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, george, OP isn't saying that.

I believe most teachers are trustworthy, I would still expect them to get my permission before putting my child in a car with one of them.

george - it isn't about whether the parent trusts the worker, it's about whether a young child can make a judgement call about which known adults/acquaintances are safe to go somewhere with without telling your parent. Generally, we would say an 8yo can't make those judgements themselves so should always check with their parent before going somewhere or getting in a car with someone. We also tell children that a 'safe' adult would always check with a parent before taking a child somewhere unexpectedly and wouldn't try to force a child to get in a car without telling their mum.

Pearlman it says the child was distressed in the opening post

Callher I do get what your saying, but think it would be more like his actual teacher rather than some random teacher at school he had little to no contact with most of the time.
That's a big difference, this woman was a main childcare provider to her son and knew him well (presumably) much like a child's class teacher.

george would that be like one of the fair few class teachers now in prison?
If a child is told not to do something by a parent, they're told if for a reason. Now try and think how a child feels when s/he perceives that an adult is trying to push them into a situation that they are uncomfortable with because the parent has said it's not to happen. The worker had plenty of time to ring the parent and offer alternative arrangements. She didn't. She did bully the child into the car. That is all sorts of wrong.

Of course an 8 year old shouldn't have to make the decision (regardless of if her could or not) but I don't understand why it was even a judgment call, surely as I said she was happy for her son to be at this woman's playscheme and happy for this woman to have care of her child while at the playscheme why would anyone presume it to be a problem for the actual boss (playscheme manager) of the regular childminder to take the child home?

The child presumed, based on a prior agreeengagement with their parent.

Ok Dawn but where does it end? You can only do so much, you have to take calculated risks and I have trouble seeing how his playscheme manager, that his mother was happy for him to be cared for by, was an unsuitable person to drive him home! Either she is fine to care for him or not.

The child knew that he was supposed to go home in Mary's car, and his mum knew about that.
He knew he wasn't supposed to get in anyone else's car without his mum knowing about it - even if it is someone he knows.
Susan wants him to get in her car, without his mum knowing. He refuses and she shouts at him and makes him get in her car.

Can't you see why that is a problem george?

It's not reasonable to expect an 8yo to reason that this particular known person who is trying to make you get in a car without your mum knowing is ok because you go to her playscheme and she is Mary's boss, whereas another known person (football coach, scout leader, next door neighbour, dad's friend) isn't ok to go with without telling your mum.

She had all day to call, why didn't she call and offer the lift. Then it was the parent's choice if she wanted her to do it or not. All she had to do was call?

Yes stealth and I think the mother has set him up for all sorts of problems, what if she was taken ill or had an accident and the police couldn't contact her 'trusted person' so asked his teacher to sit with him/take him home to meet DH/take him to hospital the kid is going to kick off royally?

its all well and good to have trusted people that's great and stranger danger and all that but it can be taken to extremes like in OP's case.

Pearlman Why didn't either of the workers just call the OP though? Particularly when it became clear that the DC was unhappy getting in the car. I can see that it made practical sense that worker 2 drove the DC home however that's not the point - the OP isn't complaining that a different worker drove her DC home when her DC was perfectly happy with that. It's because her DC was unhappy about that.

Yes possibly OP needs to widen the boundaries a bit now he's 8 but prior to that, it's too complicated to get a 5 or 6 year old to know what's ok and what isn't re getting in a car which he knows his mum has not personally approved. OP made it simple for him to understand. On this occasion there was a grey area but to DC it was black and white. Workers could/should have respected that as the situation at hand, rightly or wrongly or inflexible as it seemed, and made a phone call to OP.

I don't think it's the worst thing that's happened but I do think more dialogue needs to happen for situations where the DC could be driven (for example, at a friends house, OP might have said "X's mum can drive you home" and then X's dad needs to be the driver.

But I don't think it's unreasonable that OP is upset.

I would be upset that workers had not phoned so OP could approve it over the phone to her DS. (However unless I've missed it, OP does not seem to be making a thing about not being contacted?)

Fair
But you are not taking the back story into context!
You can't pick and choose bits of the OP to make your point. The child knew the playscheme manager she was in a position of care for the child!

george - yes, the child knew the playscheme manager, and like most children had been told not to get in a car with anyone, even someone you know, without telling your mum.

We also tell children that a 'safe' adult would always check with a parent before taking a child somewhere unexpectedly and wouldn't try to force a child to get in a car without telling their mum

What if the mum was in a car accident? My husband was injured and had to go to hospital, I was out of the country, the children had to go with some relatives they'd never met before in the middle of the night!

All these safe words and passwords are useless if the parent is out of action. That's not the case here, but I think this has led to a situation in which the child is disempowered, as being taken home by the other playworker was entirely reasonable in this situation.

you are just being well ott .she tried to do the best in the situation .you do realise you rule of dont get in the car unless i give you permission is just daft and unsafe .say you and hubby are in an accident and have to go to hospital .your friend has to pick him up and he wont get in the car what do you do then .i mean do you want her to phone the police it might seem dramatic but what would you expect in that situation .

And - at school, children go with TA's, parent helpers, different teachers, cleaners, essentially you are delgating parental authority to them to look after your child. It would be impossible for your child to check in with you for every separate adult and all situations. I see a childcare situation, where the child has been going for years as the same, a delegation of parental authority and that both childcarers have the authority to make decisions on the parents behalf (same as on school trips, on school grounds etc).

The idea that only one of two childcarers is 'safe' is bizarre and has caused this utterly ridiculous situation where two carers, one of whom had a family emergency which must be stressful and awful, then make a quick arrangement for the other (trusted, CRB checked, also in an authority role) to take the child home is now facing a complaint.

TheWind - so you'd rather not give children tools to keep themselves safe just in case one day there is a scenario where they have to go with a stranger without telling their parents? Maybe we should tell kids only to go with strangers if the stranger says it is ok?

Is your DS NT?

I'm only asking because my kids have the same rules but they operate a certain level of common sense within those rules. They've driven home by teachers and friend's parents in the past.

On her first day home from senior school dd got in a car with her new friend's mum. She'd never met this lady before but recognised her from a church group my youngest child attends and knew she was a teacher at her cousin's school.

I'm not sure how you'd explain that sometimes it is okay to get in cars with people you know without making it clear that you don't ever get in a car with joe bloggs who works in the local sweet shop.

The playworker was out of order forcing him into a car but I wouldn't go so far as to complain. A quick word with her in private would be best, I think.

Have been designated teacher for safeguarding in a large school. We would advise staff to:
never take a child alone in a car- staff leave themselves very vulnerable to accusations
never force a child physically in any way - again is inappropriate, open to misinterpretation and leave member of staff vulnerable to accusation
speak to parent before taking child in car - always with another adult in car

I think this member of staff needs urgent safeguarding training. She is putting herself and children at risk. It sends a message to children that it is ok to get into a car by themselves without parental permission - and one day there WILL be an adult they should not trust.

I would raise the matter- not a formal complaint, a concern. I do also think OP's original liftgiver was neglectful. She should have contacted the OP. It is a separate contract to the playscheme and her responsibility legally. She knew the home circumstances- builders there.

Bit crap all round because no one was being awful but it is an example of how children can become vulnerable if proper safeguarding procedures are not followed.

OP, I don't really understand why you're getting such a hard time. I think you're quite right to take your DS out of the playscheme, the trust has obviously gone.

The playscheme worker made several worrying mistakes IMO. She could have phoned OP when the childminder had to leave (yes, CM should have done this herself but the playscheme worker should have checked it had happened. They would bother have been aware of the arrangement) .

At the end of the day, once the other children had been collected, the worker should have phoned the OP then. When the child refused to get in the car, a quick phone call could have sorted it. As for 'My phone was out of battery/couldn't find the numbers' that's not an excuse, it just makes the worker look incredibly slapdash and incompetent. The children's details should be in a file somewhere easily accessible in case of emergency and there should always be easy access to a phone.

Soo - see, I would not be at all happy with my child getting in a car with someone she sort of recognises but doesn't know without letting anyone know, anymore than getting in Joe Bloggs car.