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

Apparently you can opt out, but opting out is a safeguarding concern.

As for whose lying - both of them.

Where have you seen the information about opting out? There is absolutely nothing about opting out in any of the documentation.

By coincidence tonight I had a long conversation with an old friend. Last week their baby DS had a high temp and rash, panic stations so they took him to A&E. Turned out it was Scarlet fever not the dreaded meningitis so they are both exhausted but relieved.

unannounced today, a health visitor turned up as apparently "an A&E visit is a trigger point for the new state guardian legislation"

They are gutted that taking the best care of their baby has somehow been interpreted as a risk to be investigated. I feel very sorry for them and can't help but think things like this will stop parents from taking their sick children to hospital and cause more harm than good.

Sorry could have sworn something I read said there was an opt-out but I can't find it.

Behooven we had our DD at a&e last week as she banged her head climbing on a chair and fell off and we haven't had a visit from a HV.

We were invited into a school based nursery just yesterday, allegedly to speak about how DD is getting on, but were then asked about our home life. We were asked who she played with at home, what her favourite toys were at home, who she played with at home and if she had any other friends, was there any other agencies involved with her etc. Etc. They got one word answers for some of the questions and I asked why they needed to know about our home life and how were they going to store the data and who had access to it etc. I have since put in a formal complaint about invasive questions and being told the visit was to speak about our DDs progress but in reality it was about our home life and that we were given no information about progress. That the interview wasn't structured and was disorganised and quality of information was poor.

Sorry just remembered some of the other questions were things like how is her eating, what foods does she like, does she get on with her little brother( who is 7 months old). When we questions the teacher/non she mentioned wellbeing briefly but said she knew nothing about named person but then went on to say she had done her training so she did know about it but lied.

cd there is no opt out.

Every child in Scotland has a corporate parent - a named person, that person has the equal and equivalent legal standing as a parent, is a legal guardian and is legally entitled to act on behalf of that child without involving the child's family.

(Uuum even if that child is over sixteen and married with their own child ?!?)

peggy that's the reason they were given for the unannounced visit, maybe it's different in different areas.

I am tempted to suggest when anyone has a meeting with a named person they get them to sign a form giving their name, title, agency, basis for the meeting and giving their permission for the meeting to be recorded. The form should also state you hold the person and their agency responsible for any data being transmitted without your prior approval.

That is a good suggestion cd, trouble is the Act negates your permission being an issue so it would not hold up. I agree that it would be sensible to take notes for comparisons if need be and to back up meeting recollection at a later date.

We just didn't answer the questions and said we didn't see how the information was relevant to her education. The teacher did squirm a bit and seemed embarassed.

I just don't see how they can make you answer questions - in reality what are they going to do? Jail you? Take your child away? Sorry but it's absolute nonsense. I can a imagine it going to court and the judge asking why you are there - oh because I didn't answer some questions... That wil go down well!

Occams now I know where I saw the bit about it being non-compulsory its in Nicolas interview linked by peggy at the top of page 7

Peggy, if anyone else asks you such intrusive questions you should tell them that the named person legislation is not yet in force and that the things they are asking are none of their business.

I see that Nicola sturgeon and the SNP are indulging in their usual lies and double speak pretending that the state guardian for every child is optional. Funny how the legislation says it's compulsory. I wonder if the plan is to pass legislation and then ignore it? I doubt it, I think the plan is more likely to attempt to keep people in the dark until it's too late and then say "aha! We have legislation that says every child will have a state guardian so that is what every child will have."

I read that as an implication being that a guardian for every child is mandatory and happening, parents being involved is optional since we are going to have to do a lot of detective work to keep up with what is being decided about our children without our involvement anyway and most won't. Much easier for the government if parents just butt out and leave them to it! There isn't a yes / no box to tick that asks "do you require corporate parenting by strangers for your child?", we are getting that regardless.

OccamsRazorSharpner yes I would agree that's what she means by Opting out - we can opt out but that means the state guardian will involve you in nothing but they will still take responsibility for your child.

Interesting thread - I thought it was just me that felt it was intrusive and a bit scary (Big Brother to a tee).

Well has anyone written to their MSP?

I voted for Independence but sadly some of the ideas of the SNP mean I def won't again.

Hazymazy - you do realise that Labour and the LibDems also voted in favour of the Named Person legislation?

OccamsRazorSharpner yes I would agree that's what she means by Opting out - we can opt out but that means the state guardian will involve you in nothing but they will still take responsibility for your child.

I agree that's what the situation is, but I disagree that that is what she meant. She clearly hasn't got a clue what her own legislation is. What she said was at best misleading and at worst duplicitous. Why the media in general don't pick up on these things I don't know. There was a very good letter written in and published in the Scotsman on it the other day.

There has been several articles about it the last few days. I'm surprised it didn't come up on leaders question time in all honesty but then I don't think NS would have said anything different. It really needs someone to take her to task over it by understanding what's being proposed and not let her wriggle out of saying you can opt out.

There is a petition on change.org about it but I don't know how old it is but not a lot of people have signed it.

Well, if Labour or Conservatives had voiced any dissent they would have been lambasted by school bully Nicola S, accused of not caring about the children who die each week etc, so difficult for them to say anything.

The problem is the same as the Westminster parliament - no decent opposition, so hence we get doctor's on strike in the English NHS, all schools to be Academies, cutting of the disabled benefits.
In Scotland we get Big Brother watching all parents (and possibly breaking up families). Whole swathes of countryside being covered in turbines so Nicola can boast about her green credentials abroad (no explanation of what happens when the wind drops). And the most transgender inclusive policies in Europe (possibly the world) but no thought of how the rights of women to pee or change in woman only spaces might be diminished.

I do hope the next set of elections changes the bias.

The conservatives wanted an opt-out clause put into the legislation but this was refused I believe.

If this legislation is so wonderful why not make it opt-in. Then the people who want it will flock to it and the sane can go on in peace.

Because the people who are the ones that it is aiming at won't be the ones queuing up to put their names down. Maybe all Yessers, should be automatically signed up since they seem to think that people who voted No automatically have no right to disagree with anything that the Tories are doing at the moment.

Onemagnum thIs legislation will be pointed at everyone once it comes into force so those that they really need to focus on will be lost in the noise of it all.

Due to the govt trying to cover all the bases all that will happen is it will be ineffectual due to the NP and other agencies dealing with a load of every day stuff which will be a complete waste of their time and more kids will fall through the safety net because they will not have time to asses the ones who need their help most.

Peggy, I agree. I said that already on this thread or the other one. The money could have been better spent actually doing something for those that need it rather than doing the blanket approach.