Our complete
recommendations (Recommendations 45 to 60)
Records
3.4.1 The importance of good record keeping
in the context of selection, appointment and subsequent
checks on individuals (see above) and also in the context
of allegations (see below) can hardly be exaggerated.
Inadequate records mean uncertainty and confusion about
what was done - e.g. whether proper checks were made,
allegations and concerns fully investigated, or decisions
made on proper evidence by the right people. We have these
general recommendations:
Recommendation 45. As far as
possible, records should be made at the time of a check,
allegation or other event (so that the memory is fresh
and accurate).
Recommendation 46. Confidentiality
of records should be scrupulously maintained. Information
in them should only be released to those in positions
of responsibility who have good reason to need it for
the protection of children.
Individuals are, of course, entitled
to access to information about themselves, subject to
certain statutory exclusions.
Recommendation 47. Records
in relation to individuals and allegations should be
kept for a long time - we recommend 100 years as a minimum.
We recognise that 100 years is a very
long time but child abuse frequently comes to light many
years after it occurred and it is very desirable, when
it does, to be able to access records of the time. This
points in particular to not destroying records when individuals
die.
Responding to allegations of abuse
3.5.1 In this report we use the term
'disclosure' to describe the situation where a specific
allegation of abuse is made against a named individual,
and 'suspicion' for the situation where there is no disclosure
but there is concern that abuse may have taken place or
be in prospect. There is, therefore, no presumption on
our part that abuse has in fact taken place when we talk
of a disclosure being made or a suspicion raised. We want
to emphasise this because we are aware that the words,
particularly 'disclosure', can carry such a connotation.
We believe, however, that it would be too unwieldy to
be constantly using the phrases 'alleged disclosure' and
'alleged suspicion' and we do not propose to do so. The
same applies to 'victim' and 'survivor'.
3.5.2 The 1994 Guidelines were written
specifically to address situations where there were disclosures
or suspicions of abuse. We have reviewed the arrangements
and set out here our thinking about the essential elements
of good procedure. Many of them are covered in the 1994
Guidelines and others are already the rule in many dioceses.
The 1994 Guidelines do, however, need revision and we
recommend that this should be undertaken by the National
Child Protection Unit as a priority task.
3.5.3 The 1994 Guidelines require bishops
to appoint a 'delegate' to take the lead for the Church
in responding to allegations. These 'delegates' have come
to be known as Child Protection Co-ordinators (CPCs) and
we have already made recommendations (8 to 15) about them.
In relation to responding to allegations, their role must
be to ensure that arrangements and trained personnel are
in place to respond to allegations.
Recommendation 48. The CPC
must ensure that arrangements and trained personnel
are in place to respond to allegations.
3.5.4 In order to respond effectively
to allegations every diocese and religious order must
have a properly composed Child Protection Management Team
(CPMT) to deal effectively with any reports or incidents.
The CPMT should work closely with the statutory agencies
(social services and the police). We believe that the
CPC would normally chair this Team and that it should
include child care professionals, a lawyer, a communications
officer, a lay person and a priest. Other expert members
may be appropriate in particular circumstances. In addition
it will sometimes be necessary to undertake assessments
(see 3.5.14) of the immediate danger to children and to
recommend appropriate action. The CPMT will need to ensure
that this is done to a high standard. We do not envisage
that members of the CPMT will be paid except for the reimbursement
of legitimate expenses.
Recommendation 49. Every diocese
and religious order must have a properly composed Child
Protection Management Team to deal effectively with
any reports or incidents.
Recommendation 50. The CPC
should normally chair the Child Protection Management
Team, which should include suitably trained child care
professionals, a solicitor, a communications officer,
a lay person and a priest. Other expert members may
be appropriate in particular circumstances.
3.5.5 The Child Protection Management
Team needs to meet at least quarterly so that its members
can speak with confidence and monitor the overall diocesan
or religious order strategy in respect of child protection
issues. The task of the Team needs to be clearly defined
and care taken to ensure that it does not usurp the work
of strategy meetings which are normally convened and chaired
by statutory workers. The CPMT's tasks include advising
and supporting the CPC, assisting with decision making,
hearing what action has been taken in response to disclosures
or suspicions, ensuring that the statutory agencies are
involved with appropriate speed, receiving information
on steps taken to remove paid or lay workers, or a priest,
from post while enquiries are made, and satisfying themselves
that arrangements are made to safeguard the interests
of children. They have a particularly important role when
concerns are expressed but no court proceedings are likely
and may advise on the steps to be taken in order to assess
risk and the subsequent management of the person accused.
Even in these cases, the advice and involvement of the
statutory services should always be considered.
Recommendation 51. The Child
Protection Management Team should meet at least quarterly.
Its tasks include advising and supporting the CPC, assisting
with decision making, hearing what action has been taken
in response to disclosures or suspicions, ensuring that
the statutory agencies are involved with appropriate
speed, receiving information on steps taken to remove
paid or lay workers, or a priest, from post while enquiries
are made, and satisfying themselves that arrangements
are made to safeguard the interests of children.
Receipt of an allegation
3.5.6 An allegation is most likely to
surface either through a victim making a disclosure or
a third party reporting a suspicion. Such disclosures
or suspicions may be made to a priest or other member
of the Church, to an 'independent person' (see Recommendation
26), or to a helpline, the local social services or police.
It seems to us that the following points would constitute
best practice:
Recommendation 52. Disclosures
and suspicions should always be investigated and acted
on swiftly. The Paramountcy Principle (that the welfare
of the child is the paramount consideration in proceedings
concerning children) applies.
Recommendation 53. Anybody
who receives a disclosure should advise the maker of
it to share it with the statutory agencies and the CPC
as soon as possible and should support him or her in
doing so, especially if the maker of the disclosure
is a child. The person receiving the disclosure should
him/herself share it with the statutory agencies and
the CPC if he/she believes that it will not otherwise
be shared with them.
Recommendation 54. Anybody
who receives a suspicion should advise the reporter
of it to share it at least with the CPC and should support
him or her in doing so, especially if the reporter of
the suspicion is a child. The CPC will arrange for an
initial assessment and bring in the statutory agencies
as necessary. The person receiving the suspicion should
him/herself share it with the CPC if he/she believes
that it will not otherwise be shared with them.
Recommendation 55. The person
receiving the disclosure or suspicion (or the CPC) should
write to the person who has made the disclosure or reported
the suspicion setting out the advice they gave and providing
information about contact addresses, etc. Where the
person who raised the concern is a child or vulnerable
adult particular care will be needed about how, and
sometimes about whether, this is done.
Recommendation 56. When information
about a disclosure or suspicion is received by the CPC,
she/he should write to the person who raised the concern
to indicate how the matter will be dealt with and to
give an estimate of how long it may take. Subsequently
they should be kept informed about what is being done,
subject to legal constraints and appropriate confidentiality;
in the case of a disclosure such action will be a matter
for the statutory agencies. Where the person who raised
the concern is a child or vulnerable adult particular
care will be needed about how, and sometimes about whether,
this is done.
Recommendation 57. In due course
the National Unit should issue guidance on best practice
timescales for follow up action on disclosures and suspicions.
Recommendation 58. Any information
offered 'in confidence' (unless it is the confidentiality
of the confessional which is absolute) should be received
on the basis that it will be shared with the CPC and,
if appropriate, the statutory agencies.
Recommendation 59. Otherwise
careful confidentiality should be observed and information
only be shared on the basis of a strict 'need to know'.
It is particularly important that the
alleged abuser is not alerted at this stage.
3.5.7 We know that many cases do not
present themselves straightforwardly. For example, a recipient
might be told that the victim only wants a personal apology
and does not want the statutory agencies to be informed.
The recipient, however, must consider that other children
may be at risk, and this may be so even if the disclosure
is of abuse that took place some years before. In such
a case we believe that the statutory agencies must be
informed.
3.5.8 Or the approach may be through
a third party in which case every effort should be made
to establish dialogue directly between the victim and
a trained professional.
3.5.9 Or the person bringing an allegation
forward may insist on absolute confidentiality as a condition
of sharing information. It is most important to make it
clear from the beginning that confidentiality must be
refused if the information to be given relates to matters
which might have to be referred to the statutory agencies
or the Church's child protection machinery. Otherwise,
there are considerable risks involved in receiving information
on this basis, both to individuals who may be exposed
to abuse so long as the information cannot be shared and
to the recipient of the information who may be put in
an impossible position. For these reasons we believe that
the recipient should make every effort to convince the
bringer of the information that such absolute confidentiality
is in no one's best interests. But if they cannot so convince
them then we believe that the confidentiality must be
refused.
False allegations
3.5.10 Most concerns are raised in good
faith and have some foundation. This is well supported
by the evidence concerning cases in the Church. Nonetheless
it is also important to recognise that false, even malicious,
allegations of abuse are sometimes made and that they
can have very destructive effects on those concerned.
This makes it important both that alleged abusers are
given proper support while an initial process of discernment
is taking place, and that appropriate action is taken
to reinstate individuals quickly when allegations are
found to be false. Appropriate action should be taken
to hold the makers of malicious allegations to account.
Whistle blowing
3.5.11 In other settings the concept
of the whistle blower (i.e. a member of an organisation
who wishes to report on concerns about that organisation
or the actions of people within it) has proved useful.
In the context of the Church a 'whistle blower' might
be defined as a priest, lay worker or volunteer who has
and reports concerns about another member of the organisation.
Such people may well feel considerable anxiety in raising
and reporting concerns. These anxieties are likely to
be greater if they believe that people of high standing
in the Church are involved, or that their concern may
not be acted on or that their own position may be put
at risk. They need to have confidence that their concerns
will be taken seriously and acted on appropriately.
3.5.12 We intend that the procedures
we have set out for making and handling allegations should
be capable of use by members of the Church and that they
should be reassured that no blame or suspicion of having
'let the side down' will be attached to them. Rather the
contrary. This is therefore a crucial cultural issue for
the Church: to make it clear in all work on training and
awareness in this field that members of the Church who
bring forward concerns are acting in the interests of
the Church (and should be so regarded by all other members
of the Church, not just the authorities), that they will
be treated with respect, have their concerns taken seriously
and have absolutely nothing to fear in regard to their
own position. In particular, there should be reassurance
that taking concerns directly to the statutory authorities
is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
3.5.13 This is easier said than done.
Our proposals for responding to allegations of abuse are,
in management speak, 'off-line', i.e. they do not assume
that the priest or bishop, or a lay manager if there is
one, should be the first port of call. Concerned individuals
can go to the 'independent person' for the diocese or
parish, to the CPC or, indeed, to any individual they
trust. We can see, however, that in some circumstances
those with concerns may still be anxious. So we recommend
that in addition, they should be able to approach the
Head of the NCPU or named members of the NCPU's advisory
group (see Recommendation 20). In addition:
Recommendation 60. The NCPU
should draw up a policy on whistle blowing in the context
of concerns about child abuse.
|
