Child protection, or Self-protection?
Safeguarding systems depend on professional judgement. But what happens when the system becomes more focused on defending past decisions than protecting children from risk?
When a Local Authority supports a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) through the Family Court of England and Wales, it becomes part of that authority’s official professional judgement.
If the authority later acknowledges that their risk assessment may have been inadequate, it can imply:
● inadequate social work assessment
● incomplete or misleading evidence
● flawed legal advice or flawed evidence presented to the court
Senior leaders sometimes fear this could expose the council to:
● legal challenges
● compensation claims
● reputational damage
So, the system can drift toward defending the original decision rather than re-examining it.
Safeguarding inquiries have repeatedly criticised this pattern of response to new evidence.
The “court reliance” problem
Courts rely heavily on the Local Authority’s professional assessment when granting SGOs.
Once the order is granted, councils can hide behind a “court decision”.
In reality, a family court judge can only assess the evidence placed before them — not whether that evidence was accurate or complete. This is especially relevant when a family’s opportunity to have their evidence is curtailed by heard by short court hearings, a lack of legal aid and no budget for other ‘expert witnesses’.
If the Local Authority has not provided the court with accurate or complete evidence available at the time of the SGO hearing, or new information has since emerged, it is dishonest and negligent for a Local Authority to hide behind the original court decision.
Fear of destabilising a placement
SGOs are designed to provide permanence and stability for children.
Councils know that if they challenge the placement they previously endorsed, it could lead to disruption of the children’s home life and criticism that they created harmful instability for the children.
This can lead to a “wait for evidence of harm” mindset, even though statutory safeguarding duties emphasise preventing harm rather than reacting to it.
But if the identified risk in the SGO is child sexual abuse, Local Authorities must be brave about creating instability in the placement in order to mitigate against the risk of lifelong harms caused by child sexual abuse.
In their decision making, authorities need to be aware of both “optimism bias” and “status quo bias”. The human temptation to ignore risk and not to disrupt things are powerful drivers, particularly when to change anything would draw unwelcome attention to previous poor decision making. When our own children are at risk, we tend to think differently about risk. When the state intervenes in children’s lives, they should be as vigilant and risk averse as a good parent.
A reasonable measure for any Local Authority dealing with serious concerns over an existing SGO would be to ask this question: if this were my child, would I leave them in this placement? If the answer is no, then the Local Authority must act.
Defensive leadership culture
After high-profile safeguarding failures, councils often become very risk-aware about criticism.
This can lead to hyper-defensive leadership, where the focus shifts from child protection to self-protection.
Individual leaders may hold tightly to their original decision out of fear of the professional impact on them if they revisit the decision, particularly if they have already been associated with a serious safeguarding failure.
The “no current evidence of harm” threshold problem
Some councils interpret safeguarding thresholds narrowly.
They may say intervention requires:
● current signs of abuse
● direct disclosure from the children
● physical evidence
But safeguarding guidance generally emphasises risk assessment, not just evidence of harm.
Numerous Serious Case Reviews have identified this same pattern — where professionals recognised risk but delayed intervention until harm became visible.
What should happen in a good authority
In a Local Authority with a laser like focus on child protection, there would be two questions to address as soon as credible evidence about the risks posed by a special guardian emerged:
Was the original SGO decision flawed, and if so why?
Is the authority properly reassessing risk now that new information exists?
A Local Authority can and should challenge an SGO if they think they made a mistake in supporting it. If a survivor comes forward and gives credible, first-hand testimony to a Director of Children’s Services about historic child sexual abuse by a special guardian, what Local Authority would not act?
Only an authority more focused on self-protection than child protection.