In re Morrill
| Decision Date | 19 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 98–473.,98–473. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of Timothy MORRILL (New Hampshire State Board of Education). |
James F. Allmendinger, of Concord, staff attorney, NEA–New Hampshire, by brief and orally, for the petitioner.
Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general (Nancy J. Smith, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.
The appellant, Timothy Morrill, seeks review of the revocation of his Experienced Educator Certificate by the State Board of Education (board) for lack of good moral character. We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. From 1976 until his suspension in 1997, Morrill taught at Pelham High School. In 1993, he became a minister by completing the RHEMA Correspondence Bible School Course and subsequently formed a church, "Fellowship In His Love." Morrill was pastor of the church which was located in his home in Sandown.
On December 26, 1995, a complaint was filed with the Sandown Police Department alleging that Morrill was behaving inappropriately with a thirteen-year-old girl (victim) who attended his services.
A police investigation ensued, culminating in the issuance of an arrest warrant for Morrill for simple assault on a minor female. On May 6, 1997, he pleaded nolo contendere and was found guilty. He was sentenced to twelve months in the house of correction, deferred for up to twenty-four months on the condition that he obtain a sex offender evaluation. Additionally, Morrill was prohibited from having unsupervised contact with minors under sixteen years of age in his home.
In June 1997, school officials received notice of the proceedings against Morrill. Morrill was suspended from his teaching position, see RSA 189:31 (1999), and the New Hampshire Department of Education (department) began an investigation into his activities. The department became aware of allegations made in 1989 against Morrill by a former foster daughter, who claimed that he had sexually abused her. In 1989, as a result of those allegations, the division for children, youth, and families (DCYF) denied a license application by Morrill and his wife to provide day care in their home.
The department sought to revoke Morrill's teaching certificate pursuant to New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules (Rules), Ed 200 and 510 because he had been found guilty of simple assault on a minor female. The department claimed that his actions violated a number of provisions of Rule Ed 511, the Code of Ethics for the New Hampshire Teaching Profession, which provides that a teacher shall protect the student from physical harm, refrain from using his position to take advantage of students, and respond to parents' concerns.
After four days of hearings, the hearing officer recommended the revocation of the certificate. In her recommendations, the hearing officer stated, in part:
The board sustained the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer and revoked the certificate. The board determined that Morrill "engaged in irresponsible and inappropriate conduct relating to [the victim] in the 1995 timeframe, said conduct reflecting that Timothy J. Morrill lacks good moral character to be a New Hampshire teacher." The board denied Morrill's motion for a rehearing.
Morrill filed this appeal pursuant to RSA 541:6 and Supreme Court Rule 10. He contends that the jurisdictional basis for this appeal is RSA 21–N:11, III, which provides that the board shall hear appeals and issue decisions, which shall be considered final decisions for purposes of RSA chapter 541. RSA 21–N:11, III (1988). But see Petition of Breau , 132 N.H. 351, 357, 565 A.2d 1044, 1048 (1989). Given the State's apparent acquiescence that the board's decision is appealable under RSA chapter 541, we will assume without deciding that this action is properly before this court in accordance with RSA chapter 541.
On appeal, Morrill argues that: (1) the revocation of his teaching certification was unreasonable and unlawful because there is no nexus linking his conduct outside of school and his fitness to teach; (2) the revocation was unreasonable because it was based on reasons not included in the notice of revocation; (3) the board did not have the power to revoke his certificate for reasons not stated in the statute or in the certification regulations; (4) the revocation infringed on his sincerely held religious beliefs because it was based on purely religious conduct; and (5) he is entitled to immunity from liability because he reported suspected neglect of the victim by her parents.
We will not overturn the board's decision absent an error of law "unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that such order is unjust or unreasonable." RSA 541:13 (1997). On appeal, the party seeking to set aside the board's order bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly unreasonable or unlawful. Id. The board's findings of fact are considered by this court to be prima facie lawful and reasonable. Id. ; Appeal of Kruzel , 143 N.H. 681, 684, 732 A.2d 452, 455 (1999).
Morrill first argues that the board acted unlawfully and unreasonably when it revoked his teaching certificate for misconduct which occurred outside of school with a non-student because no evidence demonstrated a nexus between that conduct and his fitness and ability to teach. He contends that his activities outside of the classroom should be only considered if there was a showing that his actions had a detrimental effect on his ability to teach and that he acted with sexual intent. Morrill argues that testimony from his colleagues of his successful job performance and from licensed counselors that he was not a threat to students demonstrate that his ability to teach was not affected.
Initially, we do not find any requirement that Morrill's classroom behavior be the sole basis for determining his fitness to teach. See, e.g., Beilan v. Board of Education , 357 U.S. 399, 406, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414 (1958). A school board may terminate a teacher for conduct outside of school if there is a sufficient nexus between the conduct and "the board's legitimate interest in protecting the school community from harm." Lile v. Hancock Place School Dist. , 701 S.W.2d 500, 506 (Mo.Ct.App.1985).
We hold that the record contains sufficient evidence of a nexus between Morrill's outside conduct and his fitness and ability to teach in the classroom. The evidence included the following. In 1995, the victim began attending church services in Morrill's home. Shortly thereafter, Morrill initiated the practice that the victim had to give him "holy kisses" on the mouth and "holy hugs" when she entered or left the house, and at other times, including during her tutoring. Morrill engaged in other inappropriate conduct with the victim. For example, while on a church retreat to Rhode Island, Morrill made her feel uncomfortable by putting his arm around her, placing his hand on her leg, and holding her hand.
Before the start of the 1995–1996 school year, the Morrills volunteered to tutor the victim at their home because she was having trouble learning in school. During the tutoring, Morrill continued to insist that the victim give him "holy hugs" and "holy kisses" on the mouth when she entered or exited his home, as well as during any study breaks. In November 1995, the victim complained to Morrill's wife that she no longer wanted to be kissed by him and that his actions made her feel uncomfortable. The victim repeated that statement to her mother. The victim's mother told Morrill that he was no longer to give "holy kisses" to the victim, but he continued with "holy hugs" and began kissing the victim again after a couple of weeks.
The hearing officer also heard other evidence of Morrill's attempted influence over the upbringing of the victim. For example, in early December 1995, the Morrills took the victim to the Parkland Medical Center, claiming that her parents were negligent in their medical treatment of her. The Center's staff encouraged them to call DCYF. A subsequent DCYF investigation found that the Morrills' claims were unsubstantiated. DCYF also stated:
Mr. Morrill did have inappropriate contact with [the victim] ... which continued after [the victim] stated to Mr. Morrill that it made her uncomfortable. Such contact included hand holding, hugging, touching of the knee and kissing. Mr. Morrill used his position of authority to allow the contact to continue.
The evidence also demonstrates that Morrill's actions were related to his fitness and ability to teach. A teacher is entrusted by the board and the community to supervise and educate students. See Lile , 701 S.W.2d at 507. See generally Marquay v. Eno , 139 N.H. 708, 662 A.2d 272 (1995). A court order forbidding unsupervised contact in his home with minors under sixteen years of age raises concern about Morrill's fitness to carry out those responsibilities. This concern could have only been intensified by other evidence, including a report from Morrill's sex offender evaluation that, although his actions were not consistent with "classic pedophilia," "[his] history ... suggests a heightened risk for less than ideal judgment should an...
To continue reading
Request your trial