A seven year-old boy throws a temper tantrum in his second grade classroom, stomping on a teacher's foot, battering a school administrator, and tearing the room apart. The class had to be evacuated by school officials to ensure the safety of the other children, and police and the boy's mother were called.
So why are the parents of the boy now shopping around for an attorney? According to them, their child is "sensitive and shy." He has, according to his father Richard Smith, "no mental health problems. He's never hurt himself. He's never hurt anyone else." While mother Barbara Smith admits that her son has thrown such tantrums before, and was once suspended for knocking over a desk, she believes she should have been allowed to "defuse" the situation without police intervention.
However, police in Largo, Florida did intervene and after speaking with the boy and other parties involved, decided to implement the Baker Act and send the boy to a mental health hospital for evaluation. The boy stayed overnight, against the will of his parents, and now the parents are outraged and looking to sue.
The police find themselves in the position of having to defend their decision to use the Baker Act -- which gives them the authority to hospitalize people against their will if they believe there's a likelihood of them injuring themselves or others -- against a seven year-old.
Anyone familiar with my work knows how I feel about the automatic hero status conferred upon those in fields like education and law enforcement. I don't believe that a certificate or a badge makes a hero, any more than I believe that every parent does what's best for their child. So when I read stories like this, I'm not automatically given to one side or the other.
In this case, it's particularly difficult because there's a third party involved that has been rendered near-powerless by policies meant to ensure equal access to education. School districts have little long-term authority over troubled and disruptive students, and what authority they do have is often granted by the parents in the form of an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or other cooperative program. Parents will often resist their child being placed in "special education" due to the stigma attached, which places an extra burden on non-Special Ed teachers and their students.
So while this child's behavior issues might have been earlier and better addressed between the parents and the school, it's understandable to me why the police were called and why they decided to use the Baker Act. Ideal? No. Absolutely necessary? Probably not. Logical, needs-based, and an attempt to be preventative? Yes.
I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of "they must be terrible parents" because children with behavior problems can happen to the best-intentioned and most loving parents. However, a failure to recognize recurring tantrums -- especially those that involve things like upturning desks and throwing books -- as problematic and unacceptable is dangerous. It's dangerous for the child in question, for his future, and for others in his vicinity.
What we call a temper tantrum in a young child is a fit of rage as they grow older. The lack of impulse and emotional control shown by a screaming, desk spilling, seven year-old is not something he's likely to grow out of on his own.
I know how easy it is for parents to disbelieve, though. Children come to them after their bath, sweetly snuggle next to them on the couch, smile and giggle as they tell their stories, and they think there's just no way. . . no way there's something wrong with this child. They hear reports, as the Smiths did from the hospital psychologist, that their child was "polite and friendly" during an evaluation and they think "See? It was just a moment, just a bad day, something that this or that person provoked." They begin to believe that the incident was blown out of proportion -- they find fault with others -- they begin shopping for an attorney.
What they don't do is comprehend that their child -- the one whose eyes are wide with excitement on Christmas morning, the one who sits on their laps, and loves to ride his bike -- is in need of help. That while he may be sensitive and shy, he may also be unable to control his impulses or his emotions. That while it's unlikely any psychologist would categorize a seven year-old as "mentally ill", most would believe that the child could benefit from therapy and behavior modification, and there should be no stigma, for either parents or child, attached to that.
The worst action that could be taken is action that doesn't address the needs of the child -- such as downplaying the child's behavior, or calling an attorney and attempting to sue the police for trying to get a boy with recurring, violent tantrums professionally evaluated -- when it was obvious that his own parents believed no such evaluation was necessary. At what point in a troubled child's life should a more objective authority than his parents be able to intervene? At what point is it not enough that the mother can "defuse" the situation -- when the situation shouldn't be occurring in the first place? Don't teachers, (particularly those who don't specialize in special education), and their students have a right to teach and learn in a safe, non-threatening environment?
This child needs help. The police, instead of turning their backs and saying "not our problem" did what they could to get him some. Instead of the parents looking to cash in on what they believe was "a total abuse of police power," they might better serve themselves, their child, and society by getting their son the help he needs. Before his childhood tantrums become adult rage.
Sources:
TampaBay.com
10Connects.com
Follow Jane Devin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janedevin
Unlike a schoolyard scuffle between two kids, this was a boy who disrupted an entire class with violence. I think it's unfair to expect a teacher to also be a therapist and guard. The parents had a responsibility, but because they still didn't see a problem after several outbursts, the situation escalated. It's sad for the child, for the other kids, for the school --but without the parents seeing the problem, and with the school's authority limited, what's the solution?
However, I agree that this level of disruption and violence did warrant getting authorities involved if the parents refused to deal with the situation. Sometimes parents are just in denial. When I was in the hospital, there was a 12 year old girl there who DSS had to take from her parents care because they were in severe denial over their daughter's extremely advanced case of anorexia and would not get her treatment because "she didn't want it"- just as many mentally ill people are incapable of recognizing their need for help. They didn't neglect to properly care for her out of laziness, they were just too in denial of how advanced their child's mental health problems (resulting in physical health problems) had progressed.
My parents forced me into a mental health facility. I can't imagine how difficult it was for them to do that, but thank God they did, because now I'm a perfectly happy and healthy functional and well adjusted member of society.
Using the Baker Act in this case is, legally, indefensible. "The Baker Act allows people to be taken for mental health examination against their will. But it requires a person show a substantial likelihood of causing serious injury to himself or others." We are talking about a 60 lb 7 year old here folks. The mother was there to take the kid. The kid was calm enough to not need handcuffs at the time the police took custody.
The Baker Act was originally enacted to protect the elderly from being committed against their will (for the purpose of others to take control of their assets) without having adequate representation and a means to challenge their commitment.
All the school had to do was suspend the kid and leave him in custody of the parent. A policeman isn't a trained mental health professional and, barring clear and present danger to the child or others (not that someone's foot got stepped on), they don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't want police called every time a kid throws a hissy fit, and any educator who cannot control a 60 lb seven year old, with help from two other adults, should find themselves another occupation.
Both teachers and police need better training. Actually, in this case of a 7 year old, the introduction of police is ridiculous on it face. No one who cared about that child would have made this a police matter; no matter how seriously they took the boy's behavior to be. There was no trigger for the police intervention; no weapon; no torture of animals; no victim. I'm not saying that such behavior should be ignored or that parents shouldn't have been called to a meeting with a school counselor, where the child's issues and behavior patterns were evaluated, but bringing the police is the equivalent of using a hatchet to cut a diamond. Preternaturally dumb and inappropriate. And, frankly, at the end of the day, indefensible.
However, I HIGHLY disagree that this was a simple 7 year old temper tantrum. When I was a kid I had HORRIBLE tantrums, which my parents still tease me about, I also certainly witnessed other children having tantrums, and worked in an orphanage in Mexico so I know a little something about hard to handle kids having tantrums.
However, the thing is, when I had temper tantrums, when I saw other kids having temper tantrums, they did not involved concentrated efforts to callously inflict harm while HAVING that tantrum. I've seen kids thrown books at walls, or screaming, throw themselves on the ground, or tip over their desk, or something like that. But not ATTACK bystanders in the process. If you think that's normal child behavior, please tell me where you live so I can avoid your home town.
This kid was specifically trying to inflict harm on anyone around him. When a kid makes a concentrated effort to really inflict physical damage on another, to multiple others, unprovoked, that is the moment it becomes more than a simple tantrum. That's when it's time to get a kid some help. Thrown in a mental institution? No way. Force parents to seek help for the child? Absolutely.
Parents that have lived with this problem since a child was a toddler don't often have a balanced perspective of it. They have been "defusing" situations for so long it is "normal" to them, but teachers and other parents who deal with a child that flings books, overturns desks, screams and rages uncontrollably know this behavior is NOT normal, and it is dangerous.
A friend of mine has two children with Asperger's syndrome. The girl, a teen, would get angry and say things at school like "I'm going down and you're all going down with me." The boy, who is 11, used to get into fights or just have complete meltdowns with screaming, crying, loss of control over minor issues at school.
While both of these children had been receiving professional care (medical and psychological) since early childhood, there are kids who aren't getting it and need it and teachers and other students caught in the crossfire of situations they should not have to be dealing with on a daily basis. I understand why the police did what they did. Schools are forced to deal with complicated medical, developmental, and social problems, but often aren't equipped with the tools, funding, programs, and professionals they need and have to resort to less desirable options.
The cops couldn't have known the answer to that, and obviously the parents weren't properly consulted about this being a one time or recurring incident. If it was the first incident, then the school should have had the child recommended for counseling and a proper mental health work up, and go from there. But, if this was just one of several incidences that simply happened to cause the biggest disturbance, than the police did the right thing and may have averted further danger to the child, his family or community.
The problem with this story, as so many stories portrayed in the media is that it is a sensationalized one liner headline to grab people's attention, polarize them and cause debate. It is not true journalism of finding out the real details of the story, which could affect one's opinion of the story. This is especially an aggregious infraction when it comes to any story about a child. The initial story of how the incident is handled may be far worse than if the situation is just handled quietly without any input from media or public.
After reading this article and the two that are linked, I believe the police tried to act in the child's best interests, although I absolutely agree with the writer here that it would have been far preferable had the school and the parents been able to effectively address the issue of the boy's behavior before it went this far.