Ron,

The most basic premise of the suit is that the school was obligated to notify the student’s parents. However, the student in this case was legally an adult and that in and of itself should defeat any legal requirement for parental notification.

Failure to prevent suicide cases are incredibly difficult for plaintiff. I defended drug companies against these claim. It is just a tough road. But the comments here are troubling. You have determined, as a matter of fact, that the child said he was no suicidal and there were no facts to support the conclusion that something should be done. One person repeats the defense contention and then we run with the premise dismiss the lawsuit as nonsense.

I think everyone can agree with can conjure up facts here that would make the school a substantial contributing cause to this child’s tragic death. None of us know one way or the other what the facts are at this point.

The OJ trial gave us one gift: the line about rushing to judgment.

If the parents somehow win this case, it can set a very dangerous precedent and will undermine a guidance counselor’s ability to do his or her job.

Why yes, it does. 🙂

That kind of makes the whole lawsuit BS then, doesn’t it?

“Should a High School Guidance Counselor be making these types of decisions?”

What types of decisions are you imagining that the Guidance Counselor made?

The decision to not notify the parents was not made by the Counselor, It was made by the student who was legally an adult and had every right to make that decision.

“Shouldn’t school policy be to refer the student to certified professional?”

To what end? The student denied having suicidal thoughts and since the student was an adult, the student could not be forced to see a “certified professional”, not even by his parents, absent a court order.

Should a High School Guidance Counselor be making these types of decisions? Shouldn’t school policy be to refer the student to certified professional?