AIBU in wondering if many parents and professionals ignore the legal righs of Children because they are simply unaware of the rights of children?

[ChildrenDoHaveRights]

This is a thread inspired by another thread. There were professionals and parents discussing private data belonging to children who were quite happy to pass it around illegally.

As a parent under various laws be they data protection and human rights, we should be respecting our children's right to privacy when it comes to their information and we should be under the equality law of 2010, be as parents educating our children on their rights.

What thread?

Then it becomes a thread about a thread.

Basically, as a parent I was advised by CAFCASS, the children's social workers working in the courts, that when a child is 12 they are considered gillick competent and unless the child agree's then even a parent can't access their information without the child's agreement.

I also looked at the equality act 2010 and the children and human rights acts, they make interesting reading.

Were the children identified in anyway? Or is it anonymous? Was it discussing 'data' in a effort to get better help and understanding?
In some situations I feel it is necessary to share certain things about a child (with or without consent) in order to do what is best for the child in the long term.

I think something has been garbled.

Both Fraser and Gillick competency refer to medical consent: NSPCC fact sheet here

I don't know what thread you are referring to.

" workers working in the courts, that when a child is 12 they are considered gillick competent"

SW's are in different roles, so a parent can retain PR, but not have residency, so isn't privy and cannot share all details of a child's life, in theory.

GC does apply to medical decisions and it doesn't apply to 12 year olds, it is a test of understanding etc.

Then there are the tests of other decisions such as whether to have contact with relatives, this is also a process.

You would have to give the circumstances, there isn't one answer.

Court judgements are based on lots of pieces of legislation.

I think you've got your facts a little mixed and are applying them to scenarios which aren't really relevant. OP is referring to a thread in which the OP's DD's school were demanding a GP visit and note for every sickness absence.

Look into Fraser/Gillick a little more OP, this really isn't what it's all about!

I have it in black and white from CAFCASS. Since I got that letter, I looked into things and I do not give away my children's private information unless they agree to it. They have most of the time agreed, and the one time they didn't agree it was because it was something personal and medical they didn't want a certain professional seeing, which was understandable.

Children have rights?

If children have rights, what are their corresponding responsibilities?

Password no idea of their responsibilities it all seems a bit of a mess with European and international laws. Obviously being a lay person it seems quite messy, and seems all about if you want to court blah blah blah.

I am not taking any chances with it now if that is how CAFCASS view the matter.

There are will be some social workers around in a bit (although I think birdsgottafly knows her stuff) but im going to crack on with an essay.

in the meanwhile OP hers CAFCASS guidance maybe you could provide us with the proof?

www.cafcass.gov.uk/leaflets-resources/policies-and-templates-for-secs/policies.aspx

Rights don't require reciprocal responsibilities to be rights. They might in Daily Mail land but not in law.

You are talking about confidential written information.

A parent the the child resides with normally and has PR can share the child's medical information.

That doesn't mean a written report from a consultant, that means that they can obtain GP notes and submit them.

Parents and children have responsibility when attending school, so if a child is HIV positive (for example) that won't be shared but then "multiple infections" may be used to explain hospital appointments.

In depth details won't be shared, that is to respect privacy, but a parent can verbally share, even if the child is under a care order.

In essence you aren't right. A teen would be given support to explain why info has to be shared, if it was a complex case.

On the other thread, you were not correct.

Being frasier competent is about a child/young person being able to make decisions for themselves.

One example is birth control - the health professional has to deem the child able to recognise the impact and make a reasonably intelligent decision.

At 12 they don't become competent. Some children with sn may never be deemed competent. Some it may be 12 others 15

"I have it in black and white from CAFCASS. Since I got that letter, I looked into things and I do not give away my children's private information unless they agree to it. They have most of the time agreed, and the one time they didn't agree it was because it was something personal and medical they didn't want a certain professional seeing, which was understandable."

I think that there is confusion as who you should be sharing with. An EWO should be given enough information to allow the absence, the school office staff, shouldn't.

The EWO just needs a letter, it can be vague, if your child is 14-16, you should involve them in the sharing if written information, but unless the "professional" needs to be privy to it (to operate under the Education WA or Children Act) then it shouldn't be shared and can be told that.

You have the right to not share and take it to court, as you know the LA can be appointed Guardians, so they will naturally obtain the information.

"unless the child agree's then even a parent can't access their information without the child's agreement"

That isn't correct and as said, parts if a child's treatment, such as birth control, MC's, terminations etc can be kept private, once it has been deemed to be in the child's best interests.

This certainly doesn't apply to other types of medical information, it does focus on sexual health or addictions/illegal substances/abuse/rape etc.

CAFCASS said the children were gillick competent in the letter they wrote to me, I was even a party to the proceedings of private law in the matter and the parent with residence and PR and I couldn't get the information without the children's say so.

That's about confidentiality - cafcass would be saying to the children that what they say is in confidence.

If you think about it, parents who look after a child in the home need information in the same way as a nurse who looks after them in hospital.

I don't need to know everything dd has said in confidence to her therapist.

But I do need to know that she is taking medication that may alter her moods and make her a potential suicide risk. I need to know because I am responsible for keeping her safe and I am responsible for the emotional wellbeing of her younger sibling.

I would need to know if she had an infectious disease because I am responsible not only for her health but for that of her sibling.

I would need to know if she had any other health problem that would affect my care of her or the way we ran this family.

It would be totally unfair on me to expect me to do my caring job without vital information of this kind. Can you imagine a nurse in hospital being expected to do her job without being told that one patient is diabetic and another one has had a stroke? Do you think any nurse would put up with that responsiblity?

As I am the person who would be taken to court if a child of mine truanted I would also need enough information to know if a genuine illness was preventing dc from attending school or not.

The school needs to know that my ds has asthma and may need a ventilator. They have a right to know this because they will have to deal with the fallout if he has an attack.

I am very much into respecting my children's privacy. But they are not islands.

Gillick competence as Birdsgottafly says is about limited situations.

Even for an adult, confidentiality comes at a price.

My students have a right not to disclose any learning difficulties or MH problems to me. But unless they do give me a chance to provide supportive measures they may well fail their exams and it won't be my fault.

I can refuse to give my employer medical information regarding my sudden non-appearance at work. But I won't get to keep the job.

Op

You do not need consent of 12-16 year olds to access and pass on their medical data. You just don't. And 12year olds are able to access medical help without permission from parents.

I know thus because I deal with medical data all the time. You are wrong about medical info and you were told that on the thread.

You really aren't helping anyone.

It is not referred to as 'Gillick Competence' anymore.

^ and you're misunderstanding what it is about. Like capacity, it is limited and decision specific.

btw the ^ was in agreement!

Whenever my 12 year old dd goes on a school trip & sees her physiotherapist I have to sign to say the school can see the info/ have sufficient medical details necessary for the trip (allergies etc)

I have to sign not my dd. she has the right to refuse treatment but I have the right as her legal guardian to share information with relevant professionals. Aldi her school havevthecright to share with us her parents info about her physio screenings as they have recently done.

Op you are wrong.

Having capacity or competence is nothing to do with age, if it was, there would be no need to assess competence beyond checking the birth certificate.