Can a psych eval be required?

A friend has approached me about a situation they are dealing with at their church. They have recently discovered that one of their paid, part-time staff members has been inappropriately "touching" kids--stroking hair, etc. (innapropriate, but not sexually obvious--does that make sense?). They have received written confirmation of this behavior by a 3rd party for whom they were performing a service. They are wanting to know if they can require this person to go through a psych eval and then to require counseling if there is a problem. They do not have an EAP.

I would think that it would be OK to say, "We recommend you go through psychological evaluation or your position could be on the line." Right?

Comments

  • 20 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • I do not know what this person's job is. However, if they are inappropriately touching a child, fire them. If, for some reason, they won't do this, give him a zero tolerance letter stating the next time they touch a child they will be fired. Furthermore, they should make it impossible for the employee to be near children on church property. If it is decided to let the employee keep the job, recommend psychiatric treatment. However, I cannot believe that the primary concern is not the children. Finally, have the parents been notified? Should the police be notified?
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-14-03 AT 11:47AM (CST)[/font][p]I am not sure if its possible to advise you without knowing more about the person involved, ages of the kids, ect. Also what do you mean by "stroking hair, etc.." What is the etc? That would be good to know.

    My wife and I have often watched kids at church. We usually take the toddlers. Sometimes a toddler will cry so my wife (a very caring, nurturing person) will pick up the child and hold him or her. She might caress the child, stroke hair, etc in order to comfort the child.

    I doubt any parent would be the slightest bit upset by that and most likely appreciates my wife's ability to genuinely care for their children.

    On the other hand, I am extremely careful with the kids. I won't even let kids sit in my lap when I read stories. Why? Because I want to avoid the slightest bit of impropriety.

    If this is truly an innappropriate situation, why mess around with a psych exam? What if it says the person is fine? I say err on the side of protecting kids and re-assign the individual away from children or get rid of them altogether.

    Paul


  • Are they kdding????!!! In today's climate??? I would get rid of the part-timer right now before it blows up into something really bad.
  • This situation requires "immediate" attention! Being aware of this inappropriate conduct, especially in writing and allowing it to continue is tantamount to condoning the conduct. The risk level with this type situation in todays climate is OFF THE CHARTS... Noticed any stories lately about other churches and inapproriate conduct? Remember fiduciary responsibilities are owed to the children. Immediate termination with a report to authorities seems to be in order. Not only to protect the children, but the accompanying excessive liability. Please do yourself a favor and act now!!!
  • OK--I've looked into this a little more. What I can't tell is if his intentions are innocent, but the outcome doesn't look innocent; he seems to be a "slow" individual (not all there mentally--sorry if I'm not using the PC terms); or are his intentions not innocent.

    There is only 1 documented source of his behavior, but several people from that source have commented on it. As far as the stroking, it states, "was stroking the hair and shoulders as well as holding 2 children." Now, that doesn't seem all that bad especially considering what Paul wrote--some people are genuinely nurturing. But I think because there have been other incidents that just don't seem quite "right" is giving them cause for alarm.

    What if this guy is too slow to know right from wrong? What if he is being nice, but his actions take it too far? How can you tell him not to do that and have him understand?

    But then I think--WHAT IF a family member completely disagrees with it and sues the church. Those other what if's don't even matter then.

  • I don't believe you have a choice given this involves children. There is zero tolerance in the legal arena when it comes to anything construed as "inappropriate" with children. You are right to be concerned about being sued.
  • Paige: Don't be so anal about this thing. Fire the man. His intentions have not one whit to do with anything. Even if they did, who the hell would ever arrive at what his intentions were and how long would that take? No man's job calls for him to pick up children and stroke them and touch their shoulder's. Period. As sexist as this sounds, it is my contention that no male has any business working in a day care center. I just can't 'grow' past that notion. We should not be obsessing about all these intangible what-ifs. Terminate the employee. No, don't send him to the other end of the property for another assignment. Then he makes his way back to where children are and BAM! I was in Wendy's here the other day. The restaurants in town have agreements to 'hire' people with handicaps, rather severe ones. I totally support the program. It's a win-win, usually. They're usually mopping and cleaning which is great. I stood in line for about 15 minutes. One of these workers, a female who appeared to be about 40 stood and stared at a little girl in line up in front of me for the entire time. The child was maybe 13. Her dad was there. I could not say a word to him although I wanted to call his attention to it. Any responsible father would have picked up on it and dealt with it. This was really eerie. I tried to make myself obvious by staring at this weirdly behaving woman but it had no impact on her. This situation has no correlation with yours, but neither is normal.
  • Inappropriate is enough said! Regardless what the person may think in their mind or feel in their heart, inappropriate activity with children is NOT TOLERATED! This is such a sensitive issue that you cannot afford to not take action. Besides I am not so sure that when the pastor (spiritual counselor) is made aware of this type of inappropriate behavior that the pastor has a "statutory" duty to report it, similar to health care providers, psychiatrist, psychologist, counselors, etc. I cannot stress enough the need for immediate action!!!
  • Are you an at-will state? If so, I would not take any chances. He would no longer have a part-time job with me. The children should be your number 1 concern.

    If you aren't an at-will state, I believe you have sufficient grounds to terminate this person's employment. If termination is your answer, first get witness statements in writing (have witness sign statement)and have HR sign and date each such statement. After statements are received, terminate employment. In the meantime, due diligence should dictate caution in allowing him any kind of one-on-one contact with children; therefore, temporary job suspension during investigation is warranted.
  • This church should be having all employees and volunteers that work with children (Sunday School Teachers/Nursery workers, etc.) sign something regarding child abuse. I worked for a church for a short time and while I was there I helped type something up. I know that I came across a copy of it not too long ago in my files -- I could fax it to you if you're interested in passing it along. Let me know.

    Tammy Jo
  • Thank you all for your input on this matter. I've passed along some thoughts and I think they are going to use this as an opportunity to refine guidelines and to also move the individual to a more suitable role within the church. My own church has a child protection policy which includes a background check. I've shared this with them as well.

    Thanks, again.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-18-03 AT 08:10AM (CST)[/font][p]Paige: No reflection on my Italian and Spanish surname friends, but is this by any chance a Catholic church? Something about moving him down the hall to another physical setting seems to bring to mind that that has often been the response from the Catholicism aisle. Once again, my strong belief is that the individual needs not to be working anywhere on site at this church or any of its affiliated buildings or service points.
  • No, it's not Catholic--I believe it's Presbyterian.

    The problem is, the source that gave us this information is the ONLY source that has made any comments about his behavior. He's been an employee/volunteer at this church for some time now, has worked with kids at the church, and no one from the church has seen this type of behavior. They have commented that he seems a little "weird"/different, but they have not seen questionable behavior.

    My friend who brought this to my attention observed him just recently as he was working with the kids and said he saw nothing that was questionable and was even amazed by how good he was with the kids. This got my friend thinking that maybe guidelines should be instituted whereby when children's activities are taking place, there are always to be at least 2 adults involved.
  • Paige,

    Now that you have defined it a little more I would agree that a mentally challenged adult man stroking the hair of children is totally innappropriate and his access to children should be ended immediately.

    His actions may be innocent but the risk he poses far outweighs any contributions he makes.

    I know we can't prevent every possible risk to children but we should try to prevent any we become aware of.

    Paul
  • Just a few thoughts...I am a little surprised that no one has even thought to give this employee the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, I'm all for getting rid of him now if you think he did anything inappropriate. Your friend said that there was only one witness to this behavior. Could that person have misconstrued what she saw? I know we are all a little paranoid about what we do, say etc. for fear of what others may think when it involves children.

    I am sorry you feel that men should not work at daycares, Don. I disagree completely. What message does that send to our children? One of the best care-givers my daughters have had at daycare is male. He truly cares for them, and I feel good when he is taking care of them because I know he cares about them. He's known one of my daughters since she was 2ish and he for certain has rubbed her back to help her nap. (He's been going to school on and off to become a teacher). I agree with the rest of what you said!

    Please don't get me wrong, everyone, I agree with all of you that our children should be protected above all else. How would you feel though, of being incorrectly accused of something so horrific?

    Any business that involves working with children should do background checks on all potential employees.

    Let us know what decision is made. Good luck.
  • Good points. But your main point is that no one seems to be giving him 'the benefit of the doubt'. I think that the fact that he's still there indicates he's been given a huge benefit of the doubt. As far as 'What message does this send the children?', I thought that notion went out the window years ago.
  • Actually, that's kindof what my gut was telling me, Sandi--this is one isolated incident (that's been mentioned/documented). What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What about all those investigation seminars I've been to--always get both sides of the story. I would hate to go to this guy, tell him he's fired for mistreating children, him have a brother for an attorney who then encourages him to sue the church.

    Honestly, I don't know if he has been given the benefit of the doubt--I'm thinking this is the only time this type of behavior has been brought up. Others have found him to be "weird," but I don't believe anyone has questioned his being with the children.

    The church I attend has a background check policy and forms in place and I passed those along to my friend and he is going to strongly suggest his church implement such a policy. In addition, as I mentioned, they are going to consider guidelines of making sure there is more than one adult during activities with children.

    I realize this might not be the BEST solution--and while I appreciate ALL of your thoughts, advice, and comments, I certainly can't MAKE my friend fire this guy. As with our jobs everyday--I can advise and then it's up to supervisors, committees, etc. to assess the risk associated and make their decisions from there. =)

    Thanks, again.
    Paige
  • Don, I was referring to forum members' comments re "benefit of the doubt." I don't understand what you mean by "I thought that notion went out years ago."





















  • Our company is a non-profit CRP (Community Rehabilitation Program) that places disabled individuals into gov't contract work. We deal with a variety of disabilities and behaviors. Although it is our mission to provide supported employment, there are some behaviors which cannot be accommodated in the workplace. We have zero problem telling the employee (or their job coach, if they have one, or a guardian) they cannot come back to work unless they see their doctor to get the okay to be at work (this is usually mentally ill individuals messing around with their meds. Also, developmentally disabled people often have trouble identifying boundaries - I agree with Paul in Cannon Beach - it may be innocent, but he may not be able to identify what is okay/not okay, and such a person has no place working with children, disabled or not.
  • That was just a random tongue-in-cheek remark indicating it seems that society has for several years abandoned the concept of doing things that will positively impact the children. It seems behaviors, all the way to the White House, are such that nobody seems to give a whit about how it might impact others, much less the children. Heather has two mommies. The (ex)president is married and fools with young girls. The highest clergy abuse children. Judges and community leaders are hauled in for DUI. Gone are the days, generally, when a major concern was HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT THE CHILDREN. Sorry for the confusion and the soap boxing.
Sign In or Register to comment.