All parties to the debate are supportive of the Scottish Government’s aim of all Scotland’s children being protected. Instead, the debate is focuses around if the Named Person is the most effective way to achieve that aim. According to the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, the Named Person Scheme is an essential part of the Government and the public sector’s responsibility to enhance and support children’s rights. He continues to argues that the origins of the Named Person Scheme, ‘came from families themselves’. This statement would lead to the assumption that the Scheme was grounded in evidence and research. However Maggie Mellon contends the Named Person Scheme for every child is not grounded in any research evidence. Those in favour …show more content…
would point to the pilot scheme in the Highlands. The Named Person Scheme was trialled across the Highlands from 2008. Bill Alexander, claims during this time it has been operating effectively, but Mellon argues that, ‘this did not provide any robust research evidence for ‘named persons’’. This would suggest that the Named Person Scheme needed more research. This is further supported by Lesley Scott, who claims that the Named Persons Scheme in the Highlands has been shrouded in secrecy, undermined the idea of it being a successful first point of contact for families. If the child or parent’s were largely unaware of the scheme or who their named person is it would seem impossible for them to help these families and coordinate help without the transparency or who is helping and why. However, the Government and those in favour of the scheme consistently refer to the Highlands pilot as a measure of triumph. As quoted on the Government's website, Martin Crewe, the director of Barnardo's Scotland, refers to the Highland’s pilot as a, ‘great success’. This demonstrates my first example, of one fact or situation, such as the Highland pilot scheme which has been interpreted by the supporters as successful and by opponents as lacking evidential basis. Related to this previous argument is the Deputy First Minister’s argument that the Named Person Scheme originated from families.
In contrast according to the Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) : Parent’s Voice survey, a high percentage of participants were not aware of the named person proposals. This demonstrates that the Government have not consulted enough families and that many have not be provided a sufficient amount of information. Going back to John Sweeney’s statement if that is true, I would assume that in the relevant provision of the 2014 Act parents and families would be at its core. This is not the case, s19 only has reference to the child not the parent, or the family. Maggie Mellon presents the argument that in the legislation there is no focus on the Named Person having to work with families. She suggests that in order to meet the needs of families would read something like :
‘... Persons carrying out this role will be primarily responsible to parents and children to ensure that children’s needs are assessed, and that these assessed needs are met by the responsible agencies’.
Although, I am supportive of the Named Person Scheme in some capacity, I would argue that this amendment to the legislation, before the scheme is implemented is necessary in order to allow parents to feel encompassed and supported by this Act in practice. Instead of the current wording of the legislation which could be argued to be allowing parents to feel alienated and unsure of the
scheme. The Government have argued that, although the origins came from families, the driving force behind the Named Person Scheme is ‘prevention’. According to Aileen Campbell, who is the Children’s Minister and is responsible for the Named Person policy, it cannot be predicted which children will need the support of services. Therefore, the Named Person Scheme allows, in her opinion, professionals to tackle the smallest issues at an early stage, before they develop. This shows that although, it is a universal scheme it allows a means to deliver a more specific response to those families in need. However, Mellon has contended that the Schemes force is not protection but it is instead, ‘net widening’. She argues that the legislation lowers the threshold or intervention and the sharing of information to a standard that is below the current ‘significant harm’ test. The obvious problem is that lowering this standard is an essential part of prevention and in order to prevent these issues developing more information needs to shared. Regardless, of the intention the Parent’s voice survey demonstrated that 49% of parents feel extremely unhappy that the Named Person Scheme could mean that information about parents and children could be shared between professionals. I will argue, later, that this increase of shared information will result in too many practical problems once the scheme is implemented. Maggie Mellon argues that her idea of prevention is ‘not policing families but taking practical measures to sustain and promote family life’. The want of preventing children future harm is a desirable one, however it may not be possible in practice, through the Named person scheme or through Mellon’s promotion of family life.
During the court case the judge said that lead social worker Gunn Wahlstrom was “naïve beyond belief”. This report brought over 68 recommendations to make sure cases like this did not happen again. The recommendations included putting the child first and the parent’s second. “Jasmines’ fate illustrates all too clearly the disastrous consequences of the misguides attitude of the social workers having treated Morris Beckford and Beverley Lorrington as the clients first and foremost” (London Borough of Brent, 1985,p295). The social workers in Jasmine’s c...
Scottish Government. 2011. Rights, Relationships and Recovery. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/18164814/19. [Accessed 28 February 14]er
Children’s Social Care work with parents and other agencies to assess the stages of child protection procedures, record information and make decisions on taking further action. The police work closely with this agency to act on decisions made such as removing a child or the person responsible for the abuse while gathering evidence and carrying out investigations regarding the matter. Health professionals have a duty to report suspected non-accidental injuries to Children’s Social Care and examine children to give evidence of abuse. The Children Act 2004 requires every local area to have a Local Safeguarding Children Board to oversee the work of agencies involved in child protection, place policies and procedures for people who work with children and conduct serious case reviews when children die as a result of abuse. The NSPCC is the only charitable organisation that has the statutory power to take action when children are at risk of abuse. They provide services to support families and children and two helplines for children in danger and adults who are concerned for a child’s safety. They also raise awareness of abuse, share their expertise with other professionals and work to influence the law and social policy protect children more efficiently. There are also acts in place to protect children such as the Children Act 1989, the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child 1989, the Education Act 2002 and the Children Act 2004. Legal framework from such acts are provided for Every Child Matters which requires early years practitioners to demonstrate that they provide activities that help children protect themselves. This may be through books and group talks known as “Stranger
The “prodigal” aunt in Maxine Hong Kingston’s essay No Name Woman, was shunned from her family and ultimately ended up taking her life and her bastard child’s, as a result of public shaming. Instead of being heralded as a heroine and champion of women’s rights, the aunt’s legacy is one of shame and embarrassment that has been passed down through generations. While this story’s roots are Chinese, the issue at hand is multi-cultural. Women suffer from gender inequality worldwide.
The use of the Children Act 2004 in day-to-day work with children and young people allows multi-disciplinary teams to shared information, which is used to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people known to one or more agencies. The interests of the child are paramount. In the setting, a specifically trained member of staff will be appointed to supervise safeguarding and child protection.
C. Cobley & N. Lowe, ‘The stautory “threshold” under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 – time to take stock’ (2011) Law Quarterly Review 396
Listening to and involving children and young adult in delivering of services, and respond to their concerns.
i. legislative requirements and expectations on individual services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and
LSCB, (2013), SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND VULNERABLE ADULTS POLICY, (www.safechildren-cios.co.uk), [Assessed 1 November 2013].
Legislations are laws derived from current government policies and outlines rules and principles that everybody must follow. (Peteiro et al, 2017) There are multiple, current, legalisation that have been created in regards to the safeguarding of children and adults. The Data Protection Act of 1998, for instance, was created as a way to control how organisations use personal information. In a health and social care setting, the Data protection act ensures that personal information about individuals will be kept confidential and not misused. The act gives service users the right to determine how their personal data is used and who it is used by to prevent the risk of the information not being private and being put at risk for abuse. (Peteiro et al, 2017) This includes things such as date of birth, national insurance number and medical history. If certain personal information is not protected, then it puts the individual at risk of harm, or abuse. The Data Protection Act safeguards individuals against this. Similarly, The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 safeguards against children and adults by ensuring that only appropriate persons are allowed to work with certain groups. This act created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who deal with criminal record checks and overlooks the Barred Children’s and Barred Adult’s Lists of unsuitable
The ethical issues surrounding this Act is who’s rights are more important, the right of the parent to have their child with them, or the right of the child to live happily and without fear of abuse. This also applies to schools The Data Protection Act of 1998 means that service users have a right to keep private information confidential, but it also means that they have a responsibly in relation to the rights of other service users. The confidentiality must be kept within certain borderlines, and can be broken when other service user’s rights come into conflict. Certain information may need to be passed to a senior member of staff when there is someone in danger.
This essay aims to explore the characteristics that make a good quality social work assessment in child care. Martin (2010) stated that there was “no single agreed definition of social work assessment.” Coulshed and Orme (2006, p24) did not offer a formal definition but they described assessment as “…a basis for planning what needs to be done to maintain, improve or bring about change in the person, the environment or both.” According to the Maclean and Harrison (2015) good assessments must be “purposeful and timely.” This is because practitioners need to be clear about why they are carrying out assessments and what it is they wish to achieve at the end of that assessment.
"Introduction to Issues in Adoption: Current Controversies." Issues in Adoptions 2004. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Nov 2011.
To gain insight into the approach in which the ‘named person' has stemmed from I will look at the ‘Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC) approach.
Commission for Social Care Inspection (2005) Making Every Child Matter, Commission for Social Care Inspection