In a motion filed with the CT Superior Court yesterday (Dec. 16), lawyers for a family who allege their child was sexually exploited by a former Wilton Preschool paraprofessional indicates the lawsuit they filed against the town and schools three years ago may be headed to settlement.
The motion asks to postpone the jury trial scheduled to start Jan. 14, 2020. Among the reasons given for the request is one that states, “…the parties are actively exploring settlement and have agreed to mediate this case on Feb. 4, 2020.”
The family filed the lawsuit in November 2016 against the Town of Wilton and the Wilton Board of Education, alleging that former Wilton preschool paraprofessional Eric Von Kohorn sexually exploited their son in 2013-14, when the boy was enrolled in Miller-Driscoll Preschool Services during the time Von Kohorn worked there.
The suit, John Doe PPA v. Wilton Board of Education et al, was the second filed by a Wilton family against the schools following the arrest of Von Kohorn on charges of possession of child pornography and promoting a minor in an obscene performance. Von Kohorn was hired to work at the M-D preschool in 2007, and worked with preschool students until his arrest by Connecticut State Police on Aug. 20, 2014. Von Kohorn later pled guilty to a reduced charge of illegal possession of child pornography in the second degree. He was sentenced in Oct. 2015 to six years in prison, suspended after two years served, and 10 years probation. He was released in 2017.
In Sept. 2018, the ‘John Doe’ family’s lawer, Paul Slager, of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, filed three offers of compromise–one for $5 million on behalf of ‘Boy Doe,’ and one each for ‘Mother Doe’ and ‘Father Doe’ for $150,000 apiece.
Slager also represented another family that sued the town of Wilton and the Wilton Board of Education, alleging their daughter had been sexually assaulted by Von Kohorn in a Miller-Driscoll bathroom. That case was settled in May 2018–one year after asking for $5.25 million in similar offers of compromise. Three months before that case settled, Slager filed a similar continuance asking to postpone that trial when, “The parties agree[d] they are very close to settlement and require an additional time to complete an agreement.”