@ 05/19/2011 20:48:

You are an idiot. A person can put anything, _anything_ he wants in a complaint without any substantiation whatsoever. Concluding anything based on what is _alleged_ in a complaint, other than (a) inferential conclusions about the complainant's motives, and (b) whether he has actually alleged any facts that would add up to a legal claim if those facts were assumed to be true (which in this case he hasn't), is simply moronic. With this kind of genius at work, it's no wonder people seethe about this board.

PP here... Also, note... If a family is applying from out-of-town, it is common practice for the school to only meet one parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An Admisdions Director is at fault when a respected alum father, who is not separated & has full custody, tells her he has had two children in the school very successfully, but the school's educational offerings are not in this child's best interests such that he will neither sign the application nor pay for attendance. Any Admin Officer admitting a student under that circumstance is willfully choosing to "split" a 5 yo from her custodial father and dooming future teachers to a failed Parent-teacher relationship. Hard to find worse Admiss Officer judgment

I think this makes sense, actually. Why would a school accept a child when one parent was so strongly opposed, for whatever reason? How is this going to be a good fit for the family?

Actually, if neither father or mother had filed for divorced or separation, then only one signature was needed on the application (note: after an offer of admission both signatures are required on the actual contract). It is quite feasible that the mother had their daughter go through the application process without telling the father, so the Sidwell AD would have had no idea the father was opposed.

Anonymous wrote:An Admisdions Director is at fault when a respected alum father, who is not separated & has full custody, tells her he has had two children in the school very successfully, but the school's educational offerings are not in this child's best interests such that he will neither sign the application nor pay for attendance. Any Admin Officer admitting a student under that circumstance is willfully choosing to "split" a 5 yo from her custodial father and dooming future teachers to a failed Parent-teacher relationship. Hard to find worse Admiss Officer judgment

I think this makes sense, actually. Why would a school accept a child when one parent was so strongly opposed, for whatever reason? How is this going to be a good fit for the family?

20:48, I don't recall seeing anything in the complaint (or anywhere else) about substance abuse in this case? Where did you get that?

23:11 That is a laughable hypothesis, no offense.

An Admisdions Director is at fault when a respected alum father, who is not separated & has full custody, tells her he has had two children in the school very successfully, but the school's educational offerings are not in this child's best interests such that he will neither sign the application nor pay for attendance. Any Admin Officer admitting a student under that circumstance is willfully choosing to "split" a 5 yo from her custodial father and dooming future teachers to a failed Parent-teacher relationship. Hard to find worse Admiss Officer judgment

This suit has about as much merit as Dan Snyder's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jack Huntington is now missing from the list of staff members on the Wake Kendall website. Hmmmm.

I'm disturbed that he was hired there given the circumstances. Think it really reflects poorly on Anne Kendall's judgment.

Rathbone and associates hired him too didn't they and that group does therapy.

Anonymous wrote:Father asserts he felt SFS a bad match for his 3rd child (first 2 went there). My guess is he agrees with wife & J Huntington she is gifted. Having had a girl in one of DC's leading 5 from K on, I suspect due to TN's 11 family members who went to SFS that he knew the secret that GT differentiation is lacking in lower/middle. Advanced classes & grouping comes in Int. & Upper. By then, low performers of preK-middle have moved elsewhere & kids get admitted for their standardized testing stats which ensures good college admissions overall. In later years, she'd have a peer group. Mom might have chosen to test her in later if she wanted "enrichment." My daughter's GT peers, some of them, left in lower for their public's GT magnet school.

This is your issue and has nothing to do with this case. Nice try.

Wait, so the Admissions Director is supposed to be at fault when a "highly gifted" member of a family prominent to the school is admitted?

Anonymous wrote:Jack Huntington is now missing from the list of staff members on the Wake Kendall website. Hmmmm.

I'm disturbed that he was hired there given the circumstances. Think it really reflects poorly on Anne Kendall's judgment.

They lived in Florida. Anyone been following public ed reform there? K-5 in Palm Beach public, much less private, probably trumped SFS for the K-5 GT kid. Plenty of time to move to DC for Upper. Seems the move was to bwnefit Mom, not LN.

Father asserts he felt SFS a bad match for his 3rd child (first 2 went there). My guess is he agrees with wife & J Huntington she is gifted. Having had a girl in one of DC's leading 5 from K on, I suspect due to TN's 11 family members who went to SFS that he knew the secret that GT differentiation is lacking in lower/middle. Advanced classes & grouping comes in Int. & Upper. By then, low performers of preK-middle have moved elsewhere & kids get admitted for their standardized testing stats which ensures good college admissions overall. In later years, she'd have a peer group. Mom might have chosen to test her in later if she wanted "enrichment." My daughter's GT peers, some of them, left in lower for their public's GT magnet school.

I found & read the Complaint online  & advise all to do so. I conclude from the facts alleged that this is a  rightly filed suit.   Plaintiff's attorney would be wise to go to jury trial and amend remedies to include a process to ensure revisions to school employee policies & supervisory checks & balances operationally. 
This  father apparently worked with the school  adequately if the facts of the Complaint are proven. 
he, his prior generation, and two of his children previously attended and supported Sidwell dating back decades, but after failing to gain the school's support of his daughter for over a year it is alleged,  the suit's intent now is to support his daughter and all future Sidwell students. 
 It is unfortunate that suits like this are the only means to bring effective institutional accountability and change. The psychologist was a Sidwell employee, & families were expected to use him. Even without this father's reports, the school owed a duty of care & supervision flowing to both students & parents which was allegedly lacking. The other fired employee should have been the Admissions Director who  failed to take an alumnus father's knowledge of his daughter's profile & needs to heart in the admission decision. 
 Dr liza H should not fear repercussions for her daughter. It is my experience preK and K parents know who the A-H parents in the room are & don't blame the child. Kudos to her for parental/professional maturity.
 It is scarey to think my child could have gone to Sidwell & interacted with a staffer acting out sexually in academic hours by email and engaging in regular substance abuse in his personal life.  
At another leading  DC private, we found no better Admin accountability when staff underperformed or acted detrimentally to individual children or classes. Interestingly, there, two of those staff (in my opinion) had worked for the same "professional group, I was told at the time.   "Supporting the school" does not mean a parent should fail to hold schools accountable for reasonable standards of care