Balanced approach to child protection needed
ANYBODY who works in the areas of social care, child care, or child protection will be familiar with the concept of Garda vetting. It is a process, were an individual makes an application to the gardaí for a declaration outlining whether or not they have any criminal convictions.
The purpose of the application is usually to gain employment (or a voluntary position) working with children or vulnerable adults. The thinking is that if a conviction is registered against the applicant, a potential employer will be made aware of it, and can then make an informed decision on whether or not the applicant poses a risk to their client group.
There are a number of problems with the system:
* The first is that when making an application, an individual makes a self-declaration to the gardaí outlining all of their addresses, so if the applicant simply doesn’t declare that they lived in Thailand for example, then the procedure will not highlight any convictions from there.
* Once an applicant has been vetted, they are generally not required to be vetted again for the duration of their employment. Therefore, an individual could technically gain access to children and subsequently get a conviction in another state that would not necessarily be brought to the attention of their employer.
* Assuming an individual has been truthful in the application, the procedure will only highlight convictions. It will not identify situations where allegations have been made about the applicant, but not proven. Just because you have no convictions, doesn’t mean that you are not a child abuser. It could just mean that you haven’t been caught or convicted yet.
This frightening reality has led to calls from some child protection advocacy groups for the retention by the gardaí of what is called ‘soft information’ or unproven allegations that have been made against individuals. The problem with that is that children don’t always tell the truth, or to put it another way, their truth does not always necessarily reflect reality.
Children sometimes fantasise, and we cannot always blindly accept what they say, even if they believe it to be true. You may well say a child could not fantasise about abuse, and that may be true, but equally it is important to understand that some troubled children have been exposed to the most horrendous abuse, and may present with distorted perceptions of intimacy and relationships.
It is not uncommon for these children to use sex and sexuality as a way of either seeking intimacy or as a way to hurt staff by way of false allegation.
Child protection is a very sensitive and complex issue that affects everybody in society. It needs very careful consideration and while I am in absolute agreement that children should be protected, our approach should be balanced and reasonable, not knee-jerk and emotional.
Let’s not forget Kate Middleton’s nurse, who took her own life in Britain in the aftermath of her error of professional judgement. Let’s also ask ourselves if we have ever made a mistake, had a bad day, or done something we regret in the context of our professional practice. I do not wish to minimise the actions at the centre of the Prime Time controversy on any level.
If they are true, they are wrong and the staff should be held accountable, but we should also remember that if we demonise alleged perpetrators by adopting a witch-hunt mentality, we only create a culture where people will be afraid to admit their mistakes and we will push bad practice and potential abuse underground. This will not be helpful for anybody.
Watching children being badly treated has the potential to be a perverse form of voyeurism that will serve only to hurt the parents of the children concerned and pile additional pressure onto some child care workers that as yet, are not guilty of any offence.
In my view, RTÉ has done a public service by highlighting the issues at the centre of the current child care controversy.
Now that they have raised awareness and set the wh-eels in motion for a change in Government policies, perhaps they should look at whether or not it was necessary to broadcast the documentary at all.
* John Byrne is a social care worker and psychotherapist. He has 20 years’ experience of working in child protection and lectures in social care at Waterford Institute of Technology
