To think an alcoholic who abuses her own children shouldn't be allowed to work in a school

[FeliciaVonBottomburp]

A person I have known for a couple of years has just started work as a TA. She has 3 children. Last year she threw the eldest DD out and she had to live with her father for a few months. While she was there the mother sent vile text messages calling the DD a cunt and other such names. Eventually myself and another friend manage to calm everyone down enough and the girl moved back home.
Earlier this year the same DD told a teacher that her mum had punched her and had left a mark. The police were called and social workers became involved and none of the children were allowed to go home and all moved in with their dad. It also came to light that she had pushed one of the children down the stairs, pushed their faces into their food if they didn't eat it and much name calling and nastiness.
The mum agreed to go to some alcoholic meetings and the children went home.
I know she is secretly drinking and now she is working at a local school. I'm guessing it didn't show up in any checks because there were no charges and the social worker is keeping an eye on them.
AIBU to think someone who behaves like that shouldn't be working with children or are people allowed another chance?

Most employers will take the view that past actions of a non-criminal nature or that didn't attract a sentence are in the past, and may discuss them with the employee, but unless it can be proven that they are ongoing, I don't think it would be reasonable to dismiss her.

I also think you should contact LADO, if you are certain what you say is correct.

It might not be enough to dismiss her, but enough to raise concerns so they are keeping a close eye.

She works in a school - it's an environment where adults are frequently left alone with children. You can't 'keep a close eye' - you have to make a call about whether someone is fit for their position or not, and actually you can't do that on the basis of gossip. If there is no reason to dismiss her they will have to treat her like everyone else.

trifle This is interesting, and thank you, as I'd like to volunteer as a TA but worry about my past. I'm probably a bit over sensitive with these topics as I'm a recovering alcoholic who had SS involved when Ds was very young (not for abuse issues, but because they felt I was unable to cope). I guess I'm trying to make the point that while abuse and alcoholism do often go hand in hand, they can exist exclusively of one another.

Jess: absolutely. The Head of a school has discretion and actually the guidelines stress not making blanket decisions about what is disclosed by an applicant. So a (spent) criminal record is not in and of itself a bar to working with children, and nor is past involvement with SS, I believe. I am not an expert though!

itshouldhavebeen I agree, being alcoholic does not automatically mean abuse and when I clicked on the thread I was ready to say about her having recovered, we all have pasts etc needing supporting and abusing your child are very different and I don't think that'd damage the DBS that much. It could be a good thing - someone whos struggled a little would be a lot better at detecting struggling parents and supporting them - so I don't think having had alcohol problems in the past means you can't work with kids (if so, I would be fucked). I've mainly focused onthe abuse side of things; if it was just she was an ex alcoholic I'd be telling the op to leave well alone

Slightly surprised that despite her treated dd like crap you still 'helped' so dd could go back and live with her.
If you are sure that this abuse is taking place go to ss. The kids are clearly not safe with this woman.

trifle that isn't the case with safeguarding. I would assume (but you may know better than I) that just as a conviction against a child is never spent, nor would a proven incident involving a child.
The employer should ask for details rather than just panic. It would be unfair to dismiss based on gossip or rumour but the OP says SS were actively involved due to a disclosure of physical abuse. That is pretty serious if you are working with kids.

That doesn't mean they would be able to (or want to) dismiss anyone who had SS involvement in their family because SS involvement doesn't = danger to child.
made I agree. Being an alcoholic is not the issue here.

Well, lets put it this way, if she had applied for a job in the school her children were in, she wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a job there.

No, spent convictions still need to be declared. But they are not an automatic barrier to hiring. Obviously in this case we are not talking about a conviction but the point is that Heads have a certain amount of discretion providing the relevant information is declared.

In this case it doesn't look like there was a conviction because it would have shown up on a DBS. She may not have had to declare any 'incident' in the way I have had to. If she hadn't she wouldn't have broken any terms of employment.
But I don't think the HT would be on dodgy ground if she decided it wasn't worth the risk (if we are assuming the OP's friend hadn't been open about it all on application).

I suppose I am thinking what would happen if it was me. I am pretty certain I would not be kept on in this job or my last one.

I have worked as a child protection social worker and in cases like this where the accused was in a position of trust in a school it would be fed back through the education representative at the daily meetings (police, social work, education and health). If it was at a youth club or whatever we would feed back through the chain of command etc. I would be very surprised if the school were not aware. It is likely they are committed to supporting her rather than sacking her. She may be subject to some disciplinary procedures that you are unaware of. I would tread carefully and think about it before jumping in to report her.

But if all is being handled correctly as you described, blue, then OP won't be doing anyone harm by flagging her concerns, will she?

I'd have thought that raising the appropriate issues (such as DD's info) with the appropriate body is the ideal response.

blue does it not depend on WHEN the issue with SS happened and when she started the job as a TA?
I.e. If the dcs were taken from her 2 years ago, no new issue with SS and she started the job as a TA in September, would the SS have told the new school as there is no new issues to report from what has happened 2 years ago?
I would imagine that SS aren't aware that the woman is (still?) drinking.

My worry is this ladies dd has reached out by saying her mum is drinking again and imo that absolutely can not be ignored.

These children have had a bad time of it by the sounds of things (I'm not blaming) they now though need to know that if they tell an adult that their mother is drinking again that that will be taken seriously.

None of us can reliably comment on if she should have a job at the school because we don't know the full picture regarding what the school know or if she has had s/s liaise with the school etc.

I'm sorry but I'm a ta, I had Togo against 6 other people to get my job and I have a degree in child care and 6 years experience. 3 of those who applied were qualified teachers... I surprised she's managed to get the job and under what circumstances. This is baffling to me as nowadays it's so hard to get this kind of work.
Please say something. This is unfair on the children and the staff. I hope she treats them fairly. I have worked in previous schools with TAs who were horrible to the children and did the job just for a wage

If there is no reason to dismiss her they will have to treat her like everyone else.
In theory, yes. But in reality it isn't so black and white.

Instead of jumping straight to the school where she works I think my first port of call would be to the child's school or to SS to pass on concerns in relation to the child. I would keep out of any contact with the persons workplace. If SS need to raise it then they know the right channels.

Ditsy: It is reasonably black and white. You can't treat an employee differently on the basis of information that doesn't justify you taking action. For example, if you genuinely believed she was unsuitable to be around kids but you had no evidence of this, then you prevented her from doing her job on the basis of what you thought you knew, you could leave yourself open to a constructive dismissal claim.

I agree with Blue: best to go through the appropriate channels with regards to what the DD has said about her mum's behaviour. If it is inappropriate from SS's perspective, the school will find out anyway.

Just because it didn't warrant action doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a concern, and wouldn't worry senior leaders who have been alerted to it. Plenty of CP concerns that come through aren't enough to warrant action (by police or SS) but still enough to want to monitor.

Ditsy: I am not saying they wouldn't want to know. However, they wouldn't be able to do any active 'monitoring'. If the woman in question passed her DBS with no issues, they would have to treat this as hearsay unless current concerns were passed on by police, SS etc. They can't treat her differently to other employees just because someone phoned them with unsubstantiated allegations. That's why it is a lot better to go through appropriate channels, to avoid the school being put in a position where their hands are tied.

I dunno, it depends on your motivation.

You claim it's because you are concerned for the children at the school bit but it actually comes across that you are a vindictive ex-friend who wants to put her out of a job. Very uppity.