What Lou Taylor Knew and What Maryland Law Required at the Time

By John Huber | MarylandK12.com

Yesterday, the Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition reposted on social media a case that many in Worcester County will remember. It involved a local high school teacher who was charged with having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student decades earlier. He would ultimately plead guilty.

This may seem like old news. The underlying events go back to the early 1990s. But the timing of this renewed attention isn’t random. It coincides with Lou Taylor’s candidacy for Worcester County Commissioner.

The question is not just about what happened in the classroom, but what was known, who knew it, and what they did (or didn’t do) at the time. All are being asked in the context of a political campaign, so, yes, it is all political.  These questions have been floating around the county for some time, but with the DPTC reposting it, I thought I would give it a look.

The discussion circulating publicly, particularly in the coalition’s post, is that Lou Taylor was made aware of the situation when it occurred and failed to properly report it. By Taylor’s own account, the teacher involved came forward and admitted to the relationship. Taylor has indicated that he reported that information to the principal. The first thing that stands out with this account is that the teacher came to Taylor, and not the other way around. By his own account, this was after a parent came to him and expressed concern about the teacher and the student’s interactions.  This is from the OC Dispatch of July 18, 2024:

Charging documents said a parent who saw the victim leaning her head on Davis’s shoulder during a band trip expressed concern to Lou Taylor, who was then Decatur’s vice principal and serves currently as school system superintendent. In an interview with law enforcement, Taylor told investigators Davis approached him sometime in the spring of 1992.

The second, and most important thing is that it also establishes that he knew. Once you establish knowledge, the next question is fairly simple. What did he do with this information.

Firstly, what were the legal obligations at that moment? The Law Was Already Clear in the Early 1990s. One of the most common responses to cases like this is: “That was a different time.” It’s an easy argument to make, but in this case, it’s not true. It wasn’t a different time.

Maryland’s Family Law Section 5‑704, which governs mandated reporting of child abuse, went into effect in 1988, well before the events in question.

The law was not ambiguous. It required that:

• Educators were mandated reporters
• Any suspicion, or credible information, of abuse had to be reported
• Reports had to go directly to law enforcement or social services
• An oral report was required immediately, followed by written documentation within 48 hours

And most importantly:

Reporting up the chain of command internally did NOT satisfy the law. In practical terms, saying “I told the principal” is not the same as complying with mandated reporter law. Even in the early 1990s, the expectation was that you could seek help from colleagues or supervisors, you could ask how to file a report or get help from others (usually the guidance counselor) but ultimately, you had a personal legal obligation to report externally. In other words, telling a supervisor may have been part of the process but it was never the process itself. This wasn’t a legal technicality. For educators at the time, it was basic training. As someone who started teaching in 1990, I can speak to that directly. On day one, the message was clear; if you suspect abuse, you report it. Period. Not later,
not internally only, not after discussion. You report it; no one else. This was the law.

Now What?

Voters must now decide what matters. There’s no question that this case is decades old and has been settled in court. But the issue being raised now is not about whether a prosecution will happen. It’s about something different: When someone in a position of trust receives a direct admission of misconduct involving a student, what do they do with it?

And just as importantly: Did they follow the law that existed at the time?

Where This Leaves Things

At this point, there may not be legal consequences tied to what happened 30+ years ago. But politically and publicly, that doesn’t mean the issue disappears. Voters now have to weigh what was known and what actions were taken and whether those actions met the standards that already existed at the time.

I can assure you that the standards were not very different than they are now.

Final Thought

It’s easy to dismiss cases like this as relics of a different era. But in this case, the law was already in place. The expectations were already clear, and the responsibility to report abuse to authorities was already defined.

The only real question is:

Was that responsibility met?

The voters will decide what that answer means. The only point here is to be sure that everyone understands that th

is was not of a different time.

Do with that information what you will.