concern for child

LegacyUser

I have a daughter attending a weekly dance/theater class.
my concern is the class organiser/instructor's male partner (not sure if fiancee or just boyfriend) he regularly arrives at these classes and sits there on his phone in the background near the stage.
My child has made me aware that she is uneasy about him always being there.
Now I don't want to go the the Gardai about this but is there any checks that can be done re staff / employees of these classes. Is he entitled to be there because he carries in some of the props used for the classes and helps out at show time (Christmas and annual performance)
Who can i contact - Is there a regulatory authority on these out of school companies?

Why don't you just ask the person whom you pay for these classes? I would if I was paying for them. You could brooch it by asking them if everyone in the child's company is garda vetted and ask if said partner is too. You just can't be too careful these days to be honest.
And be blunt with them, tell the instructor you'll pull your child from the classes if not vetted and still in the company of your child.
Also if your child said she's uneasy this would be a big red flag for me.

purplestar77

There is no regulatory body here. And Garda vetting of staff would be the minimum I would expect although unless the person is a teacher or involved in looking after children in an official setting (playschool / GAA / sports etc) I would be surprised if they were garda vetted.

Much more important in my opinion would be to ask the dance school had a child safeguarding statement or child protection policy in place. And if so ask to see it - that should cover supervisions of children while in class etc.

I work in a community setting where there are lots of independently run kids Afterschool activities & I’m amazed how parents just enrol their kids in these activities and don’t ask about these things.

purplestar77

purplestar77 wrote: »

There is no regulatory body here. And Garda vetting of staff would be the minimum I would expect although unless the person is a teacher or involved in looking after children in an official setting (playschool / GAA / sports etc) I would be surprised if they were garda vetted.

Much more important in my opinion would be to ask the dance school had a child safeguarding statement or child protection policy in place. And if so ask to see it - that should cover supervisions of children while in class etc.

I work in a community setting where there are lots of independently run kids Afterschool activities & I’m amazed how parents just enrol their kids in these activities and don’t ask about these things.

I don't think it has to be an official setting to be a requirement. Any of my sons extra ciricular activities, kickboxing, rugby, golf and hurling all have a statement when signing up that all instructors or coaches are garda vetted.
I agree these important things absolutely should be confirmed before signing up to anything for children.

Dravokivich

Have you tried having a quick chat with the guy? It's likely if he helps move props about, he's just hanging around and keeping out of the way while waiting for his partners class to finish up. Especially if he's giving her a lift in and out.

farmchoice

well its certainly not a police matter, obviously if you are not happy with an activity you are sending your child to then you should remove your child.
or you could broach the subject with the person you are paying money to.

MrMusician18

If I was running a class and a parent approached me with a seemingly unfounded concern (he hasn't done anything, correct? The child is just uneasy?) regarding my partner helper and was looking for a child protection statement I would not be permitting that child to attend.

There is enough grief dealing with children and parents. Whatever about being paid for these services I cannot understand why anyone would volunteer

SusieBlue

I'm all for never being too careful when it comes to childrens safety but this sounds like a bit of an overreaction.
You would be seriously wasting Garda resources by reporting this to them, when nothing has even happened.

It sounds like he actually doesn't even have any contact with the children, he just moves equipment and sits on his phone? So what does he do to make your daughter feel uncomfortable, is there more to the story?
Query as to whether he is vetted, if he isn't, remove your child from the class.
If he is, and your child is still uncomfortable, then remove her from the class. The man isn't the problem (based on what you have said).

As an aside, my cousin & I attended a dance class as children, one week she got given out to by our (male) instructor for acting the maggot. She refused to go back the week after saying she was scared of him & didn't want to be around him, alarm bells went off and her parents thought something awful had happened.
They were about to go confront him guns blazing accusing him of all sorts, when I told them it was because she had been given out to for being bold...She had never mentioned that part.
I'm NOT calling your daughter a liar but its very common for kids to do things like the above when they've gotten in trouble. Just something to keep in mind.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

a non mouse wrote: »

I have a daughter attending a weekly dance/theater class.
my concern is the class organiser/instructor's male partner (not sure if fiancee or just boyfriend) he regularly arrives at these classes and sits there on his phone in the background near the stage.
My child has made me aware that she is uneasy about him always being there.
Now I don't want to go the the Gardai about this but is there any checks that can be done re staff / employees of these classes. Is he entitled to be there because he carries in some of the props used for the classes and helps out at show time (Christmas and annual performance)
Who can i contact - Is there a regulatory authority on these out of school companies?

Well the guards aren't going to do anything because someone 'feels uneasy'. Chap hasn't done anything wrong based on your post but if you're unhappy with the set up then it's up to you too take your child out of the class.

Here's the rules on vetting

'Any person whose work or activity involves access to children or vulnerable persons must be vetted. Workers include staff, volunteers and those on student placements working for a relevant organisation through which they have access to children and / or vulnerable persons'.

So if he's involved with the theatre/class then yes he should be vetted. If he's not involved then he's as entitled to be there as much as you are.

But whether or not he is vetted is not going to change your child's feelings on the matter.

Wheety

If this was a woman would you have the same concerns?

jlm29

It sounds like he’s sitting in the corner waiting to help her take her equipment back out to the car and get a lift home. That said, if your daughter feels uncomfortable, you shouldn’t make her go to the class.

seamus

I'd dig more down into why your daughter feels uncomfortable. It might not be him, but some other incidents that have brought this on. If she's uncomfortable in the presence of adult men seemingly without reason, then I'd be concerned about what someone may be telling her, or what else might have occurred that she hasn't told me about.
Or she might just be self-conscious and embarrassed, especially if she's approaching her teens.

As others have said, there is no Garda vetting requirement in this case, it's not even possible to do it, and the guy is not doing anything wrong.

It's quite common for parents or other individuals to sit at the back of a class and wait for it to end.

splinter65

If your daughter doesn’t want to go to the dance class then don’t make her go.
She doesn’t like this guy being there, that’s fine but he seems to be part of the set up and the woman running the classes doesn’t have to tailor make the experience to suit your child. She couldn’t possibly do that.
Let her go or not go having reassured her that she is not in any danger and if she is bothered by anything she is to tell the teacher that she wants you to come and collect her straight away and you will.
I would concur with other posters that you need to investigate why she is bothered about this man.

TheBoyConor

You could write a letter to the garda vetting authorities and express a concern that you are worried that there is a potentially unvetted adult male with access to children.

reaslistically, he has no business in there while there are children there. He should be waiting somewhere else and move the gear in and out when there is no-one in the room before and after the class. It is unacceptable that he would be there looking on when there is no need for him to be. Can't be too careful these days.

MrMusician18

TheBoyConor wrote: »

You could write a letter to the garda vetting authorities and express a concern that you are worried that there is a potentially unvetted adult male with access to children.

reaslistically, he has no business in there while there are children there. He should be waiting somewhere else and move the gear in and out when there is no-one in the room before and after the class. It is unacceptable that he would be there looking on when there is no need for him to be. Can't be too careful these days.

As opposed to what days??

It is the above posters attitude that will ensure that sports clubs cannot find volunteers to be involved with children and there will never be TY or work experience students in our office.

Letter to the guards?? It's definitely not worth the grief to get involved with providing services for children.

Mrs OBumble

Jaelyn Melodic Armadillo wrote: »

Here's the rules on vetting

'Any person whose work or activity involves access to children or vulnerable persons must be vetted. Workers include staff, volunteers and those on student placements working for a relevant organisation through which they have access to children and / or vulnerable persons'.

Where is that a quote from please?

Potentially it means that if a child has a parent who wouldn't pass vetting, that parent cannot attend events with their child. And that the moment a young person turns 18, they need to be vetted before they can hang out with their 17 year old friends again.

purplestar77

The vetting relates to being in a role of responsibility or supervision of children. It wouldn’t apply to a parent accompanying a child or an 18 yr old hanging out with friends. That said a 17yr old who helps out or volunteers with an organisation should be vetted upon turning 18. It’s good practice.

MrMusician18

purplestar77 wrote: »

The vetting relates to being in a role of responsibility or supervision of children. It wouldn’t apply to a parent accompanying a child or an 18 yr old hanging out with friends. That said a 17yr old who helps out or volunteers with an organisation should be vetted upon turning 18. It’s good practice.

That's not what the quoted text says. It just says access.

A very strict interpretation of the word access would mean you would need to be vetted to walk down the street, for fear you might share a space with a child

MarkR

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where is that a quote from please?

Potentially it means that if a child has a parent who wouldn't pass vetting, that parent cannot attend events with their child. And that the moment a young person turns 18, they need to be vetted before they can hang out with their 17 year old friends again.

Quick google found this.

National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012-2016

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/data_protection_at_work/garda_clearance_for_employees.html

If the person is on premises, they should be vetted. I don't care if it's a man or woman, random people shouldn't be hanging around.

MrMusician18

MarkR wrote: »

Quick google found this.

National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012-2016

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/data_protection_at_work/garda_clearance_for_employees.html

If the person is on premises, they should be vetted. I don't care if it's a man or woman, random people shouldn't be hanging around.

So do parents need to be vetted if they wish to supervise?

Apiarist

splinter65 wrote: »

I would concur with other posters that you need to investigate why she is bothered about this man.

Exactly. Seems unusual that a guy who helps with the equipment and sitting quietly in the corner would be a problem. If the OP's daughter is shy, may be the guy could be asked to wait somewhere where he is not seen. Or it could be that the kid does not want to go to classes and just looks for an excuse.

Also lots of people are Garda vetted. For example, I am vetted from one time I had to do something for a creche. So the guy may be vetted already. Does it change much in this case? I don't think so.

MrMusician18

victor8600 wrote: »

Exactly. Seems unusual that a guy who helps with the equipment and sitting quietly in the corner would be a problem. If the OP's daughter is shy, may be the guy could be asked to wait somewhere where he is not seen. Or it could be that the kid does not want to go to classes and just looks for an excuse.

What kind of lesson does that teach the child? Working on the assumption that he has done nothing wrong and that the child only doesn't like the look of him, are we really suggesting that the right course of action is telling this guy to hide? Will mammy be able to always get the men the child doesn't like the look of to go and hide?

probably the only thing he is in danger of molesting is the radiator while trying to keep warm.

TheBoyConor

vetted or unvetted, an adult male has no business in a room of young girls dowing a class unless he is instructing or some way involved. He should be waiting in the car or somewhere off the premises. Loitering about the room is not acceptable.

purplestar77

MrMusician18 wrote: »

So do parents need to be vetted if they wish to supervise?

Yes they should be

MrMusician18

TheBoyConor wrote: »

vetted or unvetted, an adult male has no business in a room of young girls dowing a class unless he is instructing or some way involved. He should be waiting in the car or somewhere off the premises. Loitering about the room is not acceptable.

Why is that? Do you have the same issue with male teachers?

jlm29

TheBoyConor wrote: »

vetted or unvetted, an adult male has no business in a room of young girls dowing a class unless he is instructing or some way involved. He should be waiting in the car or somewhere off the premises. Loitering about the room is not acceptable.

But he is involved. He helps her with setting up and moving equipment. Maybe she feels more comfortable having a second adult in the room in case one of the kids tries to accuse her of hitting them. Or maybe she’d like to have a second adult on standby in case someone falls and hurts themselves and she wants someone to phone a doctor.

SusieBlue

TheBoyConor wrote: »

vetted or unvetted, an adult male has no business in a room of young girls dowing a class unless he is instructing or some way involved. He should be waiting in the car or somewhere off the premises. Loitering about the room is not acceptable.

Absolute hyperbole.
Attitudes like this is why men are reluctant to volunteer in any activities involving children. Its actually so damaging and dangerous.
You are assuming he's some sort of predator up to no good based off pretty much nothing.

I guarantee there would be none of this talk if the partner in question was female.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

vetted or unvetted, an adult male has no business in a room of young girls dowing a class unless he is instructing or some way involved. He should be waiting in the car or somewhere off the premises. Loitering about the room is not acceptable.

Absolute sexist hogwash of the highest order. He has more right to be there than OP's daughter, by the sounds of it, seeing as he is in some way involved, what with moving equipment and props and the shows etc. For all we know, it's his dance company and his missus runs it for him. Or another scenario might be that one of the conditions of operation is that there has to be X number of adults present in case something happens or some other accusation is levelled at those running the show.

farmchoice

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolute sexist hogwash of the highest order. He has more right to be there than OP's daughter, by the sounds of it, seeing as he is in some way involved, what with moving equipment and props and the shows etc. For all we know, it's his dance company and his missus runs it for him. Or another scenario might be that one of the conditions of operation is that there has to be X number of adults present in case something happens or some other accusation is levelled at those running the show.

ya there is a strong argument for always having another adult present. i'm a sports coach and if i ever dont another vetted coach with me ill try and have another non vetted adult present watching,usually a parent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolute sexist hogwash of the highest order. He has more right to be there than OP's daughter, by the sounds of it, seeing as he is in some way involved, what with moving equipment and props and the shows etc. For all we know, it's his dance company and his missus runs it for him. Or another scenario might be that one of the conditions of operation is that there has to be X number of adults present in case something happens or some other accusation is levelled at those running the show.

I don’t agree. If he has the right to be there, then he should be vetted.

seamus

MarkR wrote: »

If the person is on premises, they should be vetted. I don't care if it's a man or woman, random people shouldn't be hanging around.

Being "on the premises" isn't good enough.

The act is quite clear about where vetting is required.

jlm29 wrote: »

But he is involved. He helps her with setting up and moving equipment.

That is not an activity "which mainly consist(s) of them having access to, or contact with, children".

The counter-argument here is that if his involvement extends primarily to setting up and breaking down (i.e. when the kids are usually gone), then the activity doesn't count.

But ultimately what he is doing is exempted by the act. This is a private arrangement between the teacher and this man for the benefit of the teacher, which is explicitly exempted from vetting.

purplestar77 wrote: »

Yes they should be

If they're actively supervising, but not if they're observing.

mitresize5

This is madness,

The issue here is why is the child uncomfortable with an adult male in the room.

Either the child has been 'taught' to view adult males as a threat or something has happened that she see's adult males as a threat... or maybe the child is shy. Either way there are going to be big bad men in the childs life (teachers, bosses etc ...) that the child is going to have to cope with.

If there was an issue with the man behaviour then he wouldn't be in the room as the daughter wouldnt have been the first one to note it and the class would be empty.

Absolutely bonkers to think that man can't sit in a room on his phone now without been perceived as some form of pest.

The world has gone mad

ldy4mxonucwsq6

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where is that a quote from please?

Potentially it means that if a child has a parent who wouldn't pass vetting, that parent cannot attend events with their child. And that the moment a young person turns 18, they need to be vetted before they can hang out with their 17 year old friends again.

The National Vetting Bureau (Children
and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, goes into it in depth:

3.— (1) This Act shall not apply to any of the following, namely:

(a) any relevant work or activities undertaken in the course of a family relationship

(b) any relevant work or activities undertaken—

(i) in the course of a personal relationship, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

(c) the giving of assistance by an individual—

(i) on an occasional basis, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

at a school, sports or community event or activity, other than where such
assistance includes the coaching, mentoring, counselling, teaching or training
of children.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t agree. If he has the right to be there, then he should be vetted.

Who says he isn't?
For all we know he's a 1st aid practitioner and the class isn't allowed to take place without him being there. All this rubbish about him having no place when nobody has the foggiest idea of what his role is.

Apiarist

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What kind of lesson does that teach the child? Working on the assumption that he has done nothing wrong and that the child only doesn't like the look of him, are we really suggesting that the right course of action is telling this guy to hide? Will mammy be able to always get the men the child doesn't like the look of to go and hide?

Look, the girl is there to learn dancing. If, and it's a stretch assumption, it is only the presence of that guy that makes her uncomfortable, it is reasonable to ask the teacher if the presence of this guy is needed. Not because the guy is doing anything wrong. But he is not contributing to the class by sitting in that particular place, is he? So for the sake of a shy child, yes, he can be asked to move to another place.

SusieBlue

victor8600 wrote: »

Look, the girl is there to learn dancing. If, and it's a stretch assumption, it is only the presence of that guy that makes her uncomfortable, it is reasonable to ask the teacher if the presence of this guy is needed. Not because the guy is doing anything wrong. But he is not contributing to the class by sitting in that particular place, is he? So for the sake of a shy child, yes, he can be asked to move to another place.

Mollycoddling of the highest order.
If we are in agreement that the man has done nothing wrong & isn’t a threat, then it’s absolutely absurd to suggest he be the one to leave.

It’s just so unreasonable.
If she’s that shy she will have to learn how to deal with it or remove herself from the class. Her problem, her issue to deal with, not his.
Taking away the trigger is not the solution, not to mention how insulting it would be to the poor innocent man in question, who again, has done nothing wrong.

TheBoyConor

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why is that? Do you have the same issue with male teachers?

Of course. But then that is their main role, they are not lurking down the back of the room making pupils uncomfortable.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Absolute hyperbole.
Attitudes like this is why men are reluctant to volunteer in any activities involving children. Its actually so damaging and dangerous.
You are assuming he's some sort of predator up to no good based off pretty much nothing.

I guarantee there would be none of this talk if the partner in question was female.

It is for his own good as well as for the benefit of the children. Removing him from the room takes away the risk of suggestions of allegations of a potential impropriety.

mitresize5 wrote: »

This is madness,

The issue here is why is the child uncomfortable with an adult male in the room.

Either the child has been 'taught' to view adult males as a threat or something has happened that she see's adult males as a threat... or maybe the child is shy. Either way there are going to be big bad men in the childs life (teachers, bosses etc ...) that the child is going to have to cope with.

If there was an issue with the man behaviour then he wouldn't be in the room as the daughter wouldnt have been the first one to note it and the class would be empty.

Absolutely bonkers to think that man can't sit in a room on his phone now without been perceived as some form of pest.

The world has gone mad

As I said, if the man is setting up and taking down. That is his role and he should do it out of sight and when no minors are present. As it stands he is just twiddling his thumbs during the class. His presence is not necessary and thus it is not appropriate for him to be present.

TheBoyConor

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

AulWan

You can ask the class instructor if her partner is vetted or can he stay elsewhere, but I wouldn't be holding out for a very friendly response.

Garda vetting means very little anyway. All it means is someone has never been caught doing something wrong, not that they've never done anything wrong.

I'd be more concerned about why my child is so uneasy around men.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

What is she the victim of?

TheBoyConor

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man. But we don't know the full story. It is quite possible that she has been abused or raped in the past and this is the reason for her nervousness. It would be wrong and victim blaming if she were asked to leave.

kippy

This is an interesting one. Purely from the aspect of this person's role within the organisation.

EG. There are many parents who sit by on their phone while their child and other children train or play a multitude of sports: GAA, Soccer, Basketball, athletics etc -should they all be Garda vetted at a minimum?

At what point and who in the organisation needs to be vetted at a minimum?


I think parents have a right to be concerned and query those who are in contact with kids.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man. But we don't know the full story. It is quite possible that she has been abused or raped in the past and this is the reason for her nervousness. It would be wrong and victim blaming if she were asked to leave.

Or it's quite possible she doesn't fancy dancing or hasn't had any exposure to men at all or any number of other reasons? You can't assume someone in a room is guilty based on nothing.

AulWan

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

Victim blaming?

There is no VICTIM here.

TheBoyConor

I am involved with a professional organisation and the larger national organisation runs a week to educate and encourage kids to get involved in that field as a career. Every year a good number of people would volunteer to give a hand at a couple of open days and family days and such. Last year the national organisation decided that all volunteers had to be garda vetted. Given all the hassle of doing that just for the sake or one or two afternoons, 95% of the volunteers diecided it was too much effort for what it was worth and didn't bother volunteering. All was left was a few of the more dedicated members. Vetting kills off the occasional volunteer.

AulWan

hots wrote: »

What is she the victim of?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man.

Are you actually for real?

TheBoyConor

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

AulWan

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

No, its is not. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man who is guilty of absolutely nothing (other then the fact that he is male), should have to leave because of this.

Totally hysterial over-reaction.

is_that_so

Not much more to offer here other than talk to the child, maybe the OP can take a look at the set-up themselves. I do think the route of hinting or suggesting impropriety will end badly all round. The only real option then if they are so uncomfortable would be to withdraw the child.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I am involved with a professional organisation and the larger national organisation runs a week to educate and encourage kids to get involved in that field as a career. Every year a good number of people would volunteer to give a hand at a couple of open days and family days and such. Last year the national organisation decided that all volunteers had to be garda vetted. Given all the hassle of doing that just for the sake or one or two afternoons, 95% of the volunteers diecided it was too much effort for what it was worth and didn't bother volunteering. All was left was a few of the more dedicated members. Vetting kills off the occasional volunteer.

At most it's filling out a form and giving a copy of ID and proof of address, take all of 5 minutes in this day and age. I've done it plenty of times myself, what's the issue?

Anyone who doesn't bother because of mandatory vetting wasn't arsed in the first place and is only looking for a reason to get out of volunteering.