Bishop Stephen urges parishes to re-publish this article – and invite their parishioners to sign the petition.
Social worker LEO LANAGHAN says the family’s autonomy as a ‘domestic church’ is at risk
THIS week the UK Supreme Court ruled that sections of the Scottish Government’s Named Person scheme were unlawful. The Scottish Government will now amend it before it is enacted, but I believe the whole thing should be scrapped.
Is the scheme a legitimate action by civil authorities to safeguard children, or is it a step too far that affects the privacy of family life?
After all, is it not the place of parents and families to safeguard the children born to them? We, the lay faithful, should not sit in silence on this issue of social policy for our children, but instead inform ourselves of the issues at stake for personal and religious freedom.
We are informed confusingly that the issue that concerns the Scottish Government is not child abuse or child protection (although at times this reason is given as the impetus for the scheme) but rather that the civil authorities seek to oversee the upbringing, parenting, and development of every child– reaching far beyond what would be naturally expected from health and education provision.
The original legislation required all professionals, including your GP, to send information to the Named Person; and whereas previously information would only be shared about a child in an active police and social work led investigation of a child protection concern, or with the patient or subject’s consent, it is now the case under the Named Person scheme that information about you and your family members will be shared without reference to you.
Any family going through stresses and challengest must retain autonomy to decide for itself when to seek advice, support and information. The idea that parents need help to make contact with their GP or other services is patronising.
The idea that families require or want a single point of contact for their child is nonsense. Further, the proposal that steps will be taken regardless of the parents’ views to speak to your child or provide information to her/him is an extreme interpretation of a children’s rights perspective; unbalanced and lacking in respect for the parental role.
It is the interference and usurping of the role of parents that concerns me. The threshold for intervention in your child’s life will be ‘well-being’ and no longer ‘significant harm,’ or ‘risk of significant harm’. The principle that parents have the primary role in the education of their own children with wide discretion with regard to how the child is raised is being eroded by the Named Person scheme.
I qualified in Social Work in 1992 and have worked in England and Scotland in children’s services. I am also the parent of five adopted children.
I have managed child protection services and received social work services. In my opinion the vague wellbeing concept now embedded in law through the ‘Getting it right for every child’ (GIRFEC) model which supports the Named Person scheme has no place in child-centred social work, health visiting or education practice.
The important values of privacy in family life, and the primary role of parents as educators, are not respected and are under threat from this scheme. We are witnessing a corruption of children’s rights which shifts responsibility for children towards the state away from parents.
Catholic parents should not stand meekly at the school gate while this happens. There is for me an underlying idea promoted by the Named Person scheme which signals to parents that it is only professionals who have expert knowledge about our children and childhood.
The origins of social work as an enabling profession are contradicted by the Named Person scheme.
For example, the international definition of social work places emphasis on social justice, empowerment, and most of all an assessment for the service user.
Empowerment, social cohesion, and liberation along with human rights seem a long way off from the perspective of the Named Person scheme.
Children are being packaged as a product of the state and not their families
Its supporters champion the idea of a common set of principles and values across society. The outcomes promoted by GIRFEC may seem desirable–that all children become successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens, according to the state’s definition of what these mean.
But GIRFEC’s reach is endless, with all children expected to meet the developmental milestones set by the civil authorities, within prescribed timescales set by the same authorities, until one is faced with a stark conclusion that children are being packaged as a product of the state and not their families.
The GIRFEC model results in mechanistic thinking based on intuition alone (the subjective view of the Named Person, which may be reasonable and valid) but at the expense analytical thinking or objective assessment.
As a parent in the Catholic tradition I worry that the autonomy of the family as a ‘domestic church’ is threatened by these intrusive powers enshrined in law and given to a Named Person for every child; imposed without consent by the civil authorities. We should raise our voices to question and to challenge such a scheme.
Compared to Signs of Safety and Family Group Conferencing (methods of working that involve parental consent and involvement) the Named Person scheme comes out as the opposite of a practice designed to empower and strengthen families.
Targeting of services towards at risk children where there is evidence of a likelihood of significant harm appears to have been abandoned. The target of the Named Person powers to oversee every child interferes with the Godgiven role of parents to raise their child as they see fit in the ‘domestic church’ of the family.
Catholic parents have no objection to civil authorities’ exercise of safeguards and safety nets and the associated powers to investigate and make use of an independent legal process.
However, the Named Person scheme does not offer safeguards and is not a safety net service in any way, because it sets the entry threshold to the service at a low level of well-being defined as happiness and makes every child regardless of parental wishes part of the scheme.
The literature published by Government to support the scheme betrays an underlying secular perspective on the role of parents. If we support the role of Catholic education we should question why only secular values are promoted by the scheme.
The state-appointed Named Person for the child has the power to give the child information that may be contrary to Catholic values because the goal of the scheme is not centred on the Christian faith or biblical teaching about God and the role of parents in forming their child in the faith.
Our response is guided in detail by Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and subsequent teaching documents such as Familiaris Consortio and Pope Francis’s recent Apostolic ExhortationAmoris Laetitia. Each document in its own way points us towards respect for the autonomy of the person and our obligations in society towards others.
Gaudium et Spes in particular carefully set outs where it is appropriate for citizens to protest against the abuse of public authority.
This interferes with the God-given role of parents to raise their child as they see fit
When the civil authority decides to impose itself upon the life of each citizen; consequently restricting freedom and privacy, then there is a clear clash with the Church’s teaching. If you wish to raise your child in faithfulness to church teaching you will inevitably find that you clash with the perspective of wider society.
When families require support then the principle of subsidiarity clearly applies as outlined in the Catechism (that the internal life of a lower order community—which here is the family —should not be interfered with by the higher order community). Personal freedom and the initiative of families to find their own solutions are threatened by the Named Person scheme.
A good society requires our public servants to be open to scrutiny and accountable. The Church calls on us to work for the common good, accepting the powers of legitimate rulers and law makers but not at the expense of freedom in religious matters and morality to the ultimate undermining of the relationships within the family.
Named Persons are being given unprecedented powers to interfere with family life with no safeguards and with an apparent objective of making the state the guardian of the child ahead of the parent.
Investigatory powers and sanctions are something for our police service and for social workers governed by existing legislation. The Named Person scheme is a direct challenge to the family and parents’ role in authority over their children and their education.
The Catechism expresses it beautifully when it states: “Authority, stability and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honour God and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.”
The Christian Institute is leading the way along with the Family Education Trust in opposition to the Named Person scheme.
Can we as members of the lay faithful do more to support the campaign to either see this legis
Scottish Catholic Observer – Friday August 5, 2016