Guardians for all children

[HazyMazy]

I don't normally follow Scottish politics, just Westminster, however was watching the mid day prog, First Ministers questions, on tv lately.

I was wondering how the Guardian for every child in Scotland, legislation passed by the SnP in 2014, went down with Scottish mums.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11221902/Legal-fight-starts-over-SNP-state-guardian-for-every-child.html

It seems a crazy idea, though well meaning, and had I been a mum of young DCs at the time would have been incensed.
Was there an outcry at the time? I don't think the law has been removed.

I had a read through Anthony and the Named Person's duties don't seem to be interfering - they are to provide support to the child or the the child's parents if its needed, help the child or their parents access services if they are needed and discuss or raise matters about a child with a relevant authority or service provider. What's wrong with that?

What is wrong is that the system is compulsory Natsku. I don't want some busybody interfering in mine and my children's lives. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Instead of concentrating resources on children who really are at risk, we are now all subject to unwarranted state interference in how we raise our children. I predict that the legislation will do nothing to protect the most vulnerable and it won't be long before there are people complaining about interference by named persons on a power trip.

It has to be compulsory otherwise parents of children that are at risk would just opt out and it would be harder to find and help those children. Children that are at risk aren't easily spotted in many cases.

What kind of interference are you worried about it? Being offered help or your child being offered help or a service they want? If there's no concerns with your family then its highly likely you will have no 'interference' at all and there must be a complaints procedure for issues with Named Persons abusing their powers. I would think it would be better though if it was possible to change your child's Named Person if there is a personality clash that causes issues.

Natsku according to Nicola sturgeon it's not compulsory, but of course it is! And I agree that to work it has to be compulsory. But why do the vast majority of families need yet more interference in what should be their private lives?

To turn your question around? Why do you think it's a good idea for every child to have what is effectively a state guardian? I don't have any particular concerns which are personal to my family, it is the principle of the thing I object to.

there must be a complaints procedure for issues with Named Persons abusing their powers

You would think so but not so much. There is provision in the act for the Government to define a complaints procedure by order of a minister but not one that needs to be voted on. The following is the list of things about complaints that aren't in the legislation but which can be decided on by ministers later and changed once decided without all that tedious debate and voting stuff

(a)matters which may, or may not, be the subject of a complaint,

(b)who may make a complaint,

(c)how a complaint may be made,

(d)time limits for making complaints,

(e)steps which require to be taken before a complaint may be made,

(f)who is to consider a complaint,

(g)the procedure for the consideration of a complaint,

(h)the obtaining of information for the purpose of considering a complaint,

(i)the keeping of records in relation to complaints or their consideration,

(j)the making of findings, and reporting, following the consideration of a complaint.

Its pretty comprehensive and is the sort of thing that should be decided first and enacted in the legislation.

Anthony A Named Person isn't effectively a State guardian, they don't have the rights that actual guardians have. Whether a Named Person is the best way to go about this or not I don't know but I do think its important that there is a way for all children to 'have an eye on them' so warning signs of abuse/neglect can be spotted early.

Absolutely agree CD that the complaints procedure needs to be set up properly and clearly before the scheme is started. That is a significant issue with the legislation as its written.

What kind of interference are you worried about it?
To me it's like allowing gov to check emails and internet use, or it being obligatory to carry photograph id.
In theory I don't mind, if you don't do something wrong you have nothing to worry about. But many people see it as a serious breach of privacy.
I am worried an overworked, under trained 'named person', decides that my or mine or a child of mine has suspicious behavior/ worrisome comments. If I was accused or wrongly accused or even just suspicions raised, it could affect my work if I was in a position of authority (policeperson, teacher etc), it could result in me having to take time off to defend my case.
I prefer it as it is. Suspicions are reported to SS and it goes from there. They, at least, are trained to degree level.

I think its very different from government checking your emails or internet use, that's a serious breach of privacy but I don't view the Named Person on the same level as that but fair enough if you do.

From my understanding the Named Person having suspicions would have the same effect on you as the current system of someone reporting suspicions to SS, its just that when multiple people have suspicions they all go to the Named Person who can then take them to relevant authority which I assume would be SS if those concerns were of abuse/neglect or if they were less significant then a Child Plan would be drawn up by the Local Authority but that procedure is supposed to involve parents too.

Natsku are you sure you are not NS? Your initials match :)

To be frank anyone wanting to interfere or question our family life can fuck off - simple. What I do at home and what my child does at home has nothing to do with her education. School doesn't have to look after my child's wellbeing (whatever that may be) - I'm not going to be judged by a 19yr old nursery teacher on my family life and my child's wellbeing - I am not going to tell her about heating our house or who our DD has a relationship with or who she plays with or how our family finances work or... The list goes on - they can fuck off! They can take all this information and share it with the 127 agencies the SNP have decided are going to share information and you don't have to give consent. They will not share the information with you onc they have gathered it - you need to make a formal request then pay for the information they have written about you... What part of that spells out they are working with you as a parent?

why have some councils asked taxi drivers to monitor conversations that children have in their cabs?

I have a right to a private family life however this legislation walks all over that - I now have no right to privacy. The QC who defended the act at the high court confirmed this is not compatible with the human rights act because it removes our right to privacy. Today there was a piece about it on the radio - 67% of Scottish parents don't want the legislation because they think it's intrusive.

The Isle of Man abandoned their legislation which was very similar to this because referrals to SS went up 500%. Why would the Scottish model work any differently?

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to give their head a wobble.

Well said peggy

Ok natsku calling named persons state guardians is slightly inflammatory.

However, the powers they have been given are a frightening erosion of the right to a private family life. Why should the state have the power to interfere in how I bring up my children? They aren't being abused or neglected but their named persons have the right to take whatever action they think is right (without involving me or my husband) in the interests of the child's wellbeing. Under the legislation a named person could decide that it is necessary for my daughter's wellbeing that she is vaccinated or that she is not allowed to take part in an activity or sport because it is dangerous or that she should or shouldn't see a particular relative. Provided my daughter is not being abused or neglected why should the named person be able to make those decisions? what is wrong with parents making those sort of decisions? Add to that the intrusive questioning as outlined by peggy and it is clear the whole thing is all about state control of the Scottish population.

I think its a bit insulting to insinuate that we, the Scottish electorate, have sleep walked into this legislation. We are not fucking stupid you know. Isnt it possible that actually the vast majority (assuming this is the case as only just over 7000 people have bothered to sign the petition) just dont care about it because it wont affect us. And actually, if it helps save just one person, then maybe a large majority support it which is why only a tiny proportion has signed this petition. Op are you living in Scotland, you dont make clear in your posts.

Under the legislation a named person could decide that it is necessary for my daughter's wellbeing that she is vaccinated or that she is not allowed to take part in an activity or sport because it is dangerous or that she should or shouldn't see a particular relative.

How do you figure that? There's nothing in the legislation about the Named Person being able to make medical decisions (which vaccinations would come under), they can't make decisions, they can raise concerns with the authorities and can pass on and request information. And it also says that they should, as far as possible (obviously in actual cases of abuse they shouldn't be discussing with the parent first but going straight to SS so they can't always consult the parents first), get the child and their parents opinion on issues before doing anything.

Pretty sure I'm not NS! Peggy
I really think its best for the children if there's more cooperation between parents and schools and relevant information is shared (things like heating aren't relevant obviously but if there's financial problems at home its better for the child if the school knows so they can help out with any extra costs like school trip fees or text books)

Ah but Nataku you haven't looked at the shannari indicators. A named person is allowed to make any decision they like provided it is for the child's wellbeing - including decisions about health. It's all hidden away in the legislation.

I don't think most people were aware of the content of the legislation until recently Harrassed. A very recent opinion poll shows that about 75% of Scottish people don't want the named person legislation and think it goes too far.

Natsku, I'm curious, how do you go from not realising that this legislation was only applying to Scotland (as detailed in the OP) and also not living in this country by with I mean the UK, to suddenly seeming to be an expert in what the legislation entails?

I've just been reading the legislation that Anthony kindly linked me to because I find the concept interesting.

Whereabouts in the legislation can I find the shannari indicators Anthony?

that will be the poll commissioned by the Christian Institute, part of the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign group set up to challenge the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. You'll forgive me when i take any of their results with a massive pinch of salt.

Make that a huge pinch of salt, just read a bit more about that poll and apparently when they said 75% of Scots, what they actually meant was that 110 Scots said they didnt want the named person scheme. And Id just like to point out that (a) 110 does not equal 75% of the Scottish population's opinion and (b) the poll didnt make sure sure that the respondents were representative of the Scottish population, for all we know every respondent on the tiny sample size could have been a single male tory voting pensioner wouldnt surprise me.

Natsku have a read of the below links.

As example of what's going on... It was confirmed in court that your child's GP will share information with the named person but will not be allowed to share the same information with you as a parent - in that instance you have less rights as a parent than that of the named person.

no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/GIRFECleaflet.pdf

www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright

Harassed I don't know why you think it will not affect you, it's already been confirmed there is no opting out so surely that means it will affect you.

Section 96 Natsku shanarri is taken from the initials of the areas which a named person is to consider when assessing a child's wellbeing (which is not defined in the legislation). And of course the whole thing is subject to guidance which the SNP government supplies, so goodness knows what will be in that in the future.

As a decent fairly average normal loving parent it wont affect me. I know you want me to believe that some named person will be looking over my shoulder regarding every miniscule parenting decision i make, but I know thats not true. Because those who are designated named persons (most likely a teacher or health visitor) has enough work on their plate without causing needless more. You'll forgive me if I think the vast majority of named persons are decent human beings and will only be interested in those children in dire need of attention.

Harassed the survey sample size was 532 parents and 64% said they were against the named person legislation. Perhaps you were looking at a different survey?

Maybe most parents will be left alone, it is the principle of the whole thing that worries me. More and more state intervention in people's lives - I don't want that thoug of course you and others may. Would you be happy if it was a majority conservative Scottish govt that had dreamt up this dreadful legislation?

Forgot to say, the survey was carried out by ComRes. I don't think they are affiliated with the Christian institute, though I could be wrong.

Anthony can you point me to the actual poll, not news reports because the poll i read makes clear that only 181 Scottish people responded to the poll (of which 44 people were actual parents).

I've looked through the links (God that leaflet is patronising!) but I still can't find anywhere that says the Named Person can make medical decisions. I did find that it says the Named Person can offer support or advice but the child/parents are under no obligation to take up that offer.