Leaving children 'home alone' - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

A parent is arrested for leaving their child alone every day, according to new research.

The law doesn't currently specify the age at which children can be left on their own - and charges in the last three months of last year involved children between the ages of three months and 14 years.

What do you think? How old were your DC when you left them 'home alone' - and would you like to see the age at which a child can be left unsupervised defined in law?

It was actually a £500,000 fine ... yikes!

So are you saying that schools have been fined for too many CRBs (prior to DBS) then? Do you have further information about this because I'm intrigued. The rules on CRB were the same as DBS (ie everyone working in a school). All that changed really was the infrastructure of the assessment agency.

Have read your link which is all about volunteers with little or no link with children (ie flower arrangers!). It doesn't mention schools, aside from stating that one off visitors won't need one. As far as I am aware schools have always had CRB and DBS checks for all staff- largely as a result of the Soham murders where Ian Huntley wouldn't have been allowed to work in schools had they existed as they do now.

The thing I had an issue with wasn't staff though highlow, it was parent volunteers who were never alone with a child! I could understand needing one if you were doing, say, one to one reading support, but not for walking a crocodile of children to the baths or driving a car full to a sports fixture, or standing on the door taking tickets for a kids disco - all things you must have one for at our primary.

No, that law changed and the rules for DBS are different from those for the CRB scheme. They are not the same thing.

It all comes under Data Protection law, which applied to all organisations (including schools).

This explains the penalties, etc

Which law changed Boffin? Not sure who your post was addressed to.
I can totally see why children being driven in cars would be better protected by a DBS check of the driver Always can't you?

Yes, teachers and people who work in roles where they have unsupervised contact with children need DBS checks, but only in state schools AFAIK.

Ian Huntley did now work at Soham, he was the boyfriend of a classroom assistant there, so a CRB/DBS check would have done absolutely nothing to stop the crime he committed (ironically).

Now regarding examples of schools having problems with excessive CRB checks, bear in mind that the change of Government in 2010 and the 'confirm of the quangos" etc meant many official websites regarding this have either been archived - sometimes awkwardly from a search point of view - or other links taken down, so whacking up a load of instant MN-friendly links is difficult. However:

1. Data Protection law past and present is cited on the ICO site. No, this does not explicitly speak about schools in the main, but it doesn't need to as it applies to everyone. I don't know whether they have fined any schools or not historically for this explicit offence of applying for an excessive CRB check, so you would probably have to ask the ICO directly. (I do know they have fined schools for various Data Protection breaches generally; if you scroll through the list of fines manually here you will find them, but it will take quite a bit of time ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/). They may have worked with schools to keep them the right side of the law, as the problem was so widespread that trying to fine everyone would have most likely have taken more resources than the ICO has access to.

1. It is clear however that there is still considerable confusion and checks in general. Myths and Facts about DBS (CRB) checks explains the current position in relation to OFSTED, for example, indicating people do need guidance.

1. The Daily Fail ran an article about the costs and scope of CRB checks and how this was ironically making paedophiles harder to find as the money was all going on checking the innocent. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796451/police-busy-crb-checks-track-sex-offenders-think-tank-reveals-coalition-failed-pledge-halve-numbers.html Julie Spence, Chief Police Office in Cambridgeshire around that time also spoke publicly about the scale of checking and how a cheaper, more efficient system was needed.

Highlow, CRB no longer exists and the rules for DBS checks are different for those of CRB, including some minor convictions now being officially deleted.

Actually Huntley was a caretaker at the school in Soham. Although his relationship with Carr was arguably more significant in gaining the girls' trust.

What's interesting is that the previous caretaker had been sacked for an illicit relationship with a pupil - which underlines the fact that non teaching staff are absolutely in a position of access.

Sorry, I put the Ian Huntley thing rather badly. He was a caretaker at Soham and Holly and Jessica Chapman attended a local primary school (St Andrews) where the girlfriend was a classroom assistant. So vetting him for the job at Soham Village College would have involved vetting him for a different school than the ones the victims attended, and would not necessarily have meant they didn't come into contact with him in the local community in the way that they did.

Just because I haven't been DRB/CRB checked highlow it doesn't mean I can't accompany children on school trips. I'm never alone with any child at any time - not even my own DS

Regarded crb/dbs checks I do think they're overdone. I have an enhanced check for my job (in health and safety, doing risk assessments for teenagers going on work placements) I have absolutely contact with the young person or their school. I just visit the employers, a small percentage of employers are schools or care homes, and I do have to look around as part of my assessment but always accompanied and I am never in contact with any children.

I also had an enhanced check for sitting on a pre-school committee, again the absolutely no contact with any of the children.

Yes Boffin. Thanks for telling me that re CRB/DBS. I think if you scroll down you'll find that I told you!!!

The myths and facts link you gave, Boffin, demonstrates that our school is taking a ridiculously over zealous approach.

Highlow - I would have thought a clean driving licence and valid MOT and insurance were more important than DBS/CRB for an occasional taxi service!

I think you'll find, Always, that all of those things are often required for people driving children during school time.

It does amuse me all of this. It seems almost a desire amongst some to put your child at as much risk as you can. I'd love to know why, really I would, given that most parents behave in the completely opposite way. Personally I would like to know that my child, if being driven in a car alone, wasn't being driven by a known sex offender. DBS checks are not perfect, of course they're not, but they're a darn sight better than nothing.

Always, your school isn't over doing anything! Please read my earlier comment re the nature of DBS requirement for schools and be thankful that your school cares enough about child protection to insist. Who knows, you may be glad of it (although you'd probably prefer to take your chances).

I'm all for taking sensible steps to minimise risk, but really I think the risk is infinitesimally small to make the school's stance OTT and disproportionate - I'm afraid you won't change my mind on that.

That was why this came up on this thread - it was in the context of the extreme risk aversion which seems to have grown up amongst those who fret over the smallest of risks (children left in cars on forecourts etc).

Or to view it another way, parents understandably doing everything they can to protect those who are too young to protect themselves.

I'll leave you to it. It seems people on this thread are happier when there's no opposing view.