|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Another question for Scottish Shipmates.
I have only just heard of this legislation (not even sure if I've got its name correct), from someone who is concerned about its civil rights and (potential) religious implications.
On the face of it, it does sound rather intrusive.
Any comments?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not sure what practical difference it will make to a family like mine. When I had my kids, 20 years ago, I just assumed my Health Visitor played the role now proposed for the Named Person, covering my kids from 0-3 1/2, that their state nursery teacher played that role from 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 and that their school played that role thereafter.
The difference between then and now would be in continuity, rather than in the extent of the role of the state in children's lives.
But as my kids are now young adults I haven't looked at this closely.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Just to clarify - my impression is that for the vast majority of people this is a "tidying up" measure, rather than a "state claims new rights" measure.
However, the one innovation, the extension of help for young people leaving the care system up to the age of 21, is a very good thing.
What aspects of it are worrying your friend, Kaplan?
[ 16. June 2014, 11:44: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What aspects of it are worrying your friend, Kaplan?
According to her, concerns have been voiced that a Named Person could interfere with aspects of parents' Christian upbringing of their children.
I thought there might be a number of Shipmates with direct involvement in the scheme who could elucidate, but the lack of responses to my OP suggests that there aren't, or that if there are, they don't see it as a matter of much concern.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
According to her, concerns have been voiced that a Named Person could interfere with aspects of parents' Christian upbringing of their children.
As far as I can see the Named Person will be a Health Visitor in early life, and then someone in the school (head teacher or designated teacher). They will be someone the child, or parents, can go to if they need to talk or get support. I don't know who would be the Named Person for someone home schooled.
Unless there would have been a reason for a social worker to be checking up on a family anyway then as far as I know the Named Person won't be intruding into the lives of people that don't come to them. I don't think that a Named Person will be any more likely to interfere with bringing a child up as a Christian than a social worker.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
According to her, concerns have been voiced that a Named Person could interfere with aspects of parents' Christian upbringing of their children.
I'm not directly involved but one of my colleagues is. The only reason for the named person to get involved would be if the child required support, which the named person would help coordinate, or if there were signs of abuse that needed to be addressed. What particular aspects of Christian upbringing does your friend anticipate being considered abusive?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
....I don't know who would be the Named Person for someone home schooled....
I don't know either but a local authority Education Advisor or Welfare Officer seems likely.
[ 17. June 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday: quote:
...concerns have been voiced that a Named Person could interfere with aspects of parents' Christian upbringing of their children.
As Arethosemyfeet said... what particular aspects of Christian upbringing is your friend worried about? These Named Persons will be responsible for large numbers of children; they're not going to make work for themselves without good reason and they aren't supposed to intervene at all unless the child needs (or asks for) support.
I'm not in Scotland, but my daughter's school has a Named Person responsible for pastoral care. Her job is to talk to any children with emotional or behavioural difficulties and help them work out how to cope. What's threatening about that?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't know who would be the Named Person for someone home schooled.
Home schooling was one of the issues raised, the worry being that a Named Person with an anti-Christian bias could claim that the child was being harmed by it.
But presumably that sort of thing could just as easily happen now with a social worker, or an education authority, so I'm not sure how the new system would change anything.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
Although I'm not currently practising, I (a) am a health visitor, and (b) live in Scotland. As I understand it the Bill pretty much extends to the whole of Scotland what has been the policy in Highland Council/Health Board for some time, but as others have stated it's not that different from what happens anyway. All children/families receive a universal health visiting service (actually technically till the child is 5 and starts school, although the reality is the children are rarely seen after the pre-school immunisations at 3yrs 3mths unless there is a health or social need for support that is already known about), and then children are in school so it is their teacher who is in most frequent contact with the children.
I've never made any claims to be health visitor of the year or anything, and must admit that my first thought was 'oh God not more paperwork'. I seriously doubt that health visitors (with caseloads for full-time HVs of around 250 children) will be going out of their way to snoop into the religious sensibilities of parents, when their weeks are full of visiting new babies, running clinics, working with families with known child protection concerns (by this we're talking about abuse, neglect etc, certainly not church attendance or intricacies of parental religious belief), to name a not exhaustive list. We (and social workers, believe it or not) are there primarily to support families, not interfere unnecessarily.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The questions I'd be asking are:
1. To what extent are parents obliged to provide information to the named person
2. Is the named person entitled to private information relating to the child held by the State or other organization.
3. Is the named person entitled to private information relating to the parents or guardians of the child, held by the State or other organization.
4. What is the named person entitled to do with this information.
5. Are there sanctions and enforcement provisions that can be taken against the parents: what are they, and in what circumstances may they be deployed.
I think state support for parents is a lovely idea. I'm not so sure that parents should be obliged to accept that support, if you see what I mean.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
........
I think state support for parents is a lovely idea. I'm not so sure that parents should be obliged to accept that support, if you see what I mean.
It's state support for children and young people. It will involve parents but it isn't primarily for them.
About the Act quote:
Rights of children and young people
To ensure that children’s rights properly influence the design and delivery of policies and services, the Act will:
Place a duty on the Scottish Ministers to keep under consideration and take steps to further the rights of children and young people, to promote and raise awareness and understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and to prepare reports describing this activity;
Place a duty on the wider public sector to report on what they are doing to take forward realisation of the rights set out in the UNCRC; and
Extend the powers of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, so that this office will be able to undertake investigations in relation to individual children and young people.
Wellbeing and Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC)
To improve the way services work to support children, young people and families, the Act will:
Ensure that all children and young people from birth to 18 years old have access to a Named Person;
Put in place a single planning process to support those children who require it;
Place a definition of wellbeing in legislation; and
Place duties on public bodies to coordinate the planning, design and delivery of services for children and young people with a focus on improving wellbeing outcomes, and report collectively on how they are improving those outcomes.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
So parents shouldn't be concerned because it's none of their business?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The questions to ask, Cod, are not those you have listed precisely but how do the answers to those questions change. As it stands social services already have the power to remove children from parents, against the wishes of parents. They have to justify it though. The intervention of the state into the lives of troubled families cannot be at the whim of abusive or neglectful parents, and often waiting for a conviction before intervening would leave children dead or permanently harmed.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
So parents shouldn't be concerned because it's none of their business?
Of course it's parents' business but it isn't subject to their control. ISTM it's a strengthening of what already exists and a way of ensuring that no child slips through the net.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
While most families can live happily and safely, there are sadly a small hard core of families who create mayhem and disaster for their children.
Worryingly, even when families know that matters are going pear shaped, it is actually quite hard to locate the appropriate help without the entire system going into overdrive.
But when matters go very badly wrong, child care professionals are the first against the wall and on the front page of every paper in the land. They are often publicly vilified and ordinary members of the public turn into baying creatures calling for an ounce of flesh or worse.
However difficult this legislation may sound, could it be trying be a step in the right direction.....for children as well as families?
[ 22. June 2014, 11:21: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The questions to ask, Cod, are not those you have listed precisely but how do the answers to those questions change. As it stands social services already have the power to remove children from parents, against the wishes of parents. They have to justify it though. The intervention of the state into the lives of troubled families cannot be at the whim of abusive or neglectful parents, and often waiting for a conviction before intervening would leave children dead or permanently harmed.
But this reform appears to implement the intervention of the State in any family, not merely troubled ones.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The reform doesn't, as has been said, implement anything, merely providing a uniform structure across the country for practices that already happen. The reform doesn't extend the ability of the State to interfere in any family, they make it easier for families, children in particular, to get help they need before things get to the point where the state should be intervening.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
