Sister police caution, aibu... Sn

[SexDrugsAndSpringRolls]

Sisters has autism,LDs, hearing loss and other difficulties. She was however volunteering in nurseries at lunch and it was going well...I've been moaning for a while that she's stopped as she's become quite directionless again. She loves kids, never an issue how she reacts to them and they like her. Plays with them, however I see how workmates find her wearing.

Found out finally what happened.

Picked up days at at a new nursery , immediate clashes with certain staff being irritated with her. She's like a big kid. Soon after items started been stolen, sis was accused a few times. After a big row the manager set up a sting, phone on tablet and web cam.

Sis stupidly came in the office angry and picked it up. Before she even left police were called.

It was quickly established from times it was impossible any other thefts were her. For most she was volunteering elsewhere.

She says she thought she may as well steal as they thought she was a thief, but swears she only planned to hide it. She hid it in the toilets where she showed police. They took her to the station, she was there until late and duty solicitor told her to accept caution. She called no one and walked six miles home.

Aibu to be livid?

1. Nursery know the level she functions at, supported accommodation and iq under 70 as well as big communication issues. Can't for example be trusted to turn taps or has off and struggles with roads. Like a stubborn 8 year old in the situation they created for her
2. At police, she's vulnerable. They didn't call me or her sw or check how she got home

3 she's never stolen before, the situation was created in which her poor logic was used

Upshot is with theft from work in an enhanced crb she now is wanted nowhere.

For theft there has to be 'the intention of permanently depriving' someone of the thing. Not only was your sister given a caution she may well not have the capacity to accept but she didn't steal anything.

OP, is it possible they asked her if she needed someone present and she said no? Would she remember that?

I think a pp has highlighted this but the school behaviour is wrong as well.

Utterly appalling behaviour and shockingly illegal of the nursery and the police.
Give her a big hug and get lawyered up on Monday. Call Mencap and get the name of shit hot lawyer.
for you both. This is horrendous.

Sadly I have to agree with mommy2ash, about offering volunteering opportunities to people with additional needs. I will still take people but only working directly one to one with me, I would never expect one of my staff to take the responsibility. Although two of my staff have taken volunteers with additional needs along for the ride in the past off their own initiative, and I'm very pleased our insurance covers it.

However what happened to your sister was still wrong. If the nursery was finding it difficult to keep an eye on her while she volunteered, they should have said so. But I bet they were just enjoying having a free worker, albeit one who needed to be supervised closely. Bastards!

Even if she refused for someone else to be present, the police should have ascertained whether she had capacity to make that decision. Someone with an iq of under 70 is unlikely to be able to understand what a caution really means. She should have had an advocate / appropriate person with her. The police were wrong. I'd contact safeguarding for vulnerable adults (google for your local number) and see if they can help.

The police should have got an appropriate adult for her but they would have just been present at the caution and the outcome would have been the same.

Unless she has the mental capacity of a child under the age of criminal responsibility?

From your description of her, I'm shocked that a duty solicitor would advise your dsis to accept a caution and that you were not asked to attend the police station in the capacity of the responsibile adult who should have been present during your dsis's interview.

Your dsis's disabilities will most probably ensure that she will be entitled to legal aid.

Please consult a solicitor* who specialises in criminal law as matter of urgency as the caution may prohibit your dsis from volunteering or working in childcare and related fields.

Fwiw it could be argued that in hiding the phone in a toilet on the nursery premises your dsis had no intention to steal or deprive the owner of the phone and that the caution should be voided. If she had put the phone in her bag or pocket and left the the premises it would be another matter entirely but, neverthless, a responsible adult should have been by her side at the police station.

Also fwiw, I don't believe your dsis should be kept away from kids, but I do believe that some adults should be kept away from those who have disabilities.

I feel for your poor dsis swho's kept this no doubt distressing experience to herself and for you having only just learned of this incident.

*Do make sure that the duty solicitor who so miserably failed your dsis is not employed by whatever firm you choose to consult.

Also fwiw, I don't believe your dsis should be kept away from kids, but I do believe that some adults should be kept away from those who have disabilities.

This

The police should have got an appropriate adult for her but they would have just been present at the caution and the outcome would have been the same

That's not necessarily the case, Fairenuff. If I'd been present as a responsible adult at the dsis's interview I would have taken issue with the duty solicitor and the outcome may have been very different.

It sounds like your sister needs solicitors who are experts not only in criminal law but also actions against the police - I would suggest Hickman & Rose or Irwin Mitchell.

For those querying kids...
She's obviously not in ratios
We're talking an hour spoon feeding toddlers and smiling at them over the table or pouring juice. Many four yr olds can do this, not much scope for mustakes! Another preschool recommended her! She's not going to harm a child, all the nastiness was around interaction outside this hour, particularly on a staff night. Just really piss taking for fun.
She likes kids as they don't do this to her, hence nursery volunteering.

I too have worked with adults with sn at work, particularly in a supermarket. Often the role had potential, but other adults were the issue. I remember one guy always being laughed at or moaned about for stacking shelves wrong until someone had the sense to assign him cardboard flattening, unloading lorries and the heavy stuff like beans as he was massive. Then he was suddenly great as everyone else hated it whilst he was happy.

Out of question, should "people. Like your sister" be kept indoors???

I bet she said no, but if they took her address I'd be amazed if it wasn't recognised as supported housing from local police

I will read all the links when calmer, thank you

Regarding CCTV rules tbf they may have told her could have even pointed it out on the table and she wouldn't click the consequence-

It's irrelevant at this point whether your sister should be working in a nursery the point is this situation was badly managed both by the nursery and the police. I really do think you need to take this further and second Gruntledone's suggestion of solicitors such as Irwin Mitchell (have no experience of the other one)

I know it cow face.. I'm just angry that it's become a focus. I spent so long building her up and helping her find direction... And now were back to depression and sitting in alone. It's a sad life really

What a horrible situation.

Tbh if things weren't working out, I wonder why they didn't just say that!

Yes... They could have just told her not to come the next day. No charity involvement or contract at all. Just didn't like her, I'll admit she's damn hard work but she goes away if asked

I think the surveillance information though useful for employees doesn't apply here as she was a volunteer, therefore doesn't have employee status.

Sadly I agree with ash, personally I'm paying a shit load of money to a nursery to monitor my son not volunteers. Whilst I take your point about ratios and the ease of her role it's possible that her aggressive behaviour which you described made them monitor her more closely which would have detracted from focusing on the job they were paid to do.

That said I don't think she should be prevented from working with kids just in a different context perhaps. Presumably though her caution will show up on her CRB check and this will stop her from doing so? In which case it could be worth exploring the possibility of legal aid for her to challenge it. Given her SN would she be entitled to this?

I'm really sorry this happened to here, her confidence has probably taken a battering. You do sound like a very supportive sister, hope you find a way through this

I was going to suggest Mencap, as well.

I start with Charity providers and start an Offical Complaint.

""Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice, police custody sergeants must secure an Appropriate Adult (AA) to safeguard the rights and welfare of vulnerable people detained or questioned by the police. This is a critical safeguard in our justice system that arose in part due to vulnerable people confessing to crimes they did not commit.""

That's from the guidance when dealing with anyone suspected of being vulnerable.

The Police have broken the "Protection of Vunerable Adults", legalisation and failed to provide an Appropriate Adult.

This can be overturned.

It was up to the Police to gather enough information to deem her vulnerable.

Aggressive?

Your poor sister. How traumatic for her.
Definitely look into getting advice to get caution removed as it sounds like she has not the capacity to understand a caution.
The nursery, police and solicitor do not come out of this well in my opinion.....

I wonder if the thefts have continued?

OP your description of your sister also matches one of my friends, he has these characteristics due to a physical disability and is annoyed if anyone thinks he has learning difficulties. That's another factor that makes me wonder how the police would know. You mention the address but it seems quite possible that either it wasn't recognised or if she filled it in, would anyone have looked at it? A pp also made the point that the volunteer post itself might have added to any impression that she might not be vulnerable.

I think the whole thing needs to be voided but I'm just thinking that it might not be so obvious to someone meeting her for the first time.

This is a useful link explaining how she should have been treated by the police. www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/detention-and-custody-2/detainee-care/mental-ill-health-and-learning-disabilities/

I did see a simpler document, a while back, but it didn't crop up in my search.