I'm a big believer in screening as well. Often times, though, parents have their backs to the wall & a limited budget & no time. Then, too, they haven't a clue how to even go about screening an applicant. In this case, though, the family KNEW about this man's past, hired him any ways, installed a nanny cam & filmed several abusive incidents before reporting him. Now...as a parent, I can't comprehend why they would risk hiring him, then too, why they would allow repeated incidents of suffering to occur in their home to their defenceless child. One would think that one incident would've been enough for the parents to stop these men.
Further complicating matters is the fact that few people who are able to do anything else want to earn next to nothing in a high stress, high responsibility job like providing proper care/companionship to a severely Autistic person (or even severely physically impaired or elderly Alzheimer's patient). My SIL was a private carer for a family years back. The guy she was caring for needed feeding, bathing, dressing & toileting support. He was mentally intact BUT a very rude, demanding unappreciative person. While she did her job as best she could, the family's indifference to this guy's behaviour & his contemptible temperament compelled her to finally quit. She said she was beginning to feel like clobbering the guy.
I'm not in any way justifying abusing anyone. What I'd like to see here are minimum requirements that carers (whether in an institutional, private, community or home setting) be required by law to have:
- undergone a training programme
- have cpr/1st aid training
- undergo police background checks annually
- undergo a detailed psychological evaluation
- be subjected to random supervisory checks (like in daycares here): inspectors can show up at random, inspectors would interview parents or guardians of patient & the patient himself (if he can communicate). Here, people hired as inspectors typically are social workers.
- have thorough check of all references.
- nanny cam type technologies should be standard.
This, of course, would cost some money to implement & carers would demand (& ought to receive) higher pay. Where the family cannot afford the fees, the gov't ought to help. In the end, it would all cost less than having to undo the damage the bad apples cause.
