When I talk about being "disabled by society and the attitudes of others," I’m not just choosing words; I'm highlighting a lived reality. Whether it’s the constant struggle for British Sign Language (BSL) access, the exasperating lack of understanding about the nuances of English, lip-reading, and captions, or the dizzying, hidden impact of vestibular disorders, the core issue often boils down to that painful dynamic between me and "the other." When this dynamic comes from a professional in a statutory organisation, it thoroughly reinforces a feeling of being powerless, with the other person holding a dominating "power-over" position.

Lately, I’ve found myself wrestling with this dynamic, questioning my own responses. My go-to strategy, as many of you might relate to, is to intellectualise. I try to dissect their behaviours, to make them "see," to educate, to influence change. But here’s the snag: for this to work, they need to be receptive to the idea that they might, in fact, be part of the problem. Unless they're willing to do the work (reflection and changes) and are supported by their work environment and management through policies and training, forcing them to look at themselves lacks the "feel-good" factor of a quick win. Without that receptiveness, you're essentially talking to a brick wall.

References to Local Authorities appear in earlier posts, for example:

Let’s look at two recent experiences. Local Authority B has, refreshingly, taken a step towards genuine engagement. First, the Multi-Agency Screening Team acknowledged the concern and offered a meeting. When the appointed data protection agency initially brushed off my concerns about data sharing in safeguarding contexts, I pushed back. My argument was simple: for contextual safeguarding to work, the source, the individual, must feel safe.

And what happened as a result? A BSL interpreter was promptly arranged for the meeting. This communication support is crucial for me when discussing emotionally charged matters. The data protection agency is now conducting an internal review. I see this as a "pause," a moment where they’re willing to listen, acknowledge my power to influence, and commit to reviewing and potentially changing their approach. There are still a few assumptions to clarify, but the willingness to engage gives me confidence that balance can be restored.

When relationships became rocky, Local Authority B made efforts to reach out, offering time and space for shared discussion and, essentially, a 'voice'. A sense of power robbed became restored, to feel power-ful. Not to influence negatively, the incident has been done, but to influence change. This is an example of healthy communication we would want to see in any relationship; people are human, disruption happens, and repair needs to be offered and made. Role-modelling this as professionals and authorities is extremely powerful, especially if someone has a background of poor relationship modelling.

Then there’s Local Authority A. This is where the main contextual safeguarding issues lie, and their approach has been starkly different. For months, they refused to engage with any complaints process, only acting when a "letter before action" was sent. They have refused to meet and, in a truly baffling move, sent a very English-heavy email at 5:10 PM on a Friday before a bank holiday, to a Deaf person with a visual impairment. Even with reasonably good English, emotionally triggering content in a language they can never fully access is incredibly difficult to process. Can you imagine carrying that burden through a long weekend?

They "told" me I would receive a video BSL interpretation, rather than offering a human discussion that would have clarified and addressed their conclusions and assumptions. The offer to meet a separate social worker remains frustratingly unclear. When I try to intellectualise this, to "make sense of it," all it reveals is a pattern of power-over behaviours.

My mind reels, trying to problem-solve, almost obsessively scanning for answers. But there are none, because this is toxic behaviour, made all the more jarring by the fact it’s coming from professionals supposedly trained in power and relationships. The impact feels worse, like a deep betrayal.

In tears, I confided in my partner. He saw it immediately: the parallels to my past. It was actually a court-appointed psychologist who first noticed this disturbing mirroring; the way I described Local Authority A’s behaviour was chillingly similar to my ex’s relational abuse. Even now, the Psychologists' sign for "mirror" plays in my mind, the reflective nature of one to the other painfully clear.

In the context of relational abuse, it is even more confusing that the behaviour is coming from professionals who are trained to consider their role and influence on service users, building relationships, rather than tearing them down. Refusing to answer complaints? That’s stonewalling. Telling you their version of the narrative and denying you a voice? That's control and gaslighting (opposite and de-escalation methods to deal with complaints are described here by the ombudsman).

The stark contrast between Local Authority B's willingness to listen and Local Authority A's outright refusal creates a tormenting cognitive dissonance. How can professionals behave like this? How can two authorities be so different? Is it me? The questions churn, even though I know, deep down, it’s not about me at all. It’s about them, and the power they wield, often without empathy or accountability. In Part 2, I'll share how I'm learning to navigate these unseen lines and reclaim my own power. 

#contextualsafeguarding #ROTH #HOTH #engagement