NYS Office of Children & Family Services - Request for Intake Report

In December 2006, I requested a copy of New York State Office of Children & Family Services Intake Report filed by North Tonawanda High School Principal James V. Fisher on November 09, 2005, for the reason that I was again reported for educational neglect. This time however, the "mandated reporter" adds inadequate guardianship as well (to be discussed in a future post).

Principal Fisher reports: "Narrative: Michael (age 14) has missed 21 days of school this academic school year. He is failing as a result of his absenteeism. The mother is aware of his poor attendance and fails to adequately address the matter. The father has an unknown role." (Dated Created: 12/19/2006 at 05:05 Page: 3 of 3).

In light of the fact that Niagara County Department of Social Services and/or New York State Office of Children & Family Services failed to initiate criminal proceedings against Principal Fisher for violating subdivision three of section 240.55 of the penal code law, I approached Niagara County District Attorney Matthew J. Murphy, III, and City of North Tonawanda Police Department Lt. Krantz , who both refused to initiate an investigation or file charges against Principal Fisher even though further and concrete evidence was presented to each of them to substantiate the charge against Principal Fisher for violating subdivision three of section 240.55 of the penal code law. District Attorney Matthew Murphy, III and Lt. Krantz were each given a copy of Respondent's Affidavit on the State Division of Human Rights Complaint of Rhonda J. Mangus, on behalf of her minor child Michael Mangus, against North Tonawanda City School District, Case No. 10108712, dated January 31, 2007:

Principal Fisher knowingly denies having knowledge of "father's role" on this matter, and it is clearly AFTER the week of 31 October 2005, that Principal Fisher initiates the report to New York State Office of Children & Family Services. Principal Fisher, in the above referenced sworn Affidavit states:

"36. Michael's father, divorced from Mrs. Mangus, contacted me during the week of October 31st. Mr. Mangus has visitation rights, and maintains close communication with Michael. Mr. Mangus contacted me after having been away on business in New York City during the entire month of October. I was very pleased about having an opportunity to renew a verbal dialog with one of Michael's parents since Mrs. Mangus had expressed that she no longer wished [to] talk with me over the phone.

37. Given the opportunity, I spoke at length with Michael's father and explained what alternatives we were able to offer Michael to protect him. I also explained the difficulties we faced in identifying the individual responsible for the anonymous message left in his agenda planner. Mr. Mangus indicated that Michael has seldom, if ever, been forthcoming with details pertinent to situations where he alleges he has been harassed.

38. After having briefed Mr. Mangus, I asked him if there was anything else that he thought that we could do to help Michael and he replied he was appreciative of everything that we had already done and that he had no other recommendations for resolving the fact that Michael had not yet returned to school. Michael's father was very affable and supportive of the school's effort." (Respondent's Affidavit, Case No. 10108712, NYS Division of Human Rights).