YPT and family members

[Liz]

So here’s an interesting question. How far does the new rules about YPT for leaders not being one on one with registered Youth outside of Scouting extend into families? 
 

If my adult son or daughter were to decide to become a Scouter, or register to do a merit badge, would that mean they could no longer babysit my kids (their sisters) who are in Cub Scouts?

Hypothetically, what if my kids’ cousin or aunt or other extended family member wanted to volunteer with a Scouting unit? Suddenly overnights at Aunt Patty’s are a thing of the past? 
 

For that matter, is it OK per the current rules for me to be at work today and my husband who is COR in a local unit to be alone with the kids during their virtual schooling? 
 

I’m not particularly fishing for opinions (of course I’m not saying you can’t share your thoughts) but what I’m searching for is written documentation of how far we are supposed to take these rules in activities or relationships that don’t have direct correspondence with Scouting.  Obviously there has to be a line somewhere; it’s absurd to expect Scout leaders to not be alone in a room with their own offspring who are Scouts. But where IS that line, officially?

[Sentinel947]

My understanding is that family members are always ok in regards to the one on one rule. So siblings or parent-child are fine. 

The rule is not terribly new. No one on one contact is at least as old as my time as a youth member 2005-2011. Sometime around 2012-2013 I became aware of the application of the one on one rules to outside of Scouting, but it probably predates that. 

My question, what in the Guide to Safe Scouting/ YPT training has you convinced it applies between family members? 

[Liz]

I’m not convinced it does, but I’m looking for a written guideline for where that line should be drawn. 
The change is subtle, but it’s now called out that unless you MUST be one on one for your career (for example when I worked in special ed I had to spend a lot of one on one time with youth) as a registered adult leader you’re supposed to avoid one on one time with children even outside of Scouting. 
It seems obvious to me that this can’t apply to parent/child situations. but what about adult siblings? Does it matter whether they are in the same household? Cousins? Nieces and nephews? Grandparents? 3rd cousins twice removed? A neighbor that is “like family”? Where is the official written line between “don’t put yourself in a one on one situation with a child” and “nah, don’t worry about it, it’s family.” ?

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Liz said:

I’m not particularly fishing for opinions (of course I’m not saying you can’t share your thoughts) but what I’m searching for is written documentation of how far we are supposed to take these rules in activities or relationships that don’t have direct correspondence with Scouting.  

If you're not fishing for opinions, I think you already know the answer.  The BSA rules are very clear and well documented.  

 

[qwazse]

An adult sibling serves as a designated guardian. E.g., on the permission slip, who can take a child home from an activity.

BSA is ambiguous on these scenarios because they are many and unpredictable. But think of it from a litigation perspective. Right now "public service" announcements are reminding us that being exposed to pornography is a form of sexual abuse. How many youth were introduced to it by their older siblings? How many older siblings were also ASMs?

Things to keep us awake at night.

[Liz]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

If you're not fishing for opinions, I think you already know the answer.  The BSA rules are very clear and well documented.  

 

Really? So what are they? Where is this clear line drawn? Can you point me to the right paragraph because I can’t find it. That is why I’m asking. 

[Liz]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

An adult sibling serves as a designated guardian. E.g., on the permission slip, who can take a child home from an activity.

BSA is ambiguous on these scenarios because they are many and unpredictable. But think of it from a litigation perspective. Right now "public service" announcements are reminding us that being exposed to pornography is a form of sexual abuse. How many youth were introduced to it by their older siblings? How many older siblings were also ASMs?

Things to keep us awake at night.

I was exposed to porn by an older sibling’s boyfriend. That guy was a creep but was not a Scouter. 
 

I’m very aware that abusers are usually close friends and family members. But that doesn’t change the fact that close friends and family members sometimes have to be trusted to be alone with kids. 
 

I guess that written line in the sand is as imaginary as I was afraid it might be?

[Liz]

The policy states no one on one contact with registered youth inside or outside of Scouting. The FAQ makes exceptions for if it’s necessary to your career or if it’s your own child; but those are not part of the written policy and in fact by the letter of the policy they are contradictory.  FAQs are not intended to answer all questions about policies, just the frequent ones. So the lack of clarification on adult family members other than legal guardians doesn’t mean much, if anything. 

[yknot]

The purpose of BSA's ambitious but ambiguous pronouncements on YPT are based on liability and to avoid the following type of headlines: "Boy Scout Leader Charged In..." because that is what the media will focus on no matter where any alleged incidents occurred. 

However, while I have always tried to follow BSA policy as closely as possible, sometimes you do have to apply commonsense. A family member is an acceptable guardian of a scout, whether that is mom, dad, or an adult sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle or cousin. As a parent you simply have to be vigilant to that fact that these relationships that allow privileged access to your child can be abused. 

[David CO]

2 hours ago, Liz said:

Really? So what are they? Where is this clear line drawn? Can you point me to the right paragraph because I can’t find it. That is why I’m asking. 

Yes.  Really.  No one-on-one contact.  That is about as clear a line as can be drawn.

Now, in order to more fully answer your question, I have to venture into the area of opinion, which you asked me not to do.  BSA intentionally made YP rules knowing that the adult leaders could not and would not follow them.  The rules were made to be broken.  

No scouters in their right minds would forbid their son from ever having his friends over to the house to play.  Does it violate the YP rules?  Yes.  Do it anyway.  Will BSA ever say it's ok for your son to have his friends over to the house?  No.  Do it any way.  

If you are a teacher (like me), it is necessary for you to have one-on-one contact with students.  Can't be avoided.  Will BSA ever say that it's ok?  Nope.  Do it any way.  School classrooms don't have two deep leadership.  Will BSA say it's ok?  Nope.  Do it any way.

I think you should stop looking for BSA documentation and just use common sense.  If BSA doesn't want you to use common sense, do it anyway.

Edited September 22, 2020 by David CO

[Liz]

I never said not to share opinions.  Just that this wasn’t what I was looking for. I’m not inclined to dictate what people can and cannot post in reply. Opinions are at least interesting. 
 

The policy, as you state, is clear and doesn’t give exceptions, even logical ones. But the FAQ definitely makes a few exceptions, and in the example of a sleepover, it says “if” the friend is a Scout then the policy should be followed. 
 

Fortunately we have 3 adults in our household and 2 of us are registered Scouters. But I have no issue abiding by the example in the FAQ. We recently had a Scout come over for a sleep-over, but because her mom (also a Scouter) is single if my daughter were going over to their house I would stay over too in order to comply. I’m fine with that. 
 

The challenge I’m having is where in between the “this is the exception” and “this is the rule” should the line be drawn. Clearly the BSA intends us to make exceptions. I’m interested in whether they’ve documented anything to tell us where the line is, as they’ve only given us two examples of exceptions. 

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

My understanding is that family members are always ok in regards to the one on one rule.

Yes, EXCEPT tenting outside of Cub Scouts.

[Liz]

Come to think of it: babysitting could be considered a “career.” My son has babysitting duties as part of what pays his room and board at my house. If he wanted to volunteer (he doesn’t) that shouldn’t be a barrier to doing so. 

[ParkMan]

I think that if you start looking at the G2SS and trying to justify exceptions you are going to get yourself all twisted up in knots.  

I think @David CO said it well - the one-on-one rules in the G2SS will require you and your family to stop doing things that have been a normal part of life for many years - sleepovers, baby sitting, being one-on-one with your niece or nephew.  I suspect that the BSA knows this, but wanted to be show leadership in this space.  As such, they have set a very high bar.  If you are a leader in the BSA, you should live your whole life according to the rules in the G2SS.  Most will say it's to protect the BSA in lawsuits and they are probably right.  I'm a bit of an optimist and simply hope it's that the BSA got tired of having always getting blamed.  As a result, they decided to set a high bar.

I think they've carved out an exception or two out of fear of losing whole categories of people - like teachers.  But, I don't expect to see an ever increasing list of exception cases.  While the exception cases would make it easier for people to live by the G2SS, it would do so by watering down the protection it provides.  I don't tink the BSA wants to water down their rules at this point in time.

Edited September 22, 2020 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[David CO]

3 hours ago, Liz said:

The policy, as you state, is clear and doesn’t give exceptions, even logical ones.

Right.  Stop there.  

There is no point in looking any further for exceptions or loopholes.  Those are the rules.  

Trying to conscientiously follow the BSA rules is like trying to never squash an ant.  You can never walk in the grass.  You can never drive a car.  You must always keep an eye on the sidewalk every step of the way.  It may be theoretically possible to do it, but it will ruin your life.  It will ruin your kid's life.