Suicide Memorandum

The troubling matter of student suicide is an unfortunate reality that affects society and learning institutions around the country. Since both society and school districts have been subjects of dramatic change during the past decade, there is a constant duty to address current problems and to develop effective solutions. Concerning the matter of student suicide, school districts presently enjoy relatively limited liability in these matters, but it would be remiss to assume that this will continue in the future. In this memorandum I will outline the holdings in two court cases related to this topic, describe the first two elements of negligence and provide a brief analysis of how these elements relate to school districts and to what extent, if any, schools are liable both now and futuristically. Lastly, I will offer advice in light of the fact that our district currently has no policy that specifically addresses the issue of student suicide.

The first case, Grant v. Board of Trustees of Valley View School District, involves a high school student named Jason who made his plans for suicide known to a school counselor. This counselor called Jason's mother and suggested she take him to the hospital for drug overdose, but she made no mention of his suicide threats. Jason's mother heeded this advice, and on the way to the hospital Jason jumped out of the car and later jumped from an overpass, successfully fulfilling his earlier threat of suicide. Jason's mother sued the school district, and the court ruled in the school district's favor. The court held that 1) the district had no duty under the school code to implement a suicide prevention program, 2) the counselor and district were entitled to immunity from ordinary negligence based on their in loco parentis "in place of a parent" status under the school code and 3) the counselor did not engage in willful and wanton conduct as would waive this immunity. Additionally, under ILCS 89.2, it is stated that school boards are empowered to establish in-service training but not mandated to do so.

In a second case, Hasenfus v. La Jeunesse, an "at-risk" student named Jamie was sent to the locker room during gym class for misbehaving during class. While alone in the locker room, she unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide by hanging herself. Jamie's parents sued the board of education, the gym teacher and others. Again, the court ruled in favor of the school board. The court held that 1) public school's failure to act to protect students generally is not a substantive due process violation, 2) school officials' failure to take steps to prevent Jamie's attempted suicide did not violate substantive due process and 3) it was not a substantive due process violation when the gym teacher punished Jamie (at the time a 14-year-old) and sent her to the locker room.

According to Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts, 5th edition, in negligence, even though a district does not expect student suicide to occur, because there is a risk of this happening the "reasonable person" will take necessary actions to guard against it. the idea of risk involves "a recognizable danger, based upon some knowledge of existing facts and a reasonable belief that harm may possibly follow." I believe that there is a reasonable risk of student suicide, based solely upon your awareness of such events. This risk must be balanced against the "social value" of the interest threatened. I'm sure you would agree that the interest of preventing even one student suicide has manifest social value.

A school district may have a duty of due care to students and their parents for preventing suicide. To address this, I will refer to the first two elements of negligence, the first of which is duty of due care. According to Statsky's Essentials of Torts, a general rule on duty states that: "Whenever one's acts and omissions create a foreseeable risk of injury or damage to someone else's person or property, a duty of reasonable care arises to take precautions to prevent that injury or damage." Therefore, a district's duty to use reasonable care is triggered by the foreseeability of the injury. In relation to student suicide, foreseeability has already been established, in part in your writing to me about this issue with your concern that student suicide could most likely happen in the future because of its occurrence in the past. Statsky also states that failing to act to try to prevent an injury, called nonfeasance, usually does not trigger negligence. However, if a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant, nonfeasance may lead to negligence. One of the special relationships mentioned in Statsky that triggers a duty to use reasonable care is the Parent/Child relationship. Since school districts have in loco parentis according to the Illinois School Code, this may very well require districts to have a duty to use reasonable care.

The second element of negligence is breach of duty. According to Statsky, a breach of duty would occur when a school district engages in unreasonable conduct, reasonableness being dependent on the standard of care used in most cases. The term reasonableness is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of situations. Therefore, school districts could potentially be found to have breach of duty based on a convincing argument from the lawyer on behalf of a grieving family. Several factors are assessed in determining reasonableness. Statsky lists twenty-one such factors, and I believe that at least half of these factors could relate to the issue of student suicide. For instance, foreseeability of danger, common sense and assumptions about human nature, to name just a few. Being a former mathematics teacher, I must also allude to the breach of duty equation. This equation balances the following elements:

Our school district does not currently have a policy that specifically addresses student suicide. As previously mentioned, under ILCS 89.2, school boards are empowered to establish in-service training programs for teachers, and, if they do, suicide prevention/intervention must be part of this program. Although our district presently has in place a fantastic peer mediation program, it appears that addressing student suicide specifically has not been formalized by way of a written policy. This action would not take a lot of time or expense and could potentially be a strong source of support, should an unfortunate situation arise during which its referral is necessary. It is stated in Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs and Thurston in Educational Governance and Administration 4th edition, in press, that there is a presumption that teachers and other certified employees have received such instruction about student safety (including student suicide) during their preparation programs and would therefore deserve immunity from the reasonable care liability. I worry that this presumption is relied upon too heavily and that, without specific policy actions, this inaction could develop into a cause for breach of duty. Taking no action is in and of itself a conscious action. The district should choose to address the issue of student suicide by both action and policy.

Although schools ultimately have little to no control over the actions of a suicidal student, it is in the very nature of a school district to look out for the well-being of its students and to do everything within its power to protect its students. School district employees are charged with the challenging task of shaping young minds and advising them as they mature. Unfortunately, the colossal demands of the adolescent society intrude on a daily basis and may severely hinder the ability of the schools to carry out their original mission of educating its students. In order to educate the students, we as a district must do everything within our power to help them be ready to learn. As a school district we are morally, if not potentially legally, obligated to address the issue of student suicide.

I've attached two policies for your review, one from Minnesota which is rather short and a rather lengthy one from Illinois.

Wealthy Chicago Suburb Policy as it relates to Suicide

Adolescent Suicide Awareness and Prevention Programs

The Board of Education believes the physical emotional and mental well-being of all students must be maintained as a prerequisite to achievement through the formally structured educational process. Furthermore, the Board recognized that suicide is a mental health problem and that the problem may be addressed with the involvement of the State or community mental health agency and with the appropriate adolescent suicide awareness, prevention and intervention.

The Superintendent or designee is directed to develop, implement and communicate a comprehensive and continuing adolescent suicide awareness and prevention program for the District. The Superintendent will make an effort to develop a liaison between the State or community mental health agency and the District for the purpose of securing professional expertise and assistance with the program.

The district's adolescent suicide awareness and prevention program shall be drawn from the information and materials developed and provided by the State or community mental health agency. The program shall have as its goals to help District employees, parents/guardians and students to:

1. Identify community resources and procedures that can help a suicidal person and design procedures for the implementation of their services;

2. Understand the developmental stages of adolescence;

3. Understand the causes of adolescent suicide;

4. Recognize the early warning signs of adolescent suicide;

5. Be aware of the contagion effect;

6. Address the repercussions of such a tragedy; and

7. Address the physical safety and intervene on behalf of students at risk of harming themselves.

Procedures

The purposes of developing the following procedures are to;

- Provide assistance to the student so he or she does not hurt him or herself;

- Provide assistance to parents/guardians so they can fulfill their role in supporting, protecting and providing for their student;

- Provide support and direction to staff members working with students who may be at risk; and

- Ensure District compliance with statutory responsibilities.

1. Any student reporting he or she has suicidal thoughts should be referred to the Social Work Department immediately. The faculty member who has become aware of this information must assume direct responsibility for reporting the information. When possible, the student about whom there is concern should be escorted to the Social Work Department.

2. Any District employee having any reason to believe a student is considering or threatening suicide should contact the Principal and Social Work Department immediately.

3. Within one school day a social worker will interview the student to:

a. assess whether the student is in imminent danger, at moderate risk, or at low risk;

b. provide support to the student; and

c. inform the student that concern for the student's safety will be shared with the parents/guardians.

4. After interviewing the student, the social worker will:

a. report the interview to the Assistant Principal for Student Services and/or Dean of Students and to the Social Work Department Chair. The verbal report should be confirmed by a written memorandum.

b. contact the parents/guardians for an interview, in person if possible to:

- share concerns of possible suicide with the parents/guardians;

- provide support to the parents/guardians;

- arrange for the immediate supervision of the student, if necessary; (If the social worker determines that student is in immediate danger of hurting him or herself, the social worker will request that the parents/guardians come to school to pick up their student and take him or her for help. If the parents are unable to pick up their student, the social worker will ask for permission to have the student taken to a hospital emergency room and have the parents/guardians meet them there. If unable to reach either parent/guardian, the social worker will attempt to reach the additional contact people listed on the student's school emergency card.)

- direct the parents/guardians to available options for help: an emergency unit, their family physician, community mental health clinic or other mental health professional; and

- explain to the parents/guardians that a letter will be sent confirming the telephone conversation and expressing the school's concerns and recommendations, when appropriate.

5. Following the intervention with the student and his or her family, the social worker will:

a. contact the student's advisor, advisor chair and the Health Services Coordinator to share pertinent details of the situation;

b. determine with the advisor and advisor chair whether the student's teachers should be informed;

Please not that confidentiality is an important factor. Faculty members should be informed only on a "need-to-know" basis.

c. initiate follow-up contact with the parents/guardians to determine what actions were taken by the parents/guardians and obtain signed release of information forms to enable the social worker to contact the referral resources in order to coordinate services.

d. have a follow-up interview with the student to assess the student's condition and the parent's/guardian's response.

e. maintain regular contact with the student until the student is further evaluated by a mental health professional in the community and provide further assistance as recommended by the physician, clinic, or hospital.

f. apprise the Social Work Department Chair of the case on a regular/continuing basis.

g. act as case manager in gathering and sharing information with members of the support team.

h. establish contact with the hospital, physician, or clinic providing service to the student.

6. If the parents/guardians do not follow up with a referral within 24 hours, they will be informed by the social worker that the school is required to file a report with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. The report will be filed by the Assistant Principal for Student Services or the Dean of Students.

Documentation

1. District employees shall take notes on any conversation which involve or relate to the at-risk student. The notes shall become a part of a written report to the Principal or designee.

2. Conversations which involve or relate to the at-risk student shall be confirmed in writing with the other party or parties.

3. The social worker shall prepare a report of the situation for the student's records.

Foreseeability of the danger of an accident occurring (suicide has been known to occur across the country)	The importance or social utility of what the defendant was trying to do before the accident (saving the lives of youth is beyond social utility, it is social necessity)
Foreseeablilty of the kind of injury or damage that will result if an accident occurs (suicide or attempted suicide)	The burden or inconvenience on the defendant of taking precautions to avoid the accident (writing a policy to address this will not take much time or money; using a teacher in-service day to discuss this issue for an hour is not a burden)