|
LafayetteLady -> RE: HIV Discrimination (12/7/2011 11:39:29 AM)
|
This is not simply a boarding school. It is practically a foster care environment. They provide "year round" housing, clothes, food and medical care.
I read the Plaintiff's filing and it is in many ways pretty ambiguous, providing no supporting documents regarding the admissions.
They are suing for compensatory, actual and punitive damages. One of the links had the 13 year old child saying, "I think that it was wrong to put me through emotional distress." I don't care how high on the honor roll this kid is, at thirteen, he isn't speaking like that, so he was definately coached.
Compensatory damages would basically be their attorney fees. There are no actual damages here that I can see. It is a private school, which is not a "required" form of education, so if the mother paid for another private school, that was a choice. Actual damages certainly could not include any basic housing, clothing, or medical costs for the child as they were her responsibility to begin with.
So they have punitive damages. Yes, they can amount to something, but as I'm sure that mother is also HIV positive, I'm sure she has had to deal with some shit from people. Did she sue all of them or is this simply because she feels the school has "deep pockets?"
I believe that both sides have merit here. It is pretty presumptious to ask other people to take on the full time responsibility of an HIV child. That is what this entails. This boy may be asymptomatic, but he still requires additional medical attention compared to the "average" student. Realistically, that is what taking this boy on as a student would entail for the school. So the question then becomes, would admitting this child lessen the availability of care for the other students? I don't know the answer to that, but it is possible, foreseeable and likely that it could.
I am assuming it was a typo when you said this:
quote:
the school states the parent would not agree to the school informing others about his condition, such as house parents and others directed in his education and care... but that they would not agree to education of the other students.
Your quote looks like a typo, but on review of the school's filing it isn't. It is wholly unreasonable in a residential setting to deny the right of caregivers the knowledge of his condition. Even in a day school setting dealing with minor children, it is reasonable to expect staff to have knowledge of the condition so they can properly address any issues that come up.
If this child is to prevail on his motion, which includes immediate admission to the school, the court is likely to order there IS a need to know situation here, and the requirement that the staff be notified of his HIV status must be disclosed.
There is also the reality that because of this child's condition and medications and such, even without formal "notice" to the students, they could and likely will find out. Now that student is in danger of further, real "emotional distress." I'm certainly not saying it is right for students to pick on him for his health issues, but I am saying it is a reality of what would happen. The people responsible for this child do not want the school to engage in HIV education for the students so they have the accurate information. They are children and without being educated, how will they learn how HIV can and can not be transmitted?
I sympathize with this child wanting a good education, I really do. I don't sympathize with his mother, who is the likely reason this boy has HIV in the first place. But his health situation alone should not permit him admittance to this school. He was turned down on a previous application. I would be interested in the details of that application, since he had HIV then as well.
The school makes a point of saying that they have accomodated other children with disabilities. Does this have an impact? Maybe, but not likely. The point really comes down to the school not having the ability to meet all the needs of this child if he were in their setting.
One thing that keeps nagging at me is if you have a child who is HIV positive, you want to be sure his medical needs are properly met, and as a parent, I would think you would want to be able to look at your child daily to watch for anything that may indicate a need to see the doctor. A good parent knows their child well enough to make these kinds of judgements, and can see things even before their child tells them. I would think in the case of HIV, this would be vitally important to any good parent.
Yet this mother is more than happy to send her child to a school that is at least two hours away. They live in the Philadelphia area, and the Hersey School is out by Harrisburg, not around the block. As a parent of a child with a chronic and potentially fatal disease, are you willing to turn over care to someone else? Not for a few days or a couple of weeks, but essentially full time? A parent sending their child to this school, from what I read on the school's website, is almost completely abdicating parental authority to the school. What kind of parent is willing to do that with a child that has such special needs?
Something tells me there is more to this story than what we are seeing in the press. Twice the child applied and twice the child was turned down. They don't say the mother is HIV positive or even full blown AIDS, but since this boy had it from birth it isn't a huge leap to figure out she gave it to him. He isn't a foster child, it would have been mentioned (raises pity levels), he is with his biological mother, who through her own behavior gave her child a deadly disease. The school, by everything we have seen has tried to deal with this appropriately, but the mother (not the child) rushed to filing suit and asking for damages "to be determined by the court." Not just for the boy, but for what she has suffered as well. That doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
|
