School bus driver accused of physically abusing autistic girl

[AGXStarseed]

(Not written by me)

A lawyer representing the family of an 8-year-old girl in California with Autism who was allegedly abused by her school bus driver has released surveillance video of the attack.

The school bus driver, 64-year-old Kim Klopson, reportedly confronted the girl for sticking her leg out into the aisle, blocking another child from walking by during the February 6 incident.

“If you stick your feet out again to keep her from moving, you are going to be on the window,” Klopson said in the video.

Upon arrival at Browns Valley Elementary School in Vacaville, Klopson kept the girl from leaving and told her she’s “misbehaving as always.”

As a school aide tried to assist, Klopson continued to grab the child, claiming she was “acting younger than her baby sister.”

The girl eventually hit her head on the floor as she struggled to get away from the driver, who yanked the child up violently and threw her onto one of the seats, as seen in the video.

When Klopson saw students outside the bus watching in horror, she shouted that she “didn’t hurt her.”

Micha Star Liberty, the family’s lawyer, told the Huffington Post that the incident has caused the young girl ongoing mental and emotional trauma.

Vacaville Unified School District saw the surveillance video and fired Klopson the same day.

“Please know that we take this matter very seriously and will continue to be forthcoming and collaborative with our families.” the school district said in a statement to The Reporter News.

Following a week-long investigation by the Vacaville Police Department, Klopson was arrested and charged with felony child abuse and cruelty to a child by inflicting injury.

Police say that the victim sustained abrasions to her head as a result of the incident.

Kim Klopson told ABC7 the footage “shouldn’t have been [released],” adding: “They’ll make a great big deal about that.”

Parents of the 8-year-old victim say they now plan to file a civil suit against the school district.

Klopson is due back in court in July.


Source (with video): https://nypost.com/2018/05/16/school-bus-driver-accused-of-physically-abusing-autistic-girl/

 

[Mary Anne]

Oh gosh. I am in my 60s too. We just are not trained to know what Autism meltdowns are, or what to do with it. We who are not trained, do not know the difference between a spoiled children who has knowledge and ability to control themselves, from another with a disability who is in a blind raging melt down. How was that driver supposed to get the child to stop putting her feet out and disrupting the other children on the bus? I honestly have no answers.

I see the driver as a older woman like me, who is a little authoritarian, but not “abusive” by my generation’s standards. By today’s standards, yes, it’s probably horrifying and “abusive,” to some. Times are changing yes. Please tell me what the bus driver should have done. I am not condoning her behavior, but if there was a better way, please share.

Bus companies do not train drivers in how to handle autism. I looked into being a bus driver, but realized my sensory disorders and traumas as a child being bullied by other children would not make me a good driver candidate. I cannot stand children having melt downs of any kind. I have witnessed these in public. I honestly did not know or care whether it was a spoiled kid, or a child with autism. I just needed to run away as fast as possible.

I could absolutely not be trapped on a bus, train, plane, or in a store with a child having a meltdown. I am 100% intolerant. I admit that. I do not understand what people need to do to be tolerant, or how to handle any child having issues like Austin kids do.For me avoidance is key. I try to avoid all kids whenever possible unless they are smiling and happy ones. Those are ok.

Do I sound like a monster to you? I have sensory disorders!

Let this unfortunate school bus driver’s incident enact change for companies. All places where peop,e work with ALL children...let’s create training so that workers know the procedures for dealing with unruly children.

It’s obvious that autism is happening with ever increasing numbers. Police, teachers, bus drivers, park districts, and so many more need to learn how to deal with these children who disrupt, cause chaos, and refuse to follow orders, who have tantrums and screaming melt downs, and sometimes cause violence, damage property and cause injury to others.

 

[Mary Terry]

No, you are not a monster. You are informed and practical and honest and not hiding behind the political correctness shield from responsibility.

Here are couple of my thoughts:

1. Stop hiding autism. Parents/caretakers need to tell everyone who has significant contact with or supervisory authority over the child about the child's condition and propensity for melt downs, social inappropriateness and violence.

2. Experts in autism (and no, just because someone has autism does not mean they are experts in autism any more than a person with mental retardation is an expert in mental retardation) need to develop and publicize procedures and protocols for dealing with autistic children on all levels of behavior, from bullying of autistic children to preventing autistic children from hurting or bullying other people. I would characterize the autistic child's repeated blocking of the bus aisle as bullying the child who was trying to exit the bus. If the child trying to exit the bus tripped over the autistic child's leg and got injured, then the injured child is the victim of an autistic child.

3. School officials, bus drivers, and anyone else who has responsibility for autistic children need to be trained by experts in autism about what to do in these situations. Same goes for law enforcement who are often called in by school officials to deal with unruly or violent autistic children.

4. When autistic children are incapable of mingling with other children without causing harm to the other children, then their parents/caretakers need to make other arrangements for their autistic children's education and daily care that do not jeopardize the right of other children to be safe in classrooms, on buses and elsewhere. Some autistic children are unfit to attend regular schools. Some NT children are unfit to attend regular schools. If the parents/caretakers refuse or fail to take responsibility for their autistic children, then society has the right to terminate parental rights and make other arrangements for the autistic child. Some parents, autistic or otherwise, are simply unfit to be parents, and the best interests of the autistic child is always superior to the parents' right to raise their kids.

5. Parents/caretakers should be held accountable for their autistic children's disruptive or violent behavior. The parents are not entitled to a free pass just because little Johnny or Sally is autistic. It is the parents' responsibility to take care of their children and prevent their children from harming others.

It is a huge and growing problem, as you say, Mary Anne. Thanks for posting.

 

[Mary Anne]

No, you are not a monster. You are informed and practical and honest and not hiding behind the political correctness shield from responsibility.

Here are couple of my thoughts:

1. Stop hiding autism. Parents/caretakers need to tell everyone who has significant contact with or supervisory authority over the child about the child's condition and propensity for melt downs, social inappropriateness and violence.

2. Experts in autism (and no, just because someone has autism does not mean they are experts in autism any more than a person with mental retardation is an expert in mental retardation) need to develop and publicize procedures and protocols for dealing with autistic children on all levels of behavior, from bullying of autistic children to preventing autistic children from hurting or bullying other people. I would characterize the autistic child's repeated blocking of the bus aisle as bullying the child who was trying to exit the bus. If the child trying to exit the bus tripped over the autistic child's leg and got injured, then the injured child is the victim of an autistic child.

3. School officials, bus drivers, and anyone else who has responsibility for autistic children need to be trained by experts in autism about what to do in these situations. Same goes for law enforcement who are often called in by school officials to deal with unruly or violent autistic children.

4. When autistic children are incapable of mingling with other children without causing harm to the other children, then their parents/caretakers need to make other arrangements for their autistic children's education and daily care that do not jeopardize the right of other children to be safe in classrooms, on buses and elsewhere. Some autistic children are unfit to attend regular schools. Some NT children are unfit to attend regular schools. If the parents/caretakers refuse or fail to take responsibility for their autistic children, then society has the right to terminate parental rights and make other arrangements for the autistic child. Some parents, autistic or otherwise, are simply unfit to be parents, and the best interests of the autistic child is always superior to the parents' right to raise their kids.

5. Parents/caretakers should be held accountable for their autistic children's disruptive or violent behavior. The parents are not entitled to a free pass just because little Johnny or Sally is autistic. It is the parents' responsibility to take care of their children and prevent their children from harming others.

It is a huge and growing problem, as you say, Mary Anne. Thanks for posting.

Thank you so much, Mary Terry. I just keep reading a lot about parents of severely challenged autistic children that keep saying “My kid is autistic, and YOU (society) should tolerate him,” whatever disruptive conduct they child may have. These parents are the very first to sue, and garner media attention. We don’t even know if the driver was ever notified as to the challenges this child had. Yet, her career, and personal life is over because of the negative media.

I understand that parents often cannot control their children, especially with behavioral problems. This is part of the problem too- as much as having untrained staff.

I know first hand the shaming that goes in when autistic parents angrily vent against society that do not tolerate their screaming, biting, kicking, disruptive children. They say that anyone can get used to it as they have. But we who do not live with these children never will “get used to it,” and will complain when the child gets older and disrupts the entire neighborhood. There was another thread on here about the teenager that kept the neighbors up but shouting and moaning in his garden at night. The mother was not reasonable whatsoever.

There was another thread where an adult with aspergers laughed and talked through a movie and got kicked out when people became angry. People on these threads were split on whether people should have tolerated her disruptive behaviors because she is “disabled” with aspergers. She thought it wrong that she could not “enjoy the movie” the way she wanted to ( it was not a funny movie either, but she clapped, laughed, and talked loudly throughout it).

Even with training, and identifying a person with a “disability,” does not mean it’s easier to accept or tolerate disruptive, or violent behaviors. Disability rights came to be about something completely different. The rights to work, and access public spaces. Places being wheel chair accessible. Being able to enter a bathroom, or get on a buss. Having accessibility at work, in the home, and many more rights too numerous to list.

It did NOT mean that we have to tolerate screaming, kicking, shouting, biting, screaming people that disrupt our space, and peace. Even with the education to recognize disability, we do not have to tolerate this kind of disruption that is injurious. Getting a free pass to bad behavior might be understood, but it does not have to be tolerated.

 

[Judge]

This continues to be a problem for virtually anyone who in their occupational capacity assumes the role of taking care, custody and control of others. Particularly anyone employed in a livery job, which involves the transportation of human beings. Where responsibility and accountability are inherently greater.

The notion of "I'm a bus driver- not a social worker!" doesn't hold water given the potential criminal and civil consequences that this case reflects. Particularly when it involves minors, where both civil and criminal court jurors are likely to render some costly judgments against the defendants.

In the end proper and more comprehensive training for employees is likely cheaper for municipalities in the long run than incurring costly judgments in court as well as widespread bad public relations in the media.

Equally taxpayers (particularly parents) should be accepting of whatever fiscal impact results in having to pay for such training. After all, when such events occur at the level of local government, in the end it's likely that we all end up paying for such mistakes. It's only going to happen more often as both science and society concede that there are a lot more of us on the spectrum than previously assumed.

 

[Mary Anne]

This continues to be a problem for virtually anyone who in their occupational capacity assumes the role of taking care, custody and control of others. Particularly anyone employed in a livery job, which involves the transportation of human beings. Where responsibility and accountability are inherently greater.

The notion of "I'm a bus driver- not a social worker!" doesn't hold water given the potential criminal and civil consequences that this case reflects. Particularly when it involves minors, where both civil and criminal court jurors are likely to render some costly judgments against the defendants.

In the end proper and more comprehensive training for employees is likely cheaper for municipalities in the long run than incurring costly judgments in court as well as widespread bad public relations in the media.

Equally taxpayers (particularly parents) should be accepting of whatever fiscal impact results in having to pay for such training. After all, when such events occur at the level of local government, in the end it's likely that we all end up paying for such mistakes. It's only going to happen more often as both science and society concede that there are a lot more of us on the spectrum than previously assumed.

Yes, this will certainly turn up the costs to all of us taxpayers to train bus drivers, teachers, police, medical and emergency personnel.

The ones making money on this are the lawyers and legal system! Oh, and the media too. and the parents who litigate.

Boy have times changed. When I took school buses, no authority would have batted an eyelash at the bus driver’s behavior. They probably would have applauded. Back then, I could turn up at school with a broken finger (mom did that), or bruises, or cuts from self harm. Even going to the nurse did not get any kind of questioning or help. Just a splinted finger, or a bandaid at that. This was growing up in a very nice white middle class educational system! This was the times a person now in their 60s lived in back then. Parents and even schools still used corporal punishments on kids. Even in my junior high parochial school, the boys got the big thick wooden paddle in their behinds - really hard! Parents gave the ok for the school to punish their kids!

 

[Judge]

The ones making money on this are the lawyers and legal system! Oh, and the media too. and the parents who litigate.

Scary thing to discover that so many litigious societies are controlled by legislatures dominated by lawyers. Those with a ve$ted interest in keeping costs high due through allowing civil wrongs to needlessly and continually occur.

 

[Mary Terry]

Scary thing to discover that so many litigious societies are controlled by legislatures dominated by lawyers. Those with a ve$ted interest in keeping costs high due through allowing civil wrongs to needlessly and continually occur.

Not sure I agree with the proposition that attorneys who serve as legislators have a vested interest in keeping the costs high for civil wrongs. Certainly defense attorneys would not want high costs because it would be detrimental to their clients. Attorneys deal with written laws every day. They understand laws and the impact, interpretation and application of laws. Defense attorneys at the behest of their clients have driven tort reform in many states using scare tactics to suppress the amount of damages a victim may receive. Artificially lowering the amount by law that a jury believes is appropriate after hearing all the evidence and observing the demeanor of witnesses is probably not a good thing in the long run because it lessens the penalty imposed on the wrongdoer which does little to discourage wrongdoing. We have courts of appeal to deal with excessive verdicts and other miscarriages of justice.

When it comes to writing laws or regulations, I'd rather have an attorney involved in the process than a used car dealer, funeral home operator, insurance executive, pharmaceutical executive, oil & gas baron, or real estate mogul. Look at what is happening in Washington DC with fossil fuel billionaire Scott Pruitt, as head of the EPA, striking down environmental regulations that keep all of us safer.

 

[Mary Anne]

Not sure I agree with the proposition that attorneys who serve as legislators have a vested interest in keeping the costs high for civil wrongs. Certainly defense attorneys would not want high costs because it would be detrimental to their clients. Attorneys deal with written laws every day. They understand laws and the impact, interpretation and application of laws. Defense attorneys at the behest of their clients have driven tort reform in many states using scare tactics to suppress the amount of damages a victim may receive. Artificially lowering the amount by law that a jury believes is appropriate after hearing all the evidence and observing the demeanor of witnesses is probably not a good thing in the long run because it lessens the penalty imposed on the wrongdoer which does little to discourage wrongdoing. We have courts of appeal to deal with excessive verdicts and other miscarriages of justice.

When it comes to writing laws or regulations, I'd rather have an attorney involved in the process than a used car dealer, funeral home operator, insurance executive, pharmaceutical executive, oil & gas baron, or real estate mogul. Look at what is happening in Washington DC with fossil fuel billionaire Scott Pruitt, as head of the EPA, striking down environmental regulations that keep all of us safer.

Don’t even get me started with Scott Pruitt! OMG.

Ok, but lawyers do string out cases for years on end. Lawyers can do get rich on court cases. The legal system in the USA is not based on fairness, morals, or justice whatsoever. The justice system certainly often defies all sense of what is right! Defense lawyers regularly get key facts stricken from info that jurors should know. Jurors regularly do not know the facts, so that they can make reasonable desicions.

I don’t know what state you are in Mary Terry, but certainly you are aware of just how corrupt and astonishing it is to continually have police cases absolved in courts when there is clear evidence of them killing people of color for no reasons. They always get off in court and this happens all around the USA.

Also, having worked in a prison in the counseling field, I will tell you just how unfair the “system” is to people of color, immigrants, and / of of poor economic means. The system and the courts are EXTREMELY unjust.

Who wins? Only lawyers, and judges.

 

[Judge]

Not sure I agree with the proposition that attorneys who serve as legislators have a vested interest in keeping the costs high for civil wrongs.

Well, I probably should have mentioned there's one caveat to consider. That this dynamic is quite relevant to regional considerations. In other words, some parts of the country are statistically, politically and socially more litigious than others and continue to be as such. Though it also depends on different types of litigation involved, such as general liability versus medical malpractice as well.

A dynamic that many from the Deep South or the Midwest likely don't perceive as opposed to places like California or New York where you can be successfully sued for just about anything. Venues where much of any manifestations of tort reform are systematically rejected.

 

[Mary Terry]

Yeah, Scott Pruitt and most of Trump's other appointees are busy raping America and getting rich in the process. I pray Robert Mueller takes Trump down, down, down ASAP.

I've practiced law for over 30 years, half of the time as a defense attorney and half of the time as plaintiff's counsel so I've seen it and lived it on both sides. Lawyers rarely get rich. Most eke out a hard living. Only the cream of the crop, smart capable attorneys tend to make good money because they are smart and capable.

Plaintiff attorneys almost always take cases on a contingency basis. That means the attorney puts up his/her own money to fund the litigation which can be extremely expensive, and the attorney does not get paid anything unless they win for the client. In my state and probably most other states, an attorney's fee is capped at 50% of the total amount recovered. If the attorney doesn't recover enough money for the injured plaintiff to pay his/her medical bills caused by the defendant, then plaintiff attorneys usually reduce their fee so that the client is taken care of. I routinely charged a 40% contingency fee for plaintiff work which is standard in the profession. There is no incentive for a plaintiff's attorney to take a lousy, non-provable case because they cannot recoup their expenses or recover a fee and it is a waste of their time. Defense attorneys will take any case whatsoever because tort reform has dried up their book of business. If plaintiffs are not filing lawsuits, then defense attorneys have nothing to do and do not make money.

Defense attorneys always charge by the hour or receive periodic monetary retainers from their clients. Defense attorneys have a huge incentive to drag out litigation. Plaintiff attorneys have no incentive whatsoever to prolong litigation because it is costing them money out of their own pocket, it precludes them from taking on new clients because they are too busy, and it does not serve the interests of their existing clients. When I read about lengthy delays in litigation, it is invariably due to defense counsel.

Judge, your observations about regionalities is true. Even within my state, attorneys know which counties are more likely to produce plaintiff oriented jurors and defense oriented jurors. Venue or forum shopping is common. Each side of the litigation wants the case to be tried in a county that is favorable to them. We have venue laws that specify where cases can be filed.

Rules of evidence control what kind of information is presented to the jury, such as hearsay evidence. Attorneys offer their proof or object to the other side's offer of proof. It is up to the Judge to decide what is admitted or not admitted in evidence by following the rules of evidence. If the judge screws up, then the parties have rights to appeal the ruling.

It ain't perfect but I doubt anyone can name a single other country which has a better judicial system than the USA. Our legal system is based on the common law of England except for Louisiana's laws which are based on the Napoleonic code of France. The law is like a pendulum - sometimes it swings too far to the left, sometimes too far to the right, but it is never static. It changes slowly to reflect what society wants.

Thank God I'm retired and no longer dodge bullets for a living - the bullets are opposing counsel, the judge, and sometimes the client. That's why we're called hired guns.

 

[Judge]

Judge, your observations about regionalities is true. Even within my state, attorneys know which counties are more likely to produce plaintiff oriented jurors and defense oriented jurors. Venue or forum shopping is common. Each side of the litigation wants the case to be tried in a county that is favorable to them. We have venue laws that specify where cases can be filed.

Indeed. Regionalism as well as other considerations. I recall states like Massachusetts which seemed to enable general liability claims while their incidence of medical malpractice was quite limited. Conversely states like Louisiana as I recall have a dismal record of medical malpractice. The insurer I once worked for paid 50 million dollars to legally exit Massachusetts' auto insurance market. They simply gave up based on their legal environment. And then to consider that the politics of state legislatures don't necessarily always parallel their legal statistics pertaining to litigation.

Yet the same company I once worked for was UK-based and their shareholders eventually chose to dump all US operations over their ire of our legal environment as a whole. Having got fed up with the aggregate amount of litigation we were paying out in many states over a period of several years. It's so complicated!