Guardians for all children

[HazyMazy]

I don't normally follow Scottish politics, just Westminster, however was watching the mid day prog, First Ministers questions, on tv lately.

I was wondering how the Guardian for every child in Scotland, legislation passed by the SnP in 2014, went down with Scottish mums.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11221902/Legal-fight-starts-over-SNP-state-guardian-for-every-child.html

It seems a crazy idea, though well meaning, and had I been a mum of young DCs at the time would have been incensed.
Was there an outcry at the time? I don't think the law has been removed.

Nobody asked parents if they wanted a Named Person for their children or teachers or health visitors if they were willing to be Named Persons.

A legal minefield if you ask me.

Not many people in favour. The Scottish population seem to have slept walked into it.

Doesn't bother me. Obviously in situations where it's really needed, the parents wouldn't be likely to consent would they - so I don't see that as a problem. Dd's named person has been involved in meetings about his speech delay. No one is trying to steal him away.

Ds

AFAIK, the local authorities have until August of this year to put this scheme in place. I have had no information as to who DDs named person is to be but I think it will be a promoted teacher in her school? The local authority here has still to publicise how holiday cover for this would work either.

I don't see a situation ever arising where DD would need the assistance of a Named Person but maybe there are some DCs and families who would.

Most people haven't noticed it, because it has very little impact on them. The media made a big fuss, but in reality it isn't a big deal.

The named person is often someone high up in school management, they are the named person for hundreds of children, and are not actually actively intervening or checking up on every child in Scotland. It's just that if there are concerns about a child, there is someone already appointed to coordinate appropriate action, and for all information to be filtered through, which avoids the whole thing about one service having concerns but not knowing who to pass them on to, or only passing them on to one service who then doesn't inform another etc. it's to stop vulnerable children slipping through the cracks.

And the named person isn't the child's guardian. That was the media trying to whip up a storm.

Sounds like a full time job - being the named person for hundreds of children. I wonder what they are being paid.

Hmm, it's not fine if say, an angry expartner has heard or started unfounded rumours about you, someone unasked steps in and has access to all the private papers, school reports on you and DC and starts making decisions 'in the interests of the child'.

I would not be happy about it. There are already SW, Health visitors, police, teachers to do this.

Bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If it is a teacher that is the named person than it would have been easier just to name a member of staff as 'Teacher who meets with/ liaises with SW every month to deal with concerns' to raise these things.

Arent SW and NHS blending anyway so less likely of info not being passed on there.

According to Scottish Government's website, it would normally be a Health Visitor for pre-school children and a promoted teacher for school age children.
We have yet to get further details on how this will be implicated locally although I think some LAs already have a scheme in place?

I wonder if more HVs are being employed to cope with this.

It really isn't a full time job, as for the vast majority of children, it involves absolutely nothing. The named person has absolutely no legal powers to intervene or make decisions in the interest of the child. Those powers rest where they did before, under the same circumstances as before.

As far as I can see, the named person policy is a response to all these cases where things go wrong and multiple people had low level concerns, but didn't know what to do with them, so they never got seen as a part of the whole. Now, any concerns go to one place, everyone knows who that is without question, and things don't get missed.

There's a thread here

I have no idea either how people are not more incensed. Beginning to think it's something that the snp are putting in the water. We've turned into a nation of fucking sheep!!

Added to the fact that NS told everyone on National tv that it was optional, which it isn't, so she either doesn't have a fucking clue/has never read it or was unprepared. None of which are good. But once again the media seems to have ignored this major gaff.

On our school (secondary) it is the child's guidance/pupil support/pastoral care (I know all schools call them a different name) teacher who is the named person. Probably more paper work for these staff but seems natural as they are the teacher you would raise your concerns with anyway.

In theory is doesn't bother me at all having a named person for ds (7 months) as if it helps stop even one vulnerable child from falling under the radar then that's a positive. However, I've not seen my own hv since ds was 1 month old. I just hope they're adequately supported and not drowning in paperwork. I do clearly remember her being quite pleased at not having to explain it all to me as I'm a teacher and understood.

if it helps stop even one vulnerable child from falling under the radar then that's a positive

Whilst I don't disagree that we should try to stop these children falling under the radar, spending all this time, money and effort in introducing this legislation which will have no impact on the vast majority of children when it could have been spend on supporting the vulnerable, providing training for parents and staff and resourcing community things such as health visitors etc. is stupid.

It's like a 1984/Big Brother state. At least we know where the SNP get their ideas from...

In theory is doesn't bother me at all having a named person for ds (7 months)

In theory it doesn't bother me, until some wazaak decides to advise me on how I might improve my DCs health, regularly reading to them to improve their literacy (when I do it already), or insist I report to them on any issues from their internet use (when I regulate it carefully).

I am pretty well-informed so would not take kindly to 'advice' from anyone. I can't believe most people would be happy with it. Bringing up children is hard work I do my best.

It's what happens if the parent isn't happy with interference, might your child be taken into care, might you have to take time off work to attend parenting classes, don't think this might never happen to you as it really does not seem to have been thought through.

There is a considerable thread on this already.

Here is the petition if anyone wants to vote against it
Petition

Not having much success here
Petition

Anyway it is on change.org, if this link fails, under 'Reject GIRFEC surveillance and named person for every child in Scotland'

its frightening legislation - the named guardian can and will, if needed, make decisions about your child without informing you - they can request information about you and your child and your family without you ever knowing about it and this could be shared with any number of organisations without your consent.

You just have to look at the scheme Every Child Matters, which was abandoned, in the isle of man to see how this is going to end up.

There is no-opt out - NS is talking absolute rubbish when she tells you there is an opt out - she obviously doesn't know her own legislation.

What is it about Scottish parents that they need this supervision - I really thought that Independence meant we would be brave and strong and strike out into the world with our engineering/ education/ feisty nature and make a mark, make a better a country that others envied.

But here the Snp think we can't even be trusted to rear our own children.
wtf

There is another NO2NP petition online if anyone is interested.

The school might have a concern. Social work might have a suspicion. The GP might notice something. The three concerns might never be joined up. The named person is an attempt to avoid this, and ensure that at least one person has the overall picture on any child. There are far too many cases where a child's life could have been improved if their situation was flagged up sooner.
Of course it could go wrong, but I think reactionary comments about not trusting Scottish parents are ott and ignore the very real dangers too many children are in.

Iggi, there doesn't need to be a named person for every child for any of that to happen.

I've only read up on it briefly but it sounds like a good idea to me. Makes things easier for parents if they have concerns about their child as they only have to go to one person rather than many different people, and so that if there are several separate people having concerns about a child those concerns all go to the same place so it can be seen much easier if involving social services is needed.

I wouldn't have a problem having a Named Person for my child, would make things a lot simpler than they are now where she has several different social workers involved in her care which means I have to call different people all the time - having just one person to contact would make things easier.

I understood that the NHS and SS were now combined. So things should not fall through a gap there.
Integration of Health and Social CAre

I'm not sure why the Named Person would have time to make all those phone calls that you can't seem to find time to do, Natsku, I do work with SW sometimes and it's really hard to get hold of them, naturally, as they are out of the office and doing their job. There's a lot of leaving messages, them calling back but I'm busy, etc. I don't see a Named Person would find it any easier or be any quicker.
And what would I be doing whilst I waited days or weeks for the Named Person to get back to me with whatever SW1, 2 or 3 told her.
That would drive me nuts. I'd much rather be the person spoken to by GP, SW or whoever and not receive a filtered version via Named Person.