A dbs check should have been done ?

[TheWanderingWonderer]

Aibu?
Nursery setting and a parent had to stay with their child for approx 4 months each morning and then to go in each time to administer medication.
Surely given that it was a prolonged thing that they knew about the parent needed a dbs check. Was just in the room but took the child to the toilet etc when others in there and wasn’t always supervised
Should they have done a check (if it’s relevant there is a caution for violence/assault)

Maybe i should ask for this to be removed then as it’s gltba lot of information in

After reading the whole thread I'm still confused - OP are you hinting that you're unsure on the management's judgement/conduct on the situation and were asking the dbs question based on potential whistle blowing surrounding things you may/may not have seen/experienced in your work place setting? If you feel there is something 'off' with your managers conduct you can speak confidentially if you follow your companies reporting procedures. I'd ask for this thread to get taken down if that's the case though as it's very outing.

She has many years of experience though and attends regular safeguarding training. I do trust her judgement, very occasionally things seem to be done in a way I don’t understand but who am I to question it she’s done the job longer than I’ve been an adult ! We are told regularly what to do/not do and she is always very vocal about safeguarding and the importance of info sharing I just wondered about the dbs
Ive asked for it to be taken down

I haven’t been in any other settings so have no comparison

It sounds like you may be a young person training in a social care setting OP (please don't out yourself more by answering). It's good to question if you're unsure though and I think that's possibly why you asked the question perhaps. You should be able to access or request safeguarding training yourself though which may increase your confidence if you have doubts surrounding good practice protocol.

OP, I'm absolutely disgusted at the whole tone and content of this thread with regard to your OP and your comments. As @PersianCatLady said, I would love to know who you are and where you work so that tomorrow is your last day. @LeahJack absolutely has your measure: I think you are a duplicitous gossip and a bully...and I'll add, imo, a liar as well. Your OP has nothing to do with your stated reasons for posting...you're just relishing an opportunity for gossip and were hoping everyone else would join in with you.

I have worked with "very experienced" people responsible for safeguarding who haven't got a bloody clue about what it actually means. "Informal information sharing" means things like "joe seemed a bit quiet over the last two days, we need to keep an eye on him" NOT "joes mum was once cautioned for assault against an adult". The second one is pure gossip. Unprofessional at best, and I'd be sacked if I revealed that sort of sensitive information in the internet.

Your manager might be a bit shit, or it may be deliberate. Telling you to do it all verbally and not recorded sounds a bit like covering your tracks. Telling the mum she had to keep the child in nursery is blatantly a lie and probably in order to keep the funding coming in. And it isn't her job to do digging around for more information - if she has genuine concerns they should be raised with the relevant authorities.

I'm thinking now that this is a safeguarding matter and the child is under a protection plan. Social services would have placed the child in the nursery possibly, and the child would have to attend every day, if not SS would have to be informed. The parent may well be seen as a 'bad' parent because of this, hence the suggestion she should have a DBS.
The parent needs support, not being gossiped about behind her back.
You have breached all sorts of confidentiality posting about this on here, you've given us way too much info. You should remove this post and try getting a job in an empty room where there's no one you can gossip about.

You're not going to enjoy it when your child goes on school trips and each little group gets to go off on their own, with each group supervised by a random parent.

It’s not just the physical risk to children though, it’s being around potentially sensitive information- (names, addrdsss, fostered children, children’s home arrangements, holidays (when their addresses will be empty...) etc, so the nursery staff would have to be incredibly careful not to discuss private information about the children or their families etc. in the presence of this person. I agree that, regardless of the law, this person should have had a dbs check in this instance as it was prearranged and regular.

So the nursery staff would have to be incredibly careful not to discuss private information about the children or their families etc all over the sodding internet.

There, corrected that for you...

Honestly, I'm currently more worried that the OP is on the staff than I am that the parent was present (having been blackmailed into being there!)

So the manager was clearly bullying the parent into ensuring attendance to claim the funding.

You do realise that even if a dbs check shows a current conviction or caution tge setting can still agree to employ or admit that person though don't you.

They were there in their capacity as a parent. Not volunteering to work with other children. If every parent had to have dbs, it would be ridiculous. They are supervised in the sense that there are other adults nearby and you were watching.