...to have made an issue of this?

[TheValeyard]

DP and I found out that someone who was to be working one-to-one and unsupervised with our DCs has been on the sex offenders register. We objected to this and alternate arrangements have been made, but ever since I've been feeling conflicted if we should have done that. There was no suggestion this person was a danger to children, and I'm worried we've overreacted and been unfair to this person.

Have we been unreasonable?

Of course YANBU there is a reason all people working with children are supposed to have a DBS (or whatever its called now)

If you feel conflicted now - imagine how you would have felt if you hadn't made an issue out of it.

The register is there for a reason.

They absolutely should not have been cleared by DBS, in what capacity are they working with children?

There is NOTHING unreasonable about what you did, in my view.

The unreasonable thing is how he got through any disclosure or barring system in order to be in front of the DC in the first place.

More power to you.

Even if their crimes did not involve children, their judgement is not acceptable...their moral compass is lacking. So you were reasonable to not let them near your DC.

YANBU. Imagine if you hadn't done anything and something had happened to your children or someone else's? You 100 percent made the correct decision...

I suppose there could be a load of reasons why children wouldn’t come to harm but I would have done the same thing as you. It’s not an appropriate placement for them.

what age are the children?

Firstly the op hasn't disclosed if the person is male or female sonthe assumption is a little unfair.

Please remember that people can and do wind up on the register for things as innocuous and peeing outside in a public place. It is not necessarily for anything nefarious.

@TheValeyard your duty is to protect your child, you absolutely did the right thing.

You were perfectly reasonable. I'm sure most if not all of us would have done the same.

Are they still on the register? Emotionally I would feel the same either way, but I think legally there is a difference there. But no I would not be happy with my child being left unsupervised with someone who was on the register.

@Terminallysleepdeprived I work in this field you do not end up in the sex offenders' register for peeing outside, that is an absolute myth, not all actual sex offences require registration let alone something like that.
You did the right thing OP

No, you have not been unreasonable. You did what you felt you needed to do to protect your children.

How did you find out?

Was this person not subject to DBS check

I’m amazed this is something that you found out, but the DBS check they surely had done to work unsupervised with children, didn’t! How did you find out?

I think it would have been unreasonable to not object. You 100% did the right thing . Your child comes first!

Is it a third party's reaction making you question yourself, the school or setting or something?

I mean, not having offended directly against children (if that's the case) is still a pretty low bar. You should not have to feel awkward about this.

Did you check into it? was it because as a 16 year old boy they had sex with their nearly 16 year old girlfriend? (in which case i would have zero worries) or a paedophile (in which case absolutely not coming near my kids)

was it because as a 16 year old boy they had sex with their nearly 16 year old girlfriend?

No of course it wasn't. Nobody is charging 16 year olds for having sex with almost 16 year olds.

YANBU in the slightest.

You protected your children.

I wouldn't care if it was hearsay or not I'd just be glad to find out before they had any interaction with my child.

I understand your concern around this. Some ex-prostitutes for example are on the register despite working as prostitutes many years ago and of course being no risk to anyone.

I think so long as you have not spread rumours or further gossip you are entitled to take the step you did, although yes there is a chance it was not required.

The problem is, no system is perfect and you are therefore trying to do your best in a complicated world.

I can’t get my head around that you may think that someone who is on the sex offenders register may not pose a threat to children.

There’s no way this person should be working with children, regardless of what they are specifically on the register for.

You say the person WAS to be working with children. Do you mean this isn’t the case any more. I would hope so. If you think the person is working with children, but that you’ve just taken action by removing your own child, then I would contact your local Police and ask to speak to the team who manage dangerous/sex offenders and let them know. This person should be on some level of monitoring, although this may be very low level. It may well be that a visit from a local monitoring officer is needed to explain that applying to work with children is totally inappropriate.

You absolutely haven’t over reacted.

This information would be included, at the discretion of a Chief Constable, on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate, if the information is deemed to be relevant to the role. The employer then can make a judgement call about whether the person is a right fit for the role. For example, someone on the register for having sex with someone underage when they were 16, would not be, by many viewed as a concern.

I wonder how @TheValeyard found out that he had been on the sex offenders register? That could well be a breach that he could pursue.

I understand that you objected, and that's been resolved, has the person simply been redeployed?

@KingdomScrolls it's not so much as a myth, as a case of not happening in the UK. It's happened in other countries.

You almost certainly did the right thing OP, although if love to understand more about the circumstances.

otoh if a 16 year old sleeps with a 15 year old i believe in that instance they can be put on the register, correct me if i am wrong, but would that person be a threat. i doubt it