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.

Just because the child is pooing regularly or doesn't mean she isn't constipated ,she definitely needs to be seen ,by the Gp who can refer to the Paediatrician if necessary

As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

It isn't illegal.

The childminder can end a contract for any reason. The t&c's will specify the notice period and whether any payment will be due.

You can't force someone to look after a child . It would be detrimental for the child too.

I don't blame the childminder for wanting to end the contract , if your SIL has really been as feckless as she seems about this issue and the health and well being of her DD.

I understand that the childminder can take on or not take on any child she wants without even giving a reason, but in this case DN has already been attending for several years so the childminder is actively refusing to care for her anymore. Does this make a difference?

If it was just that she was fed up, I'd agree (though so far as I know, she has the right legally.). However, I think that what makes a difference is Covid. Add strict hygiene rules and fear of infection to the general difficulty of cleaning up after a child this age, and I can understand why the childminder might be worried.

In any case, I think the big problem to sort out first is not so much the childminder as whether the child, even with no SEN in the strict sense, may have physical or mental health problems causing this soiling. If she does, then the sooner they are diagnosed, the easier they will be to sort out. Also, if the problem continues as she gets older, especially without a known cause, other children may avoid her, or may even bully her, which would in itself add to the difficulties.

I doubt that the problem is just due to inefficient toilet training.

At 5, she really does need checking out. A couple of years ago you said they spoke to HV. A couple of years ago she was a toddler. She is now 5, old enough to be reception or year 1. I think you're anger at childminder is clouding the real problem.

The only thing that is unacceptable (and bordering on neglect) is your sister not seeking medical attention for her daughter. At 5 years old soiling daily is definitely an issue, so needs to be addressed by a GP, not by a childminder

@Tibtom

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability. Disability could be purely continence issues - there does not need to be any other SEN. However many SEN do not become apparent until a child grows up as the issues they struggle with may be issues eg toddlers struggle with so it is only when they grown past toddlerhood that the delay is observed. As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

No it's not 🤣

@Tibtom

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability. Disability could be purely continence issues - there does not need to be any other SEN. However many SEN do not become apparent until a child grows up as the issues they struggle with may be issues eg toddlers struggle with so it is only when they grown past toddlerhood that the delay is observed. As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

So does this mean the childminder can't stop looking after her What if the childminder says they can't have a child with behavioural issues as they can't cope? Surely that's not illegal?

A childminder should definitely not be required to take on a child s/he feels unable or unwilling to cope with. Would you really want a child being cared for by someone who wasn't fully on-board to take care of him/her?

And yes, a NT 5-year-old should be fully potty-trained, so I don't blame her for expecting that. As for "guaranteeing" it, I'm sure a single accident under extreme circumstances would be different from "well, some days she poos in her pants and it's not really that rare of an occurrence, oh well!"

@Tibtom

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability. Disability could be purely continence issues - there does not need to be any other SEN. However many SEN do not become apparent until a child grows up as the issues they struggle with may be issues eg toddlers struggle with so it is only when they grown past toddlerhood that the delay is observed. As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

It's not discriminatory to say "I can't cope/I'm not equipped" to clean this child up.

Especially if the child's parents can't be arsed to do anything to fix it or even take her to the doctors.

According to her own mum(and the GP friend she asked), the DD has accidents because she's lazy. She's not incontinent.

@IEat

Difference between wetting yourself and not being toilet trained. If a 5yo NT is persistently wetting themselves there’s an issue that needs to be addressed.

Child is not wetting themselves, though.

You might've been better off in a different topic other than AIBU OP, or attracts a lot of traffic. There are certain hairy handed fellows who get off on children with toileting issues, especially around defecation.
I can see you've been a regular poster, I'm not implying that about you, just maybe ask for this to be deleted or moved.

@Tibtom

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability. Disability could be purely continence issues - there does not need to be any other SEN. However many SEN do not become apparent until a child grows up as the issues they struggle with may be issues eg toddlers struggle with so it is only when they grown past toddlerhood that the delay is observed. As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

It's not illegal.

Your sister is being extremely neglectful as previous poster has said. She ought to have seen a medical professional by now. You still seem to think this is a childminding issue. It's not. It's a neglectful parent issue.

Im guessing given you're continuing to only reply to those agreeing with you that you're not actually looking for or taking on board the advice about her going to the gp.

I really hope someone finally gets your niece the support she needs. Poor thing clearly isn't going to get any from her family who havr just decided she's lazy.

So does this mean the childminder can't stop looking after her confused

@minniemango Why are you ignoring all of the posts telling you the CM can stop looking after your DN yet jumping on one that suggests they can't?

There's a difference between refusing access on the grounds of a child having toileting issues without having made any attempts to meet with or support those needs, the reasonable accommodations.

The child has been cared for and supported with these needs for some time, by what the OP is saying. There's a difference between refusing entry on the grounds of, and reaching the point of no longer being able to meet the needs as they stand. Particularly if parents aren't willing to do what is needed to change the situation. Reasonable adjustments have been made, and aren't enough, the minder is able to say that no, she can't continue like this any more.

@AaronPurr

As such discriminating against a child for lack of toilet training is illegal.

It isn't illegal.

It is disability discrimination. Faecal incontinence is a disability. The fact that a medical cause has not yet been identified does not it being disabling.

Why are you ignoring all the posts telling you that this is NOT normal for a NT 5yo and that your niece need medical intervention??

@willloman

Your sister is being extremely neglectful as previous poster has said. She ought to have seen a medical professional by now. You still seem to think this is a childminding issue. It's not. It's a neglectful parent issue.

Yep, and at the centre of all of this is a poor child who is being left to suffer. Shocking that it's taken the childminder refusing care and no other options of childcare available, for the parents to potentially act in the best interest of their daughter by seeking professional help.

The CM is not the problem. You and your sister are focusing on the wrong thing.

Your niece needs a GP appointment to investigate why this is happening. A conversation with the HV 2 years ago and an informal quick chat with a friend who happens to be a GP doesn’t cut it.

Your sister needs to take this seriously and find out what’s going on, and that’s what you should be encouraging her to do.

A CM can stop looking after a chi!d for pretty much any reason-she's saying she can't cope which is perfectly acceptable and is actually a good thing for a CM to recognise their limits.
I think numerous people have said the CM can do this and it's perfectly acceptable and you should accept this and tell your family they need to do something.

Op most people are saying the childminder can stop. Why are you ignoring everyone?! Use the advice. Get the niece checked out.

@minniemango

Why are you ignoring EVERYONE ELSE apart from that one (wrong) poster??

Encourage your SIL to get her DD seen by a. Doctor.

DN has already been attending for several years so the childminder is actively refusing to care for her anymore. Does this make a difference?

It shows she’s been very patient but she’s tired of nothing being done and her being left having to deal with shit as a result of other people’s laziness.