Mother stopped from taking son to school ..

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

pixies said:
It's hard for this family, but I do like the idea.
Click to expand...

The idea of what exactly? Having to have a criminal background check before you can ride in a taxi with your own child to school? I don't get it. :waitasec:
 
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They should be happy this mom cares for her son, and is active in his life.
 
I don't understand the problem here. So go get checked out by the police so you can ride with your son! ? What am I missing?

I'm thankful they do this (even the driver has to be checked out) because I wouldn't just want any parent on the bus with my child. Is he the only child in that taxi? Then maybe that's a little different, but if there are other children riding along...all adults should have background checks! Pretty simple, IMO.

ETA: Especially if this is a taxi for disabled children who really can't defend themselves!
 
The article doesn't say anything abbout there being other children. This is a taxi, she doesn't have a private car. If she had a car, would she still have to have a record check? What if she has a criminal record? Maybe she shoplifted when she was 19 or something...so then she can't take her own disabled kid to school in a taxi??? PUH-LEEEEZE.
 
A lot of schools use taxi services to provide transportation for their students. Many use the vans, which I'm assuming is the case here because of his disabilities. He's probably not scrunched into the back seat of your typical car-style taxi. The bigger school buses cost more money to use in these cases, so they pay taxi services. I've seen them used for typical and disabled children in our district.

Seriously though, if your child rode in a van with other children and their parents or guardians, wouldn't you want to know that at least their backgrounds had been checked? Granted, if he is the only child in this taxi, I don't really get it unless it's to protect future riders.
 
Not only that, but this child needs life saving equipment that only the mother knows how to use and the taximan is not allowed to. She needs to be with him in the taxi. No one else is sharing the taxi with them. Its just common sense to let her go with him.
 
southcitymom said:
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

This is so stupid it hurts my brain.
Click to expand...

It's not stupid. It's preventative if there are other disabled (or heck, non-disabled) children in that taxi!

I'm amazed at the indifference to this precaution, especially at a forum like this where most of us don't mind having our children protected. Granted, background checks don't always work, but at least it's one step in making our children's lives safer...especially the children that can't protect themselves.
 
Taximom said:
It's not stupid. It's preventative if there are other disabled (or heck, non-disabled) children in that taxi!

I'm amazed at the indifference to this precaution, especially at a forum like this where most of us don't mind having our children protected. Granted, background checks don't always work, but at least it's one step in making our children's lives safer...especially the children that can't protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Your point is well-taken for "strangers." This is the child's mother, and I think it's stupid. We don't require checks for parents to walk their children to school.

I'm still willing to believe that most parents have their children's best interests at heart and are not riding on a bus with their disabled child for the purpose of harming other disabled children. I just can't make that leap.
 
Wow, haven't you read articles about bus drivers abusing disabled children? Anyone could be a pervert, including the father or mother of the child sitting next to yours.
 
Taximom said:
Wow, haven't you read articles about bus drivers abusing disabled children? Anyone could be a pervert, including the father or mother of the child sitting next to yours.
Click to expand...

Bus drivers are "strangers" to the passenger children. I agree that background checks are reasonable in that situation. I do not think it is reasonable for the parents of the disabled children to be required to undergo a background check.

It's true that anyone - parent or not - in my life could be a potential threat to my or other children. The question for me is - what is reasonable to do to manage the potential threats that surround all of us? IMHO, background checking parents riding on a disability bus with their disabled child is not only unreasonable, but is also stupid.
 
It doesn't say anywhere that there are other children involved in this taxi. It appears to be just her son. By barring mom from the taxi the school is endangering the child's life since the taxi driver refuses to use the emergency equipment if needed.
 
Wow. I am a Special Ed teacher in the US and in this country the school has to provide someone to keep him safe on the bus. I have a lot of kids without cerebral palsy or life threatening conditions that are provided a bus with an attendant that can take care of certain things like seizures.

God bless that mom for being so devoted. I can understand why the school requires a background check, too, its school property but they probably should have told her a long time ago.
 
I wonder just how politically correct it will be if this boy has an epeleptic seazure and dies, while they are waiting on this ridiculous check?.
 
TisHerself said:
I wonder just how politically correct it will be if this boy has an epeleptic seazure and dies, while they are waiting on this ridiculous check?.
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
southcitymom said:
Bus drivers are "strangers" to the passenger children. I agree that background checks are reasonable in that situation. I do not think it is reasonable for the parents of the disabled children to be required to undergo a background check.

It's true that anyone - parent or not - in my life could be a potential threat to my or other children. The question for me is - what is reasonable to do to manage the potential threats that surround all of us? IMHO, background checking parents riding on a disability bus with their disabled child is not only unreasonable, but is also stupid.
Click to expand...

A "bus driver" (or in this case, taxi driver) is a stranger to those kids. Why isn't the parent of another child a stranger to those kids as well? I think it is reasonable for any adult riding on my child's bus (or taxi) to go through a background check. We all know parents of disabled children can't be perverts, I guess. :rolleyes:

Background checks do not take that long, and if the system over there cared, they would make it a priority so this mom could ride with her child to school asap. In the meantime, she can keep him home from school for a few days.

I still can't believe this made the news!
 
TheShadow said:
It doesn't say anywhere that there are other children involved in this taxi. It appears to be just her son. By barring mom from the taxi the school is endangering the child's life since the taxi driver refuses to use the emergency equipment if needed.
Click to expand...

If his mom lets him on that taxi without her being there, she is endangering his life, not the school. You are right, it doesn't say anywhere that there are other children on that taxi. It's the school policy, however, to do background checks so she's got to go through one. It shouldn't be any big deal and yes, it seems there was a communication problem somewhere.
 
Maybe one of our English posters can shed some light on the situation.

Here's my take:

The article says that the boy rides to school in a taxi. The taxi service is provided by the school. It does not mention that other students are involved and the assumption is that they are not. It is implied that the boy and the mother are alone in the taxi with the driver.

While it does seem foolish to require a mother to have clearance, it sounds like the school is following a zero tolerance policy. Anyone who rides in the school provided vehicles must have the CRB. No exceptions.

However given that the child has a life threatening condition, they should allow the mother to travel while the paperwork goes through. Otherwise, the school should be obligated to train someone to use the machinery in the event of a seizure.

I noted that the mother does not travel with the child every day, only on days that she believes he might have a seizure. So that indicates that there is some leeway for the medical condition.

I say make her get the paperwork, but look the other way until it goes through. It doesn't have to be an issue.

****

One more thing to think about:

It is conceivable that other children and their caregivers could be transported with the boy in the article. That said, since other children could be involved, the policy of having all adults be certified makes sense.

And lastly:
It is a very, very ugly truth that disabled children make wonderful targets for pedophiles. Many can't or won't resist and many are unable to effectively communicate to raise an alarm or testify in court. There was a case a couple of years ago where a respiratory therapist in CA molested hundreds of his patients over the years. All were disabled to some extent.

So it is something to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 571 (members: 209, guests: 362)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
362
Total visitors
571
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,713
Messages
18,257,200
Members
234,734
Latest member
SophBlue
Back
Top