[ScottGem]

Hmmm, went back to reread the OP and I think we are reading things differently, though on rereading, I can see how.

The OP said; "The police came and the Doctor and his family changed their tune and the Doctor and his family were wrong in knowing the location of my son."

I took this to mean that the doctor and his family denied knowing where the runaway was to the police. I was basing my comments on that interpretation.
If the family did, in fact, tell the police then there is a different scenario. But if my interpretion is correct, then I stand by my position here. I really can't see the doctor standing by his son to the parents and immediately caving to the police. A doctor, well-known in the community, would be more likely to know his obligations and assume he would have to deal with the police.

I hope the OP comes back here and fills in the blanks.

[valinors_sorrow]

Forgive me, I am not factoring in whether he told the police where the kid is for real. That is a non-factoring element to me. I only meant by "blab so fast to the police"... his haste in making a statement to the police, claim of non involvement withstanding as the OP stated. It was an example that I made. That is all.

Here is the deal. IF you believe the OP heard him say the doctor knew where the child was (and I do)...
AND IF you believe the OP knows for a fact the doctor lied to the police (and I do)...
Then there is not much argument about what would have very likely taken place had the good doctor admitting to knowing where the child is. That is the point any debate began for me...

The question becomes: what would make a doctor lie like that? Surely not malice to the missing boy's family. Its either VERY LIKELY withholding knowledge of the boy's whereabouts is illegal with repurcussions for the doctor and/or son, or the doctor routinely takes enormous risks lying to the police, which seems I think really off the ritcher scale to both of us Scott.

In other words its like that riddle about being locked up in a room with two robots, one lies and one tells the truth, but that's already a whole n'other thread.

Whether the doctor tells the truth or lies, it still reasonably indicates what I suggested. Okay?

[excon]

1. Either the doctor was so intimidated by the police.

2. He saw his mistake about the higher obligation at this time, either with or without direct involvement of the police and changed his tactics.

3. There are legal grounds to compell him to talk.

Hello again:

I vote for number one. I don't see where he lied to the police.

Number #3 would indicate the police, in a calm and reasonable manner, explained the legal principals of their position, vs the legal principals of his. Bwa ha ha ha.

Uhhhh, cops don't do that! Cops INTIMIDATE!

excon

[tyklmyfnz]

Dear All,
Thank you very much for your opinions and responses. My son is home safe and we have agreed to ALL get counseling as a family unit. First let me say, that I am in no way a PERFECT parent, however my son is not a perfect child either. As I have said before he is 15 and I do believe his testosterone is overriding his common sense. My son has been in the past a great kid. This was the first time he ran away. The point being here was/is, was it legal to have the Doctor withhold the whereabouts of my son? No one knows for sure at this point. However, the pen is mightier than the sword. Once word gets out in the small community that we live in, his patients may think differently about his behavior. Yes, I agree he should stand by his son's promise not to tell where my son was... but what promise did he make to my son? None. As it turned out, my son NEVER contacted their son. His son found out through another mutual friend that he had ran away. And they never knew for SURE where my son was... So not only did the " Good Doctor " ASSUME he knew where my son was, putting me on a roller coaster of emotions, he has proven to be a professional that relies on assumptions than fact. Plus he created a mistrust issue with some or many of his neighbors, patients, and possibly peers. Fact here is; Should'nt we as parents work TOGETHER to protect OUR kids from dangers as much as HUMANELY possible? To ensure a safe networking system to INVOLVE each other and not alienate each other? Morally, he should have said, what I know is this, etc. At which point I could have been on my way. But he admitted to me without a doubt, said he knew. Which leads me to believe that this Doctor shouldn't be in the field that helps people. He obviously isn't in it for the care of humanity!

To EXCON: May I ask, why were you in jail?

The Doctor said to me and I quote " I know where your son is. We all do. (Meaning his family) I am not going to tell you where he is and my son does not have to either." But when the police came, I was standing outside the door and heard the whole conversation. It went like this:
Police: We have a complaint that you know where her son is?
Doctor: Yes, we were told that he is at Ethan's house.
Police: Who told you that?
Doctor: A friend of my son's.
Police: When did hear this?
Doctor: About an hour or so ago.
Police: Have you or your son talked to the missing boy?
Doctor: No.
Police: Did you tell the boy's mother you knew, but wouldn't tell her?
Doctor: Yes, because I didn't want my son to break a confidence with her son.
Police: OK, thanks for your time and we will contact you if we need anymore information on this.

So, as I heard the whole converstaion, I can say there was NO intimidation by the police here. And the Doctor and his family were basing their information purely on second hand knowledge. Which, makes me believe once again that the Doctor here is wrong for with holding that information from me. There would have been no breech in confidentiality as it was second hand information.

[valinors_sorrow]

I vote for number one. I don't see where he lied to the police.

Then you must think the OP either lied to by the doctor when he claimed to know the location of her missing child or the OP was lied to by the police when they told her the doctor didn't know the location. Care to explain this?

Number #3 would indicate the police, in a calm and reasonable manner, explained the legal principals of their position, vs the legal principals of his. Bwa ha ha ha. Uhhhh, cops don't do that! Cops INTIMIDATE!

I am not naïve or unaware about cops, either good or bad and the range of their actions, excon. It was meant more of a statement on how well any intimidation worked or failed to on the doctor.

The Doctor said to me and I quote " I know where your son is. We all do. (Meaning his family) I am not going to tell you where he is and my son does not have to either." But when the police came, I was standing outside the door and heard the whole conversation. It went like this:
Police: We have a complaint that you know where her son is?
Doctor: Yes, we were told that he is at Ethan's house.
Police: Who told you that?
Doctor: A friend of my son's.
Police: When did hear this?
Doctor: About an hour or so ago.
Police: Have you or your son talked to the missing boy?
Doctor: No.
Police: Did you tell the boy's mother you knew, but wouldn't tell her?
Doctor: Yes, because I didn't want my son to break a confidence with her son.
Police: OK, thanks for your time and we will contact you if we need anymore information on this.

So, as I heard the whole converstaion, I can say there was NO intimidation by the police here. And the Doctor and his family were basing their information purely on second hand knowledge. Which, makes me believe once again that the Doctor here is wrong for with holding that information from me. There would have been no breech in confidentiality as it was second hand information.

Thank you for the enlightment, and I bet you my last wooden nickel the smart doctor called his attorney between your visit and the cops and the attorney advised him to sing like a canary because of what was at risk not to. While its possible he changed his own mind about his ethics when the police arrived, I still call that less probable knowing doctors as I do. Can we please end this debate now? Thank you.

I am really pleased to hear your son is home safe, you see a bigger picture from this and are seeking help with the solutions -- bravo! Far far more important than the validity of withholding information being a legally protected position in all circumstances with the police. The only way to know for certain is ask a legal professional-- attorney, judge, etc.

[ScottGem]

Ok, almost all the blanks are filled in except the most important one, why the son ran away in the first place.

Let me put it this way. Lets say the doctor was told the son ran away because he was being abused (whether or not it was true). Lets also assume the doctor was being told he was safe at the home of someone he knew. In that scenario, I think the doctor was correct in not telling the parent but telling the police. The police would then get children's services involved.

That's why I think the reason for running away is the key piece of info here.

Frankly, I think tyklmyfnz is focusing too much on the doctor and seems to be trying to ruin the doctor out of anger. From what we have now been told, the son was presumed to be in a safe location. So there wasn't an issue of the son being in danger. The doctor then performed his civic duty by telling the police where the son was.

So I still don't see where the doctor did anything really bad here. And I would caution tyklmyfnz that you may be giving the doctor cause for a slander suit if you persist in badmouthing him.

[s_cianci]

I agree with everyone else that you've spoken to. That doctor had no right to hide the whereabouts of your son from you. He was in the wrong, certainly morally and ethically and probably legally as well.

I also don't think we highjacked the thread. The original question was basically whether the doctor had a right not to tell where the son was or a duty to tell. The OP seemed to think the doctor was "morally" obligated to tell.

To sum up, I think the fact that he is a doctor has no bearing on the situation since he was not acting in a doctor/patient relation. I also think the doctor was under no legal obligation to reveal what he knew. And I don't think we know enough to determine whether he was under a moral obligation. We would have to know why the son ran away and whether he was in any danger to determine that.

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.

Whether there might have been legal ramifications to the doctor's actions we can't know since we don't know more about why the son ran away and where he was.

All the people the OP talked to who said the docotor was wrong may have been talking with more knowledge then we have. But based on what we do know, I would have to say the docotor wasn't wrong.

The doctor's profession is totally notwithstanding as the situation did not occur (presumably) within the course of his medical practice. As a parent myself, I believe he was morally obligated to inform the mother of her son's whereabouts. As a citizen, I'm not sure whether he could be criminally liable for withholding such information. I'm inclined to believe he could because the child involved is a minor. Now, if he were adult instead, then I would say absolutely not (unless he were a known criminal and the doctor was deliberately harboring him as a fugitive. But that's getting off topic.) If, instead of a mother looking for her son it were a wife looking for her husband, then legally he'd have no obligation whatsoever to disclose his whereabouts. Also, as a citizen, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctor could be held civilly liable big-time if anything happened to the boy in question that could have possibly been prevented had the doctor disclosed his whereabouts. Given the litigous society in which we live I can't believe that nobody realizes that. If it could be proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any harm that came to the boy could have been prevented had the doctor disclosed what he knew to the mother, then he'd be civilly liable up to his neck. Maybe not guilty of a crime, but responsible for some big-time damages.

[valinors_sorrow]

So I still don't see where the doctor did anything really bad here. And I would caution tyklmyfnz that you may be giving the doctor cause for a slander suit if you persist in badmouthing him.

Now there's an interesting notion: I say "slander" like that all you like. I know factually that legitimate slander suits, like copyright enfringement suits are complicated, difficult and seldom pursued. By Scott's example here of it, I "slander" all over the place LOL-- its called narrating my truthful experience. Could that cost someone some business? I hope so -- it should! :D

First excon proposed we be concerned about talking to the cops and now Scott suggests we fear the doctor. I am glad to say bah humbug to both ideas and relieved you did too, Mom. I wholeheartedly agree that the doctor shows a sadly-too-typical arrogance favoring his son's word over the concern of a parent with no apparent provocation and only yields when a higher authority gets involved.

[tyklmyfnz]

Hi All... This topic really brought some interesting comments. First of all the reason my son ran away is quite irrelevant. However the reason was... When I picked him up from school he told me he had been searched for possibly having pot. My son felt like his "rights" were violated. After trying to explain to my son that the school can search any minor any time or place on school grounds, he became very irritated with me. Saying I didn't stand up for him and in turn caused a huge fight between us. By the way they didn't find anything on my son. However, that doesn't mean that my son is innocent of using pot. Hence the counseling. So, the fight between us was caused by me insisting that my son not do drugs of kind. He feels as most teens do and maybe some adults, that "pot" is OK and I do not. Now as far as some of you may feel, I am not slandering the Doctor. I have not said anything that wasn't already made public record. Anytime the police are called, there is a case number issued and a report made. Of course my son's name is not used because of him being a minor. But the Doctor's is. If the police choose to print this particular case in the local paper that is up to them. Not me. What some of you are forgetting is that my son is a minor. Running away is only a crime when he breaks curfew laws. Which he did. At least this is what I am told. Also, another point to ponder here is what if my son was hurt and the Doctor actually did know his exact location? Then he would be up the old proverbial creek so to speak. I just wanted my son back home safe. I wasn't about to press any charges. The Doctor and his family should have complied and told me where they "thought he was." It would have saved a lot of effort, time and emotional stress on everyone. As I stated before. Parents and professionals need to work together as a team to help OUR KIDS learn morals and values. Just because its legal or illegal doesn't mean its right or wrong. I do know that having a kid home safe is a hell of a lot more important that getting a call from the coroner. Once again the Doctor didn't view that as important to him as it was too me. Oh and by the way, the Doctors kid, has been busted for having drugs at school and is a perfect straight "D" student. How ironic. I know his son. His son is not perfect either. But I would never, never withhold any information if the situation was reversed. Any other questions or facts that are needed I will be more than happy to answer. As far as if this site has helped me or not, yes it has. Thanks Again

[ScottGem]

Sorry but, as I have detailed, the reason for the runaway is VERY relevant. Now that we seem to know most of the relevant facts. I'm still not convinced the doctor acted erroneously. I will say its not the way I would have acted. In his place I would have told my son that he should convince his friend to go home. But I don't see this as a runaway case. I see this (with the info provided) as a teenager getting real angry with a parent and going to a friends house to cool off without telling the parent.

I suspect you live in a fairly small community (they have curfew laws?? ). I'm not sure the police would have responded in a larger community, until the son had been missing overnite, though in today's climate with Amber Alerts, that might have changed. But since there was no evidence of abduction it probably wouldn't have qualified as an Amber Alert.

What I would have done with what the doctor told you is to say alright, if you are sure he's safe, can you just have him call home. I'm not mad at him I just want to know that he's safe. I would have tried to give him some space and cool off time.

In your initial note you spoke about everyone you had spoken to agreed that the doctor was wrong. In a follow-up you said; "Once word gets out in the small community that we live in, his patients may think differently about his behavior.". This seems to indicate that you are speaking out against the doctor. And if you are saying that what he did was illegal or unethical, he might have a case against you.

Bottomline line here is that, while what the doctor did was probably not the smartest thing to do or the best way for a parent to act, it wasn't illegal. I don't think it was even unethical.

I think you need to move forward on this and work at repairing the rift with your son and forget about your anger towards the doctor.

[excon]

Hello again tk:

Thanks for explaining.

In the very first place, you are mistaken, and your son is correct. His rights WERE violated. The school OWNS his locker. That's why they can look in there. But your son cannot be randomly searched by ANYONE simply because he's on school grounds. He's an American too.

It is a shame that parents have to protect their children, EVEN from the police. That's not to say that cops are ALL enemy's, but they are not your friend either.

I have to chuckle when I see cops interviewed and they say they became a cop because they wanted to “help” people. Actually, what they really want is to “bust” people. That's not a criticism of cops. That's their job. I just wish they'd admit it.

Pot? Big deal. He's right. It's prevalent. You're not going to stop him by being on his case about it. As a matter of fact, YOU'RE not going to stop him at all. HE will, or HE won't.

Maybe if you could find that middle ground…… where you trusted him a little.

excon

[tyklmyfnz]

I think you need to move forward on this and work at repairing the rift with your son and forget about your anger towards the doctor.

I don't have anger towards the Doctor. If you recall I stated that I was looking into counseling. Which we have our first appointment today. I don't know what you do as a profession, but it sounds like you may not have children of your own.

I suspect you live in a fairly small community (they have curfew laws?? ). Yes, we have curfew laws, as every city does.

In any case, thanks for your opinions.

[ScottGem]

First, not every city has curfew laws. In fact, most don't. They are more likely in small towns and villages. Second, most curfew laws are not enforced except in case of a civil emergency.

Third, I do have a daughter. As to my profession it is not relevant in this instance, but I will state I am not a professioonal counselor.

Finally, yes you did indicate you were looking into counseling, but that appeared to be to help your relationship with your son. I was only reiterating that this was a good idea. But for you to say you "don't have anger towards the Doctor" is to indicate you are in a state of denial. This whole thread REEKS of your anger towards the doctor.

[tyklmyfnz]

Oh my Gawd EXCON... You obviously don't have children. And you know absoultely nothing about school laws. The public school system CAN SEARCH at anytime, anywhere on school grounds! Look it up. Once again, my son is a minor! He is 15, not 18. I am 100% responsible for his actions. Lets say he gets his drivers license, gets high, and kills someone? Lets say your mom, dad, or sibling. Are you going to forgive him for getting high?? No! You are going to come after me because he is a minor. He has nothing. But I have million dollar house, five cars, jewlery etc. Are you just going to say, oh well he's a kid? Mom and dad are not responsible? LOL not a chance in hell. You are going to sue me for everything. Get a clue Excon. Read the laws.

As far as protecting my kids, you are right there. I would protect my kids 150%, if they are right. I will not stand up for my kids if they are wrong and are old enough to make the choices themselves, knowing the difference between right and wrong. It's pretty obvious that you got caught doing something wrong. Sounds like you paid in full for your mistake. Bravo! However, what did you learn? Not to do whatever it what you did, or just not to get caught again? That's the difference in learning.

[ScottGem]

Please cite one law that states a school system can randomly search any student anytime without cause. I think you will find there isn't one since that would violate the constitution. Please note, that lockers are school property so are not personal property. Please note also that searching bags etc before entering school grounds is legal, because the student has the right to refuse such a search, the consequence of which would be not allowed onto school grounds.

Yes, if you son gets high, gets behind the wheel and kills someone you could be held liable IF it can be proven that you were aware he smoked pot and drove while under the influence. Its not a given that you would be help financially responsible. YOU need to read the laws.

This is not to say you should condone your son's use of pot. You should be talking with him, making sure he's aware of the consequences of his actions, etc. But it should be done in a non judgemental and definitely non antagonistic matter.

[excon]

Hello again, tk:

THIS is very good. I think it's an excellent example of YOU going off on a tangent totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand. I believe it shows your inability to grasp the essence of a problem and deal with it.

Your response to me, is exactly like your response to the doctor. You didn't understand what I was saying, and I doubt you understood what the doctor was saying. All you know is what YOU wanted, from me and the doctor. You didn't get it.

This is legal website. Most of the people who ask questions here don't TELL us what the law is. They're interested in finding OUT what it is. Indeed, some of the people here actually have read the laws and understand them, even if our names happen to be excon or Scott. I DO understand the law. YOU do not. YOU say I should read the law. I'll be happy to. Please, since you have read it, tell me where I might be elucidated.

Of course, you haven't. Somebody told you that's what the law is, and that's cool with you…… I think your son understands you quite well.

The rest of your rant, is nothing but a rant unrelated to anything I said. Maybe you should take a breath………

Frankly, I don't believe you are seeking advice. I believe you wanted to tell us how right you are.

excon

[tyklmyfnz]

[QUOTE=ScottGem]Please cite one law that states a school system can randomly search any student anytime without cause.

First I never said without cause, but here you go:

In the public school context, courts have upheld searches without individualized suspicion for weapons and for drug use. Courts have upheld metal-detector searches, for instance, and searches for weapons when the presence of a knife or gun has been reported. (In one such case, courts upheld a principal's decision to order all male students to remove their shoes and socks and to empty their pockets.) In such cases, Judge Doumar explained, "the need to protect the safety and welfare of students" overrides the privacy rights of the students to be searched.
1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337. [469 U.S. 325, 326]

[excon]

Hello again tk:

If you're going to quote a Supreme Court Decision, you should not leave out the parts you don't like.

You quoted paragraph #1. Here's the essence of paragraph #2.

“Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, non-contraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. ……Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search”…... Pp. 337-343.

You showed us nothing. Do you forget where you are? This is not your back fense.

excon

[ScottGem]

What you posted appears contradictory. First, it says the courts have upheld searches for drugs and weapons, but it doesn't say searching what. It then goes on to talk about metal detector searches which is what I referred to as entrance searches. In the example cited ALL students were ordered to remove shoes... and AFTER a weapon report was received. It then goes on to state that 4th Amendment protections DO apply to school officials. This confirms what excon and I said.

You said; "The public school system CAN SEARCH at anytime, anywhere on school grounds!" Anytime could be construed to mean without cause. But even if we don't construe it that way, what you posted still doesn't support random searches. Each instance dealt with either a full search of all or a specific search based on additional information. What you posted SPECIFICALLY does say that the 4th Amendment applies to school officials and the 4th prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

Edit: Ahh now I see why its contradictory. Because you left something out. Which seems typical.

[excon]

Hello again, and finally:

The civics lesson here, is this: Should one lay down for the cops? No. Should one teach their children to lay down for the cops? No. Should children be taught what their rights are under the Constitution? Yes. Should they be taught how to exercise those rights? Yes. Should children be taught how to balance their checkbooks? Yes. (I thought I would just throw that last one in).

excon

(edited) PS> And no, tk. That doesn't mean I think they should start packing and when they see the red lights behind them, they should fire off a few rounds. No, that's not what I'm saying at all.