to ask your opinion...

[AliBean]

My friends CM had a date on Saturday with a man she met online 2 weeks ago. He was still there on Monday when she dropped her DS off in the morning, but she had to go to work and reluctantly left her DS as normal and went to work feeling very uncomfortable. She rang the CM later to tell her she was not happy with the situ and CM said "he is not around the children, he is upstairs and won't be left alone with them. You have to trust me to look after your son"...
My friend was/is livid as this man is a total unknown and her attitude was so dismissive.
Today she received a letter from CM cancelling their contract and terminating her DS's care with 4 weeks notice. She is supposed to pay the fees for the next 4 weeks and although he can attend, she doesn't want him too go (understandably!). 2 other friends who also use her are removing their DDs and are going public with their opinions. I am Parent Representative for the Childrens Centre and have been asked to pass on their views and request that her business card and profile is removed from the notice board until their complaints to OFSTED are dealt with...
Is this reaction reasonable? I think it is and will obviously represent the views of the parents to the CC but I also would like to know whether the wider world of parents think this is a reasonable course of action in this situation?

Saffy85 - Sorry to hear about your accident. hope your back gets better soon.

I agree i find it odd how she has put this man before her business but do not suspect he is a peodo, But i can understand the parents concerns and doubt i would be happy too.

If the op was to bad mouth the CM or pull her cards from the notice borad then she could find herself in real trouble.

Are you sure Op that this friend of yours is telling the truth? the only reason why I ask is my CM/Freind used to look after my son and two other kids. She was dead straight laced and did loads of activities at her our cost. She had a disagreement with one of the parents who took exception and the parent complained to OFSTEAD that she was smoking in front of the children (she does not even smoke). the complaint as not looked into or investigated but stays on her record. it affects her business as she has to disclose it to new clients.

Its just so easy to ruin someone in this field if you take a disliking to them.

Activiate - show me the one from OFSTEAD.

As i said OFSTEAD advice you to but you do not have too.

Many organisations would tell you to do out in order to protect yourself.

I do think the CM made a bit of an error of judgement in letting the new bloke hang around all day (if she had already had a partner the parents would probably have had the opportunity to meet him, or at least know something about him when they first met her, I think the issue is that he's an unknown man. Though why assume that every man is a threat? If she was gay and had her new female partner there would people object so much?), but if there had been no issues with her reliability and care of the children prior to this then I also see her point that she should be trusted not to put the children at risk.

I presume more was said by the friend to spark the CM giving notice? She seems to have become the victim of a witch hunt now which is a bit OTT IMO. I think a 'quiet' complaint to the NCMA/OFSTED should have been sufficient, if the matter could not be resolved between the CM and parents.

I can see it from both sides. I'd have felt a bit uncomfortable as well, as a parent, but I'd have spoken reasonably to her, listened to her side, but said that I'd prefer that she get to know him a lot better before having him around my child for that length of time again. Then if she still had him there all day with the kids, I'd have done something. But, I can see her point that there's no statutory requirement to get visitors CRB checked, and it's perfectly legal to have people visit her house for whatever reason as long as the children aren't left on their own with them. Though, of course, there's no way of proving they weren't left with him, but you would hope she'd be sensible/professional enough to adhere to that.

OFSTEAD??

ROFL

OFSTED require everyone in household over 16 to be CRBed when registering as a childminder

why don't you show me where it doesn't - don't you have google?

Tbh

It is nothing to do with you or the childrens centre.

There are formal ofsted complaint procedures. Tbe parents should follow these. They will decide on the registration status of the childminder. It is not for anyone connected to a childrens centre to be judge or jury on this.

Childrens centres are not regulatory bodies and have no jurisdiction in this matter. To remove someones card based on what at this time is hearsay and not proven (through the formal complaint process) is not acceptable. At this point if she is a registered childminder she has a much right to display her card as other childcare providers.

Activiate - I am wrong. I have just rang them for advice.

I miss understood it. You are right anyone who lives In the property on the age of 16 needs it but any visitors, boyfriends who are only visiting do not. So in the Ops case this then the new man does not need one.

Mr Spoc according to the early years foundation stage statutory framework in the suitable people section under safe recruitment it states that the provider must notify ofstead of any change of the persons aged 16 or over. In my discussions with ofstead (I'm currently undertaking registration) they stated it is good practice to have crb checks and would look negatively on not having these.

I would also wonder what the cm's t&c's say.

embraces MrSpoc as new best friend

yes but if that 'boyfriend' was an internet sprite I'd chatted to for 2 weeks who I'd met for the first time in real life 2 days before and who had by all intents and purposes just moved in I'd be fucking livid if they were in the house when my child was - wouldn't you be?

Thanks spoc long as baby survived that I'm ok too

I don't think I'd get too involved in this if I were the OP, however the parents are within their rights to report to OFSTED. I think I would too, especially if I'd then seen them within my own eyes or told by my own child (ie not relied on heresay of other adults) that this man was doing the school run with the CM.

That would partly be because the CM had lied earlier when she said he wouldn't be spending any time with any of the children in her care. Partly because really, she doesn't need him to do the school run with her. So why the fuck is he? So she can show off her "new man"? She can show him off in her own time. I don't parade my bloke round my work enviroment during office hours.

Activiate - I will also embrace you as my new best friend. here have a glass on me

I do find it very odd and will no doubt not be happy with the situation but I wonder if there is more to this.

I would not look at ruining her career over it but would make the official complaint to OFSTED.

If the Op was to go about set on ruining her career, pull her cards telling everyone she has a peodo living with her then the CM would be able to sue for a number of reasons, the main one being slander.

Saffy85 - Do you get embaraced everytime you use the lift? What did the other people in the lift think

MrSpoc now we're in total agreement as per my first post on this thread

so that's nice isn't it

I still have a good smirk about it whenever I'm in the lift not least because we could hear people below and above banging on the doors trying to get it working and wondering why the fuck it was stuck between floors....

what if it had been the cms cousin or her best feale friend, would you be so bothered then?

not all men are paedophiles, in fact most men are not paedophiles.

complete over reaction

Not read whole thread but as a mum who uses CM regularly, I'd be uncomfortable with leaving my DD in the house with a 'new' boyfriend.

Not because he's a potential paedo (I can't spell it so won't attempt to!) but because he's a stranger.

When you sign up with a CM you go through the paperwork, you get introduced to the partner/family/pets/house/other mindees. If I was to turn up on a Monday to a stranger in the house, under these circumstances, I'd be furious.

I don't think the CM should be removed from the list, I think the Centre should contact her and get her side of the story. I think she should be given an explanation that the way she has handled this situation is wrong, NOT the fact that she has a new boyfriend is wrong.

As others have said - she is entitled to a boyfriend. I would (in this situation) have expected her to invite me in after work and introduce me to the boyfriend, if he was to be around regularly. I'd also want it made crystal clear that he has no contact with my DD - if he isn't CRB checked I wouldn't want him around her.

I think the CM has handled this badly, I don't think she should be hung, drawn and quartered over it though.

The difference if the person had been the CM's cousin or her best friend is that she would have known him or her for a while and would be in a position to make a better judgment on character. As someone said further up the thread, you wouldn't bring a casual acquaintance into your office for the day, sit him or her at your desk and chat when you're supposed to be getting on with your work, why would you do that in your place of business if you are a CM?

Not only is it a serious lapse of judgment on the part of the CM, it's also incredibly slack of the boyfriend not to realise she has a job to go and push off.

alalonglegs - the differance between the office the the place of work in this situation is that it is also her private home. You cannot expect the CM to expell her sister, daughter mother or anyone else who lives thier during the CM hours and say it is now offcially my place of work.

I do honestly think the CM in this case had a lack of judgement if what is said is true.

But I honeslty think that thier is more to this than what is being said.

Why would a childminder tell the clinet (we met on the internet only two weeks ago - had first date saturday and sleeped together immediatly).
this does not make sense to me. why, becuse the people i know who had met online try to keep it a secret, also no professional CM would discuss this at this level with a client especially if they had one date and slepped together for the rest of the weekend).

Actually, MrSpoc, I would expect a CM not to have people calling round for more than a few minutes while she was looking after more than a couple of children at a time regardless of whether they were relatives or long-standing friends but especially if they were men she had only just met and with whom she seems to have had a very intense relationship that seems to be clouding her judgment. I sent my son to a CM who was lovely but allowed him to get very seriously injured because, I strongly suspect, she was chatting with a neighbour when she should have been looking after him and the two other boys that were there. To have another adult there all day when she is meant to be looking after her mindees is completely unreasonable.

Why did she tell the mindee's mother about her date? Because I suppose they have a superficially friendly arrangement, ask after each other at drop off and pick up - this is quite normal, I was always quite chatty with the people who looked after my children. Tbh, she doesn't sound terribly sensible to have given that much away but she may have just been excited by her date.

I do agree with you that it would be wrong for the OP to remove the listing from the notice board without first having had a chance to speak to the CM about it.

if another person lived in the property would you expect them to leave everytime the CM is working?

This is essentially what you are saying.

Not really. If another person lived at the property, they would be CRB checked, the CM would know them and when the parents enquired about the CM she would disclose her set up.

Unlikely the man was a paedo, but nevertheless the CM has shown a serious lack of judgement.

No nursery, or place of work would allow people to simply hang around. I just would not find this acceptable as a parent; I want people who look after my child to have good judgement not clouded by the latest date.

This board the card is on - does it have "rules" either written or implied (e.g. Only people vetted by the parent representative or recommended by at least three users etc will be allowed to advertise here) sorry that sounds rude but is there some form of guarantee offered by getting details of advertisers from your board, or is it clear that people should undertake their own checks on advertisers?

Overnight and constantly present visitors is tricky, I can see the point in vetting them. But with regard to other (daytime) visitors....

No visitors for more than a few minutes??? How is a CM supposed to meet new clients? How is a potential new client supposed to assess how the CM interacts with children, and what the environment is like for kids to be in? Do you know how long the paperwork takes to discuss and present? What if an existing client wants to stop and chat for a while about issues, is that to be banned, too?

And personally, I would not want to be a CM if I couldn't have a friend around for a cup of tea and a chinwag without filling in a CRB and 6 other vetting bits of paper for them (sigh).

What next, CMs can't regularly go to toddler groups unless their clients vetted everyone else who might be there? What about Soft Play? Swimming? The whole rest of the world?

No, I wouldn't expect them to leave but, as Senorita says, they would have been CRB checked and I would expect them not to take up too much of the CM's time and interrupt her work.

I think the problem here is essentially that CMs have to be seen to behave in a way that is above reproach. This woman isn't: I agree that the risk her boyfriend will harm the children in any way is minute but she doesn't seem to have considered that risk at all and, what is worse in some ways, is that she is involving him in the care of her mindees and allowing him to interrupt her work.

YANBU - he should be CRB checked if he's spending time there.

Not subscribing the the "paedo on every corner" theory, however Paedophiles are quite cunning and will target people who work with children, single Mum's etc in order to get access to children.

That your CM would prioritise this man/relationship over her business and your child, after 'knowing' him for such a short period of time suggests to me she's the perfect 'type' to be targeted by such a person. (I speak as someone who's mother was used in this way by a paedophile). I too would be concerned.

If you child is to stay there for the month you must insist this man is not there during business hours unless he is CRB checked - even then I wouldn't be happy as her attitude is not good. You may need legal advice but I wouldn't hesitate to break the contract if I felt unhappy about continuing with her services.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to grasp.

Partner/husband in house; CRB check, so fine.
Workmen in house: probably fine, professional.
Internet random you just hooked up with: not fine.

And its not like its just "peedo paranoia", its bloody unprofessional and shows a lack of judgement. and lets not forget the CM was the one who cancelled the contract which shows she is defensive about it.