Girl, 15, sues school nurse over prenancy test

KXAS TV ^ | June 17, 2005

[tuffydoodle]

Girl, 15, Sues School Nurse Over Pregnancy Test Lawsuit Claims San Marcos Student's Privacy, Rights Violated

AUSTIN, Texas -- A 15-year-old San Marcos girl and her father have filed a federal lawsuit against her school nurse, who allegedly forced the girl to take a pregnancy test.

The lawsuit claims that nurse Dyanna Eastwood called the girl to her office and told her that a student at another school claimed he impregnated her. Eastwood insisted the girl take the test, according to the lawsuit.

The girl said she did not have sex with the boy and denied that she was pregnant. The girl's lawyer also said she was not pregnant. The suit, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Austin, claims the girl's privacy and constitutional rights were violated during the January event.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, claims Eastwood violated the girl's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

"I remember the incident," Eastwood said. "Is that how it went down? No, of course not."

She declined to comment further, saying she wanted to seek legal advice.

The lawsuit also names the San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District as a defendant. The district's general counsel, Juan Cruz, declined to comment, saying officials have not been served with the lawsuit.

"This whole thing is intrinsically wrong," said John Hindera, the family's Austin lawyer. "She's a 15-year-old girl that's suddenly being confronted with having sex and being pregnant."

Hindera said that Eastwood did not threaten any consequences if the girl declined to take the test, but that the girl felt she had no choice because the nurse is an authority figure.

When the girl's father asked Principal Chad Kelly about the pregnancy test, the father was handed a piece of paper citing a section of the Texas Family Code stating that a child may consent to medical treatment by a licensed physician if the child "is unmarried and pregnant and consents to hospital, medical or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy."

Hindera said even if the girl agreed to take the test, that consent isn't valid under Texas law because of her age.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

That's a possibility, but not likely in this case, IMO. Of course, we really don't have that many details.

 

Looks to me like everyone on this thread is already ready to lynch the nurse when even by her statement "that is not how it went down" we know we don't have her side of the story.

 

I call everyone's attention to this.......

 

When the girl's father asked Principal Chad Kelly about the pregnancy test, the father was handed a piece of paper citing a section of the Texas Family Code stating that a child may consent to medical treatment by a licensed physician if the child "is unmarried and pregnant and "consents" to hospital, medical or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy."

 

By the principal handing this document to the father, it certainly looks like the principal thought the girl had consented to the test. That and the nurse's statement certainly lead me to believe there is a heck of lot we are not being told.

 

So why is everybody here wanting to crucify the nurse before we have all of the facts? Sometimes the dog pile on these threads amazes me. This is FR ya know, not the DUmpster. I didn't think this was how we operated.

[DoughtyOne]

Well some of that is already taking place. I do wish a parallel system could spring up and retire what we have. Home schooling is fine with me.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, probably so.

[tuffydoodle]

"Clearly the school you were involved with was a far cry from the concept of true Christian schools that have joined together nationally for a common purpose"

The only thing we realized about having our kids in a Christian school is that they are loaded with hypocrits. The only way you can be sure your kids aren't being exposed to something that you don't want them exposed to, is to home school.

"Was this school ACSI accredited?"

Yes.

"Reviewing the curriculum and texts prior to the start of the school year would have prevented this."

I made the huge mistake of trusting the school, since it had the word "Christian" in the title.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I am in agreement with your analysis. Since the article is so devoid of information it could easily have been case of the nurse reporting what she heard and asked the girl if she wanted to take a test to be sure. Also, according to the article, the nurse named the boy making the claim. That seems out of line but as you said, were she a virgin the answer probably would not have been< "I have never had sex with THAT boy." What the girl told the father and how she told him, perhaps being worried that word was going around, we don't know.

What ever happened to no harm, no foul? Who was really harmed by this? I think the father over reacted.

This is a symptom of our pc, sue-happy society. The reason for those zero tolerance policies which lead to some ridiculous decisions by schools are designed to be a shield against lawsuits.

The father better give a little more thought to this unless he expects to pressure the school into an out of court settlement. The daughter and the father have now made the girl's sex life fair game for exploration and likely a subject of gossip among the students and around town.

[tuffydoodle]

"What Church was this? One of those "Metropolitan Community Churches?"

No.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Clara Lou]

(I hope I have this formatted clearly. I don't usually make such long responses.)

So from this, I can deduce the following: (1) The Principal DEFENDED THE NURSE, with a policy statement he happened to have readily at his disposal.
I could be wrong, because I'm not there, and we don't know the complete order of events, but the principal is over a barrel. The school district is expecting him to defend it, so he cites the TFC. It's his job to do so.

(2) The Principal used this to, in effect, defend a policy of involving the school with matters of teen pregnancy.
The Texas Family Code mandates that educators at public institutions take certain designated actions when they find that certain specific things may have taken place. Legally, according to this code, teachers are required by law, at peril of losing their teaching certificates and even jail time (I think), any time they see a student who has a big bruise or any other signs of what might be physical abuse. Enter CPS. It doesn't mean teachers like reporting what may be totally innocent, it just means that they can lose their livelihood if they don't. This principal, personally, may or may not agree with what he had to do. It's sort of like being a defense lawyer.

(3) The Principal NEVER contacted the parent directly - only using this tactic to respond when confronted.
How would the principal know what the nurse had done until the issue blew up? Nurses are responsible for keeping some information private. There are all kinds of laws [like FERPA, for instance] that keep professionals within the same institution from discussing or sharing students' private matters. The Special Ed. teacher, for instance, can't tell the Spanish teacher that student XYZ is designated to have adaptive behavior problems and is receiving services for that. The teacher has to figure it out by herself. Counselors may not share personal information except under special circumstances.

All in all, what we have is a situation that is not as simple as it seems, and we don't have all of the pertinent details.

I can tell you this: If this were my daughter, I would fill the nurse's ear in the presence of the principal, and then I'd be off to see a lawyer myself. BTW, I'm a high school foreign language teacher.

[Frank_Discussion]

OK. It just did not sound like how a school nurse would speak, unless she felt defensive about it, it just seemed like an aggressive response. Like a perp on Miami Vice or something... a strange and unthinking way to respond to questions of a now legal nature. No reflection on you, of course, and I've certainly said worse, myself. :)

[austinmark]

There now ..... Is there any thing else I can do ? Maybe some Tylenol ? a anti-depressant ? how about some Condoms ??? WE give those out like candy !!! ....... Hmmm....... I know, a home Pregnancy Kit ~!.

..ahh ...YOU don't have to tell your parents, State Law, I think....

[DoughtyOne]

Well I guess the number one reason would be that a school nurse should not have the authority to DO ANYTHING other than provide first aid. Number two would be that she should report possible statutory rape. Number three, it should NEVER be her place to determine pregnancy for a minor.

Any other questions you'd like cleared up?

[Tall_Texan]

Something is missing here.....

I agree. The claim, as reported, doesn't pass the smell test. There's more to this story somehow.

[Doe Eyes]

Section 22.011 (a) (2) of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person who has sexual relations with a child younger than 17 years of age is guilty of Sexual Assault.

The section also includes:

(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that:

(1) the actor was not more than three years older than the victim and at the time of the offense:

[Clara Lou]

What ever happened to no harm, no foul? Who was really harmed by this? I think the father over reacted.

I have to disagree. [And, from your response, I'm guessing that you're not a female.] It's pretty traumatic to have some relative stranger tell you that she has a pregnancy test kit for you and that you have to provide urine for that test. I can assure you that there are feelings of anger and shame involved here-- particularly since the whole thing was based on a lie, apparently. Anyway, this is an issue for the girl's parents to deal with, not a pushy school nurse.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

"1) the actor was not more than three years older than the victim and at the time of the offense"

AHA! I stand corrected.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

Well..if the other kid wasn't 3 years + in age.

[infidel29]

... the key here may be the word "person"...

If you find out I'm wrong about this please correct me, I've got 4 step-daughters (ages 16,13,10,5) and this is something that is a concern to me.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

This is a pretty messed up thread.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Are you asking me if it should be legal for a girl under the age of consent to be able to say "I want to have sex" and take off her clothes, engage in sexual activity, and then the act is now legal?

 

WHAT?

 

I am asking you if you or the law has a double standard. Apparently you think it is rape if an underage girl has sex with any male of the species no matter his age. That it just rediculous! How is it the boy knows any more than the girl? What makes her innocent and him guilty?

 

As I explained before.......read my lips.........you cannot have statutory rape between two juveniles! One of the participants must be an adult for this to happen!

 

If not, then the girl is every bit as guilty of rape as the boy is! They both are underage. Unless of course you have a double standard, and in your world the law only applies to the male of the species. This is discrimination, pure and simple!

 

Her's what dictionary.com has to say

 

Main Entry: statutory rape
Function: noun
: rape consisting of sexual intercourse with a person beneath an age (as 14 years) specified by statute
NOTE: Many state statutes also specify a minimum age of the perpetrator or an age differential (as at least four years) between the perpetrator and the victim. Consent of the victim and belief that the victim is of the age of consent are usually considered immaterial. Statutory rape is now codified under various names, such as rape in the second degree rape in the third degree unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.

[Clara Lou]

Number two would be that she should report possible statutory rape. Agreed-- at least to the parents if not the law. Number three, it should NEVER be her place to determine pregnancy for a minor.
I could agree with you if all kids came from a family like mine-- caring parents and family who have the knowledge to assist their children in bad situations. Unfortunately, schools these days have too many kids who
a) are homeless,
b)have parents who literally do not have the minimally required number of brain cells to function as a parent,
c) have parents who are on drugs on a daily basis,
d) have parents who simply do not give a damn about their child(ren). There are too many kids who have been thrown out by their parent(s) and are living with a cousin or grandparents. The world I describe is completely different from the nice one that I grew up in. Sometimes the school is the only resource for help that there is for a kid. It's sad, but true.