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

[lalalalyra]

They should have called you, however complaining to the playscheme will likely result in all workers being banned from having private arrangements with parents.

I'd have huge issues with your private arrangement anyway and would notaccept a staff member/volunteer at the playscheme I run having it. The fact you want to complain to the playscheme shows exactly why - you are complaining to the playscheme about an issue that tehcnically happened in a time when your child should have been in the care of whoever was collecting him. Your private arrangement has made the line between playscheme and private blurry. You have a private arrangement with someone and when they couldn't do the job then they got someone else to do it, it isn't anything to do with the playscheme really. However at the same time you have presumably only given the playscheme permission for your child to leave with Worker1 and yourself so they shouldn't have allowed the child to leave with someone else.

Messy situation.

Was the boss insured to take your child in her car? Come to that, does worker1 have the correct insurance in your car? Did they/do they have your son alone in the car with them? Massively bad practise if they do. Goes against every safeguarding rule they'll adhere too during the session.

I think your anger is misplaced. The playscheme as an organisation haven't really done anything wrong, but your pick up person has done. She had no contingency plan (which is also your fault). I think all of you have messed up tbh - you for not being specific with worker1, worker1 for not calling you or having a clear back up plan, the boss for not calling you and the playscheme for not having rules about staff doing private work for parents.

[LadyStoicIsBack]

Another that agrees YANBU and also used the 'password' safety mechnism.

All a bit academic now as frankly I'd take pity on anyone dumb enough to try and force my kickboxing 6foot hulks of sons into a car but when they were younger, it worked perfectly.

Am baffled by the YABU posse and/or those who are insistent it was somehow 'automatically' safe - all stats clearly point to biggest risk to children NOT being from 'stranger danger' but from someone they know.

[trafalgargal]

I'd want to be very sure worker A hadn't said " OP will be fine with you taking DC home " assumig you would be - especially as you and worker B are friends........and she took that to mean she had spoken to you already. It's not like working in that enviroment there's lots of free time to try and get hold of people to reconfirm something you assume was already sorted out by your collegue.

Still I guess you've lost your holiday care and a friend so probably checked all this out first before wading in.

[PlotterOfPlots]

Surely the contingency plan involves phoning the parent. Which is what should have happened.

Talk of ringing Social Services is hyperbolic. Obviously you start by ringing the parent(s) and any other emergency contacts listed, and SS is a last resort if no one's answered the phone after some time. SS would tell you where to go sharpish if you rang them before the parent!

Lala makes a very good point. The first result of any complaint will be the immediate withdrawing of any staff giving lifts home. This will probably happen anyway though.

[FuriousFate]

Absolutely agree with Squig and also many of Lala's points. This was bad practice by all concerned. A wish to be helpful does not trump safeguarding rules and procedures, which are there for a reason. Worker one was at fault for not informing you, worker two was at fault for going against protocol and making your DS leave with someone other than you or your nominated driver. I can't imagine a school teacher saying, oh dear, little Jimmy's mum isn't here, I'll just send him home with Mr Briggs or whoever else might happen to be around. Worker two could have called you and offered to drive and you should have been given the chance to accept or refuse and pick up yourself. To take it upon herself, and then to force your son into her car against his will, is despicable. Does she taxi home any and all children whose parents don't collect them on time? Surely in her position, she'll be aware that she's put herself in an extremely vulnerable position. Your DS could claim anything had happened on that journey. Just no. I'd be livid, OP.

[littleducks]

I think people are missing the point if they say 'but she was CRB checked' and 'knows you'

Statistically children are more likely to be abused by someone they know. Certainly the only child sex offender I have known was well known, well liked and CRB checked into he was caught.

I'm sure the lady in question was just trying to do her best and is not abusive in any way but it's common sense to maje a phone call especially if the child becomes upset.

[Dripdrop]

The thing is children are more likely to be harmed by someone known to them than a stranger. I'm a teacher and we tell the children never to go with someone without the express permission of the adult you're with, even if it's someone you know. In this case there was adequate time for the play worker to ring.

[trafalgargal]

Am baffled by the YABU posse and/or those who are insistent it was somehow 'automatically' safe - all stats clearly point to biggest risk to children NOT being from 'stranger danger' but from someone they know.

So what is the point of having all playscheme staff police checked. All workers there are checked but if they are clearly a danger to children then perhaps we shouldn't have playschemes, childminders or teachers ......and every Mother should SAH for the protection of their children until they are 18. There's a world of difference between a random friend and one employed in a playscheme so fully checked out (not to mention a friend of the OP's of several year's standing) The child would be at more risk from a parent hosting a playdate than this person -as there's no checks on the people you let take your children for playdates but there are plenty for childcare professionals.

[trafalgargal]

Surely in her position, she'll be aware that she's put herself in an extremely vulnerable position. Your DS could claim anything had happened on that journey

The same can be said of any time anyone other than a parent takes a child anywhere (including the daily arrangement the OP made with worker A). I do think the lines were blurred as OP says she and worker B are friends and she probably thought she was doing her "friend" a favour in making sure he got home safely without her having to leave work early ....and no doubt now wishes she hadn't bothered and called social services to pick him up which is the protocol at most play-schemes if the pick up arrangements fail.

[trafalgargal]

The OP had no contingency plan -which was unfortunate -as doing so would have made this whole situation avoidable.

[Doinmummy]

Your 'contract' was with the worker who wasn't able to take your child home.It was her responsibility to inform you of the change of plan.

[trafalgargal]

Worst outcome is that a complaint results in both workers getting suspended/ fired for not following safeguarding procedures ...... and if new staff can't be found imediately then the playscheme culd be forced to close or reduce numbers if they can't meet the statutory ratio of staff to children.

Even if the breakdown in your relationship between two key people at the scheme isn't enough for you to remove your son OP it's possible you'll need alternative care anyway if that happens.

[FuriousFate]

Trafalgar - it could, but in this case, the OP hadn't given permission for her DS to travel with this lady. There's a world of difference.

To everyone saying that there wasn't a contingency plan and that social services would have been called - erm, yes there was and social services would have done the same thing! Call the child's parent(s)! In exactly the same way they would have done if a parent/childminder/nominated adult had been late/not turned up. You can't just take it upon yourself to ferry children around, however well meaning and intentioned you might be.

My only caveat would be, as a PP said, that worker 2 wasn't of the opinion that worker 1 had squared it with the OP already. In that case, it's very unfortunate. However, even if that was what happened, worker 2 was naive not to call the OP and confirm she was ok with this, particularly when her DS (quite rightly) resisted.

[whatamockerywemake]

They definitely should have phoned you. That is their bad.

However, anyone who's ok to be responsible for your DS during the day, should be fine to be responsible for him after that.

I agree this this is a private arrangement and you're blurring the lines, so a complaint to the playscheme about a private arrangement isn't appropriate - at the end of the day, it's your bad for not picking up your son yourself. Why aren't you? Is he going home to an empty house?

Huge applause from me to trafalgargal and lalalalyra

And particularly agree with Trafalgargal's comment:--
Clearly if you are making formal complaints then the playscheme is no longer appropriate so what provision have you made for your son for tomorrow onwards for care whilst you are working ?

Will you come back and update us about the new childcare provision you have arranged for your DS?

I suspect not, because I suspect you'll continue to want everyone involved to continue to take care of him whilst you're busy elsewhere. Perhaps you'll update us with how they deal with one-off, emergancy situations?

But probably you'll see the thread and not not come back.

[bloodyteenagers]

I cannot understand some of the responses on here.
It's drummed into children about accepting lifts, and not to do it. Even if that person says oh it's ok cos your parent told me to pick you up... A child stands up to an adult and tried to say no and is still bundled into a car.

Sorry but having a crb/dbs means nothing. It's not a crystal ball. How many people in care and educational settings been caught doing shit they shouldn't. Yet passed the checks because of a lack of a crystal ball.

All workers should have had access to emergency numbers. Say this child was waiting for collection and parent was late.
By some of the logic on here no one would have been called. And for a boss to not have contact numbers there's a bigger issue here.

The op did say she had a contingency. However this couldn't be acted on because the boss, who should know better decided to shout at a child to get them in their car.. Even if she had a brain fart and thought this was a good idea, as soon as the child became distressed and was saying no she should have stepped back and contacted the parent or emergency contact numbers.

She's bloody lucky. Some people on witnessing the event would have called police.

[FuriousFate]

Exactly, Bloody. It's not about, well, you should have a think, you might not have childcare tomorrow, this might now happen etc. Someone who should have known better, who was in a position of authority, effectively kidnapped the OP's DS. Even if she did mean well, she overstepped many social and professional boundaries; shouting at a child who knows he shouldn't get into a car with a stranger is the worst of the lot.

[trafalgargal]

Kidnapped ???
Oh blimey it is drama llama time in the finest tradition of MN

Night all I'm going before I say something worse :)

[ABunchOfCups]

Don't you need a permit/liability insurance or something if you're regularly charging passengers? Would the woman who usually takes your son home get into trouble for charging passengers?

I can see both sides, but I think reporting is harsh, plus it's a private arraignment so who would you report them to? If it was part of the service offered by play scheme then your ds should have been told that it's ok to get in all of the staff who do the driving, as it can't be guaranteed it'll always be person a. If it's a private arrangement separate from the play scheme then who do you report to? the police? Like others have said, what makes the boss ok to care for ds during the day, but your not comfortable with her driving him home? Given that you pay for her to look after him daily then it's not such a leap for her to think she'd be ok to bring him home for you?

[Only1scoop]

You know her, he knows her, you've used the scheme for years. She's not a stranger.

Huge over reaction IMO

[bloodyteenagers]

That's another logic I don't understand.
You trust the person to look after your child but not go in a car.
As an adult there's a number of people who I wouldn't get in a car with because of how they drive.
With the named driver the op would pertinent details like insurance, mot, road tax, points, booster/car seat. And if they are save drivers or not.
No I am not saying I demand all this from anyone I get in a car with. But when you make an arrangement Ina regular basis you like to know this stuff. Especially when your child is involved.

[Atenco]

Mmm, many years ago the person who was supposed to collect my five-year-old from school didn't turn up that day. A lovely teacher drove my dd home for me, I hate to think what would have happened if she hadn't.

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

He was distressed and crying. She could have called you or maybe tried to explain to him in a kind way.

Forcing him was VU.

[JudyCoolibar]

The point is surely that what you teach your child about is stranger danger. She reasonably thought she wasn't a stranger. You really need to take some responsibility for not having contingency arrangements in place. What would happen if they couldn't get hold of you on the phone, for instance?

[MiaowJario]

YANBU to have a procedure in place about your child getting into other people's cars. YANBU to be upset about your child being forced into someone's car, being shouted at and ending up frightened.

YABU to enter into an arrangement about the lift with the play scheme worker if it is an informal 'cash in hand' type thing. In those circumstances it might not be insured, won't be regulated, maybe income tax etc is not being paid on the earnings. So you took a moral hazard by entering into a grey area. Grey areas often become messier than expected, in ways you don't foresee. Different if it's formal service, offered as an add-on by the play scheme, or if the pays hemp worker has a separate "childcare taxi" business and you have a written contract.

Hmm "child care taxi" now there's an idea...

[MiaowJario]

Playscheme work not pays hemp worker!