Chapter 13 - ClearPath faces the licensing board
Marjorie Keene had not chained Noah.
She had not ordered dog food.
She had not locked him in a room.
Still, her professional choices mattered.
The social-work licensing board opened investigation.
Questions:
Why did a licensed clinician accept a minor into a behavior service without verified parental consent?
Was ClearPath coaching actually clinical treatment under another name?
Did Marjorie have reasonable suspicion of abuse before discovery?
Did she document concerns adequately?
Did her personal acquaintance with Diane affect judgment?
ClearPath’s lawyer argued:
Caregiver coaching did not require clinical consent in same way psychotherapy did.
The board disagreed that the distinction was automatically decisive because services involved direct child observation and behavioral assessment.
Then mandated reporting.
One bruise alone might not establish reasonable suspicion.
But combined with:
Requests for harsher consequences.
Repeated caregiver rigidity.
Enrollment without parent involvement.
Child fear.
Potentially enough.
Expert testimony split on the exact point when duty arose.
That prevented easy villain labeling.
Then company consequences.
ClearPath voluntarily suspended direct-child observation services.
Required verified legal-parent consent for minors.
Independent compliance audit.
Marjorie stepped back from intake.
No instant license revocation.
Due process.
Then civil suit.
Daniel and I filed claims on Noah’s behalf against:
Diane.
ClearPath.
Potentially Little Oaks.
Our lawyers warned:
Do not turn every mistake into negligence automatically.
We needed causation.
ClearPath’s failure to verify consent enabled access.
Little Oaks’s failures enabled early pickups and delayed reporting.
May you like
Diane caused the abuse directly.
Different levels.
