Is this true? Question about school staff and their immediate families.

[Dilbertian]

Is it true that you cannot work in a school if any member of your immediate family has a conviction relating to paedophilia?

(No personal concern here. Just part of a discussion dh and I are having.)

If they live with you, yes it's true. DBS checks the household for serious incidents so violent offences and child related offences would show.

Common sense can be applied though as long as you are upfront about declaring it. So for instance if your husband had a violent charge from a stupid teenager mistake when he was 18 and is now 46 with no other incidents, it should be OK.

We have to sign a form every year to say we don't live with someone with a conviction- can't remember the exact wording.

I don't think that's true anymore - it was too restrictive. It was part of the DBS screening but I think it was dropped.
I can't remember the actual section of it tho.

Why? Is it a pontential conflict of interests?

I thought it was brought in because of a nursery worker whose partner had got her to take photographs etc but that was a while ago.

Teachers and others working with children need an enhanced DBS check. This can include non-conviction information (i.e. information that is not about the applicant's convictions). Guidance to the police is that they can disclose information about family members, relatives or close friends under this heading, but only if there is reason to believe that the individual concerned poses a risk and may gain access to children or vulnerable adults through the applicant.

Our headteacher recently resigned as parents found an old newspaper article about her husband being convicted for downloading child pornography 20 years ago.

She is still married to him and school was aware. They’d taken legal advice and there was nothing prohibiting her employment.

It's called disqualification by association and certainly in early years settings it's been dropped. Staff are expected to disclose anything they think might be an issue but it isn't an automatic ban any more.
I don't know if it's the same for schools.

Disqualification by association - no longer applicable to a school / nursery settings.

Only applicable if providing the 'childcare ' at a home setting I.e child minders.

I am very sad if this is true that you can live with a paedo and work with kids. For me the fact you would live with someone convicted of this should count you out.

At a home setting makes sense.

Disqualification by association - that's it.

It was dropped I think because who you live with was too restrictive on the person applying for the DBS.

I.E someone may not have (much) choice in the matter - such as, when it's your child (who may not have anywhere else to live - other than the streets, which makes him/her much more likely to reoffend) or if it's your parent (and you can't afford anywhere else, and you would lose your job because you wouldn't be allowed to keep it). In these cases, it is dealt with case by case - your child/parent will hopefully never have the opportunity to 'use' your contact with children to his/her own ends.

So long as the relationship is declared on the DBS, and the applicant is aware of the possibility of pressure and coercion from the relative, it was thought to be of little safeguarding danger.

I worked on Disclosure and Barring in a Primary School - although not for about 5 years now - and I think it was even then being removed from the Single Central List for that age children.

It's no longer a thing.

It was a bit of a grey area. you would sincerely hope that nobody teaching kids would be living in a marital situation with anyone with a conviction for child pornography. But lots of young teachers can't afford to buy or rent alone. They live in houseshares, and can't really be expected to have to interrogate all their potential housemates about petty crimes they might have committed as teens.

The aim is to have an open and robust culture around safeguarding so we ask staff if they have anything that they think we should know. In some ways this is better because it gives them the chance to disclose any relationships (not just living with) that might raise concerns, and like a PP says, if something is disclosed you can then put in place measures that are suitable.