CPPT ?

[Flying Pig]

We have a cadet who's father is a member also.  They live about one hour from the Sq. location.  Our Sq. Leadership Officer also lives in the same area and literally drives past the cadets house to come to CAP.  This cadets father teaches college on meeting nights so the cadets mother is actually driving right behind the other Senior to bring her son to CAP.  The father then comes after school and takes his son.  Both the cadet and the Senior are male.  This scenario defies common sense.

I am seeing nothing in CPPT that prevents this member and the parents from making arrangements to get their son to the meeting because travel to and from a meeting is not a CAP activity. 

[afgeo4]

Travel to/from CAP aren't activities, but what CAP members do around each other while traveling to/from CAP activities is the responsibility of CAP. We have the CPPT not so we know how to deal with situations when they arise and not so we're smarter, but so these situations don't happen in the first place.

The parents may trust him now, but who will they blame if something does happen?

They will blame the organization that their son is in immediate custody of. Remember, until they take possession of the cadet, the cadet remains the responsibility of CAP.

Please explain that to all persons involved and protect your members, both senior and cadet by not putting them into questionable situations in the first place.

[mikeylikey]

I see no problem.  Save gas and cash for the parents, may actually keep the cadet in the program!  

[afgeo4]

I see no problem.  Save gas and cash for the parents, may actually keep the cadet in the program! 

CPPT directly states that a cadet and a senior member CANNOT be in a vehicle by themselves and cannot be in a closed space by themselves no matter what their sex is. Remember, the CPPT isn't a sexual harassment policy. That regulation was created to protect the Cadet first and foremost, but it does protect seniors too. What if the cadet had an argument with the Senior involved and made up allegations of misbehavior by the senior? You're placing the senior in a defenseless situation.

[DC]

I see no problem.  Save gas and cash for the parents, may actually keep the cadet in the program! 

CPPT directly states that a cadet and a senior member CANNOT be in a vehicle by themselves and cannot be in a closed space by themselves no matter what their sex is. Remember, the CPPT isn't a sexual harassment policy. That regulation was created to protect the Cadet first and foremost, but it does protect seniors too. What if the cadet had an argument with the Senior involved and made up allegations of misbehavior by the senior? You're placing the senior in a defenseless situation.

After the meeting is concluded it is no longer a CAP activity. If the SM and the cadet and their parents are comfortable then I see no problem.

What if the cadet and senior are related, can they not be alone together while in uniform? If you anticipate and fear every possible thing that could go wrong you will never get anything accomplished...

[FW]

I am seeing nothing in CPPT that prevents this member and the parents from making arrangements to get their son to the meeting because travel to and from a meeting is not a CAP activity.  

There is nothing in CAPR 52-10 which prohibits a non related senior member taking a cadet to and from a CAP meeting or activity.  However, it is strongly incouraged to get signed permission, from the parent, to allow this.  (CAPR 52-10 para 5c.)

[afgeo4]

Did you yourself take CPPT? From your comments you sound like you didn't take it or failed it.

I assure you, if you do allow this to continue and something does happen, you will take a GIANT fall for it. Legally. You are obligated by the program to comply with the Cadet Protection Policy. It is NOT up to you to make decisions on when to apply it and when not to. This policy isn't there to protect you. Either follow it or don't work anywhere near cadets.

Furthermore, you stand in being reported to your superiors if you continue to act like CPPT is an optional thing.

[afgeo4]

I am seeing nothing in CPPT that prevents this member and the parents from making arrangements to get their son to the meeting because travel to and from a meeting is not a CAP activity. 

There is nothing in CAPR 52-10 which prohibits a non related senior member taking a cadet to and from a CAP meeting or activity.  However, it is strongly incouraged to get signed permission, from the parent, to allow this.  (CAPR 52-10 para 5c.)

There is something that specifically prohibits a senior member from being in a vehicle with a cadet, by themselves. The rule of 3 does apply here.

[jeders]

There is something that specifically prohibits a senior member from being in a vehicle with a cadet, by themselves. The rule of 3 does apply here.

Actually there isn't, at least not in 52-10, didn't check the reg on Motor Vehicle Operations, though I doubt there's anything in there pertaining to this discussion.

Also, from a legal standpoint, if the parent signs a permission slip saying it's ok for little Susie or Johnny to ride with SM Boxadonuts, then they can't sue. That's the whole point of a permission slip. That's why your school made you get permission slips signed by your parents all the time when we were kids.

[afgeo4]

jeders, are you a lawyer?

[Flying Pig]

Alright.  I came on seeking advice from members on a scenario I had not experienced.  I have recieved about 15 different answers from both members in personal conversation and on this site, and then am accused of being a danger to children everywhere and failing CAP courses?  I never said it was personally up to me to authorize it.  Nor have I even given the thumbs up to the members to go ahead with it.  If we will notice, there is even disagreement here as to what is allowed through CPPT.

afgeo4....Could you please point out where I said that I felt CPPT was optional?  I dont need to be preached to regarding the dangers of the legal system and child molestation.

I have recieved my answer elsewhere.

[Eclipse]

Sorry, FP, Capt. Lurye knows not of what he speaks.

There is no "rule of three", no gender specification with regards to supervision, and no rule prohibiting an adult member from being in a room, vehicle, airplane or hovercraft alone with a cadet.

The only rule regarding supervision is there must be at least 1 senior at any activity, and at least two (no gender spec) on an overnight.

Anything else may be common sense CYA, or perhaps dictated by a wing policy, but it is not mandated in 52-10 or anywhere else.

If this cadet's parent(s) are cool with it, no issue.

[jeders]

jeders, are you a lawyer?

No, are you?

If this cadet's parent(s) are cool with it, no issue.

That's always been my position too.

[Nathan]

Furthermore, you stand in being reported to your superiors if you continue to act like CPPT is an optional thing.

Threatening to turn in another member for a question asked on a CAP forum is SO uncool... I'd love to be there when you're actually trying to explain what the Lt did wrong, but still uncool.

If you can find regulatory backing for your ideas, great. Until you post them, though, you certainly have no right to threaten members, especially with what may be nothing more than a passionate position.

[afgeo4]

Furthermore, you stand in being reported to your superiors if you continue to act like CPPT is an optional thing.

Threatening to turn in another member for a question asked on a CAP forum is SO uncool... I'd love to be there when you're actually trying to explain what the Lt did wrong, but still uncool.

If you can find regulatory backing for your ideas, great. Until you post them, though, you certainly have no right to threaten members, especially with what may be nothing more than a passionate position.

You know what's more uncool? Putting members in a questionable situation which you know is wrong (or he wouldn't be bringing it up here).

And if their superiors find that they've done the right thing then no one would get in trouble, right?

[afgeo4]

jeders, are you a lawyer?

No, are you?

If this cadet's parent(s) are cool with it, no issue.

That's always been my position too.

You are giving legal advice. I suggest you stay clear of it unless you are a lawyer. Otherwise, you are practicing law without a license. Now... I'm saying he's opening himself, his unit and CAP up for potential legal issues. I'm not saying that what he's doing is illegal.

[jeders]

You are giving legal advice. I suggest you stay clear of it unless you are a lawyer.

Ditto.

Otherwise, you are practicing law without a license.

I'm pretty sure it takes more than that to be practicing law without a license.

... (or he wouldn't be bringing it up here).

Guilty until proven innocent, niiice.

And just as a totally irrelevant side note simply because it's a little annoying at times, it is possible to respond to multiple posts without making multiple posts, as demonstrated above.

[Eclipse]

For the sake of clarity as this comes up regularly here and elsewhere...

d. Ensure that at least two "approved" senior members are present at all overnight cadet activities. Encourage at least two senior members to be present at all cadet activities (with the exception of chaplain counseling or cadet orientation flights). This policy is for the protection of the senior members as well as the cadets.

1-3. Supervision & Cadet Protection Policies.

a. Proper Supervision. Unit commanders will take all reasonable measures necessary to protect cadets from harm while under CAP supervision. Senior members will be present at all activities involving cadets. For CAP guidelines on the Cadet Protection Policy, see CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy, and CAPP 50-3, CAP Cadet Protection Training Instructor's Guide and Student Materials.

b. Transportation to and from Encampments:
(1) Transportation to and from encampments is the responsibility of the member. Commanders may, on an as available basis, provide CAP vehicle or aircraft transportation. CAP does not exercise control or supervision over travel performed by members, unless CAP transportation is furnished. CAP does not assume any responsibility for travel performed by members to or from encampments or special activities (See CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Owned Vehicles).

The word "CADET" appears 10 times in CAPR 77-1, however it is silent with regards to transportation of them specifically.  This document only references cadets with regards to reporting vehicle activity involving them and the table of allowances to justify vehicle requests.

1) Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments, and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP member and passengers. This is known as the "home-to-work-rule." CAP assumes no right of control, liability, or responsibility for such transportation.

b. Member Owned Vehicles. The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP. CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." CAP unit commanders may, on a case-by-case basis, specifically authorize the use of a member's vehicle, which will make that use the responsibility of CAP and be covered by CAP's vehicle liability policy, but that prerogative should be exercised only in unusual situations. See CAPR 77-1.

Generally, this means that a minimum of two senior members will be present when appropriate and feasible. Two senior members must be present at any overnight cadet activity. This requirement also protects our members from false allegations of abuse.

All emphasis above is mine.

[afgeo4]

All citings above are correct.

However, the vehicle regulations refer to vehicle accidents/incidents and not to possible CPPT violations while in a vehicle. Context is important.

[mikeylikey]

I may not be a lawyer, but everyone is way off here in saying we are either practicing law without a license, or should not be giving advice to a legitimate question.

I can give whatever "legal" advice I wish to anyone in this country, and if they choose to act on it, and it turns out to be wrong and gets the person in trouble, I am totally blameless.  Why?  Because I don't have a legal degree, am not a J.D., and am not licensed to practice law in any state and accepted no payment for my advice.  The whole "buyer beware" rule applies to this situation.  

I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision.  

As far as I am concerned, I see no problem driving a Cadet to a meeting, and home again.  Would I personally do it?  NO WAY IN HELL, don't any of you read the newspapers or watch the news.  You have no idea if the whole thing is a set-up by the parents to get "free money" from CAP, by having the Kid claim you "touched him or her".  

Today's world, this happens MORE than you would think.  We may not hear of each instance, because by the time the matter reaches trial, the lying kid or his parents are either paid off, or the case is dismissed at a lower level.  

My advice, to the original poster........your choice.  If you have a personal relationship with the Cadet and his or her parents and feel they are trustworthy individuals and would never make false accusations about you, feel free to drive the Cadet.  If you have any doubt, I would not even bring the topic up to the parents or Cadet.

Bottom line, protecting yourself first is most important when dealing with Cadets in any situation.  Are you prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees if accusations are made?  Are you prepared to loose your job, your house, your own family?  Are you prepared to be registered as a sex offender?  Are you??

I am not, but in the CAP documents that everyone is referencing above have nothing in them regarding driving Cadets to meetings.  That is why I suggest you push this up to the PAID legal department at NHQ.  Perhaps they will add a section in one of the Reg's on this exact subject.

(This was hugely long winded, and I apologize)

[Eclipse]

The point here is not to encourage seniors to put themselves at risk from a legal or liability standpoint, as we mentioned above, there are common sense CYA steps that very member should take.

In regards to the IANAL nonsense, the discussion of CAP regulations certainly falls within the purview of even the newest member.  Whether and how they may intersect with external laws is irrelevant to an internal CAP discussion, just as CAP's regs on "duty to report" cannot exempt or change a member's DTR based on local laws.

For the record on that, btw, I'm not aware of any law in any state which would prohibit a single adult from giving a single child, of any age, a ride in a vehicle, assuming it is not a kidnapping or similar situation. It is especially silly to indicate that two members of the same organization could not ride together, regardless of age or gender, assuming the parents approve. (YMMV on risk tolerance)

However, all CYA aside, we can't be paralyzed by a misunderstanding of a given regulation.  I have had discussions with members who believe they are basically stranded in the woods if "the other senior has to leave or is hurt".  Obviously this is silly and not even what the regs dictate.

Extrapolate the above from there.

[Nathan]

All citings above are correct.

However, the vehicle regulations refer to vehicle accidents/incidents and not to possible CPPT violations while in a vehicle. Context is important.

Fine. Context.

Where's yours?

I honestly don't have a CPPT publication within range (at work), so if you would be so kind (as Maj Williams already has), could you please provide where the regulations REQUIRE the "rule of three"?

Since you are worried about legality and everything, I thought it would be appropriate to at least lay your cards on the table so we can then begin to compare syntax and so on.

[Flying Pig]

Let me clarify...I thought it was pretty obvious.  These members came to me and gave me the scenario and asked if this could be done.  This was 3 days ago.  As the Commander, I said "Stand-by, let me do some research."  And here we are.   
Now it has degraded into people telling others they are going to be reported and who can and cant give legal advice. 
Lets tone this down and try and find the answer because it obviously isn't as crystal clear as we all thought. My initial action was to consult CPPT policy.  Not really clear on the topic is it?  My next step was to put a call into people in CAWG.  Honestly, I should have left it at that.  But, I thought it would be an informative topic of discussion,  so I brought it here. 

[Ned]

I am seeing nothing in CPPT that prevents this member and the parents from making arrangements to get their son to the meeting because travel to and from a meeting is not a CAP activity. 

Let me see if I can help.  I am a lawyer, and have even played one on TV.   

I am also the Region DCP responsible for California.


And Robert, your instincts are correct.  There is certainly no rule that would forbid the scenario you have described.

Continue to employ your common sense and you will be fine.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[afgeo4]

Let me clarify...I thought it was pretty obvious.  These members came to me and gave me the scenario and asked if this could be done.  This was 3 days ago.  As the Commander, I said "Stand-by, let me do some research."  And here we are.   
Now it has degraded into people telling others they are going to be reported and who can and cant give legal advice. 
Lets tone this down and try and find the answer because it obviously isn't as crystal clear as we all thought. My initial action was to consult CPPT policy.  Not really clear on the topic is it?  My next step was to put a call into people in CAWG.  Honestly, I should have left it at that.  But, I thought it would be an informative topic of discussion,  so I brought it here. 

As a measure of CYA, you should just follow what CAWG DCP tells you. If you get the authorization to do so, then they'll take the hit if it goes sour on you.

I personally would never do this simply because I don't want to put people in a questionable situation (I have dealt with a very similar issue before and it wasn't pretty).

The point of CPPT is to protect cadets and senior members from abuse. If you feel you are doing that, go ahead. If you feel that the protection is inadequate... make it adequate.

[Flying Pig]

OK...Ill do that

[BlackKnight]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision.  

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

[Eclipse]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision. 

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

Everyone has their own risk threshold, but I have no idea what further information anyone would need...

The regs are clearly written and posted above for personal reading, the Region DCP has come on and said everything is fine as described.

If that's too much risk for personal tolerance, just don't do it.  No one needs any further justification than "I'm not comfortable doing ./ allowing that."

What further would be gained by runnig this through 'Bama?  I get this all the time:

"Can we do this?"

"Yes, CAPR OU812 clearly says you can."

"We better check with NHQ, just to be sure."

((*sigh*))

[afgeo4]

[snip]
I suggest this question be run up through NHQ, and we await a decision. 

Normally that's good advice, but beware of asking a question that generates a "CYA answer" from NHQ with unexpected regulatory consequences.  Remember a few years back when someone asked the wrong question of the FAA and IRS, resulting in a ruling and policy memo stating that only CAP pilots with commercial ratings could receive cost reimbursement for cadet O-flights?  What a mess that was.

Everyone has their own risk threshold, but I have no idea what further information anyone would need...

The regs are clearly written and posted above for personal reading, the Region DCP has come on and said everything is fine as described.

If that's too much risk for personal tolerance, just don't do it.  No one needs any further justification than "I'm not comfortable doing ./ allowing that."

What further would be gained by runnig this through 'Bama?  I get this all the time:

"Can we do this?"

"Yes, CAPR OU812 clearly says you can."

"We better check with NHQ, just to be sure."

((*sigh*))

On the other hand, the gov't has a history of saying "sure, you can do that" only to find out that doing it causes you great harm or death. CAP has a history of old regulations that make no sense when applied in real life too. Sometimes, getting clarification is the best advice. I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

[Eclipse]

I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

Actually, there is.

Its called "Analysis paralysis" 

Analysis paralysis is an informal phrase applied when the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits.

[Fifinella]

FWIW: the (NON-CAP) policy on base when transporting children (who are not yours) one-on-one is to have the minor ride in the back seat.  Less opportunity for mischief.  Protects both minor and adults from some allegations/actions.  [This policy applies to youth workers, child care providers, etc., NOT every car pool Mom]

[SarDragon]

Kids with me ALWAYS ride in the back seat, mine or not, regardless of numbers. Safer there.

[afgeo4]

I think, when it comes to members' safety, there's no such thing as too much worrying.

Actually, there is.

Its called "Analysis paralysis" 

Analysis paralysis is an informal phrase applied when the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits.

Please apply "opportunity costs" to goods/services, not people's lives. The opportunity cost of a human life is not something you can make up for afterwards. As such, analysis paralysis is I believe, an inappropriate concept in this case. It can, certainly, be used  to analyze mission capabilities and/or resources (humans can be a resource, but it is their mission value that is the resource, not their lives).

[floridacyclist]

If the Opportunity Cost includes causing a member to not participate for whatever reason (transportation, money issues etc), then that can have a direct negative impact on their lives...unless you believe that participating actively as a member has no real value in which case we all might as well stay home on meeting nights.

If that were true, then I would have to say "Thank you sir for just freeing up more time for me to spend with my children."

[afgeo4]

If the Opportunity Cost includes causing a member to not participate for whatever reason (transportation, money issues etc), then that can have a direct negative impact on their lives...unless you believe that participating actively as a member has no real value in which case we all might as well stay home on meeting nights.

Thank you sir for just freeing up more time for me to spend with my children.

Absolutely, we always face difficulties in recruiting and retention. However, if you weigh in a cadet's loss in ability to be an active member of CAP vs. a cadet's well-being... I think the choice should be clear. I think our first priority has to be the safety of our members, not our membership numbers. We also cannot change our organization to suit everyone. CAP isn't for everyone.

[floridacyclist]

Then we all need to stay home...we might have a wreck on the way to the meeting.

Seriously, the point is that there is a line to be drawn where you make a decision regarding the amount of acceptable risk you are willing to take in order to gain a defined benefit. This is basic risk/benefit analysis, and the final hand doesn't always come down on the side of "no-go" or we would be paralyzed. You make that decision every time you climb in an airplane or get in a car....or get up off of the couch. I'm not so much saying where that line should be as much as I am pointing out that it isn't as clearly defined as some might like, and "Opportunity Costs" are not so narrowly-defined as to only cover "Goods and Services" as was implied; they include many human "Quality of Life" issues as well.

Even sitting on the couch has it's own risks as seen by the heart disease rates in this country....and not participating in CAP (or other character-developing programs) has it's share of risks when you consider how many kids without access or motivation to be here end up in gangs or dead on the street.

Would I let this SM ride alone with the cadet? I honestly can't say.....perhaps I would try to find someone else to ride with them...or ask that they log their times on and off the road. Or I might say no. I'm in the middle of an incident right now that has me wondering exactly who can anyone trust, but I'm not sure how relevant something like this would be to the current situation. I just won't pretend that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of managed risk if the benefits are worth it either.

[afgeo4]

Then we all need to stay home...we might have a wreck on the way to the meeting.

Seriously, the point is that there is a line to be drawn where you make a decision regarding the amount of acceptable risk you are willing to take in order to gain a defined benefit. This is basic risk/benefit analysis, and the final hand doesn't always come down on the side of "no-go" or we would be paralyzed. You make that decision every time you climb in an airplane or get in a car....or get up off of the couch. I'm not so much saying where that line should be as much as I am pointing out that it isn't as clearly defined as some might like, and "Opportunity Costs" are not so narrowly-defined as to only cover "Goods and Services" as was implied; they include many human "Quality of Life" issues as well.

Even sitting on the couch has it's own risks as seen by the heart disease rates in this country....and not participating in CAP (or other character-developing programs) has it's share of risks when you consider how many kids without access or motivation to be here end up in gangs or dead on the street.

Would I let this SM ride alone with the cadet? I honestly can't say.....perhaps I would try to find someone else to ride with them...or ask that they log their times on and off the road. Or I might say no. I'm in the middle of an incident right now that has me wondering exactly who can anyone trust, but I'm not sure how relevant something like this would be to the current situation. I just won't pretend that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of managed risk if the benefits are worth it either.

I agree with you. One can never manage all the risks. However, we must do our best to manage risks like child abuse, right? As far as vehicular accidents... that's not covered in this thread.

[John Bryan]

I love these type debates...even though the reg is black and white is plan english there are still those who think it means something else. I think too many people read things into ALL of our regs not just 52-10......

Having said that, let me add another what if....real question that came up from a new member in my squadron about 8 or 10 years ago...reg was about the same then.

This lady joined a few months after her 13 yr old son. She went through CPPT and was very concerned about how much "trouble" she could get into. Here was her concern. along with her son the 12 yr old next door also joined. They had been best friends since around age 6 or 7....as is the case many times the 2 boys would stay over at each others houses and go places with each others families. She came to me and asked if CAP was really going to require that the kid next door stop coming over, spending the night or going places with her family. I of course laughed and said no CAP does not hold control over your life , your car or your house. I understand this is different then the post above....BUT other officers had tried a number of times to explain how CPPT meant she would have to stop allowing her sons friend to come over or one of them would have to quit.

In the orginal question and my story I think the rule of read and follow the regs would work :angel:

My 3 cents