named person - ruled unlawful

[peggyundercrackers]

don't know if anyone else was watching the supreme court ruling this morning but they have ruled the named person scheme unlawful. I am glad the court had sense to rule this sham unlawful. I am disappointed that previous courts didn't do more to stop this nonsense.

Details of the ruling can be found www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html

cuboidal I was not making any comment on the consultation, just linking it for you as you had asked.

As the Named person scheme is not up and running yet it is not entirely surprising that the complaints procedure is not up and running either.

If we didn't have to live this nonsense it would make a great Terry Pratchett novel or Monty Python sketch.

Perhaps there needs to be an official return to some kind of modernised 'good enough' parenting? Apart from anything else, Scotland stands to raise a generation of children who could have been educated better, who could be more independent adults, who could struggle to know who to trust and how to parent effectively in the future.

I keep hearing stories from friends now in management of graduates struggling to cope with adulthood and the working world, can we make this better by encouraging free thinking? We should be teaching our children to value innovation and diversity surely?

“Why bother with a cunning plan when a simple one will do?”
― Terry Pratchett, Thud!

viper I think you posted on the wrong thread

Nope I genuinely mean this about the nonsensical named persons scheme. It is farcical.

Is it just me or are the SNP being very quiet about this. Not like NS to miss a press opportunity....

Ah but we have had some well timed revelations regarding cyber crime child abuse, more to follow on how NP can magic that evil away (as opposed to making it easier for the abusers ).

This is an interesting piece

Is it just me or are the SNP being very quiet about this.

John Swinney s statement saying it was going ahead was all over the place, admittedly much of the media misreported the case.

news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Supreme-Court-rules-on-named-person-279f.aspx

This is an interesting piece

It is an interesting opinion piece yes. I tend to think folk like Barnardo's have more knowledge of the area though...

I am sceptical of the government funded charities supporting NP. Far more who did not are not asked for their opinion.

Around 10 (government funded) consulted and quoted but over 1000 others in the country (albeit some of those also in receipt of funding)?

No charity worth its salt would bite the hand that feeds.

You'd be hard pushed to find a charity large enough to be doing meaningful work that isn't receiving any government funding...

Charities often publicly criticise policy despite funding sources.

tabulahrasa

I mentioned the wallpaper and tv as an example of the (minor) nonsense that the Scheme is littered with. Not as an example of 'all' I am concerned about

And my child being told I am 'only a gardener and not the Head Gardener' IS something I am concerned about and any parent would be, surely?

a good example of the shouting down of any concerns that the SNP is so good at.

It's just bad politics isn't it? Everyone must toe the party line, dissent means booted out etc. What about logical and intellectual debate and problem solving?

I was part of an original consultation of parents way back when and at no point did I ever ask for another parent for my child please. The parents of complex needs children were asked about a point of contact to make life easier regarding communication as opposed to dealing with repeated explanations of the child's condition. Of course that would be lovely but in practice very difficult to implement since the situation is seldom static and the parent is best placed to keep up with change and is the decision maker in tandem with the medical team. The biggest issue among parents of complex needs is actually being listened to and included in the team - which in general happens but always with a bit of stressful negotiating somewhere. So what would help is more power and recognition to parents - not less.

What has actually happened is nothing to do with that initial consultation and worse yet, GIRFEC and SHANARRI are nigh impossible to apply to children with complex needs so in fact it has just become another more difficult layer of crap to deal with. Most importantly there is another person involved whose rank trumps parent - utter madness.

Makes it a hell of a lot easier for any funding requests to be refused on account of the child and family not fitting the tick boxes though...

"And my child being told I am 'only a gardener and not the Head Gardener' IS something I am concerned about and any parent would be, surely?"

Nope...my DC have been told all sorts of ridiculous things through school, Xmas is leaving the Christ out of Christmas, potatoes aren't vegetables, hugely dodgy genetics...

So honestly, no, the while head gardener thing doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It's not a perfect piece of legislation, I was told when it was first drafted by someone who knows much more about law than me that parts of it were dodgy legally.

But, I still agree with the intent of it and I've yet to see a legitimate concern raised other than the parts that will have to be fixed before implementation.

So no, it's nothing to do with the SNP shouting down concerns, I'm not a part member... I don't speak on behalf of them and in fact I think they're shockingly bad at dealing with concerns.

Half of the furor over this legislation could have been avoided if they'd just addressed people's concerns and explained it better.

But I trained as a teacher, I'm a trustee of a children's charity and I know that if implemented properly it will be hugely beneficial to lots of children.

It's got nothing to do with tribalism or party politics.

headesk emoji!

But I trained as a teacher, I'm a trustee of a children's charity and I know that if implemented properly it will be hugely beneficial to lots of children.

Remember the people on MN jumping to the defence of Kids Company? That had trustees and everything.

The teachers and health visitors I know are shaking heads at how they can cope with the extra workload but feel helpless and not allowed to say anything because it is their job. The teachers I know who have tried unsuccessfully to have social services help repeatedly when a child they know is in need in the past do not see how this will change anything - the resources just are not there.

I have spent time asking those who work with children what they think and have not had one support named persons yet, my contacts are throughout the services and and the feeling has been unanimous - it would be better if the people expected to implement the system were allowed to feed back constructively with confidence their concerns would be heard and without fear of reprisal. Same goes for the parents.

It does seem that a government scheme is underway therefore it is a done deal and there is no point arguing because "it is what's best for the children".

Thank goodness for the supreme court.

"Remember the people on MN jumping to the defence of Kids Company? That had trustees and everything."

I didn't see anyone defending them, so no, lol.

I only saw the stuff about it where it so obviously had bad governance that I've no idea how it went on so long.

But I'm not sure what your point is? I mentioned the children's charity purely because I know, that it actually solves some huge issues places have with reporting safeguarding concerns.

Tabularasa:
"And my child being told I am 'only a gardener and not the Head Gardener' IS something I am concerned about and any parent would be, surely?"

Nope...my DC have been told all sorts of ridiculous things through school, Xmas is leaving the Christ out of Christmas, potatoes aren't vegetables, hugely dodgy genetics...

So honestly, no, the while head gardener thing doesn't bother me in the slightest."

So, leaving aside your comparison of potato misinformation and parental rights/authority (head-desk) my point is:

It bothers ME. And Lots and Lots and Lots of other parents.
And there is no opt out. And there is no complaints system.
And the Supreme Court have just raised a number of concerns.

So, the fact it doesn't bother you is hugely relevant to you, but only partly relevant to the discussion about the Legislation.
Just like my feelings are also only partly relevant.
But I have no opt out and no complaints system.
So that is one hugely dodgy piece of legislation.

Viper
I am very interested that you were involved in initial consultation and feel that what has resulted is worlds away. also that it is very poorly fitted to parents of complex needs children.
When you say:
"What has actually happened is nothing to do with that initial consultation and worse yet, GIRFEC and SHANARRI are nigh impossible to apply to children with complex needs so in fact it has just become another more difficult layer of crap to deal with. Most importantly there is another person involved whose rank trumps parent - utter madness.

Makes it a hell of a lot easier for any funding requests to be refused on account of the child and family not fitting the tick boxes though..."

I wish I had a LIKE button for your post(s).

THIS, of yours that I quote above, is the whole raison d'etre of NP.

"It bothers ME. And Lots and Lots and Lots of other parents.
And there is no opt out. And there is no complaints system"

Your opinion was that it would bother any parent not some and honestly, I do think it's up there with ridiculousness as potato misinformation - if you really think your child being given an analogy that the NP is a head gardener actually will have an impact on your parental rights or authority then quite frankly you have much bigger issues than this legislation.

It shouldn't be opt out, because that gives the parents it's aimed at an opt out.

The complaints procedure isn't in place yet, no and that is an issue, but then it hasn't actually been implemented yet.

Viper on the other hand does raise valid concerns, but sadly most legislation aimed at children or involving education does usually ignore ASNs...

But that to me is a much bigger issue than just this legislation.

Agreed Daily, I can see no other earthly point to all this - it is just another mad bad cost cutting venture gone wrong.

Tabula - vulnerable children in Scotland fall into two issue categories - disability and social, this scheme is taking resources away from both instead of providing them whilst adding risk in the form of invasiveness - it really is that simple.

Being a social worker has a short career span because is very very difficult, requires extensive training and support and often goes wrong causing extreme duress to those on the front line. Insisting a lot of people who do not have those qualifications now do a social worker's job is foolhardy.

"Insisting a lot of people who do not have those qualifications now do a social worker's job is foolhardy."

It would be, but that is complete hyperbole.

tabularasa

"- if you really think your child being given an analogy that the NP is a head gardener actually will have an impact on your parental rights or authority then quite frankly you have much bigger issues than this legislation.
"
and if your reply to my posts cannot rise above personal insult then I think it shows the quality of your 'arguments'.

Obviously, to tell any child that their parent is not the 'Head' adult in their lives undermines the authority of their parent. It is also confusing for the child. Shall I explain to my dd that the 'Head' adult in her life is a generic email address: [email protected]???
And to make a 'well being indicators' scheme a mandatory one is ludicrous.
And the scheme has been in practice in many areas of Scotland, inc Edinburgh, Highlands, Fife to name but a few for many years.

The Govt should be investing in Social workers, not this stupid scheme.

"Obviously, to tell any child that their parent is not the 'Head' adult in their lives undermines the authority of their parent. It is also confusing for the child"

I disagree, I think it's nitpicking and not even worth counting as an argument against the legislation.

Parents are not the ultimate authority, they have to comply with all sorts of laws and legislations while parenting, or do you tell your children that you're a higher authority than the police or courts as well?

"The Govt should be investing in Social workers, not this stupid scheme."

They should invest in SW, but it's not an either or scenario...

This is seperate from SW, a NP would still be referring cases that need SW intervention to them.

"or do you tell your children that you're a higher authority than the police or courts as well?"

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about my posts, don't you?

Personal remark after personal remark and little reply to my valid points except: 'I disagree'.

Abuse concerns need referring to SS who decide if they have validity.

Concerns re 'wellbeing' from untrained (and often unwilling) randoms (a NP can be anyone other than the parent) do not need referring.
A system with no opt out and no complaints procedure.
Operating for years in many areas.

There is already a system. If a GP / Teacher / Scouts leader / member of the community has a concern about a child they can call SS. Who will investigate to see if it is valid or malicious. To clog that system (areas where is has been used, inc Isle of Man, had their referrals vastly increase) simply makes it less likely kids who are actually being abused / neglected are missed, in the mass of ones with concerns re wallpaper and TV viewing. It is another layer to get through when there are real concerns.

But you 'won't agree' with any of this (as is certainly your right) and will make another personal statement about me (who you don't know from Adam) I expect.

Perhaps you could listen to Viper then, as she clearly has a great deal of experience from the 'inside' of all this?

"You really do have a bee in your bonnet about my posts, don't you?"

About the head gardener analogy? Yes, it's petty.

"There is already a system. If a GP / Teacher / Scouts leader / member of the community has a concern about a child they can call SS. Who will investigate to see if it is valid or malicious."

But it's not an effective system.

SS don't investigate all reports, there are children where reports come in from various sources that all land in different desks and in isolation don't appear to be a major issue.

There are parents who withdraw children from services to avoid repeated reports so it remains an isolated incident - then if a report comes in about the same child, they're not always linked because they're from a different source.

I haven't a clue about the Isle of Man...I do know that in areas in Scotland referrals to SS fell because people could refer minor concerns to the NP knowing it would be collated in the same place and then referred on if it built a worrying picture rather than having to go straight to SS for everything.

NP are not random people, they are trained professionals fully capable of differentiating whether one report about wallpaper is worth passing on to SS over a child who they suddenly realise is not just being given breakfast sometimes by their teacher but is also being fed at the after school club by staff because they've realise the parents aren't doing it every night. Or that the odd night where the parent is very late picking them up from scouts is also followed by the occasional morning where they're late and unprepared for school. Or any number of other things that in isolation slightly worry someone but aren't enough by themselves to indicate the extent of what is going on in that child's life.