http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/Tuesday, July 2, 2013Pennsylvania - Prominent Special Needs Educational Consultant Pleads Nolo Contendere to Simple Assault on a Child in Plea Agreement
Thomas J. Croke
??
Early Saturday morning, Jilliestake received a disturbing email regarding a prominent U.S. Special Needs educational consultant, Thomas J. Croke, owner of Thomas J. Croke Associates, Inc. DBA as Family Light in Greensburg, Pennsylvania; which in turn alerted Jilliestake staff to a comment posted on Jilliestake. ??
?
Jilliestake removed the comment post, until further investigation would confirm or disprove the allegations leveled upon Mr.Croke in the comment post. In addition, it was understood and apparent that the post’s author might have had personal motivation for revealing the aspects of a recent criminal case brought by the State of Pennsylvania against Mr. Croke.
After careful consideration, independent consultation, reading of court documents (charges, plea, and adjudication), including discussions with officials knowledgeable of all information related to the case, confirmation was provided.
Due to the nature and ramifications (known and unknown) of this criminal case, Jilliestake, a children’s rights advocacy driven blog, made the decision to publish the following as children’s rights and safety must come first - forever ensuring child advocates give voice to those children who cannot speak.
Posted by Anonymous to Jillie's Take! at June 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM :
"In June of 2012, the grandson of Thomas Crokes wife, alleged that he had been sexually abused by Mr Croke, the president of Family Light of Greensburg, PA. After subsequent investigation by the Pennsylvannia State Police, Mr Croke was charged. In April of this year Mr Croke plead guilty to assault against a minor with menacing intent. He was formally sentenced this month, June of 2013. He was required to undergo psychiatric evaluation and is on two years of supervised probation. He is not allowed during that time to be alone with a minor. You should take these facts into consideration with respect to any endorsements of Mr Croke that appear on your website."
No one should argue that due diligence and restraint is called for upon receiving this kind of information. According to officials, this incident took place when the child (complainant) was 8 years old. The complainant is now in his 20’s.
Court documents attest to the following:
Note: [M1] [M2] [M3] refers to the “Grading” of the indecent assault.
Mr. Croke was originally charged with two counts on April 23, 2013:
Count 1 - Ind. assault on a person less than 13 years of age - 18 § 3126 §§ A7
Count 2 - Corruption of Minors - 18 § 6301 §§ A1
On May 10, 2013 – Added by Information Count 3
Count 1 - Ind. assault on a person less than 13 years of age - 18 § 3126 §§ A7 - M1
Count 2 - Corruption of Minors - 18 § 6301 §§ A1 - M1
Count 3 - Simple Assault - 18 § 2701 §§ A3 - M2
On June 17, 2013 – Common Pleas Court of Westmoreland County PA
Counts 1 and 2 dismissed.
Mr. Croke plead Nolo Contendere to Count 3 (18 § 2701 §§ A3) which has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea. [Plea agreement to Count 3 “Simple Assault” Grade M2 – “(A3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”] [1]
The Court of Common Pleas Westmoreland County PA sentenced Mr. Croke.
Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed
“Ct. 3 Supervision for a period of 2 yrs with County; Mental health eval; Actor to have no direct/indirect contact with victim or unsupervised contact with minors; Pleading Nolo Contrendere; Cts. 1 & 2 Dismissed; Defendant permitted to travel for business with prior permission from PO.” [2]
Officials state that since there was no physical evidence, a lengthy time frame had lapsed, no prior offenses documented (the prosecution did not have knowledge of other cases as no other child, parent, or guardian came forward over the years), the plea agreement was accepted by the Court.
Mr. Croke’s sentence satisfied the victim in this case. In addition, because the case was pleaded out to Count 3 above, Megan’s Law does not apply.[3] Mr. Croke was able to avoid having to register as a child sex offender.
Officials appear surprised that Mr. Croke earns his livelihood as an educational consultant predominantly for Special Needs children and their families. Often situations arise that require travel to various facilities/programs to address the needs and meet with children already attending programs. Unless Mr. Croke advises the various facilities and programs he calls upon of the restrictions the court has imposed on him regarding his probation, the facilities will not be aware of the fact that by order of the court, he cannot be alone with any child under the age of 18. Non-compliance of court-ordered restrictions could endanger children enrolled at the facility/program, and expose said facility to legal damages. One would assume Mr. Croke has restructured his consulting firm, as with Skype, and hired additional educational consultants for travel issues that may arise.
Many states require a program/facility to check arrest record histories of their staff. However, educational consultant’s arrest records are not a pre-requisite – placement of a child in a residential treatment program/facility and the generation of funds created by that placement is the primary incentive.
Jilliestake does not offer moral judgment on Mr.Croke, but does takes issue with the transparency obviously lacking on the Family Light website. It is understandable why Mr. Croke is less than forthcoming, but his rhetoric is cagey at best and dishonest at worst. Readers are encouraged to look at the Family Light website, read the reasoning offered by Mr. Croke for staff not wanting to be alone with minors, and reach their own conclusion. There is no reason given for policy changes at Family Light other than “in the current climate we are increasingly uncomfortable…”
Thomas J. Croke and Associates, Inc. DBA Family Light was a member of IECA (Independent Educational Consultants Association) and utilizes facilities affiliated with trade organization NATSAP (National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs), which self-proclaims no oversight over their members (Miller Bill Congressional Hearings 2007 Director Jan Moss testimony).
http://troubledteenindustry.com/video/n ... al-hearing .
On July 1, 2013, Jilliestake contacted Mr. Croke through a representative. Mr. Croke declined to comment or speak with Jilliestake regarding this expose’.
Please find pertinent information, references, footnotes, and links below.
Excerpts quoted from the Family Light website indicate policy changes.
http://www.familylight.com/link2/2.1/2. ... /index.htm "While we greatly regret this, in the current climate we are increasingly uncomfortable with our consultant being an adult alone with a minor child riding in a car and otherwise being where a parent or other adult caregiver cannot observe. The vulnerability to false accusations has become an increasing concern. Therefore we need to modify this procedure when the client is a minor child. We are leaving a grace period for families already in dialog with us to proceed as we have promised, but as of June 1, 2013, we are requiring that at all times that our consultant is with your son or daughter under age 18, parent or other customary caregiver be in a location where interaction can be observed.”
"Please note: As of February 13, 2013, we are adding flexibility to our home visit procedure. In some cases, we might conduct similar meetings by Skype but not travel to your home. This adjustment is experimental and is subject to change. Not all of the information below reflects that change. What follows describes the in-person home visits accurately. Skype and phone "home visits" will follow these procedures as closely as the situation permits. We do not believe this will be as effective as actual in-person work but will consider this alternative in selective situations. "
"Due to our policy change requiring a parent or other customary caregiver to be where their son or daughter is visible at all times, this must be modified for those under 18, but for now we continue this for clients age 18 and up. This provides a relaxed setting to discuss the young person’s basic concerns and to see how the young person views his/her role in the solution.This is a flexible routine that can be adapted as needed."
"For those under 18, we ask parents to help us come as close to the traditional "lunch out" as we can while staying with the new policy (on and after June 1, 2013). We have several alternative approaches:
PA – TITLE 18 - Crimes and Offenses
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI ... /18/18.HTM COUNT 1 – Ind. Assault of a person under 13 years of age Grade M1 18 § 3126 §§A7
http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/legalr ... 8-3126.pdfCOUNT 2 – Corruption of Minors Grade M1 18 § 6301 §§A1
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI ... /0069..PDF[1] COUNT 3 - Simple Assault with menace Grade M2 18 § 2701 §§A3
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI ... 0.027..HTM[2] PA Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Docket – Criminal - Public Record
Docket Number: CP-65-CR-0001641-2013
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx[3] Megan’s Law -
http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/Note: Grammatical errors left intact for authenticity.
More reading: "Educatinal Consultants for Dummies" :
http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... mmies.html Copyright © 2013 Jilliestake - All rights reserved.
