Law against teachers dating students
See that you or your dependents have no link to the institution Dating a teacher is a big issue since romantic or sexual relationship between a teacher and student is a grave professional misconduct that can be punishable on several counts.This is because the teacher is in a position of power vis-à-vis the student and can use it to gain romantic and/or sexual favors from the latter.Equally important, if a teacher is romantically involved with a student it means that he/she has compromised on the principle of partiality and could easily allow the student/partner undue advantage as regards question papers and evaluation of grades.For the same reason often many educational institutions forbid a romantic relationship between a teacher and an individual whose ward or dependent is a student there.And yet if you are a recent graduate, say less than a year since you passed out, your teacher partner may have some explaining to do to the institution where he/she is employed.This is because most institutions have a very strict policy barring any romantic or sexual involvement between a teacher and a current student.
Very often they leave deep imprints of their knowledge, humanity and tolerance on the budding minds of the students.
"It is a sad day for justice when such a repugnant strategy is condoned." A new trial judge is expected to hear the case in New Brunswick. The decision will have a major impact on the Morris County case of Nicole Mc Donough, a suspended Mendham High School teacher facing official misconduct charges for allegedly having sex with an 18-year-old student and "improper" relationships with him and two others who were 18.
Attorney Timothy Smith, who represents Mc Donough as well as Mc Conney, has argued for dismissal of the charges on grounds there is no law specifically barring sex with 18-year old students.
The Appellate Division found that an official role, such as being a public school teacher, imposes certain inherent duties.
"Teachers stand as surrogate parents during the day (and should be) educating, not endangering, and protecting, not exploiting vulnerable children," the appellate judges wrote in deciding the prosecutor had met his burden in charging official misconduct.