Background Checks - Needed?

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by Craig

Seeing the number of youth that are coming into the sport, and having heard various reports over the years of incidents of inappropriate contact, this seems like it should be part of the USFA's mission as well.

Good grief, no.

Absolutely not.

You were just kidding right?

Would you really trust the USFA to be able to do this without massively screwing it up?

The USFA can't pay its bills, can't or won't bother to defend itself in lawsuits, has been unable to even efficiently computerize some of its primary business activities for years, is inept at communicating information to its members, has an inscrutable decision making "process" and terrible problems with accountability all across the board.

Is that the type of organization you want to take on secondary missions when it can't even effectively handle its main reasons for existance?

The thread title asks, "Background Check -- Needed?" and that's a question for parents and clubs to answer for themselves.

If you are a parent and your answer is "yes", then certainly ask for the checks. Do it now. But don't ask the USFA to take on the task and responsibility. [Your kids could very well be retired before the USFA could handle the mission]

If you are a club owner, you might want to help protect yourself and your business by doing checks if you haven't been doing them already. [Take a good look at your liability policies to see why]. If you do checks, consider letting your customers know and make it part of your marketing materials.

And if you are an entrepreneur (say one with a fencing related business and skillful with computers?) who sees an unmet need, maybe you'd like to view that as an opportunity, expand and tap a new market? There are lots of background check type agencies out there -- partnering with some and focusing on serving fencing and other such activities, clubs, coaches and parents could be a profitable niche.

[telkanuru]

Continuing to punish people who have already done their time is fun.

[Fencergrl]

According to FF, punishing people who haven't done anything is even more fun.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

According to FF, punishing people who haven't done anything is even more fun.

You keep what you do in your bedroom to yourself, please.

[foiled once again]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

According to FF, punishing people who haven't done anything is even more fun.

Who is FF?

I think that all adult USFA members that work in clubs should be watched. Not just the coaches and youth should NEVER be one on one with an adult.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by foiled once again

I thought a registered sex offender was not allowed to be around youth anyway per law. Is that not the case?

I've been a felony prosecutor for 19 years and I've prosecuted hundreds of child abuse cases. Surprisingly, simply being a registered sex offender is not a prohibition to being around children. If a sex offender is not on probation or parole then he only has to deal with the consequences of registration. If he is on probation or parole, then he may have conditions of supervision that prohibit contact with children or even going to places where there are children (like fencing classes).

[Chuck]

The big problem that needs to be addressed by USFA and by the individual clubs in regard to the sexual victimization of children is "acquaintance molestation." This seems to be the area that is most difficult for society to face. People seem more willing to accept a sinister stranger from a different location (i.e. the man in the trenchcoat lurking in the dark ready to grab the little girl who strays from her mother) as a child molester than a clergy member, next-door neighbor, law-enforcement officer, pediatrician, teacher, volunteer or COACH with direct access to children. These people, by definition, is one of us. We cannot distinguish him from us or identify him by physical traits. When such an offender is discovered in our midst, a common response has been to just move him out, perform damage control, and then try to forget about it. Sadly one of the main reasons that the criminal justice system and public were forced to confront the problem of acquaintance molestation was the preponderance of lawsuits arising from the negligence of many prominent organizations. This is the problem that USFA and your club will face if you bury your head in the sand and fail to take steps to protect the children in your program.

In addition, remember that there are many child molesters who have not yet been caught. They don't have criminal records yet and won't show up on a background check. They aren't registered sex offenders with their name in a database. You have to become aware of the CHARACTER of the people around your students. Check references. Contact present and past employers. Ask Questions! Trust your instincts.

[Chuck]

"Parents should beware of anyone who wants to be with their children more than they do."

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Chuck

"Parents should beware of anyone who wants to be with their children more than they do."

I think this puts the emphasis in the right place; parents should be teaching their children. As fencers these are mostly older children (not toddlers) who can easily be taught to protect themselves.

As for the clubs, it seems to me that the simplest protection is to set schedules and expectations that no child should ever be left alone with anyone (even another child).

Molestation is unlikely to occur in the presence of a third-party, and this can be emphasized in the club's organizational setup.

[foiled once again]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

As for the clubs, it seems to me that the simplest protection is to set schedules and expectations that no child should ever be left alone with anyone (even another child).

Molestation is unlikely to occur in the presence of a third-party, and this can be emphasized in the club's organizational setup.

Correct thinking a rule about always having two coachs persent or a few parents or adult fencers is a great idea and should be required.

The Boy Scouts of America have a policy called Two deep leadership and maybe the USFA could adopt a program as well to protect our children and the coaches that might be falsely accused.

Club's should invite and ask parents adn family members to watch the class and be around in an open environment. This open environment will also keep people that should not be there away because it takes the opportunity away.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I think this puts the emphasis in the right place; parents should be teaching their children. As fencers these are mostly older children (not toddlers) who can easily be taught to protect themselves.

As for the clubs, it seems to me that the simplest protection is to set schedules and expectations that no child should ever be left alone with anyone (even another child).

Molestation is unlikely to occur in the presence of a third-party, and this can be emphasized in the club's organizational setup.

It is absolutely true that the most effective protection for younger children is parental involvement. The problem comes with young teens who don't want their parents around and who want to act "grown up" and their parents just let them take off with a "trusted" coach. Then, when you have a teacher/coach who has ulterior motives, it is simple to arrange times when they can be alone together.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by foiled once again

The Boy Scouts of America have a policy called Two deep leadership and maybe the USFA could adopt a program as well to protect our children and the coaches that might be falsely accused..

There is a common myth or misconception that children lie and fantasize about sexual relations with adults. Most children speak from their own experiences. They do not tend to make up this information. False reports may be initiated by one adult against another, using the child as a pawn, but even this is rare. Children sometimes retract or change a sexual abuse statement if they fear that they will suffer more distress for having spoken or if they feel they will be blamed when a loved one goes to prison. That then gets interpreted as a false accusation when really the child just wants to be left alone or for things to be back the way they were before he was molested.

I actually had a 10 year old boy on the witness stand recant his statement that his uncle (on trial for Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact) fondled him. He had given multiple statements before about how his uncle molested him. But when it came time to say it again, in court, he recanted. Of course, it kind of hurt the defendant when the boy stopped on his way out of court and made one final statement to me loud enough for all to hear: "Mr. Slaughter, don't send my uncle to prison for what he did to me."

You see, he still loved his uncle and he finally realized that his uncle was really in trouble and he was smart enough to know that he could help him. He just wasn't sophisticated enough to pull it off. (The Jury convicted him.)

So far as the Boy Scouts go - they have a two deep leadership requirement because they have had many, many instances of inappropriate conduct of leaders with their scouts. Still, it happens even with the policy in place. In just the last couple of years I am aware of at least two local scout leaders who have been banned from Scouting because of their inappropriate and/or criminal behavior with boys in their charge. Policies don't stop these guys. Parents calling the police and filing charges stop these guys.

[swordsen]

I'm with the witchhunt crowd which seems to make me a minority in this group.

So now when one of your junior fencers takes a nude picture with his or her cellphone and gets arrested of childporn (just read a nice article in the newspaper about that happen all ove r the country now) we ban him or her from fencing becasue they are a "sex offender"?

God I love knee jerk reactionary fear mongering.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by swordsen

I'm with the witchhunt crowd which seems to make me a minority in this group.

So now when one of your junior fencers takes a nude picture with his or her cellphone and gets arrested of childporn (just read a nice article in the newspaper about that happen all ove r the country now) we ban him or her from fencing becasue they are a "sex offender"?

God I love knee jerk reactionary fear mongering.

If someone takes a picture of an underage child that qualifies as child pornography, that is a picture of a child being abused. (Nude pictures of minors are NOT automatically child pornography.) Plus, at least in Texas, there are defenses to what you just described that prevent cases being filed where both picture holder and person in the picture are both at least 14 and there is less than 3 years age difference between the two. The "Romeo and Juliet" defense.

Possession of child pornography is not a "victimless" crime. Every one of those minor aged children whose image is being sent out by emails and on the internet all over the world are being exploited and/or abused. It's not reactionary fear mongering and it is not a witchhunt. It's a search for online predators and people who like to look at children being sexually molested.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Chuck

{snip}Plus, at least in Texas, there are defenses to what you just described that prevent cases being filed where both picture holder and person in the picture are both at least 14 and there is less than 3 years age difference between the two. The "Romeo and Juliet" defense.

But that wouldn't apply to the Federal child porn charge--which seems to be what he was describing.

It doesn't matter if the sex is legal. Taking pictures isn't--assuming they are sexual in nature. Here's a case that just came down out of the First Circuit where someone in a legal relationship with a 14 year old (which was above the age of consent at the time in Puerto Rico) was sentenced to 15 years--not due to the sexual contact (which was legal) but due to taking pictures of her while they were in the relationship and keeping them (i.e. he did not share them).

--Philistine

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Philistine

But that wouldn't apply to the Federal child porn charge--which seems to be what he was describing.

It doesn't matter if the sex is legal. Taking pictures isn't--assuming they are sexual in nature. Here's a case that just came down out of the First Circuit where someone in a legal relationship with a 14 year old (which was above the age of consent at the time in Puerto Rico) was sentenced to 15 years--not due to the sexual contact (which was legal) but due to taking pictures of her while they were in the relationship and keeping them (i.e. he did not share them).

--Philistine

Well, as most people know, the feds pretty well do whatever they want. I guess the 38 year old should have been satisfied with just having sex with the 14 year old CHILD since it is legal in Puerto Rico. Under federal law, it was still illegal to be in possession of pictures that qualify as child pornography; that is, pictures of children under the age of 18 engaging in sexual acivities. I would have filed the case here as well. But I do recognize the argument that it doesn't seem fair to prohibit someone from having pictures of you and your sexual partner engaging in sexual activities. He should have waited to take pictures until she was 18 and he paid the price for not knowing the law.

[Chuck]

Getting back to the thread at hand:

Background checks are helpful but they are not a substitution for parental involvment with their kids and a club paying attention to the relationships of their staff with the underage fencers in the club. Legal or not.

[LordShout]

I work at a summer camp and we have background checks but we also have a policy that works quite well.

Never be alone with a child. Ever. For clubs without the resources to run background checks on all the people involved in youth education simply implementing this policy will help prevent issues from happening. Two adults, one child, two children one adult, never of course 3 children and who cares about 3 adults? Make your smallest unit of private instruction (private meaning no outside observers) 3. This however must apply to all times and all situations, say someones foil has an issue and coach A offers to take student G into the armory and fix it, thats a nono. He can take student G and H into the armory teach both of them instead. The next concern is duration of small group private contact, 1 adult 2 children still has a potential for abuse if the situation is extended or commonly repeated, thus it must be limited and the component individuals rotated.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

To be honest, I would think that someone who has been falsely accused would make every effort to avoid having it happen again. They might work with adults, be on committees, ref etc... but not coach children. In short, they would ensure they are never alone with a child because having your behaviour misinterpreted or coming across another child prone to making false accusations would have serious consequences. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.

I know on a handful of people who were falsely accused and most were the result of messy divorces. They have continued or returned to their activities and merely taken measures to insure they are NEVER alone with a child. The accusation does haunt you forever and does change your opportunities in life and the risks you are willing to take. However, there are some things that some of them were simply NOT willing to give up. If you give up too much of your life due to false accusations, then those vindictive people have succeeded in ruining your life, which is what they had hoped to accomplish.

But I will say that, imho, such cases are rare.