CAP Relationships

[Tim Medeiros]

I'm interested to see peoples thoughts on relationships that span regions, ie I once had a relationship with a fellow cadet (I was a cadet at the time) from KSWG, I lived in FLWG, it went well for a while and to this day we are still friends, and there is still something there, though I've held off bringing back our relationship since her unit commander has yet to submit the paperwork to transfer her to senior membership (due to her current active duty status), though if she doesn't renew this month that'll be a non-issue.

[Eclipse]

I'm interested to see peoples thoughts on relationships that span regions, ie I once had a relationship with a fellow cadet (I was a cadet at the time) from KSWG, I lived in FLWG, it went well for a while and to this day we are still friends, and there is still something there, though I've held off bringing back our relationship since her unit commander has yet to submit the paperwork to transfer her to senior membership (due to her current active duty status), though if she doesn't renew this month that'll be a non-issue.

The day she went Active Duty she was no longer a cadet, so give her a call...

[SJFedor]

If she's AD, she needs to automatically head for the dark side, or if nothing else, the Unit/CC should be putting in a 2B for cadet termination (not for cause, mind you, just for technicality)

I was in the same boat. WIWAC, I was dating a girl who was in my squadron back in PA. When I made the decision to go to the dark side, she had to come along with or forefit her membership.

And in fact, I'm still dating this girl, 4 years and 1 move to Tennessee, and we're still here. As the people in the south call it, we're "Living in sin".

They can work out as long as it's professionally conducted. Never, not once, did our personal life affect CAP, and that was because, when we first started this (her age 16, me age 17) we were mature enough to sit down and discuss the proper way to handle and conduct ourselves while involved with CAP. Leave all the personal issues and problems at the door when you put on the uniform: they'll be waiting for you when you get back.

Younger cadets (13-15y/o range) would probably be better off to refrain from engaging in relationships w/ one another, just based on the volatility, emotional overflow, and drama that those teenage relationships tend to draw (and yes, the 16-18 y/os can do it too, but, only speaking from my experience, most of that was done by age 16-17).

[Johnny Yuma]

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

You're entitled to your opinion about whether the rules are a good idea, but you are off-base on the lawsuit.

First, since membership is voluntary and based on acceptance of the corporation's rules and regs, there would be no standing for a lawsuit.  This particular reg is non-discriminatory and based on some common sense issues within our program.

I disagree. It treats one 18 year old in the organization different than another 18 year old in the organization, the only difference being one pays higher dues.

Second, when a unit CC follows the rules and procedures they are fully protected by the corporation in regards to lawsuits, that's the whole point.

That's not a point I'd want to test.  Corporations are organized solely to protect it's officers and agents working on behalf of the corporation. The CAP corporate officers are the NB and NEC, the agents are the CAP, INC. employees. 

This may be a difficult situation for the members affected, but the only risk to a CC is >not< following the rules and looking the other way, and then the risk is only internal.

If you really want to trust that thinking, great.

[lordmonar]

Well back in the day when we discussed the bight line vs the gray line in cadet/senior relationships....

The main reason why CAP did not make the bright line rule was because the laws in various states were so different and we do not have a bright line definition of what is a cadet.

It is obvious that a 25 year old Senior dating a 14 year old cadet is wrong....but then we come to the situations of cadets dating one turning senior....

Okay one day....no someone has to quit or get 2b'ed.

Then there is the situation of say a 20 year old cadet dating an 18 year old senior member!

My point of view was always to leave the rule as it was and to deal with relationships on a case by case basis using local laws as a guide.

But that option is closed to us now.

[Eclipse]

^I'm getting lost in the quotes so...

An 18 year old senior >IS< different from an 18 year old cadet, but definition and duties, which is, again, why cadets should really consider this before converting.  Too many don't understand this and think they just change their grade insignia and lose a few ribbons and everything is the same.

Senior members are tasked with >oversight< of cadets, when you accept that responsibility, the rules change, whatever your age.  I have had several situations recently where dark-side converts learned that the hard way when their friends, who were also cadets, found that the new senior had a responsibility to report inappropriate behavior and actions, and lived up to that responsibility to the detriment of friendships.

I have no idea where this narrow view that the only people protected by CAP regulations are employees and board members but I firmly disagree, anyone in a position of authority if responsible for and protected by the same regulations.

[Johnny Yuma]

I think a few reality checks should be pointed out here:

1. CPPT is nothing more than CYA for CAP, Inc. There's plenty of legal protection for the NB and NEC as corporate officers and NHQ staff as employees. However, Joe member, that means YOU, are out of your own limb when Jenny the 20 year old cadet and Bob the 22 year old 1LT fiancee' sue CAP, Inc. and you as the unit CC who initiated the 2B on Bob.

As long as we are dealing with "reality checks," let me point out that no one in the history of CAP has ever sued and recovered a nickle for CAP initiating appropriate disciplinary action for a senior dating a cadet.

As in never, ever.

In over 60 years in any of the  50 states, the District of Columbia,  or Puerto Rico.


OTOH, sadly, there have been situations where seniors victimized cadets and people in power (including squadron commanders) stood by and did nothing to protect our cadets.  This HAS resulted in things like lawsuits and prison sentences.

Most folks don't have the cash to pay the legal fees to do this I grant the point, but...

I notice that the quote was "sued and recovered a nickle", as in that no one has recovered money from CAP. Is that because CAP won the case, is appealing, settled out of court or just ignoring the court order to pay?

Let's just talk CPPT, shall we?

CPPT hasn't been around for 60 years, it's been around for less than 20. IIRC, CAP, Inc. got scared because the Boy Scouts were losing their shirts over pedophiles in their org, they were fighting something like 100 suits while CAP, Inc. only had to deal with 4 at the time.

CPPT basically has said over the years that if you believe that their was cadet abuse you (or the cadet) was to report it to a CAP, Inc. officer for handling. That means that CAP, Inc. would investigate and determine if there was abuse and how to handle it.

We were briefed, both times I went through CPPT, that the civil authorities shouldn't be called, CAP, Inc. would do that if necessary. Even mandatory reporting in states that had those laws was to be ignored, that wasn't changed in the CPPT until a year or so ago.

Sorry, I'm a "humpty dumpty was pushed" kind of guy. It doesn't take too much to see that CPPT is CYA for CAP, Inc. and a game plan to do damage control on behalf of the organization

2. The age of majority in almost every state is 18. Telling people over the age of majority who they can or cannot engage in relationships with UNLESS one party upgrades their membership (and pays more money in dues) isn't going to play well in a court of law, the media or the Court of Public Opinion.

While I appreciate you service to CAP and our cadets, I think you may be a little bit out of your depth in discussing such legal matters.

It probably will not surprise you to learn that the age of "majority" is not really an issue here.  (The age of "consent" to sexual activities varies fairly widely amongst the areas inhabited by 52 wings and our overseas squadrons.)

But much more importantly, every major organization in the United States has similar rules to protect vulnerable members, employees, and customers.  CAP was long overdue in publishing ours.

• Every public high school in the nation has rules to prevent teachers and administrators from dating students.  Including students over the local age of consent.  Including students over 18.  Because it is wrong and antithetical to the mission of the school for people with power (school officials) to manipulate students for sex.
  
  
•   The UCMJ prohibits a number of relationships between adults that undermine good order and discipline of the service.  People can and do go to prison for these relationships.
  
  
• Every major corporation has rules designed to protect workers from sexual harassment by bosses and coworkers.
  
  
• Most states also have statutes that regulate intimate relationships between consenting adults -- for instance psychiatrists may be punished for having intimate relationships with patients, even consenting patients. 
  
  
• Every single major youth organization I could find also prohibits intimate relationships between youth members and leaders.  Check out the Scouts Explorer and Venturing websites, and you will see that it is absolutely prohibited for a Scouting leader to have sex with Explorers and/or members of a Venturing Crew who happen to be 18 or older.

So, the overwhelming weight of the law supports youth organizations protecting their students, not the other way around.

I'm sure you can tell us in which jurisdiction that 18 is not the legal age of adulthood. IIRC the 26th amendment pretty much secured that it was 18.

There is a big, big difference in a predatory sexual relationship and a consensual one. If the organization treated all 18-21 year olds the same I would agree with you. We don't.

High schools are compulsory education and attendance, so extra protections to the students is required. We aren't.

We also are not the U.S. military and not subject to UCMJ. Even if we were, it would be a moot point as they have no 18-21 yo issues except for drinking.

Professionals are also allowed client privilege, which require extra protection.

Businesses have SEXUAL HARASSMENT policies, which is unwanted advances or behavior. I haven't seen one that put restrictions on who they can date.

As a former charter member of an Explorer Post  I wouldn't be using the Boy Scout's Exploring/Venturing program as an example of chaste behavior. BTDT.

Besides, CAP's CPPT is discriminatory. Two 18 year old cadets dating outside of CAP isn't a 2B offense. Two 18 year old Senior members dating outside CAP isn't a 2B offense. To 18 year olds, one Senior, one cadet, dating outside of CAP is a 2B offense UNLESS THE CADET GOES SENIOR MEMBER AND PAYS MORE IN DUES?

Do you really want to try and reconcile that in front of a jury, counselor?  Especially if the dating was found to be 100 percent off CAP time. I'd say you'd be dealing with privacy issues in court as well.

3. The CAP cadet over the age of majority is better protected by CAP's Sexual Harassment policies than by CPPT.
[
What do you mean here?

ALL of our policies -- the 52-16, CPPT, and just plain common sense --- work together to protect our cadets so they can concentrate on the primary mission of the cadet program rather than defend themselves from sexual overtures from "adult" leaders.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.   

[Eclipse]

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.

Yep. Works for me.

Cadets over 18 are afforded opportunities to participate in activities not open to senior members, many of these involve their being in ranks with 12-year-olds.  Most of these involve them being treated on one level or another as adolescents, including less personal responsibility for their actions.

Those opportunities have a price - compliance with CAP's regs in totality.

And this barracks lawyerifyin' you're doing is silly.  As long as an organization's rules are made clearly available to everyone, and administered the same for everyone, there is no case for discrimination.

[FW]

"This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot"

I get it, Johnny.  What I don't get is the failure to understand age is not the issue.  The issue is the relationship between a cadet and senior member.   If I follow your argument, it would be ok for consentual relations between teachers and students, doctors and patients and ministers and congregants.  As long as we're all adults, we're all ok.
This view is not widely accepted by  the powers that be.  Teachers get fired - students get counseled.  Doctors lose their license - patients get lots of bucks.  Ministers are defrocked - congregents get a new minister.  This, is our society.  It is, for right or wrong, the way it is.

[JAFO78]

Now while I have not read all the posts on this topic I will toss in my .2.  I meet my wife when she joined CAP as a senior, the same as I.  Some other seniors in our unit did not like the idea that we dated. But we kept our dating separate from squadron activities.

We did marry, but after a year we had both did not renew our membership, mostly because we wanted to start a family and changes with work shifts also played a major part.

Looking back over the last 22 yrs I have spent with my wife, I am happy.

Now cadets are a different story, more like a soap opera, and thats all I will say about that.

[iniedrauer]

The majority of CAP members agree with the "it's fine if it stays out of CAP" deal.  However, a relationship of that degree is not something that can be "turned off" during meetings or CAP events.

When there is a relationship between a leader and follower, the treatment of those individual(s) will change regardless of what's encouraged by the commanders or even regulations.

I have seen some great relationships in CAP, but on the other hand I've seen cadets make out in uniform (btw, it was a C/2nd Lt and a C/SrA).  There has to be a line drawn, but it can't be all or none.

[Johnny Yuma]

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.

Yep. Works for me.

Cadets over 18 are afforded opportunities to participate in activities not open to senior members, many of these involve their being in ranks with 12-year-olds.  Most of these involve them being treated on one level or another as adolescents, including less personal responsibility for their actions.

Those opportunities have a price - compliance with CAP's regs in totality.

And this barracks lawyerifyin' you're doing is silly.  As long as an organization's rules are made clearly available to everyone, and administered the same for everyone, there is no case for discrimination.

This line of thinking of your is dangerous. With this logic, then  CAP, Inc. would have complete control over the life decision of every member, including yourself.

Don't vote for the candidate of CAP's choice, out you go. CAP doesn't like your selection of car, 2B. Can you tell us where it ends?

I am more afraid of an 18-20 year old cadets intermingled with cadets that are 2/3 their age than I am cadet Jenny, 20, dating 1LT Bob, 23 adn you should be, too. Yet that is condoned, the other isn't. In fact I know parents who have pulled their kids from CAP just for that reason.

The organization's "rules" protect no one but CAP, Inc. and run roughshod over some basic human and privacy rights that I would not want to try and defend in court. If you really think CAP, Inc. will protect Joe Senior member from a lawsuit stemming from legal action by all means believe that dream. I don't. 

[CASH172]

I think we all saw what happened to the most well-known cadet to cadet relationship in CAP.  It showed us how what happens outside of the meetings can have very big impacts on CAP. 

[lordmonar]

Johnny Yuma,

I don't really understand why you are so upset about this.

I agree that a person over 18 is an adult....but a cadet is a cadet.

And the rule is no cadet on senior dating.  End of story.

If you want to help fix the problem...then we have to fix the over 18 cadet thing...and make it so they are an adult in both CAP's and the law's eyes.

They made it a bright line in the sand...because there were too many people out there using "but it was consensual and it's not illegal" (in some states the age of consent is as low as 14!!!)

So we ended up with situations where in one wing we were burning a 20 year old senior for dating some 16 but in another state we had to allow that relationship.

So the new 52-16 spelled it out......NO SENIORS are to date cadets.  Right wrong or indifferent that is the rule.

Don't tell me about the cadet is 18 and an adult...because I got to deal with Active Duty Airman under 21 who are drinking....so if 18 if full adult...why do we have a 21 drinking age....because it is the law.  End of story.

[Ned]

I notice that the quote was "sued and recovered a nickle", as in that no one has recovered money from CAP. Is that because CAP won the case, is appealing, settled out of court or just ignoring the court order to pay?

None of the above.  No one has even filed such a silly lawsuit.  (Suing CAP for following rules to protect cadets.)

Let's just talk CPPT, shall we?

Sure, but the "seniors don't date cadets, period" rule isn't in CPPT (the 52-10) but appears rather in CAPR 52-16 under the Respect for Others paragraph.

CPPT hasn't been around for 60 years, it's been around for less than 20. IIRC, CAP, Inc. got scared because the Boy Scouts were losing their shirts over pedophiles in their org, they were fighting something like 100 suits while CAP, Inc. only had to deal with 4 at the time.

That's a fair assessment.  BSA had signifcantly greater exposure than CAP for a lot of reasons.  But it was not the BSA experience, per se, that prompted the CPP, but the hard reality of the loss of our insurance coverage for molestation issues.

CPPT basically has said over the years that if you believe that their was cadet abuse you (or the cadet) was to report it to a CAP, Inc. officer for handling. That means that CAP, Inc. would investigate and determine if there was abuse and how to handle it.

Yup.

We were briefed, both times I went through CPPT, that the civil authorities shouldn't be called, CAP, Inc. would do that if necessary. Even mandatory reporting in states that had those laws was to be ignored, that wasn't changed in the CPPT until a year or so ago.

I can't speak for your instructor, but I sure never taught anyone to ignore state laws, certainly not a mandatory reporter.  I even taught the subject at the first National Legal Officers College.

Sorry, I'm a "humpty dumpty was pushed" kind of guy.

Obviously.

It doesn't take too much to see that CPPT is CYA for CAP, Inc. and a game plan to do damage control on behalf of the organization

You're cetainly entitled to your opinon.

The actual purpose, of course, is to protect our cadets from predators.  The happy side effect is protection of the corporation and our seniors.  Perhaps it is a bit of a "chicken and the egg" thing.

I'm sure you can tell us in which jurisdiction that 18 is not the legal age of adulthood. IIRC the 26th amendment pretty much secured that it was 18.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  My point was that the age of "adulthood" is simply not relevant to the conversation.  In some respects, the age of "consent" may be.  Which is not the same thing, and is different than the age of adulthood in most states.

There is a big, big difference in a predatory sexual relationship and a consensual one. I

You talk about them as if they were different things.  In many cases, a predatory relationship is also a consensual one.  What's your point?

High schools are compulsory education and attendance, so extra protections to the students is required. We aren't.

Actually, very few high schools are compulsory after age 16.  I don't think any are compulsory after age 18, yet they protect their students based on their student status, not their age.

So does CAP.  (And the Scouts, and Campfire, most universities, and every other major youth organization in the country.)

We also are not the U.S. military and not subject to UCMJ. Even if we were, it would be a moot point as they have no 18-21 yo issues except for drinking.

I don't agree.  Try telling that to a West Point instructor convicted of fraternizing with a cadet.

Besides, CAP's CPPT is discriminatory. Two 18 year old cadets dating outside of CAP isn't a 2B offense. Two 18 year old Senior members dating outside CAP isn't a 2B offense. To 18 year olds, one Senior, one cadet, dating outside of CAP is a 2B offense UNLESS THE CADET GOES SENIOR MEMBER AND PAYS MORE IN DUES?

You can repeat that as often as you would like, but it will not make it true.  EVEN IF YOU TYPE IN CAPITALS!

(If for no other reason than the senior can go patron/take a year off/ or whatever and save a fortune in dues.)

Do you really want to try and reconcile that in front of a jury, counselor?  Especially if the dating was found to be 100 percent off CAP time. I'd say you'd be dealing with privacy issues in court as well.

Sure.  As an attorney, I've tried over 100 cases to a jury.  This would be a piece of cake.

(Of course, it would never make it to a jury in the first place.  That's what summary judgments are for.)

This is simple!

The cadet over 18 IS A LEGAL ADULT. Get It???

The cadet over the age of 18 and legally capable of making his/her own decisions should be protected from unwanted advances per CAP's sexual harassment policies not unlike any other CAP member over the age of 18 who is being harassed in the same way.

CPPT treats the cadet who is over the age of 18 and legally capable of making their own decisions about their interpersonal relationships the same as a 12 year old who cannot.   

I think I take your point.  I can only agree that cadets over the age of 18 are adults.

But that simply has nothing to do with a rational rule -- universally employed by every single other youth group and school out there -- that the adult leaders cannot have intimate relationships with their charges.

Thanks for the conversation.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Ned:

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

As to CAP members being told to "Ignore" state law, yes, that has actually happened.

Like most things arising out of bureaucray, it was a stupid thing done by smart people for very good reasons.

CPPT says, in the event of a CPP incident, the local commander is to notify the Wing King immediately, and not take any action to investigate the offense locally.  The "Cause to be investigated" was, but certain trainers, interpreted to mean that local police/child protection authorities were not to be notified.

National confirmed this in a memo that indicated that, due to a wide disparity in state laws pertaining to who was required to report child abuse, that NHQ would take care of any required notifications, and local commanders were not to do so.

When this came out, I was a city police officer, and my squadron met in the jurisdiction where I was employed.  I decided that I would NOT follow this guidance.  My assessment was that my duty as a police officer was clear, I was required by state law to report any suspected child abuse.  I was not going to risk my job and jail time to kiss up to the NHQ lawyers. 

Fortunately, the only abuse case I got involved in was reported to me by a cadet, and involved a school custodian outside of the CAP context. 

There can be some ambiguity with regard to whether or not a CAP commander or officer is a "Person in loco parentis" under the law, and when it is unclear, once can rely on the NHQ lawyers for guidance.  In my case, there was no ambiguity.

[Johnny Yuma]

Don't tell me about the cadet is 18 and an adult...because I got to deal with Active Duty Airman under 21 who are drinking....so if 18 if full adult...why do we have a 21 drinking age....because it is the law.  End of story.

Because a bunch of handwringing crybabies called MADD decided they knew what was best for everybody.

IMHO the 26th amendment made anyone over 18 a legal adult, which should mean that they should be able to drink as well as possess everything else they've been denied until they're 21. Yet we do not give 18-21 year olds the same protection by the constitution that we do minorities and women under the 15th and 19th amendments.

[Ned]

IMHO the 26th amendment made anyone over 18 a legal adult, which should mean that they should be able to drink as well as possess everything else they've been denied until they're 21.

How odd.  I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone would think the 26th Amendment would have anything to do with adulthood or the age of majority.

"Adulthood" can be viewed as a constellation of rights and privileges, including the right to contract, own property, be free of parental control, etc., which society recognizes as vesting in autonomous adults.


The 26th amendment is about one thing, and one thing only -- the voting age.

It reads, in its entirety:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.


Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice neither the word "adult" nor the words "age of majority" appear anywhere in Amendment. (Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter.)

Because our Founders wisely allowed the several States to set the ages at which their citizens could exercise the various privileges of adulthood and be free of parental control.  For the large majority of our history, this was usually set at 21 years, but in most states is currently set at 18.  Interestingly, it is still 21 in Mississippi and Puerto Rico, and 19 in Nebraska and Alabama.

And states can set other ages for some activities, like 21 for handgun ownership, 16 for a drivers license, or even full majority at less than 18 if declared an "emancipated minor" by the court.  Of course, you have already noted the example which touches almost everyone -- purchase of alcoholic beverages. 

However, it is worth noting that even an mature 50-year-old cannot purchase alcoholic beverages in some 500 "dry counties" in the US.

And finally, remember the Constitution itself contains age-related disabilities.  One simply cannot be President unless you are 35 years of age -- see Art 2, section 1. 

Is the Constitution unconstitutional?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[lordmonar]

Well since we brought the Constitution into it.....if the 26th made the legal age of majority...with full rights and privlages......why does the President have to be 35?

ART II Section 1.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

So there goes that particular argument right there.

Legal definitions aside....we are not the goverment...but a corporation.  We can make any rules we want.....and one of those rules is cadets are not "adults" no matter what age they are.  And another rule is senior members will not date cadets....again no matter what age they are.

It's the rule....live with it.

[afgeo4]

Cadet to senior is obviously a non-starter. That includes the 18yo FO. That should be covered in the initial member interview.

I'm assuming that you're talking about an 18 y/o FO who is dating a cadet not, for instance, a 23 y/o capt who is dating a FO.

A Capt dating a FO isn't an issue since FOs are senior members, so yeah, I mean an 18 year old FO dating a cadet.