The impact of bullying continues to be hot topic in the media, with an increase in attention to the phenomenon of “cyber-bullying.”  Recently, a Rutgers University student committed suicide after he was the victim of a high-tech cyber-bullying incident.  His roommate surreptitiously procured a video of the student having sex with another male student, and then streamed the video online.  The bullying victim jumped from the George Washington Bridge after posting his intent to do so on his own Facebook page.

Such cyber-bullying incidents are becoming more and more common as our youth become ever more tied into electronic media and online social networking sites.  At least one study has suggested that more than 40 percent of kids in this country admit having been bullied on the internet, and 35 percent say they have received online threats.  Another study reported that more than 20% of the kids who had been on the receiving end of bullying strongly considered committing suicide, and as many as 19% actually made some kind of suicide attempt.  Nearly one third reported committing acts which could be considered bullying in nature.  Approximately 20% admitted committing acts of cyber-bullying.

With such startling numbers, it is clear that parents and schools must be vigilant to the warning signs that bullying, even via the internet, texting, or social networks like Twitter, is occurring.  New Hampshire’s revised bullying statute that went into effect on July 1, 2010, now contains a definition of “cyber-bullying,” and obligates school officials to be on the lookout for it, and to act when there is evidence that it is occurring.  Unfortunately, the law does not contain a private enforcement mechanism permitting parents to hold schools accountable in court when they fail to meet the obligations placed on them by the new Act.  Hopefully the legislature will reconsider this omission in the near future.  Parents who are concerned should let their voices be heard at the State House.

Several attorneys filed suit against the State recently to try to obtain proper funding for our judicial system.  It is broken and I could not sit idly by and let it be gutted by excessive legislative budget cuts so I joined in as counsel.

Each year 230,000 court cases are filed in New Hampshire.

Certain types of court cases have specific time frames in which to act and those are set by the legislature.  For example, domestic violence cases and criminal cases require certain scheduling dates by law.  Thus, work on such cases means other cases must be delayed if judge time is lacking due to vacancies.  For instance, in 2009, there were 5,300 cases of domestic violence with hearings required between five or thirty days of filing, depending on the request.

Stalking cases were 1,470 in number, with the same time requirements.  9,600 landlord/tenant cases must be heard ten days from service of process.  Involuntary emergency admissions to the N.H. Hospital were filed 1,700 times last year and they must be heard within three days of hospitalization.

Families are also heavily affected by the lack of a judge to help decide their disputes.  7,200 juvenile cases, 10,000 new divorce or family petitions and 7,000 closed cases reopened for parenting or lack of child support issues were heard last year alone.

Judges cannot decide cases without someone processing them, scheduling them, getting orders out, and otherwise processing paperwork.  Each month thousands of orders have to go to the office of child support enforcement, various criminal law agencies, and to parties involved in marital and civil cases.

In the non-criminal area our State Constitution’s Bill of Rights (Part I, Article 14), says that everyone is entitled to a certain remedy for all injuries they may receive and that they are to obtain it “completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay.”

The purpose of that provision is to make civil remedies readily available and to guard against arbitrary denial of access to the courts.  It is an equal protection clause because, whether you are suing someone or being sued, you want to have your case resolved as soon as possible.

Last year there were $3.1 million of cuts out of a judicial branch budget of about $65 million, with another $2.2 million hit in May.  Concord District Court, which is a three-judge court, is now operating with one full-time judge.  Due to the reduction in personnel a form letter went out this summer canceling all civil trials.

Small claims cases were all cancelled in the Manchester District Court this summer for an indefinite period.

On July 22, Merrimack County Superior Court began closing to the public daily from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.  As of June 30, it had nearly 500 case files with pieces of mail that had yet to be docketed in the court record, with some documents dating back to March.  Another 150 trial and hearing notices had not been sent out and more than 350 files contained court orders that had not been issued.

And Hillsborough County just announced:

HILLSBOROUGH SUPERIOR COURT CLERKS TO CLOSE OFFICES

TUESDAY AND THURSDAY AFTERNOONS

Staff shortages prompt move to focus on reduction of case backlog

CONCORD, October 1 – The clerk’s office in Nashua for Hillsborough County Superior Court North and Hillsborough County Superior Court South will close at 1 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday beginning October 5 to allow uninterrupted time for processing cases and related materials.

Both clerk’s offices, which had been closed from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., will reopen at 8 a.m. daily, beginning Oct. 5 with implementation of the new Tuesday/Thursday afternoon closings.

After 1 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, no telephone or counter service will be available to lawyers, litigants or the public in the clerk’s office during those hours; the automated telephone system will be monitored so that emergency requests are addressed promptly. A “drop box” will be set up inside the courthouse at 30 Spring Street in Nashua for filing documents during the hours when the clerk’s office is closed.

As of today, the Merrimack County Superior Court, which had been closed down since last August on weekday afternoons to work on reducing the case backlog, will be open for a full day on Fridays. The clerk’s office in Concord remains closed to lawyers, litigants and the public Monday through Thursday from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. to allow for uninterrupted case processing.

Several other court locations statewide, faced with backlogs and staff shortages, also have limited public operating hours to allow uninterrupted time for employees to process cases.

Superior Court Chief Justice Robert J. Lynn said the schedule will be reviewed every 30 days to determine when the clerk’s office can return to routine office hours. Reductions in the court system budget have required administrators to maintain 71 full-time non-judicial vacancies, which means court locations have fewer employees on staff to carry out day to day clerical responsibilities.

These cutbacks affect all citizens who seek justice.  I will do all I can to fight for fair funding.  If you have a delay horror story, email me at info@nojustice.org

Around the country, including New Hampshire, more and more lawsuits are being filed by parents against school districts who allow students to be bullied by other students.  Awareness of bullying as a serious child safety issue is at an all-time high, as is parental awareness of legal options to deal with serious bullying cases.

A suit was filed in January of this year by a mother in New York, alleging that her son’s school district failed to protect him from bullying that took place on his school bus.  A suit claiming $10 million in damages was filed in Virginia by the mother of a student who committed suicide after being repeatedly hazed by another student.    The mother alleged that the school was aware of the bullying and did nothing to stop it.  Another $10 million suit was filed in Maryland in April by a grandmother who claims that bullying drove her grandson to hang himself after school officials ignored his repeated complaints about the treatment he was receiving from other students.  Another attempted suicide case in Wisconsin led to a lawsuit by the mother of a quadriplegic child who was aggressively taunted by classmates.

These are difficult cases to bring and a variety of legal theories are being used in this new wave of bullying cases with mixed results.  Some of them rely on anti-bullying laws, like the ones New Hampshire recently updated in the wake of the Phoebe Prince case in Massachusetts.  Others rely on Title VII or Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, and are based on unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination.  Many rely on simple common law theories like negligence and negligent supervision.

If your child has been the victim of bullying, and your school system refuses to take the necessary steps to put a stop to it, you need to contact a law firm with trial experience.

Bullying has unfortunately remained in the news over the last several weeks. Following the story out of Massachusetts about the high school student who committed suicide after being subjected to systematic bullying, comes news from right here in Concord, New Hampshire of another serious bullying episode, which resulted in the physical disfigurement of a high schooler.

In the most recent case, a Concord High School student submitted to having a group of bullies tattoo an x-rated image and derogatory name on his buttocks, following a period of bullying and threats. The teenager, who reportedly had a developmental disability, submitted to having the tattoo done in the basement of one of the bullies after he was told he would no longer be taunted and threatened if he complied with the bullies’ demands. Of course, he was still picked on even after giving the bullies what they wanted. They forced him to pull his pants down in front of a gathered crowd of onlookers so they could take pictures.

These stories demonstrate how out-of-control bullying can get, and the importance of early intervention to protect students from the irreversible injuries that can occur. In the Concord case, it remains to be determined what Concord High School knew or when it knew it, but the tattoo incident happened during school hours. That begs the question of what was the school doing to monitor these students’ whereabouts. Given that a crowd had gathered to take pictures of the tattoo after it was completed, the word had obviously gone out that it was going to happen, before it actually did happen.

In the wake of these recent tragic incidents, the New Hampshire legislature has enacted a substantially revised version of RSA 193-F, our State’s anti-bullying law. The new law is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2010. The new enactment provides for many changes to the existing anti-bullying scheme, some of which are positive, and a few of which are less so.

One very positive step is a comprehensive definition of what constitutes “bullying” under the law. Under the original version of RSA 193-F, bullying was essentially undefined, which meant that one school or one teacher’s understanding of what constituted “bullying” could differ from another’s. That naturally led to inconsistent application of the statute’s reporting and student protection provisions.

In addition, the new definition of “bullying” includes a description of “cyber-bullying,” bringing the statute into the 21st century. The revised RSA 193-F also makes it clear that its reach extends to bullying which occurs off school grounds, if the off-campus bullying creates disorder within the school or at school-sponsored events.

The new law also provides for more detailed requirements for school anti-bullying policies, and new reporting requirements, including a requirement that schools report all substantiated cases of bullying to the Department of Education, and that the Department of Education prepare an annual report concerning the number and types of bullying incidents that have occurred in New Hampshire schools. There are also new formal requirements for educator and student training on identifying and preventing bullying.

There is one new section of the law which could be viewed as a negative. While the new statute sets an admirable standard of conduct for schools and school officials to follow, it prohibits private enforcement of the act. Essentially, that means when a school or school official drops the ball and fails to meet the requirements of the revised RSA 193-F, the victim cannot sue under the new act to recover for the harm done. The new law ends up being something of a toothless tiger then, for the students who most need its protections. If the N.H. Department of Education follows in the footsteps of the Banking and Insurance departments, this new law may not get the vigorous enforcement it should, and average citizens will have no power to enforce it themselves.

However, in the event a student is harmed by bullying due to a school’s failure to intervene, the student can still bring a lawsuit under a common law tort claim like negligence or negligent supervision, or breach of fiduciary duty. Nonetheless, educational institutions would have the maximum incentive to strictly enforce the beneficial provisions of the new version of RSA 193-F if a private right of action was available to students who are injured on those occasions when educators fail to comply with the new act’s provisions.

This is a follow-up to our earlier article about school bullying. In some cases, bullying can go beyond the threats, taunts, and physical rough-housing, and take on sexually-motivated undertones. In cases where student-on-student harassment involves sex-based conduct, whether it is verbal or physical, and a school fails to put a stop to it after learning of it, the school may face civil liability under federal law.

Title IX of the U.S. Code, prohibits sex discrimination in “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Virtually all public schools receive federal funding of some type today, so they are generally bound by Title IX’s anti-discrimination requirement. Under Title IX, schools have a duty to prevent sex-based harassment of students once the school’s officials are notified of it. Failure to put a stop to sex-based bullying can result in significant financial liability for offending schools.

In a recent case in Michigan, a federal court jury awarded a bullied student $800,000 under the provisions of Title IX. The student in that case was subjected to four years of sexually-tinged bullying, including incidents in which he was subjected to repeated sexually-motivated insults, and one incident in which a naked bully rubbed himself against the victim in a locker room. School officials were aware of the problem, but were uncoordinated and ineffective in protecting the victim from his tormentors.

Title IX provides for a powerful remedy, in addition to state law civil liability, in those bullying cases where school officials are unwilling or ineffective in preventing sexually-charged bullying by students.

If you’ve been watching the news lately, you may have seen a story concerning the tragic death of 15 year-old high school student, Phoebe Prince, in Massachusetts. Phoebe was the victim of a vicious bullying campaign waged against her by at least 6 other students at South Hadley High School.

Everyone knows that growing up is hard, and that some amount of getting picked on from time to time is a part of every adolescent’s life experience. However, serious bullying can cause lasting psychological and, in some cases, physical harm to vulnerable children. In addition, the students doing the bullying can face serious negative consequences themselves when it gets out of hand. The bullying students in Phoebe’s case have been charged criminally for her death. Phoebe’s case is an extreme example of how bad it can get when schools do not step in to prevent bullying from getting out of hand, but lasting harm can and often is done even in less serious cases.

New Hampshire’s Supreme Court has held in the past that schools have a duty of reasonable supervision to oversee the welfare of the students in their care. That means that once a school becomes aware of unsafe conduct affecting the welfare of its students, it must step in and take reasonable measures to alleviate the dangerous situation. In the context of bullying, that means that once a student makes school officials aware that he or she is the target of bullying, the school must work to put a stop to it. Schools that fail to take prompt and effective measures to prevent bullying from continuing may face liability for damages caused to the bullied student for their failure to do so.

click here to read the People Magazine article