Posted on 06/13/2013 9:59:29 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
(Newser) – It's bad enough that Carie Charlesworth is dealing with an abusive ex-husband—but now she's also out of a job due to the situation. After a "very bad weekend" involving her ex in January, Charlesworth warned the principal at San Diego's Holy Trinity School to watch out for him. He did indeed show up in the school parking lot, forcing a lockdown. Charlesworth was immediately put on "indefinite leave," as were her four kids, who attended the school. Despite the fact that her ex is now in jail, three months later she was fired after 14 years with the Diocese of San Diego, NBC San Diego reports.
The termination letter from the diocese notes that, though school officials "feel deeply" for Charlesworth and are praying for her, her ex has a 22-year history of documented violence and has not been deterred by restraining orders. Out of fear that he may cause problems upon his release from prison (which they note could happen as soon as "next fall"), "we simply cannot allow you to return to work [at Holy Trinity] or, unfortunately, at any other school in the diocese," the letter states, adding that Charlesworth will continue to be paid through Aug. 9. Charlesworth, who plans to file a lawsuit, says, "That's why women of domestic violence don't come forward, because they're afraid of the way people are going to see them, view them, perceive them, treat them."
Who's this "we?"
Start a school and give the lady a job, if it matters that much.
Or do you think "we need a law?"
Where do we draw the line?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really don’t get it, do you? The line was drawn. The day that idiot abusive POS stepped foot on school grounds intending to do serious bodily harm.
There’s your line right there.
An interesting thought experiment, especially in how you framed it.
Why would it have to be an "administrator?"
What about a parent? Unlike public schools, private schools actually have to listen to parents' concerns about trifling things like student safety.
If I knew some teacher's violently crazy ex might be showing up at my kids' school, you can bet your house the "administrators" would be hearing about it, from me. And that $5K gift to the Annual Fund gets at least an hour of one-to-one facetime with the Headmaster.
Too bad for the public school suckers whose kids are bullied to death and whatnot.
Your problem is you can’t explain why you think its OK to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
<><><
What exactly is the woman guilty of again? I seem to have missed reading the charges filed against her and the subsequent conviction. Well, except for the crimes many on this thread have convicted her of.
To keep the analogy close to the original story.
No, I asked the question, because I didn’t think you read the statement in post 26. I still don’t think you’ve read it. Because if you had read it, then you would understand.
So. Take a minute and read post 26.
You done? Good. Now you understand why the school was absolutely correct in what they did.
Now about your question. Yes. Yes I would have sent your kid home if the circumstances were identical and I had reason to believe your mother was going to act violently at school.
Incorrect.
Colorado
This is taking place in California not Colorado.
I seem to have missed reading the charges filed against her ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You obviously have missed a lot of reading.
READ THE THREAD.
The more you post, the clearer it is that you are spouting off without any clue of what you’re talking about.
You obviously have missed a lot of reading.
READ THE THREAD.
The more you post, the clearer it is that you are spouting off without any clue of what you’re talking about.
<><><><><
The statements made by the school, found in the reprinted letter in post 26, are not “charges” in any legal sense, it is the school’s justification for terminating her. She is guilty of nothing, regardless of your blustering response.
No, I asked the question, because I didn’t think you read the statement in post 26. I still don’t think you’ve read it. Because if you had read it, then you would understand.
<><><><
LOL. Right, because anyone who reads it would have to completely agree with you. Therefore, if not in agreement, it must not have been read.
That’s just funny.
“Her life interfered with school business”
So, all those school shootings also can have the same thing said of them. Maybe the schools should sue those dead kids because they somehow provoked the shooters? Right? Their lives interfered with the schools?
“There is no such thing in a practical manner,
Incorrect.”
Which is why HR departments jump through hoops before terminating, because there is an absolute right to terminate? Right.
It occurs to me that the lady might be suing because somebody “in the know” told her to... that the Diocese’ insurer would settle quickly for a reasonable amount and that this would give her the funds to relocate.
It looks like she has a year to year contract and so the school could have sent her a letter just stating that they would not be renewing the contract for the next year. Did they really need to give a reason, especially one that might open the door to a lawsuit?
The story involves a private Catholic school, so you have absolutely no idea whether or not parents had also expressed concerns about the situation.
My experience having both attended and sent my children to such schools is that parents would know about such a situation and would talk about it and gasp, make judgments about it.
If you want absurd deference to adults around children, stick with public school.
Those are public schools.
So, of course, the parents and students should just shut the hell up.
You just pointed out exactly WHY they got rid of her. She became the target of violence AT the school. Could have been another school shooting, aimed at her, Newtown West Coast. And the guy is getting out of jail. Why should they keep somebody that could be the reason they’re the next school shooting.
The key aspect is "potential for serious violence". If the scenario was your mom might show up and start killing people, and I was in charge, then everybody involved would be escorted off the property.
Yes, she has a terrible situation. No, she does not have the right to put others at risk because of her situation. It was her bad judgement to get married to the guy.
It’s pretty obvious from your posts that you have never been a school teacher.
Thanks for the input of rational. I was beginning to think I had fell off the deep end that someone realized she was with a mentally ill person, left said mentally ill person... went to court to prevent interaction with said person and yet... it’s HER FAULT.
Freepers are confusing me lately.
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.