When my two-year-old and I went along to ‘check out' a local private nursery, I liked all the educational toys, the outdoor equipment and the opportunities for creative play. But what really impressed me was the fact that when little Thomas fell down and began to cry, one of the staff immediately lifted him into her arms for a cuddle.

Physical contact is unavoidable when you work with children -especially when they are quite small. A quick hug is usually good medicine for a bruised knee or damaged pride. A restraining arm can be crucial in keeping a child from physical harm, and taking a Little hand in your own is often helpful in drawing them into an activity or instructing them.

Anyone who works with children knows it is not realistic to think that physical touch can be, or should be, avoided at all costs. Touch only becomes dangerous when it is violent, when it's linked with lack of respect for the child as a person, when it occurs in an inappropriate context, or when it comes from a worker's own need for contact rather than a child's.

Even those who work to prevent child abuse acknowledge that touch is an important ingredient in children's work David and Pauline Pearson help churches, and children through the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service, run by PCCA Child Care. Pauline, a social worker with PCCA, comments, Without touch children die inside'. David, Director of CCPAS,, agrees: Touch is not only normal, but an essential part of life for young and older children.'

David points you to the story of the ‘prodigal son' when you ask him what the Bible has to say about physical contact. When the father sees his returning son he runs to him embraces and kisses him. Would the son have felt so welcomed, so forgiven if he had been greeted with a handshake?

Wherever we come from, whatever our gender, most of us have seen the positive, Loving, healing aspects of physical touch. But many of us have also seen or heard how something that can be good and beautiful can also be twisted into something ugly and evil. How then can we protect the children we work with, but avoid ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

KEEPING TO THE BOOK
Some churches and Christian organisations have published guidelines for their children's workers aimed at keeping children safe. These booklets are not specifically about touch but the guidelines, when followed, are bound to prevent or impose Limits on situations where physical contact might be abused.

Such publications have come into being at a time when there is heightened awareness of child abuse and of the needs and rights of children. The Children Act 1989 emphasise protecting children, putting children first and giving them voice in their future.

A couple of years before the Children Act came into force, Scripture Union was working on what it calls its ‘best practice model'. ‘We focused ourselves on child safety,' says Head of Missions, Janet Morgan, ‘which naturally covered the issue of physical contact.

Affection is natural between adults and children, but generally it should be initiated by the child. It should not be prolonged the worker will have to be sensitive to the child's needs. And corporal punishment, in any form whatsoever, should not be used.

RUMOURS
With the exception of its comments on corporal punishment - smacking, slapping and shaking are illegal within the context of residential and day care - the Children Act doesn't seem to address the physical contact issue. Volume 2, entitled ‘Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children', states: ‘It is permissible to take necessary action in an emergency to prevent personal injury either to the child, other children or an adult or serious damage to property.' (Presumably this means it's ok to take hold of a child who is about to walk out into the road in front of a moving car.)

I couldn't find mention of any other aspect of physical contact as I read through the Act. Yet, somehow the rumour's gone out that ‘because of the Children Act, we're not allowed to touch children anymore.

David Pearson comments, ‘At CCPAS's child abuse seminars, lollipop and school dinner ladies have told us they are under written instruction not to touch children. One of these women added that she is also the first aid worker! I think these sorts of rules have to do with bureaucracies wanting to play it safe'.

In other words, those who work with children are not always clear about what the Children Act actually says. To protect themselves, and the children with whom they work~ some have, therefore, drawn up very strict rules (sometimes bordering on the nonsensical). ‘We do need guidelines,' says Pearson, ‘but let them be practical, realistic, safe boundaries.'

In an attempt to do that, the Baptist Union published ‘Safe to Grow: Guidelines on child protection for the local church and its youth leaders'. In the foreword of this excellent booklet, General Secretary David Coffey says, ‘It is a sad fact that amongst Christian people, as in the wider society, children can be hurt. So in our children's and youth work we cannot be satisfied until we are sure we have done all in our power to protect them from harm of all kinds.'

Safe to Grow, and the Methodist Church's publication, ‘Safeguarding Children and Young People' were produced in response to ‘ Safe From Harm ', the 1993 Code of Practice which followed the Children Act. Written in consultation with children's and youth workers, minister, social workers, survivors of abuse and BU's solicitor, Safe to Grow seeks to make the government's recommendations accessible to every church. They have slightly altered the wording of the 13 recommended principles - none of which are specific dictates on physical touch to clarify their relevance to churches.

‘Churches hold a trusted position in the community,' according to Safe to Grow. ‘We will be expected to follow the recommendations so that all who work with children and young people, as well as the church's leaders, know how to:

• protect them from abuse and
• act responsibly if abuse is discovered or disclosed.

Another helpful resource, though out of print at the moment, is ‘Taking Care', a church response to children, adults and abuse by Helen Armstrong. Published in 1991 by the National Children's Bureau, the Taking Care training pack reminds children's workers of the ‘intrinsic worth and value of each child'.

QUESTIONS TO ASK
when considering whether an aspect of our behaviour towards children is right or wrong we need to ask ourselves:

• is what I am doing pleasing to Christ
• promoting Christian love
• contributing to building up the Body of Christ
• giving dignity and self-worth to a fellow member of God's kingdom?

I think these are good questions to ask ourselves when we're trying to determine whether or not touch is appropriate.

Recently my own little girl ‘rebuked' me when I touched her in a way she didn't appreciate. I'm often tempted to run my fingers through her soft wavy baby-fine hair and she doesn't seem to mind. But not long ago I also gave her a little pat on the head and I guess it was like the way you would pat a puppy. Amy told me in no uncertain terms, ‘Don't do that'. I was surprised at the firmness in that two-year-old voice, but I respected it. ‘OK,' I said. ‘I'm sorry'.

Children are little people, not appendages of their parents. We need to ‘give dignity and self-worth to these fellow members of God's kingdom'.

One thing we can do to help protect our children and those with whom we work is to help them learn the difference between ‘good' and ‘bad' or unwelcome touch. Recognising that it's not always easy for a child to determine whether an adult's behaviour towards them is right or wrong, the Canada Film Board produced ‘Feeling Yes, Feeling No'. Some Edinburgh primary schools near my home have made use of this children's training video, with its catchy theme song: My body's nobody's body but mine. You mind your own body; let me mind mine.

This spring more than 600,000 Cubs and Scouts throughout the UK are to receive special warning packs telling them how to avoid situations where sex abuse may occur. The new guidelines have been drawn up in conjunction with the children's charity ‘Childline' and will be aimed at all Scout members from 6-20 years old.

SAFETY MEASURES
Another area where we can take more care to protect children is in the appointment of our workers. Often churches are so desperate for children's and youth workers that they'll take anyone and everyone. Workers cannot be checked against police records unless your group is one which needs to be registered (eg a nursery or playgroup). But we can take care to vet any applicants carefully before appointing them. The absence of a conventional children's ministry is better than one which puts children at risk. If everyone is treated alike any vetting will be seen as fair.

Finally, it should go without saying that all churches and organisations which work with children should have good public liability insurance. One church only discovered its insurance did not cover workers over a certain age when an elderly worker slapped a child and the parents threatened to sue! Churches have a duty to protect both their children and those who give their time to serve them.

I doubt there is any way we can totally ‘play it safe' when we think about physical touch and our work with children. What we can all do is urge our church to adopt a policy statement committing itself to the safe care and growth of children. We can investigate what other churches are doing, and then draw up our own thoughtful but realistic guidelines. What we don't want to do is to create a sterile environment, where we avoid physical contact, robbing our children of an essential element of life.

‘My advice to any children's worker wanting to play it totally safe,' says David Pearson, ‘is to stay at home .... and hope the house doesn't catch fire!"

This article has been reproduced from Children's Ministry Magazine by kind permission

 

Click here to return to the Articles menu.