I DON'T disagree with Colette Douglas Home that the child protection system is not really fit for purpose, but the cure of mandatory reporting has at least two major problems ("A child protection system that is not fit for purpose", The Herald, November 5).
The first and obvious problem is to whom are the professionals to report? The police? But the police were informed about Jimmy Savile, about Rochdale, about any number of other cases where children were sexually abused. Even if the police take action and a prosecution is attempted, getting resolution or safety through the courts is very rare. And in non-sexual abuse cases, the cases of Daniel Pelka and Baby P (Peter Connolly) inspire no greater confidence.
In the Peter Connolly case in Haringey, social workers had asked the police and the health service to investigate their concerns, and were given clean medical and police reports. In Daniel Pelka's case the police and social workers had been to the house often, teachers knew that the child was thin and ill but as his siblings were not, they did not recognise abuse. If abuse is not recognised as abuse, if no-one has a relationship with the child, and indeed if the people one has to report to are seriously compromised by corruption or by ignorance then mandatory reporting can achieve nothing.
But even if that were not the case, and the police always investigated and acted, mandatory reporting would still be a problem. It would inevitably lead to such distrust and fear of the "system" that children and their parents would steer well clear, and not even attempt to get professional advice or help for any issue, let alone abuse. Equally, it might lead to professionals deliberately making sure that they see speak and hear no evil in order never to be accused of failing to report a suspicion.
The other more serious problem is that without universal welfare you can't have child protection. It is now official policy that children can sleep in unheated houses, without decent food or clothing, subject to their family's arbitrary removal from their homes and schools and neighbourhoods, their parents' jobs insecure and benefits subject to docking. There are many children and families suffering serious harm. Trying to work out which children deserve protection by mandatory reporting and those who are just unfortunate to be poor in a cruel country would defeat even the most ardent prosecutor of parental inadequacy and hunter of child abuse.
Children who are thin, cold, ill-dressed, miserable, unable to concentrate at school, unable to attend school as they relocate and relocate are sadly becoming more commonplace. In such circumstances, any pretence that we want to protect children is a bitter joke better left untold.
Far better than mandatory reporting or further inquiries and investment in child protection and all its inevitable failings would be investment in family welfare, in open-door family centres, in community supports, in professionals and volunteers who live and work in the neighbourhoods and don't appear as strangers at the door to do an assessment and then move on to the next case without ever knowing the results of their interference.
If we want to protect children we need something far better than a child protection "system". Acquiring a heart and conscience that does not satisfy itself by howling at scapegoats would be a good start, swiftly followed by the necessary redistribution of resources, income, care, and health.
Maggie Mellon,
3A Fettes Row, Edinburgh.
HOW quickly we forget. How do we as a society square the circle between the rights of good parents and the rights of children to grow in a loving home without fear?
How many have forgotten or never heard of Victoria Clymbie? How many will only know the name of the next tragedy?
We cannot stop bad people doing bad things. But that is not neglect. Neglect happens over a prolonged period of time and typically, someone, somewhere will see signs.
I spent two years working on connecting English local authorities to the national child protection database. It allowed professionals to swap contact details and discuss any fears or misgivings they had between each other. I believed in the work and it went live for just three weeks before a new government cancelled the project.
And here we are again, trying to find a solution whereby the state can save children from neglect.
Where is our community or society?
A national database might not be the best way forward, but allowing teachers, nursery nurses, doctors, and extended family to communicate and voice their concerns must surely be a good thing.
Paul McLaughlin,
43 Spey Road, Aberdeen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article