Child-minder suspended

bitemebankers

Amanda65 wrote: »

Perhaps you would like the childminders son put into care then as well?

One step at a time. I think the social have done the right thing in preventing this woman from looking after other children. Taking her own kids away is a much bigger step.

Equally it could be that the son is a little !!!!!! who beat his mother, she hit out in self defence and he decided to get his own back by reporting her.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility. However, I think social have done exactly the right thing in keeping her away from other people's kids until they know exactly what went on. Their duty of care is to the children and I completely support them in their actions.

bitemebankers

lostinrates wrote: »

No, but circumstances are considered in sentencing, and reaction and understanding reflected in parole decisions.

Ehh........?

Gordon_Hose

I wouldn't want a CM who hits her own children to look after mine, in all honesty. Regardless of the circumstances.

JimmyTheWig

ValHaller wrote: »

Once I worked out that the childminder had struck her own son rather than the friend's son ....

You can see that the route for the denouement was the son telling his teacher - it is far from certain that other minded children saw this.

Yes, you are right. I missed that.
When I first read it I read that the "son" in question was the childminded child. So he was the one hit and he was the one who told his teacher.
When it became clear that it was the childminder's son who was hit I didn't re-read the OP and still assumed in my mind that it was the childminded child who told their teacher.

If no minded children were there then I'm not convinced that the fact she is a childminder is relevant - and so Ofsted shouldn't have been involved.
Obviously we are assuming that this was a "harmless" slap - i.e. the sort of slap that someone who believes in that sort of thing considers reasonable.
If it was more than that (i.e. if the authorities are investigating, etc) then it is right to suspend her childminding registration.

tango

bitemebankers wrote: »

It's violence and it happened in the past tense, so it is a history of violence. In any case, someone who hits children certainly isn't fit to look after them, IMHO.

Gordon Bennett .....

elmer

I agree, I know no one of my generation (60s child) who hasnt been smacked at some point or other as a child, are all our parents unfit to look after children with a history of violence?

I dont think so

elmer

ValHaller

bitemebankers wrote: »

It's violence and it happened in the past tense, so it is a history of violence.

bitemebankers wrote: »

What complete twaddle. I'm not even attempting to "extrapolate the future" so go build your strawman somewhere else.

It was a slap. It happened once. You call it "a history of violence".

So for every finger pointed to me claiming "twaddle" there must be at least one pointing at you identifying you as a twaddler.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot extrapolate from 1 datapoint. But you did.

bitemebankers

ValHaller wrote: »

It was a slap. It happened once. You call it "a history of violence".

How many times does someone have to be hit before you call it violence? I'm sure that if you were the one being hit, it would be a fairly low number.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot extrapolate from 1 datapoint. But you did.

No, I didn't. Violence is violence - no extrapolation necessary.

lostinrates

bitemebankers wrote: »

How many times does someone have to be hit before you call it violence? I'm sure that if you were the one being hit, it would be a fairly low number.



No, I didn't. Violence is violence - no extrapolation necessary.

We do not know what happened. Suppose, for example, the son was threatening one of the childminders charges, perhaps shoving, pushing, shouting and she was unable to talk him down and she was backed into a corner and she slapped him in fear and desperation or self defence?

(Btw I am not proposing above happened, nor saying its ideal behaviour even under those circumstances, I am just saying we do not know what happened, and probably never will)

adouglasmhor

bitemebankers wrote: »

No, I didn't. Violence is violence - no extrapolation necessary.

George_Orwell wrote:

Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

How do you know whether the slap was justified or not, sometimes the naughty step or grounding might not work.