6yr old child given medication without parental consent

[Skippy21]

After collecting my two children 11yrs and 6yrs old from a half term holiday workshop they both were happy and excited about their outdoor fun that day despite small injuries- 6yr old had a tumble and hurt his ankle. No real issues there until my 11yr old daughter said the man looking after them gave Jack (6 yr old) ‘a tablet’ 😮😮, as he had hurt his ankle and was in considerable pain crying a lot. I was utterly beside myself with shock that this would happen- Jack was given an Ibuprofen tablet -adult!! Medication- no phone call to me and no authority to administer any form of medication. Jack is ok, and dosage was within his weight range- just. The man has been suspended from his position ( guy in charge had no idea this incident had occurred!!).
Should this be reported to police?

Stonewall
Mermaids
Just a couple that spring to mind.
Girlguides
YHA
You only have to look at what is happening in schools.

Beside yourself with shock ?!

@endofthelinefinally

Ah, I see, trans issues... Yes, I agree that has safeguarding implications.

The thing is though, Willowashen, it is better that we have basic, consistent safeguarding rules across the board. Once you start having different rules/ situations or places where it is ok to ignore or bend the rules, vulnerable people/children are at potential risk.

As an example:
I used to run a sports club for young people aged 8 to 18. We had voluntary coaches and parent helpers.
I was responsible for arranging DBS checks and ensuring that safeguarding regs were followed. These things exist to protect the children and the helpers.
One of the coaches wanted to have a closed FB group just for her and her group. She got very cross and offended when I told her that this was not allowed. It took a lot of explaining to make her understand that it wasnt personal, just that the rules are there for a reason.
Just a small example of someone who wouldn't have any intention of harm, but we need to have rules in place.

My friend's dd was assaulted by a priest. She was alone with him under the guise of assisting with some paperwork. She should not have been alone with him, and he should have known that.
Ignoring/bending the rules.

Op, you complained and the man has been suspended.

I’m sure he is sat at home now feeling upset, regretful and worried about his job. His family may also feel worried about his job. But, he did something stupid and he’s paying the price.

Is this not enough for you? Do you want him arrested too? Questioned for a couple of hours and cautioned perhaps so he can never work with children again - maybe even find it difficult to get any job at all? So he can’t travel the world freely without having to apply for visas due to his criminal background?

Will this make you happy?

I personally wouldn’t even have wanted the guy suspended for trying to help. Perhaps spoken to/ definitely retrained about the risks, but really? Police involvement?

I do agree he was in the wrong to give a tablet, but I would have thought that how it’s currently being dealt with is enough.

*4:39Kablam

You are definitely being unreasonable. I understand your concern about your child's safety, but they would absolutely have not overdosed on the medication. To achieve an overdose, your child would have had to have taken more in the range of 15+ paracetamol tablets (It's like 50+ for an adult/person over 60kg).*

You dont really know what you are talking about. For a start the medication involved is iboprofen and not paracetamol. I'm a mental health nurse and I've seen patients die after an overdose of a lot less than 50 paracetamol tablets! And this is a 6 year old child we are talking about.

Personally I believe the man made a misjudgment rather than “acted appallingly”.

I would consider giving the child a tablet a misjudgment... forcing the child to swallow it in the way described and failing to tell the parent of the child the medicine had been given fall into the category of appalling to me and I would imagine every other right minded person. I wouldn’t want him looking after my child.

I also keep coming back to the OP's original comment about how her children had enjoyed their day and were 'happy and excited'. If a child was really forced to swallow a tablet and traumatised by it, I don't believe they would have said nothing to their Mum when collected.
The adult giving him the tablet made a mistake, undoubtedly, but it is not a police matter and being utterly beside myself with shock wouldn't be my reaction. I think instead I'd say why I felt it should have been handled differently and get on with my life without trying to ruin someone else's.

My friend's dd was assaulted by a priest. She was alone with him under the guise of assisting with some paperwork. She should not have been alone with him, and he should have known that.
Ignoring/bending the rules.

He should have known that she should not have been alone with him?

Er being alone with him wasn’t the problem. He ‘should have known’ not to abuse a child!

And was there really a rule in place whereby the child was not permitted to be alone with a priest? doubt it

Of course there is a rule about priests not being alone with a child. It is called the safeguarding rule.
Which is why no organisation or individual is exempt from safeguarding.

“Of course there is a rule about priests not being alone with children”.

In what scenario? An anyone recall seeing a rule in any church or holiday club docs where “a child will never be left alone with a priest”?
And presumably this was a good few years ago when “safe guarding rules” weren’t there, shall we say, most stringent.

Yes, our church has published safeguarding rules and they stipulate just that - that anyone working with children in the parish including priests never leave themselves in a vulnerable position where they are the only adult with one or more children and stipulate safeguarding with another adult present.

Fair enough. That rule likely only introduced very recently. This incident happened when your friend was a child. And I doubt that there would have been a rule at that time

But the point is - you say he should not have ignored the rule to be alone with the child.

Whereas I see that as irrelevant. The fact he was able to do it is relevant.

@Nekoness

Are you in the uk?
No adult can be alone with “one or more children”. Wow!

Er yes I am. I’m not going to quote it because people would just google it and I’d prefer to stay anonymous but it’s adults guiding/supervising children. The rules also apply to clubs who want to use the church hall like rainbows, brownies, guides...

There are pages and pages of information about safeguarding training for clergy. It is to protect the clergy as well as the children. So a priest who breaches the safeguarding policy knows perfectly well that he is breaking the rules. Training is compulsory. I would be suspicious of a priest who ignored the rules even once, because it is such a big deal.
It was 2012 when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams issued a very clear reminder to all C of E clergy that they should never be alone with a child.
In practice that means making sure other adults are around, leave doors open etc.
Teachers are subject to the same rules.
It is very easy to look up the legislation on safeguarding.

Unlikely that any of this would have been in place

* Teachers are subject to the same rules.*

Um teachers are permitted to be alone with one or more children!

My children attend a state school
I recently helped at an event.
Involved driving my son and two others in a car.

I was dbs checked. That was it.

I can assure you that my car doors were closed and I was the only adult present

The children were aged 6

I’m often alone with children. It’s my job. I’m DBS checked.

I am going to leave this now because it is getting silly. However, in the case of parents helping/ driving etc, the person with responsibility for safeguarding would have done a risk assessment and taken full responsibility for that. The risk assessment obviously concluded that a DBS check was all that was required in that particular case. That is fine. Safeguarding policy duly followed, school takes responsibility.

Get a grip

@endofthelinefinally

I’ll leave it be now, think it’s run it’s course