To think this wasn't correct in terms of safeguarding

[hibbledibble]

Child speaks to teacher and discloses physical abuse by a family member they live with. Teacher refers the child to the school counsellor.

Child speaks to school counsellor, and school counsellor says they don't believe the child.

No referral to social services is made, and a letter is sent home regarding the child's behaviour.

I don't work in schools, so don't know the correct procedures, but this seems very wrong. Can someone explain what should happen please?

Child speak to teacher > teacher explains to child they have a duty to report immediate danger > teacher speaks to safeguarding lead or head if SL unavailable > a log is made and social services main point of contact, is contacted > SS advise further action

Parents can be made aware of a referral on certain conditions, however content of a disclosure should not be discussed.

A counsellor is not in a position to pass judgment on authenticity of claims, very poor procedures at this school :( I'd make a complaint if you are involved in some way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Should have been reported to DSL, who would have taken it on from there.

Not right to refer to a counsellor, certainly not right to be told they are not believed!

Equally though, home should not have been sent a letter about the disclosure. Assuming it is true, the poor kid could be in for a hell of a beating.

Absolutely wrong. The safeguarding lead should of action the info and sent it to MASH to be aware of. That poor child.

Following the disclosure, depending on what else was going on in the student's life, it may be appropriate for a student to be referred to the counsellor, but the teacher should have reported the safeguarding issue to the designated safeguarding lead.

It was categorically wrong for a child to be told they weren't believed.

The letter would depend on the content of the letter and what information school had.

Not only wrong but almost a perfect example of what not to do.

I should add, I would be seriously considering a formal complaint for how the situation was handled if I had full knowledge of the situation (eg I knew that the referral to a counsellor was specifically because of a safeguarding disclosure vs someone who was already on the wait list for separate reasons/ the content of the letter placed the child at risk of harm and it was sent home after the disclosure).

Of course it is wrong

Yanbu - terrible practise in every way.

Oh good lord no. Should have been immediately reported to the Designated Safeguarding Lead and procedure should have been followed from there. Serious, serious failing of the child.

Yep, this is really bad practice. No idea why the counsellor has passed their judgement.

It's absolutely batshit what goes on.

Please do follow up on this OP.

Any member of staff receiving the disclosure must pass on the report to the designated safeguarding lead.

Presumably this was done, as it would be the DSL's place to look into further issues and make necessary referrals, except in very specific circumstances where individual staff members are required to personally report directly to the police.

Staff must not investigate or just discuss with colleagues (so if a teacher discussed with counsellor, there would still be DSL involvement, as everyone learning the information adds to the record) .

It's common for the DSL (who is likely to be a deputy head or other senior leadership) to arrange for support staff, in the form of pastoral assistants to be made available for tht child to talk to or take time out with. Staff on the periphery or perceived by children as having 'less' authority are often chosen by children to confide in in the first place (teaching assistants /welfare supervisors, as opposed to headteacher) It's of course not appropriate for any member of staff to pass comments about whether they believe the child.

If you know about this then you need to do something.
The fact that they wrote to the parents to tell them means the parent abusing the child can now take steps to cover it up.

@LolaSmiles

Following the disclosure, depending on what else was going on in the student's life, it may be appropriate for a student to be referred to the counsellor, but the teacher should have reported the safeguarding issue to the designated safeguarding lead.

It was categorically wrong for a child to be told they weren't believed.

The letter would depend on the content of the letter and what information school had.

Following the disclosure, depending on what else was going on in the student's life, it may be appropriate for a student to be referred to the counsellor, but the teacher should have reported the safeguarding issue to the designated safeguarding lead

Yes, I meant shouldn't JUST have been sent to counsellor instead of DSL being informed. Would also need to be v wary of what teacher told counsellor about why being referred.

If this genuinely happened I'd be straight on to the local authority and ofsted. Major safeguarding failure.

OP you should contact children's services yourself and tell them what you know. Don't leave it to other people or assume they have already done it.

Yes, I meant shouldn't JUST have been sent to counsellor instead of DSL being informed. Would also need to be v wary of what teacher told counsellor about why being referred
I see what you mean.

This is why I think there needs to be more clarity, which it may be unwise for the OP to share here.

The fact that they wrote to the parents to tell them means the parent abusing the child can now take steps to cover it up
We have no idea what the letter says. The OP said it was about the student's behaviour, which could be anything from a letter regarding a significant incident through to a general letter about expectations that had already been generated and sent by the time the disclosure was made.

It's really important to be inflammatory or add in our own spins on safeguarding topics.

The OP needs to write down the facts as she knows them and nothing more. No speculation. No embellishment. No filling in the gaps.

It should be Child told me they disclosed X to Teacher. Following this they were referred to a counsellor and after discussing X with the counsellor, Child said Counsellor said "_" (or paraphrased as close as possible). Since then a letter dated (date) arrived at home containing the following information.

So bad. Same thing happened to my friends step kids. They only found out the school knew for ages before it come out when they see reports where it said the kids had told teachers in the past but they had not reported it. Even when their dad rang the school with concerns the teachers never said anything. Thank god they live with my friend and her husband now.

That sounds very wrong.
How old is this child?
Why doesn't the counsellor believe them?
That poor child, to be brave enough to disclose then to be disbelieved.

Everything is recorded and DSL decide upon any action based on what is known about the child and home life.
We don't know what checks were made and if anything could be verified or full info.

Logical explanation: The councillor is the Designated Safeguarding Lead/Deputy.

@LolaSmiles

• It's really important to be inflammatory or add in our own spins on safeguarding topics. Please tell me that you've missed a few words from this statement

OP, if you do not work in tue school, how do you know the details of this?
You will have no idea what action the teacher took, if they reported it to the DSL or what the DSL did.
That is the whole point of confidentiality.

@Blubellsarebells

That sounds very wrong. How old is this child? Why doesn't the counsellor believe them? That poor child, to be brave enough to disclose then to be disbelieved.

Maybe the story is just obviously fake?

"I didn't do my home work because daddy hit me and I've been in a coma all.weeekend!!" Kinda thing?

maybe the child did not understand the law in england, just supposing. they said parent smacks them, on legs or bottom, with an open hand, leaving no mark, occasionally. and the DSL said actually that meets the criteria for reasonable chastisement. so it would not be classed as abuse.
rather than saying they did not believe the child.
this is a possible scenario, though unlikely i guess.

but just looking at it logically.
sounds like a lot of hearsay sloshing around.
maybe the child does behave badly in class, and when pulled up started crying and said it is because daddy smacks me...

I'm not sure what capacity you're involved in here but you can follow up with a report to SS yourself. Even an anonymous email if you don't feel comfortable talking to someone. The details can be found by searching online. Please don't let this go.