ADVERTISEMENT

FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge

to me, it looks like there are still endangering the welfare of a child charges pending. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It is, but I don't see how the state has a case here either. The text of the statute is below, but I think it is clear that they cannot be prosecuted under part 1 (i.e. they were not supervising the welfare of a child), so the OAG must be trying to say that they "prevented or interfered with the making of a report of suspected child abuse." I think this can be answered in one question under oath (which we already know the answer to):

"Mike McQueary, at any time did C/S/S tell you not to report what you saw in the shower to the police or use any other language that made you believe they were telling you not to make a report?"




§ 4304. Endangering welfare of children.

(a) Offense defined.--

(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.

(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).

(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. However, where there is a course of conduct of endangering the welfare of a child, the offense constitutes a felony of the third degree.

(Dec. 19, 1988, P.L.1275, No.158, eff. 60 days; July 6, 1995, P.L.251, No.31, eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1581, No.179, eff. 60 days)



2006 Amendment. Act 179 amended subsec. (a).

Cross References. Section 4304 is referred to in section 3304 of Title 5 (Athletics and Sports); section 2106 of Title 20 (Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries); sections 5329, 6340, 6344 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations); sections 5552, 62A03, 9718.1 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
 
What are the chances the state offers to drop the charges in exchange for a lifetime gag?

Just me but I don't think they would take that. Their lives and reputations have been ruined. And to just walk away and never be able to say anything when they hold almost all the cards for having all charges thrown out, I say they are going to ride this out.
 
The Max Penalty if found guilty is 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. If you"re C/S/S there is still much to be worried about.
No they don't. Please see my post above. Like all the other charges, this charge is a sham.
 
Endangerment charges in this case are felonies and there are two a piece. Not clear whether the conspiracy to endanger was allowed which the OAG wanted. I think it was. If so that's three felonies per person.
 
Endangerment charges in this case are felonies and there are two a piece. Not clear whether the conspiracy to endanger was allowed which the OAG wanted. I think it was. If so that's three felonies per person.

So are they (the OAG) saying the two cases of endangerment are 1998 and 2001?

1998 was reported, so that seems like a non-starter, but I can't imagine what the second charge would be.

2001 is a non-starter for the reasons I stated above. One question by the defense loses the case for the state.
 
Failure to report was dropped. ONLY charge left, is Endangered Charges and they could be problem for these guys.
 
so the OAG must be trying to say that they "prevented or interfered with the making of a report of suspected child abuse."

I can't wait for the state to try and prove the above when the admins reported the 2001 incident to folks who were MANDATORY reporters. IOW their report to TSM SHOULD have caused a report to be made by TSM.

How in the world could the state argue that forwarding the report to mandatory reporters prevented a report from being made???

I'm guessing they are going to try and go with our favorite troll logic that the admins watered down the report to TSM which then prevented a report from being made by TSM....all part of their genius "cover up" plan (even though they forgot to tell the one and only witness and all the people he had already spoken to not to talk).

Unfortunately for the state/trolls this argument makes ZERO logical sense: "The admins tried to cover up an incident by watering it down then reporting it outside of PSU to mandatory reporters who the admins had no control over who were REQUIRED to look into any and ALL incidents".....good luck with that!

However this PA where kangaroo courts prevail and constitutional rights are flagrantly violated....
 
Last edited:
So are they (the OAG) saying the two cases of endangerment are 1998 and 2001?

1998 was reported, so that seems like a non-starter, but I can't imagine what the second charge would be.

2001 is a non-starter for the reasons I stated above. One question by the defense loses the case for the state.

OAG hasn't specified why the two and for what specifically. Judge denied a motion for particulars on the charges.
 
OAG hasn't specified why the two and for what specifically. Judge denied a motion for particulars on the charges.
Understood, I was more asking for speculation.

In other words, there are only two incidents (that anyone is aware of) that involved PSU admins: 1998 and 2001.

Unless there are two OTHER incidents, the state is going to lose.
 
ADVERTISEMENT