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

tabula

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

Petty to you but not to others. Can you not see that your opinion is just one of a range? Others are allowed to have different opinions, without it being necessary to make personal remarks?

NP's are not 'trained' professionals.

And yes, professionals can and do get it wrong so to introduce Legislation with no complaints procedure is breathtakingly arrogant. NS own old Law Professor said how poorly written it was. So did the Supreme Court.

Let's see what it is like when it is re-written.

"Petty to you but not to others"

Petty in comparison to actual valid concerns about the legislation or in contrast to children living for years with abuse or neglect and going unnoticed, which is what the legislation is aimed at stopping.

It's an analogy that has no relevance to children who will never need help and isn't exactly hard to put into context if they are confused by it and it really isn't up there as an equal problem to the fact that passages of the act aren't legal, that it's been apparent for ages that they aren't legal and the SNP haven't done anything about that until forced to.

But yeah, let's get all het up about a gardening analogy...

So apologies if it feels like it's personal, but I just don't understand why people - not just you are treating that analogy as equal to major issues with the legislation or the actual problems it's designed to combat.

NPs are trained professionals, they're not trained professional NPs, but they are trained professionals in a profession already involving child welfare.

"to introduce Legislation with no complaints procedure is breathtakingly arrogant. NS own old Law Professor said how poorly written it was. So did the Supreme Court."

Yes.

But it doesn't negate that the purpose behind the act is for many people (including the Supreme Court) a good idea.

If they manage to write it properly and implement it properly it could be hugely beneficial to so many children.

Whether they will or not is different, we will just have to wait and see on that one.

I think one of the big issues with disagreements about this sort of legislation is your overall political stance.

If you see the government as benevolent and trying to help society overall as a government should then NP broadly a positive thing.

If you see the government as unwanted authority that has no business trying to change society then NP broadly negative.

Haven't read all the posts, however, as someone who works within the named person framework every day (and has been for the last couple of years), I and all my colleagues are very very sad at the court ruling. The process is working very effectively and at the end of the day, is assisting professionals to ensure that there are fewer child deaths.

"If you see the government as unwanted authority that has no business trying to change society then NP broadly negative."

I don't know if it is that...

I suspect it's more to do with the fact that there are lots of people who just don't see what the point of it is.

They think that mostly children who need help are getting it and this interferes with the way good parents are doing things for no reason when the children being supported already could use more support.

They don't realise that it's not about catching out good parents for minor issues, that there are lots and lots of children who absolutely should by anyone's standards have SS involvement that just go unnoticed and this is about finding those children.

Absolutely. I am left leaning, legally trained and fully supportive of the ECHR. However, I now work with genuinely vulnerable children and fully support this piece of legislation. At no point whatsoever, have I ver felt it likely that mine, or any of my daughters frankly non- disadvantaged children, are ever going to be impacted by the legislation, and have found that those I have heard moaning about it in my own daughters, privileged, Edinburgh, private school bubble, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, have no concept of how it works in practice, and also what life is actually like for the children that this legislation at its heart, wants to help and protect. It makes my blood boil.

Well said, flossie and tabula. This whole debate has allowed a huge amount of #snpbad rhetoric to be spouted by the media, they are having a whale of a time with it all. Meanwhile the voice of children and young people who desperately need the kind of support this legislation promotes is going completely unheard.

I think the whole atmosphere around this debate illustrates exactly what is wrong with politics in Scotland. People are complaining that the SNP are able to bulldoze through legislation like this, and they are to a certain degree correct. Those who are anti-SNP have every right to be angry at this, as the parties they voted for went along with the legislation initially and didn't provide any kind of opposition to it whatsoever until very late in the day.

Every government needs a strong opposition to provide rigorous debate and scrutiny of policy. There is no strong opposition to the Scottish government, the other "big" parties are too busy arguing amongst themselves and trying to comply with their Westminster directives to actually stand up to the Scottish government with credible counter-arguments. So really important issues such as child protection get competely sidelined by sniping and point-scoring instead.

Going back to the NP legislation itself, we seem to have completely lost sight of why it was deemed necessary in the first place. Yes, we need more resources to protect vulnerable young children, yes, this new system seem onerous and there are issues with data protection. Why not focus the debate around ensuring that more resources are made available and the system is made as efficient and safe as possible? Or is it just more fun to keep chucking barriers in the way and generate more headlines in the tabloid press?

Quitelikely5, it is not trash what previous posters have been saying on here. The named person scheme is regularly being referred to, even by the BBC, as a child protection scheme. But it's not simply a child protection scheme. GIRFEC and SHANARRI mean if you have a child, for example, with additional support needs, the named person is making judgements and assessments that they are not qualified to make. Often the reality is they don't have anything helpful to offer, just endless meetings, profile building and information gathering and recording.

Our child has various sensory issues and we've had experience of a headteacher describing herself on GIRFEC forms as a named person, though the scheme is not in operation here, and commenting on those forms on our child's weight, stating that we have assured her that we do feed our child, describing our child as dishevelled and commenting on late arrival at school (which I'm sure goes unremarked in the case of numerous other children who don't have any other problems at school) without attempting to understand any of the difficulties behind this. Things are hard enough without being judged and patronised by a named person who has also told us that diet can make a big difference to behaviour (really?) and that we should try switching our hall light off at night for better sleep. The assumption seems to be that because our child has difficulties we must be clueless and/or bad parents.

We don't need a gatekeeper to health services who thinks she has a right to communicate directly with those services without our permission. We are the people best placed to co-ordinate and organise any help that our child requires. We are happy to voluntarily share any relevant information ourselves with school but our family is entitled to privacy like every other family and there should be no sharing or discussion without our permission.

The tone of much of the Scottish Government's original literature about Named Person was also utterly offensive. I see much of it has now been pulled from their website. Defenders of the scheme talk about how it will keep children from harm but fail to see the damage that can and is being done to children who are not at risk of harm but raise SHANARRI flags for other reasons, because wellbeing is a completely different concept to being unsafe or at risk. Named Person makes no distinction between child protection issues and issues arising from additional needs, the same processes seem to apply.

Named person is a licence for headteachers to act as though they know best. We have seen it in action. By judging and criticising parents they create a whole new set of pressures and distress for families like ours.

It is frightening that the SNP government still won't listen to the many other points of view regarding this legislation.

"which I'm sure goes unremarked in the case of numerous other children who don't have any other problems at school"

Actually, persistent lateness is exactly the sort of thing that is already flagged up as a concern...it's usually an indication of an issue, with your DS it's a known issue though rather than a potential one at home.

Even if the aim of the NP act is worthy it will do more harm than good IMO.

Also, the role of schools has changed - I thought they were supposed to educate our children. Actually they now function as child-minders, nutritionists and caterers, clothes shops, sport and leisure clubs and goodness knows what else. They dictate what children wear, how they have their hair...... But don't seem to address the problem of widespread offensive language used by pupils; language that would be classed as verbal abuse in adult workplaces, easy availability of drugs sold on school grounds and inappropriate use of mobile phones. IMO schools are tyrannical already. Now they're the source of a NP. I despair.

Can someone please explain to me how having a dedicated person responsible for keeping a track of any potential causes for concern from a wide variety of agencies around a child, ensuring a whole picture can be put together and agencies share information, is a bad thing?? Have we not learned anything from the Caleb Ness enquiry? or any of the other child deaths that could have been prevented if there was a joined up approach taken?? I honestly despair.

The agencies involved with Caleb Ness were described as acting only from a "narrow remit". Probably because they are so stretched due to being underfunded and overworked.

The NP seems so blunt and not tailored to the differing needs and circumstances of a pre-school child and an 18YO. My DS will be 18 by the time he leaves school. He unfortunately might be persistently late. He's moving school for his final year and doesn't know the name of his guidance teacher. He has a SEN which his previous school appeared to ignore. His HOY even said the recommendations in it were unworkable!

But your son being persistently late on its own is not going to be enough for the named person to escalate a concern up. The named person will be responsible for looking at the overall picture based on ALL the evidence that is presented to them. The vast majority of children will be unaffected but what it will do is speed things up for children who should already be getting support or referred to social work. Again, I simply can not see what the problem is. I accept there are bits that need to be improved, but overall the aims are good, and where I work, it is going very well.

rogue...your experience of schools seems um, limited. Theyve never been just for education for starters.

Persistently late children are already monitored, it's not new...when primary age children are frequently late it raises flags.

Teenagers, well that's different flags, lol.

18YO's can be responsible for under 18s, drive, drink, vote, marry, join the armed forces, be sent to adult prisons and held in police cells. But they also have a NP who can access confidential medical records and if they're in full time education their parents are legally obliged to give financial support. They can access hardly any benefits. They are too old to be fostered or placed in care.

If a NP thought my DS' wellbeing was adversely affected by his family life what meaningful support could s/he access?

My experience of persistently late children - my DD was also one when she was 17 - was for the school to withdraw her S6 privileges and threaten permanent exclusion.

I know someone who is a NP. S/he complains that SW takes forever to respond and isn't supportive. Probably because they're underfunded.

"My experience of persistently late children - my DD was also one when she was 17 - was for the school to withdraw her S6 privileges and threaten permanent exclusion."

Yes because at that age, firstly they expect them to get to school under their own steam and they're not obligated to educate them.

Which is what I meant by different flags.

It's not the same though if a 6 year old or a 9 year old is arriving late frequently.

18 year olds can be in foster care- I know this as I have one at home. They can be in care until 21 and I believe 25 in some circumstances. Anyway, that's irrelevant, as the NP will be able to use their own discretion based on all the facts that they have.

In relation to meaningful support, a school NP could refer tour 18 year old son to adult social services if they felt he was vulnerable and needed that level of support. They could for example example help him access a range of services such as supported accommodation, employability support, mental health support, a youth worker.

Yes, in theory. In practice I suspect it would be a different matter.

"they're not obliged to educate them" - just because they're persistently late? Who would be their named person then?

They have a named person whilst in school education. For school leavers between 16 and 18, they would be picked up by SDS/ local council if they did not have a positive destination. There are a large number of programmes for 16 to 25 year olds who are at risk.

Here here Angels.

There is a tremendous amount of naivety on this thread about the level of bias a named person will or will not be tempted to apply. The named person is a post created to feedback based on personal opinion. As stated without specific training (and I mean UN level diplomacy!) - bias is unavoidable will lead to conflict, to the detriment of all families and to the children who do need more help in life.

There is a rotten current of contempt for any kind of disability in Britain, this comes through in the sort of ignorant comments suffered by catbob's family. This is sadly not unusual - ask any family trying to live a life that does not fit neatly in a tick box sheet. Thinking those families are a minority therefore not in a valid position to object to NP is a mistake. This could happen to any family at any time so a one size fits all scheme is bound to fail.

"just because they're persistently late?"

No, because they're over 16.

Schools can and do treat S5 and 6 pupils differently because at that point it is, comply with school rules or leave.