Listen to thisI'm sure it's not the most seasonal of topics but I've started out on my critique of child protection so I'm going to continue with it.
One of the most popular TV comedies in recent years on this side of the Atlantic, is a show called Father Ted. It's about the misadventures of three Irish priests, banished (one suspects) for re-education, to the backwater of Craggy Island. One of them, Fr. Jack, has particular weaknesses for drunk girls and swearing, and his contribution to the programme consists almost entirely of outbursts of Drink! Girls! and Feck! (My wife, who's Irish, tells me that Feck isn't really swearing – and she should know because she uses it plenty). Now Jack's limited vocabulary causes Fr. Ted, the parish priest some consternation when the bishop announces he's to visit. For the weeks preceding the visit, Ted coaches Jack to respond to any query the bishop might put to him by stating “That would be an ecumenical matter.” All of this is going according to plan and the bishop is suitably impressed by Jack's grasp of theology, when he gets a bang on the head and reverts to Drink! Girls! and Feck! mode.
For some reason Fr. Jack came to mind as I watched a television documentary this week. It was one of a series called Adult at Fourteen, and this particular programme looked at new legislation around the classification of sexual offences. Essentially this legislation not only re-states the criminalisation of sexual intercourse amongst under-sixteens, but extends the definition of sexual activity to include any sexual touching or petting. Conviction would lead to inclusion on a sex-offenders' register and would, among other things, prohibit those caught with their trousers down (or up as the case may be) from seeking subsequent employment with children.
In defence of this draconian measure, the government trotted out some junior minister who could do little more than recite the mantra, “That would be a child protection matter. We have a duty to protect children.”
Incidentally, the children and youth interviewed didn't seem to appreciate the minister's concern for their protection. They felt they could make their own decisions and their own mistakes and the fact that it was against the law wasn't going to make a blind bit of difference if they were on a promise of a Saturday night. Now personally, I think there are good reasons to encourage youth to desist from sexual relationships until they're a bit older. But if that's to happen it will come about as a result of appropriate adult role models and guidance and a political and social culture which is able to deal with sex in a less censorious and repressed way than our current elders and betters seem capable of.
It's not just in sexual matters that we lose the run of ourselves in respect of child protection. I recall situations in practice when staff resisted physical attacks only to then have questions asked as to whether there were child protection issues that needed to be addressed. One of the most traumatic situations I had to deal with was when a member of staff was held in a neck lock by an adolescent boy to the point where he needed emergency hospitalisation. Two other members of staff looked on, paralysed in part by a belief that they could not intervene physically to prevent this. Just as it's not child protection to think you can prevent adolescent sex by legislating against it, neither is it a child protection matter to stand by and watch a colleague being assaulted to the point of losing consciousness. Nor is it child protection to stand back and allow a youth to pick up a criminal charge for serious assault or attempted murder because we're so conditioned by the child protection discourse to believe that we're not allowed to intervene to prevent this.
I've just returned from a conference where I was giving a paper on youth crime and residential child care. One of the audience, who had a background as a children's panel member (the Scottish juvenile justice system), commented that she struggled to know what to do with older adolescent boys referred to her. Reflecting on this, one can't fail to make the links. In the prevailing climate staff are afraid to enter into authentic and authoritative relationships with youth. As workers and as a society, we've become scared of the kids. And when we're scared we become more punitive. We want to lock more of them up and subject them to an array of programmes to iron out their cognitive distortions. Or to manage their anger – anger that would be far less intense if we felt empowered to challenge it at an earlier point in the course of our everyday interactions with youth. When we get to the stage where child protection starts to operate against the best interests of children and those who care for them, then we've reduced the term to absurdity.
But still, the primary lens through which most social workers view their work is a child protection one. They will continue to close down discussion by putting on a serious voice and stating, “That would be a child protection matter.” And of course, the result (some might say the purpose) of that statement is to get any non-believers to back off . “Oh well, if it’s a child protection matter, I'll just have to go away and suspend my critical faculties for a bit.”
This isn't good enough. I suggest that the next time we hear a politician trot out the “That would be a child protection matter” mantra, we shout at the telly or write a letter saying “No Minister, that would be an ass protection matter.” And when a fellow professional tries to foreclose meaningful discussion in the same way ask them what the feck they mean. And just like Fr. Jack you might find that they begin to unravel.
