Scotlands named person scheme AKA state parent, gets ruled unlawful.

[Deleted]

It only was partially stopped because a group of campaigners took the case all the way to the supreme court in England.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-snooper-state

It argues the named persons scheme “permits the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes”.

In 2015, NO2NP took the Scottish Government to court, arguing that the policy breached data protection and human rights laws. The campaigners lost. But they decided to appeal.

And so, one month before it was supposed to be rolled out, the Supreme Court froze the named person scheme in its tracks.

Judges at the supreme court have ruled that the Scottish government’s controversial “named person” scheme for supporting children risks breaching rights to privacy and a family life under the European convention on human rights, and thus overreaches the legislative competence of the Holyrood parliament.

The supreme court has given the Scottish government 42 days to correct the defects in the legislation, which has been described as a snoopers’ charter by family rights campaigners, but said that it recognised that the aims of the scheme were “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-supreme-court

[Shadowmelded]

It's not a state parent and the group of campaigners you're referring to are the homophobic Christian Institute (creationists too btw) and Schoolhouse who are pro-homeschooling and recommend that you just "teach your child what he wants to learn" and not bother with things they don't. So not exactly a huge surprise they're against it.

[Kalis]

This is very specific to Scotland, it is not even a British thing, so you may need to explain what it is as very few people here would have a clue.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not even sure what it is?

[Shadowmelded]

I'm not even sure what it is?

https://www.commonspace.scot/article...e-really-works

It essentially formalizes the duties that people in a position of authority over children already have and attempts to coordinate disparate groups that are already acting on behalf of the child (social services, the police, the health service, teachers etc...)

[Tyrianth]

https://www.commonspace.scot/article...e-really-works

It essentially formalizes the duties that people in a position of authority over children already have and attempts to coordinate disparate groups that are already acting on behalf of the child (social services, the police, the health service, teachers etc...)

I'll be honest, I didn't read the article (too long and not enough time right now), but from your description that doesn't sound like a bad thing.

[Shadowmelded]

I'll be honest, I didn't read the article (too long and not enough time right now), but from your description that doesn't sound like a bad thing.

It's not (although there are real concerns about privacy and data retention but those can and are being fixed). People just like to reference Orwell and for some reason love portraying the SNP (Ruling party in Scotland) as authoritarian/national socialists because they consider themselves civic nationalists and are vaguely left wing.

[Sunseeker]

https://www.commonspace.scot/article...e-really-works

It essentially formalizes the duties that people in a position of authority over children already have and attempts to coordinate disparate groups that are already acting on behalf of the child (social services, the police, the health service, teachers etc...)

So, it's basically just identifying who the child or the family needs to speak with in order to seek assistance for pretty much anything they could need assistance for.

Really not seeing the problem.

[Shadowmelded]

So, it's basically just identifying who the child or the family needs to speak with in order to seek assistance for pretty much anything they could need assistance for.

Really not seeing the problem.

Yup, and tries to identify children who may be neglected/abused by having a broader picture of the child's wellbeing as at the moment a lot of the groups and services who deal with neglect and abuse work in isolation. Basically they're trying to implement a joined-up approach.

[Sunseeker]

Yup, and tries to identify children who may be neglected/abused by having a broader picture of the child's wellbeing as at the moment a lot of the groups and services who deal with neglect and abuse work in isolation. Basically they're trying to implement a joined-up approach.

Reading the linked material, it doesn't appear to have even been ruled illegal, but "flawed" and provided the flaws are fixed then it will remain implemented.

[Shadowmelded]

Reading the linked material, it doesn't appear to have even been ruled illegal, but "flawed" and provided the flaws are fixed then it will remain implemented.

Yeah, the idea of a named person is fine, just the guidance provided in the legislation to ministers and people carrying out what's in the legislation was weak so they'll fix that and it should be good to go. Here's a more detailed analysis of the technical aspects.

Sadly there's a lot of partisan hyperbole about the whole thing (hence the 'It's been ruled illegal' narrative), with the press running a "Scottish Government breaches human rights" angle (ignoring that as of yet, they haven't, the judgement merely said that in it's current form it has the potential to) and a lot of people (including a number of Newspapers and journalists) quoting a passage from the judgement out of context to claim the Scottish Government were accused of being a totalitarian regime (the passage was in the judgement but it was mentioned as background information as to why Article 8 is so important).
That's ignoring the truly disgusting approach Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, took in using a tragic and highly publicised murder of an infant by his mother to criticise the scheme (claiming, incorrectly that he had a named person). Apparently point scoring is more important than protecting vulnerable children.

[Vynny]

So, it's basically just identifying who the child or the family needs to speak with in order to seek assistance for pretty much anything they could need assistance for.

Really not seeing the problem.

A big issue that came up is that they could act without the parents consent, and what authority the named person has over the child and how they're raised was extremely ambiguous. For example, the named person can talk with the child about deeply personal or private things and the named person is under no obligation to confer that information to the parents, so lets say that you have a teenager who is sexually active, and they only tell the named person in order to get advice and because they fear how their parents might react, but the named person thinks that it's no big deal, and the parents are left in the dark about it; whereas, without the named person, a child is more likely to feel the need to ask for advice from their parents which allows the parents to approach that in the way they want rather than someone who doesn't have to deal with the fallout of a teenage pregnancy advising the child.

And you can probably think of numerous other examples of dysfunction caused by having another person undermining a parent's authority over their child. I mean, it's extremely comparable to when a couple gets a divorce and has joint custody, but one parent wants to be the "fun" parent and constantly undermines the other parents authority and then all of a sudden you have a kid who won't listen to you because they have another authority figure who is saying things that they like more. In which case, as much as you might say that the not "fun" parent shouldn't be as much of a hard ass, that sort of inconsistency can cause problems for a child, especially in their more rebellious years when they're looking for an avenue through which they can break free from their parent's authority.

[tehealadin]

A big issue that came up is that they could act without the parents consent, and what authority the named person has over the child and how they're raised was extremely ambiguous. For example, the named person can talk with the child about deeply personal or private things and the named person is under no obligation to confer that information to the parents, so lets say that you have a teenager who is sexually active, and they only tell the named person in order to get advice and because they fear how their parents might react, but the named person thinks that it's no big deal, and the parents are left in the dark about it;

This already happens, they have a right to privacy that should only be breached in cases where child protection is an issue. Plus, they can't simply say "it aint no thang yo", there is a duty to pass them onto sexual health nurses if appropriate. The point is, that if they need advice (they have the right to speak to a trusted adult in confidence, it isn't about the parents wishes), they might not be able to approach their parents (that might be a terrible idea for some younger people), so having someone (an adult) who isn't their parent can be easier for them to discuss these things with. And if there are any child protection issues (e.g. real reason to think that they are at risk at harm), then the police and social services will get involved, and if needed, the parents will be informed.

whereas, without the named person, a child is more likely to feel the need to ask for advice from their parents which allows the parents to approach that in the way they want rather than someone who doesn't have to deal with the fallout of a teenage pregnancy advising the child.

It isn't about the parent, it is about the child. You seem to be implying that the authorities would guide a teen through a pregnancy whilst hiding it from the parent- they absolutely wouldn't. This is part of the GIRFEC framework in Scotland, the central idea is, all too often decisions are made and the focus is too often on the parent, not the child. Like it or not, in Scotland, there is a move to make children not property of parents. That isn't to say that parental involvement is devalued, it is to say that the welfare of a child comes first, and the parents wishes aren't always aligned with this (there would be no need for these measures if this was the case).

And you can probably think of numerous other examples of dysfunction caused by having another person undermining a parent's authority over their child. I mean, it's extremely comparable to when a couple gets a divorce and has joint custody, but one parent wants to be the "fun" parent and constantly undermines the other parents authority and then all of a sudden you have a kid who won't listen to you because they have another authority figure who is saying things that they like more. In which case, as much as you might say that the not "fun" parent shouldn't be as much of a hard ass, that sort of inconsistency can cause problems for a child, especially in their more rebellious years when they're looking for an avenue through which they can break free from their parent's authority.

The reason for this is because when it comes to abuse, the parent is often the abuser, especially in cases of death. Some of the particulars haven't been well communicated, some colleagues of mine will be named persons and are shitting themselves, however the core idea has merit- if someone has concerns, they have a point of contact, allowing information to be shared more effectively (in theory at least). Time and time again, in high profile child murder cases due to neglect, the investigations afterwards find that lots of people had small pieces of the puzzle, that on their own meant nothing, but together painted a clear picture, this is an attempt to make it easier to spot abuse when it is happening and prevent murder.

Even the ruling agreed that the motivations behind this were good (it isn't about shafting parents, it is about protecting children), but the particulars need to be ironed out (and cause some concern). For example, for many kids it will be guidance teachers. They are shitting themselves. That is a huge responsibility for 1 person, and they are worried they can be liable for legal action if things don't run as smooth as they would like.

[Sunseeker]

A big issue that came up is that they could act without the parents consent, and what authority the named person has over the child and how they're raised was extremely ambiguous. For example, the named person can talk with the child about deeply personal or private things and the named person is under no obligation to confer that information to the parents, so lets say that you have a teenager who is sexually active, and they only tell the named person in order to get advice and because they fear how their parents might react, but the named person thinks that it's no big deal, and the parents are left in the dark about it; whereas, without the named person, a child is more likely to feel the need to ask for advice from their parents which allows the parents to approach that in the way they want rather than someone who doesn't have to deal with the fallout of a teenage pregnancy advising the child.

And you can probably think of numerous other examples of dysfunction caused by having another person undermining a parent's authority over their child. I mean, it's extremely comparable to when a couple gets a divorce and has joint custody, but one parent wants to be the "fun" parent and constantly undermines the other parents authority and then all of a sudden you have a kid who won't listen to you because they have another authority figure who is saying things that they like more. In which case, as much as you might say that the not "fun" parent shouldn't be as much of a hard ass, that sort of inconsistency can cause problems for a child, especially in their more rebellious years when they're looking for an avenue through which they can break free from their parent's authority.

I don't subscribe to the idea that children aren't allowed to have privacy or that parents are entitled to know every goings-on in their life. When a child turns to a 3rd party for assistance it is typically because they don't feel comfortable speaking with their parents. Having a 3rd party just be a relay back to the parents is why kids here in America never use school counselors, because they're not required to keep things confidential. Anything the student tells the counselor the counselor has full authority to tell, or not tell a parent. So having a 3rd party who is essentially covered by law to keep their discussions with children confidential is really helpful. My mother is a therapist and she has counseled children before, it's very helpful to their mental wellbeing to talk to someone who is open and understanding but isn't going to tattle on them.

As tehealadin mentions, this system is for protecting children, not the parent's ego.

[tehealadin]

this system is for protecting children, not the parent's ego.

Exactly. Children have rights, and this is about trying to enhance the status of those rights (namely to be safe).

I can see why it can make some uneasy, however in reality the vast majority of parents will have nothing to worry about. When a child is being harmed, chances are it is the guardian who is responsible, something most parents will struggle with (understandably), it isn't a truth that sits easy, but it is the reality of things, so there needs to be a way to protect children from everyone, including their parents. Currently this has flaws, I suspect this one will have flaws too (indeed the court has decided that it does), but the idea behind it is sound, it is about getting the implementation as good as it can be.

[Vynny]

This already happens, they have a right to privacy that should only be breached in cases where child protection is an issue. Plus, they can't simply say "it aint no thang yo", there is a duty to pass them onto sexual health nurses if appropriate. The point is, that if they need advice (they have the right to speak to a trusted adult in confidence, it isn't about the parents wishes), they might not be able to approach their parents (that might be a terrible idea for some younger people), so having someone (an adult) who isn't their parent can be easier for them to discuss these things with. And if there are any child protection issues (e.g. real reason to think that they are at risk at harm), then the police and social services will get involved, and if needed, the parents will be informed.

It isn't about the parent, it is about the child. You seem to be implying that the authorities would guide a teen through a pregnancy whilst hiding it from the parent- they absolutely wouldn't. This is part of the GIRFEC framework in Scotland, the central idea is, all too often decisions are made and the focus is too often on the parent, not the child. Like it or not, in Scotland, there is a move to make children not property of parents. That isn't to say that parental involvement is devalued, it is to say that the welfare of a child comes first, and the parents wishes aren't always aligned with this (there would be no need for these measures if this was the case).


The reason for this is because when it comes to abuse, the parent is often the abuser, especially in cases of death. Some of the particulars haven't been well communicated, some colleagues of mine will be named persons and are shitting themselves, however the core idea has merit- if someone has concerns, they have a point of contact, allowing information to be shared more effectively (in theory at least). Time and time again, in high profile child murder cases due to neglect, the investigations afterwards find that lots of people had small pieces of the puzzle, that on their own meant nothing, but together painted a clear picture, this is an attempt to make it easier to spot abuse when it is happening and prevent murder.

Even the ruling agreed that the motivations behind this were good (it isn't about shafting parents, it is about protecting children), but the particulars need to be ironed out (and cause some concern). For example, for many kids it will be guidance teachers. They are shitting themselves. That is a huge responsibility for 1 person, and they are worried they can be liable for legal action if things don't run as smooth as they would like.

Firstly, I can understand, as one or two people have noted, formalizing the role of teachers, doctors, etc. in looking out for the child's well being, but this doesn't require a government authority figure for the child to turn to as a sort of surrogate parent. For example, they could give each child a file that is shared between medical professionals who see the child, teachers, etc. in order to share information more effectively. The named person system is much more than just that which is one of the main concerns.

Secondly, I don't think that a named person would hide a teenage pregnancy from a child's parents, but I do think that there is more than one way to raise a child and that the parents should get the say in that so long as they're not abusing their child, so if you formalize a role for an adult to act as a tertiary parent who is not subordinate to the actual parents then you're saying that the parents should take a backseat.

Thirdly, this isn't just about abuse, it's farther reaching than that. You can't just say "oh, it's about protecting abused children" and then add in all of these extra things because then it's not just about that. You could limit the named person to ensuring that the child isn't being abused without getting so involved in the raising of the child, so stop either lying about or misrepresenting what it is because it's plainly obvious from the functions that it's meant to serve that it's not just about child abuse.

Lastly, good motivations are a crappy excuses for bad or misguided actions. This isn't about the feelings of those who are behind it or their intent, but about what is actually being done and whether or not they're a good thing. As the saying goes; "the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

- - - Updated - - -

I don't subscribe to the idea that children aren't allowed to have privacy or that parents are entitled to know every goings-on in their life. When a child turns to a 3rd party for assistance it is typically because they don't feel comfortable speaking with their parents. Having a 3rd party just be a relay back to the parents is why kids here in America never use school counselors, because they're not required to keep things confidential. Anything the student tells the counselor the counselor has full authority to tell, or not tell a parent. So having a 3rd party who is essentially covered by law to keep their discussions with children confidential is really helpful. My mother is a therapist and she has counseled children before, it's very helpful to their mental wellbeing to talk to someone who is open and understanding but isn't going to tattle on them.

As tehealadin mentions, this system is for protecting children, not the parent's ego.

I think that children should be able to have their privacy as well, but allowing a child to have their privacy and keep things to themselves and giving the child another adult to get advice from are two entirely separate things. If a child wants to keep something private then that's fine, but giving the child an adult through which they can circumvent their parents is completely different from that. Also, what's the difference between a school counselor and this named person then, because the named person can reveal what they want to the parents or authorities at their discretion which is the same exact situation with a school counselor. I mean, as you said, it's about the well being of the child as determined by the named person, so if the named person feels like it's necessary to tell the parents then they can, so you end up getting the same result where the child isn't going to trust the named person because they may tell the parents at their discretion.

I also think that a lot of the things which may encourage the child to seek advice from their parent or parents are big enough things that there should at least be some sort of understanding even if not every detail is gone into. I mean, I brought up the sex example because it's one of those things where even though the kid might prefer to talk about it with someone else, it's awkward enough and private enough that they typically just suck it up and ask their parents about it, and even though the exact details aren't even shared, there's at least a general understanding of what's going on, so everyone's on the same page. Hell, there are things that I've talked about with my dad that I'd never talk about with my mom, so there's that too.

But the single biggest problem I have with something like this is that it's being held up as a means to combat child abuse, but it's much more involved than it needs to be in order to address that issue, unless you're saying that parents telling children that they're not allowed to have sex while living under their roof, or parents not letting their children watch certain shows, or parents not letting the child decorate their room in the way they want are actions that are abusive in nature. If it were only dealing with run of the mill child abuse such as illegal physical or emotional abuse then it wouldn't need to be so far reaching as it is, so it's either about more than abuse or if we take the proponents completely at their word then they consider things like I listed above to be abusive which is a highly contestable view.

[Deleted]

It's not (although there are real concerns about privacy and data retention but those can and are being fixed). People just like to reference Orwell and for some reason love portraying the SNP (Ruling party in Scotland) as authoritarian/national socialists because

They are, this isn't the only thing they've done, though Labor are just as bad and these people want access to your children,where is your kids protection from them?
It wouldn't surprise me if people are referencing Orwell, because it is literally like something from one of his works.


[QUOTE=Shadowmelded;41740638]Yeah, the idea of a named person is fine, just the guidance provided in the legislation to ministers and people carrying out what's in the legislation was weak so they'll fix that and it should be good to go. Here's a more detailed analysis of the technical aspects.

The link was a bit long winded to get the message across however I found the comment from Stewart at the bottom was of more interest.

The irony of this is that people supporting such intrusion probably aren't fit parents and should have their kids put in care.

[Incredibale]

It's another step in the agenda to wrest control of children away from parents.

"Baaah baaah conspiracy theory children don't belong to their parents" is the typical response to it.

[Shadowmelded]

The irony of this is that people supporting such intrusion probably aren't fit parents and should have their kids put in care.

So the supreme court then? Along with; Parenting Across Scotland, Action for Children, Aberlour, Barnardo’s Scotland, Scottish Youth Parliament, Children 1st, Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), One Parent Families Scotland, Scottish Childminding Association, Quarriers, Royal College of Nursing, NSPCC?

[tehealadin]

Firstly, I can understand, as one or two people have noted, formalizing the role of teachers, doctors, etc. in looking out for the child's well being, but this doesn't require a government authority figure for the child to turn to as a sort of surrogate parent. For example, they could give each child a file that is shared between medical professionals who see the child, teachers, etc. in order to share information more effectively. The named person system is much more than just that which is one of the main concerns.

They are not being surrogate parents. It is a point of contact to share information/concerns. They do not take any parenting decisions.

Secondly, I don't think that a named person would hide a teenage pregnancy from a child's parents, but I do think that there is more than one way to raise a child and that the parents should get the say in that so long as they're not abusing their child, so if you formalize a role for an adult to act as a tertiary parent who is not subordinate to the actual parents then you're saying that the parents should take a backseat.

The parents do get to decide how to raise the child. Control is not taken away.

Thirdly, this isn't just about abuse, it's farther reaching than that. You can't just say "oh, it's about protecting abused children" and then add in all of these extra things because then it's not just about that. You could limit the named person to ensuring that the child isn't being abused without getting so involved in the raising of the child, so stop either lying about or misrepresenting what it is because it's plainly obvious from the functions that it's meant to serve that it's not just about child abuse.
.

I am not lying or misrepresenting things. You are misrepresenting things by repeatedly claiming that the named person, who in the case of secondary aged children will be a guidance teacher in a secondary school, will be involved in raising the children, they won't be.

Give me examples of how they will be raising the child?

And before you go and bring up the idea of them speaking to the child behind the parents back, this already happens. I have given sexual health advice to young folks without their parents knowledge or consent. I have given them career advice without their knowledge and consent. I don't need it. It isn't about them.

I don't think you understand how child abuse, especially the worst kind of child abuse works. Post postmortems into child abuse cases usually always find several things- the perp (usually the parent/guardian) goes to great lengths to hide what is happening and mislead professionals involved in the child's life. They also reveal that different people pick up on different things, that on their own might not mean much, but taken together paint a very clear picture. They also show that many people don't know what to do when they see something happening. Who to contact? The police? What if it is nothing? that seems a bit over the top. This goes for people in other professional services. And all too often, concern about being intrusive towards the parent takes precedence. The fundamental shift here is that concerns about what the parents think will not be at the heart of decision making- it will be the child's welfare.

You then end by listing examples of things that are not abuse and would be of no concern to the named person, or anyone else involved in child protection. Know what people are looking out for?

1- Are they getting their asses kicked?
2- Are they being sexually molested?
3- Are they being neglected?
4- Are they coming to school starving and stinking?
5- Are they involved in drugs?
6- Are they involved in crime?
7- Are they being exploited?

And if the answer to any of this is "yes" then the parent would be involved. They would have to be. For many of these things, they would be involved to make things better, and for some, they would be involved because the police would be involved and action would need to be taken against the parents. When a child is being abused, it becomes everyone's problem. Children's services get blamed when a parent ends up killing their child. Questions like "what could we have done?" get asked. Even if it isn't fatal abuse, my tax money then needs to go paying them housing benefit, paying court costs and then the cost of keeping them in jail, because odds are, kids growing up in a hell hole tend to turn out worryingly like their parents. Not all- but too many, and it ends up costing all of us. All because of shitty parenting and nothing was done to try and intervene and make things better. And it is also worth noting, they don't just rush in and say "we are taking your kid!", this is a last resort, the fundamental attitude here is that the kid is better at home, they can only be removed if there is pressing evidence that this will result in serious harm/death. A lot of the time, interventions will be based on helping the parents cope, finding ways to change behaviour in the household and make it less abusive, more loving.

Now, I am not claiming that as things stand, the implementation is perfect- it clearly isn't, and people involved on the ground have worries about how it will work in practice. However your attack on the core premise of this is just flawed, and ignorant. The overwhelming majority of organisations involved with children support the idea behind it, if not the way it is to be implemented.