Court says girl not at fault for sex with teacher

OLYMPIA – A 13-year-old girl cannot be held at fault for having sex with her teacher, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting a school district’s argument that it shouldn’t have been sued because the girl was partially responsible.

The girl was an eighth-grade student at Royal Middle School in the central Washington town of Royal City in 2001 when the sexual relations occurred with a 26-year-old teacher, Steven Diaz. Diaz was arrested and entered a modified guilty plea.

The girl and her family sued in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, accusing the Royal School District and Principal Preston Andersen of negligence for failure to supervise and for negligent hiring of the teacher.

Under state law, it’s criminal for a teacher or anyone else in a position of power to have sexual relations with anyone younger than 18.

The court wrote that in the particular civil case before it, “a child under the age of 16 may not have contributory fault assessed against her for her participation in a relationship.”

The district and Andersen argued that contributory fault applied because the girl “had a duty to protect herself against sexual abuse but failed to do so.” The trial court deferred ruling pending an answer from the state high court on a question of state law.

In its 7-2 ruling, the court ruled that criminal laws protecting children from sexual abuse apply equally in civil cases concerning sexual abuse.

The court also dismissed the defendant’s assertion that the girl consented to the relationship.

“The child, in our view, lacks the capacity to consent to the sexual abuse and is under no duty to protect himself or herself from being abused,” the ruling written by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said.

In dissent, Justice Richard Sanders wrote that school officials tried to intervene but the girl allegedly lied about the relationship, “thwarting the school district’s efforts to protect her.”

“Children should not be allowed to take advantage of the school’s duty by forcing it to pay damages for injuries invited by the student or injuries which the district could have prevented but for obstruction by the student,” he wrote.

Attorney Robert Crotty, who represented the family, said that in sexual abuse cases, there’s pressure put upon the victims to not talk about what happened.

“Sexual abuse by its very definition is cloaked in secrecy and cloaked in lies,” he said.

Crotty said the case now goes back to federal court, and the school district’s attorneys will not be able to bring up any claim that she has any contributory fault.

Crotty said the girl, now 18, is in college out of state.

Andersen, who is now district athletic director and administrative assistant at the school district offices, wouldn’t talk about his attorneys’ court strategy, but insisted that he did everything he could to protect the girl once he learned of the relationship.

“We did not ignore anything,” he told the Associated Press. “The second I heard about what happened, we took action. We talked to her, we talked to the parents.”

Attorney Jerry Moberg, who represents the school district, said that he had not decided whether to ask the court to reconsider.

Moberg said that while there are circumstances where 13- and 14-year-olds should not be held accountable, all he wanted was the ability to let a jury sort out cases where they may have some responsibility.

“It seems ironic to allow a child to lie and then give her the right to sue the school district and say you should have protected me,” he said.

Justice Barbara Madsen, who partially agreed with the majority on the consent issue but sided with the dissent on other issues, agreed.

“The jury should be permitted to determine whether the student unreasonably rebuffed the schools’ efforts to prevent that harm or whether, under the circumstances, she lacked the capacity to do so,” she wrote.

But attorney Rebecca Roe, who worked on the case with the Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, said the majority’s decision makes it clear that “that kids cannot contribute to their victimization.

“You’re talking about making kids responsible for the fact that they’re preyed upon,” she said. “These guys are always claiming that the victims seduced them, regardless of the age. It’s a terrible concept.”