Active Omission in Child Exploitation: The Dangerous Game Local Authorities Play
The Silence That Screams
Another day bleeds into night for the parent haunted by their child's vulnerability. Their child lives in Local Authority A, while this parent resides in Local Authority B, the child traversing the blurred lines between. The very individuals their child trusts are the calculated groomers and exploiters, masters of their manipulative game. This parent bears the crushing weight of unspoken truths, a familiar agony for those whose desperate warnings are swallowed by a chilling indifference. The message from Local Authority A rings with a horrifying apathy: "We'll act only when there's a death."
Imagine the rising panic, the frantic tapping on a keyboard, a desperate search for any listening ear. Should the plea go to the MP? Or perhaps the neighbouring county (Local Authority B)? In memory, their (B) rigid forms demand the child reside within their borders, a cruel irony when the very authorities meant to protect (A), stand as a wall of indifference.
The moral dilemma weighs heavily: is it necessary to bend the truth about the address to expose these inter-county links? The search for a solution, however, lands onto a different page. The local authority (B) has a new system for parents to report concerns. This takes the pressure off having to make it so formal; the decision lies with them. The desperate words take shape: "Local Authority A and their police are refusing to engage on safeguarding issues and work with parents. Weapons and drugs are infiltrating your area, and a few details are here." Information remains cagey. While gathering intel is important, the preservation of trust is paramount in this delicate situation. Further details regarding an exploitative relationship in area B only solidify the worry. The gut-wrenching fear of another dismissive email is tangible. To refuse to listen is to strike at someone's very sense of self and shatter their trust.
"There's none so deaf, as those who won't hear."*
This isn't just a proverb; it's a devastating reality for those whose pleas for help are met with bureaucratic brick walls. The impact of this silence is profound, a soul-crushing message: You are not worth our time. Your information is irrelevant. We do not value your insight.
Consider the unbearable burden on a parent grappling with information that tears at their very being: the names and addresses of dealers, the intricate web of feuds and illicit transactions, knowledge of weapons, all while their child remains caught in the dazzling, deceptive lights of this dangerous world.
Unknowingly, tragically, these young people are building their own form of "harmful social capital," a concept rooted in their lived experiences. As we understand through the lens of contextual safeguarding, this refers to the networks of relationships, shared norms, values, trust, and reciprocity within specific social contexts that actively facilitate harm and exploitation.
This harmful social capital thrives where:
Strong peer bonds normalise dangerous behaviours and exploitation. The allure of belonging can blind young people to the inherent risks.
Imagine the rising panic, the frantic tapping on a keyboard, a desperate search for any listening ear. Should the plea go to the MP? Or perhaps the neighbouring county (Local Authority B)? In memory, their (B) rigid forms demand the child reside within their borders, a cruel irony when the very authorities meant to protect (A), stand as a wall of indifference.
The moral dilemma weighs heavily: is it necessary to bend the truth about the address to expose these inter-county links? The search for a solution, however, lands onto a different page. The local authority (B) has a new system for parents to report concerns. This takes the pressure off having to make it so formal; the decision lies with them. The desperate words take shape: "Local Authority A and their police are refusing to engage on safeguarding issues and work with parents. Weapons and drugs are infiltrating your area, and a few details are here." Information remains cagey. While gathering intel is important, the preservation of trust is paramount in this delicate situation. Further details regarding an exploitative relationship in area B only solidify the worry. The gut-wrenching fear of another dismissive email is tangible. To refuse to listen is to strike at someone's very sense of self and shatter their trust.
"There's none so deaf, as those who won't hear."*
This isn't just a proverb; it's a devastating reality for those whose pleas for help are met with bureaucratic brick walls. The impact of this silence is profound, a soul-crushing message: You are not worth our time. Your information is irrelevant. We do not value your insight.
Consider the unbearable burden on a parent grappling with information that tears at their very being: the names and addresses of dealers, the intricate web of feuds and illicit transactions, knowledge of weapons, all while their child remains caught in the dazzling, deceptive lights of this dangerous world.
Unknowingly, tragically, these young people are building their own form of "harmful social capital," a concept rooted in their lived experiences. As we understand through the lens of contextual safeguarding, this refers to the networks of relationships, shared norms, values, trust, and reciprocity within specific social contexts that actively facilitate harm and exploitation.
This harmful social capital thrives where:
Strong peer bonds normalise dangerous behaviours and exploitation. The allure of belonging can blind young people to the inherent risks.
- Community norms and values become twisted, accepting or even enabling violence and abuse. Silence and inaction breed complicity.
- Organised networks actively recruit and exploit vulnerable individuals. These predators understand and manipulate social connections.
- A lack of trust and communication fractures communities, hindering collective efforts to safeguard children. When teams operate in isolation, vulnerabilities emerge.
- Entrenched social hierarchies and power imbalances leave some young people disproportionately vulnerable to exploitation. Inequality creates fertile ground for abuse.
This reality is a far cry from the hopes and dreams any decent parent holds for their child. These parents walk a tightrope, balancing their child's safety with the relationship, their own well-being and sanity. They often make agonising compromises, bending their own boundaries in a desperate attempt to keep their child within reach, away from the clutches of groomers and exploiters. One such example was: "allowing" a child to smoke in their room at night, a desperate measure to ensure they were home each evening, a shield against the greater dangers lurking outside and a preventive for going missing. One lesser evil over another. One issue tackled at a time.
These parents, acutely aware of their limitations, understand they are pitting against the sophisticated tactics of those who prey on the vulnerable. They aren't trying to make their child's life harder by taking away the social status they know; they are desperately seeking a team, a network to share vital intelligence with, to map connections, disrupt harmful patterns, and prevent further exploitation.
A reply arrives from Local Authority B. Because the child resides in Local Authority A, all the provided information has been passed on. Panic surges, accompanied by the familiar nausea. Sensitive information has been shared without consent, with an authority that already possesses the information and has historically acted impulsively and disrupted safe relationships which are key in managing contextual harm. The mind swirls with disbelief and upset, a bitter wish that the form had never been completed. Another door slammed shut, and worse, a declaration of power-over: "we will decide what to do with your information, without involving you." The parent is left trapped, achieving no resolution in safeguarding. Local Authority A refuses to act. Local Authority B shrugs and refuses to support the parent living within their area. Local Authority A insists Local Authority B should provide support to the parent, while Local Authority B argues it's Local Authority A's responsibility.
Therefore, the question must be asked: When a local authority actively refuses to engage with a parent holding crucial information, information that may even cross county lines and is relevant to the police, are they not complicit in the harm that follows?
Acts of omission speak volumes.
Turning a blind eye, refusing to listen, and failing to act on credible intelligence is not neutrality; it is a tacit endorsement of the status quo, a silent agreement with the forces that endanger children. When authorities fail to act, they fail in their fundamental duty to protect, including vulnerable adults. The silence is deafening, and in its echo, the question of complicity hangs heavy in the air. For the parent, the harrowing question remains: if safeguarding isn’t safe, then what is?
Local Authority (A)'s inaction is a triple betrayal: of the child, the community, and the solitary parent left to shoulder a burden that should never have been theirs. This cross-county chasm of responsibility leaving a parent stranded in the middle of contextual harm, doesn't just endanger lives; it crushes the very spirit of those who dare to care, the invisible wounds of their struggle deepening with each passing day. It is tragically easy to shrug off responsibility when the vulnerable reside just across an arbitrary line.
* Matthew Henry
These parents, acutely aware of their limitations, understand they are pitting against the sophisticated tactics of those who prey on the vulnerable. They aren't trying to make their child's life harder by taking away the social status they know; they are desperately seeking a team, a network to share vital intelligence with, to map connections, disrupt harmful patterns, and prevent further exploitation.
A reply arrives from Local Authority B. Because the child resides in Local Authority A, all the provided information has been passed on. Panic surges, accompanied by the familiar nausea. Sensitive information has been shared without consent, with an authority that already possesses the information and has historically acted impulsively and disrupted safe relationships which are key in managing contextual harm. The mind swirls with disbelief and upset, a bitter wish that the form had never been completed. Another door slammed shut, and worse, a declaration of power-over: "we will decide what to do with your information, without involving you." The parent is left trapped, achieving no resolution in safeguarding. Local Authority A refuses to act. Local Authority B shrugs and refuses to support the parent living within their area. Local Authority A insists Local Authority B should provide support to the parent, while Local Authority B argues it's Local Authority A's responsibility.
Therefore, the question must be asked: When a local authority actively refuses to engage with a parent holding crucial information, information that may even cross county lines and is relevant to the police, are they not complicit in the harm that follows?
Acts of omission speak volumes.
Turning a blind eye, refusing to listen, and failing to act on credible intelligence is not neutrality; it is a tacit endorsement of the status quo, a silent agreement with the forces that endanger children. When authorities fail to act, they fail in their fundamental duty to protect, including vulnerable adults. The silence is deafening, and in its echo, the question of complicity hangs heavy in the air. For the parent, the harrowing question remains: if safeguarding isn’t safe, then what is?
Local Authority (A)'s inaction is a triple betrayal: of the child, the community, and the solitary parent left to shoulder a burden that should never have been theirs. This cross-county chasm of responsibility leaving a parent stranded in the middle of contextual harm, doesn't just endanger lives; it crushes the very spirit of those who dare to care, the invisible wounds of their struggle deepening with each passing day. It is tragically easy to shrug off responsibility when the vulnerable reside just across an arbitrary line.
* Matthew Henry
#contextualsafeguarding #engagement #ROTH #HOTH