Court upholds teacher's immediate dismissal for failing to report daughter's relationship with colleague
A secondary school teacher in Gelderland has lost her appeal against her immediate dismissal after concealing her daughter's sexual relationship with a colleague. The court ruled that safeguarding students' safety outweighs personal circumstances, leaving the teacher liable to repay over €57,000 in compensations.
| Key Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Dismissal of a secondary school teacher in Gelderland |
| Court Ruling | Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on the spot |
| Reason for Dismissal | Failure to report daughter's sexual relationship with a colleague-teacher |
| Teacher's Tenure | 25 years at the school |
| Daughter's Age | 17 years old at the time of the relationship |
| Financial Consequence | Teacher must repay over €57,000 to the school |
| Location | Gelderland, Netherlands |
| Legal Basis | Secondary Education Act (reporting obligation for student safety) |
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal is responsible for reviewing legal disputes, including labor conflicts involving public institutions like schools. The court ensures compliance with laws such as the Secondary Education Act, which mandates reporting obligations to protect minors in educational settings.
Openrijk is free and ad-free
Do you value our work? Help us stay online with a small contribution.
Read the full translated article below
Appeal court: teacher rightfully dismissed on the spot after concealing daughter's relationship
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal has ruled in the dismissal case brought by a secondary school in Gelderland against a teacher. The court finds that the teacher was rightfully dismissed on the spot because she failed to report her daughter's relationship with a colleague-teacher to the school. The subdistrict court had previously ruled that the dismissal on the spot was unjustified and awarded the teacher various compensations. The teacher must now repay these compensations to the school.
Background
The teacher had been employed at the school for 25 years, and her children, including her daughter, were also students there. Since 2017/2018, the teacher had an extramarital relationship with a colleague-teacher, which she did not disclose to the school. In March 2024, her 17-year-old daughter, who was experiencing severe psychological issues, revealed that she was in a sexual relationship with one of her teachers. The teacher then told her daughter that she was also in a sexual relationship with the same (colleague-)teacher. Both relationships were immediately terminated, while the daughter was struggling significantly during this period. The teacher also failed to report her daughter's relationship with the colleague-teacher to the school. Just before a week-long school trip abroad in March 2025, where the teacher and the colleague-teacher were to serve as supervisors, the teacher discovered that the relationship between her daughter and the colleague-teacher had resumed. Under pressure from the teacher, the colleague-teacher did not join the school trip and reported his relationships with both the daughter and the teacher to the school. He was subsequently dismissed on the spot. The day after returning from the school trip, the teacher attended a meeting at the school, after which she too was dismissed on the spot. The teacher disagreed with this decision and initiated legal proceedings.
Subdistrict court
The subdistrict court handles both civil and criminal cases. It is a single-judge court that deals with matters such as minor criminal offenses, labor disputes, rental issues, and cases involving amounts under €25,000. In the past, the subdistrict court was a separate court alongside district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. The subdistrict courts were later integrated into the district courts, but the term "subdistrict judge" has remained in use.
The subdistrict court ruled that the dismissal on the spot was unjustified and awarded the teacher compensations. While the teacher was required under the Secondary Education Act to report her daughter's sexual relationship with a colleague-teacher, in this case, she was justified in prioritizing her child's interests, as her daughter was psychologically vulnerable at the time. The teacher had provided intensive care for her daughter following two suicide attempts in March 2024. Additionally, the teacher was not in a position to think clearly during this period.
Importance of a safe learning environment outweighs
The Court of Appeal has now ruled differently. Significant weight is given in legislation to the legal obligation to report such relationships to prevent sexual offenses against minor students by teachers. After all, it concerns the safety of minor children entrusted to a school for their education. This means that the reporting obligation may only be disregarded in exceptional (force majeure) situations. This was not the case here. The fact that it involved the teacher's daughter or that the teacher herself was also in a relationship with the colleague-teacher is not, in itself, a reason not to report. The court further notes that while it is conceivable that the teacher did not immediately report the relationship during the acute crisis phase with her daughter in March 2024, she should have done so well before the relationship between her daughter and the colleague-teacher became known (March 2025). It has not been established that the crisis lasted a year or that the teacher was unable to think clearly for an entire year. By failing to report her minor daughter's sexual relationship with a colleague-teacher, the teacher seriously and culpably violated the law. This constitutes an urgent reason for dismissal on the spot.
Dismissal on the spot also given in a timely manner
The law requires that dismissal on the spot be given immediately. The teacher argued that this did not happen here, as the school knew she had not reported her daughter's relationship but still allowed her to go on the school trip. In her view, the dismissal on the spot was therefore given too late. The Court of Appeal does not agree. The school was justified in waiting to dismiss her until after speaking with her in person, which could only occur after the school trip. Moreover, the situation was not so urgent that the school trip with 60 children should have been immediately canceled. The dismissal on the spot was therefore justified and timely. As a result, the teacher must repay an amount of over €57,000 to the school.
Rulings
Sender
Share this news article: