Who protects our children?
It must be every parent’s nightmare not to know that their child was in danger, and therefore to be powerless to protect them.
That is the nightmare-turned-reality of the mother of Child Q amidst the strip-search scandal which engulfed her and her family in December 2020. Was there really nothing that her mother could have done to prevent what happened? And is it possible to ensure that such a thing can never happen again?
Where do we start?
As a 15-year-old, by every definition in the book, this girl was a child at the time of the incident. As a girl of colour, by every statistic in the book, her vulnerability was heightened in a city which would want to be celebrated for its diversity.
As a student, by every safeguarding rule in the book, Child Q should have been shielded by the school which she attended and, as a citizen, by every line in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)*, she should have been wrapped around with the full support and protection of those empowered to uphold the law.
All in all, we did a bad job on all these counts; a very bad job. Protected characteristics? Perhaps she doesn’t tick all seven of those boxes at first glance, but it is clearly not enough to have a nice set of paper safeguards if they are not worth whatever they are word-processed onto.
So exactly who or what let down that girl and her mother who, by every gene in the book, should surely have been called in to be with her daughter at such a time? That she was not called, is bad enough; that it did not apparently even cross the mind of the teachers or the police to attempt to call her, is deeply disturbing.
Maybe we just have to put this episode down as a tragic but solitary exception within a country where the rules to protect and secure the young and vulnerable are generally accepted as the norm? Sadly, this may not be the case.
Between 2018 and 2020, 650 children between 10 and 17 were strip-searched by the Metropolitan Police, and almost a quarter of them did not have an ‘appropriate adult’ present (and that doesn’t necessarily mean a parent) in addition to the police officers. If these are the figures for London alone, where only 20% of our children live and are educated, then how many other Child Qs and Mother Qs could there be out there? And with police records appearing deficient in recording the places where these searches take place, how many are taking place in schools?
Some will gauge the quality of a school by the extent to which it engages with the parents of its children; parental questionnaires suggest OfSTED does the same. And yet I am left wondering as to what limits the state is beginning to set in upon the extent of this ‘engagement’. Increasingly, schools offer to keep children’s confidences from their parents, whether that be in the Pastoral Office or the Medical Room. In terms of sexual health, some schools will even condone or facilitate the breaking of laws on the age of consent, again without consulting the child’s parents.
In what might begin to look like a ‘power grab’, schools now appear obliged, and in some cases emboldened, to implement a removal of parental rights to withdraw their child from presentations and promotions which run contrary to those parents’ religious or philosophical beliefs. Whilst the Universal Declaration of Human Rights# enshrines the right of parents to have their children educated in line with their deeply-held beliefs in such matters - a right long-upheld in relation to withdrawal from RE and the Daily Act of Worship - schools and teachers are now being told that objections on this basis to are no longer to be entertained when it comes to Relationships Education, whatever the age of the child.
The government will claim that protections are in place to avoid alarm in these regards, such as parental consultation on teaching materials and content, the publication of school policy on these matters, and a right to withdraw from the sex education element of what is to be taught.
However, consultation does not mean an obligation to agree, and a parent’s right to withdraw is unhelpfully described as being a ‘veto’ on what the school deems as mode important than the parent’s view. Nor are schools given any clear direction on who to distinguish between sex education and relationships education, leaving a wide margin of interpretation and, as teachers, we all know that published Schemes of Work and the like are not the key driver in classroom delivery; it is the way in which teachers teach and interact within their lessons that parents need to have the final confidence.
One result is that, whilst promoting party political opinions to the exclusion of others is outlawed in schools, the promotion of single-opinion identity politics is now being applauded in many as being enlightened and enlightening. As a result, many schools and teachers are now afraid to speak out for a balancing of opinion on such matters and, if today it is identity politics, what will it be tomorrow? Even paying to have your child educated outside of the state system does not insulate parents from the same climate of fear that certain lifestyles and values to which they are deeply opposed are to be presented as ‘sole truth’ without any alternative view being voiced.
And now, the currently drafted Schools Bill seeks to extend the policing of the philosophical, political and religious views of those who wish to educate their children at home.
Of course, we should all be concerned to constrain abusive parents, or radical parents, or those who show no regard for their children’s well-being, but the pendulum appears to be swinging gently but firmly towards a starting point which presumes that the state knows better than parents as to what their children should be taught, and what information should be shared or kept from them in relation to their children’s desires and wishes. It has long been held in certain societies that religious faith is the enemy of the people, and that it is the state that is the best parenter of the young, not the mother or father. The shock is that these societies have, up to now, not been societies which avow freedom, tolerance and Liberal democracy. What does that say about how our own society may be moving?
However, it is not “Christian statistics” which evidence the benefits to children of stable, loving homes, where parents remain committed to one another in lifelong marriage. They are not just “Christian homes” which can offer children a moral compass and a combination of loving nurture, compassionate discipline, and respect for others. And they are not just “Christian parents” who want their children to get along with others with whom they do not necessarily agree.
But it is the Christian Bible which prioritises the family above the state when it comes to raising children, and which teaches firmness as well as compassion and gentleness in the presentation of truth to power. It is Christ Himself who call us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s but also to render unto God the things that are His. Our priority as Christians is to put God first and to love our neighbour as ourselves, whereby we must hold to His Word in the face of any authority that seeks to contradict it. Our forebears have suffered by following this principle, as are many of our contemporaries elsewhere in the world today. How are we going to act if faced with the same?
You may feel this perspective is extreme and/or verging on scaremongering; you may believe that it presents a false picture of how things really are in a modern UK. But I would have said the fear of what happened to Child Q ever happening was extreme and alarmist.
Her experience has been truly life-changing and the questions of age, race, gender, authority and parental engagement will not rest, for her or for us. If authorities believe that they are free to act without the agreement and support of the parents whose children are entrusted to them, be that in physical mistreatment, clandestine secret-keeping, or the ultimate disregard of religious and philosophical freedom, where will we all end up?
*Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) CODE C
1.7 ‘The appropriate adult’ means, in the case of a:
(a) juvenile:
(i) the parent, guardian or, if the juvenile is in the care of a local authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation (see Note 1B);
(ii) a social worker of a local authority (see Note 1C);
(iii) failing these, some other responsible adult aged 18 or over who is not:
· a police officer;
· employed by the police;
· under the direction or control of the chief officer of a police force; or
· a person who provides services under contractual arrangements (but without being employed by the chief officer of a police force), to assist that force in relation to the discharge of its chief officer’s functions, whether or not they are on duty at the time.
#Article 26 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
· Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
· Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
· Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.