Patricia Terkosky vs. Indiana Department of Education - 9/17/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  September 17, 2013 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m., 49A02-1212-PL-1000. Terkosky was employed by a Special Education Cooperative as a special needs teacher for 23 years, and most recently had been working at Worthington Elementary School as a special education teacher.  In March 2010, the Superintendent of Public Instruction initiated procedures to “revoke” Terkosky’s teaching license for “immorality” and “misconduct in office.”  The revocation procedures stemmed from four separate incidents involving Terkosky and various students, including: (1) having a student stand between an easel and the chalkboard, repeatedly striking the easel with a yardstick, and subsequently draping a plastic cover over the head and neck of the student; (2) slapping a child in the face and causing the child to cry; (3) grabbing a child’s arm possibly resulting in bruising and sitting her down roughly in a chair; and (4) “popping” a student in the mouth because the student called her a “meanie” and forcing that child to ride the second bus home from school that day.  An ALJ issued an order suspending Terkosky’s teaching license for two years which was affirmed by the trial court. The Scheduled Panel Members are Judges Baker, Bradford, and, Brown. Location: Franklin College, 101 Branigin Blvd., Franklin, Indiana 46131   

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT