• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

CCISD teachers resign amid investigation - The Galveston County Daily News: Local News

December 8, 2016

CCISD teachers resign amid investigation

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 5:28 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 222

    "The mother filed a complaint with the school" - so did the mother intentionally set them up? Or did some other factor prompt her complaint which was not revealed? Something doesn't add up here, given that she signed off on the change to start with.

  • Etheridge posted at 7:01 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Etheridge Posts: 98

    T.J. - can you tell us whether the parent slipped in to the student population behind the backs of administrators or if one of the teachers delivered the child to the parent? If it is the former, there is a much bigger problem.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:35 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I concur that it was some kind of set-up. Wouldn't mom know not to simply say "OK" in an email? I would think that a mom and dad - with a child in a custodial situation - would have lots of folks with legalese language at hand to tell them the ramifications of picking up child. Just as the article said - it's in writing about the legal custody, iron-clad so to speak. Any alteration would mean going through the right channels - through front office with some principal-type person needing to approve. "Maybe or maybe not" - with the dad knowing what he was doing by circumventing the receiving front area. It's human nature to bypass through the official channels, but then again - it's not the job of a parent to know exactly where to go and what to do to get the child. The building managers are in charge. So, did the man unassumingly go through an open side door?? Or, did HE also know that doing this would bring trouble?

    I bet many prinicpals would be "leery" to trump a court order and would say "no" to a currently non-designated person to pick up a child. I would think a verbal "OK" to be approved by an administrative person would involve the administrator writing down the exact time, and making sure the person calling for the "OK" to change custody that day was indeed that person.

    Truth is, no teacher should put upon herself/himself to be included in the process of releasing a child. They have enough on their plates than to take the role of child releaser. Seems to me that the teachers should have simply said, "No, you can't have this child. Go to the front, check in, get approval, and get an ID badge." The teachers, however heartfelt they were, erred.

  • Concerned_Parent posted at 7:38 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Concerned_Parent Posts: 5

    According to witness's and campus video footage, It should be noted that: 1.) The father did in fact meet this child in the front office and 2.) most parents never sign their kids out at this school, all you have to do is say "I'm here to get_____" Was that taken into account??... I'm assuming no!! Also, do teachers have access to divorce decrees and between their lesson plans are they required to know every detail of the decree? I'm thinking that these divorce decrees are kept in the front office....where this child was picked up. Now ask yourself where fault lies.

  • sverige1 posted at 8:04 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to Concerned_Parent posted at 7:38 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    Well, I for one, have wholehearted support to all of a teacher's adversities faced during the day. I think that for a teacher to be worried about checking out a child should be the least of her/his job duty. I wonder if the teachers made sure the dad had an ID badge. With his having a badge, I would think that would release the teachers' responsibilities in the "child release" process. Then, they could have called the front office to make sure he was given the "OK" to take the child. CYA - so to speak. I suppose stories like this can serve a purpose in regard to making sure one covers himself/herself in these types of situations.

  • dbeard57 posted at 8:25 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    a terrible written story with lots of facts left out seems to me.So much muddy water here how can one make real sense of this.

  • dbeard57 posted at 8:27 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    you are tellimg me the mother gave a approval by e mail to the father then filed a complaint. Is this a fact?

  • sverige1 posted at 8:39 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I agree, dbeard57. Seems as though the teachers were sacrificial lambs in this. Especially, if the dad had an ID badge to begin with. If he went to front office, got an ID badge and simply said he was visiting the teachers (and didn't say he was picking child up), then that sounds like the teachers got bamboozled and caught up in the whole thing. Couple that with one of the teachers getting an email from mom that all this was "OK'...then even more, the teachers got duped. Again, IMHO, it's not a teacher's job to assure a parent has the "OK" to pick up child, but it is in teachers' best interest to verify with management that all the proper channels have been met.

  • 4EKs posted at 9:39 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    4EKs Posts: 31

    The story clearly states the father didn't check in the office to have the kid checked out. He went through the teachers. This is the violation and custody cases like this are a prime reason why teachers should not be involved in checking out or releasing students. They don't have all of the records and custody requirements. The front office handles that. Also, custody cases are notorious for estranged parents doing awful things to the kids like murder/suicide. You don't follow the rules one time and something like that happens and you've got a much worse issue on your hands. That's why you don't break the rules of those policies. I don't care if the teacher has been then for 10 or 20 years. That rule cannot be broken.

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    This is what should have happened: Mother goes to school and picks up her child. Mother and child exit school and child is then handed over to the father thereby keeping the school out of this mess.
    Nothing would have been said if the mother had not complained to the district about something she had initiated. I wonder if she has a conscience and realizes that two good teachers have now lost their jobs due to her.
    What I do not understand is how the teachers got involved in the first place. Usual procedure has a parent go to the front office, office staff checks if the parent or other person is on the approved list, if okay then the student is then instructed to report to the office. Parent takes child off campus. Teachers do not get involved except for releasing the child from class to report to the office.To me, the office staff is at fault here, not the teachers. I surmise we do not have all the facts.

  • sverige1 posted at 10:00 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    You are right, and in this day and age, I am sure that in almost every case a parent/guardian/designated picker-upper goes to front office and simply retrieves the child.

    The problem lies when "trust" and familiarity set in. It is very likely that in this scenario, the teachers were on a too familiar basis with the father. After all, doesn' t story say one of them is a current fiance?? With the familiarity comes a break-down of protocol. As I've mentioned, with any profession, one must dot the T's and cross the I's. Never assume it's "OK" for something that needs official approval and "OKaying". This isn't "Little House on the Prairie" anymore. Miss Ingalls doesn't just greet the visitor, let go of the pupil, and say, "Hey, Mr. Nelson, sure, it's OK for you to take little Nancy off to help you load up the mercantile truck."

  • carlosrponce posted at 10:06 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    There seems to be a discrepancy here. The story does say that " the father did not check into the office. He instead went through the teachers to get his daughter." But Concerned Parent states "According to witness's and campus video footage ...... The father did in fact meet this child in the front office." I do not know the floor plan or layout of Gilmore Elementary but in the county schools I do know you cannot go into the classroom part of the building unless the main office unlocks a separate second set of doors. If CCISD has not remodeled then they are at fault if the parent got into the classroom part of the building. Can someone enlighten us if Gilmore has this second set of security doors or not?

  • sverige1 posted at 10:31 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 10:06 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    I think bottom line is (regardless of the make-up of the building) if the parent/dad obtained a visitor's badge, then he indeed went through some form of check-in. If he had a visitor's badge, then all the teachers had to do was say, "Sir, I see you're picking up daughter. Make sure you sign her out in the front office suite." Teachers covered. Responsibility lies on the people who should be handling it.

    By the way, many buildings have "drills" in where all employees (uppermanagement on down) are quizzed to see how they handle visitors. If anyone is in a building and has no ID badge, then whichever employee who lets person who is unbadged persue the building, is a liable employee. Employee must stop the individual, question him/her, then find security or other appropriate person. Bottom line - if the dad had no badge, then the teachers were in the wrong.

  • carlosrponce posted at 10:45 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    My conjecture is this: teacher/fiance sees father, gets child, takes child to the door and releases child to her father in violation of school policy. Again this is pure speculation since we do not have all the facts. Should this action warrant termination or an official reprimand on her file? If the mother had indeed given the father approval to pick up the child then a reprimand is in order . The mother either never gave him permission or changed her mind. Again we do not know all the facts.

  • carlosrponce posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    In over 30 years of teaching I've never heard of such a drill.Then again I've never taught elementary. Middle school, junior high and high school teachers never have to question the presence of a visitor unless they happen to be in the office at the time. But you are right when all "visitors" are required to have a Visitor's Badge, even the school board president. I've gone through the process many times when visiting various campuses.

  • donnamen posted at 11:13 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    donnamen Posts: 6

    One extremely SIGNIFICANT fact that is not stated in the article or the comments:
    The fiance'/ teacher was not at work or in the school building on this day.

  • carlosrponce posted at 11:38 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    If Wendy Mize was not on campus that throws a monkey wrench in my theory. I wonder why she was asked to resign. It does not add up. Thank you for your inside information, donnamen. It seems that the reported fact that teacher Wendy was the father's fiance' was a red herring.

  • IHOG posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    It seems that the office staff was not involved. The child was released to the father without the office staff being notified.
    School policy would seem to be violated by the un approved release of the child to an un approved parent.
    If the fathers finance wasn't at the school how was she involved? Did she tell the other teacher it was OK to violate school policy?
    Firing both would seem to be correct.

  • IHOG posted at 1:12 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Puiblic school rules are intended to protect the school, not the students.
    This child could have been kidnapped due to the violation of school rules by two teachers.
    They will properly be terminated to protect the school from suits if something went wrong.

  • IHOG posted at 1:23 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Where did you get the Idea the Dad got a visitors badge or checked in at the fron office?
    Everything in the story disputes that idea.

  • MissionaryMan posted at 2:04 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    MissionaryMan Posts: 3362

    Geez, on top of all of the other crap that our teachers are now being given the responsibility of making sure that they are accountable for when it comes to teaching our students, now someone expects a teacher to be able to keep up some people's "baby-daddy drama"!


    Looks to me like these two teachers were the perfect scapegoat in order to cover up someone else's poor job performance.


  • sverige1 posted at 2:12 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    Yesireee, carlosjponce. You wouldn't imagine the things buildings do nowadays to put on employees the "shared" responsibility of keeping the environment "safe". I think it has to do with 911 aftermath. Everyone's on edge in regard to safety, and we all "have to be players" in keeping safe. These are the "drills" :

    A fake person is "planted" in the building to walk around without identification (without a visitor's badge). He/she walks around for 20 minutes to see if any personnel stops him/her to ask who he/she is. If they ask, then the employee rates high (passes), and employee basically tells the "intruder" to go get proper identification. Even higher in the score is if employee escorts the unidentified individual toward the front check-in area. After all, it does no good to whisk someone away, and then he/she does not leave and wanders off in another part of the building to misbehave.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:19 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    From Concerned Parent's post: "According to witness's and campus video footage, It should be noted that The father did in fact meet this child in the front office." I believe this since every campus I know is loaded with video cameras covering each entry and hallway. You do not need a badge to go to the reception office but you do need one to go where the students are. One of the posts (4EKs) suggests that "the father didn't check in the office to have the kid checked out. He went through the teachers". Unless one of the teachers opened the door from the inside, the main office would have to electronically allow him in. I agree there are a lot of contradictory statements here.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:25 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Excellent observation and in fact, is NOT the story. The father allegedly snuck the child out of the school with the aid of the other teachers. This is why the district judged them so severely. And rightly so.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:27 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    It is my understanding that the fiancee' / teacher was off and went out of town- with the father and the missing child. It is sinister.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:29 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Actually the office had NO IDEA what was going on... this was a calculated plan by the fiancee/ teacher to get the child out of the school as they knew the other parent had planned to attend the child's Christmas party that same day. The dad took the child then sent a text message to the mother. The "office" didn't know the child was missing- but the teachers sure did.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:30 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    I heard the father met the child in the foyer... the teacher escorted the child there to meet her dad and stated something to the effect, "your dad has a surprise for you..."

  • Lawgal posted at 2:32 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Think about this logically. If there HAD been a legitimate agreement between these parents--the mother would not have taken the child to school at all- she would have dropped her off directly with her father. She also would not have RSVP'd and planned to attend her child's Christmas party at school that day. This is the "teacher's defense" trying to get you to "lookest over there" while distracting everyone from the truth. The school district was able to see through the ruse and sought dismissal of the errant teachers.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:33 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    It is my understanding she did not. I can't wait to go to court to see the drama when they prove the fabrication or miscommunication.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:35 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    The difference here is that the TWO teachers knew each other and formulated a plan. They thought they could get away with it because the mother dropped off the child EARLY for tutorials - so they tried to sneak her out BEFORE attendance was taken. Diabolical plot!

  • Lawgal posted at 2:36 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    It's clear to MOST concerned parents that the fault lies with whoever released the child in violation of school policy.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:39 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    What is EVEN WORSE and more dramatic is that this couple was in court the DAY BEFORE this event occurred. The child's mother stated to the judge that she was attending her daughter's Christmas party on the 19th. The dad was there. He didn't say, "no, you forgot we have an agreement--I'm taking our child that day"... he didn't say, "judge, I will be taking my child out of town that day..." If it was a miscommunication or if the mom had simply forgotten she had said "okay" then WHY wouldn't he correct that miscommunication then and there IN FRONT of the judge while all parties were having a dialogue. Totally sinister.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:44 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    No, the mother stated in open court in front of the father the day before she was attending the child's Christmas party. The dad remained silent on the issue about him taking the child. The mother received a text from the father stating he was going to check the child out of school. The mother contacted the school and the office assured her they wouldn't release the child to him and would notify the child's teacher. It was AFTER this call, when the office notified the teacher, that the teacher had to admit the child was gone.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:48 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    Lawgirl, so you are saying that the father's attorney lied when he said "the girl’s mother had agreed, by email, to a change in the custodial arrangement for that day."
    Imagine that - a lawyer lying.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:49 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to donnamen posted at 11:13 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    One of the teachers "not working that day"? Then, what in tarnation would be a reason to push her into resignation? A teacher can't be guilty of abbeting an unauthorized release unless he/she makes a phone call, texts, or emails another player in the equation and convinces this other staff member that it's "OK" to hand the child over to the uncustodial dad.

    Now, let's say I was a worker at a highly secured building, let's call it "Securities Unlimited", and I was absent one day. On that day I was absent, I authorized my co-worker to jimmy the lock in my office and retrieve a confidential file, and to give that file folder to an unauthorized visitor, so that this unauthorized visitor can then bring it to my Aunt Sally's house. I'll be over at my Aunt Sally's house to escort my Uncle Sidney from his wheelchair lift to his doctor's appointment. I wanted the file folder so that I had something to review while waiting at Uncle Sidney's doctor's office.

    The above illustrated scenario would warrant my firing, since, in my absence, I authorized a "secure" item to be taken illegally, thus compromising safety/security. Maybe, in this case, the teachers' absence had a similar circumstance, and in some way she was still partly responsible for the breech in protocol in regard to the handing over of this child.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:51 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Agreed. That is how it should be... and technically, the child WAS taken without authority... it's frightening.

  • Lawgal posted at 2:55 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    I disagree. Teachers should not, and are not, responsible for "baby daddy drama" BUT they are responsible for following proper school policy which includes how children are released to ANYONE including the child's parents. These actions were CALCULATED to by-pass procedures intentionally because they knew the office would not have allowed this child to leave.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:59 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    No wonder why Jesus dislikes divorce, the children are used as pawns.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:05 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, after reading some of lawgal's posts, it may very well be an instance of a couple of teachers collaborating with a non-custodial parent in a clandestine move to take a child from the school.

    As I've been mentioning, there's no reason for a teacher who is cognizant of his/her responsibility for childrens' safety to adhere to school policy. If you see a parent at your classroom door "picking up his/her child" and you, as a teacher, know nothing of the child's custodial status...that's all the more reason to tell the parent, "Excuse me, but before you leave, let me telephone the front office suite and let them know you're going to the front desk to 'sign little Sofia' out".

    For a teacher to not communicate to the front office gatekeepers is a very dangerous thing to do. In fact, in the beginning of terms, each employee is given a "Handbook" which goes over security issues: fire drills, general rules/policies, including information regarding "closed campuses". In a "closed campus", no student can leave campus except in emergencies approved by attendance office or administrator. "All visitors must sign in", et cetera. I do believe that students and parents who violate such rules start with a 500 dollar fine.

    What a custodial parent decides to do thereafter is his/her prerogative.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:06 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Correction: there's no reason for a teacher who is cognizant of his/her responsibility for childrens' safety to NOT adhere to school policy

  • dbeard57 posted at 3:40 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    reallymom might be working very far out thinking

  • dbeard57 posted at 3:47 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    anyone here really know exactly what happened that day?

  • dbeard57 posted at 3:53 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    your first sentence does not make sense ( common)

  • sverige1 posted at 3:58 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, ponce:

    Looks like Jesus didn't like marriage either, still being in his early 30s and not married yet [ahem].

    Here's a question - Would Jesus have approved of attorney John Fedders? He was a Securities Exchange lawyer in the Reagan administration who remained married to and abused his wife Charlotte. Yep, marriage is so blessed by God. Well, maybe not this one.

  • Lawgal posted at 4:13 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    What is an important fact in this case, that NO ONE has discussed - because it is not widely known is that: THE MOTHER IN THIS CASE DID NOT FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THESE TEACHERS. The school district launched the investigation independently when they became aware that a child was missing and the ONLY employee who knew where the child was at was the child's teacher... well and Ms. Mize who was WITH THE CHILD on her way out of town. Imagine if you are the parent- and your child disappears from the school- and the office has NO IDEA where your child is. THIS is why they have policies and procedures to begin with.

    The mother couldn't "set him up" because she had no idea he was going to take the child as was clearly evidenced by her public statement to a judge the DAY BEFORE THIS OCCURRED -- in open court- she stated that she planned to attend her child's Christmas party. The mom had EVEN SENT AN RSVP to the child's teacher stating she was going to attend the party PRIOR to this date- so there is no way this teacher could have reasonably believed there was an agreement for the dad to take the child BEFORE school even started.

  • Justjay posted at 4:20 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Justjay Posts: 149

    Apparently lawgal knows everything about this case. Maybe she should have written the column.

  • donnamen posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    donnamen Posts: 6

    If it is true that the child was MISSING, why weren't the police involved? Also, since you have mentioned so much about the court hearing on 12/18 Lawgal, why haven't you mentioned anything about the fact that the mother had failed to do her required drug test?

  • Concerned_Parent posted at 6:56 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Concerned_Parent Posts: 5

    I've read "Lawgal's" posted, she sounds very much like Lori Laird from the petition site. You might say you don't represent this person but your involvement in their business is very very strange.

  • Concerned_Parent posted at 6:58 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Concerned_Parent Posts: 5

    Justjay....be careful of what you read from Lawgal...sounds like Lori laird who apparently represents the mom.

  • Concerned_Parent posted at 7:01 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Concerned_Parent Posts: 5

    Careful of where your information comes from. According to a facebook page that has hard proof, lawgals info isn't all that accurate.

  • Concerned_Parent posted at 7:04 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Concerned_Parent Posts: 5

    You don't agree with anyone on any forum....geez, sux to be married to you.

  • Lawgal posted at 8:12 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Yes, I am Lori Laird and I DO NOT represent the mom. In fact, the DAD'S attorney called me as a witness in THEIR case. Don't make assumptions "fake" concerned parent aka Wendy's mom or Wendy herself. I never hid my identity. Who are you?

  • Lawgal posted at 8:14 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Greg Hughes is the attorney for the mom. Christina Tillinger is the father's attorney. Just for those who want to know...

  • Lawgal posted at 8:15 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    What is ALSO very interesting... this TRAINED observer notes... go to the Gilmore Marquez FB page. The "fake" email proffered by the father states he will pick up the child at noon. EVEN IF this were real (which I have been assured it is not) then he wasn't authorized to pick up the child until noon. So sneaking her out of school prior to 9 am would STILL be a violation of his alleged agreement and school policy. CASE CLOSED.

  • Lawgal posted at 8:21 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    The police WERE and ARE involved. And the "required" drug test of which you speak was an AGREEMENT between the parties- in which BOTH PARTIES- MOM AND DAD were ordered to take a test. I was in court and heard the judge's order giving the mother AND FATHER (who was also ordered to take a drug test) many many days to go take it so it wouldn't be inconvenient for the parties. The FATHER was required to pay for the test and do so immediately. HE FAILED to pay timely and waited until the LAST DAY - late in the afternoon after the mother called EVERY DAY checking to see if he had paid for it. Then she showed up the morning of the LAST DAY, to take the test and the FATHER (the game player) had failed to pay for it. It was later discovered that he paid for it LATE in the afternoon... the judge will not be amused with his behavior, I suspect. BTW Mom had already taken a drug test due to his earlier comments. For those who don't know the FATHER has been collaborating with Christopher Dupuy and taking lessons from his "punish the woman" playbook.

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:22 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    After 9-11 the school I taught in went with security doors so no one may enter the building without permission and supervision, video surveillance of hallways, parking lots and entrances, armed police officers on campus and lock-down drills atop of the fire-drills and tornado drills we had been doing. Otherwise our main objective is to teach knowing our students and staff is protected by administration and police.

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    Concerned Parent and Lawgal present two opposing views of what transpired. I hope the GDN continues it coverage and uncovers the truth.

  • kevjlang posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I wonder if there was an issue of timing with regards to what the mother thought what going to happen and what the dad and fiancee/teacher actually had in mind. Perhaps mom thought dad was going to pick the kid up after the Christmas show, but dad neglected to make it clear that he was picking her up early. Personally, I don't know why a parent would think that some kind of out-of-town trip is more important than completing the school day, anyway, but then, I guess I might have just been brought up differently.

    In any event, I would have to wonder if this was dad's first rodeo in dealing with school rules, and why he wouldn't have just followed protocol, or why the teachers involved wouldn't see to it that protocol was followed. I'd be really surprised if the school didn't have the means to verify his story in a reasonably timely manner.

    Too many confusing details. If there was adequate instruction given to the teachers on proper protocol for a parent pulling a kid out of school, and these teachers let the protocol be violated, then IHOG's point about termination perhaps being warranted is probably right. I'd probably still suggest a severe reprimand if this were the teachers' first violations, though.

  • Lawgal posted at 8:30 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    My involvement is straightforward and easily explainable. The mother is formerly the girlfriend of Christopher Dupuy- the FORMER judge who committed many crimes from the bench against individuals and attorneys. The mother was convinced by this charismatic, charming (albeit it totally deceitful and criminal individual) that he actually cared about her. When she found evidence of his wrongdoing- she confronted him, broke up with him and turned over the evidence to law enforcement. The evidence she had affected MY case (I represent Dupuy's ex-wife). I have attended EVERY hearing of the mother and father since I learned of her involvement with this man. So, I have been present for the evidence that was presented and even called as a witness for the DAD. I have no interest- other than the truth- in this case. I am disgusted by the twisting of facts to make it into something it wasn't or isn't. Bullies cannot be tolerated in our society and we have to stand up for them. It's just a shame for the DAD and his FIANCEE' that they got caught breaking the rules. Shame on THEM- not the mom who did nothing wrong. People have a strange way of twisting the facts into what they DESIRE to see- not the facts. Just look at the purported "email" that his lawyer posted on the FB page. EVEN IF that were a real email from the mom- he wasn't to pick the child up until NOON- so sneaking her out before 9 am is a violation. PERIOD. END OF STORY. His OWN "email" convicts him. Shame shame.

  • Lawgal posted at 8:44 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    For those who are confused- if mom was to get possession at noon on 12/27 HE would have picked up at noon on 12/19. 24 hour possession periods... not the day/date...

  • Lawgal posted at 9:03 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Concerned parent- why don't you identify yourself... YOUR involvement in this case seems "very strange." Since it appears that the one who started the online petition and the FB page to garner support for Mize and Marquez- I suspect you are probably Ms. Mize's mother... why don't you share your identify instead of hiding behind a "concerned parent" pseudonym? It is likely because you are simply the "concerned parent" of Wendy Mize or Mize herself. You SHOULD be concerned about all of the other parents who have suffered because those in power -- in this case teachers, choose/chose to violate rules. If your child or grandchild was taken by an ex-husband without permission or without notice- I suspect all kinds of red flags would go off in your head. Just think about it dispassionately and don't make it about your yourself or your daughter... think about parents with children in the whole school district. If their children disappeared from school after being dropped off by parents and the office had no idea where their children disappeared to- there would be a major problem. And rightfully so. Clearly it seems many people liked Mize and Marquez as teachers. But I suspect even they, despite their great affection for the individual teachers, would soon have a different opinion if their child went missing from school and they discovered the teachers were involved in the disappearance. I'm sorry these teachers made bad choices. Now they have to sit in "time out."

  • Lawgal posted at 9:10 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    The fiancee' Mize was not at school that day because she was with the father and the TAKEN child and went out of town with them. It appears from the evidence that Mize collaborated with the other teacher to arrange this "sneak out" in advance. She didn't have to be on campus working that day to get a friend to do her a favor.

  • donnamen posted at 9:19 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    donnamen Posts: 6

    The email in which you are referring to does not state a time for 12/19. Therefore, there is no violation. Good to know you are an expert at identifying fake emails in case I am ever in need of that service. You seem to be a little more personally invested in this case than just the fact that the mother's relationship with your clients ex-husband may affect your case. I understand that you may want to keep up with the case, but spend all this time trying to convict two harmless teachers on a blog. Seems a bit excessive for someone that you are not being paid by or not friends with, but then maybe it is just cause you are FB friends with the mother.

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:23 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    Just wondering...... Is it ethical for a lawyer to reveal the personal lives of a client in a public forum like this? In my humble opinion-no.

  • Lawgal posted at 9:40 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    Carlosponce- I completely agree. The truth is what matters. I think the school district's thorough investigation uncovered it. That is why these two voluntarily resigned. If they had any footing, I suspect they would have fought the suggested termination. Anyone with more than one child in this school district has discovered that it takes something monumental for the district to suggest termination. You don't hear about teachers being fired very often. And that is a GOOD thing.

  • Lawgal posted at 9:51 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    donnamen- I disagree. Periods of possession are 24 hour time slots. If the mother was to take possession on 12/27 at noon he would pick up at noon on 12/19. I am personally involved in this case to the extent that I am an observer and speaker for justice. History will show that I have opposed the mother in the past (in my own case) and subpoenaed her against her will to testify. I try hard to play fair and play by the rules to uncover the truth. That is what irritated me about this campaign to attack the mother (see the online petition and FB page started by Ms. Mize's mother) because the TEACHERS broke the rules. These teacher are NOT HARMLESS. I also have children in this school district. Seriously, if this had been legitimate- why would it have required two teachers to conspire to sneak this child out of school? If it were legitimate, why wouldn't the father check the child out of school- as he has done many times before- he knows the protocol and rules as do the teachers. If this had been a simple oversight- the district would not have sought termination. They did a thorough investigation.

    I am FB friends with the mother- and many other people. You will see me post in this forum on many subjects - especially when it is a topic I have kept current with. But since I don't know who YOU are- I'm not sure how you can see my FB page since it's set to private. Sounds like YOU have taken a big interest in me... interesting how interest grows... isn't it? [beam]

  • Lawgal posted at 9:56 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    Lawgal Posts: 27

    carlosponce- I haven't revealed anything about anyone that wasn't or hasn't been done with permission. And NONE OF THESE PARTIES are my client. Just making that clear. I do not represent, mom, dad or teachers.

  • J94fab91 posted at 10:34 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    J94fab91 Posts: 42

    Regardless of the situation, every person that enters the school building must check into the front office and any child leaving the building must be checked out first before the child is released through the front office. As for what the teacher is aware of, we (teachers) are to stay abreast of every child that we are responsible for; therefore, we are to know their cum folders, legal matters that involve custody orders, who can and cannot have contact with the child. It is all to protect the children. Yes, it is ALOT of work, so besides educating the children, we are their protectors, school moms to hug and listen to, correct when needed, give guidance and just be an all around role model to those children. Teachers do go over and beyond educating our youth.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:38 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to kevjlang posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, Jan 22, 2014:

    I'm entertained! This all is beginning to sound more and more like a scene from Desperate Housewives or Harper Valley PTA. If folks would just let their child complete a school day without playing the game of pulling him/her out for "special events", then a lot less people would get in trouble. Especially if the "event" is to take child out to do something like cart him/her off to another sibling's Christmas pageant or a romper room party. A child should stay in school. After hours are good times for parents to play the child swap game, and to leave everyone else out of it.

    It sounds like the teachers in this case were too familiar with the family and let friendship with the father get in the way of protecting their professionalism. As unfortunate as that is, I have to concur with IHOG. It's probably best these teachers remain terminated. I wouldn't want them responsible for my child after all this. Lessons now learned with their new anonyminity in another school would serve everyone involved better.

    Yes, they can learn a lesson, apply to a new school system, and realize that you should cover your bases if something like this out of the ordinary were to happen. Next time, if a friend comes by your classroom and you're in the middle of singing "Georgie Porgie" with your schoolchildren, and this visitor/troublemaker wants to fraternize with a child you're responsible of, call the front desk and verify that things like taking child away have been given the "OK". As I've mentioned before, this isn't Mayberry. Folks will be part of a foolish scheme and YOU will get railroaded in the end. You can avoid the courtroom drama and neighborhood gossip.

    As for the chatter, lawyer-ing-up advocates and such in regard to "who's dating who", ensuing court cases and "failing to take a drug test"....well.. It seems like these parents aren't the poster parents of stability and good role modeling to begin with. Then, they turn a place of education upside down, wasting school personnel's time and energy. That's even more of a reason for any professional (teacher, doctor, nurse, Driver's License office) who has the misfortune of interacting with them should exercise extreme caution. None of the card players in this card game are playing with a full deck.

  • Etheridge posted at 7:53 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    Etheridge Posts: 98

    This all goes back to Christopher Dupruy? Must be the Galveston County version of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    Lawgal, you have revealed you do represent Dupuy's ex-wife and some of the circumstances involving Dupuy. Your posts speak for themselves - someone's dirty laundry hung out for the whole world to see. And since you are not an eyewitness to the events presented in the article your statements amount to hearsay. People do lie under oath or have you forgotten the reason why William Jefferson Clinton was impeached?

  • dbeard57 posted at 9:58 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    The school day on dec 19 was the last day of school before holiday . Other than formality that day was wasted day for students classwork.Satisfied the daily attendance for that day ais what really went on that day. Probaably early dismissal that day also.

  • dbeard57 posted at 9:59 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1321

    I ams till not convinced anyone posting here knows what went on that day.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:07 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    dbeard57, I'm sure you're right. More than likely, that will be true one year from today, as well. I don't think that the people involved will ever know or tell the whole truth about what went on that day. The "he said, she said" is probably destined to never end in total agreement. A week or two from now, most of us will have lost interest, anyway.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:37 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to dbeard57 posted at 9:59 on Thu, Jan 23, 2014:
    Response to kevjlang posted at 10:07 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014:

    I doubt if anyone involved in the incident took recognition of the fact that if you behave in a certain way, it causes repercussion in other people's lives. It's pretty selfish to go into a building to get possession of a child and to not realize that in this day and age you must follow the correct protocol. If you're a professional, you must use your faculties and good sense. All for the benefit of the youngster.

    As it is, there's probably right now children who have to deal with the emotional turmoil that the adults put themselves and their child into. All this fuss, lost positions, and litigation. No, I don't think the people involved knew what went on throughout much of any of their days of existence, including this day.

  • TheMohican posted at 11:56 am on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    TheMohican Posts: 3

    For everyone interested in this story, I have some questions:

    1) Would it be a problem if you dropped your 2nd grader off at school and later discovered that she was not at school, and that no one in the school office had any idea where she was?

    2) If a big school district with a professional HR department and an attorney Chief Counsel investigated the matter, do you really believe they would call a special meeting of the school board to consider firing two popular, experienced teachers rather than allowing the principal to deal with the situation if there was not a very serious reason?

    3) Finally, and much less importantly - Would two teachers who felt that they had done nothing wrong (or had even made a mistake or error in judgment), really resign their long term jobs rather than take their opportunity to attend the closed and private school board meeting to explain, to state their innocence, or even ask for a lesser punishment? (Yes I realize that there could be some reasons other than guilt, even including nothing more than just embarrassment. That is why this question is less important. However, I still think it is a relevant question.)

    I humbly submit that the sniping and name calling are distracting attention from the important issues. I believe the important public issues are the integrity of our schools and the safety of our children. It sounds like the private partisan stuff will be worked out by a judge.

  • IHOG posted at 12:44 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Has any lawyer ever been accused of telling the truth when employed to dispute the truth?

  • IHOG posted at 12:57 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    I dispute one item in your post.
    These teachers should lose their teaching certificate to avoid them being employed by another school..
    Should any school hire any teacher who is willing to violate school rules?
    We don't know if they got caught on the first violation or if this is something they've done before without being caught.

  • kevjlang posted at 1:43 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I think that if I showed up to pick up my kid and the kid wasn't there, the first thing I'd do is call my spouse/ex-spouse (as the case may be) and verify that he/she didn't have the kid. Depending on the answers I got to that question and any followup questions that I felt were warranted, I would then look into whether it is appropriate to get the police , school administrators, lawyers, etc. involved.

    I would not go out looking to have heads roll unless I had done some fact-checking on my own, and determined who's heads would need to roll in order for me to feel satisfied.

    Somehow, I have a feeling that the mom's reaction was at least somewhat influenced by her feelings about the dad having a relationship with one of the teachers involved.

  • TheMohican posted at 2:43 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    TheMohican Posts: 3

    Kevi -It might be reasonable for the parent to start making some calls to the other parent, the police, etc., but what do you think the principal would be doing during that time? Just waiting to hear back, or starting her own investigation of why she didn't know where the child was?

    Knowing a little about schools, I am pretty sure that the Principal would have immediately started her own investigation regardless of whether the parent made a complaint or not. That part of the story rings very true to me.

    This story was about the firing or resignation of the teachers. The real public question is whether the school personnel acted reasonably to protect the children based on the facts of their investigation. It really didn't matter what the parents did,or did not do after that point (except to the parents and their friends of course).

  • sverige1 posted at 3:08 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I'll answer TheMohican's questions:
    1. Yes, a big problem. Especially since officials have, through the decades, imparted systematic ways to monitor the whereabouts of the minors. It really shouldn't be an impossible task to keep into account all children and report any alleged irregularities.
    2. Of course school board meetings like these are in order. Breech of security is a serious matter. Bottom line is that security measures were indeed breeched, and even a single or series of responses by the building principal cannot be the "end all" to the course of action. "Higher-ups" must be included to follow up and assist the building in being more efficient. After all, the two teachers' unwise/unsafe actions are an indication that the principal's "training" fell short to his/her staff in that there was no sufficient report of security irregularities.
    3. You bet your bottom dollar that these teachers are embarrassed. Their lack of foresight in regard to something simple as following protocol is definitely something that would invoke the "hindsight 20/20" phrase.

  • carlosrponce posted at 3:52 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    The Principal would start with the child's teacher to determine when the child was last seen and who got the child out of class: another teacher, aid, secretary. The Principal would then question the office staff to see if someone signed the student out. If this still does not solve the question of "who took the child out of school" then the Principal would review Security video.

  • carlosrponce posted at 4:04 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6560

    Correct me if I am wrong. Since it appears that the parents have joint custody of the child in question then both parents would be listed on the school's "Ok to pick up list." Would this include the very moment custody shifts from mother to father? I think not. Unless the school is told that Parent X cannot pick up the child until X o'clock, the school does not know. Think of the massive paperwork considering the number of children from broken families and all the intricacies involved in joint custody. It is my observation that parents usually use common sense rather than a court determined time line for actual custody under special or changing circumstances.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:07 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I certainly agree that the school should understand any condition where they might not know the whereabouts of a student in their custody. This incident definitely illustrates one of the "social engineering" avenues that could have certainly been exploited to much greater detriment than this turned out. The fact the child was not put in danger should be factored into this, as well as the possibility that the incident might have had a very sad ending. The perspective that must be maintained, above all else, is to do whatever is possible to make sure that something like this never happens again. If firing people is what it takes to achieve that goal, then you must fire people. If a lesser punishment can accomplish the same goal, you should at lease entertain the idea.

    The message that needs to go out is that, even if you know the parents well, and trust them and their intentions, you must still insist on the protocol being followed. What needs to be considered, too, is whether the proper protocol in this case would have resulted in a significantly different outcome. Certainly, having the front office knowing what was going on should have happened, but, it seems the bigger issue is whether the father and mother were on the same page with regards to who was picking up the child, and at what time. If the father were challenged, and he was able to provide the information to the satisfaction of the front office that he was entitled to pick up the daughter, would the mother have still shown up wondering where her child was?

  • kevjlang posted at 4:26 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    What I gathered is that the school has information on what days are dad's custody and what days are mom's custody. Of course, there's lots of stuff posted here that disputes what was reported, so we probably don't know what information the school is supposed to be following.

  • sverige1 posted at 12:46 pm on Fri, Jan 24, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:04 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014,
    Response to kevjlang posted at 4:26 pm on Thu, Jan 23, 2014:

    I wonder how much each individual school can accommodate such a varying schedule of "mom's day" versus "dad's day" to pick up child during a school day. If a particular school has leverage to say, "No, we are not going that far to differentiate which parent picks your child up," then...I, for one, would support such a move.

    Schools have to go though enough as it is. I say, "keep it simple". Either mom or dad picks up child. Anytime. If the broken and quarreling mom/dad are not OK with the school's limits, then child stays at school the whole day. Or...have a "neutral" designated individual have rights to pick child up at all times. Let the neutral person initially pick up the child, and thereafter when child is in good custody with the neutral person - let mom and dad quarrel with the neutral person at a meeting place at Cracker Barrel as to who ultimately takes the child. Just leave the child out of the quarreling. Maybe the neutral person can buy the kid some ice cream while mom/dad figure it out.

  • kevjlang posted at 1:06 pm on Fri, Jan 24, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    In the electronic age, it's not too much for the school to have the information needed to know who picks up what kid and when, and whether that can be changed merely by a note from a parent or if it has to come from a family court judge. Just about everything about these kids can be put into a database for immediate retrieval by any of the administrative staff when required.

  • TheMohican posted at 1:25 pm on Fri, Jan 24, 2014.

    TheMohican Posts: 3

    The school district's policy letter is posted with the story now. It tells us how the process works when the school district personnel follow the procedure.

    The letter also clears up the question of how the investigation got started, and gives some idea of what the teachers failed to do. Of course there would be a great deal more detail in the report to the school board.