Anonymous wrote:14:41 you just made the case for the defense. How many millions of dollars in fees would you be willing to spend to convince anyone of this? Not so much, probably. This is why the school will have to settle.

^^Sorry, meant 14:38

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Daddy issues, marrying for money, marrying an arm piece, having kids even though one of the parents is likely to die in a few years...

says a lot about character.

No daddy issues here, just happily married to an older man. And while I may be considered an "arm piece" to someone looking to make assumptions, my double ivy league degrees, professional position and reputation, and our very happy, well adjusted family suit us just fine. And my character is well intact. Oh, and I came with my own money. What's your problem with me again?

You sound like an asshole.

I don't think she does. I think you do.

PP, are you 6 years old?

Anonymous wrote:Terry Newmyer didn't perform up to his ancestor's standards. He has embarassed his entire legacy by bringing this situation out in the publc and the $10M lawsuit is ridiculous. His poor kid. Just goes to show some rich folks think they can have whatever they want ... and when they don't get it ...they sue (Newmyer) or they kill (G. Hugely)

Lol. Because poorer people never sue or kill anyone.

The mother is quoted today in the Post saying that there was never a professional/therapeutic relationship between Dr. Huntington and her daughter. Is there a reason to believe one parent's version of events over the other (since they both appear to be ... unreliable) until the facts come out in court?

If you take the word "therapist" and insert a space between the 'e' and the 'r', is makes two words. The English language is so interesting, that way.

Are their guidelines for therapists as far as getting romantically involved with clients or clients' parents? As in, not doing as much?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Daddy issues, marrying for money, marrying an arm piece, having kids even though one of the parents is likely to die in a few years...

says a lot about character.

No daddy issues here, just happily married to an older man. And while I may be considered an "arm piece" to someone looking to make assumptions, my double ivy league degrees, professional position and reputation, and our very happy, well adjusted family suit us just fine. And my character is well intact. Oh, and I came with my own money. What's your problem with me again?

You sound like an asshole.

I don't think she does. I think you do.

Jeff,

Don't be so sensitive! Screw the City Paper!

14:41 you just made the case for the defense. How many millions of dollars in fees would you be willing to spend to convince anyone of this? Not so much, probably. This is why the school will have to settle.

Terry Newmyer didn't perform up to his ancestor's standards. He has embarassed his entire legacy by bringing this situation out in the publc and the $10M lawsuit is ridiculous. His poor kid. Just goes to show some rich folks think they can have whatever they want ... and when they don't get it ...they sue (Newmyer) or they kill (G. Hugely)

Is the child still at Sidwell?

Once JH made that "initial assessment" he had a professional relationship with that child. And once the school knew that this was happening with a professional on their staff and student for whom they should have shown more care, they had a duty.

Some posters here are drawing lines that either didn't exist (when did the professional relationship blur into a personal one? Is it clear? Was a line ever drawn there?) or don't matter (private office).

Both the NYT article and the WALJ report are inaccuate. Huntington was not the shrink at the lower school as ALJ misreports he was; the lower school is not even in the same state as the middle school campus where he worked. And Huntington was not "treating" Newmyer's daughter in response to the firing of middle school teacher Pete Peterson, nor were is services offered to her in connection with that firing, as the NYT article implies. The child was brought to him for an assessment in his private practice--no affiliation with the School whatsoever--where he met the mom, eyes locked, pulses quickened, etc., and they proceeded to make terrible and terribly stupid decisions (including laying out graphic detail of their affair via email). After the initial assessment by JH, there were no more; the playdates were set up because the parents had the hots for each other and the kids got along, not as mixed therapy/playdate sessions as alleged.

JH is an idiot for many, many reasons. Should've been fired and he was (but not because of his private life). However, his idiocy does not implicate him or the School as liable on any basis asserted by the complaint. No emotional distress without physical harm. Thus, no "injury" and no negligent supervision. No respondeat superior without scope of employment. Not to mention the fact that a kid in counseling at age 6 is _already_ emotionally distressed. The affidavit of a family friend saying she seems "cagey" compared to the preceding summer is hardly enough to prove up a case, even _if_ physical harm weren't a requirement (it is). (BTW, think sending a copy of this complaint to the news agencies is going to help your daughter's troubles?) Fiduciary duty? Please.

As one PP said, the plaintiff is a man whose hatred for his wife and sense of vengeance toward the man who cuckolded him outweigh whatever sense of care he feels toward his daughter (obviously not much). If you read the complaint, it's plain he wanted the daughter to stay in Florida; by tossing out the collaterally damaging accusations he does, he is also furthering his goal of making the School a place his daughter cannot reasonably be expected to attend. The lovebirds and plaintiff are all gigantic assholes and their kids' suffering is only just beginning. Remember when you had that revelation that your parents must have sex to have had _you_, how mortifying, how much of an *ICK* that was? Now imagine what it would be like to stumble across the things in this complaint, written about mommy.

All three of them teamed up to make a total disaster. Good luck kid.

Anonymous wrote:It would be good if people realized this was a single dad and a separated mom with children in the same class who started dating. He was a middle school teacher-- separate campus, and never treated the Pre-K daughter. The lower school has its own faculty. There was no school sponsored therapy sessions going on here. This is just an awful case of a husband whose hatred for an almost-ex wife is greater than his love for his children. It makes me so sad that she will grow up and possibly read this lawsuit. Just a real shame.

No, I just can't agree with this benign assessment. That's what I thought when I first heard the rumours, but upon reading the complaint, I have to admit that if it's true as alleged that these rumours reached Sally and Steve and they did nothing, it's damning. Not from a legal standpoint, but in terms of what's right for the kids and the SFS community. Sure, the story isn't what the lawsuit is trying to make it out to be -- some of the allegations are preposterous on their face -- but if Sally and Steve learned of the affair, then they should have taken some action, particularly if they were told that Jack seemed to be collaborating in the pretext that he was assessing or counselling the child. Particularly in light of the other problems with Jack's performance as MS counsellor, some administration response was in order. Did they meet with him to discuss this? Did they warn him about the possible consequences of his actions? If they didn't, they sent a message that behavior hurtful of children and possibly in violation of professional ethical obligations is acceptable among Sidwell faculty and staff. And did they ever wonder if MS kids and parents who heard of this situation would feel confident in Jack's discretion and judgement as a counsellor? However appalling Terry Newmyer's motives are, the school should have made its own judgment about the choices Jack made and what those choices implied about his suitabilty as a counsellor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that employee is in charge of counseling Sidwell students and the employee has an affair with the mother of one of the students, you don't see where the school may have some liability? Particularly if that student was being "treated" by the employee? And what if they are able to prove that the child's well being was adversely affected by this affair?

Huntington was the Middle School counselor, responsible for students in grades 5-8. He had no role at Lower School (grades PK-4) - they have their own staff, on a separate campus. It seems unlikely that he had any kind of a professional relationship with a child in a different division of the school, and in his own child's class. His actions appear to be stupid at best, sleazy at worst, but not professionally unethical.

His job description may have encompassed the whole school community. If he used his school email address, these things will all add up to making it more likely than not that they knew about the conduct. And really, if someone would violate patient/client relationship so flagrantly, it likely isn't the first time. Defendants are seriously up a creek here.