When Safeguarding Fails

December 2, 2024Escalation and Suspension Recommendation

On the same day, shortly after Sunna’s disclosure, the Child Safety Team sought additional support in reviewing the reported concerns.

When the disclosures were reviewed collectively with the full team—including members who had not previously reviewed the student reports—the severity and consistency of the information became clear.

Particular concern centered on Cecily’s disclosures of personal sexual history to co-educational classes of minors.

During this review, it was also identified that parents had not been notified of these disclosures and that administration had not given permission for such content to be shared with students.

Based on this fuller review, the CST formally recommended suspension.

Hans indicated that suspension would proceed. However:

• The suspension letter was modified*
• Cecily was allowed input into the terms of her suspension*
• Hans later removed himself from the process*

December 3–6, 2024Implementation of Suspension and Process Control

(This entry coincides with the December 3, 2024 “Escalation and Suspension Recommendation” decision and reflects contemporaneous communication during its implementation.)

Following the Child Safety Team’s recommendation for suspension on December 3, contemporaneous text messages* between Director Hans Fung and a member of the Child Safety Team reflect how the suspension and investigative process was managed in practice.

Key points reflected in these communications include:

1. Acknowledgment of Concerning Behavior, Paired with Contextual Framing

Hans referenced that Cecily had been:

“sharing her story of addiction with students over the past four years, with parents’ permission” (p.1)

This statement appears to frame the reported behavior within a contextual justification, despite the Child Safety Team’s concerns regarding disclosures of a sexual nature to minors. Subsequent conversations with parents of students who were present during these disclosures indicated that, to their knowledge, permission had not been granted and they had not been made aware of the content shared.

2. Tension Around Immediate Removal vs. Process Negotiation

A Child Safety Team member stated:

“The person being investigated must leave school grounds until the investigation has been completed…” (p.2)

Hans initially indicated compliance (confirming the individual would not be on campus), but also communicated that he was:

“still working on it with her” and that she was “willing to sign a different version” of the agreement (p.2)

This reflects that the terms of the suspension were being actively negotiated with the subject.

3. Modification of Timeline Expectations

Hans relayed that Cecily requested a significantly shortened investigation timeline (e.g., 48 hours), while the Child Safety Team responded that a longer time frame (e.g., two weeks) was more appropriate. (p.2)

Hans later expressed difficulty proceeding under extended timelines, stating:

“I don’t think I can do this anymore!” (p.3)

4. Pressure to Accelerate the Investigation

On the morning of December 3, Hans instructed that:

• The investigation should proceed “as quickly as possible”
• Interviews should begin within 48 hours
• The situation should be “wrapped up promptly” (p.5)

He also indicated that board involvement could follow within a matter of days if the situation was not resolved quickly.

5. Separation of Allegations Rather Than Collective Review

Hans communicated that he was:

“initiating a new investigation based on the two new allegations”
and
did “not recommend combining the new allegations with the earlier ones” (p.6)

This contrasts with the Child Safety Team’s approach of reviewing disclosures collectively to assess overall pattern and severity.

6. Escalation to Board

By December 4, Hans stated:

“things are getting out of hands! Now the board is getting involved!” (p.6)

Summary of Observed Pattern

These communications, occurring immediately after the formal recommendation for suspension, reflect:

• Ongoing negotiation of suspension terms with Cecily
• Efforts to accelerate the investigative timeline
• Fragmentation of allegations rather than collective review
• Escalation to board-level involvement within days

Together, these actions appear to have altered how the originally recommended safeguarding response was implemented in practice.

December 4, 2024Board Escalation

Internal communications among Child Safety Team (CST) members on December 4 reflect developments following board-level involvement*.

According to these communications:

• Certain board members were described as “livid” regarding the suspension decision
• It was stated that these reactions occurred without having read the full suspension documentation
• CST members reported verbal pressure directed toward those involved in the suspension decision

Communications from this period also reflect concerns regarding confidentiality and information flow:

• Questions were raised about how board-affiliated individuals may have had access to details that had not been formally shared
• CST members discussed the possibility that information had been shared outside intended channels, including through external organizations
• There was uncertainty regarding who had access to specific details and how that access had been obtained

December 5, 2024Call Reveals Breakdown in Oversight

(This section reflects contemporaneous notes from a call and is presented to document what was discussed at the time.)

On December 5, a call was held between the TSIS Board Chair, Vice Chair, a school administrator, and representatives from CRU to address escalating concerns.

CRU entered the call believing the situation had already been resolved:

“We were being told that process was closed…”

That assumption was immediately contradicted.

TSIS leadership disclosed that additional reports had emerged, describing conduct spanning years:

“…engaging in [conduct] with students for the last 4 years.”

Despite the severity, there was no shared understanding of the case:

“Trying to understand why there are 6 allegations but we thought some of them had been removed.” (see Timeline Part 2, “November 2024 — Leadership Response to External Reporting”)

CRU indicated that a leave of absence would typically be recommended as standard procedure; this was not implemented in this case.

At the same time:

• Key facts remained unclear—particularly the nature and extent of communications with students and the scope of in-class discussions involving sexual content
• Findings had already been modified following Cecily’s response
• Key decisions were being discussed while facts remained unresolved

CRU acknowledged the seriousness of the situation:

“The allegations are severe…”

But also confirmed its limitations:

“We will not be able to interview students and staff…”

What This Moment Shows

By December 5:

• The scope of concern had expanded
• The severity was acknowledged
• The process was already compromised

Multiple parties were making decisions without a shared understanding of the facts.

December 9 & 13, 2024Continued Reports and Further Detail

Following the recommendation for suspension and board escalation, additional reports from students were documented*.

In these disclosures, students provided further detail regarding Cecily’s prior classroom discussions, including that she had described engaging in personal sexual behavior related to the pornography she referenced.

This represented a further level of specificity in student reporting and reinforced the seriousness of the concerns already under review.

At this stage:

• Reports were ongoing
• Patterns remained consistent
• The situation remained active despite prior escalation

December 2024 – January 2025External Review

A third-party investigation was initiated following internal concerns. According to the recollection of an individual close to the situation at the time, two school board leaders made the decision to engage an external reviewer without consulting the full board, and at least one board member opposed involving a third party altogether.

The third-party investigation later confirmed findings* including:

• Inappropriate physical contact
• Behavior consistent with grooming-related concerns
• Failures in supervision

This represented external validation of previously reported concerns.

December 22, 2024Pending Community Communication, NDA Constraint, and Lack of Clarity on Disciplinary Action

Internal Child Safety Team communications dated December 22, 2024 reflect that Cecily was scheduled to depart for the United States on December 24, while institutional decision-making and communication processes remained unresolved.

In the same exchange, Sunna indicated that the school was in the “final stage of sending a letter to the community,” but that distribution had been delayed pending “final confirmations from a few different people.” No clarification was provided as to the nature of those confirmations or the individuals involved.

Simultaneously, members of the Child Safety Team sought clarification regarding:

• The type and content of the communication being prepared for the community
• The nature of the document provided to Cecily, including whether it constituted disciplinary action (e.g., suspension or termination)
• Whether relevant decision-makers had formally approved the document

The responses indicate that:

• Cecily had been provided with a document, but
• No response from her had yet been received, and
• The contents and classification of that document were not disclosed to the Child Safety Team

Critically, the administrator stated:

“CRU asked me to sign an NDA and I am not able to share the details until the decision is made.”

This statement establishes that external organizational involvement (CRU) imposed confidentiality constraints that directly limited the flow of information to individuals involved in the school’s internal safeguarding process.

Why This Matters

This exchange reflects several key structural concerns at a critical point in the timeline:

• Lack of transparency within the safeguarding process:
  Members of the Child Safety Team did not have access to basic information regarding the nature of disciplinary actions or communications being issued
• Active limitation on information sharing due to external influence:
  The imposition of a non-disclosure agreement by CRU restricted internal communication at a time when clarity would typically be essential
• Unresolved status of disciplinary action:
  As of December 22, there was no confirmed outcome regarding Cecily’s status, despite the apparent existence of a formal document
• Delayed communication to the community:
  Public-facing communication was contingent on unspecified approvals, indicating a controlled and potentially centralized decision-making process

Taken together, this moment illustrates a divergence between ongoing safeguarding concerns and the level of information accessible to those tasked with responding to them, while external organizational constraints appear to have influenced both timing and transparency.

January 3, 2025Continued Delay of Communication to Parents

An internal communication* to the CST indicates that, despite the seriousness of the situation, communication to parents had not yet occurred and was still being delayed.

In the message, it was stated that after delivering the outcome of the 3rd party investigation to Cecily, she had asked about the possibility of resignation and was given additional time to consider her next steps. Communication to the broader community was deferred while waiting for her response.

The message states:

“We gave her some time to think it over, and that’s what we’ve been waiting on.”*

It further indicates that leadership was only then preparing to move forward with informing high school parents and staff.

In related communication, an individual close to the situation at the time stated in a text message* that they believed Cecily may have chosen to resign, but that individuals associated with board-level leadership had been encouraging her to continue contesting the outcome.

This reflects a period in which:

• Communication to families was delayed
• Timing of disclosure was influenced by the staff member in question
• External or leadership-related influence may have affected the course of action
• Community awareness did not align with the timeline of internal findings

January 2024Board Determination — Divergence in Findings

A separate internal board review determined*:

• Other findings were upheld
• Grooming behavior was not substantiated

This created a divergence between:

• External findings
• Internal conclusions

According to the recollection of an individual close to the situation at the time:

• The third-party investigator indicated she would not be willing to work in that capacity again with TSIS
• This was attributed to the board’s decision to set aside aspects of her investigation and conduct its own review
• It was also stated that the board’s rationale included the position that the investigator could not determine Cecily’s motives

From here, the issue was no longer only what had been found—but how it would be communicated.