Marguerite
Active Member
Sorry, one more thing - watch for the language used. Body language too. Your description of the daughter's body language as you observed (you are a good reporter, by the way) told me a lot. There is an aide in the local school who easy child 2/difficult child 2 had to deal with when she ran some drama classes after school. The aide was on staff to supervise the kids at after school care and was very erratic in how she managed them. Her language was very negative, very "over the top" and emotive. She would say to the kids that they were being "disgusting" or "horrid" or "Simply appalling". I was helping easy child 2/difficult child 2 by this stage because the paid carer was not only ineffective, she was damaging to the morale and discipline of these kids. I heard this woman say to the kids, just as easy child 2/difficult child 2 got the kids to quiet down, "You lot are all being absolutely appalling this afternoon!" when only one or two were being noisy; all got lumped in together, so after a while none of them bothered to try to behave.
There was an incident once when difficult child 3 rode his bike to the library, in the school grounds. I got a phone call from them to say that difficult child 3 had ridden his bike at a kid in this woman's care. I went down to sort it out - difficult child 3 being back at home at this stage. The aide said that difficult child 3 "had viciously attacked" the younger boy, "maliciously ridden his bike" and other strong language. I noted who the other boy was as well as noted how he wasn't injured other than a graze that drew no blood. He wasn't crying, he was happily chatting to a friend. I also remembered the kid from previous incidents (not involving difficult child) and remembered the kid as a stirrer. difficult child 3 is basically a good kid, although I accept that he can act impulsively and would hurt a kid who started something. The history of interactions (including independent witnesses) have overwhelmingly borne this out.
I spoke to difficult child 3 - I suspect he did ride his bike at the other kid, after being provoked verbally. I banned difficult child 3 from riding his bike for several weeks and permanently banned him from riding his bike to the school unless I was with him. That ban still stands - not that I don't trust difficult child 3, but if I'm there as witness, nobody can say such things again and get away with it.
To use language like that is to distort the truth. That is why I recommend, when you diarise the incidents, that you use impartial language and nothing emotive, at least not in the appendix/report.
Always recognise tat other people have problems too, and aren't always balanced. People are individually selfish - we all are, and want our own agenda to rule. And when someone is in trouble, child or adult, their first reaction is to try to hose it down. After that - a good person, confident in themselves, will be honest and open. But this is rare. A lot of people, adults too, will lie to save face or to cover up what they did wrong. After all, it is done now so what can be achieved by dragging it all up now? (is what they will use to justify this).
Good luck. I have a feeling that this won't go away too fast. I hope I'm wrong.
Marg
There was an incident once when difficult child 3 rode his bike to the library, in the school grounds. I got a phone call from them to say that difficult child 3 had ridden his bike at a kid in this woman's care. I went down to sort it out - difficult child 3 being back at home at this stage. The aide said that difficult child 3 "had viciously attacked" the younger boy, "maliciously ridden his bike" and other strong language. I noted who the other boy was as well as noted how he wasn't injured other than a graze that drew no blood. He wasn't crying, he was happily chatting to a friend. I also remembered the kid from previous incidents (not involving difficult child) and remembered the kid as a stirrer. difficult child 3 is basically a good kid, although I accept that he can act impulsively and would hurt a kid who started something. The history of interactions (including independent witnesses) have overwhelmingly borne this out.
I spoke to difficult child 3 - I suspect he did ride his bike at the other kid, after being provoked verbally. I banned difficult child 3 from riding his bike for several weeks and permanently banned him from riding his bike to the school unless I was with him. That ban still stands - not that I don't trust difficult child 3, but if I'm there as witness, nobody can say such things again and get away with it.
To use language like that is to distort the truth. That is why I recommend, when you diarise the incidents, that you use impartial language and nothing emotive, at least not in the appendix/report.
Always recognise tat other people have problems too, and aren't always balanced. People are individually selfish - we all are, and want our own agenda to rule. And when someone is in trouble, child or adult, their first reaction is to try to hose it down. After that - a good person, confident in themselves, will be honest and open. But this is rare. A lot of people, adults too, will lie to save face or to cover up what they did wrong. After all, it is done now so what can be achieved by dragging it all up now? (is what they will use to justify this).
Good luck. I have a feeling that this won't go away too fast. I hope I'm wrong.
Marg