Childminder kicking out child for not being potty trained is she BU?

[minniemango]

My niece is currently not able to attend her childminder as SIL isn't a keyworker. SIL has contacted childminder about care resuming from March 8th and been told she will only have DN back if SIL can guarantee she will have no accidents.
Is the childminder being unreasonable, is this even allowed?
DN is 5 and in Reception, no SEN.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any posts, just trying to get an idea of what the position actually is with discrimination.

so you can... what? Sue the childminder? Force her to take a child that can't use a toilet properly? Apart from how horribly time consuming that is for the childminder, how horrible is that for the other children or people who live there?

I hope the little girl gets this issue properly looked at. Preferably today.

No one said anything about being excluded from education - I have primary age children, and it's my schools protocol that if a child soils themselves, the parent must come to collect the child. This is the same for many primary schools.
I have a friend who's daughter went through a period of accidents, and the school called her to deal with them each time. She actually took her child to the GP and there was an underlying problem. I sincerely hope op's sil does the same.

So you're basically looking for a way to force a childminder to do more for a child than the people who brought her into the world?

Fascinating priorities. Tell your SIL that the best way to re-secure the desired childcare is to take steps to resolve the issue. Bonus - it is more likely to stop her child being in physical and emotional discomfort than the current approach of doing nothing. If SIL is still talking about discrimination at that point, I don't know what to tell you.

I have primary age children, and it's my schools protocol that if a child soils themselves, the parent must come to collect the child

That is also illegal.

I reckon its the posters kid.

My DD is 6 and has similar issues. It has helped that she has been under the continence nurse since she was 3. She was indeed very constipated and we think the more recent issues are due to long standing bowel issues stemming from this plus some recurrence of constipation (she's on Movicol low dose currently).
No childcare provider has ever refused to take her, though she is now in Y2. She has been able more or less to clean herself up since starting Y1 but her current teacher does know to check for, er, smells and send her back to use wet wipes if there still seems to be an issue.

(By the way, DD has gone from daily accidents in YR to maybe once a week at school though more often at home due to laziness and funnily enough we do NOT want this to continue and are doing everything we can).

To be honest, whether or not the childminder is legally obliged to take the child, she's made it clear that she doesn't want to and on that basis I'd be finding alternative childcare. Sticking with a childcare provider who doesn't want to do it will lead to stress on all sides (the childminder, parents and ultimately the child).

I think that is true of a CM if there are others that are accessible but if it were a school the child is already at, or that a sibling attends, or that school's after school club, it may be worth pushing. It's no good having a child in school and then not able to attend the after school club because they are discriminating against that child. Or if it's the only CM with spaces or the only one that picks up from that school.

Yes I think the OP is the mum.

The bottom ( excuse bad pun ) line is that the CM cannot be forced to carry on with a child who they can't cope with.

The second issue, more importantly, is that this poor, dirty child is in urgent need of medical help which the mum is fobbing off onto the CM. Its neglect, pure and simple. Shameful neglect. Poor little girl .

as pp have said it could constipation & overflow
or
its very rare but it could be something wrong with her rectal muscles (lax not working properly) or a bowel issue
Or
it could be a bit of psychological control/getting attention issue over parents/carers
Or
how do parents deal with this? Do they rush round & get hyper about reaction/disgust/playing it too casual? Basic thing they MUST go back to GP & get further investigation to discount any medical issues or behavioural ones. The dc needs help & support of the correct type.
Unless proven otherwise & even if it is! the Childminder is allowed to state that she cannot cope - it isn't a school & even than if this keeps up& remains untreated the school may have something to say. If the gp IS hopeless do schools still have school nurses/doctors? She might be referred to (does it still exist?) child development service (???)

Yep I was thinking last night this was the mother who had posted....

@poppycat10

Really, the mum is negligent if she hasn't chased up the issue with the registered gp

Yeah of course she is. You do realise GPs aren't seeing anyone at the moment unless you are very lucky?

That's utter nonsense and dangerous too. My Dd is unwell and we have had regular GP apts over the last two months.

The op's sister needs to ring gp and sort this out! Feel so sad for this little girl.

I'm not sure it necessarily matters whether the child has a protected characteristic or not. The Equality Act doesn't stop a business from turning someone away where they have a protected characteristic that they can't reasonably be expected to accommodate.

To take an extreme example, I imagine that I would be laughed out of court if I tried to use the Act to force the CM to look after my 90 yo GM who has dementia. The CM would be turning her away on the basis of two protected characteristics but the CM would argue that in order to accommodate my GM she would need to make wholesale changes to her business, staffing and facilities that no court could consider reasonable.

In this case, CM would argue that she cannot simultaneously deal with OP's DN soiling herself daily and provide sufficient attention to her other children to ensure safety. In fact, I suspect she would open herself to greater legal risk if she kept DN when she couldn't manage if it meant she was giving inadequate supervision to the children of her other clients.

I also suspect that claiming that DN has some sort of disability whilst not having had a medical professional check her for two years might invite difficult questions.

I remember teaching a neurotypical 9 year old boy who regularly wet himself. The mother minimised it totally and wheeled out the ‘he’s lazy’ line. As if a 9 year old would wet himself in front of his peers by choice. No clothes were kept for him at school until school suggested it and no real help was being sought.
This case is worse though, as this is soiling rather than wetting. I really hope the Childminder’s refusal will give the parents a kick up the arse to SEEK HELP for their child’s medical problems.

@JWyvern

I'm not sure it necessarily matters whether the child has a protected characteristic or not. The Equality Act doesn't stop a business from turning someone away where they have a protected characteristic that they can't reasonably be expected to accommodate.

To take an extreme example, I imagine that I would be laughed out of court if I tried to use the Act to force the CM to look after my 90 yo GM who has dementia. The CM would be turning her away on the basis of two protected characteristics but the CM would argue that in order to accommodate my GM she would need to make wholesale changes to her business, staffing and facilities that no court could consider reasonable.

In this case, CM would argue that she cannot simultaneously deal with OP's DN soiling herself daily and provide sufficient attention to her other children to ensure safety. In fact, I suspect she would open herself to greater legal risk if she kept DN when she couldn't manage if it meant she was giving inadequate supervision to the children of her other clients.

I also suspect that claiming that DN has some sort of disability whilst not having had a medical professional check her for two years might invite difficult questions.

I agree with the comments re lack of medical input for 2yrs. That's appalling.

However I disagree with your assessment re the CM's duties. Assuming (v likely) the kid has a disability then the CM has to show she cannot put in place reasonable adjustments. Changing a 5yrs old daily isn't great but it is not going to put the other kids are great risk of harm. CMs do deal with babies. The 5yrs old can help change herself so apart from it being a faff generally I would say on balance it could be discriminatory.
Would you consider it reasonable for a CM to refuse care to any disabled child? Because every disability will require some extra work...

Would you consider it reasonable for a CM to refuse care to any disabled child? Because every disability will require some extra work.

Yes , a self employed , more often than not sole worker, the CM is best placed to judge what she can cope with,the facilities she has, the training she has, how it would affect her ratios etc.

Even if you could force them legally, do you really want a disabled child in the sole care of someone that either won't or can't look after them?

I knew a classmate who was soiling themselves regularly at school (age 5) and it turned out, I later learned, that she was being sexually abused. At the time, 1980’s it was said to even be a warning sign. I’m not suggesting that here but is that still current thinking?

@oblada
There are lots of reasons why a childminder may not take on a child with disabilities.
I have cared for an individual who was 18 and had multiple disabilities and although my setting had issues around toileting between the parent and I we came up with a solution.
The poor parent was at her wits end as she'd already been turned down by multiple childminders or asked to pay astronomical fees. It wasn't easy adapting my home to fit in this child's wheelchair and I had to think of my other mindees too.
But we did it and thankfully it worked for us but not all childminders have the necessary experience or simply feel out of their depth.
Regarding daily soiling its tiresome to see young children who are in this situation without proactive parents taking steps to seek help and will impact the routines and care that the other children require.

@likeafishneedsabike

I remember teaching a neurotypical 9 year old boy who regularly wet himself. The mother minimised it totally and wheeled out the ‘he’s lazy’ line. As if a 9 year old would wet himself in front of his peers by choice. No clothes were kept for him at school until school suggested it and no real help was being sought. This case is worse though, as this is soiling rather than wetting. I really hope the Childminder’s refusal will give the parents a kick up the arse to SEEK HELP for their child’s medical problems.

That poor boy

@DailyCandy not in itself

My child has no SEN but does have a physical issue that results in accidents. Glad to know MN think this lazy child minder is totally ok in not support I g the needs of individuals. Excellent.

Refuse care to any disabled child? No. Refuse care to a specific disabled child where the CM isn't capable of offering adequate care. Yes.

As others have pointed out, this isn't really comparable to changing a nappy. That's the work of a couple of minutes at most and a changing station can be set up anywhere. Plus a child who has an accident in a nappy doesn't necessarily need urgent attention.

A child that has soiled their clothes is a rather more involved affair that needs to be dealt with immediately. You probably have to take them out of the room, possibly shower them, then dress them again. How long does that take and what is happening to the other children in the meantime? How long can the child be left in soiled clothes if the CM is already dealing with a problem with another child?

It's not really a matter of whether the CM should do extra work but whether they can and ultimately nobody can be in two places at once.

For pity's sake, what is important in this poor child's life isn't who their childminder is, it's actually getting some help for their soiling. The overwhelming majority of these children have faecal impaction with overflow soiling, which is eminently treatable. Frankly, not seeking proper help is neglectful.

Sorry, haven't read all replies, so apologies if this has already been mentioned, but if your sister doesn't seek appropriate medical care, this could be seen as a safeguarding issue in two ways. One, because she's not seeking medical care for her child, but also, one of the most common signs of a child that's being abused will be soiling themselves.