Imagine the knot of fear in a parent's stomach as they witness their child being drawn into influences and situations far beyond the safety of their home. This is the reality within contextual safeguarding, where the focus shifts to addressing harm occurring outside the family unit. In these challenging circumstances, parents can become an invaluable source of information, yet they often grapple with immense internal conflict.

This internal conflict may be described as cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. For a parent, this might manifest as the deep-seated instinct to maintain a relationship with their child and yet tell the truth, protect their home and yet need to speak openly about concerning behaviours or external pressures their child is facing. This internal tug-of-war can be incredibly distressing. Providing parents with supportive, confidential outlets and clear pathways to share information is therefore absolutely vital.   

Parents' possess a unique perspective, privy to conversations, observations, and details that professionals might never access. They might see the drug paraphernalia, understand the nuances of (online) interactions, or be aware of developing feuds and concerning individuals within their child's wider social circles. Holding this crucial intelligence in a world that often feels alien and threatening can place an unbearable burden on the parent(s). So, how can authorities inadvertently hinder, even harm, or, more importantly, effectively help these crucial partners?

Sadly, authorities can hinder their involvement in several ways. Blocking information, dismissing safeguarding concerns raised by parents, or even sharing sensitive information without their consent can erode trust and shut down vital communication. These were highlighted in previous posts like "Active Omission in Child Exploitation: The Dangerous Game Local Authorities Play" and "Active Omission Revisited: When Contextual Safeguarding Ignores the Targeted Parent," a lack of transparency and action can have severe consequences.

Astonishingly, while the Education Act mandates that schools treat parents equally, even when separated, this principle isn't consistently applied across all agencies. If one parent is proactive and attempts to share critical information, the police or other authorities can, consciously or unconsciously, choose to liaise with them or not, depending whether they are the 'resident parent'. In such instances, ignoring a concerned parent effectively renders the authorities complicit in the very processes of grooming and exploitation that thrive in silence and a lack of accessible pathways for reporting and support.

We must acknowledge that we live in a modern world where parental control and influence extend only so far. Parents can lack the specialised knowledge and resources of authorities to navigate complex extra-familial risks. What they desperately need is not brick walls and closed doors, but the expertise and active participation of those with this knowledge, and thus power if they choose to engage or not. Parents want to be involved in finding solutions, brainstorming preventative measures within the family environment, and feeling confident that authorities are actively working to address the dangers their children face outside.

Organisations like the Ivison Trust (formerly known as PACE) understand this reality intimately. Having supported countless families navigating these difficult situations, they have learned valuable lessons, many through hindsight. What if we dared to embrace foresight and proactively build genuine partnerships with parents? The individuals who seek to manipulate and exploit young people are often skilled at staying ahead. The time to forge these collaborative relationships is now, before it's too late.

Astonishingly, where layers of safeguarding are seemingly in place, two Local Authorities (A and B), the child's school (who provided a link to police in Area A), attempted police contact from Area A, the Ombudsman, and the NSPCC,  it was none of these that provided the crucial breakthrough for one parent highlighted in previous posts. Instead, it was a single police officer from Area B who, acting as a trusted contact, took the simple yet profound step of replying to a parent's email and asking for more information. This act of individual responsiveness, where others had seemingly faltered, finally allowed the parent to share their burden, knowing their concerns would be treated with sensitivity. This starkly underscores the critical intelligence held by parents and the immense distress of being unheard. Never underestimate the power that you, as any individual professional can make, by listening to one parent who is desperate to be heard.

 

#contextualsafeguarding #engagement #ROTH #HOTH #stress #trauma