December 13, 2004


via The Exploding Cigar
Anyone want to comment on this?

From additional readings that I have done the evidence was compromised because it was left unrefridgerated (and not turned over to the authorities) for a weeks time. The material can't be retested.

Come on, isn't that common sense? If they thought the treats contained alcohol, and, if that were true it would mean legal proceedings against mom, then they should have turned it over to the proper authorities immediately. The longer it is left unattended the greater the chance of claim of, or real possibilty of, being tampered with or contaminated. You don't require much of an education to understand that.

Suspending the child I believe was a poor and counterproductive idea. I don't know if this child would know these "looked like shots"; I am fairly certain that some child of about this age, somewhere, would know what a Jell-o shot looked like, but that doesn't mean most children of this age would.

Mom would of course have known, however, it is possible she simply used extra cups from the bar she worked at, and did not consider the look-a-like issue at all, even if she knew such a regulation existed. Jello in a cup looks like Jell-o in a cup and it would not make sense to use large size cups to prepare Jell-o as a treat for the whole class. That it was a poor idea is unquestionable. That it deserved legal action (beyond turning the items over to the proper authorities) is quite questionable.

In any case suspending the child for what is a possibility the fault of the parent is a hell of a way to educate one of the future members of society. If in fact there was alcohol in the cups, then the child is a victim of her parent, if not then she is the victim of either her mother's ignorance or the schools intractability or both.

I think this issue could have been handled (after said items were turned over to the proper authorities) a discussion with and warning to the mom not to send the child in with such items again. The child should only have been brought into it if in fact the child could have been suspected of knowing the treats could be seen as having contained alcohol. I think most children seeing Jell-o in a cup would be thinking, Jell-o in a cup and not "hope the rum is good." Otherwise the child should have been told and (and it is a wise school policy to begin with) that no treats could be brought into school without clearing it with the school before hand.

Of course, it is possible that I am hopelessly naive, and that a significant proportion of fourth graders would know exactly what was normally contained in those types of cups. In which case, I ask you, please leave me to my rose-colored world. To think that a large segment of the 8yr old population would consider the idea that the shots may contain alcohol is quite disturbing to me.

Posted by Rachel Ann at December 13, 2004 10:31 PM

Disturbing to me as well, Rachel. I agree that the child should NOT have entered into the equation. She had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Obviously she didn't saunter into a bar and get the containers. "Counter-productive" is right. I think "foolishness" is an appropriate term as well.

Posted by: Roberta S at December 14, 2004 04:11 AM

The Jello-O cups looked almost exactly like actual Jell-O cups that you buy in a store. Commenters at Zero Intelligence have mentioned that if the school is really concerned with look-alike drugs they are going to need to ban actual Jell-O cups, Coke (looks just like rum&coke), Sprite (gin&tonic), juices (wine), brownies (space cake), water (vodka) and a slew of other things.

The school system here acted in an exceptionally retarded fashion.

Posted by: Jim at December 14, 2004 01:18 PM

Well, that's interesting. Schools always over react to some things and under react to more important things. It drives me crazy.

Posted by: deb at December 14, 2004 02:17 PM

What I want to know is...what possible reason would a mother have for sending her daughter to school with alcohol tainted treats????? Secondly wouldn't she have known that the school would fine the alcohol and she would get in trouble? And third...there should be some sort of consequences to the school for suspending the little girl in the first place. I agree that if there were alcohol in the treats then it should be on the mother not the little girl!

Posted by: Angie at December 14, 2004 02:31 PM

Consider me stupid, but I'm 70 years old and never heard of alcohol in jello in a cup. I certainly don't think the child would know.

Posted by: Marcia at December 14, 2004 04:54 PM

I am in my twenties, but to be honest I didn't know about alcoholic jell-o cups. I guess the mother did know though.

Posted by: susanna at December 14, 2004 06:39 PM

My godson goes to that school. They tried to suspend him a couple months back for being at school 30 min EARLY!!!
That school is known for being reactionary in the extreme. There was NO alcohol in those jello cups. None whatsoever. The girls made the jello cups on the porch of the girl who got suspended. The mother just put them in the smallest containers she had cheap access to. This whole situation just burns me up. And now the girl and the mother have to go to counseling and drug testing just so the girl can go back to class. *seething*

Posted by: Monkie at December 15, 2004 04:31 PM

This was a huge discussion on many radio stations here. I didn't read the article you linked to but what they were saying on the radio and on tv was that the mom made these jello shots so the daughter could earn some Christmas money. Most fourth graders in this day and age have sadly heard of jello shots and know what they are. Even if there was no alcohol and it was a "look alike" the mother should be severely punished. I would never send Lillianna to school with brownies and pretend they were "hash brownies." I would know that was bad, you know?
How can you expect the child to know right from wrong with a mother like that??????

Posted by: RobinP at December 17, 2004 02:47 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?