Coach, 40, Weds 16-Year-Old Student

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3305652&page=1&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

The Hagers are trying to figure out how life went off track for their teenage daughter, Windy.

They envisioned that life for the good student and promising athlete would be filled with dreams of the prom and college, but that all changed this week when Windy, 16, married her high school track coach.

"She was a dream kid," said her mother, Betty Hager. "We'd never have to worry about Windy trying to get by with something."

At South Brunswick High School in North Carolina, Windy's greatest passion was track and field.

"She just always was outside, always running, and her name's Windy — I guess she was predestined to do love to do that," Betty said.

But that passion led her down a troubling path.

Sorry, folks, but this is just wrong.

There can be no excuse for this, at least not in my eyes...

Pack her off to a relative, toss her shit in the car and move on short notice, just do the old fashioned thing and tell the creep that the next time he's within shouting distance of your daughter you're going to fill him with buckshot (what both my Dad and my stepdad would have done, minus the warning) whatever. You don't sign your teenage kid over to a perverted middle aged man, that's not not an option not matter how much she pouts and whines and swears she'll never, ever, ever speak to you again because you're the meanest jerks ever (which never works, because teenage girls will need to ask for spending money sooner rather than later.)

I'da been sent to the convent!

This must be causing her parents so much anguish and they're keeping the door open for her. That's all any of us parents can do, and why did the school district shrug off the obviously inappropriate relationship? MKJ

Or do they look alike? If there were no story with this I would've thought I was looking at a Father & daughter just from facial features...





FWIW my 13 year old read the story, looked at me and began laughing! She couldn't imagine her crying and not talking to me illiciting anything more than more chores. She also pointed out that you don't need signed consent forms to visit the cemetery.

She knows her Mama!

:evilgrin:

...then it's none of our effing business. And sticking our outraged noses in with all our hostility bristling is a bloody good recipe for destroying whatever chance there might be of making this relationship work.

From what we know, it can be inferred that there was no actual breach of his "duty of care" or of age of consent laws. Icky, ooky, kooky, an entire Addams Family worth of adjectives, notwithstanding, your sense of moral outrage can only inspire the law, it can't substitute for it.

Fix the law to stop it happening again, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't make a real whit of difference. It appears a good deal of the outrage is at the marriage, and banning such is probably the easiest way of "fixing" the problem and also the most pointless.

In a good many jurisdictions, (including presumably this one) at sixteen, there is no legal way of stopping her from simply leaving home and moving in with whoever she likes. Resolving teacher - student conflicts is a separate and obviously not insurmountable issue. Marriage, with parental consent, at least maximises the chances that there will be some degree of oversight and picking up abuse if it occurs.

You people should take a closer look at your colonial and even quite recent history and keep quiet until you have digested it. You might not be appreciative of the customs of certain sects in Utah, but the polygamy aside it's a fairly good window on your not so distant past (and still enshrined in your laws about the place). Arranged marriage, large age differences, teen brides, it's YOUR history, (and in pockets here and there, your present) and strangely enough it worked reasonably well.

Today, outside of certain very artificial communities, what once worked, now fails, and often catastrophically. It strikes me that the most significant change is our sense of outrage towards such relationships. Over the same time women and children have been afforded enormously increased freedoms and protections under the law, and yet the atrocities increase and get worse. Seemingly in lockstep with our feelings towards intergenerational relationships.

Two observations: If there is a potential to create a supply and a demand, then the more illegal the activity the more ruthless will be the players.

And if it's just some idiot straying beyond acceptable bounds, well harsh penalties and panic are not a good mixture.


I'm not saying that the solution is a return to the good old days, or even some hybrid of then and now. Just that, the "solution" we are trying isn't working and may well be making the problem worse, even as we pat each other on the back and declaim what a difference we are making.

but as you may note in my post above, I didn't suggest any particular penalties or remedies. Lots of sick and disgusting things are legal. For example, I find the whole fundamentalist mentality sick and disgusting, but it's apparently legal.

"She could have done anything," Betty said. "She could have set the world on fire. She threw it all away."

So, this girl's entire life (and worth) is somehow tied up with who she chose to marry?

I concede it is possible but highly unlikely. I see her with a kid or two before age 20.

He's a 38 year old man, in a position of authority over this 14 year old girl in a sport she lives for, when he begins what looks to me like "grooming". Giving her rides in his car from practice, and his texting with her into the wee hours of the morning while her parents were unaware raises flags for me.
While I don't think an age gap of 24 years is a big deal later in life between adults, I do believe his actions toward a 14 year old girl are not only inappropriate, but could have been deemed criminal. I can't know what happened between them in his car, but the privacy gives him another form of control over her at a young age.
If when she's 18 they still wanted to marry then fine. She's had a few more years to mature and he's had time to prove to her family he's not a predator.

He's an adult, she's not, the responsiblity is his for this.



I don't understand the parents. I know that I would never sign my daughter over to the care of a "potential pedophile" no matter how long I went without the sound of her voice or how remote she acted around me.

For whatever reason: He actually is a pure as the driven snow; Or the local laws don't include special protections from authority figures, even for those past the AOC, the authorities were unable to hang anything on this bloke.

In some ways the two years leading up to this marriage could be considered reassuring. It's an odds on bet that those two years have been scrutinised with 20-20 hindsight for the slightest hint of anything which might be use to hang him. Presumably nothing was found.

Either he is a consummate actor or there is something resembling real here, plus various combinations of pathetic git, starry eyed teen, run of the mill abusive spouse, and manipulative little cat, even ultra-dedicated coach and athlete, as well as anything in between. We know a bit of the what and naff all of the why? We cannot presume to judge without evidence.



Yes waiting for eighteen would have been the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately sensible and love (real or (especially?) imagined) rarely coexist harmoniously.

What if remote was half way across the country? At sixteen your child is in most places fully entitled to flip you the bird and walk out the door, or even go to the extraordinary length of having themselves declared an emancipated minor. In most cases that's a bluff that can be safely called, since the kid has no way to support themselves in a manner you've probably accustomed them to. Unfortunately not this time. Approving marriage, and thus presumably securing a degree of ongoing contact is probably the lesser evil.

Responsibility is indeed his. Did he coerce or trick her into this? No evidence has been produced to support that argument, but if he did and it can be proven them hang him out to dry. On the other hand as both spouse and de facto guardian he is doubly responsible for her wellbeing. If he is the real deal (unlikely as that may seem) she'll (rightfully) feel the luckiest bride on the planet and all you are doing is raining on her parade.


By all means do whatever is possible to keep an eye on the pair and catch abuse if it occurs, but until his actions warrant it, every effort should be made to support the relationship, rather than create a poisonous atmosphere that tears it apart.


Before you bust a gut on this one, you might consider the Belgian case some years back where two girls died in a concrete dungeon. Yes they got the filth who did it, but: Why did the investigation come to a screeching halt right at the very threshold of the Halls Of Power?

What we're bitching about is "just not right", what happened in Belgium beggars belief.

I think you should ask yourself how happy those marriages were. There is a good amount of proof that the arranged marriages and marriages with large gaps were very unhappy and only stayed together because divorce was not allowed. If you look at the arranged marriages of England, especially those of the royal family you can see that the marriages were unhappy. The husband cheated on the wives and the wives cheated on the husbands. I know some will say that some people separate sex from love, but maybe many of the people who cheated in these relationships cheated because they were not happy and did not love the people they were married to.

It may seem that women are having more problems now that some of the rules have changed, but it could also be that more things are being reported. In years past some women decided to stay quiet about abuse and other problems with their marriages. So it is very possible that with the new freedoms more women feel they can talk about the problems in their marriages and even leave the marriage.

As for the cheating in royal circles. Well noble marriages are primarily to ensure continuation of the line. Once a suitable heir and (a couple of backups are produced custom freed both parties to pursue their own "fun" (discretely of course). It's a relatively healthy adaptation to a highly unusual (and to some extent artificial) situation. And its one that's repeated in the less lofty circles of the merely rich and famous. Immoral or not it works, haltingly at least.

The goal of marriage (partnering) is not the happiness of the participants. The goal is the provision of a stable environment in which to raise children. If more couples kept that in mind, worked towards that end, and stopped pursuing their own selfish goals a lot more marriages would be successful by the only criteria that matters. Happy cheerful children.


Any you are almost certainly right in what you say about increased reporting, but I don't think that's the whole story. Commercial, kiddie porn was once a cottage industry that operated relatively openly within the general porn industry. By no means good, but at least not completely out of sight and mind. Today it's the province of organised crime, and all that that implies.

And then there's the truly senseless stories that hit us deeply and personally. Particularly the opportunist who panics when confronted with what he has just done. Or worse the coldly calculating who reason that a dead kid tells fewer tales.

Social attitudes have essentially raised the crime of sexual contact with a child above even murder on the scale of heinousness. This can only serve to increase the percentage of raped/abused kids who are also murdered. To a lesser extent, the same argument applies to adult sex crimes.

Sex crimes are bad, very very bad. There is no denying that. But they more than virtually any other crime are involve a certain degree of mental disorder, ranging from lack of impulse control to full blown compulsion.

Something should be done to ensure that individuals don't re-offend by all means. But blind hatred serves no one. Least of all the victim. Sexual assault is infinitely more survivable than murder.

My main point was not the marriages of the past were not better than the marriages of the present. My point also included the idea that the problems that are seen today probably existed in the past because women are not more able to report the problems. I understand that a number of present marriages are not great. However, my point was that even though marriage of the past seemed to have lasted longer than present marriages they probably were not any better than the marriages of today. In many of the marriages of the past people were forced to stay together either because of anger toward divorce or because women could not support themselves. Today that has all changed.

I think you are completely wrong. What is the point of being married if you marry someone you do not care for and do not want to have anything to do them. The goal of marriage is not raising happy children and it is not selfish to want to be happy and in love in a marriage. Once again I think the raise in sex crimes is mainly do to a raise in the reporting of the crimes.

People of today are a lot more selfish as your idea of what marriage is demonstrates. Marriage is certainly evolving in that direction. However, the purpose for which marriage was "invented", was to ensure a stable environment for raising children. And it's proper goal is most definitely happy children.

Of course it is not selfish to want happiness and love in a marriage, but it bloody well is to put that ahead of the happiness and welfare of your children.

And it is selfish if the primary reason you choose to marry is love and a wish to make a statement about that love. A true lifelong love is not a common phenomenon. What most of us get to experience, if we manage even that much, is over in 3-5 years, sometimes friendship and/or respect fill the void and keep the marriage alive for other reasons, today everyone seems to just want out.




Your main point is somewhat negated by the fact that even with all the legal freedoms and special protections available today, there are a huge number or women who choose to remain in abusive relationships rather than leave. We haven't fixed the underlying problems. Just exposed the symptoms.

I do not dispute any of your arguments about the difficulty of escaping earlier marriages, and I'm not sure what I wrote that you took to suggest I did. However, I do believe that a greater percentage of marriages of yore were successful than there are today. Not necessarily happy, but successful, civil and without abuse, or great rancour, and producing happy, well adjusted children.

.... just, ick.

"Signing those consent forms was the hardest thing I did in my whole life, but we had to move on, it was going to kill us all," Dennis said.

move along - there's nothing here to stay for????

:wtf:

those people do not deserve to be parents.

believes.

A double edged sword, indeed.

I hope she comes to her senses, eventually. Or, that, somehow, this marriage succeeds for both of them, however unimaginable that may be right now.

As the parent of smart, headstrong young woman, I know how those qualities can haunt the very parents who encouraged this. And, I'm grateful to this day that my daughter(eventually) saw through those who tried to channel these admirable qualities for their own not-very-nice agendas.

People are drawn to bright, high energy spirits. Some want to engage in return, some want to use the energy for themselves.

Just a thought, none of us can really know, we're all pretty much guessing. MKJ

I'm always in need of those :)

I do hope that this guy - more than twice the girl's age - is not a predator...

and the fundamentalist attitude was waaaayyyyy too hard for me (the parents') - and I can tell you that nothing would make me "move on" from raising my child.

:hi:

What makes success today so unimaginable is the refusal of all around them to imagine it (working).

For most of history such pairings have been very, very common or even the norm. And were so for a very good reason. They maximised the continuation of the species. And older male was by his continuing existence a strong and successful provider, and a younger female maximised the number of offspring and also their health. Social changes make this unnecessary (or even counterproductive) today. However, it's only social programming which keeps the two poles in check. Programming which can even now easily be broken down by celebrity, unchecked authority, and other indicators of "success".


I'm making no value judgments, just observing that a good many teen girls (and young women) will readily, and without prompting throw themselves at pop idols, or those who have the ability to make their lives easier/better.

I won't dispute that some older men, pursue/entice/purchase youthful partners, it's the flip side of the coin. Fortunately most are just sleazy, pathetic or sad, unpleasant but not particularly dangerous or harmful. The truly evil are a rarity, and the unfortunate truth is that there is no practicable way on Earth of reliably rooting them out until after at least some harm is done.

have to hold athletics to such a high degree of importance that coaches hold more power than college level English teachers.

I will admit I have not been keeping up with this story from beginning to end. I saw something on ABC'S Good Morning America previewing the story. I later saw something about it on ESPN, but did not look at the story. My biggest question though is why did the school not do something. Why did the school not at lest fire the guy?

Hindsight, if my underage kid came up asking about marrying someone old enough to be their parent, I'd send the kid and prospective spouse to premarital counseling. This whole episode seems scary.

this marriage would not be appropriate

I think the parents were no were near mean enough with this guy. I would have threaten the guy with bodily harm. In addition, I think the parents should have put a stop to the teacher/coach giving the girl rides home.

A few years later. Same deal, teacher was "the love of her life," they were meant to be together. Together turned out to be roughly two and a half years, give or take.

wow...how did that guy keep his job when he was openly courting a student?

i see he resigned after the wedding---does he try to find work in another school system? what happens to the wifey when he falls in love with the next favored athlete? shameful...

ironically, DUers have generally defended the "teacher-student" affairs when the teacher is a woman (i still find both reprehensible)...it will be interesting to revisit this marriage a couple years from now...and i also wonder if this case will embolden other teachers that love students and not adults---what if the next teacher wants to marry a 10-year-old? and STILL has parental consent?

It was a shop teacher, not a coach. I don't the girl was actually in any of his classes, though. (Certainly not after their relationship became known.) Same deal, parents gave consent - the teacher actually got some respect in the (very religious, small town) community for wanting to "do the right thing."

This was in 1985 or thereabouts, and last I heard (two or three years ago), they're still together.