Sexual abuser wants to teach again

Kimberly Horenstein taught deaf children for 21 years in Portland, Oregon, before she was exposed for sexually abusing two girls, 11 and 13, on a swim team she’d coached at the start of her career. She wasn’t prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out, but she lost her teaching license. Now she wants to teach again — and she may get the chance, reports the Oregonian.

Horenstein, now 50, admitted the sexual abuse in 2005. One of her victims came forward after seeing a newspaper column about Horenstein and her partner’s adoption of two boys.

In petitioning for her license back, Horenstein refers to the abuse, which spanned years of sex with two children, as “the incident.”

“I acknowledge the fact that much earlier in my life I made some poor choices,” Horenstein wrote the state board. “I have consistently maintained good boundaries with my students.”

“The incident” doesn’t seem like an adequate explanation for using her position of authority to exploit two little girls over a three-year period.  One of the victims, the mother of two children attending Portland schools, thinks Horenstein is not worthy of trust.

About Joanne


  1. Is “poor choices” self-esteem speak for what were known in simpler days as “crimes”?

  2. Cardinal Fang says:

    If she really hasn’t abused anyone since the 1980s, I’d say let her teach. That was a long time ago. My concern is, she has been teaching deaf children, who because of communication difficulties might be less likely than other children to report abuse if any occurred.

  3. No way, Cardinal Fang. People like this do not “get better.” She should never be allowed around kids, ever.

  4. Yep–I would look at the duration (over 3 years) and the age and vulnerability of the known victims. Those are really big red flags.

  5. I’m willing to accept she may have changed and would never do anything similar ever again. However, there are some trusts that when you violate them, certain doors chould close forever. This is one of those cases and she should never teach again.

  6. I agree with Dawn. I’m surprised she has the audacity to make a claim about good boundaries. She’s lucky the statute ran out or she’d know even better boundaries.

  7. Survey says, NO!

  8. Vote is NO.

    And if the board is seriously going to look at her again as a candidate then they should:
    1.Have full access to every “sexual offender specific evaluation” she has had (these evaluations give a risk rating of likelihood of offending again).
    2.Letters and evaluations from psychologist or sex offender specific therapists that administered treatment.
    If she does not have both of these, then the board should not even waste their time giving her a 2nd look.

  9. IF she was a man, this wouldn’t even be a glimmer of a question. She’s not really an abuser, she’s just a much older girl friend.

  10. It’s a shame the statute of limitations ran out. She should be in jail. She should have to register as a sex offender. She and her “partner” should NOT be allowed to adopt children. She should certainly never teach again. I heard someome say recently that the duration of a sexual abuser’s “poor choices” averages about 17 years. How many more children – including the deaf children – has she abused? I’ll bet it’s more than those two that we know about.