Allegations that the special education teacher’s conclusions regarding physical and psychological abuse of Stylianos by his family did not stem from a direct report by the child, and that she did not take the required measures to protect him, were made today during her cross-examination before the Nicosia District Court.
The submissions were made by the attorney for the first defendant, Stylianos’s father, Konstantinos Kazantzis, and the attorney for the third defendant, a Social Welfare Services (YKE) official, Victoria Akama. Mr. Kazantzis primarily challenged the basis of the witness’s conclusions regarding the use of violence and whether these conclusions stemmed from what Stylianos had told her, while Mr. Akamas focused on the multidisciplinary meetings and the procedures for reporting to and informing the relevant agencies.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The witness, Stella Konstantinou Alagiotou, who was Stylianos’s special education teacher in preschool and first grade, disagreed with the arguments, insisting that her conclusions were based on the child’s behavior, his repeated reports to her, and what she had observed during her interactions with him.
During her cross-examination by Mr. Kazantzis, it was pointed out that the educational evaluation she had conducted—in order to recommend whether the child required special education—did not include a diagnosis of the child’s psychological condition. She agreed, clarifying that it was a “purely educational assessment” and that she could not make a diagnosis.
Regarding her recommendation that Stylianos be examined by a pediatric neurologist to rule out ADHD, she stated that this was because the child was hyperactive and had a short attention span. She said she did not know whether he was ultimately examined or whether ADHD had been ruled out.
The witness also confirmed that she had recommended suspending the child’s enrollment in pre-kindergarten because, in her assessment, he was not ready to start elementary school. As she explained, the child would be given another year of special education to better prepare him and “perhaps help him settle down emotionally as well.”
Mr. Kazantzis also pointed out that during her main testimony, the witness stated that every Monday morning she had to wash Stylianos’s face and hands, since he would go to school dirty, even though this detail was not included in her 2020 testimony. The witness acknowledged that she had not mentioned it at the time, saying that it had slipped her mind, but she insisted that it had happened.
Regarding the child’s socialization, she stated that other children did not want to play with him, and would say in front of him that they did not want to sit near him because “he smells bad.” In response to a suggestion by Mr. Kazantzis that the teachers should, as part of the effort to help Stylianos socialize more, speak to the other children, who, he claimed, were bullying Stylianos through their behavior, the witness clarified that this was not bullying, but that they simply did not want to play with him and that the teachers could not force them to do so.
Mr. Kazantzis suggested that Stylianos’s anger might have stemmed from his learning difficulties and rejection by the other children, rather than from his family environment. “That is your own conclusion,” the witness replied.
Much of the cross-examination focused on the statements that, according to the witness, Stylianos repeatedly made about his father. She insisted that her son told her that when he grew up, he would kill his father and “slaughter him like he slaughters the goats,” if he ever made his mother cry again, accompanying his words with a gesture toward his throat.
Mr. Kazantzis pointed out to her that Stylianos had never told her that his father was violent toward him and that she had drawn her own conclusions regarding psychological and physical abuse. The witness agreed that the child had never spoken to her directly about violence against him, noting, however, that through her conversations with him and his behavior, she had detected signs of psychological and physical abuse.
At another point, Mr. Kazantzis referred to the witness’s testimony, in which she stated that the child’s father was unwilling to cooperate or accept assistance and financial support. The witness clarified that she was referring to available resources and noted that it had been suggested to the family that they temporarily move to another home until their own became habitable—a suggestion which, she said, was not accepted.
Mr. Kazantzis argued that a person’s refusal to accept the charges against him does not mean that he is unwilling to cooperate and that, since it had not been established whether Stylianos had ADHD, the witness’s conclusions that his behavior was linked to his experiences at home were arbitrary.
The witness replied that what she observed was that the child behaved based on what he saw at home, as if mirroring it, because, as she explained, a six-year-old child cannot discern whether a behavior he witnesses is good or bad.
In response to the claim that her reference to the “mirror” was arbitrary—since Stylianos had never spoken to her about physical abuse by his father or violence against his mother— the witness referred to the child’s repeated statements that he would kill his father when he grew up. “He told me this over and over again over the course of a year. I couldn’t ignore it; I had to report it,” she noted.
Subsequently, the attorney for Defendant 3, a YKE employee, Viktoras Akamas, cross-examining the witness, argued that Stylianos had never told her what she had stated in her deposition and sworn testimony. “I stand by my statement and my testimony. The fact that I gave them means he told me,” the witness replied.
Mr. Akamas’s cross-examination focused on the multi-topic meetings in which the witness participated. Mr. Akamas argued that in several of these meetings, she herself had made no mention of physical or psychological violence.
The witness noted that at a multidisciplinary meeting on February 10, 2011, she had reported that Stylianos had gone to school one morning with “thick blood” on his head, that he used profanity, that his father made him watch goats being slaughtered, and that he had seen dogs eating live animals on the farm. Mr. Akamas argued that informing the YKE was not among the objectives of this particular interdisciplinary project, a point the witness confirmed.
Regarding the other multi-topic units, the witness explained that she did not repeat issues of violence that had already been mentioned by other colleagues, considering that they had already been brought up for discussion.
Mr. Akamas also referred to the Ministry of Education’s manual in effect at the time of the dispute regarding teams for the prevention and response to domestic violence, highlighting the provisions regarding the reporting of incidents and the keeping of written records by teachers.
The witness explained that she was not a member of the school’s prevention and response team and that incidents of violence brought to the teachers’ attention were reported to the team, which was responsible for handling them further.
When Mr. Akamas asked whether the witness had filed a written report regarding the signs of violence that, as she herself stated, had come to her attention, the witness replied in the negative.
He then pointed out to the witness that she had done “absolutely nothing” of what she was supposed to do, to which she replied, “That is your opinion.” He also suggested to her that the conclusion in her testimony regarding “severe physical and psychological violence” inflicted by the father on Stylianos and his mother was “completely arbitrary and unsubstantiated,” to which the witness objected.
The proceedings before the Court will continue on October 5.
The case concerns the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinos, in September 2019, with the Court examining potential liability both within the family and on the part of government agencies.
Source: CNA
