What is going on at Sidwell is NOT just a “sex scandal”

[Anonymous]

Poor rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's not that rich. He just makes people think he is.

He's got 4 paid-off houses. How many do you have!

You all know the judges gave him custody and Sidwell fired the "poor doc," right? - not Terry

[Anonymous]

Apparently, Terry and Geoff, you didn't read the complaint in the federal case or the $10 million counterclaim that the doctor filed against Terry in the Sidwell litigation.

The court did not give Terry custody. That is a falsehood.

The court moved the children to Florida after Terry and his "expert" shrink gave testimony that was both material and not true.

And I'm sure that Terry's actions had nothing whatsoever to do with the doc getting fired. Right?

Let's see how many houses Terry has left after he has to pay Huntington, Sidwell, Tara and a few other people.

[Anonymous]

Np here. I would add to pp, I think that a court could consider the fathers litigious ways and all the stuff he started as a negative factor in a best interests analysis. Also, a positive factor goes to the parent that sells to foster the other parents relationship with the children. Based on the things written in this thread, it seems the father is not supportive of the mother. Quite to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, Terry and Geoff, you didn't read the complaint in the federal case or the $10 million counterclaim that the doctor filed against Terry in the Sidwell litigation.

The court did not give Terry custody. That is a falsehood.

The court moved the children to Florida after Terry and his "expert" shrink gave testimony that was both material and not true.

And I'm sure that Terry's actions had nothing whatsoever to do with the doc getting fired. Right?

Let's see how many houses Terry has left after he has to pay Huntington, Sidwell, Tara and a few other people.

Tara, this is clearly you. Your writing style is unmistakeable. I won't say more about the parties' financial situation in the interest of your privacy but I think it's clear who is suffering there. Who is Geoff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Np here. I would add to pp, I think that a court could consider the fathers litigious ways and all the stuff he started as a negative factor in a best interests analysis. Also, a positive factor goes to the parent that sells to foster the other parents relationship with the children. Based on the things written in this thread, it seems the father is not supportive of the mother. Quite to the contrary.

This is hilarious considering the circumstances. He's raising the kids.

[Anonymous]

Is it really possible that the litigants are fighting this out on the Private/Independent Schools forum of DCUM? Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m disturbed that what has been going on at Sidwell is being called a “sex scandal.” There is plenty of sex involved, but it ranges from immoral to distrusting and deviant. I’m not one of the “inner voice” people, but I would consider this (all in the past three years) to be indicative of an abusive environment.

A longtime 8th grade teacher at Sidwell Friends School admitting to fondling a 15-year-old Sidwell boy.
Sidwell’s staff psychologist doing an “in home” evaluation of a pre-K girl and bedding the mom shortly thereafter –as the little girl was in adjacent room.
8th grade Sidwell girls talking about male P.E. teachers that try to hit on them.
A bullying incident at Sidwell involving Bob Woodward’s daughter and a deliberate disclosure of confidential details provided by the young girl.

Note how the OP morphed into a thread about the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny to witness lack of outrage from Sidwell parents. Sidwell provides the culture the parents demand. Fondle my kid; F$ck my wife - but make sure my kid goes to HYP and whatever you do don't let the STA parents know what is going down here. I couldn't bear the embarrassment.

+1 This is why people really attracted to Quaker values don't go there. I hear Sandy Springs is more true to Quaker roots.

HAHAHAHA! Very good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really possible that the litigants are fighting this out on the Private/Independent Schools forum of DCUM? Bizarre.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Guess that "inner voice" isn't working because that odd assortment of SECULAR private schools GDS, Landon, Bullis has escaped the plague.

Obviously you are not privvy to the recent racial issues at GDS

No school has done a better job than GDS of getting out of sticky situations: http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20070524_0000423.DDC.htm/qx

[jsteele]

New developments in this apparently never-ending soap opera:

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/13-CV-1262+.pdf

If I understand correctly, Huntington can sue Newmyer now.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

[Anonymous]

Court documents were just recently filed (Dec 24, 2015).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry. The site administrator just posted this link to a story that happened 2-3 years ago? Save us the time and trouble of reading the attachment, what is the intent of your post?

I'm not a lawyer so I don't feel confident trying to explain the document which reports an important ruling in the case. My very layman understanding which may be 180 degrees from reality is that a lower court's summary judgement was upheld on appeal in all but two cases. As a result, the former school psychologist's case against the aggrieved father can now proceed.