GUILTY OH - Barb Williams for child abuse, Hancock County, 2014

[screecher]

Uhh, a certain population of people DO LACK civility and self control!

People with emotional or cognitive disorders, personality disorders, traumatic brain injury DO lack those things. And you have to be prepared to face that in the least injurious way.

Similarly, kindergartners often also lack self-control. It's about being immature. They often lack self-control and civility, as a normal part of maturing.

And you have to be able to deal with a kid who picks up a rock and threatens to throw it at another kid.

BBM

Exactly what label would you put on Barb Williams? It's painfully obvious something is going on inside that head. Seriously, what 'disorder, injury' do you think she may have? Because she absolutely lacks self-control and civility.

Even in a psych hospital you can't restrain just anyone....so use of the word "restrain" is odd to me. JMO.

^THIS

 

[screecher]

... if you have to hold a kinder child in place it's best to hold them by one forearm.

-

Respectfully snipped by me


Please link me to where this is stated. It should be no problem to link me as you are very ardent in stating it. And sounds like practicing it.

 

[JeannaT]

Respectfully snipped by me


Please link me to where this is stated. It should be no problem to link me as you are very ardent in stating it. And sounds like practicing it.

What do you mean, "where this is stated"? It's stated by ME. I used to train volunteers who had to work one on one with kids in public, and the policy is that they couldn't ever spank them, or shake them, or injure them in any way but if they had to hold them it was by one forearm. I doubt there is a link anywhere on the net because it was our own training policy - I wrote it - an effort to make sure no adult got carried away and shook a child, which is basically the movement you see in the Ian Nelson video. It's dangerous.

 

[MissJ]

No, you can't restrain "just anyone". There are specific procedures and policies in place for when restraints are appropriate, by whom, and for what behaviors and lengths of time and who needs to be present and notified.

I don't work in that field anymore so I'm sure they've changed. The population I worked with wasn't in a psyche ward, but rather, in the public in public settings where it was necessary to know how to physically hold a kid in place. Like a mother would, actually, when warranted. It's sort of irrelevant, really, to this discussion.

This is really a rabbit trail. The whole thing is, when you are in charge of a kinder class I'm sure there are specific ways that you are allowed to restrain children who are temporarily a danger to themselves or others.

And the whole point of this very long rabbit trail is, if you have to hold a kinder child in place it's best to hold them by one forearm.

I certainly didn't expect this to go on and on with that observation -

Well not irrelevant. This child wasn't running in the streets. He was in a school building. Where was the danger he was inflicting upon someone or even himself? That IS what it takes in a psych hospital to restrain someone. With a physician's order....on a children's psych unit the criteria is even more strict. It is about the legality of restraint of any kind.:moo:

 

[screecher]

What do you mean, "where this is stated"? It's stated by ME. I used to train volunteers who had to work one on one with kids in public, and the policy is that they couldn't ever spank them, or shake them, or injure them in any way but if they had to hold them it was by one forearm. I doubt there is a link anywhere on the net because it was our own training policy - I wrote it - an effort to make sure no adult got carried away and shook a child, which is basically the movement you see in the Ian Nelson video. It's dangerous.

BBM

Seeing as you wrote it you do where it is. Could you post a link to the policy please?

Where did you get your training on 'restraints'?

I'm asking because I really need to understand, wrap my brain around your stance, so to speak. Perhaps my mindset needs changing. I need the rationalization for grabbing a kids forearm, using it as a restraint. YKWIM?

 

[JeannaT]

There is no link to that policy. I wrote it, and used it in my training sessions. This was back actually before the internet, in the early 1990s.

I learned my restraints with a state training we had to take every year and recertify to work with the population in the mental health field. I think it was called "Restraint and Defense" or something like that and involved keeping clients safe from harming themselves, you and others in the "least restrictive" way possible. We also all had to take infant and child and Adult CPR and keep our certifications up.

There actually WAS a time before the internet, and also not everything ever written now is on the internet. I am curious, though. Does this not seem obvious? If you are angry with a child and need to hold them in place, doesn't it seem obvious that you should devise a way to teach young volunteers to do that while making it impossible for them to shake the child? Children are shaken ALL THE TIME, and injured due to that, and making sure your volunteers don't engage in that behavior is important. And holding a child by the forearm prevents that. You simply can't shake a child when you hold them that way.

 

[Tricia]

Please remember our rules.

We do not discuss or accuse posters on Websleuths. If there is a problem with a post we ask you to please hit the alert button. The alert button is the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of the post.

Please stay on topic and do not post accusations against fellow posters.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[gitana1]

I totally agree, chaotic. It seems like most of the public is unaware of what things look like if they don't get to watch them on video.

I don't know what precipitated this incident, but that's how kids are dealt with in my experience who do things like purposely push other kids off play equipment, or continuously leave the classroom while the teacher is ordering them not to leave the classroom, or throw someone's lunch in the toilet, etc. This is how they're dealt with - and I honestly think that's not a bad way to deal with a kid in serious discipline cases like the above.

If this was for no reason whatsoever, I agree that the teacher should be let go.

It seems odd that you can't learn the circumstances.

Those are not my words.

If you're suggesting that I think this is the perfect way to deal with a child, you've misunderstood me.

Years ago I trained volunteers who would be working in a mentor type program with elementary kids, and taking them out in public where sometimes, with this population, you DO have to grab and restrain them. I taught them if you have to restrain a child, grab them by one forearm - and ONLY one forearm - because that way you can't possibly shake them, even accidentally. You can only hold them in place to keep them from running off or speak directly in their face at their level.

I certainly understand the danger of a person's neck flopping back like that.

I also don't believe she had any intention of injuring that child.

Have you seen parents react if they've been searching frantically for a child and then when they finally find them? If the child is as old as that one, it's usually a rageful response from worry and caring.

We don't know how long this child had been gone, or where in the school building she finally found him. Her reaction of anger is typical, in my opinion, although the physical grabbing and lifting of him was very inappropriate and dangerous.

I get the feeling, though. I have a wanderer and it's hard not to pinch their little head off when you finally find them safe.

No. I don't think you believe it is the "perfect" way to deal with kids but your posts expresses apparently feeling it is "good".

I was a preschool teacher and daycare worker for several years. I had a few kids with emotional disorders and a couple spoiled rotten brats in every class or group. I'm also not the most patient person on the planet.

I dealt with understaffing, field trips and super bad days with the kids. Not once did I ever come CLOSE to touching a child in that manner and not once did I ever imagine that such would be "not a bad way to deal with serious discipline cases".

None of what that woman did is close to typical restraining or grabbing that occasionally is necessary in a school situation for safety purposes. None of what that woman did- not one darn thing- is remotely similar to the reaction of a parent who has been frantically searching for their child and is overcome with relief mixed with anger (a more typical response would be grabbing the kid's arm and giving them a swat on the rear).

And none of what that woman did is in any way reminiscent of anything child care workers or educators would be trained to do to a child.

It horrifies me that we are having this conversation at all.

And I'm not sure what world it is in which this is how Children are "dealt with". In all my years as a preschool teacher and daycare worker I NEVER saw anything anywhere close to this.

 

[screecher]

There is no link to that policy. I wrote it, and used it in my training sessions. This was back actually before the internet, in the early 1990s.

I learned my restraints with a state training we had to take every year and recertify to work with the population in the mental health field. I think it was called "Restraint and Defense" or something like that and involved keeping clients safe from harming themselves, you and others in the "least restrictive" way possible. We also all had to take infant and child and Adult CPR and keep our certifications up.

There actually WAS a time before the internet, and also not everything ever written now is on the internet. I am curious, though. Does this not seem obvious? If you are angry with a child and need to hold them in place, doesn't it seem obvious that you should devise a way to teach young volunteers to do that while making it impossible for them to shake the child? Children are shaken ALL THE TIME, and injured due to that, and making sure your volunteers don't engage in that behavior is important. And holding a child by the forearm prevents that. You simply can't shake a child when you hold them that way.

BBM

Thank you for replying.

Oh, don't I know...I think I think I'm older than you lol.

Second bold. I would never touch a child while angry. Period. We all know what happened with the little guy when Barb Williams was angry.

 

[Knitty]

She wasn't restraining him. She was assaulting him.

 

[gitana1]

BBM

Thank you for replying.

Oh, don't I know...I think I think I'm older than you lol.

Second bold. I would never touch a child while angry. Period. We all know what happened with the little guy when Barb Williams was angry.

Seriously! I'm baffled by excuses made for this dangerous and abusive behavior.
But I'm starting to understand a tiny bit more when see anger being used as justification for "needing" to lay hands on a child.

Holy moly.

If a person routinely feels enraged when around kids or can't control his or her anger when around them or feels that anger ever justifies physical discipline or punishment of any kind, such a person should never be working with children and if they have kids, they should get immediate, professional help, IMO.

 

[screecher]

Seriously! I'm baffled by excuses made for this dangerous and abusive behavior.
But I'm starting to understand a tiny bit more when see anger being used as justification for "needing" to lay hands on a child.

Holy moly.

If a person routinely feels enraged when around kids or can't control his or her anger when around them or feels that anger ever justifies physical discipline or punishment of any kind, such a person should never be working with children and if they have kids, they should get immediate, professional help, IMO.

Yeah, I'm unable to wrap my head around it it, too. Just no. Remove oneself when angry.

Barb Williams didn't even have to go after the little boy. Her kids were in a 'special', computer class. She was having her 'free' period. WTH did she seek him out????

 

[Constance]

Why wasn't Barb Williams arrested????

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/05/calif_mom_arrested_for_grabbin.html#incart_river

Scary isn't it? To think if she did this in eye of the camera what did she do when she left that spot??

She is a horrid abuser.

Seriously! I'm baffled by excuses made for this dangerous and abusive behavior.
But I'm starting to understand a tiny bit more when see anger being used as justification for "needing" to lay hands on a child.

Holy moly.

If a person routinely feels enraged when around kids or can't control his or her anger when around them or feels that anger ever justifies physical discipline or punishment of any kind, such a person should never be working with children and if they have kids, they should get immediate, professional help, IMO.

RBBM. This. Absolutely.

 

[gitana1]

She wasn't restraining him. She was assaulting him.

Precisely.

What does what we see on tape have to do with restraining a child to prevent them from hurting another child or themselves or with grabbing a child's forearm to prevent them from running into a parking lot or leading a child back to a timeout chair or anything at all close to a legitimate scenario in which placing one's hands on a child you are caring for is justified?

Me thinks it has more to do with being "angry with a child and need[ing] to hold them in place" so you can do to them whatever your rage makes you feel justified in doing.

Goodness.

 

[gitana1]

Yeah, I'm unable to wrap my head around it it, too. Just no. Remove oneself when angry.

Barb Williams didn't even have to go after the little boy. Her kids were in a 'special', computer class. She was having her 'free' period. WTH did she seek him out????

It looks like Barb needed to seek him out to vent her rage on. And apparently for some, it is acceptable, even if not ideal, and totally routine, for an adult in charge of children to express his or her anger on a child, in this manner. Scary. Scary. Scary.

 

[mikkismom]

Police report on Riverdale school incident forwarded to prosecutor

http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[human]

I think when I was,younger a ton of years ago, this was acceptable. I never had anything like that happen to me, but I heard about kids , older, being pushed against lockers.

There are plenty of people out there that think kids are treated too mamby pamby. I see the posts on my FB about, " I was raised such and such way and I am OK."

There is corporal punishment allowed in some schools.

People want other children punished, but you better not touch their child.

We need to teach problem solving and how to deal with problems. Kids can learn to regulate their behavior.

I don't know what is up with the teacher, but clearly to a lot of us it is not OK

 

[K_Z]

Barb Williams didn't even have to go after the little boy. Her kids were in a 'special', computer class. She was having her 'free' period. WTH did she seek him out????

It looks like Barb needed to seek him out to vent her rage on. And apparently for some, it is acceptable, even if not ideal, and totally routine, for an adult in charge of children to express his or her anger on a child, in this manner. Scary. Scary. Scary.

snipped for focus.

From the principal's notes, BW had dropped off her class with the computer teacher. BW was in a hall discussing IN's IEP meeting with another staff member. That staff member directed BW's attention to IN, who was in the hall. The comments in the documents state that the child was in a different part of the school, and didn't use the bathroom closest to the computer teacher's classroom. (Comments at 1:25 pm) These documents are also presumably also where the interpretation that IN had incidents with "wandering" come from.

I am not verifying the veracity of these statements. Just providing the link.

Link to the document is in this article:

http://www.toledonewsnow.com/story/...ents-shed-light-on-riverdale-teacher-incident

School notes and statements from the incident:

http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wto...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Salem]

From reading those documents, I would say this was not the 1st time this teacher laid hands on this child. When interviewed, the child conveniently couldn't remember what happened. I don't believe that for a minute. He was afraid that she would find out he told and get him again - that's what I think.

This woman is despicable, in my opinion. And I'm ticked!

Salem

 

[K_Z]

This teacher will absolutely be fired, no question in my mind. She lost it, and she assaulted this child. There is no excuse for that. None. They have to go thru the process, because she is union—and it’s really misleading that the media reports are conveniently overlooking this requirement. The superintendent could not fire her on the spot, or even TALK about firing her (that would be a threat) in the suspension letter, due to union rules that require due process. Even if she had been arrested on the spot, she still would have been put on administrative leave (same as “suspension”), pending due process.

Make no mistake—she WILL be fired. This is on videotape, with lots of witnesses. She is done as an educator, and most likely will have a hard time ever getting any kind of job again. My best guess is that she will eventually be charged with assault and battery, but that it will be finally settled after a year or 2 as a misdemeanor assault, since she probably has no record. Community service, probation, and anger management classes. There may be a provision for her teaching license to be revoked, also, but that would be largely symbolic, because she will never be hired again as a teacher. (Or volunteer, or para, or any job involving children.) I doubt she will do any jail time. She will fight to keep her pension, I expect, but that could go either way-- she may lose it, she may keep it. She might try to resign before they fire her, but I think they won't accept a resignation. They will put this one thru due process, IMO.

And to pre-empt any flaming which assumes I'm somehow using subtlety or covertly supporting this teacher's actions, I'm bumping this half (the part relevant to the topic) of my original post to clarify my position on this.

She WILL be fired, IMO. And ultimately, IMO, she WILL end up with a misdemeanor assault conviction or plea.

The child has apparently has had some behavior issues, as many kids do. The teacher snapped, and resorted to assault to "address" the issues. That is never ok. She committed assault, IMO. Acknowledging the circumstances is neither excusing the behavior of the teacher, nor blaming the victim. It simply explains how the situation unfolded. Just as we do when we discuss most cases at WS. There is nothing at all that indicates that this teacher was on a "hunting expedition."