Is this a safeguarding issue

[footballtime]

Scenario is that Fred (aged 20) is a volunteer football coach at a club for young people aged 11-18, those who are still school age. This role requires a DBS check.

David is a young person at the football club. David is 18 and has only a few months of school left until he leaves after completing his final A Level exams.

Fred and David are 2 years apart and get on well, having got to know each other through the club. They consider each other friends. Fred knows David's mum and has a good relationship with her too.

Fred and David would like to meet, unrelated to the football club, for lunch in a local cafe. They will both travel separately to and from the cafe. Given that Fred is technically in a position of trust, and that while David is 18, he is still a young person in the club, would this be a safeguarding issue?

How do people make friends these days 😞

I'm a bit confused by some of the responses here given that David is an adult.

To those who say it's an issue (Safeguarding/PoT) for David (18) to have a friendship with Fred (20), would the same then apply if David was 38 and Fred 40? Or is there a cut off age for this that is higher than the age of adulthood (18)?

It's a bit strange to those who don't work in safeguarding I do agree.

No a friendship isn’t an issue but being in a romantic relationship would be despite David being 18 as Fred is in a position of authority and trust. I think Fred does need to be a bit careful. Also it’s opening himself up to claims of favouritism which is why a lot of people avoid coaching their family etc

MaybeSmaller
Sometimes adults need safeguarding, either the relationship creates a power imbalance or the adult is vulnerable. For example, a tutor should not be dating a pupil.
In this case the relationship started to develop when the club member was under 18. The right thing to do in this situation is for the coach to wait until he leaves the club before meeting them elsewhere.
Its really not confusing.

They met in the context of a relationship where one had more power than the other, so it isn't ideal.

But they are both adults, so I don't think it is a safeguarding issue.

It's unprofessional of Fred and a bad idea if he wants to avoid accusations of favouritism. It's not a safeguarding issue because David is an adult with full capacity to consent to the relationship.

If someone went out for lunch with their supervisor would you call the police or social services?

thecpsu.org.uk/resource-library/best-practice/abuse-in-positions-of-trust-in-sport-and-activity/

You can seek advice from the NSPCC helpline on 0808 800 5000.

"What is a position of trust?

Someone in a position of trust is a person in a position of authority or responsibility over another person. Those in positions of trust have a considerable amount of power and influence on a young persons’ life. For example, a young person may be dependent on their coach, mentor or other adult for their sporting development, success, or position in a club, representative or national team.

Those in authority positions in sport can have a positive influence on the welfare of a young person, by providing role models or someone to turn to if they have a concern.

Clear boundaries and maintaining boundaries

"But it is important to have clear boundaries in place for the safety of both the young people and the staff, to ensure exploitation cannot take place.

Safeguarding training for those working with young person in the sport sector should include material on the issue on abuse of trust guidance on maintain[ing] appropriate boundaries between adults and young people."

"What can sports coaches and others in positions of trust do?

As someone in a position of trust, you have a responsibility to maintain a positive, healthy relationship with the young people under your authority.

Ensure that you read, understand, sign up to and comply with the code of conduct/behaviour your club, organisation or relevant sport’s governing body has produced for the role you hold

Maintain a relationship with all participants that is appropriate to your role and reflects positively on the club or organisation you work or volunteer for. Relationships between those in positions of trust and young people in sport should be supportive, positive and aimed at improving the young person’s skills, and progress.

Whether or not the code explicitly refers to positions of trust (and what would constitute breach) as someone in a position of authority you should not seek to or engage in sexual activity or sexualised communication or image sharing (including via social media) with 16- or 17-year-olds for whom you are responsible.

If you think that a young person’s behaviour indicated that they are seeking to develop or engage in an inappropriate relationship with you, immediately bring this to the attention of your club or organisation’s welfare officer, designated safeguarding lead or manager. Be careful not to respond to the participant in any way that could be interpreted as encouraging the young person concerned. Make a written record of your concerns and relevant details."

The youth leader is right. It is a potential safeguarding issue due to the position of trust and the imbalance in their status within the club. It does not matter that they are both adults. One is a leader of a youth group and the other is a youth within the group. I would take a cautious approach to this, as the youth leader has done.

So in that case maybe "safeguarding" needs to be brought out into the cold light of day so the general public can have a good look and see if they agree with it?

Scientology seems a bit strange to those who aren't Scientologists, I would suggest.

If an adult can't have a friendship with another adult without eyebrows being raised, then maybe the eyebrow-raisers are the ones who have the problem.

Just to be clear, I'm absolutely 100% on board with safeguarding when it comes to children and vulnerable adults which is exactly who it was meant to protect. It's when people are claiming there are problems with relationships between fully competent and non-vulnerable adults that I have an issue with it and I don't think this has been adequately explained at all.

To repeat my question: is this still a problem if Fred is 40 and David 38? If not, what is the cut off age if not 18?

@MaybeSmaller age is irrelevant (a red herring). It is the position of trust that is the issue. If a person is in a position of trust (there are legal definitions) any relationship with their client or participant is a 'professional' one and there are boundaries. If I am in a position of trust at 40 years old and there is a client / participant of 38 it would not be appropriate, boundary wise, for me to have a friendship or personal relationship with them. The position of trust and boundaries are particularly sharp with children and vulnerable people because they are vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation so there is a higher level of boundary (safeguarding). However all participant / clients require a level of safeguarding and in a position of trust one is expected to find friends outside of the client-base. Hope this helps.

It's not to do with age, it's because Fred is in a position of trust.

It's why therapists shouldn't date their patients, or why doctors generally aren't allowed to treat their family and prescribe them medication. It blurs the lines between personal and professional relationships and can lead to accusations of grooming and inappropriate behaviour.

In this situation, David is legally an adult but he is also still in a "young persons activity" which means he's still bound by certain rules and restrictions.

Fred may only be 20, but he is also a coach for "young people" (including 18yo's) and therefore it could be seen as inappropriate for him to strike up a friendship with David outside of the coaching situation, even though they're only two years apart.

TBH after reading your answer I am more inclined to believe that this is all Scientology type bullshit.

"In this" "therefore this" "still bound" "therefore that"

All I get from your post is that you are coming up with bizarre and tangential reasons as to why two adults - ADULTS - should not be friends.

Which is utter nonsense.

@MaybeSmaller The national youth organisations (think unformed ones) and youth clubs often have policies where a young leader 18-25 does not volunteer in their own club but transfers to another or volunteers somewhere else for a while to give some space. This is so the young leader can establish themselves in their role as a leader (in a position of trust) and it allows them to have their friends separate from their 'clients' / participants.

It can be tricky for a young leader. An example from practice might help - the young leader, might get invited to the 18 year old's home or a pub. The 18 year old is their friend but also in the group (their client). There might be alcohol. They drink. Some 16/17 year olds come along (also from the group) and are invited in and they drink. The leader is then in a situation with their friend (18) drinking with underage youngsters from the group they hold a position of trust in.

Likening a pseudo religion that gaslights its recruits and alienates them from not only their friends and family but also from reality itself to people who work (often thanklessly) to prevent both vulnerable people being abused and innocent people finding themselves being accused of abuse says a lot about a person.

What is it exactly about preventing abuse you dislike?

Well said @PAFMO

@MaybeSmaller it's not nonsense at all, but I doubt someone who is waffling on about Scientology is going to really see that

Don't see any issue, as a teacher who's done more safeguarding courses than I care to remember!

Fred is the coach at the club, David is a member and 18, so there is no issue, he is over 18. The "he's still at school" argument would only apply if Fred worked for the school / college, the rule there is a student must have left, that is more to stop any allegations of exam fixing than anything else.

David & Fred are both adults, only 2 years apart, Fred is no longer in "loco parentis" over David as he is over 18.

I suggest they head for the nearest pub and have a few beers.

Worth pointing out David could now quite legitimately be a coach at the club responsible for the 11 to 18's!

This.

I think people saying it’s fine are saying so because they wouldn’t personally have a problem with it or because they deem it a ‘safe’ thing to do. But that is not how safeguarding works.

Surprised how many people think it's ok

I don't think it's appropriate