If I'm a juror or an attorney I think I can make a case as to the difference between the complaint/lawsuit and the emails sent out by the Dinkels during this ordeal.

 

The school being named in the suit does not preclude the Dinkels from being happy with many, many folks in the CCH community who did support Alex and his family. Their issues are specific to how the administration of the school, a few of the teachers, and , indirectly, the Diocese responded to Alex's situation. They didn't mention being unhappy with the parents of any students. They didn't mention being unhappy with other than about 4 or 5 boys by name. Therefore, logic says that they were happy with the overall community yet still being unhappy with leadership.

I understand your point Clyde, but in order for them to sue the institution, wouldn't you think they would have to be pretty upset with the institution (leadership)? If that is the case, why on earth would they try and get a scholarship where the family name is associated with that school for a long time? Makes no sense to me.

On a side note, how hard is it for what I assume to be a big-time law firm to have someone type the lawsuit with words spelled properly?

 

Remember, the man running the school is the "princiPAL" and not the "princiPLE." He's our "pal."

I understand your point Clyde, but in order for them to sue the institution, wouldn't you think they would have to be pretty upset with the institution (leadership)? If that is the case, why on earth would they try and get a scholarship where the family name is associated with that school for a long time? Makes no sense to me.

 

I would say they rationalize it in the following manner. The CCH community (you , me, alums, etc) did a lot to support the family during tough times. To show its gratitude they want to help another student to be able to afford a Catholic education. In their mind, they are helping a student and not necessarily the institution and showing gratitude towards the community. It would be similar to me being extremely unhappy with the leadership of the Catholic church at its highest levels but still supporting individuals who want to experience day-to-day grassroots church. I still go to a Catholic church and put money in the basket despite my disgust with the upper level leaders of the Church.

 

I get that many are upset that an institution so important to them is being sued and the mother of the plaintiff is a criminal. No one likes to see something they love be tarnished. However, just like the Catholic church catching a lot of deserved grief , if this improves the way a school handles certain situations then we have to look at that as a positive. I'm not saying every allegation is true. However, my head is not stuck in the sand. I do believe that this could have been handled better than it was. It doesn't mean CCH is a bad place or the leadership consists of bad people. It just means they might not have handled it in the best manner.

 

CCH will come out of this fine and hopefully better.

:thumb: And I can only imagine how his classmates feel now, when someone who was a friend to them is now harming the school that they love so much.

 

Honestly, thats the part that hurts the most. Another question, why has he waited so long to file the suit? Another thing, is he filing suit against the college that he attends? I don't like how personally unsupportive my University is. Come to think of it, they even made me complete the same amount of coursework as the other student when I was sick and out for nearly a month earlier in the year. Maybe I should try my hand in getting a settlement...

Everytime I think of this I get sicker to my stomache. How can a family who by all appearances (emails) were genuinely appreciative of all the a school had done for their son, so thankful that the approached the school about a scholarship in their sons name - - turn around and sue the school hoping to get a big payday?????? I am not normally a hateful person, but I can tell you that my feelings towards the family are defintely on the hate side now. As I said in my earlier post, even Eric Deters said that all parties should let this die - - so why would they not do that??? There has to be some motivating factor that has arisen now on the side of the family to do this now - I don't know. Amazing

 

You and me both, man. You and me both.

 

I think when it comes down to it, Alex was left with a lot of scars and unresolved questions & issues when it comes to the actions of his mother. I think the natural reaction of a teenager in that situation would be anger against his mom - and a lot of it. However, when the rest of his family decided that "hey, we're going to forgive her and work through this", that makes it awfully confusing to him, and really tough for him to work through that anger. There's a good probability that he just swallowed it down instead of figuring out how to deal with it correctly. So now he's got this unresolved anger locked down inside of him, and he needs somewhere to go with it.

 

I have a feeling that that "somewhere to go with it" became apparent to him when the Diocese directed Cov Cath to prohibit Alex's mom from attending his graduation. She was legally barred from being anywhere near any of Alex's other school functions and events, but was still permitted to attend his graduation, and this was the one thing HE had left to share with her. That one thing, however, was not afforded to him, so now after fuming over it for long enough, he's going to take all of that pent-up anger and project it onto Cov Cath. Add on top of that some potential mishandling of some of the details of Alex's "I'm 15 years old and I've got facial cancer and my mom fed booze and drugs to one of my classmates and had sex with him, so now she's being prosecuted and convicted of statutory rape" situation, and out pops a lawsuit against Cov Cath. ...and his family and their slime-bag attorney are more than happy to support him for it.

 

I honestly do feel sorry for Alex. I do. He had more crazy and messed up stuff thrown on him in the course of 3 years than I would ever wish on my worst enemy in a lifetime. Still, it's a huge shame that he thinks the correct recourse is to lash out at Cov Cath like that. All it will do is potentially put a little money in his pocket (money that he need only go to his retired NFL football player father or Hollywood makeup artist mother to obtain) and then make him look like an ungrateful jerk for spitting one of his biggest helping hands throughout this ordeal - the Cov Cath community.

Everytime I think of this I get sicker to my stomache. How can a family who by all appearances (emails) were genuinely appreciative of all the a school had done for their son, so thankful that the approached the school about a scholarship in their sons name - - turn around and sue the school hoping to get a big payday?????? I am not normally a hateful person, but I can tell you that my feelings towards the family are defintely on the hate side now. As I said in my earlier post, even Eric Deters said that all parties should let this die - - so why would they not do that??? There has to be some motivating factor that has arisen now on the side of the family to do this now - I don't know. Amazing

 

I thought at one point Deters represented the Dinkle's a year ago when Jeni wanted to attend the graduation.

 

Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

I hope CCH wins and countersues the pants off the Dinkle's. (Bad-very bad joke)

Edited May 20, 201016 yr by History
spelling

I would say they rationalize it in the following manner. The CCH community (you , me, alums, etc) did a lot to support the family during tough times. To show its gratitude they want to help another student to be able to afford a Catholic education. In their mind, they are helping a student and not necessarily the institution and showing gratitude towards the community. It would be similar to me being extremely unhappy with the leadership of the Catholic church at its highest levels but still supporting individuals who want to experience day-to-day grassroots church. I still go to a Catholic church and put money in the basket despite my disgust with the upper level leaders of the Church.

 

I get that many are upset that an institution so important to them is being sued and the mother of the plaintiff is a criminal. No one likes to see something they love be tarnished. However, just like the Catholic church catching a lot of deserved grief , if this improves the way a school handles certain situations then we have to look at that as a positive. I'm not saying every allegation is true. However, my head is not stuck in the sand. I do believe that this could have been handled better than it was. It doesn't mean CCH is a bad place or the leadership consists of bad people. It just means they might not have handled it in the best manner.

 

CCH will come out of this fine and hopefully better.

 

A big difference in your analogy though is that yes you go to church and put money in basket, but you do not have a mass named after you and everyone going to that church sees your name and how you support and help the church every time they go thru the doors (analogy is slightly off but you get my drift) Deciding to file lawsuit I am sure was not done quickly, and they had to be thinking of this for a while to put it in motion. You would think that they would have thought about it even before approaching the school about the scholly

 

 

unrelated - but something is up with the site. When I quoted your post to reply to, more of it showed up then what was displayed initially. Did you notice?

Does CCH have a legal responsibility to protect a student from bullying? Does it have a legal obligation to remove graffiti about a student's mother from the bathroom stalls?

 

Is CCH legally negligent by not instructing teachers that a student with certain conditions must be awakened immediately should he fall asleep? To not wake him could be dangerous.

 

These are questions I do not have answer to as I'm not an attorney nor do I have access to case law. However, it seems like these examples are going to be instrumental.

 

Anyone? To me these are the pertinent questions. The "should he or shouldn't he" questions are a different argument and are not going to be part of the case.

 

Did CCH break the ADA law? Did they break the Rehabilitation Act? Were they negligent?

A big difference in your analogy though is that yes you go to church and put money in basket, but you do not have a mass named after you and everyone going to that church sees your name and how you support and help the church every time they go thru the doors (analogy is slightly off but you get my drift) Deciding to file lawsuit I am sure was not done quickly, and they had to be thinking of this for a while to put it in motion. You would think that they would have thought about it even before approaching the school about the scholly

 

 

unrelated - but something is up with the site. When I quoted your post to reply to, more of it showed up then what was displayed initially. Did you notice?

 

IMO the analogy is correct. I'm supporting others through my contributions to the Church that I have a problem with. My guess is that the family that has their name on a the gym at a Catholic school made that donation despite them being disgusted with the inaction of the Pope. Same with this case.

I thought at one point Deters represented the Dinkle's a year ago when Jeni wanted to attend the graduation.

 

Just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

I hope CCH wins and countersues the pants off the Dinkle's. (Bad-very bad joke)

 

I think he did as well, and you wonder if they asked him to represent Alex on this one. If they did and he refused to take the case, then that tells me a lot about it I think. I mean Deters seems to jump on any case that has the potential of a lot of publicity, even if the payday might not be the greatest. I also thought about the countersuit - - hope you are right!

I understand the point Clyde is making, do not agree with in because if I remember right, it has been over 2 years, they at time thanked the administration.

Also if it was such a problem, why wait a full year or more after the events.

Remember it was Mrs.Dinkle that put everyone in a no win situation.

IMO the analogy is correct. I'm supporting others through my contributions to the Church that I have a problem with. My guess is that the family that has their name on a the gym at a Catholic school made that donation despite them being disgusted with the inaction of the Pope. Same with this case.

 

I am still struggling with it. The difference is that every year the Dinkels would be at the school having pictures taken with whoever is awarded the scholarship. The info would be published in the papers each year. That name on the gym was probably noticed when the gym was built, but since then, my guess is few people even notice it. We can agree to disagree though on this one.

I understand the point Clyde is making, do not agree with in because if I remember right, it has been over 2 years, they at time thanked the administration.

Also if it was such a problem, why wait a full year or more after the events.

Remember it was Mrs.Dinkle that put everyone in a no win situation.

 

This is only Mrs Dinkle right - much of the issue of the suit to my knowledge has to do with the school's handling of Alex being sick. She did not make Alex sick as far as I know. Only person I think we can say made Alex sick with cancer is God.

Remember it was Mrs.Dinkle that put everyone in a no win situation.

 

For those that know me this type of argument suits my contrarian side to a T.

 

I disagree with the "no win" situation. It put CCH in a "tough" situation but one that it should be able to handle. Jeni Dinkle's actions did not authorize her son to be a target and to be , allegedly, harassed . CCH cannot use the "well, her mom had sex with one of our students" defense.

 

Did they take action to stop the harassment?

 

Did they meet their requirements to provide Alex with an education?

 

Were they consistent in dealing with him and other students who were ill?

 

Did they intentionally make decisions with the hope of Alex transferring to make the problem go away?

 

I hope they are innocent of all charges.