Revised Children First a step too far?

James Jones

Single incidents of slapping and pushing are defined in Children First (page 9) as a form of physical abuse, as is "terrorising with threats".

2.4 Definition of ‘physical abuse’
2.4.1 Physical abuse of a child is that which results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction,
or lack of interaction, which is reasonably within the control of a parent or person in a position of
responsibility, power or trust. There may be single or repeated incidents.
Physical abuse can involve:
(i) severe physical punishment;
(ii) beating, slapping, hitting or kicking;
(iii) pushing, shaking or throwing;
(iv) pinching, biting, choking or hair-pulling;
(v) terrorising with threats;
(vi) observing violence;
(vii) use of excessive force in handling;
(viii) deliberate poisoning;
(ix) suffocation;
(x) fabricated/induced illness (see Appendix 1 for details);
(xi) allowing or creating a substantial risk of significant harm to a child

Although I abhor physical violence against children, I am concerned that the new guidelines, when they become mandatory, will make a criminal offence of what used to be frowned on socially but also make a criminal offence of failing to report the matter.
For example, if my neighbours child tells me that their parents have threatened to slap them, I will be obliged to report the matter to the HSE or else face a criminal conviction.
Threatening children with physical chastisement will be a criminal offence but a false allegation (white lie) by a child will result in a member of the general public HAVING TO REPORT THE MATTER.

The implications of these new rules are horrendous given that they are being introduced without any debate.
Also, judgement calls will be made by Social Workers (remember those people who failed to do their job HERE and HERE?)

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

For example, if my neighbours child tells me that their parents have threatened to slap them, I will be obliged to report the matter to the HSE or else face a criminal conviction.
Threatening children with physical chastisement will be a criminal offence but a false allegation (white lie) by a child will result in a member of the general public HAVING TO REPORT THE MATTER.

You might be jumping the gun a little.

The slap has to cuause actual or potential physical harm. 'Physical harm' isnt specifically defined referable to that section but a light slap on the leg/bum is very unlikely to have caused actual physical harm.

Similarly, 'terrorising' isnt defined referable to this section, but threatening children with a slap is very unlikely to be considered to be 'terrorising with threats'.

Of course, when you are in the hands of others (ie. judges) when it comes to defining and interpreting loosely worded laws, it is understandable to be concerned that unreasonable and unfair interpretations might be given to certain sections which threatens the criminalisation of 'sensible' people.

But, really, i dont think the interpretation you have given above are reasonable.

deisemum

I would like to think common sense would prevail but going on the actions of some judges and social workers anything is possible.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

You might be jumping the gun a little.

The slap has to cause actual or potential physical harm.

Afraid not.

2.4.1 Physical abuse of a child is that which results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction.

"Potential" is the cover-all word that makes these guidelines scary. Potential means possible, as opposed to actual and so requires a certain amount of knowledge of the future.

Social Worker: "Was the child hurt?"
James Jones: "No"
Social Worker: "Did he hurt the child?"
James Jones: "No"
Social Worker: "Did he have the potential to hurt".
James Jones: "I don't know".
Social Worker: "Well, if he continued to slap the child, would the child have been hurt?"
James Jones: "Maybe".
Social Worker: "Then why did you not report it?"
James Jones: "Because I only read the old Children First and not the new super-douper ones but the media never pointed out that slapping was now illegal due to the smokescreen created over the seal of confession".
Social Worker: "You seem to be a bit cynical of the law but I was involved in the case in Roscommon[/URL
and it was very stressful so I'm not taking any chances this time".

CrazyRabbit

Also, any nudity in front of a child is considered abuse in the new guidelines. No more mums & dads getting dressed in front of their 1 year old child.

Section 25.1 (i)
Definition of ‘sexual abuse’ : "exposure of the sexual organs or any sexual act intentionally performed in the presence of the child;"

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

...the new guidelines, when they become mandatory,...

Mandatory?

Is this for people working with children only, or is more wide ranging than that?

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

Mandatory?

Is this for people working with children only, or is more wide ranging than that?

Afraid not.

3. Basis for reporting concerns and
Standard Reporting Procedure


3.1 Purpose

3.1.1 This chapter offers guidance to the general public and to all people, both professional and voluntary, working
with or in direct contact with children who may be concerned or who suspect that children are being abused
or neglected or at risk of abuse or neglect. It outlines the standard reporting procedure to be used in passing
information to the statutory authorities about child protection concerns

3.2 Responsibility to report child abuse or neglect
3.2.1 Everyone must be alert to the possibility that children with whom they are in contact may be suffering from
abuse or neglect. This responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals such as teachers, child care
workers, health professionals and those working with adults with serious parenting difficulties. It is also an
important responsibility for staff and people involved in sports clubs

So we can't even claim that we were not trained to police our neighbourhood, local shopping centre, etc.

metrovelvet

This looks like an overcompensation for the culture which allowed all the abuse to happen.

Rules look somewhat ridiculous in their vagueness and also give a lot of power without checks and balances to the government.

I can see split and seperated parents having a field day with it too.

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

Afraid not.


So we can't even claim that we were not trained to police our neighbourhood, local shopping centre, etc.

That just states that for "guidance" its doesn't say it will be law.

In the foreword it says....

...We intend to enact legislation so that all people who are working with children will have a statutory duty to comply with the Children First: National Guidance.....

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

"Potential" is the cover-all word that makes these guidelines scary. Potential means possible, as opposed to actual and so requires a certain amount of knowledge of the future.

Equating 'potential' and 'possible' in the manner you have in your little story is way off the mark!

I think, in a number of respects, you are over exaggerating
(deliberately or not) the legal ramifications of the new Children First guidelines to paint an absurd picture (ie. that we will all be obliged to contact AGS if the neighbour down the road gives little johnny a slap on the bum).

Your recent comment (corrected by Boston is another good example. The intention is that the law relating to these guidelines will apply only to those working with children. Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that. But instead, you chose to pluck a section of the guidelines, which does not say what you claim it does, and pretend it does apply.

There are many issues with CF but that kind of hysteria & ignorance doesnt do a rational debate any favours.

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

That just states that for "guidance" its doesn't say it will be law. In the foreword it says....

...We intend to enact legislation so that all people who are working with children will have a statutory duty to comply with the Children First: National Guidance.....

As I posted earlier, the guidelines quite specifically state that

3.2 Responsibility to report child abuse or neglect
3.2.1 Everyone must be alert to the possibility that children with whom they are in contact may be suffering from
abuse or neglect. This responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals such as teachers, child care
workers, health professionals and those working with adults with serious parenting difficultie

The guidelines refer to "EVERYONE" and then qualifies this by saying "this responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals" indicating that it is relevant to people other than professionals. It could be argued that this refers to volunteers but it is in the section that "offers guidance to the general public and to all people, both professional and voluntary"

drkpower wrote: »

Equating 'potential' and 'possible' in the manner you have in your little story is way off the mark!

URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potential"]po•ten•tial[/URL]
   [puh-ten-shuh l] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclearenergy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Maybe you can indicate how you see a difference between "possible" and "potential" in this instance.

drkpower wrote: »

I think, in a number of respects, you are over exaggerating
(deliberately or not) the legal ramifications of the new Children First guidelines to paint an absurd picture (ie. that we will all be obliged to contact AGS if the neighbour down the road gives little johnny a slap on the bum).

You are entitled to your opininon.

Your recent comment (corrected by Boston is another good example.

I disagree with you on this point, as posted above in reply to Boston B

The intention is that the law relating to these guidelines will apply only to those working with children. Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that. But instead, you chose to pluck a section of the guidelines, which does not say what you claim it does, and pretend it does apply.

I believe that my reply to Boston B undermines your position.

There are many issues with CF but that kind of hysteria & ignorance doesnt do a rational debate any favours.

Claiming that my points are ignorant and hysterical indicates a particularly defensive position to take of the Children First guidelines unless you have some involvement with the document or perhaps you are a Social Worker or other person affected by them. Before we go any further, can you now declare if you have any interest other than as a parent?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

You are entitled to your opininon.

I am indeed; but it is based on an understanding of legal interpretation. Yours does not appear to be so.

James Jones wrote: »

I believe that my reply to Boston B undermines your position. .

No it doesnt. Your reply to Boston B simply betrays your misunderstanding. The Children First guidelines are of wide application. The intention to legislate on them is of narrower effect. The intention is that they will only legislatively apply to those working with children. That is the fundamental point that you have missed.

James Jones wrote: »

Before we go any further, can you now declare if you have any interest other than as a parent?

No. But i have an understanding of how guidelines such as CF are interpreted and how they are legislated for.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that.

Yesterdays Irish Times

"We must ensure that all of society, particularly those in trusted positions with children, are fully aware of their responsibilities to children and supported in their work.”

"those in trusted positions with children"= professionals and volounteers working with children.

ALL OF SOCIETY = everybody else.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

The intention to legislate on them is of narrower effect. The intention is that they will only legislatively apply to those working with children. That is the fundamental point that you have missed.

Reference please

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

"We must ensure that all of society, particularly those in trusted positions with children, are fully aware of their responsibilities to children and supported in their work.” .

Sigh; read the article and try to understand it. The Gudelines, as I stated are of wide affect, and are intended to ensure everyone is fully aware of their responsibilities. The intention to legislate is confined to those working with children. Read the rest of the article!!! This is not that difficult to understand!

Under the measures, the national code on how to respond to child protection concerns – Children First – will be placed on a statutory footing.
This requires all organisations and individuals working with children to share information with authorities relating to child welfare concerns, and to follow protocols for the assessment of suspected abuse or neglect. Failure to comply with aspects of the code will give rise to a range of civil and criminal sanctions.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

Reference please

Me & Boston B have already pointed you to the foreward of the code and the intentions of the goverment. What bit cant you understand?

James Jones

I meant a proper reference and not a newspaper article which is simply the interpretation of the journalist, who more than likely didn't read the guidelines. Have you a reference from a source such as the Dept of Health or the Office for the Minister for Children to back up what is only your opinion?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I meant a proper reference and not a newspaper article which is simply the interpretation of the journalist, who more than likely didn't read the guidelines. Have you a reference from a source such as the Dept of Health or the Office for the Minister for Children to back up what is only your opinion?

You used the article yourself in an attempt to back up your point!!:D

If the reportage of what the Minister said isnt good enough, read the foreward to the guidelines themselves. Sometimes you need to just accept you are wrong!

James Jones

I used the article (which you had referred to) to undermine your position rather than back up my own.
I am willing to accept if I am wrong and, in this instance I hope I am, but you have not done anything to actually prove that I am.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I used the article (which you had referred to) to undermine your position rather than back up my own. .

That's a tad jesuitical, to say the least. But if we are nit-picking to that extent, I did not refer to the article you posted - i referred to the one on the front page of the IT.:D

James Jones wrote: »

I am willing to accept if I am wrong and, in this instance I hope I am, but you have not done anything to actually prove that I am.

I have told you what the Guide says.
I have referred to what the Miister(s) have been reported as having said.

At this point, I have made a prime facie case - if you want to differ, its your turn to present something of substance, rather than misintepreting sections of the code and sitting back and asking people to provide more and more evidence.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

I have told you what the Guide says.
I have referred to what the Miister(s) have been reported as having said.

At this point, I have made a prime facie case - if you want to differ, its your turn to present something of substance,

I believe that what I had claimed originally was the prima facie case and you tried to rebut this. I believe you failed whereas you do not so it is simply a mater of differing opinions as we have no one to adjudicate on the mtater.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Sigh; read the article and try to understand it. The Gudelines, as I stated are of wide affect, and are intended to ensure everyone is fully aware of their responsibilities. The intention to legislate is confined to those working with children. Read the rest of the article!!! This is not that difficult to understand!

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

The language is confusing enough that 'All of Society' will perceive themselves to be under legal obligation and potentially or possibly, whichever word you prefer, be legally punished if they dont follow these 'guidelines' and the results will be the same.

Guidelines are not laws are they?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I believe that what I had claimed originally was the prima facie case and you tried to rebut this. I believe you failed whereas you do not so it is simply a mater of differing opinions as we have no one to adjudicate on the mtater.

Your initial assertion (that the intended legisaltion putting the CF statutory footing applied to everyone) was plain wrong. There is nothng in the guidelines that says that. What you did was you completely musinterpreted a section in the Guidelines. That has been pointed out to you ad nauseum.

So, you have provided no evidence. I, and others, have pointed to two specific pieces of evidence suggesting the contrary is true.

It is not a matter of adjudication. It is a matter of you being incorrect from the get go, but unable/unwilling to accept that fact.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

That is pretty much spot on. The CF guidlines are just that, guidelines. They impose no legal obligation. The Sate could choose to put them on a statutory footing for everyone or for only certain classes of people. It seems clear the intention is the latter.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

Maybe, maybe not.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Guidelines are not laws are they?

Not yet.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs If she will provide further information regarding her plans to bring legislative proposals to Government putting the revised Children First guidelines on a statutory footing

The Minister replied

In line with the programme for Government, I am committed to the introduction of legislation to underpin Children First

BostonB

metrovelvet wrote: »

...
Guidelines are not laws are they?

That it exactly. This is not law. The intention stated by the minister, to make it law only for those working with children, and guidelines for everyone else. Thats my reading of it. You don't need to reference anything else. Thats how its written in that document.



IMO its completely unworkable anyway. You'd have to report super nanny for her timeout on the step. Or the threat of it. They have no resources to deal with the work it would create either. There isn't resources to enforce most of the laws already in place.

deisemum

They can bring in all the laws to protect children but when you currently have lazy couldn't care less social workers who will not return numerous phonecalls from people who are phoning to report child abuse, ignoring similar requests from Barnardos and the Gardai and local politicians then nothing much will change.

I along with a number of neighbours were left very upset from witnessing and hearing abuse for 3 months last summer and the social worker assigned to the family did not want to know. The only people that took it seriously were the gardai.

It was extremely distressing to be in bed at night and unable to sleep from all what was going on next door. There will be plenty more cases like the ones in Galway and Roscommon because some social workers are lazy and are squandering resources because they haven't taken anything on board since the Roscommon case.

One thing that you'll always read or hear when these cases come to the attention of the media is "why didn't the neighbours do something?", for all anyone knows the neighbours may have been blue in the face reporting things only for the social workers to do sod all.

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

The intention stated by the minister, to make it law only for those working with children, and guidelines for everyone else. Thats my reading of it. You don't need to reference anything else.

Can you quote where the Minister specifically stated that?

IMO its completely unworkable anyway. You'd have to report super nanny for her timeout on the step. Or the threat of it. They have no resources to deal with the work it would create either. There isn't resources to enforce most of the laws already in place.

Agreed. Problem is there is nothing to stop false reporting and these guidelines invite loads of those.

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

Can you quote where the Minister specifically stated that?...

I already did.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73332824&postcount=9

I don't see how its workable in its current form. Any threat of any kind of discipline, never mind the discipline it self seems to be illegal.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

The Minister replied:In line with the programme for Government, I am committed to the introduction of legislation to underpin Children First

Are you selectively quoting on purpose or are you just not reading & understanding the whole of any article that you post. This is what was said by the Minister later in the link you provided.

They are not just about reporting, but about an approach to the management of child protection cases to which every organisation working with children will need to adhere.

:rolleyes:

mareliada

diesemum,
can i ask how many social workers have you met? how many times have you been inside a social workers office or team meeting, or had a conversation with a soical worker at the end of another day whereby they didn't get to do half of what they wanted to do because there is just too much bad stuff happening in the world and not enough time, resources or other social workers to make it all better?
"lazy couldn't care less social workers", why do you think social workers get up every day to face sadness, abuse, more complex and a heavier caseload everyday? for the money, prestige, glamour or thanks??
no they do it because they care, genuinely, and are doing their best everyday against a lot of resistance with feck all resources. and do you thnk you are the only one lying awake worrying about little ones? i can guarantee they are too and more so because they are the ones actually meeting with all the kids and having to make incredibly difficult decisions everyday about which calls they can return and which home visits they can do, and unfortunately which ones they can't. it is a ****ty world out there, this is not the fault of the social workers. social workers are people who see the horribel and sad things inthe world and do what they can within limited resources to make a difference.
they are also putting themselves at great risk in the community. how do you think a conversation with an addict or violent parent or with serious mental health goes when they are being told their children are being taken into care? or how do you think you woudl explain to a child that they are being taken away from their home, their toys, brothers and sisters friends and parents?

maybe you have had a bad experience, there will always be good and bad in every walk of life, but would you like to be generalised in the negative the way you feel qualified to do so after one experience?