Not to understand societies values?

[PrettyPaperweight]

The schoolgirl abducted by Jeremy Forrest is deemed in law to be 'too young' to have 'chosen' to leave the country with him. Forrest was convicted of abduction because she is considered unable, by reason of age, to consent to accompanying him.

Yet, she would be considered Gillick Competent in law should she choose to refuse medical treatment, and that competency judgement is extended in family court to include her 'right' to reject a relative or select her own living arrangements.

Surely the fact that she would be considered, in law, to be able to understand the consequences of decisions she makes means that she cannot be abducted unless by force? If she is deemed capable of declining life saving medical treatment, is she not capable of choosing a travelling companion?

My own opinion is that many 14/15/16 year olds are not truly Gillick Competent, but that is a legal precedent that is well established, and if that is the case, then isn't it time other laws reflected this?

I agree with you. From the other threads I've seen on the subject, I don't think anyone else does, though.

Yep i see the contradictions too, and that's just the tip of the iceberg in today's society values.

Regardless of competence, age, whatever, he abused his position of trust as her teacher

Because of their relative positions he should not have had sex with her under the age of 18 not even just 16.

I think that if he had been a random person, not a teacher and not hers then it wouldn't be so clear cut. Certainly not if he was younger and closer to her age. It's not always a case that any male who goes off with an under 16 girl is found guilty to the same extent he has been.

I agree it's not a simple subject area and there's an argument for there being contradictions, but what's the alternative, blanket refuse a 15 year old any decisions over their own life and then at 16 they are suddenly allowed to take responsibility for everything? That doesn't sound right either.

snooter and guider I agree, he committed clear criminal Offences by having a relationship with her; but I'm struggling to understand how 'child abduction' can be proven in this case or any other in which the 'child' is of an age to be considered Gillick Competent.

If a child is considered legally capable of deciding whether to receive life saving treatment against the wishes of their parents, how come it is possible that in other circumstances, the same child has no 'legal capability' regarding their own movements or actions independently of their parents?

Capability to make decisions is not a black and white thing, it needs to be considered in relation to the decision being made. I think a 15 year old might well be competent to choose which of two loving relatives she'd prefer to live with, but not competent to understand the implications of a sexual relationship with an older authority figure.

Her age is irrelevant - he abused a position of trust.

..and a 10 year old who breaks the law is assumed to fully understand and be culpable for his/her actions.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of Gillick Competence but I assume it can only be applied in very controlled situations where there are checks and measures to ensure the 'child' is not coerced into one choice or another by the medical professionals and certainly not groomed into a position of trust by them.

I can see how a 15yr old can be considered competent to make their own decision in a controlled situation where both pros and cons are set out and yet can also be considered to be vulnerable to coersion or grooming by a person in a position of trust into a route of action (such as in this abduction).

you are confusing what FC is about though - it's about allowing young people to make informed decision without pressure - it is not designed to allow groomed vulnerable girls run away with a trusted adult and have sex

As far as I'm aware Gillick competence only allows a child to consent to medical treatment not to refuse it, i.e. a child of 14 could consent to treatment even if their parents refused permission, but could not veto treatment their parents had given permission to.

So Gillick compentency is very much about ensuring children receive medical treatment wherever possible, even where the parents have, for example, a religious issue with the form of treatment. In my view therefore Gillick competency is really about protecting children (and indeed doctors) by providing as many different avenues for consent to medical treatment as possible.

To my mind deeming children able to give consent to potentially life saving treatment is a very restricted circumstance and not really a fair analogy with consent to sexual intercourse.

"Surely the fact that she would be considered, in law, to be able to understand the consequences of decisions she makes means that she cannot be abducted unless by force"

FC is decided case by case, it isn't assumed that every 14 year old will pass, which you have done. Just because a young person is deemed FC on one issue doesn't mean that they will pass another.

Grooming is similar to emotional abuse and causes the victim to go into a mind set, similar to what happens in some DV cases, (to put it simply).

We know understand the psychological effect of different types of "mind games, EA, etc".

To use a different argument, are all women guilty of child abuse/neglect if they stay with abusive partners? Or can any person be slowly worn down/deluded etc by a very clever manipulator, so they eventually gain control? Which is what grooming is.

"i.e. a child of 14 could consent to treatment even if their parents refused permission, but could not veto treatment their parents had given permission to."

Yes they can, they take the case to court.

However that has nothing to do with grooming. Groomers pick their victims carefully and from what is reported, this girl wasn't the first, she was the one vulnerable enough for it to work.

We count any child under 16, vulnerable, as we should do, so that the LA/state has a duty of care towards them.

paget the sexual offences were separate charges - and not relevant to the abduction (hence why his guilty pleas were withheld from the jury).

I can see that there is a difference in practice and Gillick Competency seems to be misused nowadays by schools who are reluctant to engage with parents, for instance - but the legislation regarding child abduction does seem very contradictory to other laws. A DC could, in theory, be charged with criminal offences that they commit such as theft and shoplifting while they are in the company of an adult who has abducted them in the eyes of the law!

I think this is only confusing if you're focussing entirely on the child not the teacher.

The teacher did something illegal and wrong. He's an adult in a position of trust. He could have waited until she was of legal age and wasn't his pupil any more - he chose not to.

Society's values are to judge this wrong, because it is.

No-one is judging the girl (well, they shouldn't be ...). The other situation isn't comparable, because it doesn't involve another adult doing something illegal and wrong, and this being overriden because the child was deemed capable of using her own judgement. Medics don't suddenly decide to break the law if a child is deemed competent, for example.

holiday the Child Abduction laws apply only until a DC is 16, so no, he could not have been charged with child abduction if she had been 16, but other laws relating to abuse of a position of trust would have applied.

Gillick Conpetence and Frazer Competence are not the same thing, as far as I understand, one relates specifically to contraception and the other has been adopted as a 'standard' within Family Court, Social Care and Education settings despite being set as a precedent in court in relation to medical treatment.

"Can I just ask, if they had waited until she was 16, which she is now, would it have been classed as abduction?"

If he has been considered to have groomed her and it is seen as her leaving with him, is a form of coersion, resulting from being broken down by him, them it is the same, but what a person is charged with, is often the charge that will be the most likely conviction.

The CPS and the police has to decide that.

There is no way that we can allow teachers to groom pupils. What they are doing is persuading them to commit an illegal act.

Teenagers can be very vulnerable, they need the protection of the law and employment policies.

Need, you are putting the emphasis on her and not on what he should have been doing and not doing.

It doesn't matter if she thought she was in love, he shouldn't have acted.

How exactly are these teens going to manage if they are impregnated? The benefit/housing system doesn't support them.

If you love someone you want the best for them, how are these men showing that, that is the case?

Medics don't suddenly decide to break the law if a child is deemed competent, for example.

But they do withhold/administer treatment that can shorten the child's life, or break religious laws held by the child's family.
Society hasn't criminalised the refusal of a blood transfusion, yet the law will overrule a parents decision to refuse one if the child wishes it.

It's all so contradictory! I accept that a child doesn't grow up overnight and these responsibilities should be introduced gradually - but in cases of child abduction of a teen (particularly when one parent is the abductor - which is the main purpose of the legislation), surely it's not as black and white as 'the teen cannot legally express an opinion'

it's not contradictory - it's about protecting young people - adults exploiting them is NOT the same as choosing not to have surgery

PrettyPaperweight That is an interesting point. I will think that through.

The power inbalance out weights the argument though. If a child is subject of grooming they are not making that decision with a clear understanding of the impact of that choice.

That is why Gillick competency is assessed by a professional. I guess???!

As said, it isn't contradictory.

The Children Act 1989 sets out PR, that is what the parents have and the young person has to overrule, or a court/ethics committee.