Mansfield Christian settles civil suit with former student

MANSFIELD — Mansfield Christian School and its superintendent reached an undisclosed settlement agreement last month with a former student who accused the school of failing to protect her from abuse.

The plaintiff, who attended Mansfield Christian as a high school student from 2010 to 2014, filed a civil suit against the school and Supt. Cy Smith in January 2022. The former student sought compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, plus punitive damages and court costs. A jury trial was set to begin Feb. 15.

According to the complaint, Smith and the school failed to intervene when the plaintiff’s former assistant softball coach groomed and sexually abused her — even after other parents voiced concerns.

“Defendants failed to protect (the plaintiff) by taking appropriate steps to report, warn, stop, or prevent the abusive relationship,” attorney Adam Richards wrote in the complaint.

Smith and the school denied the allegations, arguing they acted reasonably under the circumstances.

“Defendant Cy J. Smith investigated this matter appropriately when the allegations of an inappropriate relationship were brought to this attention,” Craig Pelini, attorney for the defendants, wrote in a trial brief.

“The investigation did not reveal sufficient information to form reasonable suspicion of an alleged abusive or inappropriate relationship between them.”

Ohio law requires certain people to immediately report knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect to either law enforcement or children’s services department.

School teachers, employees, authorities and licensed school psychologists are all mandatory reporters.

Mansfield Christian School board president Jason Guilliams declined to discuss specific allegations, citing the settlement agreement.

“Both parties have agreed to a settlement that prevents both parties from speaking about specifics,” Guilliams said. “We want to honor our obligations under the settlement agreement.”

Guilliams did confirm the assistant coach, who was not a party in the case, left the school and hasn’t coached there since 2015.

“Mansfield Christian School stands by our Superintendent, Dr. Cy Smith, as together, we provide an outstanding education and continue to be a leader in the field of Christian education,” Guilliams added.

“Mansfield Christian School has dedicated administrators and caring teachers who are fully committed to the protection of all of our great students.”

Attorneys for the plaintiff were unable to comment at the time of publication.

Plaintiff alleges abuse began at age 14

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was 14 and her coach was 27 when the abuse began.

The plaintiff argued Smith and the school had sufficient reason to suspect abuse after meeting with three separate families in 2011, all of whom expressed concern about an inappropriate relationship between the plaintiff and her female softball coach.

The complaint states a parent reported witnessing the coach and the plaintiff in bed together during a team trip in 2012 and reported the inappropriate relationship to the school’s varsity softball coach, who allegedly brushed it off as a “mentorship.”

In a motion for summary judgement, Pelini wrote Smith did investigate certain allegations that were relayed to him, but never witnessed or uncovered information that “warranted there was an inappropriate relationship or sexual abuse.”

“Smith acted on the allegations by conducting his own investigation,” Pelini wrote.

Smith said he spoke with the student, the accused coach and the head softball coach. The student and the coach both denied involvement. The head coach reportedly told Smith she saw no cause for concern.

The plaintiff’s lawyer claims Smith never asked about the plaintiff about potential abuse.

“After defendants became aware of (the coach’s) abuse, their only response was to shame (the plaintiff) about her sexuality in light of MCS’s ‘Christian values,'” Richards wrote.

Pelini filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting the judge rule in their favor without a trial.

Common Pleas Judge Phil Naumoff overruled the motion in November, arguing the evidence presented warranted a trial on whether reasonable suspicion existed.

Smith said his investigation did not reveal ‘reasonable suspicion’ of abuse

According to Naumoff’s decision, Smith testified he was aware of his duty as a mandatory reporter.

“However, (Smith) also stated that ‘reasonable suspicion is not necessarily clearly defined and is given to the discretion of the person who’s hearing the allegations’ and ‘if you’re going to report, you had better be 100 percent sure of what you’re looking at and these things match up,'” Naumoff wrote.

The judge took a differing stance, writing that mandatory reporters have immunity under Ohio law and aren’t charged with authenticating reports of abuse.

“There is nothing in (Ohio’s mandatory reporting law) that state that the mandatory reporter must review the totality of the circumstances regarding the allegations prior to reporting, investigate further, or make judgements regarding the reliability of the evidence or credibility of the reporters,” Naumoff said.

“Smith does not have the experience, training or knowledge to interview sexual assault victims or perpetrators,” he added. “He is not trained to investigate sexual abuse cases.”

Naumoff also wrote the plaintiff’s denial of the abuse as a minor was irrelevant.

“The Defendants place a great amount of weight on the fact that the Plaintiff did not disclose to Defendant Smith or anyone else that she was being abused,” Naumoff wrote.

“There are any number of reasons why victims do not report abuse, from being unaware that anything wrong is happening, to shame, to fear of getting into trouble, getting the abuser in trouble, losing relationships or being retaliated against.”

Attorneys for the plaintiff claimed she feared retaliation from the school.

“(The plaintiff) feared that if she tried to stop the abuse or speak up, (the coach) would have her kicked off the softball team, or worse, out of MCS altogether,” Richards wrote.

Coach’s alleged behavior consistent with predatory grooming practices

According to the complaint, the coach met the plaintiff when she was 13 and was aware of her difficult home life early on. Richards said the coach “isolated” the plaintiff by driving her to softball games, despite the school’s official policy prohibiting students and coaches from being alone together. 

“Several MCS personnel were aware that the two drove together but did nothing,” Richards wrote.

“(The plaintiff) grew to trust and confide in (the coach), and their rides alone to practice together evolved into dinners and errands — just the two of them.”

Richards wrote the coach began picking the plaintiff up at school during the day, encouraging her to skip school and purchasing a phone for her so they could communicate. She became manipulative and controlling while also purchasing gifts and everyday necessities for the plaintiff. 

Eventually, the coach began to threaten self-harm on “dozens of occasions” if the plaintiff refused to meet her “emotional and sexual demands,” according to the complaint.

The complaint said the abuse continues to impact the plaintiff’s day-to-day life and ability to work.

“(The plaintiff) is depressed, anxious and experiences panic attacks,” the complaint reads. “Not a day goes by that she is not tormented from the residual effects of years of abuse.”

Richards’ description of the coach’s behavior follows typical grooming patterns described by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), an organization that advocates on behalf of survivors of sexual violence.

According to RAINN, abusers often prey on youth based on perceived vulnerability. Those who groom are often already in the victim’s circle of trust, such as a family member, coach, teacher or youth group leader.

Grooming often begins with physically or emotionally separating the victim from those protecting them. They attempt to gain trust through gifts, attention and sharing “secrets” in order to make a victim feel special and train them to keep the relationship secret. 

Abusers often begin physical contact in a way that appears harmless, such as hugging, wrestling or tickling, before escalating to increasingly more sexual contact, such as massages or showering together.

Abusers may also show the victim pornograpahy or discuss sexual topics with them to introduce the idea of sexual contact. 

Abusers can also groom children or teens online by creating fake profiles and posing as peers in order to befriend someone and gain their trust.