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

I will quote from Maggie Mellon's article;

"Has it completely misunderstand the difference between a universal service and a universal imposition? The NHS is a service free at the point of need. Demanding weekly medicals from every citizen is an imposition.

Has it misunderstood the Christie Commission recommendation for prevention to be at the heart of public service so entirely that it thinks this means giving public services more and wider powers to tell parents and others how to live their lives?

Prevention means public services should serve the public, not that the public have to serve the services. Maybe there is a bit of all of that. But the explanation that I find most plausible is that if a government does not have the will, or the necessary bottle, to fundamentally tackle poverty and inequality, then promoting 'child rescue' is very attractive. "

"Yes, people are being dragged through the SHANARRI process who have no need of help from social services"

Don't they though? SS doesn't just consist of child protection, if they're flagging up welfare concerns because of their ASNs maybe they could do with support from the child disability team, or another agency.

"Demanding weekly medicals from every citizen is an imposition."

But it is so not the equivalent of that!!!

Ok tabula maybe it is like if your boss at work was feeding an opinion on your general state of wellbeing and your living standards to the authorities (including visits to your home, consulting your GP) and advice to you not consult your family if you have an issue in life - take it to your supervisor at work!!!

I am well aware that the NP works within the SHANNARI framework. I do not understand how this is a problem. I also think that it is beneficial for all children- surely every parent wants make sure that their child is meeting these indicators wherever possible??

Sorry SHANARRI

What about when it is not possible flossie?

Well then relevant support should be put in place as required. My foster son has complex additional support needs- documenting these alongside the indicators helped us ensure he got a full time class room assistant amongst other things.
I just do not understand this cynicism of a tool to make sure all children reach their potential- whatever that might be.

"maybe it is like if your boss at work was feeding an opinion on your general state of wellbeing and your living standards to the authorities (including visits to your home, consulting your GP) and advice to you not consult your family if you have an issue in life - take it to your supervisor at work!!!"

Except it's not like that either.

For starters the people who will be NPs are people who are already doing a version of that anyway, so it's in no way comparable to an adult with a boss.

Secondly - they absolutely will not be doing all that for all children, that would be a pointless waste of time and money.

For the vast majority of children we're talking about a very short tick box exercise occasionally.

Exactly- it only comes into play when there is an actual cause for concern of some sort or additional help and support is required and certainly doesn't automatically mean social workers are going to sweep in and try and remove a child.

That's good and is supposed to happen without the need for SHANARRI GIRFEC or NP - community paediatrician and ed psych are responsible in conjunction with family and/or SS and foster carers.

In general the trend is that class room assistants are being cut back everywhere, wouldn't it be better if everyone who needed one had a 1 - 1? The relevant support should be put in place but is not because the resources are limited and becoming ever more so.

The SHANARRI 'tool' is too vague and open to abuse by misinterpretation.

What do you mean 'open to abuse'??? Who is going to be doing this??

NP is for every single person aged 0-18 in Scotland, it is 'a pointless waste of time and money.'

No single person within the child protection framework can affect a change in a child's circumstances- it doesn't work like that. There is multi agency involvement before any interventions are put in place. Best practice would include parents through all of this. Again, I am struggling to see how it is open to abuse.

No, it's not a waste of money- the NP are in post regardless, and the reason it is for every child as opposed to singling out specific children is to remove stigma (same a free school meals policy).

Actually, as the title suggests - the scheme has been deemed illegal which raises the question of the legitimacy of any currently acting named persons.

SHANARRI cannot be sensibly applied to many children for example those who are palliative or have complex needs so they are singled out and their families subjected to undue stress at an already massively difficult time.

Let's give our children a better society to live in by meeting their basic financial and educational needs first and stop wasting time and money on these ridiculous schemes that create suspicion and divisiveness.

So how would you propose that we reduced child deaths in Scotland, and cases like Caleb Ness didn't happen again? Shall we all just go back to our silo mentalities and fear of data protection laws?? So don't mention we know mummy has been working as a prostitute, or that daddy had been taking heroin again, because, hey, they have a right to privacy, and that's social works responsibility to find out.... Get real.

I am well aware of what goes on in the real world as is the Supreme Court!

We are in agreement that the Scottish Government is trying to act out with its legal remit.

By your own account, named persons won't help children at risk, social services will so let's get them some resources to do the job properly.

"NP is for every single person aged 0-18 in Scotland, it is 'a pointless waste of time and money.'"

They won't be intervening for every single child in Scotland though...

'SHANARRI cannot be sensibly applied to many children'

So you keep saying - that doesn't actually make it true though.

Which indicator do you think shouldn't be given support for for a child with complex needs?

"By your own account, named persons won't help children at risk, social services will so let's get them some resources to do the job properly."

But only for the children known to them? Not for the ones in the same situations that haven't been identified?

No, that doesn't work either, because the reality is that many vulnerable families simply do not want to engage with social work- they just won't and no amount of resource to social work is going to change that. This is exactly why the NP does work- they are seen as more neutral so both agencies and other people around a vulnerable child are more likely to come forward with smaller concerns in the first place. It makes perfect, logical sense for anyone that has any experience of working with families who need additional health and support. It is so typical of the Conservative party, and main opposition of the proposals, to not understand this.

You keep quoting bits of a sentence to make it suit your meaning - that is precisely abuse by misinterpretation by the way!

You have heard from vulnerable families on this thread who do not want to engage with NP, they have been forced to. You have ignored the negative experiences discussed here as untrue which is disrespectful and blinkered.

The scheme has been found not legal.

Goodnight!

Of course vulnerable families don't want to engage- this is absolutely nothing new, and you can bet they are even less likely to want to engage with social work.

And also, it has not been found not legal, it has been noted that the aims of the policy are fine, but some of it needs to be clarified and re worded, but in all probability it will go ahead, and will continue to function as it has been for the previous couple of years.

It has the full support of numerous charity's that support vulnerable families, local authorities and other statutory services- ie, those that are able to look at the types of cases that regularly come up and how best to address them.

"You keep quoting bits of a sentence to make it suit your meaning - that is precisely abuse by misinterpretation by the way!"

Which bit was misinterpreted?

"You have heard from vulnerable families on this thread who do not want to engage with NP, they have been forced to. You have ignored the negative experiences discussed here as untrue which is disrespectful and blinkered."

It is untrue that SHANARRI and GIFREC can't work for children with ASNs (which were already being used before NPs btw).

That doesn't mean that schools are as yet using them correctly...

But, do you honestly think that it was better when teachers could be just as judgemental and ignorant and got to have meetings about your child without engaging you? Because that's what used to happen, they kept the same notes, they made the same judgements and passed them on to other agencies...just without you knowing about it.

I've put a child with complex needs through school, it was not a better system before.

"But, do you honestly think that it was better when teachers could be just as judgemental and ignorant and got to have meetings about your child without engaging you? Because that's what used to happen, they kept the same notes, they made the same judgements and passed them on to other agencies...just without you knowing about it."

YES. This is what happens in my area. Any particularly 'difficult' families are then reported to SS for 'suspected future emotional abuse' on some tenuous ground. It is well known for it, confirmed by Govan Law Centre, Mindroom and other agencies (who will, once you have known them for some time, be open with you if your area is one which is 'notorious' for such practices.)

So, now, that attitude is enshrined in Law via NP - that is somehow better?

because, you know, those 'judgmental and ignorant' teachers (LA) ARE now the NP's with far far more power over families.

"So, now, that attitude is enshrined in Law via NP - that is somehow better?"

What's better is that if you're a parent who is trying to engage with them, they have to - it is in fact one of their main reasons to exist, as a support/ liaison with parents.

They actually can't bypass you if you're trying to engage with them, they could before.