Play scheme worker forced DS into her car

[Longlost10]

My 8 yo DS is in a holiday playscheme, there are two workers there I know. I employ the first one to drive DS home for me at the end of the day. The second one is her boss.

Two days ago, the first one was called away by a family emergency, and unable to drive DS home. The second one made him get into her car against his will, and she drove him home.

I rang her up that night, very very angry. I have taught DS never to get into anyone's car without my express permission, even if he knows them. He was very distressed, and said he had tried to resist and argue, but she had irresistibly over ruled him and forced him in.

When I spoke to the second worker on Friday, she got very offended, and said she thought she was doing a favour for a friend. I am however going to make a formal complaint. She probably was a friend, of sorts, we have been using that play scheme for years,and got to know each other well.

Even so, AIBU to think she should have rung me, and given me the option of leaving work early as a one off emergency, or giving DS permission to get in her car

No good deed goes unpunished!

I'm perfectly chilled thanks. All support staff that I know have had safeguarding training including janitors and middays. I am an LSA and I wouldn't advise any colleague to drive a child home. Why would you ask them to if you wouldn't do it yourself?

The child wasn't abandoned at play group. That's totally unfair on the OP and very, very misleading. The OP had an arrangement with a member of staff that ensured her son got home safely. When this arrangement could not go ahead, rather than contacting the OP, the staff took it upon themselves to act on her behalf and take her son home.

I am sure they believed they were doing the right thing, and were trying to help. However, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They had no right at all to make that decision on behalf of the child's parent.

If there is a safeguarding policy anywhere existing stating that 'if the person normally responsible for collecting a child from the premises cannot do it, then a member of staff should force the child into their vehicle and drive them home' yeah, course it does then the parent has agreed to that by signing the home / school agreement.

No, the second worker was not left in a difficult position; the second worker had six hours in which she could have made a phone call lasting approximately thirty seconds.

It's one of those situations where it's ok to be cross but also look at the wider pictures. You have a neat arrangement with a playscheme DS likes and an arrangement where you don't have to leave work. Golden.

Have a word about what to do in future about lifts, explain why. Then leave it!! The good outweighs the hiccup.

Personally, I think the OP is far too OTT with trying to control her son's life so rigidly and making him frightened of coping with the unforeseen. From a risk assessment perspective, he wasn't actually in any more danger than when he catches the bus home, with his childminder and her son.
If the OP carries on in this vein, he'll probably end up being one of those poor kids that drop out of Uni after the first week because he can't cope with being a minnow in the bigger sea. There's always a couple of these youngsters at every October intake and it's so sad to see such a waste of potential.

If it is against your policy and you do it anyway, it is illegal

Which law does it breach?

maybe you can calm down and stop baying for her blood. Getting her into trouble at work for this is, I think, quite cruel of you. Maybe you will find yourself in a difficult situation at some point and you will do what you think is best under the circumstances but someone else is unhappy about the outcome. On that basis, maybe you can rethink the formal complaint action

The OP has said about THREE TIMES now that she is not going to complain.

This thread is AIBU hysteria at its finest. The OP child has been abandoned, the playscheme worker is an abuser, the OP is a dreadful termagant who dared to make a cross phone call to someone who shouted at her 8yo - straight to gaol for you OP

Seriously, I leave 18mo DD in FT childcare. Sometimes the arrangement is I pick up her up, sometimes DH, sometimes DM or DPIL. If the expected contact let the nursery know with SIX HOURS' notice that they could not do it, erm yeah I would expect the childcare workers to ring me and see what I wanted to do. And yeah, I probably too would leave work early rather than send DD home with a random nursery worker even if I thought she was a nice lady.

Also, I do not own an 8yo and as I have a toddler, 8yos seem incredibly old tough creatures to me......but even I know you don't shout at an 8yo and physically box them in and distress them! Ffs. I work with 18yos and wouldn't do that! Any playscheme worker who does probably should be out of a job.

Cub, there are numerous things considered to be gross misconduct in a working environment that don't compromise the law.

The OP has said about THREE TIMES now that she is not going to complain. This thread is AIBU hysteria at its finest

Lol, I must have missed the posts in the middle of the thread where she said she wasn't going to complain. Sorry- am on my phone. Hope it all works out and to be honest OP, if DS gets on well with childminder, I wouldn't necessarily make other arrangements...

Only think i would say is that StealthPolarBear won't like your use of the word 'hysteria' because it is misogynistic.

No, the second worker was not left in a difficult position; the second worker had six hours in which she could have made a phone call lasting approximately thirty seconds.

Did the second worker know that the child in question's arrangements involved the first worker? The first worker was not giving lifts as part of her employment by the scheme, and had no reason to tell the scheme what she was doing (and indeed, one might think the scheme would have something to say about this arrangement).

The child was not scheduled to be taken home by a member of playscheme staff. The were scheduled to be taken home by a child minder who happened to work for the scheme as well. The playscheme is not responsible in any way for this arrangement (and, again, I suspect that if they knew they would find it unacceptable).

Bloody hell Pearlman, so if there is no policy that doesn't explicitly state 'staff, please do not force children into your cars and take them home at the end of the day' you would do it?

Good grief!

"the second worker had six hours in which she could have made a phone call lasting approximately thirty seconds."

But presumably the second worker was now running the playscheme alone?

Which is really why the childminder should have sorted things out.

Perhaps since they all know each other the second worker thought that she was giving the lift as a friend and not in her capoacity as playscheme worker?

Of course she should not have tried to make the child get in the car when they obviously didn't want to & that's when she should have contacted Op. If not possible then the CM.

Bloody hell Pearlman, so if there is no policy that doesn't explicitly state 'staff, please do not force children into your cars and take them home at the end of the day' you would do it?

Was she giving the lift as a playgroup employee, or as a friend of the first worker? Because I bet the playground itself would have kittens if it found that its employees were giving lifts to children whilst on company time, as they almost certainly don't have insurance for it, nor do their employees.

Suppose the OP had contracted a childminder who didn't work at the playscheme to do the ferrying. Said childminder fell ill, and got her friend to instead do the driving. Whose policies, insurance, etc would that be under?

The playscheme leader was extremely unwise to blur the lines of her employment. The childminder ditto. The OP was unwise, with hindsight, to open this situation up. No-one emerges from it with much credit.

I find it bizarre that so many posters don't tell their children not to go places or get in cars without their parents knowing where they are - and indeed consider these kind of rules 'paranoid'.

These are exactly the kind of rules they will be taught in school, rather than 'stranger danger'.

The playworker may have been totally 'safe', but an 8 year old can't make a judgement about whether a playworker/friend's dad/next door neighbour/lollipop lady is a safe person to get in a car with or not - which is the whole point of teaching them to check with their parent if unsure.

You also teach children that 'safe' adults would never object if they want to ask their mums before taking sweets/accepting a lift/going to see puppies - only an 'unsafe' person would shout at them and try to force them to do something that made them uncomfortable without checking with their parents.

Children are hurt, raped and killed by family friends, parents of schoolfriends, next door neighbours, teachers, scout leaders etc so saying it's ridiculous for a child to worry about going somewhere with a known, CRB checked adult without telling his mum seems odd.

Op - I have read the full thread thinking all the way through that you were being a bit ridiculous. However - your explanation of the full situation re builders, etc. has changed my mind.

1. You should DEFINITELY have been phoned. No question. Possibly by the second worker but mainly the first. Emergency or not, a quick phonecall or text is not hard.

1. If you hadn't been before, at the point at which your son was distressed, you should have been contacted and no further action taken without your express permission.

1. The second worker should have fully understood the agreement between you and the first and there's no way he should have been left, alone, unsure of the situation in a potentially dangerous setting (possibly builders around??)

However, I think almost all the fault lies with the first worker. She was responsible and she failed in that duty.

Sorry, just realised I haven't explained myself very well!

The first worker knew the wider circumstances and because that included builders, etc. and a potentially unsafe environment she should have made a) you aware of her situation and b) made the second worker aware of the wider situation at home.

OP if you believed the playscheme manager to be untrustworthy, unaware of child protection and not to be trusted alone in a car with your son why on earth would you let him attend that playscheme, no matter who the other childminder was?

You can't have it both ways, you either trusted her enough for your son to attend HER playscheme in which case why would she (or anyone) think her driving him home rather than one of her staff would be a problem
Or she is a crazy loon who shouldn't be trusted near a child so why the hell would you allow your son to be there in the first place!

As for you being Very Very angry on the phone with her, you frankly sound like a nightmare! How patronising and rude, the woman thought she was doing you a favour even if you agreed with her or not she was only trying to be kind!
If you had handled it all in a more adult manor she might have taken on board your point about phoning first.