Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
fredfredsausagehead1 · 08/02/2015 14:35

I totally agree mythical and am completely baffled that parents won't take responsibility!

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 14:38

the child's discomfort remains untreated for hours until they get home

So why, oh why do so many schools choose to remain responsible for the child?

Why isn't it standard practice to ensure that sick children are removed from the school by parents, or the relevant authorities, within a predetermined timescale?
Why are schools enabling this wholesale failure of DCs?

If children are at risk of discomfort through lack of medication, and of emotional trauma due to overhearing the drama being played out in an attempt to contact parents, then why isn't anything being done about it? Why are schools permitted to "do the best they can" when that involves a child lying on the floor, feverish and crying for hours?

If a parent had done that, then that would be considered neglect. Why are schools retaining responsibility and yet are not held accountable?

MythicalKings · 08/02/2015 14:43

If a parent had done that, then that would be considered neglect. Why are schools retaining responsibility and yet are not held accountable?

Because some parents are feckless and irresponsible and the blame would be directed back where it belongs, at the door of the parents. Any suggestion that the school should be held responsible would result in schools calling the police or social services to remove the child to a place of safety.

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 14:46

Any suggestion that the school should be held responsible would result in schools calling the police or social services to remove the child to a place of safety.

Well, exactly. That's my point. If SS/police are capable of placing a DC in a "place of safety" that meets the DCs needs, then why are the school reluctant to do that - given that they have a lack of facilities, staffing or experience to appropriately care for a sick child?

MythicalKings · 08/02/2015 14:50

Because we care about the children and don't want to cause more distress than the parents already have by not collecting them.

clam · 08/02/2015 14:54

Schools cannot mend all society's ills, despite what people would like to think. They do the very best they can - calling the police for a sick child (which is after all how the child would perceive it "I was poorly and the police came and took me away") is really not the best way to deal with it. Of course schools aren't going to want to do that. They will persist in trying to track down the parent, which is the right and proper course of action.

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:00

mythical isn't that misguided though? Schools are unable to meet a sick DCs needs, yet you say schools choose to retain responsibility for them, rather than hand them over to agencies whose job it is to meet those needs, because you don't want to cause the DC more distress?

Using that argument, a lot of medical care should be withheld from DCs (injections that will help cure them, medicines that taste bad) - because it causes them distress in the short term in order to best meet their needs.

If schools choose to retain responsibility for DCs who have been let down by their parents, surely there is a responsibility on the school to ensure the DCs needs are met, or to transfer responsibility to another agency which can?

clam · 08/02/2015 15:03

And the school may well contact other agencies, if they feel there is a bigger issue around the no-show for collection. But then and there, the priority is getting the sick child cared for.

And the school is hardly "choosing" to retain responsibility. They're kind of left holding the baby, and sorry, but calling the police or SS is not a viable option in my book. Not the same as an injection AT ALL.

MythicalKings · 08/02/2015 15:12

What do you think we should do, Peruvian?

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:13

There's something inherently wrong with a system where a school chooses not to involve agencies whose job it is to safeguard DCs when a parents actions lead to neglect, and yet at the same time, the school have no responsibility to meet that DCs needs themselves.

clam · 08/02/2015 15:16

Who says the school isn't involving those agencies?

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:16

mythical either provide facilities to care for those DCs whose parents leave the school "holding the baby" or pass responsibility for the DCs over to agencies whose job it is.

Complaining that schools can't look after DCs, but then those same schools refusing to access the services which are there to do so is self-defeating, but worse, it fails the DCs.

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:18

clam in the case of the OP, the DC was lying in the floor, feverish and crying, for 5 hours.

If that had been anywhere other then a school - airport, cafe, shop - the child would have been removed to a place of safety by police/SS.

Why is it different when it is a school, where (according to this thread) there are no additional resources to care for a sick child?

clam · 08/02/2015 15:20

An airport, cafe, shop would not be a familiar environment to the child, or filled with adults they knew or recognised. Totally different scenario.

clam · 08/02/2015 15:24

Looking at the bigger picture, schools almost certainly would be contacting other agencies. In the OP's scenario, my HT would have been on the phone pretty soon - and spoken at length to the parents too, (if not that day, but the next) to find out what was going on and what had led to the delay.

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:24

So it's better to keep the child in a familiar environment where they are unmedicated, uncomfortable/soiled and unprotected from the drama of tracking down their parents, than an unfamiliar one where they will be physically warm and comfortable, medicated and protected from age inappropriate information?

clam · 08/02/2015 15:29

You think being carted off to SS or a police station is a better option? Seriously?
And they wouldn't be given Calpol then either - might be allergic to it, for all they knew, or the parents had objections to its use.

PeruvianFoodLover · 08/02/2015 15:37

You think being carted off to SS or a police station is a better option? Seriously?

Compared to the grim descriptions on this thread of the suffering and conditions ill children are subjected to while waiting for their parents, yes!

And once children have been taken to a place of safety, they can be medicated at the discretion of a Dr - who can advise by telephone if necessary for minor ailments. It's often the same Dr who responds to calls to police custody cells here - they're on-duty for both. As the school will have a record of allergies, that can be passed on to SocServ and considered accordingly.

If schools think it's better for DCs to stay with them than be placed in the care of SocServ when their parents fail, then schools should be held accountable for meeting those DCs basic needs. Otherwise, the child suffers further.

Primaryteach87 · 08/02/2015 17:17

I've had a non-collected child on a number of ocassions. For example, with one we made every effort to contact the parents, contacts etc. Eventually rang SS and ended up in our care until 8.30pm when mum appeared. We didn't have permission to take the children offsite, so had to raid the kitchen to make beans on toast and try to keep (two very anxious children calm). Both teachers who had to stay, had families/children of their own. We were lucky to find two teachers who had partners who could do dinner, bedtime etc. For some schools they just would have no option but to hand the children over to SS.

clam · 08/02/2015 17:23

What had happened to make the mum so late?

HelenaDove · 08/02/2015 17:27

clam theres no point playing the "charity" card. Basically ppl who voted a certain way have simply got what they voted for.

HelenaDove · 08/02/2015 17:28

edam mentioned an online bookseller.

What about single parents on workfare. They will CERTAINLY lose their benefits if they leave their "workplace"

clam · 08/02/2015 17:31

How, Helena? Sick bays began to disappear from schools a long time before the current government came to power.

HelenaDove · 08/02/2015 17:38

I was talking about the erosion of employment rights.

Primaryteach87 · 08/02/2015 18:50

Mum had thought childminder was picking the children up, and had no battery on her phone. She didn't discover her mistake until she arrived at childminders to pick them up. The problem is (as with sick children pick ups) a) this wasn't the first time for either that mum or other parents b) most schools can't afford a full time nurse/emergency childcare provision so parents are taking advantage that teachers/school staff will put their children above any other commitments (either teaching during the day or their own families at night). I have sympathy for parents in these hard situations however (sorry to be controversial) as a society I think we need to ensure that either a grandparent or parent is available at short notice. Realistically that means building society around NOT expecting all adults to be working full time.