Interesting story in The Times in which the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland call for more public understanding of child protection.
Part of what they are calling for is a public "conversation" about what the threshold for removing a child should be.
Fred McBride, from the association, is quoted as saying:
Fred McBride, from the association, is quoted as saying:
"We need to define the circumstances in which the State should intervene in private life and remove children. We can't keep skirting around this. We have to get to grips with it."I think it's a valid point, as there seems to be little clarity in many people's minds, particularly the mainstream press where the default position is generally that social workers have got it wrong. We do need to come to some sort of public consensus on this issue and at the moment there doesn't seem to be one.
A public debate on child protection will be helpful however, does anybody actually know what child protection is? The law is pretty clear to me. The point at which social workers remove children is clearly difined in law. We must always remember evidence based practice and the discrimination act.
I don't think the UK media, newspapers in particular, are capable of engaging in a mature conversation about child protection. That is simply alien to their culture of "sensationalise and sell more copies" - and hang the consequences.