Fairfax County principal charged with failing to report abuse complaints

The principal of a Fairfax County middle school has been charged with failing to tell the police that he had received complaints of child abuse by one of the teachers.

The Fairfax County police said in a statement Thursday that Yusef Azimi, 41, of McLean, the principal of Thoreau Middle School, in Vienna, has been charged with failure to report suspected child abuse in the case of Matthew Snell, a teacher at the school...

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2020/09/fairfax-county-principal-charged-with-failing-to-report-abuse-complaints/

MoCo Senator Susan Lee Wants to Compromise on Student Safety. MCPS Administrators can Escape Criminal Penalty Even if They Suspect Sexual Abuse of MCPS Students Under Her Bill.

Montgomery County Senator Susan Lee wants the Maryland legislature to pass her bill, Senate Bill  568, that would provide for criminal penalties for administrators who fail to report sexual abuse of children only when they have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the abuse.

Senator Lee says this bill is "not as broad" as she would have preferred but that the bill has been written this way because of "anticipated resistance."  [WHO IN MARYLAND IS RESISTANT TO PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL ABUSE?]

Senator Lee says this bill would encourage mandatory reporters to report for the "most obvious incidences" of sexual abuse.  [IF IT ISN'T OBVIOUS, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REPORT?]

Senator Lee says her bill is a "compromise."  Senator Lee says she "brought the stakeholders together and this was sort of a compromise."  [Senator Lee did not bring the following stakeholders together:  Professor Lynn McLain, Ernest Crofoot, Theresa Lancaster, Jennifer Alvaro, or Ellen Mugmon. None of these stakeholders agree to Senator Lee's compromise.]

Nor did Senator Lee bring to the table any of the victims of sexual abuse in MCPS schools by MCPS teachers John Vigna, Lawrence Joynes or Jose Pineda.  In each of those MCPS cases multiple administrators knew about inappropriate behavior and suspected sexual abuse but did not report that information to the police.  In each of those cases the failure of the mandated reporters to call the police contributed to the victimization of addition children.  Which of those victims have agreed to Senator Lee's compromise?

Senator Lee's bill would do nothing to get MCPS administrators to report suspected sexual abuse of students.  MCPS would continue to be able to cover up these crimes under Senate Bill 568.  Why? Because Senator Susan Lee does not want to impose criminal penalties on administrators who fail to report the sexual abuse of students unless those administrators actually witness the sexual abuse with their own eyes and identify the act that they see as sexual abuse.  

Which of the Vigna, Joynes and Pineda victims who were victims of these sexual predators after those predators were already known to MCPS administrators (as evidenced by letters telling each predator to STOP TOUCHING STUDENTS) agreed to Senator Susan Lee's "compromise?" [NONE!]

The video below shows Senator Susan Lee presenting her Senate Bill 568 to the House Judiciary Committee on March 27, 2019.  After Senator Susan Lee speaks the Chair of the Committee, Luke Clippinger brought up Ellen Mugmon to speak in opposition to the bill. 

States like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock. @SenatorSusanLee

The Hon. Luke Clippinger, Chair

The Hon. Vanessa E. Atterbeary, Vice-Chair

Judiciary Committee

SB0568/CFHB0787 – Crimes – Child Abuse and Neglect – Failure to Report

Hearing: March 27, 2019 – 1:00 p.m.

Written Testimony of Ernest A. Crofoot, Attorney

Think about this: ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, and MISSISSIPPI!!!

Good afternoon. I am Ernest A. Crofoot. I am an attorney, graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law, a Fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation, member of the Peer Review Committee of the Attorney Grievance Commission, and an Ethics instructor for the Academy for Excellence in Local Government. My written and oral testimony on this bill are my own personal assessments and do not reflect the position of any group, organization, board or commission. I recently began providing assistance on this topic to other advocates.

Let me say first that I support, encourage, and beg the Legislature to pass legislation in this area – one with teeth, one with effective protection for child abuse victims, and one that values children victims over the concerns of highly funded special interest groups.

Senate Bill 568 is a half-hearted, flawed, and short sighted attempt to create an incentive for the timely and compassionate reporting by statutorily required reporters of suspected child abuse. Unfortunately, its shortcomings swallow any meager benefits it may otherwise offer.

First, and most importantly, SB 568 sets an impossible evidentiary standard by, in effect, requiring that one must have “actual knowledge” before one is required to report child abuse. In other submitted testimony, you will see that none other than Professor Emerita LynnMcLain, University of Baltimore School of Law, the author of the“gospel” on Maryland Evidence, has maintained consistently the “actual knowledge” is an impossible standard under Maryland law. In effect, it would require witnessing the actual abuse before requiring a subject person to make a report of child abuse. Professor McLain taught many of the members of this body the rules of evidence and I give the utmost deference to her interpretations and opinions. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have standards that can be generally described as “reasonable suspicion.” NONE have an “actual knowledge” evidentiary standard. This means that states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack the more than generally accepted standard. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack criminal penalties.

The actual knowledge standard is a higher standard than that required for a search warrant and, in fact, a higher standard than that which would be used to convict someone of child abuse. How can this be? It does work, however, if one’s intention is to protect special interests groups and curry favor with certain key legislative officials.

Last fall, this writer, together with about twenty other persons on both sides of this issue, was advised by a key member of this committee that whatever bill language might come about, “actual knowledge” would be out. As Paul Simon said, “All lies in jest.”

Any attorney worthy of the name knows that the actual knowledge standard is a red herring of gigantic proportion. It purpose is only to give lip service to this issue so that one may say “we did something,” when, in fact, it/they/you do nothing.

Second (actually a “tie” for first), is that this bill refuses to acknowledge the historic, longstanding, and pathetic record of the clergy in this area – not only in participating in child abuse but using church practices to cover up rampant child abuse, physical and sexual. Any serious bill addressing the underreporting of child abuse MUST include the clergy and members of all religious orders and sects as required reporters.

Third, the bill does creates another “will do little, if nothing” provision. The bill provides for a very short one-year period for charging the offense. That is the same period for spitting on the sidewalk or failing to obtain a permit. Often, the salient facts are not known within one year of the failure to report, e.g., as abusers often “shop” their victims from doctor to doctor to avoid detection or otherwise conceal abuse. A more reasonable standard is to have the limitations period run the same length of time for an abused person to bring charges (or, at a minimum, file a civil action). The seriousness of the failure to report on a child warrants the same charging period of limitations as felonies, i.e., NONE.

Fourth, the elimination of any provision requiring reporting after an abused child becomes an adult is ludicrous. There is a significant, logical, and compelling need for a required reporter to report even when the patient, etc., is an adult because the abuser may be victimizing persons other than the person undergoing treatment. For example, a twenty year old patient may report that her father abused her up until she reached puberty. That father, though, may be abusing other pre-pubescent children, and not requiring a report would further endanger those children.

We must protect children, not special interest groups. The clergy, educators, and doctors will all tell you that they are doing a great job as they conduct their own investigations. Look only to events in the Catholic Church, Wicomico County Schools, Key School in Annapolis, and elsewhere to see that this is definitely not the case.

I strongly urge this committee to give SB 568 an unfavorable vote or, in the alternative, to amend SB 568 in a manner consistent with the above. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock.

Thank you.

Respectfully.

Ernest A. Crofoot

EAC Testimony SB0568 Final ... by on Scribd

Professor Lynn McLain to MD Legislature: "These bills fall far short of the national standard for criminal penalties for failure to report child abuse." #sexualabuse #failuretoreport @SenMikeMiller

SB 568 RE: FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Testimony in Opposition

Respectfully Submitted by Lynn McLain, Professor and Dean Joseph Curtis Faculty Fellow Emerita, University of Baltimore School of Law, March 22, 2019

HONORABLE CHAIRMAN CLIPPINGER, VICE-CHAIR ATTERBEARY, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

These bills fall far short of the national standard for criminal penalties for failure to report child abuse. None of the 48 states or D.C. has anything coming close to the total lack of remedy these bills offer, especially in sexual abuse cases.

1. Unlike the penalty laws in 48 other states and D.C., both SB 568 (and HB 787, as amended) apply only if the mandatory reporter who failed to report can be proved to have had "actual knowledge of the abuse or neglect."

The courts will look to the "plain meaning" of these words¹ -- which is firsthand, direct knowledge of the facts at issue. In the child abuse and neglect context, this would mean personally witnessing the acts of abuse or neglect as they were being committed, and realizing that it was abuse, as opposed to, for example, "horsing around."

Black's Law Dictionary² defines "actual knowledge" as "Direct and clear knowledge, as distinguished from constructive knowledge (the employer, having witnessed the accident, had actual knowledge of the worker's injury). "³

Black's defines "constructive knowledge," in contrast, as "Knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed by law to a given person." A mandated Family Law 5-704 reporter is much more likely to have "constructive knowledge "of abuse than "actual knowledge."

Only "constructive knowledge" would result from hearing allegations of abuse or neglect from the child or seeing bruises, vaginal or anal tearing, or other injuries which cause the reporter to suspect abuse. In those situations, the mandated reporter would have a duty to report "suspected abuse" under Family Law 5-704. But that reporter would not have "actual knowledge" of the abuse or neglect, so even an intentional failure to report, as part of an intentional cover-up, could not be charged under these current bills.

These bills would not cover situations such as where persons at the US Olympics Committee or Michigan State University were told of allegations by minor gymnasts that they had been abused by Dr. Larry Nassar, even if they had spoken directly to the gymnasts.⁴

These bills would not even cover anyone in the most extreme example of the Penn State scandal -- the assistant coach who saw Mr. Sandusky in the shower with the young boy said that he was not sure that it was sexual abuse, but he thought it might be. So even he could not have been prosecuted successfully under this Maryland bill, if the jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he really knew it was sexual abuse! Let alone the higher-ups to whom that man reported but who failed to act. They were held criminally liable under Pennsylvania law -- but they couldn't have been charged if these Maryland bills were the governing law.

2. Because these bills do not state otherwise, the statute of limitations under them is one year from the initial failure to report. Most sexual abuse does not come to light until much, much later. Those who intentionally failed to report child sexual abuse and covered it up for over a year would get away with it "scot-free."

These bills create a misdemeanor. Under Courts 5-106(a), the default statute of limitations for all misdemeanors is one year. To give a different statute of limitations, the particular misdemeanor must be either explicitly made "subject to Courts 5-106(b)" or have a separate statute of limitations provided for in a new subsection of Courts 5-106.

3. These bills undermine the current reporting structure established by Family Law 5-704 and 5-705, which have been construed as applying even when the reporter learns of the suspected abuse or neglect when the child has reached adulthood.⁵ Reports to Social Services or law enforcement are still required, so that the State authorities can investigate to determine whether there are other children who may be at risk. ⁶

Instead, these bills choose to leave at risk innumerable other children in an abuser's sphere.

4. Unlike the laws of 35 other states, these bills inexplicably do not cover bishops and other clergy who fail to promptly report suspected abuse or neglect.

For these reasons, I respectfully oppose SB 568 and HB 787 as amended.

Lynn McLain

lmclain@ubalt.edu

410-778-4515

1 Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266, 286-87 (2011) ("In attempting to discern the intent of the Legislature, courts 'look first to the plain language of the statute, giving it its natural and ordinary meaning. ' If the language of thestatute is clear and ambiguous, courts will give effect to the plain meaning of the statute....").

2 10th ed. 2014.

3 In numerous Maryland statutes, too, "actual knowledge" is used to mean direct, firsthand knowledge of the fact at issue, in contrast to lower alternative standards, such as "a reasonable basis for knowledge." Where lesser alternatives are permitted, they are listed with the use of the disjunctive "or." See, e.g., Md. Code, Crim. L. 11-209(a) ("A person may not [do act X]..., if the person knows, or possesses facts under which the person reasonably should know...").

4 See, e.g., Gymnasts Fault Olympic Committee, Wall St. J., A3, col. 1, Feb. 20, 2018.

5 78 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 189 (Dec. 3, 1993).

6 See L. McLain, vol. 6 MARYLAND EVIDENCE: STATE AND FEDERAL sec. 504:2 at nn. 44-48 (3d ed. 2013).

2019 March 22 Lynn McLain by on Scribd

@SenatorSusanLee Puts Forth Another Useless Bill Instead of Actually Working to Protect Children

Montgomery County State Senator Susan Lee is at it again. 

Just like last year (2018) she is putting forth a bill that pretends to address the absence of any criminal penalty for mandatory reporters (for example, MCPS administrators) who fail to report suspected sexual abuse of children (for example, former MCPS teacher John Vigna).  

Maryland and Wyoming are the ONLY two states in the nation that do not have a penalty for a mandated reporters' (for example MCPS administrators) failure to report the sexual abuse of a child.  

Montgomery County Senator Susan Lee has again filed a bill that pretends to address this problem but in reality does not protect children because the standard written into the proposed law is almost impossible to ever attain. 

Below is public comment from child advocate and sexual abuse expert Ellen Mugmon on Senator Susan Lee's Senate Bill 568.  

Isn't it time for Montgomery County elected officials to stand up for the children of Maryland who have been sexually abused by public school staff?  

----------------------------

SB 568

CRIMES- CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT - FAILURE TO REPORT

Prepared by Ellen Mugmon

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

February 22, 2019

OPPOSE

   FACT SHEET

The underlying purpose of this bill is not to protect Maryland’s children.  Its real purpose is to continue to ensure that powerful, self-serving professionals and institutions remain unaccountable, as has been the case for over thirty years. No other state has enacted such a restrictive penalty for failing to report child abuse and neglect as proposed in this bill.  If mandatory reporters do not have “actual knowledge” of abuse or, in other words, did not witness it, then they cannot be subject to the penalty in SB 568 for failing to report, even when they suspect abuse or have other evidence that it occurred.  

Currently, certain professionals can be disciplined by licensing or certification boards for failing to report child abuse, but there is no way to discipline other mandatory reporters who do not have occupational boards. However, to our knowledge, only one professional since 1986 has ever been disciplined by a board for failure to report notwithstanding another bill, HB 245, enacted in 2016 which was supposed to increase disciplinary actions. Last session, its sponsor mentioned during a hearing that so far it has been ineffective.

Certain proponents of SB 568 know full well that the reporting law has no teeth and want to keep it that way. One dentist representing the Maryland State Dental Association previously had the temerity to testify publicly against penalties stating that she did not want to take the time to report head injuries she suspected or knew were caused by abuse. In addition, on Boychat, a pedophile chat line, pedophiles deemed a particular psychiatrist as “safe.”

It should be noted that all mandatory reporters are given immunity from both civil and criminal liability when they make good faith reports to encourage reporting. But the fact that there is no real enforcement of the law makes it, in reality, discretionary and rather than mandatory. 

Witnessing child abuse is extremely rare. Consequently, the federal law, enacted in response to the horrendous USA gymnastics scandal states: "When a mandatory reporter learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse...and fails to make a timely report...the mandatory reporter shall be fined or imprisoned not more than a year or both.” Except for Maryland and Wyoming, other states’ laws are written similarly. 

In 1989, the General Assembly repealed a 1987 amendment named for Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who treats pedophiles. This amendment had exempted health practitioners who provided psychiatric treatment to pedophiles from the mandatory reporting law.  It was unique to Maryland.  Since then the Maryland Psychiatric Society has attempted to use penalty bills such as SB 568 as vehicles to essentially reinstate the so-called Berlin exemption by negating a significant 1993 Attorney General’s opinion. See Md. Atty. Gen Op. Dec. 3, 1993. which requires the reporting of past abuse committed by pedophiles. (Prior to this session, a representative of the Society also suggested reinstating regressive language repealed in 1987 which would require reporting only when mandatory reporters contacted, examined or treated a child, not when the psychiatrist learned of abuse from the pedophile or other sources.)

SB 568 targets this Attorney General’s opinion by specifically exempting from the scope of the penalty  the failure to report abuse as soon as the victim turns 25.  Under this legislation, the shocking disclosures of the notorious Maskell Case, and others like it, would never have come to light. The Maskell case is chronicled in the Netflix series, The Keepers. The Baltimore Archdiocese, on its website, admits that it only reported Maskell as a result of this significant 26 year-old Attorney General’s opinion. SB 568, nonetheless, undermines it.

This backward provision would not just apply to the Catholic hierarchy and psychiatrists who learn of abuse from sex offenders, it would affect the safety of children in all settings. Placing a cap on the victim’s age means that Rachael Denhollander, who was one of 250 gymnasts who were victims of Larry Nassar and who was 31-years-old when she became the first one to disclose her victimization, would never come to Maryland to support SB 568 as part of her activism. Under this bill, a mandatory reporter would be able to say that she was too old to require a report  to authorities, and that her disclosure did not provide the requisite “actual knowledge” either.

The bill’s one year statute of limitations, which would require that the failure to report would have had to be discovered by authorities within one year, would further ensure that the possibility of a prosecution would be almost impossible.

The passage of SB 568 would additionally undermine Maryland’s civil reporting law.  It would muddy the understanding of the circumstances under which reporting is required. Because there would be two standards, “reason to believe” and “actual knowledge,” mandatory reporters may be confused as to which standard to apply. This would encourage them to delay reporting or not report at all.  After all, the state is only going to enforce the law if the mandatory reporter witnesses abuse.

This bill additionally appears to contravene another Attorney General’s opinion.  The phrase, “DOES NOT INCLUDE A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE,” implies that conducting internal investigations by schools prior to reporting is their choice. In a 1991 opinion, however, the Attorney General clearly stated that internal investigations conducted prior to reporting suspected abuse to the police and departments of social services to determine if there is a “reason to believe” to report are against the law. This provision is also troubling because it would sustain the Catholic bishop’s practice of conducting internal investigations prior to reporting to determine if allegations are credible. This is a long standing problem. Maryland’s reporting law does not include  the term or definition of what a credible allegation is. Apparently bishops themselves have various definitions for the term, and internal investigation prior to reporting whether in schools or other institutions compromise subsequent investigations by the police and social services and allow abusers and those who wish to cover up for them the opportunity to destroy evidence and place pressure on victims to remain silent.   

Therefore, SB 568’s ostensible purpose of protecting children is a pretext for furthering the agenda of powerful, self-interested professional groups and institutions. It would confirm that Maryland is an outlier state.

It would also be a way of getting the penalty issue off everyone’s plate by passing something.  Unfortunately, in this case, something is not better than nothing. Children’s interests deserve to be made the priority instead of mandatory reporters and certain institutions which refuse to protect them.

Exclusive: The Voices of the Victims of Sexual Abuse by MCPS Teachers, Coaches and Staff. The John Vigna Sentencing. "And the children that came in here and testified and disclosed to child services and the police had to shoulder past adults, 40 people in the courtroom, outside the courtroom, saying things, comments, pushing through to come in and tell everyone about what Mr. Vigna did to them." @mcps @mocoboe

This is the second in the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, MD series of posts that give the victims of sexual abuse by MCPS teachers, coaches and staff a voice.  

These courageous children and adults have spoken up in public courtrooms about the crimes committed against them while they were students in Montgomery County Public Schools.  Often the courtrooms are empty and these statements are not covered by the press.  No one from the Montgomery County Board of Education ever attends these sentencing hearings.  To date, no past or present Board of Education member has ever formally spoken up in support of these victims.  

Below is the statement from the Montgomery County State's Attorney presened at the sentencing of MCPS teacher John Vigna (Cloverly Elementary School).  Note that in this case many MCPS administrators knew about the suspected sexual abuse of students by this teacher, but none of them reported these documented reports to the police or Child Protective Services. It took a child to speak up and put an end to the decades of sexual abuse by this MCPS teacher. 

August 4, 2017 

2:54 PM

Montgomery County Circuit Court

Montgomery County State's Attorney Sentencing Remarks 

State of Maryland v. John Vigna

...our comments will be brief. Because nothing could explain the devastation that this defendant has caused quite like the parents of these children and what they have endured at the hands of this defendant.

We've heard a lot about Mr. Vigna from the sentencing memorandum that the defense has submitted with numerous statements from the members of this community.  It is clear that what he did has divided this community.  He has supporters here and they were present here for the trial. And they have had the opportunity to observe the evidence and understand some things.

But it's no surprise to the State or to the Court or to many of us who are well informed about how sexual abuse occurs that Mr. Vigna is very popular. That maybe 97% of the people he has interacted with would think that he was awesome, the best person they could possibly think of,  the most trustworthy, the most endearing, all of those things.

Because those of us who know about sexual abuse know that is the person most likely to be the abuser.  If he looks like the bogeyman you are not going to leave your child with him every single day.  He has to be trustworthy.   So that is what Mr. Vigna really has mastered is the manipulation, is the grooming, and it's not just of these victims, it's not just of the children.  It was a grooming of the parents, of the PTA, of staff and of this community over years and years and years.  The Mr. Vigna, the most popular teacher, everybody wanted to be in his class is not surprisingbecause that is how he was able to access his victims and that's what he was using.  He uses his trust to exploit these children. And that's what he did to 4 victims in the course of 15 years.

And the harm that he has done to them can not be undone.  It can not be made right and that is why justice requires sentencing him to the top of the guidelines.  And I think the families have explained that better than we ever could.

What we hope in going forward and having him incarerated to the maximum possible penalty allowed by the guidelines is that will remove him from the community. We will protect this community and other victims from what Mr. Vigna does and what Mr. Vigna did.

And the children that came in here and testified and disclosed to child services and the police had to shoulder past adults, 40 people in the courtroom, outside the courtroom, saying things, comments, pushing through to come in and tell everyone about what Mr. Vigna did to them.  And they weren't just brave in those moments.  But they were brave because they were willing to do all that they had to do to make sure this didn't happen to someone else.  And that was the sole motivator. 

And despite all of that this community has not come together and shown any support for these victims or for their families.  But we hope that in imposing the sentence today the community will be able to go forward and upon some reflection of their conduct here in the courtroom, with what they have observed, with what they have participated in, that there will be some understanding of being able to support these families and these children and the victims and this community.

Because we can't move forward and truly protect this community, not just by removing this defendant, but by understanding how crimes like this happen and how children are being victimized.
Because it is concerning that in looking back and seeing all of the behaviors that may have been present that the community still doesn't recognize the power of this manipulation.
Hopefully one day that will come forward.

The statistics from the Department of Justice are that 1 in 4 girls under the age of 14 will be sexually abused.  And that 90% of them are abused by someone who is a family member or someone who is very acquainted with them.  And that's something that I assumed most people were aware of.  And it is concerning to us that the treatment of these victims and the communities response to these crimes has been what it has been. 

But we hope that this will render some closure to the victims families, to this community and that we'll move more informed into the future with more support for the victims.

So we are asking the court to impose the executed sentence at the top of the guidelines of 52 1/2 years of executed incarceration.  Allowing the remainder to be suspended if and when he is released.  The maximun period of supervised probation.  That he be required to register for life as a sex offender.  And that if, and when, he is surredered for parole and probation that he attend an ___ certified therapist for sex offense therapy with polygraphs and a ________ as well.

We would like to just in closing cite to some of the statements that the children submitted to the Court.  Which I know the Court has read.

[Victim #1]
I am embarassed and I am ashamed.  I am in my room and I don't want to talk to anyone.  Most of my school friends I don't talk to anymore.  I am embarassed.
She doesn't trust people at school and she can't focus on school.
Her dreams aren't good and she can't get comfortable.
How does she feel about the person who did this to you?
I don't understand why.  And he acts like he did nothing wrong.  But he did.  Why does this happen?   He needs to know that what he did was wrong.  He needs to go away and never do it again. 

[Victim #2]
I am also having thoughts about dying.  Like I just don't want to be here anymore.
Now I am feeling more sad because of what Mr. Vigna did to me. Somedays I wake up feeling sad and most days I feel sad during the day.
I cry alot. I am alone in my room because I want to be alone.  And I feel sad and mad.  And I get mad at my family because I am sad.
What makes me feel this way is because of what Mr. Vigna did and going to court.
I had to start going to therapy.

Nothing can be more powerful that those statements from these children, your honor.  Knowing that these small children are going through all of this, and have lost their innocence and their trust in adults and their confidence in themselves, their desire to go to school, and some of them are questioning even their desire just to survive at this point is a testament to how this man systematically, psychologically, broke these children down in order to sexually abuse them in the manner in which he did.

Given that it was 4 victims, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders over the course of 15 years we would ask for the court to impose that maximum sentence under the guidelines.

MCPS officials issued a statement but decided against sending a letter to families

Retired Rockville High Teacher Charged With Sexually Abusing Female Student: Michael Riley is currently an athletic director at Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School

Women from 'The Keepers' discuss experience at Baltimore conference on child sexual abuse prevention

...The symposium Thursday focused on how institutions and organizations that work with children can stop abuse before it happens. Other panels addressed legal and policy reforms, abuse prevention programs and how to address abuse in institutional settings.

State Del. C.T. Wilson of Charles County, who was sexually abused as a child, delivered the keynote address at the conference. Wilson sponsored legislation to give child victims more time to file lawsuits against their abusers...

...“A lot of people knew,” Lancaster said. “A lot of people knew and they didn’t do a damn thing to help us.”

Knipp told the crowd that her experiences led her down a destructive path in which she struggled to maintain relationships as an adult...

Did the school report to CPS or Police? "...in 1999, Alison Thresher wrote to Asturizaga’s employer, Friends Community School in College Park, to tell the school of her concerns about his close relationship with her daughter."

For years, Hannah Thresher has struggled to overcome both an awful truth and an awful possibility.

The proven truth: Her teacher and babysitter, Fernando Asturizaga, molested, raped and sexually abused her for three years, starting in 1999 when she was 10.

The possibility: He may also have killed her mother.

“For my mother,” Thresher, now 30, said Thursday, standing in front of a bank of news cameras in suburban Maryland, “I need the whole truth to come out.”

At the news conference, police officials labeled Asturizaga a “person of interest” in the case of Alison Thresher, 45, who disappeared May 24, 2000. She was last known to be alive at her Bethesda apartment...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-man-who-raped-girl-18-years-ago-may-have-killed-her-mother/2018/04/12/967a188e-3e7a-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.67eeac663bf3

-came to police with an account of longtime abuse by her former Spanish teacher, starting when she was 10 years old. Fernando Asturizaga, now 51, was convicted of rape and child abuse and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison in 2012-

County Police Revisit Cold Case of Missing Bethesda Woman, Seeking Information About Man Who Abused Her Young Daughter: Investigators now believe Alison Thresher was killed in her apartment in May 2000

Letter: [This] compromise might better be described as merely a pretense that would allow legislators to get this issue off their plate without, in reality, protecting children #SB132/HB500 #MGA18

To the Editor:

Neither Shanta Trivedi (“Abuse reporting bills would criminalize teachers,” March 12) nor Joyce Lombardi (“Punish those who knowingly fail to report,” March 14) gets it right.  I agree with Ms. Lombardi in her response to Ms.Trivedi that the knowing failure to report should be punished. But Ms. Lombardi misrepresents the scope of the bill in one direction as much as Ms. Trivedi does in the other.   She fails to mention that the bill undermines an important 1993 Attorney General's opinion that requires mandatory reporters to report after the child victim turns eighteen. Pedophiles do not stop abusing children because a timeline on one victim is added in Maryland law. They go on to abuse other children.

Without this opinion the shocking disclosures of the notorious Maskell case would never have come to light, as chronicled in the Netflix series, The Keepers.  The Baltimore Archdiocese affirms on its website, in an answer to a question about the NetFlix documentary, that it reported the Maskell case in 1993 only because of that opinion.

One only needs to look again at the USA Gymnastics scandal to find out what is wrong with SB 132/HB 500. Its provisions are in line with the USA Gymnastics policy which caused this horrendous scandal in the first place.  One gymnast, who was twenty years old at the time, reported to organization officials that team physician Larry Nassar sexually abused her as a child. He is a middle-aged prolific pedophile who was still sexually abusing young girls. Its investigator never reported because she was twenty-years-old.  Moreover, its former director, followed the “actual knowledge” standard in the bill as well. If he personally did not see the abuse, even if he received complaints from other coaches or victims, he did not report it to authorities.

Ms. Lombardi talks about compromise. But the federal government and no other states have a compromise anything like this. The inclusion of the radical “actual knowledge” language (undefined in the bill) would chill reports and prompt those without a professional penalty to delay reporting until they witness the abuse. Having two reporting standards would muddy the obligation to report and encourage internal investigations prior to reporting to determine which standard applies.  Congressional bipartisan legislation just enacted, Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, criminally penalizes the failure to report abuse in U.S. Amateur Athletic Organizations on the grounds of “reason to suspect,” not “actual knowledge” of abuse or “witnessing the act of abuse.”

Most important, it is wrong to claim that prosecutors could ever use this language to prosecute anyone.  According to the Baltimore City State’s Attorney, in her testimony on SB 132, “It is nearly impossible from a legal perspective to prove that an individual had ‘actual knowledge’ of abuse. . . “  That kind of compromise might better be described as merely a pretense that would allow legislators to get this issue off their plate without, in reality, protecting children.

Ellen Mugmon

Former Chair, Legislative Committee of the State Council on Child Abuse and Neglect

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-rr-child-abuse-letter-20180315-story.html

House & Senate Bill would not apply to situations such as where persons at the US Olympics Committee or Michigan State University were told of allegations by minor gymnasts that they had been abused by Dr. Larry Nassar, even if they had spoken directly to the gymnasts

More on why the Bill proposed in the Maryland House and Senate to create criminal penalties for administrators who fail to report the sexual abuse of students will actually be a virtually useless law. Is this Bill being proposed to actually protect children or just to make legislators "look" like they are doing something? 

Statement from Lynn McLain, 

Professor and Dean Joseph Curtis Faculty Fellow Emerita,

University of Baltimore School of Law

The definition in Maryland House Bill 500 of its "knowledge" element as requiring "actual knowledge" will restrict its application to only those highly rare cases where the State could prove that the mandated reporter actually witnessed the child abuse or neglect as it was being committed.

   Maryland House Bill 500 2018 Session by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

7 On Your Side: Maryland bill to protect children may not be effective

Update: This bill did not pass in the 2018 legislative session.

Wash. Co. Board of Ed. member Removed from Office in part for Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse to Proper Authorities

Harshman.opin.No.17 17 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

School Bus Driver says she reported aide to supervisor twice before contacting CPS

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Prince-Georges-Co-Bus-Driver-Says-She-Reported-Aide-Accused-of-Sex-Abuse-of-Children-393599271.html