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.

CAFCASS don't (or at least shouldn't) tell a child that what they say is confidential; what is said to a CAFCASS officer is shared with all parties and the court.

Gillick competency is not age dependent. It is age AND understanding dependent. The concept arose in the context of a mother contesting medical treatment (contraceptive advice) being made available to under 16s without parental involvement. The case law evolved to look at situations where children refuse or wish to access medical treatment where their opinions do not match those of their parents and/or doctors.

Confidentiality is a separate issue. Confidentiality is never absolute. Where children are at risk, it will be breached. And in court proceedings, the CAFCASS officer is in the business of collecting evidence, in effect, to put before the judge (children's evidence can be reported 2nd hand as a statutory exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence in court proceedings relating to their welfare.)

I get the rage with threads like this.

Why do people start a thread and then resolutely refuse to listen to people who actually know what they are talking about.

Poster puts up misinformed original thread.

Poster is told that she needs to look again at something by professionals working in the field that she hasn't fully grasped the complexities of the issue.

The poster replies with 'no I am not, I am right blah blah blah'

The experts gently suggest this may not be the case.

The poster comes back ever more trenchant in her views.

Repeat until bored.

I don't nor have I ever really been keen on people asking for information about a child they have no reason or legitimate right to ask for,and I sometimes think that sometimes people can forget they have no real reason to ask.

E.g some years ago I had to have an appointment with a EWO school nurse and head of year regarding my DD's high school absence rate, every single absence was 'covered' by a consultants/Doctors letter giving the required information,every single one.
The consultant had also written directly to the school copying in the nurse with instructions as to what she could/couldn't do and why.
She was also being educated in hospital when possible.

During the meeting they wanted me to sign a consent form so they could obtain a copy of her entire medical records,I said no. My justification for this was it contained information about her treatment that should be private and given the info already provided by her consultant they had no need for the records.
They could also not explain why having them was needed other than to say "to see if we can help increase her attendance" they were not impressed when I replied "do you think your more qualified than the entire medical team that look after her"

They were gob smacked when after they tried to pressure me I still said no.

But the others are correct you have completely misunderstood Frazier competency.