Practitioners and Consumers of Applied Behavior Analysis: Take Note

What follows is the entire complaint (without several of the exhibits) that I filed with the Texas Education Agency. I am posting this complaint on steemit in order to make sure that parents and patients of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) are aware of some of the pitfalls. I would hate for another child to have to undergo the mistreatment and abuse that my son suffered at the hands of a BCBA who has a demonstrated history of abuse claims and who has engaged in blatant academic fraud. As yo you will note, I have changed the name of my son to protect his identity.

---

I. ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM
SUFFERED BY A SPECIAL-NEEDS CHILD

During a recent seizure episode, my seven-year-old son with epilepsy asked me, “Where are you, Daddy?”

I was sitting right in front of him in a well-lit room. I was looking into his fluttering, darting eyes. The right side of his body was shaking involuntarily. He was drooling. He made guttural clicking noises. He did not lose control of basic bodily functions during this particular seizure, fortunately.

Continuing to seize, he asked me, “When is this going to stop?”

I didn’t know the answer to that question then. And I don’t know the answer to that question now. But I do know when his seizures started to increase dramatically in incidence, severity, and duration.

I do know that March 12, 2015, is the date certain when it all began to snowball for my son, John Doe. Before March 12, 2015, John had suffered three brief seizures. (Since the onset of his first known seizure on November 7, 2013, Mrs. Doe and I have been vigilant. We have slept beside John nightly so that we can monitor him.)

After March 12, 2015, John has suffered dozens of seizures—fourteen in calendar-year 2016 alone. Some of the seizures have been lengthy. We’ve had to take John to hospital emergency rooms. The lengthy seizures bring with them an increased risk of morbidity—death—according to John’s neurologists. John has often suffered from transient paralysis on the right side of his body after these dozens of seizures.

John’s unhappy story, which is the subject of this complaint, took place as a result of actions occurring in the Lake Travis Independent School District ("LTISD" or “Lake Travis”).

Another young Texan with a neurological condition—a ten-year-old boy known as S.R. in court filings—also experienced a radical deterioration in health after another date certain.

S.R.’s date certain is December 14, 2006.

After December 14, 2006, S.R. experienced a dramatic increase in aggression. He suffered severe physical and emotional pain. His emotional growth was stunted. His deteriorating condition impeded his ability to advance academically.

S.R.’s story occurred in the El Campo Independent School District (“ECISD”).

The serious, physical harm that John and S.R. suffered share a common cause: child abuse—child abuse that the unaccountable Central Texas Autism Center ("CTAC") deliberately imposes upon special-needs children.

I start with CTAC’s abusive treatment of S.R. in El Campo. It foreshadows the abuse that CTAC would impose upon John in Lake Travis. It demonstrates CTAC’s ingrained pattern and practice of intentionally subjecting special-needs children to severe harm.

II. CTAC’S ABUSE OF S.R. (2006-2007)

CTAC orchestrated a behavior intervention for S.R. at ECISD’s Northside Elementary School on December 14, 2006. Kelle Wood Rich acted as the supervising behavior analyst on S.R.’s file. Ms. Rich is CTAC’s owner and president.

CTAC could have accessed S.R.’s medical records, but did not review them. The medical records recommended that adults shield S.R. from unnecessary agitation (to prevent behavioral outbursts).

ECISD’s own behavior analyst recommended that demands for compliance be terminated until S.R. could “cool down.”

School staff could not implement S.R.’s existing behavior plan. Ms. Rich’s protégé and employee at CTAC, Cara Brown, arrived at the school on December 14, 2006. Ms. Brown was not a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. She possessed only two weeks of formal training in behavior analysis. But Ms. Rich recklessly sent her to the school anyway. Ms. Rich “supervised” Ms. Brown from Austin—hours away by car.

CTAC did not consult with any of the medical professionals who had treated S.R. CTAC’s sole preparation for its intervention comprised reading (i) anecdotal teachers’ notes and (ii) an ECISD report that warned against placing demands upon S.R., once agitated. CTAC possessed no parental authority to agitate S.R.

According to certified court filings, CTAC admits in writing to intentionally provoking an emergency to see what CTAC was “dealing with.”

CTAC segregated S.R. from the general student population. CTAC used mind games that were calculated to intentionally frustrate and provoke S.R. to non-compliance.

• CTAC continued to repeat the same demand over and over—that S.R. write the number “49” on a piece of paper—while he began to decompose.

• CTAC continued to repeat the same demand while S.R. became a serious threat of harm to self.

• CTAC continued to repeat the same demand while CTAC utilized multiple adults to pinion S.R. to the floor and physically restrain him.

Over the course of months, multiple adults continued this abuse toward S.R. at CTAC’s instruction. They systematically and deliberately provoked S.R. to non-compliance. Adults initiated forty—40!—separate physical containments of S.R. during the second half of the 2006-2007 school year. CTAC participated in some of these physical containments.

As the supervising behavior analyst on S.R.’s file, Ms. Rich approved and orchestrated this extended campaign of abuse initiated by her alter-ego, CTAC, against a ten-year-old boy with special-needs.

CTAC forced S.R. to resort to extraordinary acts of self-preservation. He tried to run away. He hid under a table. He fought back against the multiple adults who were provoking him at CTAC’s direction.

S.R.’s parents and guardians eventually sued CTAC for assault. In its certified pleadings, CTAC told the court that S.R. caused the harm he had alleged.

Ms. Rich testified in a deposition for close to six hours. Her alter ego, CTAC, outlandishly asserted to the court in certified pleadings that it had acted in self-defense (over the course of months) against an unarmed, pint-sized, ten-year-old boy with special-needs. CTAC lost a series of pre-trial motions. The case settled with a large payment to S.R.

Ms. Rich could have disavowed CTAC’s declaration of war on S.R., but she never did.

Ms. Rich learned nothing.

She would go on to declare war against at least one other child with a neurological condition—my son, John Doe.

III. MS. RICH AND CTAC’S SIMILAR ABUSE OF JOHN DOE (2015)

Ms. Rich orchestrated a behavioral intervention involving John on March 12, 2015. Ms. Rich acted under the supervision of LTISD behavior analyst, Clare Chung.

As part of the development of John’s behavior plan in late 2014, I wrote to Ms. Chung and asked that repetitive and inflammatory tactics be discontinued:

[E]ngaging in all these constant, repetitive demands . . . will only further upset him and continue to reinforce bad habits. [emphasis added]

In response, Ms. Chung wrote the following legally-binding requirement into John’s behavior plan:

If staff are [sic] unable to hold the demand because of an escalation in behavior, the following strategies are recommended: Staff should verbally or gesturally attempt to get John’s attention (e.g., ‘John eyes on me’ while gesturing) and then repeat the directive one time and allow wait time for processing. If still no response, move John to a ‘safe spot’ away from the group and use calming strategies to decrease physical and verbal aggression. [emphasis added]

Except for a few deviations, John functions at grade level academically. But the staff at Lake Pointe Elementary School (“LPES”) could not implement John’s behavior plan. Ms. Rich arrived at LPES on March 12, 2015, to observe and analyze staff’s interaction with John.

Ms. Rich possessed no parental authority to intervene with John. She possessed no ARD Committee authority to violate John’s legally-binding behavior plan, which, as we have seen above, prohibited intentional provocation.

Ms. Rich is not a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. Ms. Rich holds no professional mental-healthcare license issued by the State of Texas. Ms. Rich’s sole preparation in the immediate run-up to March 12, 2015, comprised speaking with Ms. Chung. Before arriving at LPES, Ms. Rich never reviewed John’s behavior plan, which prohibits provocation (though she claims falsely in her report on this matter to having done so). Ms. Chung emailed the operative behavior plan to Ms. Rich approximately 40 minutes after Ms. Rich had arrived at John’s classroom.

Ms. Rich was winging it at the rate of $125.00 per hour.

Ms. Rich never spoke to Mrs. Doe nor me about the methods she intended to employ. Ms. Rich did not consult with any of John’s medical professionals.

Ms. Rich segregated John from his class. Ms. Rich used mind games that were calculated to intentionally frustrate and provoke John to non-compliance.

• Ms. Rich continued to repeat the same demand over and over—that John write his name on a piece of paper—while John began to decompose.

• Ms. Rich continued to repeat the same demand while John became a serious threat of harm to self.

• Ms. Rich continued to repeat the same demand while she utilized multiple adults to pinion John to the floor and physically restrain him.

• After Ms. Rich had permitted John to emerge from the first physical containment, Ms. Rich began anew to repeat the same demand that had caused John to become a serious, imminent harm to self just moments before.

As the target of the barrage, John again became a serious threat of harm to self. Ms. Rich physically assisted staff in pinioning John to the floor during the second physical containment.

John suffers from a speech impairment that makes it difficult for him to respond fluently to repetitive demands, as is evident to any sentient adult who converses with him for more than thirty seconds.

Ms. Rich orchestrated the efforts of up to four other fully-grown adults to carry out her plan of attack. John measures just three feet, six inches tall, and weighs only 46 pounds. Five adults towered over him.

Ms. Rich subjected John to hundreds of demands as frequently as every five seconds, from 9:57 AM to 11:45 AM. It went on for 108 Minutes—108 Minutes!—the protracted amount of time required to play Beethoven’s lengthy Ninth Symphony—Twice.

Like S.R., John was forced by CTAC to resort to extraordinary acts of self-preservation. He tried to run away. He hid under a table. He fought back against the multiple adults who were provoking him at Ms. Rich’s direction.

In carrying out her battle plan, Ms. Rich sought total victory during her 108-minute campaign. She made sure to cut off John’s (1) supply lines, (2) communication lines, and (3) means of retreat.

1. John told adults that he wanted to eat. Ms. Rich said “NO.” Ms. Rich used the threat of force and actual force to deny John food and milk during his regular lunch period and beyond. Ms. Rich continued the barrage.

2. John’s teacher’s aide, Deb Herbster, left the room in disgust during the exercise. She told the school principal, “I can’t do this anymore!” An hour later, an anguished John cried for Ms. Herbster. Ms. Rich ramped up the pressure. She falsely told John that Ms. Herbster was not available to talk to him. Ms. Rich continued the barrage.

3. John’s case manager, Cheryl Sampley, twice tried to valiantly rescue John from the staged emergency. Ms. Rich twice stopped the rescue attempts. Ms. Rich continued the barrage.

Ms. Rich permitted John to receive a “separate-but-equal” lunch and a “separate-but-equal” recess away from his peers, but only after she had gotten what she wanted out of him.

As the supervising behavior analyst, Ms. Chung did not properly supervise Ms. Rich. She did not stop Ms. Rich. Ms. Chung participated in the barrage.

A week later, John suffered a very serious, very lengthy seizure. We took John to a hospital emergency room.

Even so, Ms. Rich and LTISD continued to recommend in writing that the barrage of child abuse be continued.

Ms. Rich intentionally repeated the mistakes of El Campo. Ms. Rich hadn’t learned a damned thing.

IV. MS. RICH’S BATTLE PLAN: A PREMEDITATED AND CALCULATED DECLARATION OF WAR ON SPECIAL-NEEDS CHILDREN

Ms. Rich did not commit these acts of abuse against John by accident. The striking similarities to El Campo demonstrate this. These acts of abuse are the product of Ms. Rich’s very carefully constructed, written battle plan:
• When a special-needs child exhibits unwanted behaviors, repeat the same demand over and over until he complies.
• If these repeated demands agitate the special-needs child, deliberately continue to repeat the demand anyway—every five seconds or after each occurrence of behavior.
• If these repeated demands cause the child to become disruptive, then segregate and isolate him from his peers.
• After the special-needs child is cut off from his peers, deliberately continue to repeat the same demand.
• Expect the special-needs child to melt down, to experience an outburst.
• Initiate a physical containment of the special-needs child when he becomes a danger to self because of the expected outburst.
• After releasing the special-needs child from the physical containment, deliberately re-introduce the demand that caused the child to become a danger to self just moments before.
I didn’t just make up these bullet points out of thin air. These bullet points summarize Ms. Rich’s battle plan, which she wrote down in Pages 5-6 of her report about the events of March 12, 2015.

This is “The Smoking Gun,” for it demonstrates that Ms. Rich acts with premeditated calculation to intentionally expose special-needs children like John and S.R. to serious harm.

Ms. Rich’s battle plan also describes acts of torture: (x) the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering, (y) conducted by a person acting under color of legal authority, (z) for the purpose of discrimination. (See Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.)

On March 13, 2015, John’s principal, Heidi Gudelman, expressed repulsion and bewilderment toward Ms. Rich’s behavior and the staged emergencies Ms. Rich had caused.

Ms. Gudelman stated that Ms. Rich’s role on March 12 was to observe—and observe only. She could not understand why Ms. Rich had intervened with John.

I asked Ms. Gudelman what she would have done had she seen me engaging in Ms. Rich's scripted methods out in the LPES parking lot for close to two hours.

The principal exclaimed:

"I'd have called the cops!"

She continued: “This is not the way we do things around here—we act in a more [thoughtfully pausing and searching for the appropriate descriptor]—humane . . . way.”

V. LTISD FRAUDULENTLY CHARACTERIZES
CTAC’S METHODS AS BEING “RESEARCH-BASED.”

Numerous advocacy groups across the mental-healthcare spectrum have issued policy statements repudiating behavior-management methods that are designed to demean special-needs children and subject them to harm.

These organizations include the American Psychological Association, The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

According to these organizations, a hallmark of unethical methods is the considerable ambivalence and repulsion exhibited by those who are called upon to administer the methods.

Statements such as, “I can’t do this anymore!” and “I’d have called the cops!” and “We act in a more humane way”—all made by those called upon to carry out Ms. Rich’s methods—exhibit just this kind of ambivalence and repulsion.

Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung acted without parental consent on March 12. In so doing, they directly violated Rule 2.04(a) of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts (the “BACB Ethical Guidelines”), to which they are both subject.

Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung also consciously and intentionally disregarded the dictates of John’s behavior plan that required that less-restrictive measures be used. In so doing, they directly violated Rule 4.10 of the BACB Ethical Guidelines.

In her report on this matter, LTISD general counsel Susan Bohn ignores dozens of violations of the BACB Ethical Guidelines by Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung.

Borrowing a line from Ms. Rich, Ms. Bohn nonetheless states in her report on this matter that Ms. Rich’s methods are “research-based,” and are therefore proper. Ms. Rich provides no justification, evidence, nor authority to substantiate this dumbfounding claim to the mantle of science.

Ms. Rich made the same fraudulent claim to scientific purity in the El Campo litigation.

This assertion was summarily destroyed by S.R.’s expert witness, Daniel J. Reschly, Ph.D., a professor emeritus of psychology at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College and a former member of three National Academy of Sciences panels (chairing one).

Dr. Reschly wrote the following:

The authors of the CTAC plan claim (in depositions) that it is based on solid research evidence in scientific journals regarding escape extinction conditioning. I conducted computer searches of several relevant data bases and hand searched the most widely cited and most credible journal, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, to which I have subscribed since 1968, the first year it was published. There were no, not a single one, articles on the use of escape extinction conditioning with school age children as a means to reduce non-compliance, disruptive, or aggressive behavior. [ . . . ] I emphasize there are no studies published on using escape extinction conditioning with children who display behaviors comparable to those of concern with [S.R.]. [emphasis added]

But LTISD doubles down, calling Ms. Rich’s methods, “The Gold Standard.” This audacious falsehood spun by LTISD is designed to legitimize Ms. Rich’s calculated plan of attack, which, when carried out against vulnerable children, subjects them to child abuse under any legal analysis.

LTISD’s own descriptions of March 12, 2015, contradict the Gold-Standard canard. LTISD has repeatedly admitted in writing that Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung violated John’s legally-binding behavior plan, which makes their actions on March 12 unethical per se and illegal per se.

VI. LTISD INTENTIONALLY COVERS UP CHILD ABUSE

Describing Ms. Rich’s methods as “The Gold Standard” is but one element of LTISD’s extensive cover-up. LTISD has also built the cover-up using concealment and retaliation.

A. LTISD FAILS TO DISCLOSE FATAL CONFLICTS PREVENTING A FULL AND FAIR INVESTIGATION;

LTISD MISAPPROPRIATES FEDERAL IDEA PART B FUNDS TO FURTHER ITS INTENTIONAL COVER-UP OF CHILD ABUSE

As part of its "investigation" into this matter, LTISD questioned Ms. Rich for two hours. LTISD misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds to pay Ms. Rich in exchange for those two hours of testimony. LTISD’s investigator, Ms. Bohn, never disclosed to me the existence of this payment, which was designed to influence the testimony of a key witness in an ongoing official investigation.

Ms. Bohn provided Ms. Rich with the opportunity to comment on advance drafts of her report (all drafts of Ms. Bohn’s report, whether or not annotated by staff or Ms. Rich, and all emails, memoranda, routing memoranda, notes, witness statements, and correspondence relating thereto are referred to herein collectively as the “Official Report Drafts and Comments”).

Even though LTISD disclosed portions of the Official Report Drafts and Comments to the perpetrator of the child abuse (Ms. Rich), it perversely refuses to provide those documents to the parent of Ms. Rich’s victim (such refusal, the “Intentional Reporting Failure”).

Ms. Rich helped Ms. Bohn concoct a false narrative designed to conceal the existence of criminal child abuse. Ms. Bohn never disclosed the existence of this irreconcilable conflict to me.

Ms. Bohn also did not disclose to me that LTISD had already indemnified Ms. Rich and CTAC for the consequences arising out of Ms. Rich and CTAC’s wrongdoing.

Ms. Bohn knew that if she apportioned any blame to Ms. Rich, she would be putting her employer, LTISD, on the hook for the consequences.

This indemnity evidences another deep and irreconcilable conflict that made it impossible for LTISD to conduct a real (and fair) investigation.

During Ms. Bohn’s ongoing investigation, she twice made attempts in early April of 2015 to arrange a meeting between the purported subject of that investigation (Ms. Rich) and the father of the victim of her abuse (me). This is highly improper in the context of an ongoing investigation, under any standard.

Ms. Bohn even praises Ms. Rich’s credentials in her report. But Ms. Bohn fails to disclose other elements of Ms. Rich’s past: Ms. Rich’s role as the supervising behavior analyst in the months-long El Campo child-abuse scandal; that, in El Campo, Ms. Rich’s alter-ego, CTAC, blamed an unarmed, pint-sized, ten-year-old boy with special-needs for the abuse he suffered at the hands of CTAC; that CTAC claimed to have acted in self-defense in El Campo when it masterminded a campaign of 40 physical containments of that ten-year-old-boy over the course of months.

Borrowing a line from generations of wife-beaters, Ms. Bohn also states in her report that the abuse suffered by John was for his own good—in John’s best interests.

B. LTISD SEEKS TO RESTRICT INFORMATION ABOUT JOHN’S HEATH AND EDUCATION FROM HIS PARENTS

After she had issued her fraudulent report that falsely exonerates LTISD’s indemnitee (whom she had paid to testify with misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds), Ms. Bohn ordered LPES staff to refrain from speaking to me about the incident and to refer all parental inquiries to her, on pain of discipline.

I set up a meeting with Ms. Bohn for May 5, 2015. In the meeting, I calmly asked important questions about John. Ms. Bohn was not helpful. She abruptly terminated the meeting after only eight minutes, telling me to sue LTISD as she kicked me out.

C. LTISD INTENTIONALLY ENGAGES IN PUBLIC REPORTING FAILURES

This matter has been the subject of:

• a five-week "investigation" by Ms. Bohn;
• a lengthy written report of that investigation by Ms. Bohn;
• a lengthy written report issued by deputy superintendent Chris Allen;
• a public hearing;
• exhaustion of all remedies at the school-district level;
• a local television news story; and
• an article in the Austin-American Statesman.

But LTISD’s administrators have failed to report Ms. Rich’s physical containments of John to the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), as required by law.

This failure can’t possibly be an accident. It is most assuredly not a mere oversight. It’s part of a pattern to cover up child abuse and other lawbreaking.

D. LTISD INTENTIONALLY RETALIATES AGAINST JOHN

At a May 19, 2015 ARD Committee Meeting—that is, less than one year before the filing of this complaint—LTISD’s director of special services, Laura Abbott, made extensive efforts to revise John’s behavior plan against my objections.

Ms. Abbott was fully aware that John had suffered a very dangerous seizure on the heels of the extreme stress of March 12, 2015. Working with Ms. Chung and Ms. Rich, Ms. Abbott sought to remove the behavior-plan protections that are quoted above and which Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung repeatedly defied hundreds of times on March 12, 2015, when they intentionally subjected John to serious harm. Ms. Abbott’s efforts at the May 19 ARD Committee Meeting were part of a continuing effort to single John out, based solely on his disability status, and to subject him to disparate treatment in violation of his right to equal protection and his right to due process (among other rights secured to him by law).

Ms. Abbott continued her effort to remove these protections and to violate John’s equal-protection and due-process rights into the 2015-2016 school year. I have beat back these unethical and illegal attempts to remove the safeguards, for now.

E. LTISD RETAINS MS. RICH DESPITE HER HISTORY OF ABUSE

In a public forum on July 21, 2015, I told the LTISD Board of Trustees and several LTISD officials about CTAC's history of child abuse in El Campo.

I explained to them in painstaking detail how Ms. Rich abused John—doing something that Ms. Bohn tellingly did not do in her report—going element by element through the statutory definition of child abuse, applying the law to the facts.

I told the Board of Trustees that LTISD’s contractual indemnity of CTAC needlessly put taxpayers on the hook for the potential consequences of Ms. Rich’s ongoing misconduct.

I asked that LTISD protect district children by doing the minimum, the obvious—banning Ms. Rich and CTAC.

LTISD’s Board of Trustees publicly ratified Ms. Rich’s child abuse, and needlessly put other students in the district at risk by reintroducing her to the children of the district.

F. LTISD SOLICITS AND RECEIVES HELP FROM CTAC’S PAID PR CONSULTANT TO INTENTIONALLY CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE FROM DISTRICT PARENTS

This matter began to attract media attention after the LTISD Board of Trustees meeting on July 21, 2015. Ms. Rich engaged the services of a professional spin doctor and image-consulting firm, anthonyBarnum [sic] (“Barnum”), to try to clean up her mess.

Working with Barnum, Ms. Rich attempts to swat away the significance of the El Campo litigation. She asserts The Bill Cosby Doctrine. She reasons that the payment of large sums to a plaintiff does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, even when other victims making similar, credible abuse allegations surface later.

With a television-news investigation looming, LTISD circulated anticipated questions and model answers to Barnum and requested feedback. Barnum was happy to oblige. LTISD, CTAC, and Barnum advanced a unified and false narrative designed to hide facts and stonewall public inquiries.

They downplayed and concealed a very serious threat to child safety within the district. They worked to keep parents in the dark about CTAC’s history of child abuse and LTISD’s role in subsidizing it.

G. LTISD DISCLOSES PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION REGARDING JOHN TO BARNUM AND OTHERS

As part of this PR campaign designed to conceal Ms. Rich’s pattern of child abuse, LTISD exposed identifiable information about John to Barnum and LTISD’s director of communications, Marco Alvarado, in violation of privacy laws. These acts were another form of retaliation designed to violate John’s equal-protection and due-process rights and to silence dissent.

VII. LTISD CONTINUES TO EXPOSE CHILDREN TO MS. RICH AND TO HER ABUSIVE METHODS

Less than a month after the July 21 Board of Trustees meeting—after I disclosed Ms. Rich’s involvement in the child abuse imposed upon S.R. and John—LTISD executed a new services contract with CTAC and Ms. Rich.

LTISD then paid Ms. Rich $1,500.00 to train LTISD staff for one day, using Federal IDEA Part B funds. I repeat that Ms. Rich is not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and holds no professional mental-healthcare license issued by the State of Texas. Ms. Rich’s abusive methods continue to metastasize throughout the district.

LTISD also continues to intentionally expose special-needs children to direct interaction with Ms. Rich, even though LTISD has actual knowledge of

• Ms. Rich’s involvement in at least two cases of child abuse;

• her alter ego CTAC’s having blamed S.R. for the harm CTAC did to him in El Campo over the course of months;

• CTAC’s having justified its child abuse as acts of self-defense against that unarmed, pint-sized, ten-year-old boy with special-needs; and

• LTISD’s own ongoing and systemic misappropriation of Federal IDEA Part B funds to subsidize Ms. Rich’s illegal and abusive methods imposed upon special-needs children.

Unbelievably, LTISD has again agreed to indemnify CTAC and Ms. Rich during the 2015-2016 school year, even for the consequences arising out of the wrongdoing of CTAC and Ms. Rich.

VIII. LTISD, MS. RICH, AND CTAC HAVE ENGAGED IN GROSS VIOLATIONS OF LAW

Each of LTISD, Ms. Rich, CTAC, Ms. Chung, Ms. Bohn, Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, LTISD superintendent Bradford Lancaster, LTISD director of communications Marco Alvarado, and each member of the LTISD Board of Trustees comprising Guy Clayton, Jason Buddin, Lisa Johnson, Kim Flasch, Alex Alexander, and William Beard (together, the “LTISD Parties”) has committed at least one violation of law.

Acting under color of legal authority on March 12, 2015 (and after), LTISD, acting by and through Ms. Rich, CTAC, Ms. Chung and others, intentionally:

• subjected John to an imminent, serious, physical risk of harm twice over a 108-minute period, utilizing up to five adults to make repetitive demands without parental consent and ARD Committee consent, and in violation of John’s behavior plan (collectively, “Intentional Endangerment”);

• denied food and milk to John to get what they wanted out of him during his regularly scheduled lunch period and beyond through threat of force and actual force (“Intentional Denial of Food and Milk”);

• tried to cover up the events of March 12, 2015, did not properly report the physical containments to Mrs. Doe nor me, did not report instances of physical containment to PEIMS, misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds to influence the testimony of a witness in an ongoing official investigation, engaged in the Intentional Reporting Failure, and did not report the child abuse (and other legal violations) in defiance of law (collectively, the “Intentional Concealment”); and

• retaliated against John and me after I raised concerns (“Intentional Retaliation,” together with Intentional Endangerment, Intentional Denial of Food and Milk, and Intentional Concealment, collectively, the “Intentional Acts”).

LTISD, Ms. Rich, CTAC, and Ms. Chung acted with “Extreme Recklessness” (herein so called) by engaging in Intentional Endangerment

a. without parental consultation or consent;

b. without ARD Committee consent;

c. without consulting John’s doctors;

d. despite their actual knowledge of John’s seizure history;

e. in violation of John’s legally-binding behavior plan;

f. despite actual knowledge that their methods were upsetting John to decomposition; and

g. despite John’s actually decomposing, necessitating the first restraint.

By the commission of the Intentional Acts, often carried out with Extreme Recklessness, the laws enumerated in Sections A-D below were violated, as further explicated in Attachment 1 annexed hereto:

A. VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW

• Family Code § 261.001(1)(C) (Child Abuse)
• Penal Code § 22.01(a)(3) (Battery )
• Penal Code § 20.02(a) (Unlawful Restraint)
• Penal Code § 22.041(c) (Child Endangerment)
• Family Code § § 261.101(Obligation to Report Child Abuse)

As explained in Attachment 1 hereto, nothing contained in Education Code § 22.0512 or Penal Code § 9.62 entitles Ms. Rich, CTAC, or Ms. Chung to immunity from criminal prosecution.

B. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The LTISD Parties engaged in the Intentional Acts, thereby violating John’s civil rights, as secured to him by the “Anti-Discrimination Statutes” (herein so called) that are described in Section B of Attachment 1 hereto, some of which include:

• Article 1, § 3 of the Constitution of the State of Texas (Equal Rights Clause)
• The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Equal Protection Clause)
• 29 U.S.C. § § 794 et seq. (Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973)
• 42 U.S.C. § § 12101 et seq. (The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
• 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq. (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
• Article 1, § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Texas (Due Process Clause)
• The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Due Process Clause)
• 20 U.S.C. § 1232 as Implemented by 34 CFR § 99.30 (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act)

Such violations of the fundamental rights of special-needs children are systemic and ongoing within LTISD.

C. VIOLATIONS REGARDING RESTRAINT

• Title 19 TAC § 89.1053(j) (Prohibition on Child Endangerment)
• Title 19 TAC § 89.1053(c) (Prohibition on Restraint)
• Title 19 TAC § 89.1053(k) (Obligation to Report)
• Title 19 TAC § 89.1053(e) (Obligation to Document and Notify)

D. VIOLATIONS OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

• Title 2, Subtitle E, Education Code § 26.009 (Obligation to Obtain Consent to Treatment)
• Title 2, Subtitle E, Education Code § 26.004 (Obligation to Provide Full Access to Written Records)
• Title 2, Subtitle E, Education Code § 26.008 (Failure to Provide Full Information Concerning a Student)
• Title 2, Subtitle E, Education Code § 26.001(a, c) (Failure to Partner with Parent)

E. VIOLATIONS OF EDUCATORS’ CODE OF CONDUCT

By their commission of various Intentional Acts, each of the LTISD Parties named below committed violations of the Educators’ Code of Conduct:

Standard 3.2, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[3][B]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(3)(B) states that an educator will not intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health or safety of the student or minor.

Acting with Extreme Recklessness, each of Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung has violated Standard 3.2 because they subjected John to Intentional Endangerment. The use of these abusive methods adversely affected and endangered (and continues to adversely affect and endanger) the learning, physical health, mental health, and safety of John Doe.

Ms. Abbott violated Standard 3.2 because she knew or should have known that she was exposing John to CTAC, an organization with a history that included substantial claims of child abuse.

Each of Ms. Abbott, Ms. Rich, and Ms. Chung has also violated Standard 3.2 because they also made overt attempts to expose John again to abusive tactics when they engaged in Intentional Retaliation before, during, and after the May 19 ARD Meeting.

Standard 3.4, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[3][D]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(3)(D) states that an educator will not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of disability.

Acting with Extreme Recklessness, each of Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung has violated Standard 3.4 because they subjected John to Intentional Endangerment and the Intentional Denial of Food and Milk based on his disability, thereby denying John benefits to which he is entitled and equal access to participation in school programs. They also violated John’s rights secured to him under Anti-Discrimination Statutes, among other laws.

Ms. Abbott violated Standard 3.4 because she knew or should have known that she was exposing John to CTAC, an organization with a history that included substantial claims of child abuse, and in so doing, that she was denying John a FAPE (as hereinafter defined).

Each of Ms. Abbott, Ms. Rich, and Ms. Chung has also violated Standard 3.4 because they also made overt attempts to expose John again to abusive tactics and a denial of programs, benefits, and services (including a FAPE), by engaging in Intentional Retaliation before, during, and after the May 19 ARD Meeting.

Standard 3.1, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[3][A]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(3)(A) prohibits an educator from revealing confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawfully professional purposes or as required by law.

Each of Ms. Rich, Ms. Chung, Ms. Bohn, and Ms. Abbott has violated Standard 3.1 because they disclosed confidential, identifiable information about John Doe to Barnum and to LTISD Director of Communications Marco Alvarado, who had no need (nor any right) to know such information.

Standard 1.7, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[1][G]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(1)(G) requires that an educator comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and Federal laws.

Each of Ms. Rich, Ms. Chung, Ms. Bohn, Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster has violated Standard 1.7 because they violated at least one state regulation, written local school board policy, or other state or Federal law, as repeatedly demonstrated in this complaint (including Attachment 1 annexed hereto).

Standard 1.1, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[1][A]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(1)(A) prohibits an educator from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engaging in deceptive practices regarding, among other things, official policies of the school district or the educational institution.

Each of Ms. Rich, Ms. Chung, Ms. Bohn, Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster has violated Standard 1.1 by committing at least one Intentional Illegal Act. They have also acted surreptitiously to cover up the child abuse by, among other things, misappropriating Federal IDEA Part B funds (or were complicit in the misappropriation), issuing fraudulent official reports designed to cover up acts of child abuse, and conspiring with others to perpetuate the cover-up.

In particular, Ms. Bohn intentionally issued a fraudulent official investigatory report, misappropriating Federal IDEA Part B funds in the process to pay off the subject of that official investigatory report. Ms. Bohn’s written endorsement of Ms. Rich and CTAC’s abusive methods enabled LTISD, Ms. Rich, and CTAC to continue to engage in illegal acts against vulnerable children. Mr. Allen also intentionally issued a fraudulent official report on this matter that enabled LTISD, Ms. Rich, and CTAC to continue to engage in illegal acts against vulnerable children. Mr. Lancaster knew or should have known about Ms. Rich and CTAC’s bad acts both within LTISD and in ECISD and was complicit in the issuance of these fraudulent official reports that were designed to enable Ms. Rich and CTAC.
Standard 1.2, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[1][B]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(1)(B) prohibits an educator from knowingly misappropriating, diverting, or using monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage.

Each of Ms. Rich, Ms. Abbott, and Mr. Lancaster has violated Standard 1.2 because each of them has knowingly misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds for either personal gain or personal advantage (or was complicit in such misappropriation).

1. In the case of Ms. Rich, such “personal gain” takes the form of the receipt of Federal IDEA Part B funds that were inappropriately remitted to her by her friends, Ms. Abbott and Ms. Bohn, in exchange for “services” that were patently abusive and/or unlawful.

2. In the case of Ms. Abbott, Ms. Bohn, Mr. Allen and Mr. Lancaster, such “personal advantage” takes the following form:

• no rational person would sign (or approve) a contract hiring a known perpetrator of child abuse to work with vulnerable children;

nor

• would that person knowingly issue manifestly fraudulent and conflict-ridden official reports exonerating a known perpetrator of child abuse who blames children for the harm she inflicts upon them (and who makes the preposterous claim that her alter ego is engaging in self-defense while abusing a ten-year-old disabled boy over the course of months);

nor

• would that person misappropriate Federal IDEA Part B funds to pay off a witness in an official investigation (or be complicit in that payoff);

nor

• would that person agree to indemnify the known perpetrator of child abuse;

nor

• would that person risk her position, her reputation, her career, and her income

without receiving some money or some career-enhancing or career-preserving benefit in return.

Each of Ms. Rich, Ms. Abbott, Ms. Bohn, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster has also violated Standard 1.2 because they expended significant public resources (at taxpayer expense) by interfacing with attorneys and district employees to cover up illegal acts, all for the purpose of retaining or enhancing their career standing, positions, and income.

Standard 1.3, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[1][C]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(1)(C) prohibits an educator from submitting fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay.

Ms. Rich violated Standard 1.3 because she knowingly submitted requests for reimbursement and pay in exchange for the provision of illegal and abusive “services.” Ms. Rich also submitted requests for pay that she knew or should have known were illegal under IDEA Part B.

Mr. Lancaster and Ms. Abbott violated Standard 1.3 because they either approved these fraudulent requests for reimbursement and pay, or they were knowingly complicit.

In her dual role as a public official and an officer of the court, Ms. Bohn violated Standard 1.3 because she misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B monies to influence the testimony of a witness (Ms. Rich) in an ongoing, official investigation.

Standard 3.8, Educators’ Code of Ethics (Title 19 TAC § 247.2[3][H]])

Title 19 TAC § 247.2(3)(H) requires that an educator maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard.

Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung violated Standard 3.8 because they acted with Extreme Recklessness, engaged in the Intentional Acts, assaulted John, and touched John in a manner that they knew he would find offensive.

These acts violated educator-student boundaries that a reasonably prudent educator would not violate.

IX. REQUESTS FOR REMEDIES

Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung were not operating in a vacuum on March 12, 2015. Their abuse has materially harmed John. His health has deteriorated materially since March 12.

Mrs. Doe and I have sought to mitigate the material harm done to John by Ms. Rich and Ms. Chung.

Since March 12, we have taken him to see neurologists at Dell Children’s Hospital in Austin, the Texas Association of Pediatric Neurology in San Antonio, and the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore, Maryland.

We have taken him to see other doctors, specialists, and therapists after March 12 to try to undo the damage, including those at the Austin Regional Clinic, the Texas Child Study Center in Austin, and the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore. John’s health struggles continue.

It’s heartbreaking; doubly so because the material harm he suffered at Ms. Rich’s hands was entirely avoidable. LTISD should never have allowed Ms. Rich and CTAC to enter the district after CTAC abused S.R. in El Campo and blamed him for the harm he had suffered.

But LTISD hasn’t learned a damned thing: LTISD continues to expose district children to Ms. Rich and CTAC even though LTISD has actual knowledge of their past commission of child abuse both inside and outside of the district.

I request the following remedies, which are based on the facts contained in this complaint. Each remedy request furthers the public interest and is not based solely on the narrow interests of one concerned parent. The facts and the legal analysis outlined in this complaint (including Attachment 1 hereto) are incorporated by this reference into each remedy request below.

A. REVOKE EDUCATORS’ LICENSES HELD BY MS. RICH, MS. CHUNG, AND MS. BOHN

Kelle Wood Rich

Ms. Rich holds two educators’ licenses entitling her to employment in Texas public schools. These licenses were issued under the name Kelle Michele Wood.

In addition to breaking other laws, Ms. Rich has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.2, Standard 1.3, Standard 1.7, Standard 3.1, Standard 3.2, Standard 3.4, and Standard 3.8 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

Ms. Rich’s Extreme Recklessness, her commission of illegal Intentional Acts, and her written battle plan that shows intent to harm children with premeditated calculation, all demonstrate that Ms. Rich is unrepentant, that she cannot be reformed, that she is unfit to enjoy the privilege of interacting with children in a public-school setting, and that she constitutes a serious threat to vulnerable children.

SBEC must use best efforts to revoke Ms. Rich’s educators’ licenses.

Clare Chung

Ms. Chung holds two educators’ licenses entitling her to employment in Texas public schools.

In addition to breaking other laws, Ms. Chung has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.7, Standard 3.1, Standard 3.2, Standard 3.4, and Standard 3.8 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

Ms. Chung’s Extreme Recklessness, her commission of illegal Intentional Acts, and her callous defiance of the legally-binding behavior plan that she herself wrote all demonstrate that Ms. Chung is unrepentant, that she cannot be reformed, that she is unfit to enjoy the privilege of interacting with children in a public-school setting, and that she constitutes a threat to vulnerable children.

SBEC must use best efforts to revoke Ms. Chung’s educators’ licenses.

Susan Bohn

Ms. Bohn holds four educators’ licenses entitling her to employment in Texas public schools.

In addition to breaking other laws, Ms. Bohn has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.2, Standard 1.3, and Standard 1.7 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

Acting as a school-district official and as an officer of the court, Ms. Bohn engaged in Intentional Concealment of child abuse. Ms. Bohn misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds to influence the testimony of a witness in an ongoing official investigation. Ms. Bohn issued a fraudulent report that falsely exonerated the witness she had paid off with those misappropriated Federal IDEA Part B funds. Ms. Bohn failed to ensure that LTISD reported the two instances of physical containment on March 12, 2015, to PEIMS. Ms. Bohn surreptitiously failed to disclose the existence of multiple conflicts that fatally compromised her investigation from the start. Her fraudulent, official report enabled the LTISD Parties to continue to expose district children to Ms. Rich and CTAC.

Ms. Bohn is unfit to enjoy the privilege of interacting with children in a public-school setting, given her callous disregard for their health and safety. SBEC must use best efforts to revoke Ms. Bohn’s educators’ licenses.

B. IMPOSE PENALTIES AND/OR SANCTIONS ON MS. ABBOTT, MR. ALLEN, AND MR. LANCASTER

Laura Abbott, Chris Allen, and Bradford Lancaster

Ms. Abbott holds six educators’ licenses entitling her to employment in Texas public schools. Mr. Allen holds two educators’ licenses entitling him to employment in Texas public schools. Mr. Lancaster holds five educators’ licenses entitling him to employment in Texas public schools.

All of the misdeeds reported in this complaint evidence a lack of institutional control that is imputed to Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster, in their capacities as LTISD’s director of special services, LTISD’s deputy superintendent, and LTISD’s superintendent, respectively.

In addition to breaking other laws, Ms. Abbott has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.2, Standard 1.3, Standard 1.7, Standard 3.1, and Standard 3.4 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

In addition to breaking other laws, Mr. Allen has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.2, and Standard 1.7 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

In addition to breaking other laws, Mr. Lancaster has violated Standard 1.1, Standard 1.2, Standard 1.3, and Standard 1.7 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, as further described above.

There is no margin for error when it comes to the safety of vulnerable children.

Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster’s extraordinary lapses in judgment, their violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, their acts of Intentional Concealment, their participation in (or complicity in) Intentional Retaliation, and their other numerous violations of law call into question their fitness to enjoy the continued maintenance of educator’s licenses issued by the State of Texas.

In particular, Mr. Allen’s fraudulent, official report enabled the LTISD Parties to continue to expose district children to Ms. Rich and CTAC.

Reasonably prudent educators these are not.

SBEC should take all necessary actions it deems necessary to formally discipline Ms. Abbott, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lancaster, including revocation of applicable educators’ licenses, as SBEC deems appropriate. SBEC should use best efforts.

C. PROVIDE PARENTAL ACCESS TO ALL OF JOHN DOE’S INFORMATION

TEA must use best efforts to compel LTISD to provide to me the Official Report Drafts and Comments. If the perpetrator of the child abuse can be provided copies of these documents—as happened here—then the parent of the victim of child abuse should have access to these documents, also. TEA must also use best efforts to obtain all drafts of Ms. Rich’s report for my review.

I cannot effectively partner with LTISD and make informed decisions about my son’s educational plan, his health, and his safety if LTISD is permitted to continue to conceal the information that I need to make informed decisions about John’s health, safety, and educational program. LTISD must not be allowed to continue to engage in the Intentional Reporting Failure.

D. PROVIDE HISTORICAL PHYSICAL-CONTAINMENT DATA INVOLVING KELLE WOOD RICH AND/OR CTAC TO AFFECTED PARENTS

Despite the high-profile nature of this matter—or perhaps because of it—LTISD did not report any physical containment data relating to March 12 to PEIMS. Ms. Rich has been operating in LTISD for over ten years. She has interacted with dozens—if not hundreds—of LTISD students.

Ms. Rich makes no secret of her intentionally confrontational methods with special-needs children. She has published her battle plan which evidences a premeditated and calculated intent to subject special-needs children to harm, and has even told KVUE that her close-to-two-hour intervention with John was, for her anyway, “not unusual.”

Given its efforts at concealment here, it is virtually inconceivable that LTISD has not hidden Ms. Rich’s involvement in other illegal physical containments from PEIMS.

TEA must review Ms. Rich and/or CTAC’s role in every single physical containment at LTISD in the past—whether or not reported to PEIMS.

TEA must compel LTISD to provide that data to the parents of the child so physically contained. Parents do not have the requisite information they need to (i) make informed decisions about their children nor (ii) effectively partner with LTISD unless they fully understand Ms. Rich’s actions and the ensuing impact those actions may have had, may be having, or may have in the future on the health and educational prospects of the affected children. This is a public-health issue, and parents simply must have access to this vital information.

E. PROVIDE NOTICE TO DISTRICT PARENTS ABOUT KELLE WOOD RICH AND/OR CTAC, WHETHER OR NOT THE PARENTS ARE AWARE THAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE RESTRAINED

So that parents can make informed decisions about the health and education of their children, TEA must compel LTISD to provide conspicuous notice to all parents of the district about Kelle Wood Rich and CTAC’s abusive practices.

F. RE-TRAIN ALL LTISD STAFF

Ms. Rich and CTAC have been training LTISD staff in abusive methods for over a decade.

TEA should mandate that LTISD engage in an extensive re-training regimen that is subject to TEA’s review, oversight, and approval. LTISD taxpayers should not be placed at risk because of the bad acts and dereliction of duty of a few people. Each of the LTISD Parties who are natural persons (plus CTAC) should reimburse LTISD and TEA for re-training costs, in amounts apportioned by TEA.

G. REMEDY SYSTEMIC AND ONGOING LEGAL VIOLATIONS

LTISD does not subject “normal” school children to Intentional Acts practiced with Intentional Recklessness. LTISD and its officials, administrators, employees, and contractors cannot be permitted to continue to subject special-needs children to this disparate treatment.

TEA must take all necessary action to remedy systemic and ongoing violations of law that are occurring within LTISD, including abusive acts committed against special-needs children based solely on disability status, and the misappropriation of Federal IDEA Part B monies in violation of IDEA and other Anti-Discrimination Statutes.

H. DETERMINE FULL EXTENT OF MISAPPROPRIATION
OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY LTISD, MS. BOHN, MS. ABBOTT, MS. RICH, AND CTAC

Federal IDEA Part B funds may not be used to subsidize methods that violate the equal-protection rights and other fundamental rights of special-needs children. To do so is illegal.

Federal IDEA Part B funds may not be used to influence the testimony of a witness in an ongoing, official investigation. To do so is also illegal.

TEA must investigate the full extent of the misappropriation of Federal IDEA Part B Funds by LTISD, Ms. Bohn, Ms. Abbott, Ms. Rich, and CTAC.

I. (EYE) RECOUP FEES PAID TO MS. RICH AND CTAC

District taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize illegal and abusive activity. Ms. Rich and CTAC should not be allowed to retain their ill-gotten gains; to do so would be to reward Ms. Rich and CTAC for ripping off the taxpayer and for abusing children.

Once the full scope of Ms. Rich and CTAC’s illegal activity is unearthed, TEA must compel LTISD to recoup all fees paid to Ms. Rich and CTAC for such illegal acts.

J. RECOUP COSTS INCURRED BY TEA AND SBEC TO INVESTIGATE INTENTIONAL ACTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND CONCEALMENT

Neither TEA, SBEC, nor the taxpayer should be forced to subsidize an investigation into actual illegal and abusive activity. Each of the LTISD Parties who are natural persons (plus CTAC) should reimburse TEA and SBEC for costs incurred by TEA and SBEC to investigate this matter, in amounts apportioned by TEA and SBEC.

K. PROHIBIT LTISD FROM UTILIZING TAXPAYER RESOURCES TO ASSIST ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR EFFORT TO FIGHT EDUCATORS’ CODE OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS

LTISD has acknowledged in writing that LTISD, Ms. Rich, CTAC, and Ms. Chung all violated John’s behavior plan, which has the force of law. The LTISD Parties have sought to gloss over this acknowledgment of law-breaking and have sought to cover up this legal violation (and other legal violations), thereby breaking other laws and regulations. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the defense of individuals who were acting outside of the scope of their employment, and who nonetheless choose to contest violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics. TEA must ensure that individuals who choose to contest these allegations pay their own freight.

X. SUMMATION

I respectfully urge the regulator to find a young child with special-needs, to look that child in the eyes, and to then contemplate for a moment what it would take—what it would do to the psyche—to attack that child in the manner that these predators waged war against John—for 108 consecutive minutes. It is no wonder that Ms. Gudelman, Ms. Herbster, and others found Ms. Rich’s methods repulsive.

And it is no wonder that John’s health has suffered so dramatically in the aftermath of March 12, 2015.

---

But Ms. Rich’s abusive tactics have done more than just adversely impact John’s health. Her abusive tactics affect all bystanders—bystranders—who witness them. Ms. Rich’s abuse of John initially started in the classroom in front of John’s young and very impressionable classmates, after all.

By way of object lesson, Ms. Rich was teaching these children that it is acceptable—even required, even noble—to single out others who are different, to isolate them, and to subject them to mistreatment based solely on their different-ness.

I respectfully urge you to stop LTISD from teaching children to single out those who are different based on no fault of their own.

---

Like S.R. before him, John took extraordinary measures to preserve his personal safety in the face of the Intentional Endangerment imposed upon him with Extreme Recklessness by Ms. Rich, CTAC, and Ms. Chung.

He tried to run away.

He hid under a table.

He fought back valiantly against the platoon of multiple adults who were deployed by Ms. Rich to expose him to Intentional Endangerment.

Other school children will also engage in frenzied, desperate attempts to flee and fight if Ms. Rich is allowed to continue to intentionally subject them to the threat of serious harm.

It would only take one serious seizure.

It would only take one frantic slip or stumble down a flight of stairs.

It would only take one head injury.

It would only take one desperate exit from an opened window.

And then Ms. Rich’s next act of “self–defense” against an unarmed, pint-sized child with special-needs will have become a fatal tragedy.

I respectfully urge you to act rigorously, vigorously, and immediately to prevent that foreseeable, fatal tragedy.

Stop Kelle Wood Rich’s war on special-needs children before she succeeds in killing an innocent child.