Should Any Professionals Be Named?
The recent ruling allowing the naming of judges involved in the family court proceedings of Sara Sharif has sparked widespread debate. But this raises a bigger question—why is there such an intense discussion about judges being named when social workers are routinely identified in similar tragic cases? Shouldn’t there be the same media coverage and debate when social workers are publicly named and scrutinised?
The Double Standard in Public Scrutiny
Whenever a child protection case ends in tragedy, social workers are often identified and blamed, facing public scrutiny, sometimes even threats. While judges have historically been less visible in media coverage, the recent debate about naming judges raises questions about consistency in accountability. If judges are to be protected, should the same level of concern apply to social workers?
Social workers and judges make decisions based on the same evidence, yet social workers often face harsher public criticism. If there is an argument to protect judges from public scrutiny, should the same not apply to social workers?
Should Any Safeguarding Professional Be Named?
The reality is that safeguarding professionals—whether they are judges, social workers, or healthcare professionals—work under immense pressure, making complex decisions with limited information. Mistakes can and do happen, but unless a professional has been found guilty in a court of law, should their identity be exposed to public scrutiny?
Local Authorities are named in Serious Case Reviews, ensuring institutional accountability. However, individual social workers often bear the brunt of media attention. Judges, similarly, rely on reports and assessments, yet there has been significant debate about naming them. Instead of focusing on individuals, should the emphasis be on systemic learning and safeguarding improvements?
What Is the Purpose of Naming Professionals?
Is naming professionals truly about accountability, or is it about satisfying public outrage? If accountability is the goal, it must be fair and proportionate, ensuring that those in safeguarding roles are not unfairly vilified. If it is about assigning blame, then it risks discouraging skilled professionals from continuing their vital work.
A Fairer Approach to Accountability
I don’t have the answer, but I strongly believe that all safeguarding professionals should be protected from public scrutiny unless they have been found guilty in a court of law. Transparency in child protection is important, but so is ensuring that those working tirelessly to protect children are not unfairly targeted.
Rather than focusing on individuals, we should be looking at systemic improvements—better resources, training, and support for professionals making these difficult decisions. If judges are to be protected from being named, then the same should apply to social workers. Either we extend protection to all safeguarding professionals, or we accept that naming individuals is not a productive way forward.
The debate continues, but one thing is clear—accountability must be balanced, fair, and aimed at improving outcomes, not simply assigning blame.