AIBU to not allow my DD in the taxi with this man?

[mickeyvsminnie]

My DD is 13. We live very rurally and the council provide a taxi for her and several other village children due to our distance from the school. I suppose it's the country equivalent of a school bus!

Anyway, she is in year 8 so has been going in the taxi for almost two years now. There is one driver - I shall call him 'Dave,' who does some of the journeys, along with Paul and Marie - the owners of the taxi company [ the council contract out the job ].... Dave does around 50% of the journeys.

My DD has mentioned several times to me in the past that he is a 'bit weird ' and she 'feels uncomfortable ' when in the taxi on her own with him [ this happens sometimes due to other drop off/illness of other kids etc] but I brushed it off until a few weeks ago.

She was off school for a day or two with a stomach bug. She returned to school and was alone in the taxi with Dave on her first day back. He asked her if she was feeling better, she replied ' yes thank you.' He then said ' was it your periods that you were off with? ' and she was obviously mortified. He then went on to talk about my DDs friend , referring to her as the 'under developed ' girl and ' I bet she hasn't started her periods yet .. ' My DD said he often talks about 'girl things' like this.

So, I call the council and tell them that i feel this is highly inappropriate for any man, let alone a taxi driver in his 50s with the job of driving young girls to and from school. They take it seriously, speak to Paul, the owner of the company and Dave is spoken to. 'Yes,' he says, he did indeed speak to DD about her periods but he thought this was entirely normal and he is puzzled as to why it is not appropriate. the council call me to advise they will look into further but they will remove Dave from the runs. I reiterate that I do NOT think he is a padophile - more that he is crass, highly inappropriate and stupid. I then think that this is the end of it.

Anyway, the council call me again today. They wish to reinstate Dave to driving the kids again. He will have 'additional training' and they will ensure that DD is not alone with him [ they cannot ensure this - what happens if a child is ill, for example? ' ]

I am unhappy with this. My DD would not want to be in a taxi with him - far to mortified and uncomfortable.

So- WWYD? AIBU to insist that he is NOT to drive the children to school, that this is a possible warning sign that should be heeded?

TIA!

Report to licensing officer at local council. Speak to the police and tell them you have reported to the council.

You cannot risk this situation becoming more harmful to your daughter.

You should insist that you do not have this driver assigned to you in the future.

Ask the taxi company for confirmation of the date of his last crb check. They should be done every three years via the local council.

thanks all - very helpful.

I am still feeling cross- more that I am not being taken seriously with some very valid concerns. I actually said to this safeguarding nitwit ' how do you think my daughter will feel if I tell her she has to go in a taxi with this man again? ' and he just mumbled a bit. He was very off hand [ although still polite ] when he realised that I was not accepting of his 'extra training ' and 'my gut instinct ' schtick. I said that 'extra training' was for staff who had maybe made an accounting error or tried to cut corners when they shouldn't have done etc etc... I can see how training might help there. But comments about periods and development to 13 year old girls? I'm fascinated to hear all about this course actually.

So, as it stands, SS will be in touch with me, probably on monday. I feel almost sorry for them because they're going to get short shrift. There will be no interviews or statements - what I want is very simple. An assurance that this man will not be driving children around in a taxi. Not because i think he is about to pounce on a child but because this needs nipping in the bud and dealing with in the correct manner.

Everyone has gone mad haven't they? Seriously - the council are almost puzzled that i am not happy with their course of action so far.

Well done BoredRoom for sticking to your guns. The overwhelming number of supportive responses on here is complete justification for your stance.

I hope your you and your DD can move on from this unpleasant event - and that the council learn a valuable lesson!

ahh I didn't realise this was an older thread which had been added to. That'll teach me not to read it all before I comment. Yes stick to your guns. SS are bound to understand your predicament.

Wow

OP you are doing the right thing not backing down on this one. They have probably assumed you will back down as you have been very reasonable. The period talk is very inappropriate but coupled with the comparisons of your DD's former classmate's development it is all just a bit too creepy.

His conversation on this day was about crossing boundaries and trying to create an inappropriate 'friendship' where he and your DD talk about private things and he, in a round about way, compliments her on her 'developing'. The whole thing sends a shiver up my spine.

In my LEA special school transport has drivers and escorts for the pupils, but taxi's used for school runs and paid for by the LEA do not from private taxi firms do not (often used for school refusers to get them to behavioural unit for example). I know this from speaking to taxi drivers who have refused to do this sort of work because of the risk of false allegations against them, the risk of feeling responisble if a child bolts from the taxi, etc and they have also told me of drivers who have happily done this work, and it then has turned out that whilst they do not have any criminal record in this country, it's not so true in other countries. Taxi drivers I have spoken to won't even do this job and I can see why. People wondering why taxi drivers are talking to me about this - my son has special needs and can be a handful in a taxi, taxi drivers often seem to get talking about this issue.

The drivers age is a non issue IMO, whether he is 20, 30, 50, 70 or even 90 he is still an inappropriate creep who has made your DD feel uncomfortable while she has been alone and vulnerable in his car.

You have been very measured so far, I would have the cold facts written down fr your conversation with social services (including the comments about the other girl) and fire from both barrels on this issue. What other "girly things" has he spoken with your DD about??

To my everlasting shame and mortification, my abuser was a great grandfather aged 86.
It wasn't known then about grooming and, although my mother believed me, there was the unspoken reproach of how I could have let a man as old as that abuse me. I must have led him on in some way.

I didn't. He was a serial abuser who must have abused hundreds of girls like me. He almost certainly abused his daughters, grand-daughters, great-grand-daughters, relatives, friends... The list goes on and on and on.

What I'm very clumsily trying to say is that it is extremely unlikely that a man in his 70s suddenly started talking inappropriately to young girls in his care - yes, they are in his care in that taxi - makes you shiver, doesn't it?

I know abusers; I've known a lot of them. Thanks to my childhood, I encountered many creeps like your taxi driver. He should not be around any child. Don't waste an atom of sympathy or concern over him. I am utterly convinced he was priming your little girl and the Council's response to that is extraordinary.
She should never have to face this man again.

The previous poster is right - age is meaningless: they don't have an Off-switch that activates with their first pension book. My abuser was still active into his 90s. God forgive us all for not telling at the time and getting him stopped.

I would actually give SS a statement. That way it can be logged formally and from her point of view. This might help other children in the future. It also might result in SS agreeing that there is an issue. I wonder if the council played it down when running things past SS previously? I do think that 95% of gut reaction is correct. The fact your DD is really uncomfortable with his discussions and him speaks volumes.

Tanith, u have been very brave to say this but to add ' to your eternal shame???' no and no,., to his not yours

As a kid In the 70s we had a taxi home, before school bus regs and safe guarding, our old driver used to put his hands in our knickers and call it tickling. I hated it and my kick ass sister told him off so he heft her alone.

Told mum but She said he was only joking.

She still maintains that despite a friends reunited group all saying that he touched us, he's dead now so we can't get him.

Go instinct and tell police. He will have form at that age.

Op

Sorry to read some of these stories. Very disturbing reading.

My gut instinct [ pretty good and sound on the whole I think ] is that he is NOT grooming her. I just don't 'feel' that. He is just a bumbling idiot. However, we don't base this sort of stuff on feelings do we? How the hell does anyone know what he is/isn't? I am quite sure his CRB will be just fine and up to date. I look at the facts though, as I expected the council to do. He only did this when alone with her. he mentioned periods several times and mentioned another friend of my DDs, asking where she was and describing her as the 'under developed one [ correct, actually - she was tiny, flat chested and looked younger than she was, so his eyes work just fine! ]... and prior to her telling me this she had said he was 'creepy' and she felt uncomfortable in the car alone with him. I had advised her before to just ignore him - this was before I knew about the period questions. On hearing about that, i rang the council.

I really don't want SS in my home speaking to her and I am not going to allow that. She would be embarrassed and feel awkward and as things stand, she knows nothing of any of this and because I have downplayed it to her she is fine and happy and doesn't give him/it a second thought. He has agreed that he said those things, he is deeply apologetic and mortified and he is so sorry for any offence caused. Therefore, it's down to the council/ taxi firm /SS to sort him out in the correct way. They have all the info they require - he has told them everything. So, to my mind, there will be no raking things over with her.

I have no idea of the council structure? I like the idea of an email to my MP, calmly outlining the situation and my concerns and asking what he thinks about all of this.

I was quite satisfied until today - i really thought they'd removed him from school runs and , for me, that was enough. but no...just biding their time in the hope that i was going to be mollified with being told that he'd been on a training course.

I am pretty amazed. Here is their warning sign, their red flag. All the info they need to remove him from school runs. You know, to be on the safe side. just in case. But no... they want to reinstate him.

Can you imagine what would happen if he DID take this further? next year, year after? I don't think he would. But what twat takes the risk?

Rant rant rant : ) Apologies!

I'm shocked at the council's reaction. They seem intent on ignoring your DD's feelings about this man. Most people would recognise that a 13 year old girl would be embarrassed and upset by what he's done, and want to avoid the person who did it. For that reason alone (never mind all the other good points posters have raised) expecting her to get back in the car with him is unacceptable.

I've only just read through this thread, I am shocked! What he did was completely inappropriate, and he essentially admitted to DD that he'd been assessing her (and the other girl's) sexual development! The fact that the council wish to reinstate him is just madness. Unless they're suggesting a chaperone, how can they guarantee she won't be alone with him again?

Whatever his motives, whether grooming or not, this needs to be taken more seriously. I had an unpleasant experience with a tutor in his 60s (also a school teacher I might add) at a slightly older age than your DD. From that experience I would say this guy was testing the water with your DD with his periods chat. I could be way off the mark but my gut tells me that you are taking the right course of action.

Also I meant to add you should try to find out from DD why she initially found him creepy, because it's not just a misjudged comment in isolation, he had obviously been making DD feel uncomfortable beforehand.

YANBU. He sounds more than weird.. Do NOT let your daughter get in a car with him again even if there are others around and make the authorities tackle this properly

I agree the council is being very odd in this regard, isn't it a contracting taxi company? Surely they would be demanding the company not include this driver, or the contract will be terminated (I'm sure there would be legal grounds if the driver admits making personal comments to a young girl). IMagine the law suit if he did touch a client and the council had been told of this grooming - they'd be for the high jump.

I completely agree that not being alone with her isn't going to cut it - she will feel awkward (even with someone else in the car), he could give her a look, a wink, she might feel he's watching her etc.

With regard to social services, I'm not sure what an interview with your DD will achieve. He has admitted the actions she alleged, so there is no differing versions of things, the situation has been clearly revealed.

What there is a difference about is what is to be done. Perhaps SS might want to ask DD what she would like to happen etc, but realistically it's pretty simple that she'd like another driver and never to see this creepy dude again.

Persue this, put it back on the council - as them for details of the training he was given, what checks have been done on him, and why your daughter should be forced into a confined space with this guy when there are other people who regularly drive and can easily be scheduled to do it.

State clearly that your daughter will not be driven by him, and if he arrives she will not enter the car with him. Her attendance at school may be impacted, but school work she can catch up on - self worth, trust and her respect for herself may be a lifelong burden if she feels devalued by this.

Personally I think you should encourage your dd to speak to SS. Explain to her that jumping through the hoops is going to be the quickest way of sorting the problem. Yes, it shouldn't be needed but a SW is likely to understand the significance of this far better than some bumbling idiot at the council- and they have experience of speaking to teens.

You might also get the school to back you up. When we got rid of dd's driver (a very nice man, but a hopelessly incompetent driver) it helped enormously that the school spoke to the company and LEA and told them they would not let dd get into his taxi again.

As for the posters who have asked about escorts, some LEAs do them for older children, others don't. Ours doesn't: dd has been travelling without an escort since she first started needing transport in Year 7.

I agree with Cory - SS actually understand what child protection means, which is more than the other idiots at the council. I can't believe the safeguarding officer, who OUGHT to be far more fecking responsible. And I'd talk to the school - find out who is the designated senior person to whom you report concerns about safeguarding.

Dear God, OP, what does one have to do to make public servants actually take proper and appropriate action?

You are totally right to dig your heels in. There is no way my dd would be in a car with this foolish/inappropriate/possibly even dangerous man.

Great re SS. I agree re putting things in writing from now on.

Oh and I wouldn't print out this thread and send it to them! That is a crazy idea, we are not experts and it will probably backfire and make you look hysterical or irrational. Mumsnet's image outside of, errr, Mumsnet is not great (harpies/hysterics etc).

The council contract out surely? So where is the owner of the taxi firm in all this?

Btw - social workers also work for the council

....and "council workers" come in all forms and we are not all "bumbling idiots". Our hands are tied a lot by protocols, legislations and policies which we have to abide by - often they get in the way of our jobs.

Yes, the council contract out to a specific firm. The owner of this firm also does some of the driving as does his wife. They need this 'Dave' as he is a crucial part of the school taxi-ing team.

The safe guarding bloke said that SS have advised him it is not a safeguarding issue, that they have no concerns and that it is a training matter. Safe Guarding bloke feels differently after our conversation yesterday

my first question for SS on monday will be to ask in what way is this not a safe guarding issue.

sensual - I have spoken to many people in the council in various guises and they have all been great. Like any job though, it's bound to attract it's fair share of idiots and it is unfortunate that they seem to be in charge of school transport in my council.

I just want someone with some common sense

Op stand by your guns. If I were you I would make the following points to the social worker investigating in writing so that there can be no confusion:-

1. Dave made inappropriate comments to your daughter. There is no doubt about it because he admitted saying them.

1. The comments were presumably either made with some kind of inappropriate intention in which case Dave is not suitable to work with children, or because dave is not bright enough to realise that a child would find this comments totally inappropriate and embarrassing, in which case he us clearly not bright enough to be given sole charge of children

1. You arent saying he is necessarily a pedophile but if he is, no amount of training will help. If he is not, no amount of retraining is likely to make him more intelligent

1. His comments clearly show he was thinking about whether or not she had started having periods and comparing her physical (sexual) maturity to that of another child

1. Because if point 1 above there is no need for your daughter to give a statement - there is no dispute as to the facts of what happened

1. Is the council is proposing that there will be another adult in the car? You do not consider the presence of other children to be sufficient. In any event the council cannot guarantee that other children will always be present.

1. Your daughter feels embarrassed and creeped out by dave. She should not have to endure the prospect of being in a car alone with him

1. Why has this matter reared it's head? Presumably because dave has asked to be reinstated to this particular route! Another warning flag

1. If the council tries to insist your daughter travels with him, you will be seeking the advice of chikdrens charities such as the nspcc with a view to going to the press

There are two aspects to this OP. There's the safeguarding issue, which, though you feel he is probably not grooming her, it is a sensible precaution.

And there is the fact that he has already harassed your daughter and, regardless of whether or not they can ascertain whether he is a sexual predator, it is inappropriate for him to ever be on your daughter's school run. Because that damage has already been done, and training can't take it away. Your daughter should not have to get in a car with someone who has embarrassed and humiliated her in order to get to school.

I think you should emphasize that last to the school run people at the council. I know you've mentioned it, but they seem focused only on whether his future actions will be inappropriate and don't seem to have clocked that it is irrelevant in terms of whether he can drive your daughter.

I also agree with SGB's old comment - there is no way for those comments to be "innocent". He's either testing the waters/grooming or he likes humiliating children. I'm very happy your daughter has you looking out for her. I cringe at the sort of low level sexual harassment that was just accepted when I was growing up.