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)