Perlman had “knowledge of her husband’s deviant propensities.” Id. ¶ 18. The circuit court correctly found foreseeability, based on Perl-man’s knowledge of Adkins’s deviant propensities, was also necessary to establish proximate cause. “There is no liability predicated on lack or insufficiency of supervision where the event in connection with which the injury occurred was not reasonably foreseeable.” Levandoski v. Jackson County Sch. Dist., 328 So.2d 339, 342 (Miss.1976) (citation omitted). protecting children against sexual predators warrants strong protection, we hold proof of constructive knowledge of a spouse’s proclivity toward child molestation is sufficient to establish not only a duty to protect the child but also proximate cause. Cf. Summers, 759 So.2d at 1214 (¶¶ 48-19) (<HOLDING>). But we agree with the circuit court that here
holding in negligentsupervision claim by student against teacher foreseeability of a students injury by other students can be based on what the teacher should have known about the students behavior holding that where male teacher asked female teacher out for a drink asked her to perform tasks she perceived as secretarial and struck her in a fight purported harassment was not genderbased and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive holding that reasonable person would have known based on ros relatively contemporaneous communications about what evidence was missing in order to substantiate claim holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known holding the test for foreseeability is whether the wife knew or should have known of her husbands proclivities