Sidwell sued over staff psychologist's affair

[Anonymous]

So the claims seems to center around whether the daughter had a ``therapeutic'' relationship with Huntington. In other words, was he really treating the girl in a professional capacity and thus provides the father a path to sue? Not a lawyer, but if that's the legal basis for filing the suit, I think it gets thrown out. I don't see a middle school shrink visiting a five year old girl out of the blue at her home for a psych eval. That's not what happens in real life. Huntington and the wife were already having their own relationship and the wife was using the girl as a cover. ick, ick, ick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is also troubling, aside from this whole sad affair, is the court filing which suggested that Huntington had 8th grade girls in his office talking about P.E. teachers hitting on them. I hope to god that's not true, but if it is, Sidwell better take quick and decisive action.

There are so many disturbing facts in this case, but as someone who has been around lots of 8th grade girls, I can tell you that they casually throw around words like stalker and often joke about men and boys hitting on them. It doesn't mean it is actually the case, and I've warned my daughters to be careful with those words. I never thought Jack was a great counselor; I thought he was somewhat lazy and that the school could do better. Still this particular comment doesn't bother me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the claims seems to center around whether the daughter had a ``therapeutic'' relationship with Huntington. In other words, was he really treating the girl in a professional capacity and thus provides the father a path to sue? Not a lawyer, but if that's the legal basis for filing the suit, I think it gets thrown out. I don't see a middle school shrink visiting a five year old girl out of the blue at her home for a psych eval. That's not what happens in real life. Huntington and the wife were already having their own relationship and the wife was using the girl as a cover. ick, ick, ick.

Even if the psychologist only "assessed" the girl and made an internal recommendation for her academic management at the school, the psychologist will be considered to have violated his duty. Based on the complaint, the father seems to have evidence of this. Also, now that the complaint is filed, Sidwell will be required to produce relevant emails as part of discovery. Sidwell now has a legal obligation to preserve all documentation on the issue or be vulnerable to destruction of evidence charges. For the PP who said Sidwell would have no motivation to settle now that the suit is filed, I think the opposite is true - there is greater motivation now that Sidwell is vulnerable to further disclosures in discovery. That's why people sue.

FWIW, I don't know anyone involved in the case, but if the allegation is true that the psychologist slept with the wife after having seen the child in any capacity or having responded to the mother's questions about the child, then the psychologist (and the school as his supervisor) should absolutely be sued. This kind of professional violation of sexual behavior is quite serious and predatory. Often people don't recognize the seriousness of their boundary violation unless forced to confront it in the legal process. Same goes for institutions - sexual boundary violations are often seen as "consensual" behaviors instead of the predatory, violative behaviors they are. This re-victimizes the victim.

Most normal people when confronted by the questions posed by the psychologist's ex about the potential consequences of his behavior would step back and self-restrain, but he failed to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two scandals at Sidwell in the same year and I thought Landon was the only school in the area with this type of baggage. I'm glad my son is at Montgomery County public.

Me too, but I'm sure this stuff happens in MoCo and other places. Just that those schools aren't particularly newsworthy.

Why bring Landon into this? The middle school boy hook-up list and Huguely? I have never had a connection to Landon but we know enough students and parents there to be very comfortable with the school. Here's a UK article on Sidwell with more info:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386464/Barack-Obamas-daughters-school-sued-10m-allowing-psychologist-affair-pupils-mother.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Even if the psychologist only "assessed" the girl and made an internal recommendation for her academic management at the school, the psychologist will be considered to have violated his duty. Based on the complaint, the father seems to have evidence of this. Also, now that the complaint is filed, Sidwell will be required to produce relevant emails as part of discovery. Sidwell now has a legal obligation to preserve all documentation on the issue or be vulnerable to destruction of evidence charges. For the PP who said Sidwell would have no motivation to settle now that the suit is filed, I think the opposite is true - there is greater motivation now that Sidwell is vulnerable to further disclosures in discovery. That's why people sue.

FWIW, I don't know anyone involved in the case, but if the allegation is true that the psychologist slept with the wife after having seen the child in any capacity or having responded to the mother's questions about the child, then the psychologist (and the school as his supervisor) should absolutely be sued. This kind of professional violation of sexual behavior is quite serious and predatory. Often people don't recognize the seriousness of their boundary violation unless forced to confront it in the legal process. Same goes for institutions - sexual boundary violations are often seen as "consensual" behaviors instead of the predatory, violative behaviors they are. This re-victimizes the victim.

Most normal people when confronted by the questions posed by the psychologist's ex about the potential consequences of his behavior would step back and self-restrain, but he failed to do so.

This is the most sensible post I've read so far. I don't quite understand why people are defending the school psych or the mother. There are three very poorly behaving adults here, one of whom is also in violation of his professional code of ethics and his responsibilities in the workplace. And one traumatized little girl. How could the school not step in to protect the most vulnerable of all the parties - the little girl?

[Anonymous]

Was the marriage one between a younger wife and older husband? Not that it would explain or justiry anyon'e behavior.

[Anonymous]

Its just amazing to me how a Father can expose his childrens to national scandal, affecting even the president's childrens and family that dont have anything to do whit his personal life struggles , just because her ex wife is whit another man.Poor childrens, and poor ex wife , is this the way a man stand for his family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most normal people when confronted by the questions posed by the psychologist's ex about the potential consequences of his behavior would step back and self-restrain, but he failed to do so.

Yes, he should have backed off. Would most normal people do so? Who knows? Entirely possible that the ex-wife's confrontation was not nearly as professional as the plaintiff would like to suggest. Are her BJs so awesome that you'd sacrifice our daughter's emotional well-being for them? (which seems to have been part of her response) may have come off more as the response of someone who is jealous and manipulative than someone who is objectively presenting advice re professional ethics.

[Anonymous]

Leave it to the British to do much more thorough and accurate reporting than the Washington paper!

[Anonymous]

The Royals have given them lots of practice with sleazy stories like these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most normal people when confronted by the questions posed by the psychologist's ex about the potential consequences of his behavior would step back and self-restrain, but he failed to do so.

Yes, he should have backed off. Would most normal people do so? Who knows? Entirely possible that the ex-wife's confrontation was not nearly as professional as the plaintiff would like to suggest. Are her BJs so awesome that you'd sacrifice our daughter's emotional well-being for them? (which seems to have been part of her response) may have come off more as the response of someone who is jealous and manipulative than someone who is objectively presenting advice re professional ethics.

The Sidwell staffer had a child in the same pre-school class. Huntington had a staff/student relationship with the child. Most pre-k students DO NOT need psychologists at school or privately. Are emails on the school server private? i suppose they went out under sidwell.edu or whatever.

most schools would have done something about this weirdness. I guess that is the point of this lawsuit. The child in a hotel room while they are getting it on?

[Anonymous]

Oh, yes, it was a marriage between a younger wife and older husband... sick couple, sick lawsuit, poor children.

[Anonymous]

I was really hoping this was a former psychologist at the school who I know is into swinging with her husband...

I mean it would fit her so well

oh well back to my boring life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, yes, it was a marriage between a younger wife and older husband... sick couple, sick lawsuit, poor children.

What does respective ages have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Even if the psychologist only "assessed" the girl and made an internal recommendation for her academic management at the school, the psychologist will be considered to have violated his duty. Based on the complaint, the father seems to have evidence of this. Also, now that the complaint is filed, Sidwell will be required to produce relevant emails as part of discovery. Sidwell now has a legal obligation to preserve all documentation on the issue or be vulnerable to destruction of evidence charges. For the PP who said Sidwell would have no motivation to settle now that the suit is filed, I think the opposite is true - there is greater motivation now that Sidwell is vulnerable to further disclosures in discovery. That's why people sue.

FWIW, I don't know anyone involved in the case, but if the allegation is true that the psychologist slept with the wife after having seen the child in any capacity or having responded to the mother's questions about the child, then the psychologist (and the school as his supervisor) should absolutely be sued. This kind of professional violation of sexual behavior is quite serious and predatory. Often people don't recognize the seriousness of their boundary violation unless forced to confront it in the legal process. Same goes for institutions - sexual boundary violations are often seen as "consensual" behaviors instead of the predatory, violative behaviors they are. This re-victimizes the victim.

Most normal people when confronted by the questions posed by the psychologist's ex about the potential consequences of his behavior would step back and self-restrain, but he failed to do so.

This is the most sensible post I've read so far. I don't quite understand why people are defending the school psych or the mother. There are three very poorly behaving adults here, one of whom is also in violation of his professional code of ethics and his responsibilities in the workplace. And one traumatized little girl. How could the school not step in to protect the most vulnerable of all the parties - the little girl?

I don't think anyone is defending the mother or the school but rather pointing out that the father played a big role (if not bigger than the school at a minimum) in failing to protect his child. And really, would a 5 year old be more traumatized by "hanging out" with her schoolmate's family (did she really know what was going on?) on occasion or by her mother moving her away from her father and putting her into a school which her father didn't want her to attend? My money is on her own parents screwing her up royally. Sidwell is just collateral damage. I have no idea what they did or what they knew -- I only know what the father claims.