It started innocently enough.
“Come meet my advisory teacher, he’s cool.”
Jill (age 16) introduces Jane Doe (age 16) to her advisory teacher during lunch time.
Weeks later, Jill is absent, but Jane Doe has to keep up the daily ritual of visiting the new teacher she has met. He compliments her. She likes it. He smiles at her. She likes it.
She visits him alone for the first time. The usual compliments turn into flirting this time.
Fast forward a few months, the two are trading nude pictures.
Then, the adult teacher and minor student start to talk facetime. He convinces her to get nude for him, to do sexually suggestive stuff for him. She does.
Fast forward a few more months.
What started as an innocent student-teacher meeting at lunch turns into full blown sexual intercourse at the teacher’s house.
I, as an expert witness in this case who has studied this multi year grooming and sexual abuse, call it an “unfortunate progression.”
Unfortunate for the student.
Unfortunate for the teacher, who was arrested and sent to prison.
Unfortunate for the District who was sued for a lack of supervision that led to this entire ordeal.
The progression from the plaintiff hanging out in the teacher’s classroom (initially with another student, then alone), to social media interaction, to virtual online sex, to off-campus penetrative sex and abuse resulted from specific negligence by administration in providing a safe environment and preventing extended one-on-one time in the classroom.
One-on-one time in the classroom (especially at lunch, when students were supposed to be in designated areas and supervised) was a major red flag that increased risk and should have been prevented or addressed (e.g., by removing the student, questioning both parties, and documenting). The Principal said under oath that “students generally should not be alone with teachers in classrooms at lunch.”
There was a severe lack of accountability for this teacher who, a few years later, went down a similar inappropriate conduct path: patting a female student’s body on campus, social media flirting, trading an explicit photo, and closed-door time at lunch. More evidence of ongoing lack of accountability allowing the teacher to feel free to act inappropriately.
Administrators are not expected to proactively monitor all personal social media, that’s just not possible, and not expected. Virtual and physical sex occurred off campus at the teacher’s home, much of it happened after the student graduated; the district has no post-graduation duty to keep the student safe. However, the many on-campus failures to supervise this teacher and the student on campus was the starting point that enabled the later progression towards sex off campus.
School administrators carry a non-delegable duty to create environments where students are protected from foreseeable harm by adults entrusted with their care. This article will outline some major issues that I saw in this case that made it all the way to the courtroom. I testified on behalf of Jane Doe as a school safety liability expert. I have served as an Expert Witness in just over forty lawsuits since 2016. Drawing on deposition testimony, district documents, law enforcement interviews and more, my expert analysis involving allegations of prolonged one-on-one access, covered classroom windows, and escalating social media contact by a teacher, several concrete, enforceable practices emerge. These practices focus on reducing opportunity for staff-student grooming, increasing visibility, and ensuring consistent accountability rather than relying solely on post-incident investigation, something no administrator wants to be involved in.
Here are 5 ways that this student should have been protected from grooming.
Enforce Unobstructed Sightlines as a Non-Negotiable Safety Control
In this case, multiple witnesses and former administrators described a clear district expectation that classroom door and window coverings remain prohibited except during active lockdown drills or temporary decoration contests. One former Principal characterized the rule as “hard and fast,” with directions that administrators remove coverings themselves and document the action. However, this didn’t happen.
In the case materials, an Assistant Principal repeatedly observed coverings on this specific teacher’s door and windows yet accepted explanations about sunlight and made exceptions without escalating the pattern or increasing monitoring. This put the student in question at immediate risk as the teacher groomed her during lunch behind a covered window.
Administrators should treat any covering of sightlines as an immediate operational priority. Conduct daily or random hallway sweeps specifically for window and door visibility. When a covering is found, remove it on the spot, note the date, location, and staff member, and require a short written acknowledgment from the teacher.
Of course, the necessary documentation will usually be governed by the teacher contract. Do not permit informal exceptions for lighting, privacy, or convenience. Document every instance and review patterns quarterly. Clear sightlines allow any adult walking the hall to observe activity without needing to enter, which both deters misconduct and protects staff from false accusations. This low-cost control directly addresses one of the primary conditions that permitted isolated interactions.
Prohibit and Monitor One-on-One Closed-Door Time
In this case, multiple teachers, deans, and administrators stated that being alone with a student behind a closed door is contrary to the district’s practice and creates risk to students. One teacher noted it would be “odd” for a student to spend three to four times per week alone with a teacher at lunch; another said staff should never be alone with a student with the door closed. Plaintiff testimony described regular lunchtime visits (three to five times per week) during her senior year, including at least one instance in which another teacher entered and observed the student and teacher together at a computer, touching each other, while all alone. A second student described spending time alone in the same teacher’s closed-door classroom during a TA period for much of the year, during her senior year.
Establish a written expectation, reviewed annually with all staff: no one-on-one meetings in closed classrooms without an open door or a second adult present, except for documented counseling or special-education services conducted under established protocols. Designate open, supervised spaces (library, multi-purpose rooms with visibility, offices with windows) for legitimate one-on-one academic support. Lunch and after-school supervision should include periodic checks of classrooms that are not scheduled for activities. When a staff member and student are observed alone repeatedly without a clear instructional purpose, document the observation, discuss it with the staff member, and increase random checks. Consistency here prevents the gradual progression from casual hanging-out to isolation.
Set and Enforce Clear Digital and Social-Media Boundaries
After mandated reporting to law enforcement when the student came forward to tell school authorities that she had sex with this teacher at his home, law enforcement investigators noted that the teacher admitted to private Facebook communication with the student and acknowledged that the communication was “probably not appropriate.” A second student described escalating social-media compliments, an explicit photo involving a yearbook, and invitations to off-campus “puppy playdates.” These digital channels bypassed campus visibility entirely, but important to note, that it all started in the classroom 1-1 during lunch.
Administrators should adopt and annually train on a policy that prohibits private social-media messaging, friending, or following of current students by staff on personal accounts. Any necessary electronic communication must occur on district platforms that are archived and visible to administrators. Require staff to report any unsolicited student contact on personal channels and document the response. Include digital-boundary scenarios in mandatory training so staff recognize how compliments, photos, and invitations can escalate. When an investigation later reveals private messaging, the existence of a clear policy strengthens both prevention and any subsequent personnel action.
Train, Document, and Act on Red Flags Without Waiting for a Formal Complaint
Witnesses described the teacher “petting” the student’s jacket, repeated closed-door time, window coverings, and private digital contact as behaviors that made students or colleagues uncomfortable. Yet administrative follow-up was limited or absent until external events occurred. Administrators should implement scenario-based training that uses anonymized examples of incremental boundary crossing (physical contact framed as casual, repeated one-on-one time without academic justification, digital compliments, refusal to open doors or windows).
When patterns appear, even if no student has yet filed a complaint, increase supervision, reassign duties temporarily, or place the staff member on administrative leave pending review. Rapid retirement or refusal to provide a phone for forensic review after allegations surface, as occurred in this case, underscores the value of acting on early indicators rather than waiting for a completed investigation.
Maintain a Culture of Visible Accountability
The evidence in this case repeatedly showed that written policies existed but were not uniformly enforced: window-covering rules were known yet exceptions were granted; expectations against isolation were stated yet regular one-on-one time continued; hierarchical supervision was de-emphasized. Effective risk reduction requires that administrators model and enforce the rules they set. Publicly communicate the expectations to staff and parents at the start of each year. When a violation occurs, apply consistent consequences and communicate the outcome (without identifying students) so the standard remains credible.
These measures, unobstructed sightlines, differentiated supervision, strict limits on isolated closed-door time, digital-boundary rules, documented response to incremental red flags, and visible enforcement, directly address the conditions that allowed prolonged access to the student on school grounds. They are operational, measurable, and grounded in the ordinary duties of campus administrators. Implemented consistently, they reduce opportunity for harm while protecting both students and the overwhelming majority of staff who maintain professional boundaries.
Chris Fore is a veteran Administrator, Athletic Director, and Head Football Coach from Southern California; he currently serves as a Principal. He has written four books and produced coaching manuals, available at EightLaces.org. Both schools where he served as Athletic Director set school records for championships won in a single school year, and were recognized for both sportsmanship and academic excellence. Fore holds a Master’s in Coaching and Athletic Administration and multiple education credentials. A Certified Athletic Administrator, he served as President of the California Coaches Association (2018–2021) and has held various other leadership roles in several different organizations. A sought-after speaker, Fore has contributed to national sports publications and appeared on radio and podcasts. He also serves as an expert witness in education-based lawsuits. Follow him on X!
About the Author
