Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Why the two horrific ‘Child B’ cases raise transparency questions for officials

Authorities must be open and transparent about child welfare.

While their paths would never have crossed during Hayley Davidson’s tragically short life in Fife, her story echoes that of a similar-aged youngster in Perth and Kinross.

Both were mistreated by people who should have been caring for them.

Both received inadequate support from some of the professionals whose job it was to protect them.

And both were coincidentally called “Child B” in long-delayed investigation reports which we have uncovered in recent weeks.

The separate Significant Case Reviews into the two Child Bs were also similarly quietly uploaded onto a sub-section of their local authority website, one of which has now been taken down.

They were unlikely to have been seen by anyone other than officials who work in the field. And that was probably the intention.

However, just by publishing the executive summaries at all, the child protection committees for Fife, and Perth and Kinross, went further than many.

Public must have confidence

Authorities often refuse to disclose any details about the SCRs they carry out at all.

Child protection chiefs insist the privacy of the families involved is paramount.

It is also undoubtedly the case that they fear the media attention around such SCRs can lead to the vilification of officials or family members involved, and want to move away from that “blame game”.

But that desire has to be balanced with the need for transparency.

It must be remembered that these types of reviews are only held in the most extreme cases – when a youngster has died or suffered significant harm, including as a result of neglect or abuse, and the family had been known to child protection services.

How can the public, and their parliamentary representatives, know whether our over-stretched and hard-working care staff need more support and resources, if the consequences of their most serious mistakes are kept hidden?

The life of the youngster in Perth and Kinross was saved because a member of the public alerted police with concerns for their welfare.

Last month, new guidance was issued in Scotland, which rebrands SCRs as “learning reviews”.

But how can the public have confidence that lessons have been learned when they are not told what has gone wrong in the first place?

And is it appropriate that the decision on whether or not to keep these reports secret often falls to the leaders of local organisations which might be criticised if they were published?

Duty to be open and transparent

While there were some similar issues raised as a result of the SCR of Child B in Fife, and the review into Child B in Perth and Kinross, one major difference stands out in the two cases.

The life of the youngster in Perth and Kinross was saved because a member of the public alerted police with concerns for their welfare.

Publicity around high-profile child neglect or abuse cases is known to lead to an increase in such calls from the public, as was witnessed in the wake of the infamous “Baby P” death in London in 2007.

Such a rise in referrals may lead to extra pressure on social work departments, health visitors or other officials, but if it does then there should be an informed debate around priorities, staffing and resourcing.

Because there is surely a duty to be open and transparent about past failures if it can, in any way, increase the chances that the lives of vulnerable children might be saved.