Recent events related to the home education review have convinced me that there are many people (professionals and member of the public alike) who are incapable of asking:

"Is this course of action disproportionate? Will it cause more harm than good?”

Rather, they proceed from this logic:

“Will this disproportionate course of action help even a single person? If so, then it must be worthwhile."

 

This inevitably leads to endless initiatives, led by people who are so utterly convinced by the limited evidence they have in front of them that they fail to question their fundamental assumptions or acknowledge the far-reaching consequences of their particular brain child. Until, of course, the problems generated by their actions can no longer be ignored.

When this happens in the private sector, such liabilities are found out and removed, or businesses simply would not survive. In the public sector, however, such perpetuated problems become yet another reason to demand additional resources for more initiatives, interventions and increasingly draconian measures to control the rapidly uncontrollable, ad infinitum.

This short-sighted mentality is pretty depressing, but widespread. And in terms of recent “better to be safe than sorry” developments in the safeguarding of children, it’s already having an impact on the way our family lives.

We were out in the garden recently, enjoying the sun. The Jenklett was having a fine time running around naked. I asked G to take some photos - but as he pointed the lens at her, I couldn’t help but wish that he had a less conspicuous camera. Or that we had a less overlooked property. Or that I could just put some clothes on her. At the back of my mind I was thinking: What might our neighbours think? What might they do as a result? And, if faced with the inevitable bureaucracy that would follow any complaint, how might we fare?

We are loving, intelligent and articulate parents, and we happily meet our responsibilities as best we can. We have a reasonably good understanding of the system. But we are not mindlessly compliant. We question rigorously. We often disagree with so-called experts. We cherish our independence. And so... How might we fare?

I hate that I worry what others might think. I regret the loss of presumed innocence we once all enjoyed, until things changed. We have so speedily arrived at a point where any individual showing interest in a child (especially a man) is automatically viewed as a potential child abuser, and this attitude has caused widespread problems as a result.

Children have been deprived of valuable physical contact with other human beings. Trusting relationships between children and adults have been jeopardised or destroyed. Children are often incapable of taking calculated risks and making decisions that would actually keep them safer as a result. Individuals and communities now view child protection as, first and foremost, someone else's responsibilty. “Why doesn’t the government do something?” is the constant refrain.

And yet despite these ever-increasing measures, abuse is not being prevented. Thousands of children are abused in the most dreadful of ways, and such abuse is often not detected or halted - even when it is inconceivable that it would not have been. 

The Guardian, on what failed baby Peter:

“It was not, after all, the system. It was not a shortage of resources. It is not just Haringey. It was – after his mother and stepfather, sentenced yesterday for their part in his death – the people who let Peter down. The social workers, their managers, the doctors, the police."

Whether or not there was sufficient evidence for baby Peter to have been removed from his home, the service-focused perspective adopted by the Guardian unnecessarily plays down the manifest failure of two people who should have done everything they could to protect that little boy. This passing over of their responsibility is further propped up by the wholly inadequate sentencing of those individuals.

There is no mention of the friends, family members, neighbours or other community members who might have had an inkling of Peter’s suffering and done something to stop it. And even if those people did exist, there are no rules and regulations to tell them how to handle the situation – so that’s essentially a licence to do nothing, isn’t it? Protecting children is a job for the authorities, right?

People are now so utterly reliant on initiatives, interventions, rules and regulations that they are incapable of making decisions based on common sense and morality.

• Simply because one can claim for all manner of expenses “within the rules”, it does not make it sensible or moral to do so.
• Simply because one has evidence of someone taking a photograph of their own child naked it is not sensible or moral to automatically report that person as a suspected paedophile.
• Simply because there is an absence of rules that does not mean it is sensible or moral for an individual to avoid intervening when one strongly suspects actual child abuse.

However, this is no longer always obvious to members of the public, those who claim to represent them, or those who have to do with policy and services relating to children and families. Which is why, rather than pushing for a renewed emphasis on basic quality standards and the absolute prioritisation of children who are unarguably experiencing real abuse, a “lowest common denominator” approach is being advocated from all sides; one that will also “catch” huge numbers of “false positive” children (if not all of them). Children for whom the real harm experienced will be that caused by the stigmatisation and intrusion of monitoring, regulation, inspection or intervention. 

I think the discussions that are taking place on blogs, lists and forums are great; the quality of debate has been amazing. But here are a few examples of what I think we really don’t need: 

• A national database of children’s information
• Definitions of “acceptable” parameters within which home education is permitted to take place
• To “Take account of an estimation of the mood of the times and... seek to moderate what is likely to be done”
• Mandatory information sessions to inform children of their rights and about abuse (voluntary is better, but not without its problems)

And the reason for rejecting these suggestions is that they are all examples of disproportionate, lowest common denominator solutions to the very specific, high level problem of child abuse. Implementing them will undoubtedly cause actual unintended harm to many, many children and their families. They may conceivably result in the possible disclosure of one or two cases of abuse (although probably not).The costs, however, will without doubt be huge. And because such initiatives will, at worst, be riddled with professional incompetence or, at best, not end child abuse - full stop, as per the NSPCC, then adopting any of them will only have set a precedent for yet more intrusive interventions (which will cause yet more actual harm).

What do I mean? A glimpse into the future:

“Ministers have today disclosed that the intimate details of thousands of children have gone missing after several laptops were stolen from senior civil servants’ homes across the London area. A spokesperson said “We can confirm that a number of individuals’ homes have been burgled but we cannot yet confirm that the incidents are related, or any motive.”

“In an effort to increase the protection of children who are educated otherwise than at school, new guidelines have today been released in order to help Local Authorities conduct improved risk assessments. The guidelines take the form of a simple checklist that will determine which families require additional supervision because of possible correlations between child protection concerns and certain religions, ethnicities, educational philosophies and family configurations, for example.” 

“Although [one of many organisations representing HE] recognises the assumption of innocence is vital in upholding the freedom and privacy of all families, it also believes that it is only right to show willing to work with the government in order to improve relations between local authorities and all home educating families. Whilst this might limit some freedoms, it will also go some way to protecting children who are undoubtedly at risk, as well as those families who currently feel pressurised into sending their children to school. This trade-off will be worth it in the long-term.”

“An evaluation of the 2009 “children: know your rights” initiative resulted in lower than expected numbers of abuse disclosure. A review is currently being conducted to determine how to increase cases of disclosure. Review lead, Mr Goodman said: “The safety of children is of paramount importance to the government and we are committed to ensuring that every child is protected from harm. Annual initiatives are clearly not sufficient to ensure this, and we are therefore looking at other alternatives such as weekly “children’s rights” lessons or residential weekends.”   

Refusing to compromise when it comes to protecting our freedom is not burying one’s head in the sand. It is not being unnecessarily pigheaded or obtuse. It is not failing to acknowledge that children are abused. It is not failing to care.

• It is fighting to retain the premise that people should be able to enjoy the presumption of innocence.
• It is recognising that the state cannot and should not start from the position of attempting the impossible task of eradicating child abuse.
• It is saying loud and clear that an emphasis on preventative guidelines, measures, interventions and initiatives fails the most needy, pathologises the majority, reduces personal responsibility and causes a plethora of unforeseen consequences.
• It is directing attention back to the proper use of legislation that already exists in abundance to protect children from actual harm.
• It is calling for a focus on the most vulnerable children, who are still being abused, and failed by a system that is being diverted from their very real need.
• It is recognising that support services should be of excellent quality, locally driven, easily accessible and entirely voluntary if they are to help the less vulnerable children they will undoubtedly reach (although this article on government funding and control is well worth a read).
• It is encouraging parents and communities to reclaim responsibility and power.

Already, the number of applications for children to be taken into care has risen sharply. Is this because services are suddenly operating more effectively, or is it that professionals are now so terrified of allegations of abuse, they are already implementing their own lowest common denominator solutions? Graham Badman and his ilk are making these sorts of statements: 

"Many more children may at this moment be suffering hardship because services do not effect sufficient improvement in their parents."

"There will be times when (professionals) have to grasp the nettle, using professional judgment, in the knowledge that they may be proved to be mistaken. Better that than the harm that the child will have to experience instead."

"I believe the most important lesson arising from this case is that professionals charged with ensuring child safety must be deeply sceptical of any explanations, justifications or excuses they may hear in connection with the apparent maltreatment of children." 

 

"If they have any doubt about the cause of physical injuries or what appears to be maltreatment, they should act swiftly and decisively."

When we need to be hearing these sorts of statements:

Parents effect improvements in themselves or must deal with the possible consequences; services cannot do it for them.

Children are far more likely to experience harm from the system than their parents. Better we give parents the benefit of the doubt than the harm many, many children will have to experience instead.

 

The most important lesson arising from this case is that professionals charged with ensuring child safety should know that ensuring child safety is impossible. The second most important lesson is that they should be deeply sceptical of any incitement to lower the barrier of professional judgement when it comes to the assessment of maltreatment of children.

 

Professionals charged with promoting child safety should have significant doubt about the cause of injuries, not a fleeting concern.

Without doubt we should not be giving an inch. We have given away far too much already.

Additional reading:

Why there will soon be another Baby P scandal

Evil unleased: ContactPoint pilot goes live

H/T Home Ed Forums

Monitoring families in case of abuse?