Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To feel really upset that a mum sent her child to school ill again

795 replies

Yesitismeagain · 05/02/2015 17:01

I work in a primary school. One boy (age 9) cried today because he felt so unwell. He was ill yesterday (temperature and feeling ill with it) and his parents were called early, but they didn't come till normal pick up.

Today he was back in, but was obviously very unwell from the start. The school phoned by 9.30am to come and get him. He was crying, shivering and just lying on the floor in the 'sick room' (a small room off the office).

By 2pm a parent still hadn't arrived. The office were told that the neither parent could come as they work.

Is it just me that this is neglect?

OP posts:
Marynary · 07/02/2015 10:24

Marynary, how many people are seriously going to lose their jobs because they have to go to collect their ill children from school?

A not insignificant proportion I would imagine. I certainly know more than one person who has lost their job after doing that (or becoming pregnant). There isn't much they can do if they have been employed by the company for less than two years.

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 10:25

fIf you have to work late does that become the sChools problem too
The other day i literally couldn't get there for pick up time, I had no choice
Hmm

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 10:26

ll the pregnancy thing is discrimination, they can and should do something

Marynary · 07/02/2015 10:31

ll the pregnancy thing is discrimination, they can and should do something

Only if they can prove it which they can't if the employer doesn't have to give a reason for dismissal because they have worked there for less then two years.

fedupbutfine · 07/02/2015 10:31

some feckless individual who puts their employer before their child

since when has it been feckless to work for money that pays your bills, keeps a roof over you and your children's heads and puts food on the table?

PeruvianFoodLover · 07/02/2015 10:32

All the while schools 'cope', and don't deregister pupils, or don't charge parents for the service, then government policy will continue to perpetuate the problem.

It needs parental pressure on Government in order to stop the relentless drive for parents to return to work, and to stop their employment rights being eroded.

clam · 07/02/2015 10:36

Newsflash! Children get ill!
Parents need to have contingency plans for that, and not act as though the school's being unreasonable when they expect a sick child to be collected.

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 10:36

Fed up well it would be fairly feckless to decide you have to work to put a roof over your head etc etc so you have to leave your 6yo home alone for the day. Most would agree it's unacceptable and no matter how much you need to work to put food in their tummies you as the parent need to sort something out. in the scenario I describe there's no mug to offload your child onto.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 10:39

Parents need to have contingency plans for that, and not act as though the school's being unreasonable when they expect a sick child to be collected.

I doubt that parents think that the school is being unreasonable to ask for their children to be collected. However, not everyone can have a contingency plan (i.e. friend or relatives who don't work and are willing to look after sick child, loads of money to pay full time nannies in case of emergency). Parents have to send their children to school. Parents have to work and provide food and shelter. Rather than being neglectful, some are just stuck between a rock and a hard place.

tiggytape · 07/02/2015 10:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 10:52

ould anyone leave Their 6yo home alone when they have no choice but to work? If not isn't the only difference that when they're at school you can pass the problem, the responsibility on to someone else

clam · 07/02/2015 11:08

"I doubt that parents think that the school is being unreasonable to ask for their children to be collected."

I can assure you that there are a fair few who do.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 11:33

Could anyone leave Their 6yo home alone when they have no choice but to work? If not isn't the only difference that when they're at school you can pass the problem, the responsibility on to someone else

Leaving a six year old home alone could never be a better option for the child than a jobless parent as they obviously can't look after themselves and could suffer serious injury. Leaving a child at school with responsible adults at school may however be a better option for the child than their parent losing their job, being evicted from their home etc etc.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 11:37

"I doubt that parents think that the school is being unreasonable to ask for their children to be collected."

I can assure you that there are a fair few who do.

They might think the school is unreasonable if the child is not actually ill (as sometimes seems to be the case) but I doubt that they think the school is unreasonable if the child really is ill.

kim147 · 07/02/2015 11:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 11:41

But leaving them at school is only an option because the school has no one to hand them to. So you're palming off your responsibility to sort it to a mug that just happens to be there

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 11:46

What I'm getting at is this utter lack oF choice seems a fairly dependent on the situation

Marynary · 07/02/2015 12:02

But leaving them at school is only an option because the school has no one to hand them to. So you're palming off your responsibility to sort it to a mug that just happens to be there

That is irrelevant as the debate is not about what is best for the school. The debate is about whether it is always neglectful to the child to not pick them up straight away when they are sick. Arguably if the best option for the child is that they are left at school for a few hours with responsible adults when not seriously ill rather than suffering the consequence of a parent without a job (eviction, poverty etc) then the parents are not being neglectful.

clam · 07/02/2015 12:10

And from the schools' point of view, there are many parents who will hide behind the potential consequence of losing their job (how likely is that to really happen?) when the actuality is that it's just inconvenient to get to their child quickly and they prefer to rely on someone else holding the fort. The reality is it's pretty unpleasant for a sick child to remain in school - for them and for everyone around them. It is not the school's job. And if a parent is told that their child is too unwell to remain on site and the parent chooses to ignore that and delay collecting them or making suitable arrangements, then yes, I would say that's neglectful. Not 'carting away to SS' neglectful but certainly Hmm.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 12:24

clam You are naive if you think it very unlikely that anyone will ever lose their jobs for leaving when the school calls. As I keep saying employers don't even have to give a reason for dismissing someone who has worked for them for less than two years so easy to dismiss someone in these circumstances. I agree that is isn't nice for the child to be at school when they are not well but if it would be worse for the child if their parents lose their job then arguably the parents are not neglectful. Just unfortunate enough to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

clam · 07/02/2015 12:31

Are you saying that the rules for emergency dependants' leave doesn't apply to people employed for less than two years?

Stealthpolarbear · 07/02/2015 12:34

I'm picking up on a particular strand of the debate, that the parents have no choice. Pointing out that they have the same no choice if childcare lets them down on a non school Dh. But because the children are with them they don't have the opportunity to make this lack of choice someone else's problem.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 12:45

Are you saying that the rules for emergency dependants' leave doesn't apply to people employed for less than two years?

They would have to give the emergency leave but there would be nothing to stop them dismissing the employee afterwards because of it. If they don't have to give a reason for dismissal it would be impossible to prove that it was anything to do with the emergency leave would it not?

clam · 07/02/2015 12:55

Wouldn't that be constructive dismissal?
Anyway, the point remains, if you have children then it is YOUR responsibility to organise backup arrangements. No family local? So get networking and make some friends that you can organise some sort of reciprocal arrangement.

Marynary · 07/02/2015 13:07

Wouldn't that be constructive dismissal?

Not only do employers not have to give a reason for dismissal, I don't think you can sue for unfair dismissal either until you have worked somewhere for two years.

Anyway, the point remains, if you have children then it is YOUR responsibility to organise backup arrangements. No family local? So get networking and make some friends that you can organise some sort of reciprocal arrangement.

This going around in circles now. Who would you have a reciprocal arrangement with? Non working parents don't need to be part of an arrangement for obvious reasons. Working parents do but if they work they can't reciprocate so having an arrangement with them would be pretty pointless.