It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My 7 year old suspened for "sexual harassment"

page: 29
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by susan304

Being young and screwing up is no excuse for committing a serious crime. Just like being criminally insane is no excuse for murder or other crimes.

But yes, insanity IS an excuse for murder. The same is true for being young. And they wont just get a lower punishment. They will not be prosecuted.

The problem is just that this age limit is ridiculously low in the US (7 years minimum, with variations among states). Id say that it should be more around 13-14 years, as is common in Europe.

I think the proper punishment for "sexual harrassment" among children is a slap on the wrist or detention. It has no place in courts.
edit on 11/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

How can it have no place in courts??? That makes no sense -it's sexual harassment!

Insanity is not an excuse for murder -you get thrown in a psychiatric facility that can arguably worse then prison. You get punished either way. I don't think the kid should go to prison, but expulsion and psychiatric evaluation and follow up is necessary. If it happens again then I think juvenile courts might be in order.

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by susan304

I hope you are never in a position to write enforceable policy.

First offense throw the book at them.

Shesh we must be dealing with a generation of people who were the safety monkeys of their schools and are so pissed and bitter they want to screw with everyone else.

Life is all about learning, not being punished.
Life itself has enough punishments built in that teach us valuable lessons as we grow up with out adding onto it.

Let me put it this way, if you're an adult posting on this board you must have made it though childhood and are reasonably un #ed up.

So why does a newer generation need more regulations, and restrictions than we had?

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:14 PM
Honestly, I don't believe teachers have a bit of sense anymore (and I have a teaching degree, but I don't work in education). Sexual harrassment for putting a girls pants UP at 7 years old? That is crazy, totally crazy.

When I was in grade school, we had to wear dresses. The boys loved to run by girls on the playground and pull the dresses up. That sounds bad. They didn't actually make an attempt to see anything private.. Sure, they got in troube, but it was their way of bugging us, not sexual harrassment.

I really hope this turns out good for you and your son.

I think the teacher need the psyche evaluation.
edit on 11-5-2012 by DinkyPinky because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:06 PM
Please excuse me for adding my 2 cents without reading all the thread. What I have to say may have been covered.

Would that be a psychiatric or psychological evaluation? Better get that clarified and I would recommend asking the doctor what he/she recommends be the best way for you to handle the stress and trauma that comes with getting punished for a "sexual?" (I would rip whoever put that label on it) misbehavior at such a tender age.

I would definitely want a professional's help in dealing with the possible emotional fallout your son might experience. All you need is for him to get teased by the other kids for this.

There is such a thing as confidentiality. Are your school employee's respecting yours or is this going through the grapevine?

Don't let your kid know you are
if you can help it. Try to make it a non-issue for him at this point even if you have more to do to resolve the situation.

Even if it was a wedgie, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. One missed recess would have been enough.

Not a great start to get suspended at age 7. I wish you could home school. I would think about getting a lawyer if your child get harassed for this or seems traumatized.

You might consider printing out a copy of every post here for giving the school district, principal, teacher, et al or giving them a link to this thread so they can see how asinine they seem to others for doing this.

If you don't fight for your child, no one else will. Don't let them push you around or suspensions will become routine if they label your son as a problem child.

I will pray for your little one and you.

Oh, be sure the school district gets the bill for the evaluation or pay it and demand reimbursement since they requested it.

edit on 5/11/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: add something

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by susan304

Insanity is not an excuse for murder -you get thrown in a psychiatric facility that can arguably worse then prison. You get punished either way.

Yes, insanity is an excuse for murder. Psychiatric facility is not a punishment at all. Its purpose is to protect the society and help the patient, not to punish anyone. There are plenty of completely innocent people inside.

I don't think the kid should go to prison, but expulsion and psychiatric evaluation and follow up is necessary.

If this was a real repeated harrassment, Id agree with this view. But what is described in the original post deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist, IMHO.
edit on 12/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 03:10 PM
Someone should link this thread to the editor at the St. Louis times and see if it gets any attention. Hell, actually I'll jet off an e-mail right now and keep this thing updated. Be in touch!!

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
Know I'm a minority on this but your kid should keep his hands to himself. To have anyone grab another person by the pants is pretty damn invasive. Seems to me he was attempting a wedgie. All fun n games indeed but come on people. This type of crap is not new anymore. We should be used to it and teaching our kids to keep hands to themselves espescially when dealing with opposite sex. A little boy grabs my daughters pants by her butt... We have issues. Sexual harrasment? That's a bit much but who knows what your boy has seen or heard from other boys. Older boys. Maybe even dad and friends? He should be treated as tho he inappropriately put his hands on another student. And instead of getting so up in arms about how your sons bein mistreated maybe u should teach him manners. I'm sure the sexual harrasment thing will not stand but I feel he should be disciplined for sure. By school and by you. And maybe taught that some areas of the body are more inappropriate to touch than others.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:21 PM
Have to admit that I've a mental picture of the boys parents. A boy who thinks its ok to physically accost other kids to fix what he perceives to be wrong? And he parents defend him? Against sexual harassment yes defend him. Against being little bully with a false sense of authority? No. Of that's he's guilty. I'm no saint. As a boy I woulda pointed and laughed. That's being a kid. Not trying to fix it against the girls will. Anyway just sounds like the little scamP was gIvin a wedgie. In which case his dad should give him the old don't roughhouse with girls speech.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by susan304

Yes, a child can be capable of commiting a sexual offense, I have read of such, it isn't impossible (just highly inprobable). However, this boy didn't shove his hands down her pants, or force her to do anything, or touch her in a sexual manner... He pulled up her pants 'cause he didn't want to see her butt crack.
He should be talked to, explained how the the action is invasive, and that should be the end of it. There is no need for a psychiatric evaluation, and DEFINITELY no need for this case to continue to court.
If this child recieves adult consequences for his childish actions, he will not understand what he has done wrong, and will not learn from it. He'll just be really f**ked up, and grow an intense fear of women.
If it were my daughter who'd had her pants up, I would not even CONSIDER taking this boy to court. I would bring it up with the teacher, and ensure the boy was spoken to about his actions, and dress my daughter so he buttcrack was no longer showing. -.- If he had stuck his hands down her pants, that WOULD be something I would be concerned about, and it would be a different matter entirely (I would consider THAT a sexual offense, wether the boy intended it to be or not). If he continued pulling up her pants invasively after he was spoken to about it, also, that would be an issue as well.

Insanity isn't an excuse for murder, but you certainly get treated differently if you aren't aware that what you're doing is wrong. Much like a child. (In most cases, though I've read about some very sadistic children). However, there was nothing sexual about the offence this boy commited, and while he is guilty of not having respect for other people, he is innicent of sexual harassment.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:43 PM
No offense but maybe your 7 year old is a damn perv?


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:44 PM

1) Create a sexual deviant out of an innocent, unsuspecting person.
reply to post by Salamandy

Not quite sure if you are attempting sarcasm here or not but was what happened to OP's son not a superb example of making an innocent, unsuspecting person out to be sexually the age of 7 no less? Also, I am not clear on the second point you is countering this ridiculous attack supposed to make anyone "feel pretty"?? I'm not talking about esthetics here...I am talking about fighting fire with fire. The ones who are out for attention in this scenario are the parents of the girl. It's no wonder that our court systems are clogged with sexual assault/harrassment cases...all this stupid drama while real sex offenders are going uncaught.

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by coop039

Have you tried to contact the girls parents? If everything is riding on them... id try an talk to em is all. The kids are 7yrs old. That age the opposite sex is either nuetral as a friend or outrite "grodie". As far as the school is concerned-- there a dime a dozen. An if your location doesnt deem that neccessary... IDK fight the machine man. They'll break eventually worse comes ta worse ;p .

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:37 AM

You HAVE to comply with child protective services or they WILL take the child.

COMPLY! Or .. else!

Where have I heard this before?

Plain and simple.

Actually, more complex and out of view than you think.

You cannot fight social services, unfortunately they have way to much power.

And where does their power come from? Who gave them that power?

The parents did. By REGIStering their child. That means the child belongs to the government now. Of course they can do whatever they want with the child, after the parent willingly registers the child!

REGIS = King. To register = to give the allodial title to the king / government. No law requires you to register anything.

(Text-based information about how this all works, and links)

(About 5-minute, humorous clip that explains the very basics of how the system works and what a 'person' (or 'strawman') is - you will be surprised, unless you already know)

People, please LEARN what it means to sign an "application" (to apply = to beg) or "submission" (this needs no translation) or "registration". Please learn it, because it is your source of power - this knowledge of your own deeds and their consequences lets you decide who has the power! You have it originally.. but then you willingly give it away.

Now how stupid is that? Where did the social services get the power? FROM YOU. You didn't have to sign all those 'applications', 'submissions' and 'registrations' ..

(Technically they own the allodial title to the child's PERSON (Artificial Person, not the child itself), that people unknowingly perform a joinder with (joining the real, live human being with the paper-version (the person), thus making the live child theirs, although technically they can only own the paper-version)..)

It's all in the people's hands - all power comes from the people - ever heard the phrase: "..from the consent of the governed"? No one can be governed without their consent - unless they break the LAW (acts and statutes are not the law).

How long will it take, how many sad stories like this will it take for people to start LEARNING the basics of their own lives, their own deeds, their own rights, and what they have done (willingly)?

However when they suggest the child goes on ADHD meds, then you can fight it.

How merciful to allow him to fight at very specific situations, but not in others. They only have as much power as you give them. Lawfully, a policeman do not have any authority over you, if you haven't broken the LAW, until you give that authority to them. Just as an example. Same goes for ALL 'officials'. They have no power over you, if you know what you are doing and saying (they try to trap you with 'legalese' though).

But you cannot interfere with their investigation. That will be breaking the law, and get you into more trouble.

Wrong. They cannot investigate, if no one performs a joinder, and if they give 'conditional acceptance' (it's not fighting, so there is no dishonor, no dispute, and thus no basis for any kind of arrest).

And that will not be breaking the LAW, only acts/statutes (which ones, btw?), and it's important to know the difference! The law is very simple and consists of a few, easy parts - acts and statutes are very complex, and there is an enormous amount of them.

We are basically free - but we have enslaved ourselves by willingly consenting to being governed by acts and statutes when we really never had to, and don't!

They are required by law to do an investigation, no matter how stupid the cause.

No law requires that. You are talking about acts/statutes right now, but you are confusing it with law.

Please study the difference between 'common law' (or 'law of the land') and 'maritime law' or 'acts and statutes' or 'law of the high seas'.

The other is formed during thousands of years, and is based on the ten commandments - the other is artificially created, using legalese instead of english (the words don't mean what people think they mean in legalese), and is designed to enslave, not to protect and free us.

But I do agree that nothing should be signed. They don't usually ask you to sign anything anyways.

Heh, a bit late. Of course they don't, because YOU HAVE SIGNED ENOUGH ALREADY! You have already consented, performed a joinder, submitted, applied, registered - they own you and your kid, what more would they need?

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:14 AM
Any 7 year old that thinks a 'butt crack' (as the mother so...errr...delicately put it) is 'disgusting' - in my opinion already has issues.

Sexual harassment? I don't know - but he definitely needs to be taught to keep his hands off other children. That is unless he wants to grow up to be a TSA agent.

Scary thing is he probably will.


posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by silo13
Any 7 year old that thinks a 'butt crack' (as the mother so...errr...delicately put it) is 'disgusting' - in my opinion already has issues.

I don't think so.
Kids are weird, they find disgusting things cool and normal things disgusting.
Heck they probably still think Ma and Pa kissing for 1/4 of a second is disgusting.

Because they are kids, they don't know any better.
They are still learning about their environment.
You can't judge a 7 year old from one instance like this.

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by silo13

Any 7 year old that thinks a 'butt crack' (as the mother so...errr...delicately put it) is 'disgusting' - in my opinion already has issues.

I disagree. Poo comes out of a nearby hole. I dont see how what he said could indicate any issues at all.

new topics

top topics

<< 26  27  28   >>

log in