Posted on 11/08/2007 5:13:06 AM PST by tripod
Your Views November 8, 2007
Questions recreation’s notification policy
If you live in Alexandria, have a child in the city’s after school programs run by the department of recreation, and assume you will be called in the event of an emergency — don’t hold your breath.
According to Leslie Clark, a Department Division Chief, the department’s policy regarding parental notification is to guarantee that at least one person on a child’s emergency contact form will be called. In most cases, one would assume such a policy is reasonable. But, in cases where child custody is an issue, it becomes an entirely different matter.
In Virginia, unless a court order has been issued to the contrary, the non-custodial parent of a child enrolled in a public school or day care center has the right to be listed as an emergency contact if they so request. Alexandria’s Department of Recreation acknowledges this right. But, the department refuses to guarantee notification to the non-custodial parent in the event of an emergency. In the words of an assistant city attorney; “Contrary to your request, the [recreation] department will not obligate itself to contact you every time it calls [your spouse] in the event of an emergency.” There goes the rule of law when it comes to complying with Virginia State Code (§ 22.1-4.3, “Participation by and notification of noncustodial parent.”)
Child custody disputes can be difficult and emotionally charged. When a custodial parent refuses to cooperate on an issue as important as notification in the event of an emergency the non-custodial parent ought to be able to rely on the city department who is caring for their child to obey the law. But, that is not the case in Alexandria. It marches to a different drummer.
To make matters worse, the recreation department’s “policy” is only a “practice”. According to the same assistant city attorney; “ … it is my understanding that the Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities has no written policy regarding contacting emergency contacts in its after school activities.” So, there you have it — to hell with the law. Further, if there is no written policy, as such, don’t expect a call if there is an emergency. Is this the type of family friendly “policy” one should expect from a tax-payer funded city department?
It is amazing that Kirk Kincannon, Director of the Recreation Department, can manage his city agency at all when his bureaucrats are making so-called policy decisions arbitrarily and on the fly. It is equally amazing that a city attorney defends the policy while knowing that the practice violates state law.
And, with all of the city’s obstinate efforts to avoid a simple commitment to obey the law and to inform non-custodial parents, who’s considering the needs of the child if emergency strikes?
It's distressing, but not amazing. It's as predictable as the sunrise.
This is why liberalism can never succeed (though it may conquer). When small people get great power, they abuse it. Duh.
You’re right of course! Thank you.
Seriously, what is so distressing is that the predictable consequence of a fundamentally materialistic/Marxist (in the broad sense -- and some of them Marxist broads ....) is the view that power is not as a challenge to integrity which, if weathered, provides humanity's noblest opportunity, the opportuniy to serve, but as, well, what it is, the opportunity to make other people do what you want, for good or ill.
People of this kind, believing their own press, have decided that what they want is best and they will by ginger shove it down our throats, law or no law. And so the ancient opinion that justice is merely the interest of the stronger ends up in school administration offices.
I don’t really see how navigating some kid’s screwed-up family dynamics is the responsibility of the city recreation department.
There is no navigation here. Simply a matter of complying with the over-riding state laws that were debated and passed by the legislature for good cause.
I looked up the law, which was conveniently omitted from this article. It requires that non-custodial parents be allowed to put their names on emergency contact lists at public schools, etc. It in no way required notification of every person on such a list, in the event of an emergency.
It's not even a complete sentence -- it has no verb -- so I fail see how it could be anything other than a descriptive title. The section DOES deal with participation by and notification of noncustodial parents, so it's perfectly accurate, but it imposes no requirements. The same title could be used for a law that prohibited the same activity you seem to think is required.
What do you suppose the legislature had in mind - an academic exercise?
Since I'm not an activist judge, I suppose they had in mind exactly what they wrote.
Quote the portion of the law that requires notification of a non-custodial parent.
You’d make a great activist judge! The intent of the law is clear.
OK, quote the portion of the law that “intends” to require notification of a non-custodial parent.
Or hush.
Unless a court order has been issued to the contrary, the noncustodial parent of a student enrolled in a public school or day care center (i) shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in any of the student’s school or day care activities in which such participation is supported or encouraged by the policies of the school or day care center solely on the basis of such noncustodial status and (ii) shall be included, upon the request of such noncustodial parent, as an emergency contact for the student’s school or day care activities.
For the purposes of this section, “school or day care activities” shall include, but shall not be limited to, lunch breaks, special in-school programs, parent-teacher conferences and meetings, and extracurricular activities.
It is the responsibility of the custodial parent to provide the court order to the school or day care center.
I guess it is just my imagination that this entire section is devoted to its inclusive nature regarding the noncustodial parent. Therefore, even though is is specifically inclusive regarding participation it should automatically be exclusive with respect to notification. Makes a great deal of sense doesn't’t it?
It's got nothing to do with exclusion. The law is inclusive in both cases. The law simply requires that non-custodial parents must be listed as AN emergency contact if they so request. The whole idea of having an emergency contact list is to provide multiple parties to contact in case the primary one (presumably the custodial parent) cannot be reached. It is not intended to be a list of parties who ALL have to be contacted independently, and this law doesn't alter that. Similarly, the first part says that non-custodial parents must not be denied the opportunity to participate in certain school activities -- but that hardly places a burden on the school to go out of its way to ensure that the non-custodial parent is informed of such activities.
This law was enacted for the purpose of the noncustodial parent to have the opportunity to participate in school activities and to be notified if an emergency occurs on a basis equal the custodial parent. They were trying to enact equality in these areas. If there was not to be equality then that issue was to be determined by the courts in custody proceedings where judges who are experts in these matters make the decisions. Hence, “unless a court order has been issued to the contrary.”
The purpose of enacting this law in the first place grew from situations where 1. custodial parents were telling school administrators that the noncustodial parent could not, or should not participate in school activities and 2. could not, or should not be called in the event of an emergency. These calls are that of the court not that of the custodial parent or the school or recreation department.
The legislature felt that in the absence of a court telling the noncustodial parent to “but out” so to speak, there was no reason that the noncustodial parent should not have these rights.
If, some jurisdictions apply the law in a manner where they refuse to notify the noncustodial parent, or notify the noncustodial parent as a last resort, and others do the opposite then there is no uniformity of practice under the law. Further, your interpretation gives arbitrary discretion to the local authorities to make the noncustodial second class in two areas where the legislature felt there should be parity. The parity of these two rights, the legislature felt, belonged to the courts not school or recreation department bureaucrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.