to tell DC's school one of their staff has DV convictions?

[onemorenamechanger]

The convictions happened after they started working there, this person doesn't have contact with children. I have never even met this person and found out about this by complete fluke last night. The school may already know and be happy for him to continue to work there but should I mention it to the Head anyway? If the school didn't know already would he lose his job? I was going to ask to see the Head at drop off this morning then changed my mind but I'm starting to think I should say something. Any advice gratefully received please!

The law says he should disclose. If he already has then he has nothing to fear does he?

I find it quite worrying that anyone thinks a conviction for violence is ok. Is it because it's domestic violence? Is there an assumption that clocking the wife is ok because it was probably provoked?

Those who are saying not to because he may lose his job.

Would you not report a drunk person who jobs was driving, or a vet that has been banned from keeping animals.

I would phone the head teacher and let him/her deal with it.

I do uynderstand why the main 'risk' discussed on here is the risk to children - but (mostly female) teachers work in isolated in classrooms every night of the week, often till late at night, actaully feling SAFER because a cleaner is around the building. When I go in to set up my classroom for the last few days of each holiday, I am frequently the only person in school other than the cleaner / caretaker - and as the school is well set back from the road and surrounded by the playground and field, there is nobody within easy reach if I need help.

if i was a HT, i would want to kno abiout this DV, not necessarily because of the risk it poses to children, but because it would make me rethink my 'lone working' policy for staff. At the moment, the policy states that it is fine for me to be in school if another member of staff (HT, class teacher, TA) is in the building OR if it is within the working hours of the cleaner / caretaker...

teacher I suppose that's because lone working is a consideration in all jobs
working with children is an issue in few jobs

Olea
Your assumption is incorrect.
His conviction was after he started in post.
So the check on appointment will have come back clean.
Circumstances have changed since
and that has ALWAYS been the failing of the CRB / DBS system : a check is only valid up to the minute it is printed, after that it is out of date

OP
Sounds like you handled it as well as can be expected.
But do not be surprised if he's still there next term as there may be more to the story than you are aware.

Are you off your rocker Olea ?.

His conviction IS NOT private and confidential information, its open to the public, not going to jail isnt an indicator of the seriousness of the offence (as many offenders get off too lightly). The fact this even made it to court says it wasn't a 'trivial' as many DV cases dont go this far.

Its people like the OP who hopefully will make it really difficult for people with VIOLENCE convictions to work in schools. It doesnt matter that the OP isnt aware of the circumstances. It is a conviction for VIOLENCE against another human being presumably his wife/partner

I genuinely hope that one day you rethink your pathetic attitude on this.

The more I think about it the more I think we should get rid of the term "domestic violence". It's violence. The victim can be mentioned if needed.

Well as long as the head knows, she can make a rational fair decision about what to do based on knowing the facts.

It's eye opening that several people on this thread have defended violence and not seen a conviction for violence any sort of flag for risk in a school employee. I feel sure it's some sort of blindness/stereotyping about domestic violence not being 'real' violence. It's really revolting to think that might be the case

Yes Stealth! We cross posted but this thread has been an eye opener for me

OP, you have done absolutely the right thing.
You have passed the information on and it is up to the HT to take the most appropriate action.

I cannot understand the posts urging caution! What on earth would she need to be cautious about? No-one is going to get sacked because she passes this information on. The HT will verify it, then he might get sacked because of his conviction and failure to disclose it. That would be entirely his fault. If the information is not true, then nothing will happen. No harm done.

You did the right thing OP.

I'm a teacher, I think you did the right thing. I always report anything that I think may put a child at risk. It is not for me to decide if there is a risk, I just alert that it is a possibility. This is what you have done, it is now for them to decide what, if any, action needs to be taken.

I don't think that people have been defending violence. If anything, I think people have been very angry particularly because it has been described as ''domestic'' violence - even though there is no offence of ''domestic violence''.

If the OP had merely used the less inflammatory term of ''violent offence'' then I don't think that people would have been distracted by the term ''domestic''.

I think that the OP was trying to somewhat inflame the issue by even referring to ''domestic'' violence rather than just violence.

But, like TalkinPeace says, it may be the information is true and nothing happens.

That worries me.

Where did I say that Domestic Violence was ok?

Olea - If he's done something bad enough to be convicted (must be v bad to be convicted) it isn't top secret. Any tom dick or harry be able to legitimately find out details of his conviction. A minimum requirement is that his employees know but actually anyone can find out about it and decide things for them selves.

If the guy has been convicted of a violent offence, the details will be here
www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/court-case-search.php?mode=1
OP can verify the exact outcome if she so wishes

it is interesting to look at because the case details are often not as they are reported in the press

(when the outcome of my work was widely reported last year I was gobsmacked at the inaccuracies)

Actually there are issues beyond the DBS check.

Some insurance policies specifically exclude people with unspent convictions for certain offences, so the head will need to check that this person is covered by the relevant insurance, even if the school determines that the DV offence is not relevant to this role.

I would definitely want to look it up for myself.

I have a 4 year old. She is lovely and I adore her. However, she is also incredibly annoying. Really really annoying.

Someone who reacts with violence to his wife / partner being annoying is a danger to her.

You should tell the head, who should already know. In total confidence. And not tell anyone else, (unless it's the vulnerable single mum who's about to be his next victim)

As an aside to the OP's question, which has been resolved, does anyone know any statistics on the connection with violence against a partner and violence against 'others'?

Is there a statistical link?

I'm very ignorant about the specifics, only remember the 'more likely to be hurt by someone you know' and 'more likely to be hurt during pregnancy.'

I'd love to know what the statistics say about violent crimes...I might google.

I'm so glad that you dealt with it carefully and professionally. Well done :)

Safeguarding is everyone's business and I'm surprised that so many people have faith in the inter agency and inter professions communication - this is one of the most vulnerable aspects of our society.

Communication doesn't happen easily and things don't naturally get shared amongst professionals, even when it's supposed to - which it isn't in this situation.

Naturally, humans are bad at passing on information between different social networks. We're much better at disseminating info within our groups, but things get messy and fuzzy at the edges.

We shouldn't rely on completely separate professional bodies having the time or the sense of importance to go out of their way to pass on this kind of information. It's a false sense of security which allows us to avoid difficult decisions and accurate assessment of risk.

Prioritising reputation (busy body, gossip!) and a sense of loyalty (you might get him sacked) over allowing someone in authority to make an informed decision seems a bit too 'comfortable' and easy to me.