Named person for children in Scotland

Couldn't agree more. I think it would be ineffectual in the cases of real risk, but some Civil Servant would sit back and say "Oh but we have a named person so that will be OK. "

DaphneBroon unfortunately I see this scheme, if it had gone ahead, as not being adequately funded, not having enough of the best kind of people to become a Named Person, and an opportunity for a few to abuse this position, particularly with a troubled teenager.

So not a single gransnetter in favour of the scheme.
Nicola Sturgeon please take note.

Ironic in the light of these truly awful revelations
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/police-find-300-million-images-of-child-abuse-in-major-anti-paed/

My DD lives in Scotland, and was very worried about "named person", as her boys all have ASD's and she hone educates them all. She is very relieved that the supreme court ruled against it. It appeared quite sinister to us. Here is a link to an article in The Scotsman about a trial run of the named person scheme.

This has been a very worrying proposal and I am glad that it cannot go ahead.

So many children seem to slip through the net because of inadequate resources - or parents pulling the wool over the eyes of teachers/social workers - and I think any resources available should be concentrated on children who are at risk, not on a child who may be rebelling against parental authority.

I first heard about this a couple of weeks ago and thought I had misunderstood what was proposed, it seemed so bizarre. There has been very little coverage in the national media, but, of course, there have been many huge news stories in the past few weeks and the newspapers and tv news channels have to prioritise.

We all seem to be in agreement on this thread and I can't believe that many people in Scotland actually think it's a good idea.

Always thought this was ridiculous for all the reasons cited above. Can't imagine why anyone thought it a good idea. Problem is that the judgement only related to a smallish part of the scheme, so it could still go ahead with some modifications to the data sharing policy. Or maybe our leaders will see sense and use the ruling as a face saving excuse to drop the whole thing.

Glad you all feel this way, as I do too.Actually we have talked about this on Gransnet before, about at least a year ago, when it was first proposed.Some children will always need outside the family help. Most will not.

How can teachers and Health Visitors possibly add all this work to what they already do? Also there is quite a turnover of these staff over the years. I can't believe what a daft ill thought out idea this is.

Someone on the Wright stuff this morning said her children's person was the head of their school. There was a disagreement when one child was said to be dyslexic, agreement couldn't be reached and she finished up moving all her children to a new school. I've worked with some dominating, opinionated heads and would hate to think that they were overseeing anybody. It is a total waste of money and time

Good for you posting as you heard it Iam

I'm sorry for being so graphic DaphneBroon. I enjoy watching football but that news coverage made me feel I should just walk away.

FEEL not "fill"

That makes me fill really ill, iam64

That's a good summary of where we are Eloethan. Recruitment and retention of sw is getting worse. Case loads are too big, quality supervision from experienced managers in short supply.

I can't help but feel the escalation of drug and alcohol abuse is a significant factor in the increase in neglect and abuse of children.

I watched the footage of male football fans throwing euros at Roma children, one man shouting "suck my dick" and he'd give five euros. This was directed at children around seven years old. Another shouted "drink my piss". These were almost certainly fathers, in fact channel four tracked one man to his home. He has three children. I despair.

I really can't see how this would work. How would the "guardians" be chosen - would they need to be professionals - and presumably it would be a paid position? It was suggested that teachers and health visitors would be suitable "guardians". Surely they have quite enough on their plates already. Who would monitor the monitors? It sounds like it could be a bureaucratic nightmare.

There are organisations like Home Start who offer support and friendship to families who are having difficulties. As I understand it, the parents/carers agree to them coming into the home and offering assistance. To impose some sort of "guardian" on a child and its family does, as others have said, seem a bit Big Brotherish to me. And if it was a legal requirement, what would happen if some parents refused to co-operate?

I can understand why there are concerns about children's wellbeing - I believe the number of cases of neglect and cruelty are soaring but perhaps this would be better tackled by having properly staffed and highly trained child protection teams. I believe there is a crisis in recruitment and retention and a lack of experienced social workers to oversee cases and provide guidance and support. Social workers can have huge caseloads that are difficult to prioritise, and the vitriol that is often aimed at them when things go wrong must deter many people from joining the profession.

obieone, women who do not have children are quite capable of making the right decisions for children, just as there are women who have children but make the most stupid decisions for children

Actually I reckon Nicola has become aware of the groundswell against this and has been saying some oddly appeasing things about it. I honestly don't understand how its got this far.

I am going to stick my neck out here. And may have it chopped off, but whatever.

If Nicola Sturgeon had children herself, would she really be proposing this?

#ducksalot

I read about this today, and could hardly believe my eyes.

I was also very surprised that I hadn't seen anything about it on gransnet or anywhere else for that matter.

Very glad it did not go through.

The very opposite of freedomds of all sorts I would have thought. And scary.

This is dangerous SNP control freakery. Totalitarian regimes throughout history have tried to divide children from their families.

What idiots thought this scheme would work. It sounds like somehing from a totalitarian state. The state should of course be involved where child welfare is involved but don't always even have the resources to do that well.

I have been listening to this debate with trepidation, DS2 with 2 children is also concerned.
Like the whole Brexit thing this does not seem to have been really thought through, although it is already in force in some areas in the Highlands.
1, just how much authority do the 'Guardians' have.
2, What if a person is named, from birth to 18, are they committed to that child in some way, what if they move on,find other jobs, even shock horror leave the country. Or perhaps die. Do the parents have the right to choose another 'guardian' or is that a matter for the state.
3, If a stroppy teenager who is grounded (mine spent a lot of time grounded) goes to the 'guardian', does that person possibly a stranger to the family have the right to interfere.Perhaps even involving the Social Services in what is entirely a family matter.
4, A teacher or health visitor designated at birth or school age coming into my home for 18 years would really p**s me off and I assume many others.
5, Teachers are just that, teachers, I know they are useful in picking up signs of child abuse but they are not trained to be the guardians of the state.
Sorry this was so long but as someone who sat on the Childrens Panel in Scotland for 6 years I am very concerned at this move.

I agree, daft,mintrusive , expensive, inefficient and unworkable. Finance needs to go into existing children's services, family centres, midwifery, health visiting , nurseries and schools. Social work teams need to be properly trained, supported and supervised. All those groups are trained in safeguarding, in working together, yet things still occasionally go badly wrong. The systems work reasonably well. Put any extra cash into improving existing systems, not into creating an unwieldy, costly, untested, intrusive mess .