Skip to comments.Neighbors: Teacher seemed like wholesome family woman Educator, 29, accused of seducing 13-year-old
Posted on 01/11/2009 3:40:12 AM PST by billorites
Neighbors of a suburban schoolteacher who is accused of seducing a 13-year-old boy are still reeling from the shocking allegations lodged against the clean-cut woman who appeared to be dedicated to her husband and her job.
When you talk to her, she is quiet, really nice, said Erica Mara, 20, who lives across the street from Christine McCallum, 29, who was charged Friday with seven counts of statutory rape.
No one answered the door at McCallums home on Central Street in Rockland yesterday.
Mara questioned how McCallum, a teacher at an Abington elementary school, would find time to have an affair. She was rarely seen without her husband, Scott.
They seem like they got along really good, Mara said. Every time I saw them they were in the garden or in the back yard.
Added Maras stepmother, Jaime Mara, 30: They were always doing something together.
Police say McCallum befriended the boy in 2005 or early 2006 when he was 13 and she tutored his younger brother. She took the boys under her wing, let them stay at her home, bought them food and gave them rides, police say.
Within months McCallum and the boy, now 16, were having sex on an almost daily basis, police allege. The boy told police he had sex with McCallum more than 300 times at his Abington home and McCallums Central Street and Arlington Street homes in Rockland, according to a police report.
The affair ended in November 2007, but it was only recently reported to police when the boys father found out, police say.
Im kind of blown away, said Mark Burns, 38, who lives across from the Arlington Street home where the McCallums once lived. I would have never expected it. They seemed like a clean-cut family. He saw McCallum and the boy often. She watched him skateboard sometimes, Burns said, adding, He was always around.
They were nice people, said another Arlington Street neighbor who knew the couple well and didnt want to be identified. Its too sensitive for me to comment.
McCallum denies the charges. Her attorney says she was a surrogate mother because the boys father, a single dad, needed help.
A man named Mike, who lived next to the boys and their father on Winthrop Street in Abington, said hes not shocked. He said McCallum went beyond the role of teacher, even inviting the boys over for sleepovers. People arent that kind, said Mike, who wouldnt give his last name.
McCallum was fired Thursday from her job at the Woodsdale School in Abington. She posted $1,000 bail Friday and was released on condition she submit to GPS monitoring and stay away from the boy and anyone under age 16.
Such is life in early 21st century America.
The alleged victim has told investigators that he and Christine McCallum first had sex on February 7, 2006 on a couch in her Rockland home, while her husband and his younger brother slept upstairs.
The boy has also told investigators that he and McCallum had up to 300 sexual encounters and that until he was 15 years old, they had unprotected sex about every other day, in his kitchen and bedroom, and in the shower, living room and bedroom of her home in Rockland.
The boy has also told investigators McCallum provided him vodka, rum and Jell-O shots on about 150 occasions.
McCallum is currently free after posting $1,000 cash bond and has pleaded not guilty in both Rockland and Abington.
Reportedly McCallum was fired by the school system on Friday.
Three hundred times? Was the youth traumatized or bragging?
13 year's old and she supposedly had sex with him 300 times? In his dreams!! Where were these teachers when I was 13?
At least she didn’t pull a Pam Smart.
That doesn't seem to matter these days.
we don’t know who is telling the truth yet. The Woman has denied it and over 300 times sounds odd
Innocent men have died or lost everything they had because of a lying woman. Innocence doesn’t matter. Why should women be treated any different. A boy would never lie. We don’t need a trial. Get a rope. Stupidity rules.
It really doesn't. Just the accusation alone is enough to assume guilt, and act on the assumption. It's so wrong because the excuse is to "Protect The Child!"
It's amazing to see we as a nation allow the state to have this kind of authority to just nilly willy take a child from a parent on an accusation from anyone, and nothing else.
Who's to say this case wasn't headed in the same direction?
One more time with feeling. Video Here:http://wbztv.com/local/abington.teacher.sex.2.903899.html
He may have had sex with her 300 times in the last few years, but I wonder how many times she was actually in the room with him while this was happening.
The kid's 13, probably not a lot of time required....
He might not have even needed a picture.
>>Where were these teachers when I was 13?
Interesting question though; what if the teacher were a half-decent looking gay man who wanted to have sex with a
13 year old boy? Would that be OK...? Oh, he just wants to
introduce the boy to adulthood...?
Excellent point. Those making light of this are really not considering the consequences. Also, what if it were a straight man seducing someone’s daughter? Would people be thinking it was amusing then?
The woman needs to at least spend the better part of a few lifetimes in a prison. Sickening.
Or is it possible for just this once, that the boy is lying and the woman is innocent?
Any cellphone records? Pictures? If there were 300 sexual encounters, I'd suspect that there would be ample electronic evidence. That's the way young folks are. E-mails, IM's ,digital photos, blogs, facebook, etc.
Perhaps there's a stained blue dress?
During the trial the defense will be able to question any evidence the prosecution brings. Is it all hearsay? Is that what you contend?
Any word of her husband divorcing her yet?
I would put the age of consent at 14 for boys and girls. They should be able to get married at 15.
In what world?
Unless she's hot, and then it's a bunch of “not guilty” jokes and “where were the hot teachers when I was in school” comments.
I'm contending that there seems to be more to this story than meets the eye.I'm contending that she's presumed to be innocent.
Sorry to be a bummer. I know everyone comes to these threads to check out the teacher, to pass judgment and see if she's a hottie.
I recall another person accused of infidelity.
He vehemently denied it.
Face it. 13 year old boys are not seduced, they are acquiesced
“what if the teacher were a half-decent looking gay man who wanted to have sex with a 13 year old boy?”
Hey Raccoon, did you know that in Massachusetts (with a judge’s consent) it is legal for that 13 year old to marry that “decent looking gay man”.
“Perhaps there’s a stained blue dress?”
The police actually removed the carpet from the home for testing, not sure if she was arrested before or after it was tested.
I just keep recalling that my Grandmother got married when she was 15. She is 87 and Grandpa passed away around 10 years ago. Their marriage worked out just fine.
That little one out in West Texas ...
Lo and behold, from the Boston Globe's story ,
In a message sent to the boy from her MySpace page, McCallum wrote: "It's hard to be in love with you and set boundaries for you. It's hard to kiss you and tell you no."
The boys father saw this back in '06.
The boy's father discovered the letters in 2006 and was disturbed but did not think that McCallum and her son had a sexual relationship, according to Chief John Llewellyn of the Rockland Police Department.
"He couldn't comprehend that this person was a predator," Llewellyn said.
That's the comment that really bothers me most.
This whole relationship with the teacher, husband, divorced dad and his kids.... bizarre!
Is it any wonder the world is spiraling out of control?
In Canada eh
No, we are supposed to accept these constructs as families.
Strange too how she had the "boys" over for sleepovers?
I'd have to question the lady.
You're 29. Why are you interested in having my teenage son sleep over at your house ?
That's a question any parent should ask.
She married 72 years ago. The world was vastly different back then. BTW, God bless her
Today it is pretty much asking 15 years to marry, if they even get married, is just about condemning them to a divorce, child(ren) on welfare and dysfunction
In today's culture of coddling, entitlement and immaturity some twenty somethings aren't ready for marriage, heck they can't even handle a normal relationship let alone a commitment like a lifetime of marriage
Well, that's true, they are no longer in business anymore. At least not in Texas
In Canada eh
Really? I'm sort of shocked
We live in a "kid centric" society. Kids are always right and adults are always wrong. Don't believe me, just turn on the TV.
I suppose this type of behavior is considered “normal” by their “Standards”.
Actually, 14 years is not that uncommon an age of consent around the world and may even apply in some U.S. states.
The crucial element, at least in Canada and probably other jurisdictions as well, is that the perpetrator, ...er, I mean older "friend," not have any undue power or influence over the younger. Thus, a guardian, teacher, counselor, supervisor, etc. would still be considered as performing a crime. A total stranger of the same age met on the street, perhaps not.
Age of consent = 14 in Canada well it did my mistake.
The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.
It is now illegal for adults in Canada to have sex with a partner under the age of 16, one of the new provisions of the Tories’ violent crime law that came into effect on Thursday.
The Tackling Violent Crime Act raises the legal age of sexual consent in Canada to 16 from 14, the first time it has been raised since 1892.
But do you notice that the original law states that:
The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent
Like it’s a no-brainer....take that rainbow coalition LOL
Huh?! You must have a "naughty bookworm" fetish. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.