Kid, based on your whacky thoughts on this case I suspect you of something. Does that mean I have to report you? Stick to politics. You embarrass yourself -- your apparent disdain for spanier is the only reason you are participating in this conversation. And your "facts" need checked more closely. But that's how you operate, as others have pointed out in other threads.
I'm not a mandatory reporter. Spanier is, as is admin. Read the law. The only possibility is the one Lar pointed out, that the "child must come before them". But this is a slim reed. Suppose in a HS, a 12 year old is brought into a bathroom and molested. Now, HS staff are mandatory reporters. But because the child wasn't a student and maybe the molester wasn't an employee, does that mean if the principal is notified by someone seeing the incident, the principal doesn't have to report, because the "child didn't come before them?" Get serious, man.
The 800lb gorilla missing in most analysis that I see, is that admin, in any situation, is not allowed, under any circumstances, to handle it internally. Ever. Ever. The HS situation I mentioned is a perfect example. Admin had no knowledge, other than several parents writing anonymous letters suggesting there was something going on. The coach and student looked a bit too cozy. Leaving the campus together(the girl was 15), in the car together, fooling around after practice, walking the halls together. And the girl started, despite being among the weakest of 12 players. Numerous letters were written over a period of months. Once apprised of this, admin has to report to child services, that parents had suspicion. Child services investigates. No foul, no penalty. Admin legally has to report, on suspicion, not conclusive evidence. Certainly letters have to be considered suspicion. Spanier failed this test. His emails are damning. You can't honestly state there was no suspicion. Look at his emails. It's not some wacky idea. My wife is in a school where this is an issue, child abuse, sexual abuse, parents in prison, parents on drugs, child neglect, broken homes, boyfriends abusive to children, children taken from parents by social services, etc. She was appalled at the support of Paterno in this. Not that he was guilty, but that the concern was misdirected. If anything, it confirmed what many thought, that football and his legacy was more important than child welfare, at least to some.
Kid, I hate to say it, but Lar has you pegged. You continue to take single anecdotes and make them the entire basis for your arguments.
Comparing a HS situation to what happened at PSU is not going to cut it. PSU is a University for adults (not children like a high school), and the child in question in 2001 was not in the care of the University -- he was the guest of a retired employee. As Spanier was quoted saying "I never saw anything. I never spoke to a kid, a witness, a parent, Sandusky, McQueary, Paterno. Given that, and the way the law reads, explain again how he is a mandatory reporter? You can't.
As for your HS anecdote, you jump to conclusions there too. "Suspicion of abuse has to be reported"? Suspicion? Based on what information? That the coach started a kid who wasn't one of the best 5 players on the roster? They hung out in the halls? If every coach got investigated for starting a player that wasn't considered among the best, there wouldn't be anyone left willing to coach. Last time the Sixers won a championship Billy Cunningham started Mark Iavaroni over Bobby Jones. Jones' number hangs in the rafters today. 90% of Sixer fans probably couldn't tell you that Iavaroni was even on that team. Should Cunningham have been investigated?
Okay, maybe there was more smoke there than your post indicates. But suspicion based on things that might seem creepy isn't enough suspicion in my opinion. You need texts, emails, something more damning than just hanging around school together.
You don't want the government involved in our lives, but you think anyone who helps out a kid should be investigated on the grounds that it's a bit creepy. (I'm being extreme there to make a point). You need to take a step back and reexamine what you are saying here. 99.99% of the time, this stuff is just someone trying to help out a kid. If we reported all of that, we'd all be investigated and nobody would even attempt to help out children in need -- we'd need the government to be way overly involved.