Copyright © 2005 All rights reserved. [Churches Child Protection Advisory Service]
There are a number of children's workers and leaders who feel that they can no longer touch children. They think that their every move is suspect. This saddens me greatly although child protection polices and safe practice guidelines are absolutely essential if the safety of children is to be ensured in churches and other organisations caring for children. I would argue that the need of the church for such procedures is greater than elsewhere, as churches are open to everyone.
However, safe practice need not involve keeping children at arm's length. Such a negative approach not only neglects children's needs but is demoralising to workers. CCPAS is the lead Christian child protection agency working uniquely across denominations throughout the British Isles. We publish model child protection policies and guidelines and produce a range of training resources. These services are supported by the Department of Health, the Association of Chief Police Officers and leaders from across the church spectrum. Over the past few years we have run thousands of child protection training sessions in churches, including on behalf of Dioceses of the Church of England and children's organisations such as Campaigners.
I am very well aware of attitudes which prevail in some quarters. Some infant school teachers who have attended our seminars say they are not allowed to hold a young child's hand, let alone give a hug. To my mind this is an example of bureaucracies' extreme attempts to protect themselves and ignoring the needs of children and, of course, of workers, too, who have a need for sensible guidelines. Others will tell us that they would not place themselves in a situation where they are alone with a child. These are not universal attitudes as other agencies are required to work with children differently. For example, social workers see children on their own, and indeed the law makes this a requirement in certain circumstances. Foster carers and others providing substitute care for children will still, thankfully, give them a hug.
Physical contact is unavoidable when you work with children especially when they are small. Touch becomes dangerous when there is a lack of respect for a child, when it's violent or related to the worker's own needs rather than those of a child. Touch is not only normal but an essential part of life in the developing child. Without touch, children die inside.
In a biblical context, Jesus took children up in his arms and He blessed them but he never abused a child. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, would the son have felt so welcomed, so forgiven if he had been greeted with a handshake? What we have seen is something which is good, wholesome and healing turned into something abusive and evil. Sadly, we hear stories every day on our helpline about children being abused in churches, schools and other places where they ought to be safe. So where should we draw the line in our children's groups? Clearly our workers have to know and need our support.
Many years ago we developed guidelines on “touch” which we teach in our seminars and these are followed by many churches and organisations, and were even adopted by the Mother's Union.
The basic principles we suggest are:
So what does this mean in practice? A seven year old comes to your group, perhaps a pet has died. You would like to give him a hug. For many children this would be reassuring; for others it might be very uncomfortable for them, or even abusive. So how are you supposed to know? You could gently say to the child, “ Would you like me to give you a hug? ” If the child says, “ Yes, please ”, then you would be working within the above guidelines.
What about the other end of the age spectrum? A 15 year old girl flies across the youth club every week and flings her arms around the youth worker to say she's arrived. The youth worker needs to know what he should do. We would say that in such circumstances where this is not overtly sexual, then a quick sideways hug (in a public place, of course) allowing the young person to give the worker a peck on the cheek would be acceptable. We feel strongly that such guidance should be written down so everyone knows the ground rules, including the young people themselves. You are more likely to know then if your workers overstep the mark.
We feel that children should be able to share troubles privately. Again, we can provide guidelines. By the way, a glass panel in a door can be very effective in protecting children and guarding against the possibility of workers being falsely accused. So often the answer is fairly simple, though in some of our historic church buildings perhaps it's not that easy! Again, those who work every day with children, eg social workers, teachers, child minders etc, will often be in situations where they are with a child on their own so why do we make such a big issue of this? Of course, it's sensible to have two workers in an activity and many child protection policies make this a requirement for a church.
When I ask workers why this is, most respond in terms of keeping an eye on each other! Isn't the real answer that you need two workers in case there's an emergency and one worker has to rush off to the hospital with a child? In other words, we accept that there are situations where workers will be alone with children and, indeed, the criteria for police checks for potential workers (available later this year) are that the individual will have substantial, unsupervised contact with children. In any event, we have known situations where more than one worker in a church has been involved in abusing a child, so we need to do a lot more than not being with children on their own and keeping them at arm's length, etc. An important part of child protection in a church is the careful recruitment, supervision and support of workers.
When it comes to practice issues we can give a view, but it's up to each church or group to decide on their own policy, and it is possible to come to different conclusions. For example, one youth organisation has an absolute rule that workers should not share sleeping accommodation with children. Another says that on dormitory holidays a worker will always sleep in the same room as the children. Might such a policy have saved the life of a child in that French hostel? We need therefore to accept that though there are some things which you should never do, or which would be unwise (like one child and an adult sharing a tent), there are other areas where there are no absolutes. However, once the policy has been debated and decided upon, all workers should adhere to it, and children, young people and their parents should be aware of the requirements.
In my view, some policies I have seen do little to protect children and might even in themselves be abusive. For example, armadas of workers taking children to the toilet and leaving doors open. Rather than making a spectacle of such events is it not more sensible for an approved worker to take a child to a toilet and encourage privacy by just pushing the door to?
I think some of the rules which are developed are panic measures and often devised by people who don't understand the nature of abuse. Though I have no doubt children have been abused in toilets, generally what happens is far more insidious. A child might be targeted and groomed on church premises and then contact made outside where the abuse takes place. Sadly, there is a danger that church management bodies, PCCs etc will spend so much time devising their rules that they miss the real issues.
What I have described in this response is of course within a context of a child and carer/worker relationship. These principles should not be translated inappropriately to other situations. For example, as a social worker visiting a family, where the children are in great need for one reason or another, I have often faced a situation where a young child I had not previously met tries to sit on my lap. I would avoid this at all costs. To act otherwise could suggest to a child that it's OK to seek physical contact with someone they don't know. For the same sorts of reasons we should be careful before we expect children to “kiss everyone goodnight”. I have seen people in churches kissing and cuddling children not related to them in any way. What sort of message does this give a child or opportunity to a perpetrator of abuse?
In this article, I have of course only “touched” upon a few issues. We work hard at trying to help churches develop policies and safe practice for protecting children. I firmly believe that in following certain principles we can not only make church a safer place but provide better care and nurture for vulnerable children and at the same time minimise the risk of adults being falsely accused of abuse so they no longer have to live in a climate of fear.
