Sidwell sued over staff psychologist's affair

[Anonymous]

Is mom hot and young? And dad old and fugly?

[Anonymous]

The Newmyer family has a long history of devotion and service to the school - they are not just big donors, though they may give significant $ as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTF?


Sidwell Friends Academy is being sued for $10 million for allegedly allowing its staff psychologist to carry on an affair with the married mother of a 5-year-old student he was treating.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/education/2011/05/sidwell-sued-over-staff-psychologists-affair#ixzz1M9wqrd3q

Pathetic case of an insanely jealous and vindictive man who was dumped.....and obviously deserved to be. Don't waste a minute reading about what should be kept a private matter.

Seriously? This is your take on this? Your comments are a perfect "window" on how so many people view adultery today--very sad. Not a thought about morality or families. Just the thought that it's okay to "dump" a spouse. Sorry, but it's one thing to "dump" a boyfriend. If you're married, there's a name for that kind of behavior--it's adultery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was the child's psychologist. It wasn't just an affair.

Both the mother and the school deny there was any professional relationship between the child and the psychologist. Dad has a different version. I would withhold judgement on this until the case is made in court (the dad's complaint is his version of events, not proved facts).

I'm sure they do! It's in the best interest of both to stick to that story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Terry" Newmyer and I were classmates at The Sidwell Friends School a half century ago. I last saw him in 1963. While the specifics of his lawsuit against the school are unfortunate, they serve to point out a glaring shortcoming of the school which has gone unreported and unaddressed for far too long. In 1883 Mr. Sidwell founded a school predicated upon the principles of the highest educational, moral and ethical standards. In the middle of the last century, at the urging of many of the influential parents from Washington's highest socioeconomic strata, the school undertook what can only be characterized as a concerted program of social engineering which sacrificed those same educational, moral and ethical standards to the prevailing ideology of the city's aristocracy to keep the student body populated with those whose parents were notable and whose acceptance into the nation's finest colleges and universities was assured by legacy and the "old boy network" rather than intellect and merit. Having attended Quaker meetings for my fourteen years at Sidwell Friends where we were instructed to listen to our "inner voice", I would respectfully suggest that the school listen to its own inner voice and let it guide them back to the path Mr. Sidwell set nearly 130 years ago.

No direct Sidwell connection here but I have heard Sidwell parents muse about the fact that the application asks where the parents went to college, and that the vast majority of students have at least one Ivy League parent, which certainly helps their admissions stats down the line. Most private schools do not ask this question on the application. Years ago, when we applied for our son, they also asked if the child was adopted which we found highly offensive. What information do they glean from that?

[Anonymous]

We, too, were turned off by the question about the parents' colleges. Families where college has not been the norm feel unwelcome from the get-go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that affairs hurt people--ESPECIALLY innocent children who are made to accompany their mother to trysts disguised as playdates and hotel stays. And the 5 year old girls obviously knew about it, because they reported it to teachers and other children.

It's common knowledge that mental health professionals are not supposed to be sexually involved with their patients or close relatives of their patients, because it's unethical and they become biased and lose all objectivity. Instead of trying to get their jollies, the mother and the psychologist should have been focusing on the mental health of the little girl.

Suppose the "common knowledge" alluded to above is provable. Suppose (though it is not substantiated by the complaint, in stark contrast to the lurid details of the affair) that the playdates carried a mixed "therapeutic" purpose in the sense that J.H. offered his insights to the mother about the patient during those playdates. Suppose he was not paid for those insights. Finally, suppose also that J.H. referred the child to another professional upon first realizing his attraction to the mother. Would T.N.'s suit have less merit? In other words, is it possible to _ever_ terminate the patient relationship for the pursuit of love/lust/adult attraction/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with a relative? Mental health professionals (with knowledge of governing ethical codes) please step in to comment . . .

The standard protocol in these situations is for the psych to immediately refer the child and her mother to another therapist, and to immediately get himself in for a consultation, and to immediately cease the romantic relationship for 1 year. After all those things are in place, patient/client relationship has been terminated. Assuming no other entanglements, the relationship could resume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this serves Sidwell right for admitting the child of a woman who attended Rutgers. What did they expect?

Lol.

[Anonymous]

I've known this family for decades. This is a terrible situation for all involved, but mostly for the little girl. It should be noted that the husband was a big cheater. He openly cheated forever, including with married women. The idiot wife was the only one who did not know. He eventually got caught with his pants down. Everything that is being aired here happened after the wife caught him cheating. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Anonymous]

Move along, after you dish sordid dirt on the dad? You just backed up the beltway for ten miles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this serves Sidwell right for admitting the child of a woman who attended Rutgers. What did they expect?

Lol.

I guess this means Snooki's future kids are shoe-ins.

[Anonymous]

Let's assume both parents of the Newmyer child were cheaters... this is in not the lynch pin in the case nor does carry much weight...

The issues seem to boil down to this

1) Did the school psychologist ever have a therapeutic relationship with the child? From the emails quoted in the complaint - it appears possibly even if tangentially... but no doubt there is more to the story.

If the above is true... then there is a case.

Even if the lawsuit has not legal standing... the emails that psychologist sent to Ms. Newmyer are troublesome and if the school had knowledge of about the content and aware of the affair and did not take serious action then there is a moral issue that may not warrant legal penalties, but never-the-less reveals flaws within the community. It definitely sounds as if the psychologist's ex-wife (also a psychologist) felt a line had been crossed - but she may have her own motives other than professional.

Remember, this Newmyer fellow is very rich and is not suing for the money. Regardless if he is a saint or a sinner, he may be legally in the right. Hell hath no fury like a man with a huge checking account and endless financing of top notch attorneys to litigate. This man did not file the lawsuit to cash in financially... he has other motives... be them vindictive or noble... (depending on how you look at it) exposing corruptions & flaws within a school which in this case if the suit has merits will result in a full trial. Or perhaps his motive is to gain legal custody over his daughter and take her out of the school and raise her in Florida - which in that case once again a full trial may be follow or the school knowing that he has an endless bankroll would have to privately admit to acting egregiously to the point where their conduct and the psychologist's conduct could provide Mr. Newmyer with the ammunition to gain full legal custody of the child.

It sounds like his children from his first marriage turned out well... so maybe he should be raised under his domicile if the psychologist is still involved with the mother.

[Anonymous]

PP here - when I stated that Newmyer is not suing for money - I meant that although he is suing for $10MM, he is not out to make a buck... he has bigger motives at hand. Money alone will not pay him to go away.

[Anonymous]

And how about the tidbit about Huntington revealing information about other families, learned as a result of his professional position, to his girlfriend? And then there's the lawyer for Sidwell being asked to distribute a letter to the Board and never doing so. It doesn't look good.

[Anonymous]

Doctors and counselors are not supposed to sleep with the patients.
Sleeping with the mother of the patient when you are treating a child is also suspect