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).

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).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I need to jump in here, as a lawyer, and point out that just because someone asks for millions of dollars in a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that’s what their case is worth, nor does it mean that’s what they’re going to get. I think this case has merit, at least against Cristina and Diane, but I don’t think it’s worth millions of dollars.

I also think this case is going to settle. There’s no way these parents are going to want their children to endure depositions and trial testimony. The school is, I’m sure, also motivated to settle. This case, and those like it, can get resolved at some reasonable number.

How much, precisely, would you accept in exchange for molestation of your child? Only a lawyer...

When you get involved in litigation, and you’re paying legal fees, and your lawyer tells you that your case is likely to drag on for at least 3 years, that discovery and trial will be tough for your family, that your chance of success against the “deep pockets” is not great, that you probably won’t be able to collect against the individuals, that you could spend all this money on legal fees and then lose, and that your best outcome is probably $_______, you weigh your options and if you’re a rational actor, you settle. Litigation is terrible and soul sucking, even if you have a great case.

Litigator here too and I posted before. Likely to settle of course. The parents and lawyers know this. Deep pockets is the insurance company though it seems from the filing that they are targeting the individuals too. I am curious about the insurance company covering the employees and exactly how that is worded. With the filing I can't imagine the other parents/lawyers will sit by. Though many talk about the cost of litigation, with this filing info, the report and insurance it is pretty easy to get other families involved. While the parents don't want this to go to trial the defendants in no way want this to go to trial either.

The school's policy will no doubt cover each claim or cause of action up to a maximum, with an aggregate payout under the policy up to $X. What would make me nervous right now if I was a LAMB parent is how much aggregate coverage there is under the policy. I would expect every wronged family to come out and file similar suits. If the final amount ordered at trial(s) exceeds the coverage...ball game. It is also noteworthy that the filing pounds on gross negligence, willful misconduct and other very high thresholds. LAMB's policy should cover administrators in their individual capacities, but some polices exclude coverage for egregious behaviors. As someone disgusted by what these people did and did not do, I'd be quite content if LAMB came out of pocket for huge amounts to victims but survived, and the individuals were left out to pasture on their own.

How deep of pockets does LAMB (or any other DC charter school) have? LAMB owns one building that is subject to a mortgage; I don't know the amounts. To the extent it receives non-DC money (from foundations, etc.), I would expect the money is dolled out per a schedule (with no real commitment form the donor) and not survive bankruptcy -- which is also the end game for all the indiv, defendants.

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).

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).

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).

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).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not to mention that this was certainly conduct he had engaged in in the past. Dude did not just become a serial child molester when he started to work at LAMB. I'll bet anything that a thorough background check would have turned something up.

I agree that this was probably conduct he engaged in or attempted in the past. But I doubt it would have turned up on a background check, unfortunately. Background checks only contain arrests/convictions not suspicions or complaints. If LAMB had fired him for the locked door incident and MPD declined to prosecute, nothing would have shown up on the background check at his next school of employment. Even when you check references, no one says “we suspected him/her of inappropriate behavior with students”. Instead the most you might get is that the school wouldn’t rehire the person. A school employee seeking a job in the spring like Fernandez is a red flag to be investigated. Schools need to dig deep when people are seeking jobs mid-year. Background checks are simply not enough.

Yeah, I don't mean the computerized background check. I mean a careful, in-person check of his employment histories and the reasons for dismissal at each job, particularly where there are gaps or apparent terminations.

hr people will only tell you dates of employment. They arent going to risk a lawsuit to tell you that they didn't renew his contract or eliminated his position because his interactions with students were too familiar for their tastes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not to mention that this was certainly conduct he had engaged in in the past. Dude did not just become a serial child molester when he started to work at LAMB. I'll bet anything that a thorough background check would have turned something up.

I agree that this was probably conduct he engaged in or attempted in the past. But I doubt it would have turned up on a background check, unfortunately. Background checks only contain arrests/convictions not suspicions or complaints. If LAMB had fired him for the locked door incident and MPD declined to prosecute, nothing would have shown up on the background check at his next school of employment. Even when you check references, no one says “we suspected him/her of inappropriate behavior with students”. Instead the most you might get is that the school wouldn’t rehire the person. A school employee seeking a job in the spring like Fernandez is a red flag to be investigated. Schools need to dig deep when people are seeking jobs mid-year. Background checks are simply not enough.

Yeah, I don't mean the computerized background check. I mean a careful, in-person check of his employment histories and the reasons for dismissal at each job, particularly where there are gaps or apparent terminations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not to mention that this was certainly conduct he had engaged in in the past. Dude did not just become a serial child molester when he started to work at LAMB. I'll bet anything that a thorough background check would have turned something up.

I agree that this was probably conduct he engaged in or attempted in the past. But I doubt it would have turned up on a background check, unfortunately. Background checks only contain arrests/convictions not suspicions or complaints. If LAMB had fired him for the locked door incident and MPD declined to prosecute, nothing would have shown up on the background check at his next school of employment. Even when you check references, no one says “we suspected him/her of inappropriate behavior with students”. Instead the most you might get is that the school wouldn’t rehire the person. A school employee seeking a job in the spring like Fernandez is a red flag to be investigated. Schools need to dig deep when people are seeking jobs mid-year. Background checks are simply not enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I need to jump in here, as a lawyer, and point out that just because someone asks for millions of dollars in a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that’s what their case is worth, nor does it mean that’s what they’re going to get. I think this case has merit, at least against Cristina and Diane, but I don’t think it’s worth millions of dollars.

I also think this case is going to settle. There’s no way these parents are going to want their children to endure depositions and trial testimony. The school is, I’m sure, also motivated to settle. This case, and those like it, can get resolved at some reasonable number.

How much, precisely, would you accept in exchange for molestation of your child? Only a lawyer...

When you get involved in litigation, and you’re paying legal fees, and your lawyer tells you that your case is likely to drag on for at least 3 years, that discovery and trial will be tough for your family, that your chance of success against the “deep pockets” is not great, that you probably won’t be able to collect against the individuals, that you could spend all this money on legal fees and then lose, and that your best outcome is probably $_______, you weigh your options and if you’re a rational actor, you settle. Litigation is terrible and soul sucking, even if you have a great case.

Litigator here too and I posted before. Likely to settle of course. The parents and lawyers know this. Deep pockets is the insurance company though it seems from the filing that they are targeting the individuals too. I am curious about the insurance company covering the employees and exactly how that is worded. With the filing I can't imagine the other parents/lawyers will sit by. Though many talk about the cost of litigation, with this filing info, the report and insurance it is pretty easy to get other families involved. While the parents don't want this to go to trial the defendants in no way want this to go to trial either.

The school's policy will no doubt cover each claim or cause of action up to a maximum, with an aggregate payout under the policy up to $X. What would make me nervous right now if I was a LAMB parent is how much aggregate coverage there is under the policy. I would expect every wronged family to come out and file similar suits. If the final amount ordered at trial(s) exceeds the coverage...ball game. It is also noteworthy that the filing pounds on gross negligence, willful misconduct and other very high thresholds. LAMB's policy should cover administrators in their individual capacities, but some polices exclude coverage for egregious behaviors. As someone disgusted by what these people did and did not do, I'd be quite content if LAMB came out of pocket for huge amounts to victims but survived, and the individuals were left out to pasture on their own.

How deep of pockets does LAMB (or any other DC charter school) have? LAMB owns one building that is subject to a mortgage; I don't know the amounts. To the extent it receives non-DC money (from foundations, etc.), I would expect the money is dolled out per a schedule (with no real commitment form the donor) and not survive bankruptcy -- which is also the end game for all the indiv, defendants.

LAMB's most recent annual report - financial statement starts on page 42

http://www.dcpcsb.org/sites/default/files/report/2015-2016%20Annual%20Report%28DSFC%29%28LatinAmericMontesBilingPCS%29.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I need to jump in here, as a lawyer, and point out that just because someone asks for millions of dollars in a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that’s what their case is worth, nor does it mean that’s what they’re going to get. I think this case has merit, at least against Cristina and Diane, but I don’t think it’s worth millions of dollars.

I also think this case is going to settle. There’s no way these parents are going to want their children to endure depositions and trial testimony. The school is, I’m sure, also motivated to settle. This case, and those like it, can get resolved at some reasonable number.

How much, precisely, would you accept in exchange for molestation of your child? Only a lawyer...

When you get involved in litigation, and you’re paying legal fees, and your lawyer tells you that your case is likely to drag on for at least 3 years, that discovery and trial will be tough for your family, that your chance of success against the “deep pockets” is not great, that you probably won’t be able to collect against the individuals, that you could spend all this money on legal fees and then lose, and that your best outcome is probably $_______, you weigh your options and if you’re a rational actor, you settle. Litigation is terrible and soul sucking, even if you have a great case.

Litigator here too and I posted before. Likely to settle of course. The parents and lawyers know this. Deep pockets is the insurance company though it seems from the filing that they are targeting the individuals too. I am curious about the insurance company covering the employees and exactly how that is worded. With the filing I can't imagine the other parents/lawyers will sit by. Though many talk about the cost of litigation, with this filing info, the report and insurance it is pretty easy to get other families involved. While the parents don't want this to go to trial the defendants in no way want this to go to trial either.

The school's policy will no doubt cover each claim or cause of action up to a maximum, with an aggregate payout under the policy up to $X. What would make me nervous right now if I was a LAMB parent is how much aggregate coverage there is under the policy. I would expect every wronged family to come out and file similar suits. If the final amount ordered at trial(s) exceeds the coverage...ball game. It is also noteworthy that the filing pounds on gross negligence, willful misconduct and other very high thresholds. LAMB's policy should cover administrators in their individual capacities, but some polices exclude coverage for egregious behaviors. As someone disgusted by what these people did and did not do, I'd be quite content if LAMB came out of pocket for huge amounts to victims but survived, and the individuals were left out to pasture on their own.

How deep of pockets does LAMB (or any other DC charter school) have? LAMB owns one building that is subject to a mortgage; I don't know the amounts. To the extent it receives non-DC money (from foundations, etc.), I would expect the money is dolled out per a schedule (with no real commitment form the donor) and not survive bankruptcy -- which is also the end game for all the indiv, defendants.

Anonymous wrote:

Not to mention that this was certainly conduct he had engaged in in the past. Dude did not just become a serial child molester when he started to work at LAMB. I'll bet anything that a thorough background check would have turned something up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I need to jump in here, as a lawyer, and point out that just because someone asks for millions of dollars in a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that’s what their case is worth, nor does it mean that’s what they’re going to get. I think this case has merit, at least against Cristina and Diane, but I don’t think it’s worth millions of dollars.

I also think this case is going to settle. There’s no way these parents are going to want their children to endure depositions and trial testimony. The school is, I’m sure, also motivated to settle. This case, and those like it, can get resolved at some reasonable number.

How much, precisely, would you accept in exchange for molestation of your child? Only a lawyer...

When you get involved in litigation, and you’re paying legal fees, and your lawyer tells you that your case is likely to drag on for at least 3 years, that discovery and trial will be tough for your family, that your chance of success against the “deep pockets” is not great, that you probably won’t be able to collect against the individuals, that you could spend all this money on legal fees and then lose, and that your best outcome is probably $_______, you weigh your options and if you’re a rational actor, you settle. Litigation is terrible and soul sucking, even if you have a great case.

Litigator here too and I posted before. Likely to settle of course. The parents and lawyers know this. Deep pockets is the insurance company though it seems from the filing that they are targeting the individuals too. I am curious about the insurance company covering the employees and exactly how that is worded. With the filing I can't imagine the other parents/lawyers will sit by. Though many talk about the cost of litigation, with this filing info, the report and insurance it is pretty easy to get other families involved. While the parents don't want this to go to trial the defendants in no way want this to go to trial either.

The school's policy will no doubt cover each claim or cause of action up to a maximum, with an aggregate payout under the policy up to $X. What would make me nervous right now if I was a LAMB parent is how much aggregate coverage there is under the policy. I would expect every wronged family to come out and file similar suits. If the final amount ordered at trial(s) exceeds the coverage...ball game. It is also noteworthy that the filing pounds on gross negligence, willful misconduct and other very high thresholds. LAMB's policy should cover administrators in their individual capacities, but some polices exclude coverage for egregious behaviors. As someone disgusted by what these people did and did not do, I'd be quite content if LAMB came out of pocket for huge amounts to victims but survived, and the individuals were left out to pasture on their own.