Named Person / State Guardians

[cdtaylornats]

That started off well

A teacher appointed one of Scotland’s first “state guardians” faces a lifetime ban from working with children.

Dayna Dickson-Boath was yesterday struck off the teaching register for sharing fantasies about abusing youngsters.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/teacher-appointed-first-named-person-state-guardian-struck-off-1-4014998#ixzz3yd6RqX21

Watching parts of the court case, it seems that everyone agrees that privacy and confidentiality for children will not exist in the future as it does today. There will be times when there will be a breach of confidentiality- the question is how much/how far is acceptable in the eyes of the law. I thought the most interesting question posed on Tues to the Lord Advocate was along the lines of:

"If the legislation inevitably always leads to a breach of article 8, it would not be compatible. If it may lead to breaches, you would argue it is not incompatible, but if the court were to find that it often leads to breaches, how would you suggest the court should rule?" The Lord Advocate couldn't answer that and had to go away overnight to think about it- he had a rather garbled answer the next day.

Anthony I haven't read the legislation itself, but as someone who reports directly to a named person for several hundred children, I have been informed of my local authority's approach to implementing it. And at the end of the day, it's how the legislation is being implemented that will count.

As has been argued many times on this thread already, there is no huge pool of healthcare or education professionals gearing up to start intrusive investigations into the vast majority of normal family lives.

And Peggy, I'm not suggesting for a moment that charities do not keep an close eye on where their next funding can be won from, or that their management accountants etc don't earn a decent salary for doing so... But to suggest that charities are trying to blindside the rest of the population into accepting dodgy legislation is a bit fantastical.

It isn't how the legislation will be implemented that counts its what it actually says.

The argument for internet snooping runs "its okay we only look for key phrases we don't look at it all" but the point is they could look at it all.

Bad legislation that gets nodded through under an understanding is still bad legislation.

How happy are you jaggy that a named person can break medical confidentiality to find out your childs sexual history but you as a parent can't? Why do you believe that the state is completely benign? Are you in fact Nicola Sturgeon?

Super the problem I have is with what the legislation says, not how public bodies say they will implement it. you should read the relevant parts of the act- even you may be horrified at the compulsory state interference which it provides for.

X posted with cd - I think we share the same concerns

I also agree with the above points. It's the change to the treatment of sensitive confidential information that is one area alarming. A child might not want certain medical information shared with their named person. It was discussed at length yesterday that the GP can listen to the child's wishes, but they don't have to. It's all couched in terms of "may", not "should" or "must". The decision making is all very subjective.

I know of a circumstance when an adult (in a position of trust but not a school) was told something "in confidence" by a 13 year old. There was a dilemma in that if the information were not acted on, there would be a serious consequence. So what should have happened in this circumstance?

As it was, after much debate, it was raised with the Child Protection Officer of the organisation and then taken up with the school. Unfortunately, because the Named Person legislation hasn't been fully implemented, the school didn't actually follow through and what was warned about happened Can't say for sure it wouldn't have happened anyway even if the legislation was in place, but it would have made it easier (including for the parent) if the school had been in a position to see the bigger picture across various jurisdictions.

Adults involved with children are already having to make decisions about safeguarding and confidentiality.

Prettybird That's exactly what the court was questioning the Lord as Advocate about yesterday. The point is that there are already safeguarding measures in place but this legislation goes way beyond safeguarding and into then wooly area of "well being". Should confidential medical information that isn't a safeguarding concern be shared with a named person against a child's wishes?

It was the proposed legislation which gave the people involved confidence in breaching the child's confidentiality - and why they took it up with the school in the first instance (not being sure if Social Work were already involved). It's just a shame that the school didn't act quickly enough

And in this case, the parent was happy that the adult breached the child's confidentiality - even though initially there was concern about what/if there was an issue with that parent, as people didn't know the background. And the child still has a good relationship with the person with whom they had confided - even though they know that they "told".

As it was, the issue was with the other parent (who didn't have residency, for a reason). But the warned-about consequence happened because of a lack of joined up working between agencies, which the legislation is designed to address.

This was about a year ago - maybe things are better now.

prettybird if there was a safeguarding concern with the child you talk about why on earth weren't SS told in the first place. You say the issue was with a non resident parent. Surely if the child was at risk of serious harm the "old" child protection regime would have allowed SS to step in?

As the new legislation makes it acceptable for state guardians to breach confidentiality - in fact makes it compulsory for them to do so - the effect will be that a child who doesn't want something disclosed won't tell his or her state guardian. I will certainly be telling my children not to tell their state guardian anything they don't want entered onto a state controlled database and shared with all and sundry.

And as for saying "it was the proposed legislation that gave them confidence to act" I am completely astonished! That's like saying - I knew the speed limit in a certain street was to be increased from 30mph to 50mph in about a years time, so that gave me the confidence to drive along the street at 50mph".

How happy are you jaggy that a named person can break medical confidentiality to find out your childs sexual history but you as a parent can't? Why do you believe that the state is completely benign? Are you in fact Nicola Sturgeon?

Quite happy, thank you. I'd like to think that if my child couldn't tell me something about their sexual history for whatever reason, someone else is able to support them in what is clearly such a huge issue to them that they've felt the need to keep it from me. And I'd like to think that other children have support too - because we all know that there are families who cannot provide support to their children for a variety of reasons.

Why do you believe that the government is trying to bring in snooping legislation when all they are setting out to do is enshrine in law what is already best practice?

And yes, I am Nicola Sturgeon.

Jaggy the legislation goes way beyond enshrining in law what is already best practice. If you can't see that I think you must indeed be Nicola Sturgeon... Shouldn't you be running the country or trying to find someone to take the white elephant aka Prestwick Airport off the country's hands instead of posting on mumsnet ??

I can't explain further why Social Services weren't the first port of call and the school was without potentially breaching confidentiality - and even though it's highly unlikely on an anonymous Internet forum, I'm not going to take that risk.

And I genuinely don't understand your speeding analogy. No laws were broken - all that was done was that best practice was followed. Unfortunately on this case, the school didn't follow best practice and take the concern seriously.

I wasn't the person who was confided in but I know the person who was and the dilemma they faced. They are still happy with the choice that they made.

The trouble with this is that if a teenager thinks they cannot trust a doctor they wont tell anyone. There is nothing to stop the Named Guardian telling the parents.

"Why do you believe that the government is trying to bring in snooping legislation when all they are setting out to do is enshrine in law what is already best practice? "

Well because thats what they all do. And if best practice is what is enshrined in this wooly piece of open-ended unchecked legislation then God help the kids and everyone else.

prettybird The speeding analogy was to point out that the state snoopers law is not yet in force. If the individuals involved inthe situation you talked about did something they have no power to do they were not acting in line with the law. If, as you seem to be saying, best practice already covers what is in the new legislation then the new legislation isn't needed. All that is needed is for SS and schools etc to be provided with a clear statement of what they should be doing. You can't have it both ways - either existing laws and practice are already sufficient or the new law covers much more than the existing law.

Having read the act, I think the new legislation goes way beyond any powers anyone already has and lowers the threshold for action. Any child in Scotland will be the subject of such intervention as the named person sees fit if (in the named persons opinion) the child's wellbeing requires it. There is no definition in the legislation of wellbeing, which makes the whole thing incredibly woolly and subjective. I don't want mine or my children's lives interfered with because in the opinion of some arse of a state snooper it is necessary.

Seriously, cdtaylor, do you really think that this piece of legislation was passed "unchecked"? Do you have an understanding of how laws are drafted, debated and passed in Scotland?

I do think a lot of the "no to NP" supporters are scaremongering. I know that nothing I or pretty or others say can change the minds of those of you who have decided that the Scottish Government are bad... So I'm bowing out of this thread now.

For the record, though, there are plenty of issues I feel that the government could be handling better at the moment. The SNP could also do with a decent political opposition in all parliaments, so they could be taken to task properly in parliament rather than by small, single-issue organisations. But that's a whole other debate

Oh, and. I'm not Nicola.

The way laws are drafted, passed and checked in Scotland is woefully inadequate, especially when compared with Westminster. Whatever your views on the HoL and peers, they do an amazing job scrutinising draft legislation. There is nothing like that in Scotland, and in my opinion the abilities and intelligence of many MSPs are just not up to the job of government.

i keep hearing that the law is about creating a single point of contact - someone who controls all the information. I would be happy for the govt. to do that because they system does seem a shambles just now - vulnerable children should not drop through the system and missed. SS and other care workers should already be accountable.

However having said all that the law isn't just about a single point of contact - it goes way beyond that. it assumes all children are being abused and they need to assess them.

As a parent you will be able to find out if a GP has told the named person about your child because you can put in a request to see what has been written on your childs file - they NEED to tell you once you have requested the info...

Jaggy you said on Wednesday "Peggy, I think it's incredibly cynical to say that these charities will benefit from the legislation"

guess what was in the herald today about charities benefitting from the legislation? www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14332823.New_legislation_marks_a_step_change_in_the_relationship_between_families_and_the_state/

Obviously im not the only cynical person...

oh and im not cynical - THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN £2MILLION of funding... no wonder they don't want the gravy train to stop!

I'm not particularly concerned about a GP not telling me something about my child. I'm more concerned about the GP sharing (non safeguarding concerns) information with the named person that the child (general) doesn't want shared with their named person.

The court did seem concerned that there is not specific instruction in the legislation as to what should trigger an assessment. There is reference to assessments having been carried out on receipt of information, but nothing specific as to what the triggers are, leading to (what sounded like) concern that ad hoc assessments could be carried out without any basis for them.

I did find it entertaining when the QC proactively raised the point that it should be noted that the legislation did pass with an overwhelming (or similar words) majority, only to have the court ask several times what that had to do with the legality of it. Eventually everyone agreed that it had nothing to do with the legality.

(As a side note, I read the notes from the Scottish court case and the judge there did think it worthy of mention, so perhaps the two courts are taking different views on some points...)

I'm looking forward to reading the Supreme Court judgment. I really hope they give the Scottish govt the boot up the backside they deserve for passing such badly drafted legislation.

As a parent you will be able to find out if a GP has told the named person about your child because you can put in a request to see what has been written on your childs file - they NEED to tell you once you have requested the info...

But how do you know to ask? If after every visit of a child to a doctor the parents request info that means the doctor will be overwhelmed answering requests, the doctor will be breaking confidence with the child once again by telling you.

Currently say a 16 year old goes to the doctor on their own because they are worried about a STI, specifically they say they want it kept confidential, named person gets told, you ask and get told, 16 year old never trusts doctor again.

Don't know if anyone seen this interview with NC - she says one thing about the named persons legislation, her lawyers say something else - who is lying? Make your own mind up.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHyAqeKY7O0