The eyes and ears of the community

Taxi drivers, dinner ladies, lollipop men and women - just about anybody - has a duty to pass on information about a child`s wellbeing to the Named Person, if there is a concern.

This is not referring to broken bones, burns, starvation and the signs of physical abuse which are matters for the police and social services.

No, this is about SHANARRI.

Taking the information from the Highland pilot:

A concern may be expressed about anything that affects or has the possibility of affecting the wellbeing, happiness or potential of the child. It may relate to a single event or observation, a series of events, or an attribute of the child or someone associated with them.

In other words, a wellbeing concern is impossible to pin down.

How are taxi drivers, scout masters and swimming instructors  meant to understand this when nobody else does? A system that is set up as carelessly as this does not have anybody`s wellbeing in its sights. It is marching two steps behind the Chinese, ripe for spreading third party gossip and false allegations. It is difficult to understand why Bill Alexander does not see it.

 

So here we have the Highland Council Service Delivery Model. At the base of the triangle, universal services are responsible for supporting all children and families. Whereas there used to be only health and education, nowadays everything is considered to be a family support, including health and education. It`s as if families are helpless and hopeless and need the assistance of every passing service and charity worker in their parenting role.

Because a wellbeing concern is such an `airy fairy` concept, and so many different workers are involved in information sharing, no child can be guaranteed a private life, free of state interference. Worse than that, there are few safeguards when Named Persons get it wrong.

It is only at the top of the triangle where compulsory measures are taken by the panel members at a Children`s Hearing, that legal safeguards are in place. Panel members are ordinary members of the public who act as a check and actually make the decisions. The reporter ensures that the meeting is conducted appropriately and that social workers are following procedures. The law defines what can and cannot be done, how long measures will be in place, appeal processes, and so on. It is not a perfect system because it takes place behind closed doors. But still, there are checks.

Compare that with what happens below this line on the triangle. Children and families are supposed to be encouraged to have an input in decision making whenever the Named Person gets involved, but there are no legal procedures to refer to when things get out of hand, only a complaint process that could take a year before there is a resolution. Even then, the Ombudsman cannot enforce his decision.

According to Bill Alexander, we are supposed to believe that out of nearly 8,000 child plans from a small population in the Highland Council, each decision made about a child was so apt and to the point, that no complaint was ever made. That is despite the nebulous nature of SHANNARRI wellbeing and the numerous workers and their various interpretations.

It is almost impossible to believe.

As it is, you do not have to go far before finding a different story. Look at this comment in the Herald:

Just about fell off my chair after reading the comments by Bill Alexander. As a parent of 2 children with special needs, living in the Highlands, I can`t believe that he has forgotten already the 3 pages of complaints regarding poor implementation of GIRFEC which I copied to him at the end of January. I may not have complained about the principle of having a named person but I have been complaining since May 2013 about the misinformed actions of a named person in particular.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13145429.A_worthy_policy_has_caught_out_ministers/

This is from a parent with special needs children who might have appreciated a single point of contact.

Think about the rest.