OHIO
From the article –
“The district is not responsible for anything that happens when they are offsite,” Haselman said. Parents are required to sign off on liability. District officials are waiting to see the impact of groups of students leaving and returning during the school day.
“We’re hoping we’re able to have protocols in place to limit the disruptions that may take place,” Haselman said”.
**While we admire and greatly appreciate the support of Mr. Haselman (Bowling Green Superintendent) for doing EVERYTHING in his power to protect his community and children- unfortunately our Ohio legislature MANDATED the schools to allow this…. 😡
‼️This is an important legal/operational question for any district allowing Release Time Religious Instruction (RTRI) like LifeWise. Let’s break down the issues in the statement and what the law generally says.
‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️
🔍 Analysis of the Statement
1. “The district is not responsible for anything that happens when they are offsite.”
• This is the district’s assertion, but not necessarily a legal shield. Under federal precedent (e.g., Zorach v. Clauson), schools can release students during the day, but the moment a school allows release, it assumes some duty to ensure the program is structured safely. Courts have repeatedly held that districts cannot simply “wash their hands” of liability by declaration.
2. “Parents are required to sign off on liability.”
• Parent waivers are not absolute. Courts often strike them down when they conflict with children’s rights or involve negligence by a school. A parent cannot fully waive a child’s right to be free from harm. If a student is injured walking to or from the RTRI site (or if the program is negligent in transportation), the district could still be sued—especially if the district facilitated or endorsed the program.
3. “We’re hoping we’re able to have protocols in place to limit the disruptions…”
• This acknowledges the district is anticipating disruption. If disruption harms a student’s educational rights (lost instructional time, stigma, unequal treatment), parents could argue the district is failing in its constitutional and statutory duties—even beyond physical liability.
⸻
⚖️ Liability Reality
• Duty of Care: Schools have a non-delegable duty to safeguard students during school hours. Even if they are “released,” the fact that release happens under school auspices creates potential liability if a student is harmed.
• Parental Waivers: These may help in some limited tort cases, but they do not protect against negligence by the district, constitutional violations, or civil rights claims. Courts often view child waivers skeptically.
• Transportation/Attendance: If the district coordinates, tracks attendance, or provides logistical support, it remains tied to what happens offsite.
⸻
✅ Bottom Line
Requiring parents to “sign off” does not eliminate district liability. At best, it may provide a defense in limited situations, but:
• The school can still be held liable if a student is harmed while leaving, returning, or in connection with school coordination.
• Constitutional challenges (e.g., coercion, equal protection, establishment clause) are unaffected by liability waivers.
• As we have ACTUALLY seen occur, if the school sends a child off campus by mistake, without parental permission- the school can absolutely be held liable.
• Civil rights protections for children cannot be waived by parents.
What people are saying:
- Facebook User: I am concerned about liability as well as the logistics. This places an unnecessary logistical burden on teachers. The school will also need to have guidelines in place to deal with the problematic student behaviors related to Lifewise recruitment.
- Facebook User: So, do I talk to the principal or superintendent about removing my grand kid from school so we can do something educational, INSTEAD of him going to Lifewise, or sitting in a class room not having fun. Maybe I can teach him about Cthulhu or critical thinking.
Leave a Reply