Georgia Court of Appeals hears case over school’s handling of Crocker children’s abuse report

ATLANTA, Ga. (WTOC) - The Georgia Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving Effingham County schools and the handling of an abuse report made 10 years ago.

Amanda Oliveira, administrator of the estate of Mary Frances Crocker, is appealing Superior Court Judge Matthew Hube’s dismissal of claims against the Effingham County Board of Education leaders.

The case centers on whether school officials properly followed reporting procedures after a student disclosed abuse in 2017. Mary Crocker and her brother Elwyn Crocker Jr. were found dead the next year.

Multiple family members have already pleaded out in the criminal case.

Background of the case

Attorney Brent Savage, representing the plaintiff, said a female student, who had visited the Crocker home as a friend, reported abuse to a teacher following some reflection she did after school assemblies about child abuse.

This student told the teacher that Crocker’s grandmother beat Elwyn Jr. for 20 minutes, came out of the room and asked how many more hits she should give him, then beat him for another hour.

The teacher reported the information to DFACS and the School Resource Officer.

Savage said Mary and Elwyn would be alive today if Effingham County had followed its own rules. He said the following year after this report, the two children were found behind the family’s house and the case was solved essentially in an hour.

Discovery dispute

Savage said motions filed for discovery were not responded to for 400 days. He said the judge told them they would not get any discovery.

He said the woman who reported the abuse is now 24-years-old and reported it within a week of the incident.

Savage said he has not received a copy of a mandated report or the date a report was made. He said no abuse report from the school was ever mailed to the sheriff’s office, and criminal defense lawyers of the convicted family members have turned over nothing.

According to the lawsuit, school counselor Kate Richards Keith made a verbal report to Georgia DFCS after learning of the alleged abuse, but failed to complete additional mandatory reporting steps required by Effingham County School District policy.

The complaint alleges that a written “Report to Investigating Authorities” should have been completed and sent to both DFCS and local law enforcement, with copies provided to school administrators.

The lawsuit further claims that Principal Billy Hughes, former Superintendent Randy Shearouse, Superintendent Yancy Ford, and other district officials either failed to ensure the report was properly made or failed to adequately train employees on mandatory reporting requirements.

The complaint argues that had law enforcement received the required report in 2017, an investigation would have uncovered the abuse and neglect occurring inside the Crocker household well before authorities discovered the conditions there in late 2018.

The lawsuit details allegations that Mary Crocker was subjected to prolonged abuse, starvation, confinement in dog kennels, and other mistreatment before her death in October 2018.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that Keith and Hughes had a ministerial (non-discretionary) duty to complete and forward the written abuse report and that their failure to do so allowed the abuse to continue unchecked. The complaint seeks to hold the school district officials and employees liable for wrongful death and negligence related to the alleged reporting failures.

Reporting procedures at issue

“A copy of report is supposed to be sent to principal, superintendent, and depending on location of abuse — abuse didn’t occur there at the school. You’re supposed to send it to the law enforcement where abuse occurred which would’ve been the home. So it’s not sufficient just to send to resource officer,” Savage said.

He said the policy mandates annual training courses for staff on abuse, but nothing shows that actually happens.

Savage said he was not able to depose the school resource officer either.

Defense arguments

Mr. Hatcher, representing Principal Hughes, said guidance counselor Ms. Keith reported to the Division of Family and Children Services, then forwarded the report and student statement to the school resource officer.

He said the resource officer is technically a member of the sheriff’s office.

Hatcher argued the policy says the report has to be sent to the sheriff’s department or police, depending on where the abuse occurred, but does not specify it must go to a specific person. He said because the resource officer is employed by the sheriff’s office, they technically fill that requirement.

He said discovery was not necessary because of subject matter jurisdiction issues. He said any exercise of discretion on the part of the reporter-- whether to send to city or sheriff’s office, or whether to supplement with additional information-- would be protected.

Hatcher said Ms. Keith provided a DFACS report, confirmation it was received, and written notes recorded when meeting with the student. He said those were sent to the school resource officer, superintendent, and principal.

Superintendent’s position

Aparesh Paul, representing former superintendent Randy Sharoush and current superintendent Yancy Ford, who was assistant superintendent at the time, said none of those officials had a duty to report.

“Only counselor information was told to, Ms. Keith, they were just recipients of report. But no duty to report on their behalf. Solely on Ms. Keith,” Paul said.

He said Keith’s duty was to report to DFACS and law enforcement. Paul argued that implementing abuse training is also discretionary.

One of the Appeals Judge said the principal could have easily sent the report over to law enforcement in less than 5 minutes.

“If I’m the principal of a school and someone just said there’s a grandmother who is beating this one student in a way that I think is pretty serious for the principal to then say, you know what? The counselor has a duty to report, but maybe I’m just going to go ahead and send this on over, too,” said the Judge.

Legal questions

The case involves whether school officials’ duties were ministerial or discretionary. A ministerial duty is an official obligation that requires strict, absolute adherence to the law with no room for personal judgment or discretion.

Savage argued the reporting requirements are mandatory, not discretionary. He said counselors should have filled out the school’s form.

Savage said he should also be able to see the contract between the school and sheriff’s office to see how it defines the school resource officer as a peace officer.

It’s unclear when the appeals court will issue a decision.