In a desperate search for the right care for their son with AuDHD, a family reached out to a childminder website, hoping to find someone truly experienced and understanding. When Jane responded, her impressive credentials and warm demeanor seemed like a beacon of hope amidst the chaos, promising a safe and supportive environment for their child.
Yet, beneath the surface of that initial meeting at a local café, subtle inconsistencies began to unravel the trust they had cautiously placed in her. What started as a hopeful connection soon spiraled into confusion and doubt, revealing a tangled web of deception that threatened their son’s well-being and their peace of mind.
AITA for wanting to take a restraining order out against a woman who appears to be stalking my child?
The situation described moves far beyond a typical vetting failure and enters the realm of potential stalking behavior, necessitating an analysis through the lens of personal safety and professional boundaries. According to Dr. Evelyn F. Brodsky, a psychologist specializing in boundary violations, ‘When an individual ignores explicit social and professional cues—such as being ghosted—and continues to insert themselves into a target’s life through third parties or professional settings, the motivation shifts from professional interest to fixation, which is a significant predictor of escalation.’
The applicant, ‘Jane,’ demonstrated multiple concerning behaviors: consistent dishonesty during the initial screening (misrepresenting voluntary work as professional experience), refusal to provide standard references, and, most critically, leveraging personal information shared in confidence (the son’s swimming class) to gain employment at that specific location. This pattern suggests a severe failure in impulse control and an inability to respect personal boundaries, regardless of any underlying mental health condition. For parents of children with Special Needs (SN), the perceived threat is heightened because the applicant specifically sought out a role requiring high levels of trust and professional responsibility.
The OP’s actions—reporting the behavior to the academy, the childminder website, and the police—were entirely appropriate as they created a documented trail of concern. While the police may not have sufficient evidence for immediate criminal charges based solely on information access, obtaining a restraining order is a civil remedy designed precisely for situations where a pattern of harassment or unwanted contact causes reasonable fear. The OP should proceed with the restraining order application. A constructive recommendation is to maintain meticulous records of all future attempted contacts and share the full context of the situation with the swimming academy’s management and the police department handling the case.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
Your focus is the safety of your child. Clearly, this woman lied about her background and her experience. The swim academy should be much more careful about hiring and limit who has access to family information. By ghosting her, you unfortunately resulted in her focusing on you and your son.
The original poster (OP) is facing an extreme situation where a prospective caregiver has escalated from a job interview process to actively seeking out the child and accessing private information at his activity center. The central conflict lies between the OP’s fundamental duty to protect their vulnerable son and the ethical discomfort of taking legal action against someone who might be experiencing significant mental health struggles.
Given the documented pattern of deception, boundary violation, and targeted surveillance against the child, is pursuing a restraining order the necessary and justified step to ensure the child’s safety, even if the individual’s behavior stems from underlying mental health issues?
