AIBU to think the school and local authority is wrong?

[Coldcoffeeclub]

Firstly I would love actual honest responses to what you would think if you read this story in the local paper etc. First post so please bear with me if I use wrong shortening etc!

So a boy aged 13 with special needs including autism attending a special school who has the social and moral understanding according to the school of a 7 year old but the body and hormones of a teenager. It is discovered that in the last 2 years there have been some incidents where he has touched another child inappropriately skin to skin......no sexual acts literally a curious touch....whilst in toilets and a lesson. Parents believe the school is at fault for not accepting children should be supervised well and that this has been done through lack of understanding and extra supervision should be put in place for all children as it also transpired many children in the school (all similar understanding levels) were exposing themselves etc in the school. The school however deny this despite changing many things around the school eg children now only allowed to toilets one at a time. This child was excluded and not allowed to return to the school. The school reported to social services and the police and have openly said that they think he should receive some kind of retribution from.the police for what he has done.

The incidents happened over a two year period whilst the child involved was 11-13 and the child being touched was 13-15. The older child has not had any consequences and the school only found out this had been happening through the parents of the "perpetrator" who found a conversation on their boys phone talking about it and with the other child saying he had liked it.

So what I am essentially asking is whether the school has done anything wrong in excluding the child and involving police and social services or the parents are wrong for expecting anything other than that to happen.

Any other thoughts also welcome. Thanks in advance :)

As with anything like this it is impossible to comment on because the parents can go to the paper and say what they want. The school has no way of saying what they believe the truth to be.

So you are having a one sided report.
Which could be totally true or could be full fabrication and he was excluded for some reason far more severe. We have no way of telling, but it's probably somewhere in the middle.

Where did he touch the other child op? I can't tell if you're minimising it because you simply say touched skin to skin, and then no sexual acts, which makes the reader think it was like a touch on the arm or stomach, but the consequences would indicate it was intimate touching in some way?

I think you need to say where he was touching this child.

Sounds to me like the school have done exactly the right thing in getting the situation investigated properly, but I would be surprised if the police decide there will be any criminal consequences given his age/capacity.

Sorry I wasnt clear, the child touched the other boy on his penis......touch rather than an act as such...so didnt hold and play with etc literally a touch with ends of fingers if that makes sense

Also what additional needs did the other child have? Who are you in this story?

Clearly if this was him touching the child's genitalia, and if the child he touched also has additional needs (appears logical as both at the same school) and then they were discussing it on text, then I'd think the school was privy to the full facts and acted accordingly.

I'd also say it's more likely that the school changed the toilet procedure if the touching was in the toilets, so a safeguarding action in relation to the specific incident.

But again, all the facts aren't here, so it's hard for people to comment accurately.

Was the child being touched done several times over a two year period? And always a quick tip of the finger touch each time?

So a child aged 13 has repeatedly touched another child, some two years older, on the penis over a period of two years? Both in the toilet and outside?
Both children have additional needs. The perpetrator has the social understanding of a 7 year old and the emotional development of the victim is, as of yet, unclear? If the perpetrator has an otherwise good understanding of boundaries, expectations etc and then they should understand that touching someone there isn't okay. As do many 7 year olds.

And you want to blame the school for not supervising?
Surely you'd be criticising the school if the adults accompanied children in to their toilet?

The child was clearly in the wrong, additional needs or not and intentions aside, and the school cannot safeguard the other children and had to act accordingly. Getting police and social work involved is the normal route for safeguarding under such circumstances.

If the child is at a special school than he must have an EHCP why have school.not applied for for extra funding for a 1;1 or 2:1 to help.prevent these situations??My son is severely autistic and has learning disabilities he's also in a special school he went through an awful phase of attacking other children so he now has a 1:1 ,I'm not sure what Neville can do ,does the child have any understanding of what he,s done ?

The police*

x2boys does your son's 1:1 accompany him in to the toilet?

I don’t know how I feel about this. It must be terribly hard for all parents concerned in this.

I think (I maybe wrong) there was a case not so long ago where a teenage boy with learning difficulties had sexually assaulted people and because of learning difficulties the judge wouldn’t prosecute. The boy had no idea that his advances were inappropriate so it was left that he was free to continue.

How do you manage this? Do you lock the child away forever? Do you force them to leave school?

Yes as he's not toiletr trained ,so personal care staff take him ,but assuming this lad is there would obviously have to e something in his EHCP to about 1:1 at all times including in the toilets if this is I be taken at face value and obviously I can only go off what's written here ,it seems to !e the school isn't meeting the needs of either child

No thankfully we don't lock disabled children away forever these days ,I would think they way it would be managed would be staff accompanying the children/ young adults at all times to keep everyone safe ,there will be risk assessments ,EHCP,s in place to manage these behaviours .

Also all children are entitled to an education ,sometimes however the schools children are placed in might not be able to meet t he child s needs if there's no school that can meet the child s needs in the LEA ,the LEA is supposed to pay for funding for a school that can ,in reality of course that's much harder said than done .

I'd be amazed if there was further action from the police (if it went to court the solicitor would be expected to commission a psychiatry report around the child's fitness to plead which, assuming it supported what you've said, would likely lead to a no further action decision).

But you've described a child sexually assaulting another child over a prolonged period. I think it is appropriate that he moves to a different setting due to the impact on the victim of him staying.

"Fault" is a difficult issue, clearly the school has a responsibility to ensure that incidents like this can't happen. I does sound a bit from the op like you are minimising the incidents, though.

It is also not clear to me why you feel the victim should have had some sort of consequence?

The school would have to report this to social services. I don't know whether they would have to report it to the police but the other child's parents may have done this anyway.
The child is entitled to an education and there are plenty of special schools who will take children who have had this sort of behaviour and provide the necessary support ( where all children would have at least 1:1 support) but they tend to be the very expensive sort so the LA won't be rushing to offer to fund a place in one.

I’d want to know what was done with both with regards to puberty, protective behaviours and acceptable/unacceptable first.

I also think a change of setting would be more appropriate. How did this happen for years with no one noticing? What if the older child had been exposing themselves and the younger one then touched because they didn’t know how to react? I think it’s too complex to have acted punitively to just one of the young people.

The school is also at fault for allowing the situation to go on for so long unnoticed. It raises serious safeguarding concerns.