Martinez Tribune The website of the Martinez Tribune.
Martinez Tribune
The Mount Diablo Unified School District is embroiled in a lawsuit for allegedly failing to protect its students from the sexual abuse of a fourth grade teacher who was identified by an internal investigation as a potential threat in 2006.
Despite the decade-old investigative report describing the Woodside Elementary teacher’s behavior as suggestive of “potential child abuse,” and complaints by teachers and student relatives that he took “undue interest” in a number of his young male students, the district did not see fit to notify law enforcement or child protective services. Instead, after the investigation was concluded, Joseph Andrew Martin, the 47-year-old former Concord teacher now serving a 12-year sentence in Avenal State Prison on 19 counts of child molestation, was allowed to continue his employment with the school until 2013. He stands convicted of sexually molesting seven male pupils during that time span.
The first day of the civil trial was last Friday. The first witnesses are expected to be called this week to give testimony before a jury comprised of seven women and five men.
Martin’s criminal case, which ended in March 2015, has been described as unusual by legal experts since its inception. Martin’s crimes of molestation involve fondling the bare chests of male students, an action which the jury found gave him sexual gratification. Other situations between Martin and the boys that surfaced in the criminal case and the recently released report were eyebrow-raising but not clearly illegal – incidents such as Martin taking students to his Martinez home and giving them massages in his bedroom; keeping students alone with him in his classroom until 6 p.m. behind closed doors; and “lobbying” a fellow teacher who had the authority to place children in his class for particular, exclusively male students he had an interest in, among other things.
Both trial attorneys for the criminal case, Prosecutor Derek Butts and Martin’s attorney, Patrick Clancy, said they were not aware of another case where molestation charges were drawn solely from the touching of boys’ bare chests, a remark echoed by other professional observers throughout the case. For this reason, Judge Mary Ann O’Malley who presided over the case did not stick with the conventional mandatory sentencing for child molestation crimes, which would have given Martin a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of life.
“I believe that if he was sentenced to life in prison, it would be excessive and disproportionate,” she said, describing his molestation as “a far cry” from other cases she’s adjudicated which have involved significantly harsher forms of abuse such as child rape or penetration.
Nevertheless, she clearly took the violation of the boys seriously, telling Martin, “you don’t realize yet that you have a very serious addiction,” adding, “I feel better that you will never teach again.”
With Martin now serving his time, it’s the school district’s board and staff in the spotlight. Martin was originally named as a defendant in the civil case, but has been dropped.
The district has not been enthusiastic about releasing the contents of the 2006 report to the public – for 2.5 years, it blocked area media from obtaining it, and only begrudgingly handed it over last month after 27 months of litigation and a threat of a contempt motion if it did not release the document for public access.
Now, the report which was so closely guarded has become a major piece of evidence that will be used to determine the central issue of the civil case: whether the multiple warnings issued to school and district personnel constitute “reasonable suspicion” of child abuse. The 12 plaintiffs of the case, represented by multiple lawyers including Walnut Creek’s Stan Casper, allege that district officials had more than enough evidence a decade ago to qualify as reasonable suspicion – which should have triggered reports to both law enforcement and child protective services. If the court finds this claim true, the district will have failed in its legal obligation of mandatory reporting as required by state law – and will likely shoulder significant financial damages, in addition to the damage done to its reputation in the community.
But in a case marked by blurry boundaries, the report itself is not exactly a beacon of clarity. It’s author, independent attorney Mark S. Williams, wrote his assessment in a tone sympathetic to Martin and encouraged the district to not pursue the allegations further. In contrast to the objective legalisms used in court, the report is clouded with vague language, which described the whole situation as “a series of misperceptions” and “a perfect storm of misunderstanding.” Despite these brush-offs of the concerns the report was addressing, Williams included, “this report would not be honest […] if I did not report that the circumstances surrounding these allegations […] suggest the matter of potential child abuse.”
The investigation was triggered when a family member of a boy in Martin’s fourth grade class brought up concerns to the administration that Martin was taking “undue interest” in her young relative.
