A Child Protection System That Is Not Fit for Purpose

The Colette Douglas Home
November 5, 2013

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-child-protection-system-that-is-not-fit-for-purpose.22597600

Charlene Downes was 14 when she disappeared 10 years ago, presumed murdered.

In her short life she might have been sexually abused by up to 100 men. The ghastliness of Charlene's life and potential death cannot be exaggerated. She was of school age; in fact she had been expelled from school. Over the years did her behaviour ring no alarm bells about abuse with her teachers? Did a school nurse see no signs of sexual activity? What about her GP?

How could this happen in 21st-century Britain? Not only is it possible; we have a list of victims over whom we can only weep. The question is: how we can stop the growing litany of those who are abused time and time again.

Keir Starmer thinks there is a way. The former director of public prosecutions in England and Wales believes professionals who fail to report suspected child sex abuse should be prosecuted. He proposes fines or short prison sentences as punishment. On Panorama last night, he pointed out that similar mandatory reporting laws worked well in America, Canada and Australia. The Westminster Government reacted by saying no such reform was needed south of the border. Why not? Why not in Scotland?

Teachers and other professionals who care for children might protest at a new legal burden being added to the moral one they already bear. Shouldn't we trust them to do the right thing without the threat of criminal prosecution? The number of missed abuse cases suggests that all too often our trust is misplaced.

We have had our eyes opened to the covering-up of abuse in some Roman Catholic boarding schools, most recently in the revelations about Fort Augustus. Interestingly, the Catholic Church in England supports Mr Starmer's proposals. The Church of England does too. Bishop Paul Butler said: "We have to think of the child, not ourselves, not the institution."

I can't help thinking both churches have learned the hard way that covering up child abuse has caused massive damages to their reputations. But is it fair to put such legal pressure, say, on teachers?

According to Professor Ben Matthews of Queensland University, a similar law is working in Australia where mandatory reporting is an essential part of the child protection system. It accounts for the majority of reports of serious abuse.

He says too many people are still getting away with abuse. "Some of the victims can't speak, one-third of them are under four. Three-quarters are under 12." However, put yourself in a teacher's shoes.

Here are some of the early warning signs of a child who is being sexually abused: changes in behaviour, withdrawal from friends, aggression, anger, hostility, hyperactivity, a dip in school performance, absence, not wanting to go home, being rebellious or defiant … and on and on.

Any teacher might see a child has a problem. But what problem?

I bet divorce would trigger as much. I can imagine bullying would. I can understand that any teacher might reach for a more innocent explanation first.

When confronted with a real child and parents, an accusation of sexual abuse becomes difficult to make. A teacher would have to feel certain before reporting it. The evidence would have to convincing. But the time spent waiting for that evidence to emerge can be torture for the abused child.

If, however, reporting was mandatory, the balance would tilt in favour of passing on suspicions of abuse. A teacher would be more likely to risk making a mistake if the alternative was breaking the law.

Why restrict compulsory reporting to child sexual abuse?

Four-year-old Daniel Pelka wasn't sexually abused. He was starved and tortured right in front of an unseeing world. Victoria Climbie was starved and beaten and made to sleep in a bath in a freezing cold room. Death must have been a rescue for these poor children.

Surely children like them deserve as much legal protection as the sexually abused.

Why not establish that, once a child is identified as presenting with five or more symptoms of distress, their name goes forward to a headteacher? Then more expert eyes can take a closer look at the situation.

Another question is why restrict the obligation to report to professionals, as Mr Starmer suggests? These children have aunts and uncles and grandparents and neighbours. They are seen in shops and hanging about the streets. Shouldn't all adults be obliged to help protect them?

Yesterday I watched the film The Selfish Giant. It depicts the lives of two teenage boys. One is a modern version of the artful dodger. He has a sharp brain and a bad case of ADHD. He and his drug-addicted brother seem to sleep in the sitting room of their home.

His big, soft friend comes from a filthy, noisy, child-ridden house. His father is a brute and his mother is dishevelled and defeated.

The world the boys inhabit is harsh, devoid of beauty, filled with noise and pain. Expecting either of them to buckle down to an academic schooling is risible. Are they being abused? I think so. Should their teachers report it? I think so. But since these boys share the fate of thousands, how would the system cope?

How will it cope if Keir Starmer gets his way?

That is what concerns NSPCC Scotland. A spokesman said: "We fear mandatory reporting will clog up a system which is already overstretched. Really serious cases might be lost. We feel there isn't sufficient evidence that mandatory reporting will work. Remember that Peter Connolly was known to social services."

The charity is putting its efforts into helping children to identify abuse and to protect themselves. They are teaching parents how to educate small children about the parts of their body that are theirs alone. They're also fund raising for their Now I Know campaign.

The aim is to send child protection experts into P6 and P7 classes to educate youngsters about how to recognise all forms of abuse and to know where they can turn for help.

A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said mandatory reporting was worthy of consideration but was ultimately a matter for Parliament.

The physical and sexual abuse of children is as prevalent as it ever was. We have our eyes open to it now. Logic, morality and humanity suggest that, where we suspect it, we should report it. Too many abusers have been getting away with it for too long.

Mr Starmer says he is flagging up a gap in the law. The argument against him rests on the fact that the system couldn't cope if we all spoke up. Isn't it in our child-protection provision where the real gap lies?

It is a sorry situation. What we need going forward is the ability to report abuse in the knowledge that our measures to protect children are fit for purpose. Isn't it a scandal that they're not?