PDA

View Full Version : Parental permission/legal responsibility help..



Jelly Baby
22-12-2015, 09:40 AM
Hi,

My local DW is now off and I just wanted to runt through the right procedure.

Have had a new mum round asking that I do not under any circumstances let the dad ever pick up the child. I have noted this on the forms and contract.

What if dads on the birth certificate? I see this as a contract with mum only though?

Never had this arise so just want to make sure im doing things right!

Thanks

Mouse
22-12-2015, 10:18 AM
Does dad have parental responsibility for the child? Is there a court order in place preventing dad from having access to the child? Will you ever meet him?

My understanding is that if they have parental responsibility for a child you cannot refuse to hand the child over. If you'd never met the person though and had no idea who they were, you wouldn't hand a child over to them. That's nothing to do with mum's request, it's what would happen in any case if an unknown person called saying they wanted to take a child. You would have to contact the mum and get her to sort it out, but you could refuse to hand the child over as you don't know who they're handing them to. If there is a court order in place, you need a copy of it and it would be worth talking through it with your insurance provider to see where you stand legally. If the dad has parental responsibility and you have proof of who he is (ie. you've met him before) you could stall him until mum could get there, or you could call the police if he was at all confrontational and you were worried about the safety of you or the child, but I don't think you can refuse to hand the child over just because mum says so.

I would want to know if the dad is likely to turn up, whether they are likely to cause trouble and what mum would expect you to do if he did turn up. Does he even know where you live? If there is a possibility he might turn up, you need to consider your safety and that of any other children in your care.

Jelly Baby
23-12-2015, 09:56 AM
Thanks for the reply. Im going to speak to my DW I think as no clarity after people ive asked!

Dad is local..ish and mum says the child would recognise him. Apparently he's tried to take him before so that's why im a bit wary of all this. I haven't obviously met him as lo hasn't started yet but needed to know that if he does turn up what I am allowed to do and not do..

Ill get this clarified, thanks x

bunyip
23-12-2015, 11:37 AM
I pretty much agree with mouse. Just a couple of things I'd add.

I've had to deal with similar requests, one of which resulted in me eventually refusing to continue care: it was an ad hoc arrangement, so thankfully less traumatic all round than it might have been.

A good place to start with this is an assumption of innocence and equality. There's an almost instinctive tendency (which I can, to some extent, understand) to take sides with mums in such situations, especially if it's mum you deal with 99.9+% of the time. Resist that urge at all costs. In short, apply the same rules to both parents, no matter that you always deal with mum, or how friendly she is, how good a mum she is, how good a client she is, or who pays the invoice. Putting it another way: unless you see the proper legal paperwork to back up that request, you can't agree to it any more than if dad had asked you not to let mum collect.

It is a serious criminal offence to deny access/contact with a child to anyone with parental responsibility (PR) without reasonable grounds. You might have a defence in law if you suspect that it would put the child in immediate danger of serious harm, but you would have to have very good grounds for this before that defence would be accepted. Don't assume that dad is violent unless you have some record of it. I've assumed this is not the case, otherwise you'd have mentioned it, and would already have plenty logged in your safeguarding records, together with social services involvement.

You should already know whether or not dad has PR, since it is a regulatory requirement (EYFS section 3.72.) The same regulation means you should also have dad's name and address on file. I'll come back to that point later. These are all things which every CM should bear in mind when taking on any new client, especially where there is just one parent setting up the contract and declaring the other is somehow "out of the picture". In fact, in all cases, both parents remain equally entitled to all the EYFS-required information, including the sorts of activities their child will do, menus, learning progress, etc. - even if that means going out of our way to provide it.

The only fully legitimate reason to grant mum's request is if there is a current court order/injunction in place denying dad access, or mum can prove dad has no PR, or dad admits to having no PR. In each of these cases, you must get on-paper evidence and store it on file (ie. a copy of the injuction, letter, etc.)

Do not accept any official-looking solicitor's letter as an alternative. I had experience of this, and it can look very convincing and feel very intimidating to receive a letter from mum's solicitor suggesting dad can't collect and that I will be liable for any harm or have action taken against me if I refuse to comply. My personal instinct when faced with this sort of legalistic bullying was to meet strength with strength and challenge the solitor, but I know that doesn't suit everybody. At the very least, advise the mum and solicitor that you will be obliged to refer the matter/letter to your own legal team before proceeding and that may involve suspending care pending clarification (and that of itself can often persuade mum to reel in the solicitors somewhat.)

There is an idea amongst CMs that "I can just claim I don't recognise dad, keep the door locked, and all will be fine." That was my view once upon a time. (Btw, I'm not suggesting that Mouse implies this is an effective strategy by any means.) I believe this is an entirely false argument and will put any CM that uses it on very shaky legal ground. As mentioned, you should have dad's personal details on file. So you should be prepared for the likelihood that dad will almost certainly be carrying generally-accepted proof of his identity in the form of a credit card, staff pass, driver's licence, utility bill or any one of a few dozen things people commonly carry with them or stuff in their glove compartments.

I've taken police advice on this, and was informed that's what a police officer would ask for and accept as ID. Depending on the police officer, they may very well then proceed to ask dad if he wished to press charges. :( It may help if the CM is the one who initiates the call to the police, rather than waiting for dad to do it, but it may not. Really, you shouldn't let it get to that stage. I was advised that the police would likely take the view that the CM can reasonably be expected to have been proactive in taking steps to be able to identify any person with PR (e.g. recent photo on file or arranged to meet them previously), so they are able to collect the child, as they have the right to do so.

Obviously, all this changes if you have that all-important court order/injunction and/or evidence that dad does not have PR. I just think it worth me laying out all the above in case it applies in your case or, for that matter, any other CM reading this at a later date.

If there is any suggestion that dad might act in a manner that is violent, abusive, or threatening (which seems be the usual thing mums say, whether it is true or merely used as some sort of leverage) then you should consider a risk assessment. IMHO that could also give you grounds to terminate the contract in the interests of your personal safety and that of all the mindees. It's useful to have parent's behaviour covered in contracts/policies. You'll need to make a judgment on this, based on the individual case.

In any case, I affirm what Mouse has suggested: contact your insurer's legal team; DW and professional representative body (ie. pacey or equivalent) at your earliest opportunity.

k1rstie
23-12-2015, 08:35 PM
What could happen if Dad showed up? Would he be violent? Would you defend your mindee over your dead body? Over the dead body of your own children? Or your other mindees?

These are questions that I think that we should all personally think about. Sorry to play devils advocate

Simona
24-12-2015, 09:36 AM
any contract whether 'off the shelf' or self drawn ....the latter checked by a solicitor....should have a section requesting parents to confirm 'parental responsibilities'.

Where both parents have PR the contract should be signed by both of them for invoices purposes and communication/working in partnership so to cover any eventuality of one parent not being able to pay fees or be contacted or other obvious reasons.
Both parents, if both have PR, will then be legally bound by the contract and take the responsibility of paying fees when the other cannot for whatever reasons.
An invoice should be addressed to 'both parents' even when just one covers the fees each month....if unsure check it out.

This will be very important when the 30 hours kicks in or if applying for the EYPP.

This makes the contract 'legal' and binding by all 3 parties.

If one parent has PR but the other has not this should be explained in the contract in the appropriate section....a short explanation covering issues such as pick ups or any orders preventing one parent from contact.
All this is covered by Confidentiality and is a serious matter

Where these orders are in place the parent with the PR will have no problems providing evidence...just saying that the other parent cannot collect is not enough...proof is needed.

If unsure contact your EY team who will direct you to the dept able to explain this issue...cover your back!

rickysmiths
28-12-2015, 01:02 PM
any contract whether 'off the shelf' or self drawn ....the latter checked by a solicitor....should have a section requesting parents to confirm 'parental responsibilities'.

Where both parents have PR the contract should be signed by both of them for invoices purposes and communication/working in partnership so to cover any eventuality of one parent not being able to pay fees or be contacted or other obvious reasons.
Both parents, if both have PR, will then be legally bound by the contract and take the responsibility of paying fees when the other cannot for whatever reasons.
An invoice should be addressed to 'both parents' even when just one covers the fees each month....if unsure check it out.

This will be very important when the 30 hours kicks in or if applying for the EYPP.

This makes the contract 'legal' and binding by all 3 parties.

If one parent has PR but the other has not this should be explained in the contract in the appropriate section....a short explanation covering issues such as pick ups or any orders preventing one parent from contact.
All this is covered by Confidentiality and is a serious matter

Where these orders are in place the parent with the PR will have no problems providing evidence...just saying that the other parent cannot collect is not enough...proof is needed.

If unsure contact your EY team who will direct you to the dept able to explain this issue...cover your back!

I disagree. I have had many single parents use my care in the last 10 years, both mothers and fathers. Most of them have had little or no contact with the other parent who most often has lived far away but some have lived locally. It was not appropriate or practical in the circumstances for that absent parent, eve n if they had PR to sign the Contract. I do have named on the Contract all those with PR and that is all we legally need.

I think a lot of people over think this. If someone I had never met arrived on my doorstep to collect a child it is simple they would not be allowed to take the child just because they turned up and said they had PR, even if the child knew them that is not grounds to just let them go. I would want proof that the person at the door had PR so an actual (not a copy) Birth Cert dated no later than 6 months after the birth and photo ID of the person before I would release a child.

I have the name, address and a photo of all the people who would normally be collecting the child and of the Emergency back ups and a password.
.

If a stranger arrived to collect a child I would shut the door and call the parent I have a Contract with and the Police. Simple.

I don't see how having an absent parent signing a Contract will be of any significance with regard to free 30 Funding it doesn't now and the additional 15 hours funding is only going to be available to 2 working parents anyway. It should therefore not be a requirement for EYPP.

bunyip
29-12-2015, 11:11 AM
This is a tricky area, and I can agree and disagree with elements of both previous posts. Ultimately, I'm going to criticise both (in the spirit of intelligent debate, not just me 'having a go') because I think you've both made the same wrong assumption: the law does not begin and end at the parent with whom we share the contract.

But the one big thing I would commend both Simona and Rickysmiths is that you've certainly thought about the "what if's", which is far more than we get from all the (alleged) 'professional support' we are supposed to receive from DOs, pacey, et al.

You can spend a fortune on training courses and magazines, telling you chuck some stuff in a bag and call it a "treasure basket", followed by in-depth navel-gazing theories about the "developmental value" of something which is, essentially, what mums have been doing for thousands of years. But you try looking for any sort of training on how to handle difficult or even potentially violent situations and you'll find little more than some rather obvious sociological theorising on "different family models". :(

Simona's principle of protecting ourselves right from the contract onwards is, of course, entirely commendable. In an ideal world, yes, both parents sign and agree all contracts, consents, terms and conditions. The problem, as ever, is the singular lack of an ideal world. So pursuing this sort of policy/practice amounts to de facto, albeit unintentional, systemic discrimination against a certain type of family. There are a lot of what we used to be allowed to call 'broken homes' and 'broken relationships' - usually because the parents have failed to agree on something fundamental. We can't always expect mum to get dad (or vice-versa) to agree to the terms of something equally fundamental like childcare arrangements, especially as children frequently become pawns in their petty post-break-up struggles where one or both parties are trying to be as obstructive as possible toward the other about anything they can find to disagree over.

I agree with Rickysmiths. It really isn't too difficult to have a contract with just one parent, and that doesn't make it any less 'legal' than a contract with all three parties. Making the effort to accommodate this sort of 'broken family' is a small step towards being more inclusive, even if the terms I use to describe it is probably not the 'inclusive language' so beloved of the CM Thought Police. But surely actions speak louder, and that one 'small step' can represent a 'giant leap' for a working mum.

Rickysmith's approach (essentially, "you're a stranger: I don't know you") might just work thinkofanumber% of the time. Trouble is, you just can't be sure. The police advice I received was that it would come down to the judgment of the individual police officer attending and the attitude of the aggrieved parent. Difficult Dad (let's be prejudiced for once, in spite of my sex, and assume it's a difficult dad) would be at liberty to report this situation to the police as an alleged crime, thus putting the CM at the mercy of the police, CPS and ultimately the courts. Even if the police and CPS dropped the case, Difficult Dad could go for a civil action.

As I said in my earlier post, I used to agree 100% with the approach espoused by RS, but taking police advice robbed me of my rather comfortable delusion. :( (I have an in-built aversion to the police, so I don't seek their advice lightly or without my suspicion filters set to 'maximum'.) They told me they would expect me to have been prepared for such a situation, and to have already done my homework: i.e. it would be my responsibility to be in a position to positively identify dad if dad had PR. To put it another, simpler way : "ignorance is no excuse." As the officer asked me (and I paraphrase), "how will you convince my colleagues that dad has no right to take his kids when he's carrying ID and the boys jump around shouting 'Daddy, Daddy, are you taking us to MacDonald's again?' " :huh:

Ultimately, I think RS's approach would probably work most of the time. I'm just cautious about being asked to write off a reasonable degree of "being prepared" as if it were "over-thinking".

I agree these situations are extremely challenging, which is why I lament the lack of training and empty lip-service paid to real family situations by the organisations which purport to be supporting us. I don't think we can merely opt for a position where we leave ourselves vulnerable, nor where we exclude any separated mum (or dad) from receiving childcare which can help them get back to work, back on their feet, and offer their children some sort of stability and normality.

As for the 30 hours funding and EYPP, I'm terribly ignorant when it comes to working out the implications.

Full respect to Rickysmiths and Simona. I agree with some things you've said, whilst disagreeing with other points. I'm also very open to learning on this. The fact that it comes up from time to time shows it is a very real problem, but sadly one which is largely ignored by the organisations we should be able to rely on.

Simona
30-12-2015, 09:38 AM
Thank you very much for your reply Bunyip

I think you raise very good and valid points and I do not feel it was criticism ...just an open debate which I hope is still allowed in this forum?

You obviously agree and disagree with the points raised....totally acceptable....is it criticism though? ...I don't think so...what I do is very different form RS and why I do it is also my choice for me not her business.

In the end it is our personal decision how we cover our backs or deal with very delicate matters such as parental responsibility....we run our businesses not anyone else....47,000 cms do things their own way. unless the are registered with an agency who will dictate the rules!

Training courses maybe available on such matters but each one would be very different.
I wonder how many cms have actually had to act on request from one parent to veto the other doing things like pick ups and such like? coming across these cases first hand really wakes you up!


In 20 plus years in childcare I have always sought advice when presented with issue like PR...my association, their PLI dept, EY teams and other important agencies I felt were likely to offer sound advice
I felt they did and therefore I have added certain sections in my contract to cover for PR and also fee payment ...my choice and I would say it has paid off....for me that is.

I would suggest any cm facing these issues does the same and arrives at a decision how to protect herself and her business first and foremost while following the various statutory requirements and intricacies of PR and all it entails....even the police when things go badly wrong!

With regards to contracts being signed by both parents for various reasons and in particular payment of fees...again this is up to each cm what she/he feels will cover her business best....any association would be able to clarify that

It is the easiest thing to do to have a contract signed by just one parent...until something goes wrong....in this forum I believe many cms do just that while those in the know recommend the very opposite...who is right and who is wrong?
In a way it is like a mortgage...would just one partner sign for the lender or both of them? who would be liable to pay in case the other is laid off work or suddenly unable to work?

One last thing to mention when it comes to EYPP and other things related to the 30 hours we will need to check in future...follow the 'implementers' in their trials as they will sure come up against obstacles...also look out for Gyimah's suggestions that govt may enforce a statutory contract with LAs.

Thanks again for your input....and please can we clarify we are talking about PR not 'single parents' where there is already some sort of civil and legal arrangement in place,...we are talking about parents in the process of separating and such like...important to understand the difference and I don't think anyone was talking about strangers as mentioned below which is totally different.

If you get advice from pacey do share it with us.