BLAND — The mother of a Maries County R-2 student says school officials were aware of a situation involving two children planning to run away during the Jan. 23-25 winter storm, but made no effort to notify the parents of their intent.

Loxy Tuttle said the situation dates back to Jan. 23, when a significant winter storm was forecast for the area and residents were preparing for hazardous conditions.

“Everybody was getting food, buying out Walmart, getting ready for the snowstorm,” Tuttle said.

According to Tuttle, a neighbor came to her home around 1:45 p.m. that afternoon and informed her that Tuttle’s daughter and another girl had made plans to run away later that night.

“My neighbor’s daughter got scared and told her mom,” Tuttle said. “That’s the only reason I knew.”

Tuttle said the plan involved the girls meeting around 1 a.m., knocking on another student’s window to use a phone and attempting to find somewhere to go.

“I got lucky enough that they knew and came over and told me,” she said.

After learning of the plan, Tuttle said she immediately contacted her husband and had him go to the school to pick up their daughter.

“I wanted her home,” Tuttle said. “That was the best thing I could think of, get her home and start talking to her.”

Tuttle said she kept her daughter home from school for several days following the incident and limited her contact with friends.

“I kept her home with me for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday,” Tuttle said. “I didn’t want her around no friends. I needed her to take a breather.”

Tuttle said that she did not report her daughter absent the first day to see how long it would take for the school to contact her.

“I got an automated text and phone call about 11:12 that afternoon,” she said.

Tuttle called the middle school and left a voicemail on Jan. 29 informing the school her daughter would be absent the rest of the week due to a family matter.

Tuttle said she learned on Jan. 30 from a neighbor that a law enforcement officer and a woman driving a white Jeep had come to her home that day while she was away.

“I didn’t know what was going on,” Tuttle said.

After contacting Maries County dispatch, Tuttle said she was told the visit involved an officer with the Maries County Sheriff’s Office and the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) Children’s Division. She requested that the officer return to the residence so she could speak with him directly.

“I said, ‘Could you have them come back, please? I wasn’t home,’” Tuttle said.

Tuttle said she waited approximately an hour before the deputy, John Durbin, returned.

“When he came back, I asked him what I could help him with,” she said. “He told me it wasn’t him, that DSS had come to my house and wanted to talk to me.”

According to Tuttle, Durbin was unable to explain the reason for the visit.

“I asked him, ‘Talk to me about what?’ and he said he didn’t really know,” Tuttle said.

Tuttle said the officer then asked where her daughter was at the time.

“He asked where my daughter was, and I told him she was with her dad,” Tuttle said. “That struck me as odd, but I was starting to put two and two together.”

Tuttle said he asked whether her daughter could be brought back so they could speak with her.

“I said ‘Give me your number. I’ll give it to her, and she’ll make a phone call with you,’” Tuttle said.

Tuttle said 11 days after the plan to run away, on her daughter returned to school. Her first day back was Feb. 3, and DSS pulled her out of class and questioned her.

Tuttle said the interview between her daughter and DSS at the school was cut short when her daughter refused to answer questions without a parent present.

“She told them she didn’t want to talk without me there,” Tuttle said. “She told them she wanted to call her mom.”

According to Tuttle, her daughter was taken to the principal’s office and asked to wait until an administrator arrived before she could make a phone call.

Tuttle said when Bland Middle School Principal Mandy Seaver arrived, her daughter was allowed to use the office to make the call privately.

“Mrs. Seaver asked if she wanted to make the call in private,” Tuttle said. “My daughter said she wanted to be alone for a minute.”

Tuttle said that phone call was the first contact she received from the school concerning the matter of her daughter’s plan to run away.

“That phone call was the first time I had any kind of communication about this,” Tuttle said. “She told me they didn’t ask her if she was okay or if she felt safe. They just wanted to know about the plans to run away.”

Tuttle said she assumed DSS or school officials would contact her directly after the interview.

“I told her it was okay,” Tuttle said. “I said, ‘I’m sure they’ll be by the house. I live right here. They’re right there at the school.’”

Tuttle said no one contacted her.

“Nobody showed up,” she said. “I kept waiting and waiting.”

After receiving no follow-up, Tuttle said she contacted the school herself, trying to understand how DSS became involved and who had knowledge of the alleged runaway plan.

“I wasn’t understanding where DSS came from,” Tuttle said. “And what I really wasn’t understanding was who knew she had plans to run away.”

According to Tuttle, school officials told her the information had been reported by students.

“They told me that on Friday (Jan. 23), students came forward and told Miss (Madison) Jolly about the plan,” Tuttle said. “And Miss Jolly told the principal.”

Tuttle said she was told the reason she wasn’t contacted about the possibility of her daughter running away was because her husband had already picked her up and dismissal preparations were underway.

“They said it was getting toward the end of the day and they had to load buses,” Tuttle said.

Tuttle said that explanation did not address her central concern.

“My phone works twenty-four-seven,” Tuttle said. “You could have called me.”

Tuttle said she was alarmed that information concerning her daughter’s plans of running away was not shared with her by school officials, especially during a time of such dangerous weather conditions prediction.

“If she would have actually run away that Friday, with that storm coming, she could have froze to death,” Tuttle said. “She could be missing.”

Tuttle said she believes DSS was contacted only after the school became concerned when her daughter did not return to school that first day the following week.

“I think when she didn’t show up and I didn’t call, they got scared,” she said.

Tuttle said when she first learned of the plan, she immediately contacted the other child’s parent out of concern, saying she did not understand why the school did not alert parents when it had information related to a child’s wellbeing.

Tuttle also spoke with the other parent on Feb. 6 and confirmed that school officials did not contact them concerning this incident and also that DSS has not been in contact with them either.

“That mom was appreciative that I called her,” Tuttle said. “That’s what a parent does. I don’t know why the school never called.”

The Advocate reached out to the other parent for comment, but has had no reply.

Tuttle said her concern remains focused on the lack of parental notification with information that directly related to her child’s safety, saying that if it wasn’t for her neighbor that her life might be much different today.

“They knew that Friday,” she said. “And 11 days went by before I was told.”

Superintendent Dr. Lenice Basham released a statement after The Advocate reached out for comment. The statement reads:

The Maries County R-2 School District is committed to the safety and privacy of all students. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the District cannot release or discuss individual student information. The District places the highest value on student safety and will continue to prioritize the well-being of all students in its care.

While the district’s statement cites federal privacy law, education and child-welfare statutes place significant limits on what schools are legally allowed to share with the public when incidents involve minors. FERPA restricts schools from releasing or discussing personally identifiable student information, particularly when the matter involves discipline, safety concerns, or ongoing reviews. Because violations can carry serious consequences, school districts are often advised to issue brief statements that emphasize student privacy rather than provide detailed explanations.

In addition to FERPA, Missouri schools are considered mandatory reporters under state law. When school personnel believe a child may be at risk, they are legally required to report those concerns to the Missouri Department of Social Services Children’s Division or to juvenile authorities. Once a report is made, much of the decision-making and follow-up shifts to those agencies, which operate under their own confidentiality rules. Those rules can further limit what schools may disclose, even to parents, while an assessment or inquiry is underway.

As a result, there may be information related to internal reports, guidance received from child-welfare officials, or legal advice given to administrators that cannot be publicly shared. While this can give the appearance that details are being withheld, the restrictions are often tied to legal requirements rather than a refusal to address concerns.

At the same time, federal privacy laws do not prohibit schools from notifying parents when there is a credible and immediate concern related to a child’s safety. That distinction remains at the center of the concerns raised by Tuttle, whose question focuses on whether parents should have been notified at the time school officials became aware of the alleged plan during severe winter weather.