In our ongoing exploration of contextual safeguarding, we've underscored the crucial need to understand and address the harms children face outside the family home. This paradigm shift rightly moves away from solely focusing on parental actions as the source of risk. However, we must not overlook the complex reality that parents themselves can be caught within dynamics beyond their control, dynamics that profoundly impact a child's safety and well-being in the external world.

Two such critical dynamics are parental alienation (or coerced attachment) and post-separation abuse. In the first (to be considered in the context of previous dynamics), one parent relentlessly attempts to sever a child's bond with the other parent and/or grandparents. This insidious behaviour doesn't just inflict emotional pain; it actively strips a child of vital protective social capital and can significantly amplify existing vulnerabilities. Ignoring this in our contextual safeguarding efforts is not just a oversight, it's a potential catalyst for further harm.

This brings me back to a point starkly illustrated in my recent post, "Active Omission in Child Exploitation: The Dangerous Game Local Authorities Play." There, Local Authority B, citing "safeguarding," unilaterally shared sensitive information with Local Authority A without the targeted parent's consent.

The fallout? A parent left feeling exposed and dangerously vulnerable. Why? Because their past experiences had taught them that any shared detail, however innocuous it might seem to professionals, could be weaponised by the alienating parent, relayed to the child, and used to further fracture their relationship, a tactic that had proven devastatingly effective for months. In this context, professional thoughtlessness wasn't just an error; it was a direct instigator of increased risk.

The narrow focus on 'child safeguarding' alone is a dangerous oversight. Undermine the protective parent, and you directly impact the child's well-being beyond the home, with potential far-reaching societal consequences. 

The welcome evolution of contextual safeguarding recognises that applying generic child protection procedures indiscriminately to parents navigating extra-familial risks can be counterproductive, even harmful. Traditional child-protection procedures risk blaming and shaming the very individuals striving to keep their children safe. The burgeoning development of Risk Outside the Home (ROTH) policies signals a positive shift towards working with parents as partners, not viewing them as problems to be managed.

The insensitive handling of information in the aforementioned case, the unadulterated sharing of a form, robbed the targeted parent of agency at multiple levels. There was no opportunity for discussion, no request for informed consent, no consideration of a modified version that could have conveyed essential information with an implied professional concern from Local Authority B. At the very least, a crucial conversation weighing the risks to the parent and their relationship against the perceived harm (despite the parent having already approached Local Authority A on three prior occasions) was utterly absent. Even a basic reassurance of follow-up, particularly given the inter-authority "blame game," would have demonstrated a modicum of care.

Instead? Silence. The familiar chilling echo of disregard.

To truly safeguard children within their broader social contexts, we must equip social workers and safeguarding professionals with the nuanced understanding and skills to navigate these treacherous relational landscapes. We need practices that prioritise:

Only by moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and embracing a more sensitive, relational, and trauma-informed lens can we truly support parents in managing contextual safeguarding challenges without inadvertently amplifying the very risks we aim to mitigate. The silence must be broken with thoughtful, collaborative action. 

#contextualsafeguarding #ROTH #HOTH #engagement #trauma