1. The reason I defend against blanket criticism is because there is rarely a blanket failing in my experience. But from experience, 'inconsistency' is a major barrier to achieving successful #child #safeguarding and the inclusion of #parents within the welfare of their child.

2. That, at 16, a child (in law) can deem themselves #homeless and be provided #accommodation, without the parent being consulted (when there are no allegations) is, IMO, part of the problem. Information held by the parent is then ignored regarding concerns of #vulnerability.

3. That the #college reminds the parent they are legally responsible for their child's #education, but declines to provide them with #patterns or #absence, despite knowing they are not living at home... is far from constructive.

4. That local misaligned opinion of what #risk and #vulnerability represents, creates different #thresholds = 'signs' being missed or misunderstood. When this combines with a failure to fully engage parents, it compounds the potential for #harm and increases anxiety.

5. When there are zero suggestions the parent is part of the initial problem, but strong suggestions other people are - the system surely has a duty of care to bring the parent close, not treat them as an unhelpful component under the cover of #confidentiality of the child.

6. That a child can have so much agency and influence over choice and disclosure (to their parent), while not actually receiving the levels of supervision and third party care a parent provides, creates barriers between professionals and parents that undermine #safeguarding.

7. What it also creates is a vacuum within which exploiters thrive. Not only is #snitching part of the conditioning, but "use your rights" and "play the system". #Children are being schooled in manipulating the system and SOME professionals are not seeing this in behaviour.