Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

I know what you mean uncompromising . It's like somebody wanting to rewrite the Green Cross Code so that it won't be nearly as safe for people using the roads, because some people have decided .... well, what? What could people have decided that would make them want to alter a set of guidelines/rules that keep people safe?

I suspect a large part of it is laziness, incompetence, lack of critical thinking and following the herd. This is my view when I'm feeling generous.

On a bad day I ask myself which adults have a vested interest in removing safeguarding frameworks from vulnerable children?

What we can all be 100% sure of is that there are adults who will always exploit failings & failures in Safeguarding frameworks.
We know they are overwhelmingly male & we know the consequences which will always be harm to the most vulnerable children & adults.

FOIrequester
It bears repeating that only the courts can remove parental rights /responsibility - and that's a challenging process. So why is any local authority providing guidelines for any groups of children that propose this?
stillathing On a good day I decide that this is all written by adults with no experience or interest in child safeguarding - they just impose adult views of confidentiality on schools with no understanding of the dangers.

On a bad day I ask myself which adults have a vested interest in removing safeguarding frameworks from vulnerable children?

FOI that's shocking.

I can only think of a handful of times concerns haven't been shared with parents in my work. And that's in complicated cases with ongoing social work involvement, where sharing with the parent would lead to the child being at risk of further harm. And even then the decision was carefully taken and monitored by safeguarding leads. It would never be up to the one person to make that decision.

I'm guessing the TRA argument is that a child questioning their "gender identity" is at risk from their parents if the parents aren't likely to affirm?

This clearly disregards the physical and psychological risks associated with the affirmative approach, but that aside, it is still wrong. It is saying the adult that the child chooses to confide in should tell nobody; not to even use the safeguarding framework inside the school.

So is that because in their view "gender identity" has nothing to do with safeguarding? But in that case why the need for confidentiality in the first place?

So should a Dr inform the parents if a 15 year old seeks contraception? Do you think they've got a right to know, in order to keep the child safe?

Its very well known that this specific circumstance is governed by clear medical law established after 1985 ruling termed 'Gillick Competence'.
Doctors & nurse practitioners providing contraception in such circumstances will also be informed by Safeguarding & Child Protection expertise.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Health professionals operate with different thresholds in terms of some medical safeguarding issues - especially in terms of confidentiality. But they also work under the "Working Together' legislation for safeguarding - it's why safeguarding is always a multi disciplinary approach.

Maybe start a separate thread about confidentiality and contraception?

but in some instances it might well be that the parents are not the people with whom those confidences should be shared I always qualify it (as we're talking about schools), that while that may be the case, there are no instances where an individual adult makes that decision alone.*

I absolutely and completely agree.

I understand what you have said Hearhoovesthinkzebras . As someone with safeguarding qualifications and decades of safeguarding experience in and outside schools, whenever someone says ...but in some instances it might well be that the parents are not the people with whom those confidences should be shared I always qualify it (as we're talking about schools), that while that may be the case, there are no instances where an individual adult makes that decision alone. Adults in schools work within the Working Together framework identified in R0wantrees last post and never work alone.

#nodebate

Probably an obvious point to most of you but it hadn't occurred to me that safeguarding is something the general public could/should be involved in, but of course we should .

Yes, I think its a shame that this very simple but clear responsibility isnt communicated.
The vast majority of adults choose to & do Safeguard children & vulnerable adults every day.

I'm learning so much from this thread, it should be compulsory reading because if everyone knew this stuff it would make it so much harder for those with bad intentions to operate. Probably an obvious point to most of you but it hadn't occurred to me that safeguarding is something the general public could/should be involved in, but of course we should . Thank you for that

So should a Dr inform the parents if a 15 year old seeks contraception? Do you think they've got a right to know, in order to keep the child safe?

Lobbyists seem to be consistantly working from the position of asserting individual rights
Safeguarding is the application of universal responsibilities towards all children & vulnerable adults.

That many represntatives of lobby groups do not understand Safeguarding is apparent. The analyses of policies which have been influenced by trans rights' lobby groupsfrequently demonstrate either a lack of understanding of Safeguarding or a lack of respect for Safeguarding be they concerning school children, vulnerable female prisoners, women on hospital wards or people of any age questioning their gender identity.

Keeping information from parents may stop them being able to safeguard their child
That's why this advice to teachers from lobby groups about keeping a child's secrets is so catastrophic. It immediately sets a group of vulnerable children outside this complex safeguarding framework and that is unacceptable and highly dangerous.

Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 policy (which informs schools) reiterates the legislative basis:

"All practitioners should follow the principles of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 -that state that the welfare of children is paramount and that they are best looked after within their families, with their parents playing a full part in their lives, unless compulsory intervention in family life is necessary.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf

All of these decisions are complex and it's why the advice to individual adults working in schools is that they must never agree to keep confidences, but must share with the appropriate safeguarding / pastoral lead.

Which is what I said in my post from early this morning. None of you are saying anything that I didn't already know or that I don't agree with.

My initial point was it's different if you've got an adult approaching a child, offering to listen to them, keep their secrets "be their mummy" as a pp said, to a young person approaching a trusted adult to seek advice or to make a disclosure. Of course the trusted adult must not promise to keep their confidence but in some instances it might well be that the parents are not the people with whom those confidences should be shared.

The majority of trans guidance for tells schools that it's OK to withhold information from some parents about a child 'transitioning'. In the real world only the courts can remove parental responsibility and anyone telling teachers to keep something like this a secret would be sacked. But in this dystopian new world, everyone ignores this massive danger being posed to children. Here's an example: the guidelines for schools in Cornwall

Another example from the Denbighshire Gender Identity Policy and Implementation Guidelines for schools in the area.

"10.4.3 Confidential information must not be shared, even with the parents/carers, without the child or young person’s permission, unless there are safeguarding reasons for doing so."

That’s a really great OP, thank you for reposting it. Spot on.
I really hope that Lang will be back.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras

.. but that sometimes it isn't appropriate for the parents to be informed about something a young person has said, so long as the organisations safeguarding policy has been adhered to
A school should have a confidentiality policy that runs in partnership with the safeguarding, pastoral care, behaviour policies. All of these decisions are complex and it's why the advice to individual adults working in schools is that they must never agree to keep confidences, but must share with the appropriate safeguarding / pastoral lead. As nicenewdusters pointed out, sometimes small bits of information contribute to a big picture.
What is shared with parents must be discussed at a wider level with the principle that 'if you are going to withhold critical information from parents, a school must be very clear about why". Keeping information from parents may stop them being able to safeguard their child
That's why this advice to teachers from lobby groups about keeping a child's secrets is so catastrophic. It immediately sets a group of vulnerable children outside this complex safeguarding framework and that is unacceptable and highly dangerous.

"In my opinion as the parent, and according to safeguarding rules, the counsellor acted correctly when they broke confidentiality."

They didnt break confidentiality.
@R0wantrees you've said it better, thank you!

Yes I think if you work with children you have to simultaneously think horses and zebras whilst acknowledging you don't necessarily have the expertise to discern between the two. That's why safeguarding is always about you being one small part of a wider framework.

It's also why I distrust situations where safeguarding failings get landed squarely on one person. I want to know what about the whole organisation allowed that person to misbehave in the first place and what has been set up to make sure it never happens again. For example, a local soft play centre owner put hidden cameras in the female loos. Customers were supposed to be fully reassured by the statement that the business had now severed ties with the former owner. A school local to me also had the caretaker put a camera in the female loos (wonder if it's same one duster?) I hope the parents aren't being brushed off there.

We are encouraged to share any information, however insignificant it may appear, as it helps to build a picture.

As you say, there may be general concerns, "niggles", but doubt, lack of info, nothing making sense. Then another piece of information is shared and the picture changes completely.

It sounds very effective.

I know in some schools Safeguarding has hampered by staff being required to fill in long forms (effectively completing a Safeguarding Assessment)
Serious Child Protection issues (in my experience) are more often identified when just as you describe, a number of pieces of information, 'niggles' & knowledge of the individual child or vulnerable adult are joined together.

Colleague (the OP) was worried that her friend would loose her DSB if if caught

People dont lose DBS.
Its a check which records convictions & relevent police information so that any organisation who employs adults to work with children or vulnerable people are aware of information which is relevent to the post.

Organisations should be empowered to make decisions about potential employees based on not just the information DBS reveals but whether the individual disclosed the offence & their atitude & understanding of it.

Many people who have convictions such as shoplifting in the past make excellent & very responsible employees who completely understand & practice Safeguarding.

Neuro We have a good system where I work. Confidential email, straight to the SafeGuarding lead, so they are the one-stop-shop who sees everything. It's not filtered or checked first, no one is copied in. We are encouraged to share any information, however insignificant it may appear, as it helps to build a picture.

As you say, there may be general concerns, "niggles", but doubt, lack of info, nothing making sense. Then another piece of information is shared and the picture changes completely.

A lot of people who work in environments governed by Safeguarding frameworks dont understand fundamental Safeguarding principles.

My was a thread recently in aibu about a TA shoplifting / saying she shoplifted and bragging to her colleague. Colleague (the OP) was worried that her friend would loose her DSB if if caught.

My point that this behaviour is unacceptable and incompatible with safeguarding in terms of a culture of blurred boundaries (and so should be reposted to SLT even if only to let them know for any future "bigger picture") was shot down/ dismissed.

And yet I've had specific safeguarding training on this.

It's hard not to be OOT but I do think zebras all the time and then pass it through a number of processes at work including collecting "niggles." Niggles can lead to bigger issues or fill in some gaps that provide a bigger picture.

In exceptional circumstances, the need to safeguard our clients or others from serious harm may require us to override our commitment to making our client's wishes and confidentiality our primary concern. We may need to act in ways that will support any investigations or actions necessary to prevent serious harm to our clients or others. In such circumstances, we will do our best to respect the parts of our client's wishes or confidences that do not need to be overriden in order to prevent serious harm

The above is an extract from the Ethical Framework of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2018). This is the framework under which it's members operate to ensure best practice.

There are too many posts for me to quote individually, but can I clear up some things.

I completely understand the principle of not promising confidentiality - I literally said that very thing in my post.

I understand the process of an individual member of staff reporting to the safe guarding lead.

I don't agree that an adult should be encouraging a child to keep secrets.

I disagree that there is no difference between a child asking to speak to an adult in confidence and an adult asking a child for a private chat - the second one feels like it will always have a sinister element to.it, the first, whilst yes the child should be told that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed is a child seeking help.

I understand there are times when it isn't appropriate for a conversation between an adult and a child to be shared with the parents. That's not saying I'm encouraging secrets between an adult and a child - it's saying that I understand a child may disclose abuse by a parent to a teacher at school, or might eek contraceptive advice from a school nurse and not want the parents told etc.

Im not saying that I think secrets should be kept between an and a child, but that sometimes it isn't appropriate for the parents to be informed about something a young person has said, so long as the organisations safeguarding policy has been adhered to.