After a thorough review, the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office has concluded that there is not enough available evidence to support criminally charging anyone in connection to a February 2025 incident where an IU-13 teacher is alleged to have restrained a 5-year-old child at Leola Elementary School for more than an hour. The investigation conducted by East Lampeter Township police did not uncover any evidence of criminal wrongdoing and is now closed.

Initial statements that eyewitnesses gave to IU-13 administrators denied that the teacher’s conduct on Feb. 27, 2025, rose to the level of child abuse and did not justify a ChildLine report being filed. Later reports by some witnesses contradicted their earlier statements and multiple other witnesses refused to speak with police. As such, the Commonwealth cannot substantiate criminal charges in this matter relating to the teacher’s actions or for violations of the Child Protective Services law relating to the timely filing of mandatory reports of child abuse.

BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT

Five IU-13 staff members were present when the teacher is alleged to have placed an autistic child in a small, enclosed area, which IU-13 refers to as a “calm area,” for more than an hour and did not allow him to leave. The teacher is also alleged to have dragged the child back into the calm area by his feet when the child escaped.

The teacher and other staff were present with the child while he was in the calm area. The child was not physically injured as a result of the incident.

Though two of the staff members would later tell IU-13 administrators that they had some concerns about the incident, both stated that what they witnessed was not abuse that would require a ChildLine report being filed, even after they were reminded by the administrators of their duties as mandatory reporters of child abuse.

IU-13 held administrative meetings on a separate matter on May 1, 2025, after a verbal altercation between the teacher and one of the staff members who had previously declined to file a mandatory report. That staff member then filed a ChildLine report regarding the Feb. 27 incident on May 1. Two more ChildLine reports would be filed in the following days by eyewitnesses to the incident.

SCOPE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION

Though each of the witnesses who filed ChildLine reports declined to speak to East Lampeter Township police detectives, an IU-13 investigator conducting their own internal review interviewed each of the adults who were present in the classroom on the day of the incident.

Police obtained and reviewed notes from each of the IU-13 investigator’s interviews. Summaries of witness interviews conducted by IU-13 administrators that preceded the ChildLine reports being filed on May 1 were also reviewed by police. A detective also spoke with the two remaining eyewitnesses who informed both police and the IU-13 investigator that they did not observe any inappropriate behavior by the teacher during the incident.

During the course of the investigation the detective spoke with IU-13 administrators in detail about the timeline of events leading up to and in the aftermath of the incident and about any special protocols in place for the child who was involved as well as with the child’s mother. A detective also gathered information on how teachers handled children in the classroom, background on staff members and any interpersonal conflicts they may have had as well as IU-13’s protocols for permissible physical restraints of children. Police also completed two search warrants for information about the child’s Individualized Education Program and school records.

As part of the investigation police also learned about the space where the child was confined, which IU-13 refers to as a “calm area.” This area was designed to be tailored to students, with items being added or taken away to assist with a given child’s specific needs, though it typically consists of cubbies, nap mats and a table and chair. Police were provided a photograph of the area, which appeared slightly larger than the 4-by-4-foot space that has been reported in some media accounts.

INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS BY CYA AND POLICE

The Lancaster County Children and Youth Agency (CYA) had initially investigated the incident independently from police after receiving the May 1 ChildLine report and interviewed the three individuals who had filed the reports. CYA concluded in late June that there was evidence of alleged abuse, specifically of a child being unreasonably restrained and confined. Some witness’ statements describing the incident obtained by the IU-13 investigator were not consistent with the allegations detailed in the CYA report.

East Lampeter Township police submitted the findings of their investigation of the incident to the Lancaster County District Attorney’s office in July; however, the case was not sent to or reviewed by the Special Victims Unit as protocol requires and a decision to not file charges was made at that time.

In October, upon learning more about the incident and further reviewing the materials sent by East Lampeter Township police in July, the District Attorney’s Office determined that additional investigation awas necessary in order to make a fully informed decision as to whether to pursue prosecution. As a result, East Lampeter Township police, in consultation with the District Attorney’s Office, decided to further investigate the Feb. 27 incident.