Background checks / guidelines for participating parents?

[Liz]

Hi, folks!

 

I haven't been on for a while, but I've missed you all. I have had a few questions come up lately and it suddenly occurred to me that you folks would be a good resource to ask.

 

I'll try to keep this as general as I can rather than get into the specifics of our situation. Maybe some of you have run into this before.

 

Let's say the non-custodial parent of some of the boys in your Boy Scout troop suddenly decides he (or she) wants to join your troop on a camp-out. The custodial parent has some reservations due to the character of the non-custodial parent. Concerns include things like a past felony conviction of a violent crime, history of drug and alcohol abuse, and (although legal charges were never filed) concerns about child abuse & a history of statutory rape. Custodial parent has had such limited contact with this theoretical non-custodial parent in so many years (say, ten or so) that the custodial parent does not know whether the non-custodial parent still struggles with these issues or not, neither has the custodial parent seen any particular evidence that anything has changed.

 

Custodial parent has been an active volunteer in the Troop for several years now, and the boys in question are high-school age. Custodial parent is hesitant to say "no" to the non-custodial parent, because of concerns about being seen as interfering in the practically non-existant relationship between the sons and their usually-absent parent. But custodial parent wants Scoutmaster to be aware of possible issues and leaves the final decision up to Scoutmaster.

 

Let's say you're the Scoutmaster? What do you do? If you allow involvement, what are the limits you put on it? I.E. -- weekend campout, summer camp, or advanced wilderness backpacking trip?(This message has been edited by Liz)

[Scoutfish]

Let the non-custodial parent fill out an application, send it to BSA, and let then do the background check that they say ( on the application) they will do.

 

You could even mention that there were some concerns based on Custodial parent informing pack. THat gives BSA a heads up to do a thorough check, but absolves you of actually accussing anybody of anything.

 

Now, something else to consider:

 

What Drugs? What kind of abuse?

 

Yeah, that might sound stupid at first, and you might be tempted to say: "Does it matter?"

 

And I would say: "Yes, it does matter!"

 

Why? Because abuse and using "drugs" are SOMETIMES matters of interpretation.

 

A non drinking person may think that anybody who drinks even 2 beers as a person with a drinking problem. Or even an alcoholic.

 

Suppose you or one of your kids takes meds for AHDH or something similar. The "anti-drug" patrol may call that a drug problem.

 

Think of schols who suspend a x

child for mouthwash as part of a zero tolerance policy.

 

Point being, some people go to extremes when talking about certain things EVEN if every other aspect of their personality or character seems normal.

 

Just ask my uncle who thinks that smoking just one jouint isn't a big deal and actually helps prevent glaucoma. To him, there is no queation at all that marijuanna is not in any way, shape or form any kind of drug.

 

So, let the adult fill an app, pay the fee and let BSA do a background check. If it comes back okay, you do not have to make that person a CM or SM.

[Liz]

Thank you...

 

So, do you normally require background checks of all parents who want to tag along on a campout? The non-custodial parent is not asking (at this point) to be an ongoing volunteer.

 

If you do not require a background check of all parents, do you make an exception for this one? Most likely this parent will not know that this is not normally required of every parent. Both the custodial parent and the step-parent in the family have had background checks because they are troop volunteers.

 

Alternatively, do you institute a new policy that all parents need to have background checks if (for example) they come on an overnight trip with the boys? Do you feel this is a prudent policy regardless of the particular issue at hand?

[Liz]

By the way, just for clarification, I am NOT the Scoutmaster, but the Scoutmaster has asked my opinion on the matter.

[Beavah]

Yah, but in this case, the fellow isn't a custodial parent, eh?

 

I think we'd all agree it's reasonable to do background checks on folks who don't have kids in da program who want to come along. Some units may waive that for custodial parents on the grounds that da parent is responsible for the lad and has a right to observe. But that isn't really the case in the same way for a non-custodial parent.

 

I think yeh at least have a conversation with the man in that context. Or da CO may consider payin' for an online background/records check itself (just on name/address basis), or askin' the local PD to run one. That'll be faster than the BSA's if the campout is comin' up.

 

Beavah

 

[Scoutfish]

Yeah, I agree with Beavah on that one: Tell the man that since he is not the custoduial parent, and ( based on his long absense) probably doesn't have visitation rights.. that it is the troops policy to require a Bc on all adults who wish to attend.

 

Then make it a policy.

[Scoutfish]

Yeah, I agree with Beavah on that one: Tell the man that since he is not the custoduial parent, and ( based on his long absense) probably doesn't have visitation rights.. that it is the troops policy to require a BC on all adults who wish to attend.

 

His response may tell you more than the BC.

 

Bring it up at the next leadership/ committee meeting. Then make it a policy.

[John-in-KC]

I'm generally with Beavah.

 

Once the immediate need is met, the SM and CC need to have a friendly cup of coffee with the IH/COR of the Chartered Partner. Policy about non-custodial parents, espcially if they've run afoul of the law, is a Chartered Partner decision, not one for the Pack/Troop/Team/Crew committee.

[Liz]

Thank you, folks. This is really helpful.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think a policy DOES need to be in place. These are not the only boys in the troop with non-custodial parents of questionable character.

 

For the family in question, the absent father has not requested to attend a specific campout yet; just expressed his desire to the mother and to the boys that he wishes to do so "sometime soon." He also does not have a specific visitation schedule in place but does still have the right to visit his children, because that's the way the law works.

 

Any other comments are welcome... whatever gets posted before the next TM I'll print out and take with me to talk to the Scoutmaster because I think a lot of very good points have been made.

[ScoutNut]

A failed background check does not mean that a unit can automatically prevent a parent from attending activities with their child.

 

This man has a record, he is not stupid. He KNOWS that he would not pass a background check. He is NOT attempting to be a leader, just go on a campout with his son.

 

If your Troop is going to make rules, they should be across the board, not just for this man.

 

In this case, since he has a police record, is non-custodial, and has been out of his son's life for about 10 years, the first question I would ask is - What does the judge say? Has he been granted visitation? Has his contact with his son been officially limited in any way? If he has no legal limitations on his being with his son then the Troop can't just say, sorry you can't come because your ex wife doesn't like you.

 

What I would do is set him down and have a parent/leader conference. Explain the program. Explain that he will NOT be tenting with his son. That he will be in a separate area with the adults. Explain boy-led. Tell him that the boys are pretty much on their own during the campout, with the adults off to the side just keeping an eye on the situation. CLEARLY, explain the BSA rule of no one-on-one. Require that he completes BSA Youth Protection Training. An in person, at the unit, with a DVD, version would be preferable so that all questions can be answered. However, the online version works also as long as he prints, and turns in, the completion certificate at the end of the training.

 

These things should be done with ALL new parents in the Troop.

 

I would also recommend that your Troop starts (if they do not already do so) running the "A Time To Tell" Youth Protection video once a year.

 

If this man does all of the above, and still wants to go camping with the Troop, then I would recommend an adult leader keeping a close eye on him. Explain the BSA "Buddy System" and assign him a buddy for the weekend. Again, this is a good idea for ALL non-leader parents.

 

Good Luck. I hope I am wrong, but it kind of sounds like the mom does not want the dad around the boy and wants to use the Troop to accomplish that instead of taking it to court.

 

 

[ScoutNut]

Liz, you stated - >>"He also does not have a specific visitation schedule in place but does still have the right to visit his children, because that's the way the law works."

[Liz]

The mom allows visitation and has left the troop involvement decision up to the Scoutmaster. You are right that she doesn't want to go to court, but she's not using the Troop to keep him away from her kids; the kids visit with him occasionally already, including overnight visits... pretty much as often as he invites them, which recently has been a handful of times per year. She is primarily concerned with making sure the Scoutmaster is aware of the issues and can make an informed choice as to whether to allow him to come along and what level of supervision he needs to provide.

 

This particular parent is actually unlikely to take the time to follow through anyway. I think the bigger issue is how to handle these things when they come up with other families.

 

So... let's say you required background checks for parents and non-custodial parents to attend overnight functions. What level of "failure" would be a reason to exclude a parent? Would the standard be different for a non-custodial parent? I mean, if someone is a registered sex offender (to our knowledge the father in question is NOT a *convicted* sex offender), obviously you would be responsible for keeping him away from the boys... or is that even obvious? At what point does YPT trump a parent's right to "observe" all activities? Part of YPT is screening volunteers... how does that apply to parents? Or does it?

[Liz]

Scoutnut:

 

The law around here rarely protects children. One of the other families in the troop had a restraining order against the father for three years based on spousal abuse and child abuse and still the father had the right to unsupervised access to his children; the only thing that would have prevented him from coming on Scout activities would have been the presence of the mother because he couldn't be within a certain distance of her at any time. That mother has tried to get supervised visitation several times in the court and failed every time.

 

In the case in question, however, the father does not pose any obvious threat to the kids and there is no legal basis for even attempting to restrict visitation, and probably no moral basis, either, considering he only chooses to see them a few times a year anyway. Again, the mother isn't trying to restrict access to the kids, but simply alert the Scoutmaster of the level of supervision that may be prudent if he does choose to let him attend a campout.

[evmori]

A failed background check does not mean that a unit can automatically prevent a parent from attending activities with their child.

 

If the unit has a policy in place to not allow this, it sure can happen.

[Basementdweller]

Wow,

 

If I was a parent of another scout in the troop I would want to be informed of this.