LAMB Sued for $20M by 2 families of sexual abuse victims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:21:46 makes a really good point about what we, as a city/district value when it comes to our kids. WTH does the DC Charter School Board not count the physical and emotional safety of children in its assessment of a school's performance?!

Gee, what could be different about LAMB. Just cannot seem to figure it out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the last thing anyone should be worried about is this non-profit school closing because of a lawsuit. A quick glance at the 2015 and 2014 budgets for LAMB suggests that the school's finances are not structured in such a way that a lawsuit could touch the bulk of their operating expenses. In 2015, about $7.3 million of the schools $7.5 million budget came from revenue sources that cannot be touched by a lawsuit -- the DC per capita student money, after school care fees, and federal grants. (See page 6 of this document-- http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/FY15%20Audited%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20LAMB.pdf)

So long as the DC govt doesn't close the school, which it wouldn't given the shrieks of anguish they'd have to deal with from the 350 students' parents, the school will continue to receive almost all of its usual revenue regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, which means they wouldn't be forced to close for financial reasons. Sure, they may have to tighten their belts if enough donors and others decide they aren't interested in being associated with the school anymore and cut back on donations. And their insurance premium will likely go up after this. But they have an untouchable and steady revenue stream, so they aren't going to close even if there is a judgement for many millions of dollars.

Typically what happens when a jury awards a plaintiff more than the defendant can pay is that the court places something akin to a lien against future assets. In theory, if a billionaire gave the school $100 million in unrestricted funds down the line, the plaintiffs could go after that money in an effort to satisfy their jury award claim. But no donor would ever give a non-profit money in that way, assuming they aren't total idiots.

Do not know where to start. Guessing you are a 3-5th year at a law firm who thinks you know what you are talking about. I dare you to sign this. Please, I'm begging you! Let's see who the bigwig on DCUM is. How many hundreds of these trials have you first or 2nd chaired? Please tell us oh wise legal scholar.

The think about seasoned lawyers is that the more you learn and see, the more you realize there are no certainties. Please do not confuse your T-25 law school education and 3 years doing doc review at BigLaw with actual legal experience. I'm reminded of the people who just knew that Big Tobacco wouldn't lose the state lawsuits. Everyone knew it. Some states knew it so much that they allowed Peter Angelos to take the case with a 25% cut of recovery. He cashed a $1 billion check (with a B).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:21:46 makes a really good point about what we, as a city/district value when it comes to our kids. WTH does the DC Charter School Board not count the physical and emotional safety of children in its assessment of a school's performance?!

Their purview is constrained by law.

However, the school would close tomorrow if parents didn’t enroll. Clearly parents do not care much about abuse of someone else’s children to leave em masse.

Most LAMB families are not poor. They have other choices. Why aren’t they exercising them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the last thing anyone should be worried about is this non-profit school closing because of a lawsuit. A quick glance at the 2015 and 2014 budgets for LAMB suggests that the school's finances are not structured in such a way that a lawsuit could touch the bulk of their operating expenses. In 2015, about $7.3 million of the schools $7.5 million budget came from revenue sources that cannot be touched by a lawsuit -- the DC per capita student money, after school care fees, and federal grants. (See page 6 of this document-- http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/FY15%20Audited%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20LAMB.pdf)

So long as the DC govt doesn't close the school, which it wouldn't given the shrieks of anguish they'd have to deal with from the 350 students' parents, the school will continue to receive almost all of its usual revenue regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, which means they wouldn't be forced to close for financial reasons. Sure, they may have to tighten their belts if enough donors and others decide they aren't interested in being associated with the school anymore and cut back on donations. And their insurance premium will likely go up after this. But they have an untouchable and steady revenue stream, so they aren't going to close even if there is a judgement for many millions of dollars.

Typically what happens when a jury awards a plaintiff more than the defendant can pay is that the court places something akin to a lien against future assets. In theory, if a billionaire gave the school $100 million in unrestricted funds down the line, the plaintiffs could go after that money in an effort to satisfy their jury award claim. But no donor would ever give a non-profit money in that way, assuming they aren't total idiots.

what makes you think those fund are immune from judgment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:46 makes a really good point about what we, as a city/district value when it comes to our kids. WTH does the DC Charter School Board not count the physical and emotional safety of children in its assessment of a school's performance?!

Their purview is constrained by law.

However, the school would close tomorrow if parents didn’t enroll. Clearly parents do not care much about abuse of someone else’s children to leave em masse.

Most LAMB families are not poor. They have other choices. Why aren’t they exercising them?

If I’ve learned anything from dcum it’s that parents truly only care about their own children. If their children are fine then they are fine.

[Anonymous]

What good does shutting down the school do when the principal, executive director and school psychologist have all been fired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a LAMB parent, I am horrified by the negligence that occurred under the leadership of Diane C and Cristina E. At the same time, I can see how their judgment was clouded by personal relationships and inexperience with child molesters. That is why they should have had better protective policies in place, which they didn't. Again, negligence. It's awful. I feel so horrible for the victim families.

But to add to already strong emotions on the topic, I am now a little bit angry at the individuals who are suing the school. I realize that something horrible and unimaginably traumatic happened to their kids. It is awful.

But LAMB as an institution does so much good for the children that it serves in Washington DC. Why insist on suing for so much money that the school might go bankrupt and stop all of the good work that it does? (Recognizing again, that the school was a nightmare experience for those families).

I have no ill will at all toward the families filing. Because I understand that they will not receive this amount, what they receive will be from insurance, and will not bring down the school by fact of this lawsuit (or shouldn't). And they do deserve some compensation.

But I do have ill will now toward a lot of people on this thread who seem to be gleefully hoping the school closes down.

I have ill will towards all institutions who are complicit in and support the abuse of children, or anyone. I will own that. Because the children, not you, were the victims. For the record I also harbor ill will towards the Catholic Church, the board of the Weinstein Companies, Roger Ailes and the board at Fox, and every other institution that sat back or enabled abuse and crimes. But thanks to people like you and the genius who is mad at the families suing, now I'm wondering if the LAMB community should be indicted along with the board and administration. If you and your little friend are any indication, maybe so.

And yet if the school shuts down, won't it be children who lose out? Also, please explain how hoping the school does not shut down makes me a target of your negative assessment of the LAMB community.

And yet if the school shuts down, won't it be children who lose out?

That is a slippery slope you are on my friend. Lots of rapists and molesters also do good works. Sure, they victimized children and those children suffered for years and will be saddled with the after effects for years to come, but look at all the charity work he/she did. What's one victim against all of that good? You know what we should do? We should create a formula for how much abuse you can foist on a child against what kind of good you also do. You start. How much to molest a kid? Is a monetary donation enough or must they also have foundation to actually administer the good. Propose a formula.

Also, please explain how hoping the school does not shut down makes me a target of your negative assessment of the LAMB community.

Strangely I wasn't actually sure if I was reading more into your post than I should have. Was it fair to loop you in with the other self interested a-hole? And then you replied and put my mind at ease. What I reacted to (that you subsequently confirmed) was the phrase that you are ok with the suit because they won't get as much as they are requesting. How much to diddle your son/daughter? Seriously. Over the clothes? Under the outerwear but over the underwear? What if it was only once? Or only over a school year? Or what if your elementary school kid seemed to like it? What if your kid was abused but they didn't have to see the abuser again every day after it was exposed? How much of a multiplier if your abused kid then had to go back to school and see their abuser again?

Your post imputed a level of greed in the complaint. According to the complaint the administration let it happen, ignored warnings, hid the investigation, let him come back and repeated the abuse. Then they lied to the community about it. But for their actions his reign of terror would have ended after the first suspension.

So, yeah, I'm ok looping you in with the first poster.

P.S. If you want to extend your "greater good" argument I would suggest to you that the lawsuit shuttering LAMB would do more to prevent this from ever happening at any school ever again than would a slap on the wrist or hit to an insurance premium. Surely you would sacrifice the LAMB community for the sake of all school age children across the land, right?

A level of greed is reflected in the $240 million request for damages. But I assume that’s greed on behalf of the lawyers who took the case, not the families.

By way of comparison, the average judgment per plaintiff against various Catholic Church entities was around $1 million, with some cases being worth far less and some more. The allegations in those cases were often far more egregious, with priests having sex with children and then being transferred around, for years and years. And those plaintiffs didn’t get hundreds of millions of dollars in their lawsuits.

Just from a legal standpoint, the request for damages is completely out of the realm of possibility. I agree with what you’re saying, in theory. Putting a price tag on someone molesting my kid is unthinkable. But once you file a lawsuit, that’s exactly what is going to happen, whether it happens in settlement or whether you roll the dice with a jury.

Totally disagree. You warm my child, a trillion dollars isn’t enough. No amount of money is. When these children face the darkness as adults a check won’t cure their hurt. The amount requested is symbolic and to a drop in the bucket. A child’s innocence is priceless. I hope they win a considerable amount. If it shutters LAMB’s doors, so be it. Making these families whole to any degree possible is the priority to me.

And you can ask for a trillion dollars. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. That’s not how lawsuits work.

Don’t need your Your edification on how lawsuits work. I’m well aware. Perhaps you should spend some time with a dictionary and look up “principle”. Money doesn’t restore dignity, but it sends a message. Anyone versed in litigation knows a person will not reap a trillion dollars. Makes me question your ability to describe how lawsuits work. Go to law school first and come back to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What good does shutting down the school do when the principal, executive director and school psychologist have all been fired?

I know right? Hello! So crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What good does shutting down the school do when the principal, executive director and school psychologist have all been fired?

Spoken like a Penn State fan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What good does shutting down the school do when the principal, executive director and school psychologist have all been fired?

Spoken like a Penn State fan!

Right!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What good does shutting down the school do when the principal, executive director and school psychologist have all been fired?

I know right? Hello! So crazy.

First off, few have advocated for closing the school. As to your actual question about what good would it do, that has been answered by several posters but I will happily answer again. The idea here is that the world is bigger than you and your kid. If a school was penalized so heavily that it could not continue as a going concern then the next administrators and BOD that are faced with having to deal with credible allegations will understand that they must err on the side of protecting children, not favored molester staff. It would put everyone else in education on notice that failing to act to protect children has very real consequences. It is known to those of us who are not self centered, myopic, me-monsters as a "deterrent".

I would be able to tolerate people like you and the person to whom you provided the amen chorus if you had taken issue with whether the school being sued out of existence was a proportional response. I happen to think it is, but it's a fair point to argue. But your pure ignorance in failing to understand how anything is accomplished by the school going away is both astounding and an indication of how very self centered you truly are. I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you love is ever victimized by such a predator. What we are all learning right now (see, #METOO) is that structures and institutions have enabled these types of behavior for a very long time. And until those structures change how they operate, very little can change. If there is no true cost to bad behaviors then behaviors don't change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:46 makes a really good point about what we, as a city/district value when it comes to our kids. WTH does the DC Charter School Board not count the physical and emotional safety of children in its assessment of a school's performance?!

Their purview is constrained by law.

However, the school would close tomorrow if parents didn’t enroll. Clearly parents do not care much about abuse of someone else’s children to leave em masse.

Most LAMB families are not poor. They have other choices. Why aren’t they exercising them?

Yes, that’s right. Their purview is constrained by law and nothing in the law constrains them from examining what happened here. And doing so publicly. If they can do so when money and contracts are involved, they certainly can do so when safety, madated reporting and appropriate governance are the concerns. Too many posters would rather blame parents than the individuals and institutions who took on roles with responsibilities that included the protection of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that the last thing anyone should be worried about is this non-profit school closing because of a lawsuit. A quick glance at the 2015 and 2014 budgets for LAMB suggests that the school's finances are not structured in such a way that a lawsuit could touch the bulk of their operating expenses. In 2015, about $7.3 million of the schools $7.5 million budget came from revenue sources that cannot be touched by a lawsuit -- the DC per capita student money, after school care fees, and federal grants. (See page 6 of this document-- http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/FY15%20Audited%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20LAMB.pdf)

So long as the DC govt doesn't close the school, which it wouldn't given the shrieks of anguish they'd have to deal with from the 350 students' parents, the school will continue to receive almost all of its usual revenue regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, which means they wouldn't be forced to close for financial reasons. Sure, they may have to tighten their belts if enough donors and others decide they aren't interested in being associated with the school anymore and cut back on donations. And their insurance premium will likely go up after this. But they have an untouchable and steady revenue stream, so they aren't going to close even if there is a judgement for many millions of dollars.

Typically what happens when a jury awards a plaintiff more than the defendant can pay is that the court places something akin to a lien against future assets. In theory, if a billionaire gave the school $100 million in unrestricted funds down the line, the plaintiffs could go after that money in an effort to satisfy their jury award claim. But no donor would ever give a non-profit money in that way, assuming they aren't total idiots.

Do not know where to start. Guessing you are a 3-5th year at a law firm who thinks you know what you are talking about. I dare you to sign this. Please, I'm begging you! Let's see who the bigwig on DCUM is. How many hundreds of these trials have you first or 2nd chaired? Please tell us oh wise legal scholar.

The think about seasoned lawyers is that the more you learn and see, the more you realize there are no certainties. Please do not confuse your T-25 law school education and 3 years doing doc review at BigLaw with actual legal experience. I'm reminded of the people who just knew that Big Tobacco wouldn't lose the state lawsuits. Everyone knew it. Some states knew it so much that they allowed Peter Angelos to take the case with a 25% cut of recovery. He cashed a $1 billion check (with a B).

What a bizarre response. Of course there are no guarantees. That cuts both ways.

-“Seasoned lawyer”

[Anonymous]

LAMB parent posting for the first time.

If there are LAMB families posting (over and over again) on here, I really wish you would move to the school forum and post there and sign your name so that we can have a real dialogue. It's hard to know if people posting here are LAMB families or not. This is a very tough time for the school, but so many of us want the school to survive and thrive. I think if families do not want to be part of helping the school move forward (while certainly acknowledging the pain and tragedy of what happened), then they need to consider pulling their children out after this year. I cannot imagine staying if I had so much ill will towards the school.

I am really glad the three individuals responsible are gone. They should have been fired long ago. With them gone, I feel comfortable staying at the school and being part of helping move forward. I cannot imagine staying if I didn't feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Here is my guess about why those LAMB revenue sources would likely be "judgement proof"--

The 6.3 M from per pupil fees is money the school would only receive if it actually enrolls and teaches students. I can't imagine that the District's Treasurer gives the schools the entire 9 months worth of money for each kid at the beginning of the school year and then allows the schools to spend it as they like on things unrelated to teaching those students. That would be way too tempting to those school leaders who like to mismanage public funds. But then again, this is DC. So maybe it's possible.

There is about half a million in fees for the Extended Day Learning Program (aka after school care) from parents whose kids are enrolled in the program. Not sure what parent would keep paying the monthly cost of after school care if the school ceases to provide the care. I certainly would not.

The federal grants are about half a million. In general, federal grants restrict the use of the funds for things unrelated to the grant, like paying a legal judgement against the grantee for allowing child abuse. It's pretty obvious why that would be their practice. (That said, it did turn out that the US House was using our tax dollars to pay off victims.) Also, fed grant money is usually distributed in installments after the grantee meets benchmarks. So if the grantee were to use the money for a different purpose than intended, they'd be cut off from receiving future installments.