]

Scouts should not hand down punishments. But saying things like "no games until cleanup is done" is not a punishment, although it could be interpreted as a way of administering discipline.

 

Not letting someone do something until they complete a task or assignment is a form of punishment.

 

What if the kid resists "confiscation"? Do you use physical force? That's Theft with violence - AKA mugging.

 

A call to mom and dad to come get their son should end the problem.

 

And you may be right. You may not be arrested. If you wrench the item away, you may just be sued for battery.

 

This is why a call to mom and dad to come get their little prince would solve the problem.

 

Allowing the youth in our charge to disobey those in charge creates chaos and an unproductive unit.

[perdidochas]

"Not letting someone do something until they complete a task or assignment is a form of punishment. "

 

No, it's not a form of punishment. Punishment is punitive action for a misdeed. Having prerequisites before an activity is not a punishment.

[Twocubdad]

Oh for God's sake.

 

If the Scout had stabbed someone, would you be charged with theft for taking away the knife?

 

If there is a suspicion a Scout is taking obscene photos can anyone think of a justification for not allowing him to keep the camera? Anyone?

[TAHAWK]

"'Not letting someone do something until they complete a task or assignment is a form of punishment.'

No, it's not a form of punishment. Punishment is punitive action for a misdeed. Having prerequisites before an activity is not a punishment."

 

The AV may mean to address punishment, but what it says is that Scout leaders never handle "discipline issues."

 

"Discipline" is often used for punishment, but it is also self-control, orderliness, or submission to authority. The Patrol Leader Handbook states that "When you see that a patrol member is overstepping the boundaries of the code of conduct spelled out in the Scout Oath and Law, it is your responsibility to step aside with that Scout and discuss with him why his behavior is not acceptable." That is a description of handling a discipline issue. Spelling out to the offender consequences for the unacceptable behavior would be discussing discipline and punishment.

 

It seems to me that telling a Scout that he cannot engage in a certain activity because he has not done something or HAS done something, is often inflicting "punishment." The Scout thus impacted will feel little consolation in being told the patrol leader is merely enforcing "prerequisites."

 

Apart from the issue of whether the AV's message makes sense, and I think it does not, it is, as shown, inconsistent with other official pronouncements. (Contradictions in official literature is hardly isolated to this situation. Some B.S.A. publications are internally inconsistent.)

 

***************************************

"Oh for God's sake.

 

If the Scout had stabbed someone, would you be charged with theft for taking away the knife?

 

If there is a suspicion a Scout is taking obscene photos can anyone think of a justification for not allowing him to keep the camera? Anyone?"

 

Aside from the invocation of the Diety, you ask two questions.

 

As to the first, I think the answer is "no." Change the facts materially and you change the outcome. In that case there ARE "exigent circumstances" in the threat of injury to others, and the right of self-defense is implicated as well. In the AV, the Scout may have taken offensive digital images.

 

As for a "justification for not allowing him to keep the camera, no one has proposed one yet. The discussion has been about authority of a Scouting volunteer to "confiscate" the camera, the legal consequences of "not allowing him" to keep the device, and the possibility of physical confrontation if the Scout refuses to surrender the device.

 

I can only speculate about B.S.A.'s "justification."

 

I suppose one could argue preservation of evidence of a possible crime, but that is pretty thin. Preservation of evidence of a possible violation of B.S.A. policy is even thinner - transparent. If you are absolutely sure the device contains criminal images, you have a more attractive justification. But to be consistent with the position that you are preserving evidence you would ignore the instruction of the AV to turn the device over to the Scout Executive and, instead, would give the device to the police.

 

I suspect, as suggested, that more typically the offender, or possible offender, will be persuaded to surrender the device. But there is that song about knowing when to hold them and knowing when to fold them, and the poet was not speaking merely of cards.