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!

did OP actually say it was violence against a partner? I think (?) OP has said very little about what happened.

Considering how strict the law is about "assault" (i.e., a single slap on face of a stroppy tantrumming teen is enough to get you a criminal record), I am not sure I would have said anything.

It's hard enough for people with criminal records to get jobs. But Hey I would say that (am the only bleeding' heart liberal left on MN, I reckon).

Op said it is dv, so that's what we've been basing this on.

If that is so, the conviction rate is notoriously low for dv, and it often takes quite a number of incidents before it's even reported.

DV or domestic abuse also covers verbal abuse like my next door neibour found out to her horror as she has now lost her job (Teacher) for consently swearing at her husband and also women commit these offences too with the possible number being 1 in 3 victims being male but only the fraction of the coverage / support offered to male victims(no actually violence involed)

Yes Holiday the convictions (plural) are for violence against his partner, I didn't want to give searchable specifics that could identify him.

"had he been a serious threat, he would be in jail."

Bollocks Olea. Utter, utter bollocks.

I can name men for you, men who've Walked out of the dock without a custodial sentence despite being found guilty of violence against more than one partner for the third time.

You're incredibly naive.

When I was a teenager, the barman at my local was a tad scary
one evening we got chatting
he'd come out of prison on licence after killing his wife
thing is that his (late) wife's family regularly drank in the pub because they knew the back story
he was nasty but his sentence had reflected the balance of the crime
as may be the case with OPs cleaner

What does balance of thw crime mean?

Considering how strict the law is about "assault" (i.e., a single slap on face of a stroppy tantrumming teen is enough to get you a criminal record), I am not sure I would have said anything

Quite right too. Adults do not have the right to slap anyone on the face and I don't want any adult who thinks that that is acceptable, working in a school because what happened if he comes across a stroppy kid?

she has now lost her job (Teacher) for consently swearing at her husband

What criminal offence was she convicted of that lead to her dismissal from teaching?
And anyone who cannot control their emotional outbursts, is not suited to teaching.

Stealth
In the case of Pat the barman - he killed her - but she'd beaten the crap out of him for years (as per her mum and sister)
he got the statutory sentence but he'd only ever been a risk to her

the OPs case is VERY different
BUT
the papers from the sentencing hearings are often far more nuanced than reporting implies

lets assume that the chap was convicted of common assault (to reduce the emotion) - a random attack while drunk
context and prior offences make a HUGE difference on sentencing
from 3 months to 5 years

the school will have the background included in their reporting - the local paper may not

but PLEASE do not mistake me as somebody who accepts such behaviour : I was taught to key them in the groin at my gels school at 13. A good lesson.

I think if someone has multiple convictions for violent behaviour, domestic or not, that's an issue if they are in contact with potentially vulnerable people. One conviction might be explained away but multiple ones (assuming they're not all from the same incident) suggest an inability to control their temper.

He may not be a danger to anyone he's not in a relationship with, most dv abusers aren't. If the head is satisfied that he's safe, fine but I think you were right to make sure she was aware of the fact.

That's assuming his convictions were for violence though, I find it bizarre and unjust that people can be convicted for swearing and shouting in a fight with their partner. The law has to allow people to be human and express their emotions, most of us aren't robots.

I'm sorry, I don't agree that someone who is 'only a danger to anyone he's in a relationship with' is suitable to work in a school. Someone who is violent to someone else isn't appropriate with children, whether or not he actually hits them.

A man who has multiple convictions for violence against his partner (as OP says this man does) has no place working with vulnerable people (such as the very young - or the very old, I wouldn't want him in a care home either).

You did absolutely the right thing op, now it's in the hands of the head :).

I'd keep out of it. Unless you know the circumstances of the conviction and feel he might be a danger to children. DV is not paedophilia but it is a form of child abuse by virtue of putting children through trauma of witnessing violence in the home where they should feel safe. Some DV perpetrators (many) can be very morally upstanding outside of the DV situation which is why some victims have difficulty being believed. So outside of that situation he may not be any risk.
The school may know. He may work under restricted conditions. He may need the job to pay maintenance to his former partner and contribute towards a home and essentials for any DC.
Kicked out of work he has no opportunity to redeem himself, in the eyes of any children and wider society. Unemployed, and as he will see it victimised he may become bitter and any work going on behind the scenes to manage anger or control violence may be set back. He will be at home costing us all money and with any dependants worse off.
You really need to be in possession of all the facts before you start making interventions in peoples lives. It won't just be his life that's affected. Even if no DC involved.
Unless you are convinced he is danger to children. Leave it.

I must have missed some of the thread so ignore my post if he has multiple convictions etc. But generally think its wise to be cautious in spreading gossip.
Drat this phone.

Are people really only worried about paedophilia and murder?
Quite a few posts on this thread assuring the OP he's not a murderer or a paedophile

Most employers, especially a school, would want to review an employee's continued employment if they were convicted of a criminal offence, as it impacts on their capability to do the job, is a potentially fair reason for dismissal and also impinges on their duty to their other employees to provide safe and competent fellow employees.

They would normally find out about it from the employee him or herself, the local media, the police, ir some third party telling them. So well done OP.

Its a conviction for assault. It doesn't matter if he is a cleaner or not. Its something his employers should know about. So well done OP.

The possibility of losing employment should remain a social disincentive to committing crime.

I'm a teacher. The school will know through various means. A conviction for dv will show on his crb but will not prevent him from working in a school as he presents no increased risk to children.

I would keep your nose out. In fact the school can't sack him for it legally!

You seem to know all the facts maddy
How do you know he presents no increased risk to children
And the crime was committed after he'd taken up the post and presumably had a clean CRB

is it because he only hit his wife and therefore it's a domestic issue and should be kept between the two of them?

I know you had the best of intentions OP, but I hope you have all of the facts and this doesn't backfire. It can be very hard to leave a violent partner and chances are the women he abused may still be with him. If he is sacked, would he even get benefits? What if his wife and kids are relying on his salary? Even if they split, she may be relying on child support etc. Personally I wouldn't sleep easy if I got someone sacked and put their wife and kids into poverty while I sat snug and warm in my nice life. Particularly if in the circumstances it's unlikely he would be a threat to anyone at the school, and it was done to 'punish' him, as sadly all too often there will be a wife and kids in the background who suffer more. Perhaps though in the circumstances he is a risk, and if he gets sacked, anyone else impacted is sadly unavoidable :(

As I posted earlier the law states that Any position whose normal duties include work in a school, children’s home or children’s hospital require the person to disclose their conviction. They do regard it as information that should be shared with the employer. ANY conviction. It doesn't mean you cannot work -it means reasonable adjustments might be taken to minimise any risk

As Stealth says a DBS (it's not CRB anymore Maddy) will only show convictions prior to the application so that comment is incorrect

NaughtySpottyI agree with the person who wrote "The possibility of losing employment should remain a social disincentive to committing crime." and would add this should be even more the case for violent crime.
If he loses his job it is because of HIS actions. Blaming the OP is downplaying the fact that this man (assuming the OP has her facts right which the HT is responsible for checking) is known to be violent.

Unless you know the circumstances of the assault, it is totally unreasonable of you to get involved. A close friend has a DV conviction for defending himself from his ex (and she was an ex at the time of the incident) away when she attacked him. (Incident happened in a public place, I witnessed it, as did numerous others, but was not asked to give a statement at the time - badly handled by police IMO). This does not make him a danger to others and him employers are aware of the conviction as well as the circumstances. How do you expect anyone with a criminal record to live/ support themselves if they are hounded out of jobs by people who make assumptions based in very limited knowledge of facts?

So his employers know and are supportive
And yet you think the employers of the man the OP describes should not know, despite the fact there is also a fair chance this man wasn't defending himself and is infact just a violent man?