George Adam MSP - named person debate

It is deeply offensive when politicians use the death of a child as a political football. Who knows what that does to the families concerned?  It is even more sickening when politicians misconstrue the facts.

In the December debate in the Scottish Parliament about the Named Person policy many objections were made about Ruth Davidson`s article in the Scotsman in which she wrote about her fears that the Named Person scheme could overstretch staff who might then  fail to spot signs of abuse, leading to another case like Baby Peter or Victoria Climbie.

George Adam MSP was one of the objectors. He found Ruth Davidson`s column on the issue, inexcusable.

He then went on to use the same `inexcusable` tactic himself; this time about the death of Declan Hainey in Paisley.

"When I read the reports of the Declan Hainey case," he says, "Both when I was a councillor and later, it became apparent that no one took responsibility for that child. Both health and social care services were to blame at various points in the case. I read the reports from cover to cover, and no one was technically to blame; the problem was that no individual was responsible for making sure that the child was okay. That shows the need for the named person."

He claims to have read the reports cover to cover, but I would defy anyone to come to the same conclusion as George Adam after reading the Determination by Sheriff Ruth Anderson QC following an Inquiry held at Paisley into the circumstances of the death of Declan Hainey.

She has this to say:

I did not accept the submission made on behalf of Renfrewshire Council that the professional judgments which were made during the assessment process up to the post-birth meeting were ‘reasonable professional judgments’. Despite the lack of full information gathering, those involved in making those judgments were well aware of the history of the pregnancy, Kim Hainey’s complete failure to prepare for the birth of her child, her reluctance to cooperate in the assessment process itself, the fragility of family relationships, her chaotic drug history and the instability of her life and housing situation up until only a few weeks prior to the birth of Declan. They were aware of her consumption of alcohol on the day of her discharge from RAH on 29 January (to such an extent that she was smelling of alcohol the following day) and her refusal to accept the risks of such consumption while on a methadone programme, which had started only 6 days earlier. In addition, it was known that Kim Hainey refused to stay in for the first visit by Hugh Madden on 21 February 2008, despite the risk of her losing care of her child being explained to her by Hazel Martin. Had reasonable professional judgment been exercised, then Child Protection measures would have been taken. 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=bcb1a7a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

No child protection measures were ever taken and this was a group of professionals who specialised in the field of drug addiction.

Now just because a group of specialists fail to follow protocols and exercise reasonable judgment does not mean that a Named Person should be foisted on every child in Scotland who does not need one. On the contrary, it looks like it is specialist workers who are overstretched and need all the help they can get.

The debate: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2015-12-02.18.0