I had a call earlier. Did I want to do a TV interview about Kirstie Allsopp and child protection? Er…on the Sunday afternoon of the August bank holiday weekend? To be quite honest, no. I’ve not got my face on and I’m in the middle of prepping for a trial, which involves some actual child protection issues (such is the traditional August bank holiday weekend activity for us lawyers – though we did have a barbecue like a normal family yesterday).
I’d vaguely noted it on the radio as I snoozed before getting up, briefly raising an eyebrow at the fact that a social worker making a telephone call to a parent had made the national news, and then briefly raised the other one at the insistence of the LA involved that they take EVERY child protection referral VERY SERIOUSLY (their statement was read as if in CAPS), before rolling over and continuing my snooze. I wasn’t wild about going on tv to talk about such a non-story. Those who wish to read about the non-story may do so here (or elsewhere).
But every time I open up social media for a bit of light relief from the grimness of my prep, there it is. Someone outraged at the treatment of Kirstie by ridiculous social workers, someone ridiculing Kirstie for her outrageously risky parenting, someone else making a point about class and entitlement. So I guess, it is a story after all.
May I introduce a soupçon of legal insight to this ‘conversation’?
Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (not the Children’s Act, if you care). It applies to all local authorities in England and Wales, and all children living in their area. Even those whose parents are loaded, or celebrities or both.
Here it is – you can read it in full on the legislation.gov.uk website. But the key bits are:
Where a local authority [social services] are informed that a child who lives…in their area have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives…in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
So, if a genuinely concerned person with legitimate worry, or a busybody, or a keyboard warrior or a malicious person calls social services and says ‘hey social services, I think this child is at risk because x’, that triggers a statutory process. Social services can’t just ignore it unless it is immediately and clearly obvious that there is no reasonable cause to suspect the child is likely to suffer harm. They have to check it out. For the avoidance of doubt, the identity or status of the parent is not a good reason to decide to ignore a child protection referral.
One assumes from her reported response that Kirstie has not had the pleasure of a call from social services before. Lucky her. Where a referral is made about a family who is not known to social services a telephone call is an entirely predictable and proportionate response. ‘Let’s check this out’ say social services. A simple telephone call is often enough to satisfy them that there is in fact no reasonable cause to believe there is a risk of significant harm to the child, and that will be that, Particularly so if the parent is able and willing to explain the context that might not be apparent from the referral.
From the responses online its clear that some people hold the view that it is OBVIOUS Kirstie is guilty of BAD PARENTING. However it is also clear that others think it is OBVIOUS that she has done nothing wrong. Some (and I’m probably in this camp because i’m a lawyer and a parent of two very different teenagers), would say IT DEPENDS on the specifics (the child, the travel arrangements, the safeguards etc).
Even if you disagree with me on that, it is clear that there are a range of reasonable views about allowing a 15 year old to travel abroad without a parent. Which is probably why social services didn’t feel able to simply write off the referral without at least making a quick telephone call. That call from ‘the social’ is genuinely a very frightening experience for a vulnerable parent without Kirstie’s background, resources and platform. Kirstie reportedly felt sick when she got the call, but I doubt very much social services will be swooping in to remove her now 16 year old, safely returned young person to a place of safety, as often happens in the sorts of cases I see day in day out (and which I dare say her own local authority will be prioritising). If Kirstie felt sick, imagine how parents with real problems feel?
It’s not clear from the material I’ve read whether social services were satisfied that they should ‘NFA’ the referral as a result of that telephone call, but I’d expect them to be considering things like the age of the young person (he was almost 16 when he went and 16 just after return), his maturity, who was travelling with him (a 16 y/o companion), what arrangements were in place (funding, back up plans, accommodation, ground rules), and – given that he is now back and 16, whether or not any purpose could possibly be served by further involvement with the family.
How one sensibly exercises parental responsibility to keep a young person safe, whilst also fostering independence is a tricky balancing act – different parents will make different decisions based on how risk averse they are and their knowledge of their child.
Whilst it’s not for me to prejudge the outcome of the referral, it does seem unlikely to go much further. Regardless of that however, I can’t really see any basis for the apparent criticism of the LA for simply making a call to find out how this particular decision was made (so far). s47 is there for very good reason. Sometimes – often in fact – children finally get protection because of a referral from a stranger. Sometimes the referral seems like something and nothing but it is one loose thread that, when pulled, unravels a whole tangle of issues. I’m not suggesting that is the case with Kirsty, but it is the reason why local authorities – rightly – have to do a bit of due diligence when a referral comes in.
Whether you would let your 15 year old go on this trip, it would, I think, be a tall order to suggest that a well planned trip undertaken by two reasonably mature and well resourced 15/16 y/os gave rise to the sort of risk of significant harm that justifies state interference above and beyond a telephone call.
However, I am confident that if I am wrong in my guess we will all be finding out soon enough (and then I’ll tell you what happens when the LA isn’t satisfied there are no reasonable grounds). I’m sure the now 16 year old son will be absolutely thrilled at all this fuss.
Anyway, it’s a shame, isn’t it, that we can’t get so much airtime focused on the real stories playing out in family courts every day, stories both about children who need protecting from their parents, and parents who need protecting from one another or from the overreach of the state.
And on that note I’m back to my real work for a bit of relief from the awfulness of social media.
It’s a tricky question and it depends in my opinion on the maturity of the teenager and where they are intending to travel. Great article.