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

[Vynny]

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


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


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.

The info I got was from this leaflet ( http://no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/GIRFECleaflet.pdf ). If this isn't what it's about then I'm being mislead, but if this is the actual government leaflet, then no, it's not just about abuse. How is "your child getting a say in how their room is decorated" related to abuse? "your child gets enough exercise"? "Your child does activities they like to do"? "Your child is listened to and taken seriously"? "Your child can keep things private if they want"? If it was just about better detecting abused children then things like that wouldn't be necessary as declared key functions for the role of the named person. And this is the entire problem of the named person system, it overreaches for dealing with abuse. I mean, you're framing it as if the named person is just a point man (or woman) to coordinate between all of the medical and supervisory professionals in the child's life with no intrusion into the home or the family, but that's not what it is described as by the advocates of it. The advocates of it are clearly showing that a named person steps over that boundary between being a coordinator that checks for signs of abuse on multiple fronts and an authority figure in the child's life with expressed power to oppose the parents authority when it comes to non-abusive actions.

Also, seriously, check out the leaflet. If that's a forgery from the opposition then fine, but the things I listed are expressly listed as things the named person takes a role in. What shows the child gets to watch, how their room is decorated, whether or not certain secrets can be kept from the parents are all things the named person is meant to ensure under this plan, so how are those things I listed not part of it?

[Deleted]

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?

That list can be summed up with these images.








Is there any real reason for this program anyway? Does Scotland have a problem with gangs of abusers similar to scandals in England,not that the scheme would have been any good there due to state involvement.

or is it like the BB gun ban/license where they did it because they felt like it despite overwhelming criticism and lack of a justification?

[Shadowmelded]

That list can be summed up with these images.


[img]http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/trustgovernment.jpg[img]

[img]http://www.cnccookbook.com/img/MillStuff/Enclosure/pigs_trough.jpg[img]

[img]http://img.desmotivaciones.es/201109/littlebritain_computer.jpg[img]

Is there any real reason for this program anyway? Does Scotland have a problem with gangs of abusers similar to scandals in England,not that the scheme would have been any good there due to state involvement.

or is it like the BB gun ban/license where they did it because they felt like it despite overwhelming criticism and lack of a justification?

What overwhelming criticism are you talking about other than ginned up controversy from reactionaries? The list of bodies aimed at helping and protecting both children and parents, that you handwaved away with memes, support the legislation.

[tehealadin]

Ok, here we go.

The info I got was from this leaflet ( http://no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/GIRFECleaflet.pdf ). If this isn't what it's about then I'm being mislead,

You are being misled.

but if this is the actual government leaflet, then no, it's not just about abuse. How is "your child getting a say in how their room is decorated" related to abuse? "your child gets enough exercise"? "Your child does activities they like to do"? "Your child is listened to and taken seriously"? "Your child can keep things private if they want"?

The leaflet goes on about the Shanarri principles, which I do take some issue with, however you are missing the point entirely. Shanarri isn't purely about abuse. It is about wellbeing. The giving children a say is less to do with "omg I dont have say in my decoration of my room, ABUSE!!", and more that in school, and with other agencies, their opinion should be listened to and not dismissed out of hand automatically. These are guidelines for agencies who work with children, not parents.

So for activity, in school, this means asking "are they getting enough PE?". For safety, it is asking "are they being bullied?", which also ties into abuse. For children being included, this means that active steps are taken to ensure that they aren't constantly being excluded from activities in school. Responsible means giving them opportunities to demonstrate personal responsibility, giving them projects to oversee and take leadership of. Healthy means ensuring that they have access to healthy food in school, access to a school nurse etc.

Now some of this spills into the home, for example, if someone working with a child fears that the home conditions are having a negative impact on a child's health, for example they are taking drugs at home, they are being malnourished etc, then they would have to report these concerns so that they can get looked into, to see if there is anything to them. Now sometimes this goes a little far, I am not the biggest fan of all of these wellbeing indicators, for example during a school inspection, kids used to sell chocolate at a fair trade stall to raise money for charity, the inspectors shut it down because the foods were unhealthy. My class was being inspected, and the inspector spent the biggest amount of time talking to me about how 1 girl had an energy drink on her, and how this needs to get reported. How all of this was dealt with, I don't know, though as far as I could tell, no word was sent home. These things are primarily about agencies and how they work with children, not parents. Some practitioners take some of these indicators a bit too far for my liking.

As for the child wanting privacy, they have this anyway, as they have human rights. You seem to have an issue with children having rights, named person has nothing to do with this, they get this right from the UN convention on the rights of the child. And agencies working with children have a duty to respect the rights of children, the right to privacy cannot be breached, unless there is a child protection issue.

If it was just about better detecting abused children then things like that wouldn't be necessary as declared key functions for the role of the named person.

Girfec isn't just about abuse, no. Girfec is more than the named person scheme.

And this is the entire problem of the named person system, it overreaches for dealing with abuse. I mean, you're framing it as if the named person is just a point man (or woman) to coordinate between all of the medical and supervisory professionals in the child's life with no intrusion into the home or the family

This is the key function of the named person scheme.

, but that's not what it is described as by the advocates of it. The advocates of it are clearly showing that a named person steps over that boundary between being a coordinator that checks for signs of abuse on multiple fronts and an authority figure in the child's life with expressed power to oppose the parents authority when it comes to non-abusive actions.

Teachers are authority figures, the named person scheme doesn't change that, and there is nothing wrong with this. And what powers do they have to oppose parental authority over non abusive actions? Give me concrete examples. The named person has no power over parents. If abuse is suspected, the named person doesn't visit home and speak to the parents- the police and social services do this. If the kid isn't being listened to at home, the named person might listen to them, offer advise, but they can't intervene.

Also, seriously, check out the leaflet. If that's a forgery from the opposition then fine, but the things I listed are expressly listed as things the named person takes a role in. What shows the child gets to watch, how their room is decorated, whether or not certain secrets can be kept from the parents are all things the named person is meant to ensure under this plan, so how are those things I listed not part of it?

It went right over your head. You do not understand GIRFEC or the named person scheme. This is the worrying thing- so many people opposing it who don't actually know what they are opposing, or understand it.

GIRFEC represents guidelines for people working with children, not parents, designed to make services as positive as possible, and to tailor them towards the child's needs as much as possible in order to help them get the most out of it. If any of these indicators are not being met in a service, then the service providers need to look for ways to address this. Certain indicators can also highlight potential signs of abuse. The named person is primarily about a single point of contact for abuse concerns, to help other agencies coordinate. However, since almost all named people are teachers, general pastoral care also comes into it. Giving them advice, taking action when concerned about a lack of progress etc, this already happens. The biggest change seems to be that instead of just guidance for the child, guidance for the parent is also offered. Guidance teachers already work with parents, it seems they wish to extend this further.

Now, I am not saying the scheme is perfect, and I have some issues with it. I think the line between teacher and social worker is becoming more and more blurred, and in my opinion, it is a cost saving exercise, social services are underfunded and struggling, so give all the lazy teachers the additional responsibility to make them work for once.
However I think the fundamental idea is fine. You are attacking it for things that it doesn't do, because you don't understand it.

- - - Updated - - -

What overwhelming criticism are you talking about other than ginned up controversy from reactionaries? The list of bodies aimed at helping and protecting both children and parents, that you handwaved away with memes, support the legislation.

They will argue this is because we are puppets. It is because we actually understand it, and they don't. And we take a different view of kids. As human beings with rights. This makes some uneasy.