Opinion ID: 1119858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: finding of sexual contact with leasa

Text: The majority ignores TSPC's extensive explanation of why  in the light of conflicting evidence  it made the finding that it did, that an incident occurred    in which petitioner engaged in sexual advances and sexual touching of Leasa, his sixth-grade student. After finding that those who testified were reliable reporters of the statements that had been made to them, TSPC reasoned: [TSPC] rejects petitioner's contention that Leasa made up her claim against petitioner in an effort to help her friend Michel[l]e    `get' petitioner. In reaching this conclusion, [TSPC] considers the following factors to be significant: (a) Leasa    did not come forward on her own with the claim that petitioner had made advances towards her. (b) When Leasa first contacted Principal Miller and asked to be transferred out of petitioner's class, despite being obviously upset and crying, she did not make any accusations against petitioner. (c) When Officer Costelow and Ms. Minette told Leasa    they wished to talk to her about a teacher who had a `touching problem', Leasa stated that she did not wish to get [petitioner] in trouble despite the fact that neither Minette nor Costelow had mentioned petitioner's name. (d) During the course of the investigation, Leasa    was reluctant to discuss the incident or to press any allegations against petitioner. Instead she was sympathetic to petitioner and worried about getting petitioner into trouble. (e) When Leasa attempted to withdraw her complaint, she still maintained that the events were true and actually did happen. [TSPC] finds Leasa['s]    conduct to be more consistent with that of a child who has been the victim of an attempted sexual assault than that of a child who was attempting to fabricate a story in an attempt to discredit her teacher. Tanya Melsha testified that she was almost always present in petitioner's classroom, but the evidence indicates that there were other occasions when Tanya Melsha was absent. [TSPC] finds that there were opportunities for petitioner to have been alone with Leasa   . [TSPC] is not convinced that all the matters described by Leasa    occurred precisely as described by the child. However, the evidence clearly establishes that an incident occurred in which petitioner touched the child in a sexual manner in an attempt to sexually stimulate himself or the child or both. Every reason expressed by TSPC is borne out by the record. In assessing whether findings are supported by substantial evidence, our task is not to substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but rather to decide whether the findings are reasonable in the light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c); Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or. 292, 295, 787 P.2d 884 (1990). The majority demonstrates only that a reasonable person could reach a different result than TSPC did. That demonstration is beside the point, however, because we are not to review agency findings de novo. There was both supporting and opposing evidence with respect to whether petitioner engaged in sexual contact with Leasa. In support of TSPC's finding, a police officer, a deputy district attorney, and a school counselor testified about Leasa's statements, and the police report containing her complaint was introduced in evidence. Leasa had reported that petitioner had kept her after school one day in September, locked her in the classroom, touched her on the breast and in the vaginal area, and lowered his trousers. Leasa's statements to the three were similar. Other supporting evidence included the testimony of another teacher at petitioner's school that she had seen petitioner coming out of his classroom with a girl after school one day, at about the time of the alleged incident, and that both petitioner and the girl looked very serious. Leasa had gone, upset and crying, to the principal and asked to be transferred out of petitioner's classroom. She did not, at that time, say why  only that she never wanted to return to petitioner's classroom again. Petitioner claimed that Leasa had made up a story in order to help Michelle get him, but Leasa never came forward on her own with the charge and was always reluctant to speak about it. Leasa was brought into interviews in official settings and responded to questions from potentially intimidating persons in authority, not volunteering the statements in issue. Finally, Leasa never said that the incident did not happen, even when she tried to withdraw her complaint after talking to petitioner. Opposing evidence included testimony from other teachers that the classroom doors could not be locked from the inside. An aide testified that she usually remained in petitioner's classroom after school and that she had never seen Leasa remain after school alone with petitioner. Another teacher testified that he usually met with petitioner after school and had never seen him alone with Leasa. Petitioner testified and denied that the incident had occurred. Petitioner's opposing evidence raised questions about the credibility of Leasa's statements. For instance, according to one witness, Leasa said that petitioner had locked the door to the classroom, [1] whereas other witnesses testified that the door could not be locked from the inside. TSPC was entitled to find, however, that the inconsistencies did not rob Leasa's statements of all credibility. [2] On this record, TSPC's findings about sexual contact with Leasa are reasonable in the light of countervailing as well as supporting evidence.