Domestic violence victim fired from Catholic school

[TarkanAttila]

I wish the clergy would talk about violence and abuse from the pulpits. Victims already feel lonely and shamed enough in their suffering. I wish there could be louder outrage heard coming from Catholics as to the inadequate protection and justice for DV victims (from the police, legal system, and sentencing standards). Sometimes it seems that perpetrators are afforded more rights than their victims.

Let’s remember Mrs. C and her children in our prayers.

Yes; let’s. :sad_yes:

 

[Lucky7]

Does anyone at that school really think that by firing her that all of sudden her students are now safe?

The school needs to make sure their school is safe from any violence…whether it’s from a teacher’s husband or some random terrorist attack.

What if the next teacher has a crazy brother or boyfriend or mother for that matter?

Bad, bad precedence. Of course, this will not be allowed to stand.

 

[Allegra]

A public school district would not be allowed to fire her because of this nor would they be allowed to suspend students. It simply wouldn’t be a legal option, no matter how many parents complained. How would they handle the situation? In my opinion, the school should have pressed charges against the exhusband for violating the restraining order and threatening their students and employees. They should hire an armed security guard.

 

[sojo]

Should this woman decide to start attending Mass again, and the husband (who is to be released from prison this month) decide to wave a gun around in the parking lot at Mass and threaten the parishioners, will the diocese ban her from attending Mass anywhere in the diocese?

Some who are criticizing her for forgoing all things Catholic right now might want to rethink things. She may be doing them all a favor.

As for the diocese being more charitable than other organizations, remember that firing a woman for the actions of her husband would be illegal in a regular business or public school setting. It is only her teaching religious education, and only a tiny portion of her work week at that, that made it legal to let her go.

I worry that if her last paycheck is August and her husband is released from prison in June… we may be hearing about this further as a murder case. The current laws regarding domestic abuse are totally insufficient to protect women and children.

 

[Catholic1954]

That’s what I was wondering. I know this forum and related enterprises are from San Diego. How do we contact the people who run this place? I’d send letter myself, but it’s not my diocese, and surely His Excellency would not listen to me, an unknown layman from outside. Any San Diegans here?

I am from San Diego and I am familiar with this parish. It is in the middle of a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. It is not fenced in and ANYone can go there, ANYone with a gun or murder on his mind. I would much rather read a news story about an unfortunate woman with domestic problems being let go from her job, than a news story about a revengeful man walking into a Catholic school, shooting his wife in front of her students in class and maybe taking out a few kids in the process. Her real problem is with the ex-husband, not the school, not the diocese and not with God. Our bishop knows what he is doing and does not need to hear from me or anyone else; Bishop Flores used to be a lawyer; he doesn’t need anyone’s advice.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Mrs. Charlesworth had a restraining order against her ex-husband. She responsibly warned her employer about her ex-husband’s violence and threats over the previous weekend, and sure enough, he was spotted lurking in the school parking lot. The school went into “lock-down” mode. I question why the school did not immediately call the police department, to get the man arrested? Why didn’t the school allow Mrs. C to teach, and her children to attend classes, when the ex-husband was jailed?

As for the suggestion that the diocesan find an alternate job for Mrs. C. – it’s possible there were no positions open, or that there could be no assurance provided that Mr. C. would not find out the location of any new place of employment. There doesn’t seem to be any clear-cut and safe solution for employer.

I wish the clergy would talk about violence and abuse from the pulpits. Victims already feel lonely and shamed enough in their suffering. I wish there could be louder outrage heard coming from Catholics as to the inadequate protection and justice for DV victims (from the police, legal system, and sentencing standards). Sometimes it seems that perpetrators are afforded more rights than their victims.

Let’s remember Mrs. C and her children in our prayers.

The simple solution is restraining order, then imprisonment upon violation of restraining order. She could be given temporary leave while he is awaiting sentencing. Losing her job altogether may be gratuitous, but in the end the school’s first obligation is to the children. Employees are second. If they were too harsh to her, it was not out of malevolence toward violence victims, but out of being too cautious in their care of the children.

As for outrage DV victims, that would be nice, but unfortunately many voices in the DV advocacy community continue to propagate the myth that only men commit domestic violence and only women suffer for it, when all evidence indicates that this is not even remotely true. Also frivolous accusations of domestic violence are used routinely in divorce cases and custody cases by women, and men who are abused by their wives or partners (happens far more often than anyone seems willing to admit) would never call the police because they would as likely as not arrest him rather than her. I’ve read and heard far too many stories of men losing their kids, jobs, reputations, committing suicide, etc. both because they were victims who no one would listen to (thanks to the widely used, overtly sexist, and generally dysfunctional Duluth model of domestic violence) or over being accused of crimes later found not to have occurred (because “innocent until proven guilty” and “better the guilty go free than the innocent hang” mean nothing to anyone anymore) to believe that simply getting angrier and indignant will help much. I think the domestic violence response system needs to be significantly restructured rather than simply doing more of what’s already done. Because what’s already being done is flawed at the very core; all the quantity in the world won’t make a difference.

 

[Allegra]

I am from San Diego and I am familiar with this parish. It is in the middle of a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. It is not fenced in and ANYone can go there, ANYone with a gun or murder on his mind. I would much rather read a news story about an unfortunate woman with domestic problems being let go from her job, than a news story about a revengeful man walking into a Catholic school, shooting his wife in front of her students in class and maybe taking out a few kids in the process. Her real problem is with the ex-husband, not the school, not the diocese and not with God. Our bishop knows what he is doing and does not need to hear from me or anyone else; Bishop Flores used to be a lawyer; he doesn’t need anyone’s advice.

What’s to keep the same enraged maniac from showing up in the fall and killing the principal who threw his kids out and left them with no income? What’s to stop some other non-custodial parent or grandparent from coming into the place and kidnapping their kids? What’s to stop these four kids who might have inherited whatever gene is wrong with their father from coming back in a few years and taking out their revenge? If the school’s problem is security, then the solution is not getting ride of the victims de jour. (Unless this is less about safety and more about keeping the “wrong kind of people” out of this nice, quiet parish school.)

 

[RyanBlack]

I am from San Diego and I am familiar with this parish. It is in the middle of a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. It is not fenced in and ANYone can go there, ANYone with a gun or murder on his mind. I would much rather read a news story about an unfortunate woman with domestic problems being let go from her job, than a news story about a revengeful man walking into a Catholic school, shooting his wife in front of her students in class and maybe taking out a few kids in the process. Her real problem is with the ex-husband, not the school, not the diocese and not with God. Our bishop knows what he is doing and does not need to hear from me or anyone else; Bishop Flores used to be a lawyer; he doesn’t need anyone’s advice.

The reasoning you use here could be used to justify keeping this poor lady indefinitely unemployable until her husband is either permanently incarcerated or dies.

 

[RyanBlack]

What’s to keep the same enraged maniac from showing up in the fall and killing the principal who threw his kids out and left them with no income? What’s to stop some other non-custodial parent or grandparent from coming into the place and kidnapping their kids? What’s to stop these four kids who might have inherited whatever gene is wrong with their father from coming back in a few years and taking out their revenge? If the school’s problem is security, then the solution is not getting ride of the victims de jour. (Unless this is less about safety and more about keeping the “wrong kind of people” out of this nice, quiet parish school.)

Something that is most surely a possibility.

 

[Country_Gal]

Good point about banning the woman from Church attendance in case the angry husband wants to take the woman out there.

This is clearly a hysterical reaction on the part of worried parents. Understandable, after all the media coverage of school shootings. I don’t recall any of them being done by deranged husbands.

It did put the school in a catch 22; fire the woman or lose customers. They may have opened themselves up to an expensive lawsuit, however.

Ironic, this action coming from an institution that shuffled child molesters around rather than protecting the innocent.

 

[Dawnia]

As for the diocese being more charitable than other organizations, remember that firing a woman for the actions of her husband would be illegal in a regular business or public school setting. It is only her teaching religious education, and only a tiny portion of her work week at that, that made it legal to let her go.

There are no blanket laws protecting victims of domestic abuse from being fired. State laws vary considerably and California appears to only prevent firing under certain circumstances (taking off time for court, medical treatment, other services related to domestic violence up to the max FMLA amount of 12 weeks).

 

[Dawnia]

The simple solution is restraining order, then imprisonment upon violation of restraining order. She could be given temporary leave while he is awaiting sentencing. Losing her job altogether may be gratuitous, but in the end the school’s first obligation is to the children. Employees are second. If they were too harsh to her, it was not out of malevolence toward violence victims, but out of being too cautious in their care of the children.

There was a restraining order in place, which he violated when he went to the school. He is currently serving jail time because of it, but will be released at the end of the month. From other reports, he has a 20+ year history of domestic violence and has been escalating. It appears that nothing short of long term incarcerations is going to deter him.

 

[Dawnia]

Copy of letter to the parents January 23rd

Complete termination letter

 

[markomalley]

Copy of letter to the parents January 23rd

Complete termination letter

And you will note from the termination letter that they decided not to offer her a contract for next year. Teachers in Catholic schools typically are given a contract for each school year. In fact, she was not fired. She was simply not rehired for the following year.

Interesting.

 

[JMJSHJ]

And you will note from the termination letter that they decided not to offer her a contract for next year. Teachers in Catholic schools typically are given a contract for each school year. In fact, she was not fired. She was simply not rehired for the following year.

Interesting.

Horse feathers. Refusing to renew the contract or permit her to teach anywhere else is barring her from employment. It may be civilly legal (although that remains to be seen) but is incredibly immoral.

Don’t blame this woman for the inadequacies of the State.

 

[markomalley]

Horse feathers. Refusing to renew the contract or permit her to teach anywhere else is barring her from employment. It may be civilly legal (although that remains to be seen) but is incredibly immoral.

Don’t blame this woman for the inadequacies of the State.

Number 1, I do not blame the woman.

Number 2. The woman is not prohibited from teaching. The woman will not be hired at any school in the Diocese of San Diego. There is a difference. She could teach in the San Diego County public schools, she could teach in a different private school, or, for that matter, she could teach in a different diocese. She has not been fired. Her contract was not renewed…and I would wager that she would get a good reference from the school (judging by the tone of the letter stating that her contract would not be renewed)

Number 3. Please quote for me EXACTLY where I have said the diocese did the right thing in any post I’ve made on this thread. To save you some time, I haven’t.

I have said that I understand why they would do such a thing. But understanding does not equate to approval.

The problem is that, while everybody is outraged at what has happened in this situation, had the teacher been hired back for next year and had her ex-husband caused another incident…this time, a little more violent, the same people who are outraged at what the school did would have been even more outraged had the ex-husband, say, caused a hostage situation…or gone postal.

And I will also guarantee that there would be a hue and cry had the school kept her on and posted full time armed security guards all around to protect against such a thing happening while allowing her to keep teaching.

In the latter, parents would have been complaining that they didn’t want their little precious Johnny or Susie to have to go to an armed fortress to school That little Johnny and Susie are being traumatized by all those big, scary security types hanging about every day.

So what’s the principal supposed to do? What’s the diocesan education office supposed to do?

Are they supposed to take choice #1, dump her, and then deal with the scorn of people who accuse them of being “un-Christian”? Not good press that way, huh?

Or are they supposed to take choice #2, keep her and ignore the situation? God help them if another, potentially much worse, situation happens in the future! Can you imagine the press coverage then (“School ignores threat of stalker…hostage situation…news at 11”)

Or are they supposed to take choice #3, keep her and make sure to have enough security around so that the ex-husband stalker wouldn’t dare show his face up there again? How, exactly, do they deal with uppity parents who don’t want Johnny and Susy to attend school in a fortress. Again, the news coverage (“Are Catholic Schools safe? Even in a posh neighborhood, they turn into an armed fortress…news at 11”)

None of the options sound very appealing to me. Yeah, I’d probably tried to find her a home in another school…but even then (“SD Diocese puts another school at risk from a violent stalker after a schoolteacher…just like with priests, they transfer the problem from parish to parish…news at 11”)

Let me ask you this: if you were a parent with a kid in that school (paying $6,000 per year for the privilege, oh by the way)…would you be OK if that threat existed? Or would you be OK with 3-4 armed security guards patrolling the school all day, every day? And, from what you know of most suburban parents with kids in a private school, do you think most of them would be OK with it?

 

[markomalley]

As an aside, a similar thing happened in the parochial school where my daughter attended. This happened a couple of years after my daughter graduated 8th grade. The principal of the school had a druggie son who had been in trouble with local LE a couple of times.

When this information got around to parents in the school, the parish pastor had recurring complaints about her. This woman, who had served as principal of that school for about 10 years, was harassed. There were some families that pulled their kids out of the school. And lots of complaints.

She was eventually stuck in a situation where she had to find herself a job as principal of a school literally at the other end of the archdiocese. Rather than a 3 mile commute, she ended up having a 50 mile one way commute each day. I don’t know if she just got sick of the complaints or if she was given some friendly advice to find another school, but she did so…and it wasn’t just to the school next door. It was to a school that was far enough away that she’d have a reasonable chance that the rumors couldn’t follow her.

So when I talk about parents complaining and yanking kids (over something that likely wouldn’t even be an issue), I am speaking with some experience.

 

[Allegra]

Number 1, I do not blame the woman.

Number 2. The woman is not prohibited from teaching. The woman will not be hired at any school in the Diocese of San Diego. There is a difference. She could teach in the San Diego County public schools, she could teach in a different private school, or, for that matter, she could teach in a different diocese. She has not been fired. Her contract was not renewed…and I would wager that she would get a good reference from the school (judging by the tone of the letter stating that her contract would not be renewed)

Number 3. Please quote for me EXACTLY where I have said the diocese did the right thing in any post I’ve made on this thread. To save you some time, I haven’t.

I have said that I understand why they would do such a thing. But understanding does not equate to approval.

The problem is that, while everybody is outraged at what has happened in this situation, had the teacher been hired back for next year and had her ex-husband caused another incident…this time, a little more violent, the same people who are outraged at what the school did would have been even more outraged had the ex-husband, say, caused a hostage situation…or gone postal.

And I will also guarantee that there would be a hue and cry had the school kept her on and posted full time armed security guards all around to protect against such a thing happening while allowing her to keep teaching.

In the latter, parents would have been complaining that they didn’t want their little precious Johnny or Susie to have to go to an armed fortress to school That little Johnny and Susie are being traumatized by all those big, scary security types hanging about every day.

So what’s the principal supposed to do? What’s the diocesan education office supposed to do?

Are they supposed to take choice #1, dump her, and then deal with the scorn of people who accuse them of being “un-Christian”? Not good press that way, huh?

Or are they supposed to take choice #2, keep her and ignore the situation? God help them if another, potentially much worse, situation happens in the future! Can you imagine the press coverage then (“School ignores threat of stalker…hostage situation…news at 11”)

Or are they supposed to take choice #3, keep her and make sure to have enough security around so that the ex-husband stalker wouldn’t dare show his face up there again? How, exactly, do they deal with uppity parents who don’t want Johnny and Susy to attend school in a fortress. Again, the news coverage (“Are Catholic Schools safe? Even in a posh neighborhood, they turn into an armed fortress…news at 11”)

None of the options sound very appealing to me. Yeah, I’d probably tried to find her a home in another school…but even then (“SD Diocese puts another school at risk from a violent stalker after a schoolteacher…just like with priests, they transfer the problem from parish to parish…news at 11”)

Let me ask you this: if you were a parent with a kid in that school (paying $6,000 per year for the privilege, oh by the way)…would you be OK if that threat existed? Or would you be OK with 3-4 armed security guards patrolling the school all day, every day? And, from what you know of most suburban parents with kids in a private school, do you think most of them would be OK with it?

If I was paying $6000 a year to send my kid to a Catholic school, I would expect that they would do the right thing, regardless of what some parents wanted or what the news would say about it. The only reason I would fork out that kind of money would be with the understanding that the administrators would run the school according to what is right and fair and follow the teachings of the Church. Otherwise, what is the point?

I teach in a suburban school and I can tell you firsthand that more parents complain that there isn’t enough security than those who complain about our security guards. (I’ve actually never heard any parents complain about the security guards, but I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt that someone might have a problem and just never said anything to me personally.)

 

[Fairwinds]

this decision is a spineless disgrace. punishing a victim… just disgraceful.

 

[EdmundPaul]

The man has a 20 year history of escalating violence including to a former wife…no-one gets in his way …

I don’t see how any school could reasonably employ someone in these apparent circumstances where he has already been to the school
A clerical position in a secure office building yes but with small children around no way
She really needs to be where he cannot find her