unaccompanied minors

[Mike Scott]

Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
parent/guardian.

Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?

Is a church differently treated from, say, a shop or theatre?

I'd appreciate the team's comments, especially pointers to relevant
legislation or govt guidance on the situation.

--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Jul 2023 at 17:11:06 BST, "Mike Scott"

If an eleven year old can't safely go to church on their own the world has
changed into a very strange place - America? A church should be full of
responsible adults, some of them even Christians.


--
Roger Hayter

[GB]

At the age of 6, to get to school, I used to travel 5 miles by bus, then
walk 3/4 mile. On my own quite often. It was considered normal. Dreadful
school, though.

[JNugent]

About the same here. Half a mile to the bus stop. 4.75 miles by bus
(with a free pass issued by the city council) and then 0.6 miles on
foot. It was a good school, but I did not enjoy my time there.

[Colin Bignell]

On 23/07/2023 17:11, Mike Scott wrote:
> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
> parent/guardian.
>
> Who is responsible for their safety?

From what I can make of the NPCC guidance for children left alone or
going out alone, if the eldest is under 16, the parents.

> What ought the church to do?

Beyond enquiring why their parents are not with them, probably nothing.
Treating them as responsible near adults will help them develop confidence.

Obviously, if they say something on the lines of mummy hasn't moved for
the past two days, but she would want us to come to church, a call to
the police to check on the parent might be advisable.

> Is a church differently treated from, say, a shop or theatre?

No idea, but I used to go shopping for my mother from about age 10 and,
even younger, one of the teachers at my primary school would
occasionally send me to a shop just outside the school to buy
cigarettes, if he had run out.

> I'd appreciate the team's comments, especially pointers to relevant
> legislation or govt guidance on the situation.



--

Colin Bignell

[Tikli Chestikov]

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 17:21:05 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:

> If an eleven year old can't safely go to church on their own the world has
> changed into a very strange place - America? A church should be full of
> responsible adults, some of them even Christians.
>
>
> --
> Roger Hayter

As per Roger, a church should be seen as the safest environment anyone can enter.......known criminals have been seen entering churches assuming it provides them with immunity from the long arm of the law.

If innocent eleven year olds can't assume that then we are pretty much doomed as a species.

[Owain Lastname]

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 19:05:25 UTC+1, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
> known criminals have been seen entering churches assuming it provides them with immunity from the long arm of the law.

That doesn't actually make other people safe, though.

> If innocent eleven year olds can't assume that then we are pretty much doomed as a species.

Quite a lot of eleven-year-olds have lost their innocence in churches.

Owain

[Owain Lastname]

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 17:11:13 UTC+1, Mike Scott wrote:
> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
> parent/guardian.
> Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?

Churches should have a safeguarding policy drawn up in consultation with their governing body / association and the insurers providing their molestation cover - sadly, this is now a thing.

Probably, one of the designated appropriate adults should keep an eye on them to make sure they don't climb on the roof or tip the tea-urn over themselves, and that they leave the church safely at the end of the service, and don't go into any private areas with any non-appropriate people.

What is not stated is whether the children or their family are known to the church. If they're not, that's a somewhat different matter to if they are.

Owain

[jon]

After dodging the dangers of the Blitz, going to choir practice on my own
at 9 years old was trivial.

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 17:11:13 UTC+1, Mike Scott wrote:

I'd have thought churches see far more vulnerable adults than
children.

If all they're doing is attending the service, I'm not sure what special
consideration needs to taken into account, any more than children
e.g. visiting a shop or going to the cinema. Probably different if it's
actually e.g. a church youth group.

[Vir Campestris]

On 23/07/2023 17:11, Mike Scott wrote:

I thought it was perfectly normal for 11 year olds to travel to school
unaccompanied.

Andy

[Colin Bignell]

I think a Chelsea Tractor is compulsory these days.

--
Colin Bignell

[Max Demian]

On 23/07/2023 19:24, Owain Lastname wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 17:11:13 UTC+1, Mike Scott wrote:

>> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
>> parent/guardian.

Hold the front page.

>> Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?
>
> Churches should have a safeguarding policy drawn up in consultation with their governing body / association and the insurers providing their molestation cover - sadly, this is now a thing.

"Safeguarding" doesn't guard anyone's safety.

WTF is "molestation cover"? How do they define "molestation"?

(Insurance was a really good idea when it was a matter of shop owners
deciding to share their losses when ships went down.)

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 23/07/2023 21:11, Vir Campestris wrote:

At then risk of starting a "four Yorkshireman" skit, I walked half a
mile on my own to school from age 4.5.

--
Max Demian

[Roger Hayter]

On 24 Jul 2023 at 15:16:03 BST, "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On 23/07/2023 19:24, Owain Lastname wrote:
>> On Sunday, 23 July 2023 at 17:11:13 UTC+1, Mike Scott wrote:
>
>>> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
>>> parent/guardian.
>
> Hold the front page.
>
>>> Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?
>>
>> Churches should have a safeguarding policy drawn up in consultation with
>> their governing body / association and the insurers providing their
>> molestation cover - sadly, this is now a thing.
>
> "Safeguarding" doesn't guard anyone's safety.

It does! It covers the arses of the administrators who write the policy
telling everyone to whom to hand over the responsibility for any suspicions
they may have.

>
> WTF is "molestation cover"? How do they define "molestation"?
>
> (Insurance was a really good idea when it was a matter of shop owners
> deciding to share their losses when ships went down.)


--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Challenge accepted; at that age I walked one and a half miles past two public
parks and the ferry to that den of iniquity on Eel Pie Island.

--
Roger Hayter

[Mark Goodge]

Yes, although the OP says "11 and below", and an 11 year old is not normally
considered responsible enough to be in charge of younger children.

But, as others have said, a lot depends on information we haven't been
given. If the children are regular attenders at the church, and they don't
live all that far away, then it's unlikely to be anything of concern. The
only real question would be why they are unaccompanied, if they otherwise
wouldn't be. A simple question along the lines of "Where are mum and dad
today?", followed by a reply of "Dad's been called into work, and mum's got
a cold and didn't feel like going out", or something like that, would be
perfectly reasonable.

If, though, the children weren't already known to the church, or their
answers raised other questions, then the church would probably be negligent
if it didn't attempt at least some follow-up. Although a church service
itself is a safe enough environment for a child, their safeguarding
responsibilities don't automatically stop at the church door.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:19:07 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

So did I. But most primary schools these days insist that children are
delivered to, and collected from, the door.

Mark

[David McNeish]

Do they? That's not my recent experience.

[Roland Perry]

In message <artvbip86f95gf3rj...@4ax.com>, at 17:26:20 on
Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

And precisely to the minute. None of that arriving at school twenty
minutes early and having a game of football/hopscotch in the playground.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Scott]

On 25/07/2023 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:11:30 +0100, Vir Campestris
> <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2023 17:11, Mike Scott wrote:
>>> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
>>> parent/guardian.
>>>
>>> Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?

....

> But, as others have said, a lot depends on information we haven't been
> given. If the children are regular attenders at the church, and they don't
> live all that far away, then it's unlikely to be anything of concern. The
> only real question would be why they are unaccompanied, if they otherwise
> wouldn't be. A simple question along the lines of "Where are mum and dad
> today?", followed by a reply of "Dad's been called into work, and mum's got
> a cold and didn't feel like going out", or something like that, would be
> perfectly reasonable.

The family is known, having been for a one or two weeks prior. In fact,
a gentle word has been had with the parents, and I doubt that particular
problem will recur.

What's on my mind though is that the affair has pin-pointed a weakness
somewhere in policy. There's nothing to stop any random youngster
turning up in the future - so what should church policy be? What are the
legal requirements if any?

If we were something like a scout group, where parentless attendance and
transfer of responsibility are expected, then the group leaders have
clearly accepted responsibility for the youngsters, and there's a mound
of rules to abide by. (And if the youth prove troublesome, they can find
they're no longer members -- the leadership can choose who they are
prepared to take responsibility for.)

But a church isn't that. It's more akin, at least in my mind, to a
theatre or shop in the way it operates, allowing open access to all.
Beyond a general legal duty of care, I can't see that it's reasonable or
even possible to expect anyone to be responsible for random children who
may turn up at the door.

[David McNeish]

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 19:39:07 UTC+1, Mike Scott wrote:
> On 25/07/2023 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:11:30 +0100, Vir Campestris
> > <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/07/2023 17:11, Mike Scott wrote:
> >>> Issue: 3 siblings aged 11 and below turn up at a church service without
> >>> parent/guardian.
> >>>
> >>> Who is responsible for their safety? What ought the church to do?
> ....
> > But, as others have said, a lot depends on information we haven't been
> > given. If the children are regular attenders at the church, and they don't
> > live all that far away, then it's unlikely to be anything of concern. The
> > only real question would be why they are unaccompanied, if they otherwise
> > wouldn't be. A simple question along the lines of "Where are mum and dad
> > today?", followed by a reply of "Dad's been called into work, and mum's got
> > a cold and didn't feel like going out", or something like that, would be
> > perfectly reasonable.

> But a church isn't that. It's more akin, at least in my mind, to a
> theatre or shop in the way it operates, allowing open access to all.
> Beyond a general legal duty of care, I can't see that it's reasonable or
> even possible to expect anyone to be responsible for random children who
> may turn up at the door.

Is anyone (e.g. the parents) suggesting that the church ought to take on some
sort of responsibility? As you say, it's more akin to something like a shop (or
anywhere else that kids might frequent) than an organised youth group, but
I've never heard of shops having similar concerns.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:38:59 +0100, Mike Scott
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>But a church isn't that. It's more akin, at least in my mind, to a
>theatre or shop in the way it operates, allowing open access to all.
>Beyond a general legal duty of care, I can't see that it's reasonable or
>even possible to expect anyone to be responsible for random children who
>may turn up at the door.

That would broadly be my position. Certainly, from a legal perspective,
there's no greater responsibility than there is for the operator of any
premises attended by children.

However, there is a general legal obligation for anyone who works with
children to keep them safe and, if necessary, report any concerns to the
appropriate agencies. And a church is probably in a better position than a
theatre or shop to notice any signs that a child may be vulnerable or
otherwise in need. So the church's staff and volunteers ought to have some
idea of what to do if they have concerns about the welfare of a child, and
there should be someone on the staff or volunteer team with specific
training in that respect.

This doesn't just apply to unaccompanied children, of course, it may equally
apply to a child who normally attends with their family - bearing in mind
that the majority of abused children experience their abuse at the hands of
someone they know, and in particular someone they live with. Any church of
any size will have children among its regular attendees, whether accompanied
or not. So some policy on child protection is necessary.

Mark

[Mike Scott]

On 03/08/2023 23:31, David McNeish wrote:
....

>> But a church isn't that. It's more akin, at least in my mind, to a
>> theatre or shop in the way it operates, allowing open access to all.
>> Beyond a general legal duty of care, I can't see that it's reasonable or
>> even possible to expect anyone to be responsible for random children who
>> may turn up at the door.
>
> Is anyone (e.g. the parents) suggesting that the church ought to take on some
> sort of responsibility? As you say, it's more akin to something like a shop (or

Yes, they are. Not the parents though. One member of the congregation
asserted that if an unaccompanied child walks in, the church is legally
responsible for their safety even down to seeing they get home. That has
to be arrant nonsense IMO; but I'd like to know the legal situation.

The diocese doesn't seem to address the issue in their protection
guidance; more oriented round formal children's groups which is not what
I'm talking about here.

> anywhere else that kids might frequent) than an organised youth group, but
> I've never heard of shops having similar concerns.

No; quite.

[Mike Scott]

On 04/08/2023 13:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
> However, there is a general legal obligation for anyone who works with
> children to keep them safe and, if necessary, report any concerns to the
> appropriate agencies. And a church is probably in a better position than a
> theatre or shop to notice any signs that a child may be vulnerable or
> otherwise in need. So the church's staff and volunteers ought to have some
> idea of what to do if they have concerns about the welfare of a child, and
> there should be someone on the staff or volunteer team with specific
> training in that respect.
>
> This doesn't just apply to unaccompanied children, of course, it may equally
> apply to a child who normally attends with their family - bearing in mind
> that the majority of abused children experience their abuse at the hands of
> someone they know, and in particular someone they live with. Any church of
> any size will have children among its regular attendees, whether accompanied
> or not. So some policy on child protection is necessary.

We do follow the diocesan guidelines on working with children, and
follow the necessary protocols for those groups we run. It's children
that turn up, unaccompanied, at the main services that are the issue of
concern. Logically, it seems we can't do anything - it would be a poison
chalice for any adult to be in a position where they'd be legally
absolutely responsible for any random child dumped at the door. But
no-one seems to know about child-specific legal obligations in this
instance.

[Simon Parker]

If you are concerned for the welfare and / or safety of the child(ren),
I recommend raising a safeguarding concern with your local authority.

Most have an on-line form for non-urgent referrals.

(I asked a family member that works in education what they would do if
the same circumstances you outlined happened at school and they said
they would have no hesitation in making a report to their safeguarding
lead as they are contractually and legally obliged to do. The
safeguarding lead would then pass the report to the local authority.)

Regards

S.P.

[Mike Scott]

On 07/08/2023 08:57, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 05/08/2023 07:55, Mike Scott wrote:

......

>> We do follow the diocesan guidelines on working with children, and
>> follow the necessary protocols for those groups we run. It's children
>> that turn up, unaccompanied, at the main services that are the issue
>> of concern. Logically, it seems we can't do anything - it would be a
>> poison chalice for any adult to be in a position where they'd be
>> legally absolutely responsible for any random child dumped at the
>> door. But no-one seems to know about child-specific legal obligations
>> in this instance.
>
> If you are concerned for the welfare and / or safety of the child(ren),
> I recommend raising a safeguarding concern with your local authority.
>
> Most have an on-line form for non-urgent referrals.
>
> (I asked a family member that works in education what they would do if
> the same circumstances you outlined happened at school and they said
> they would have no hesitation in making a report to their safeguarding
> lead as they are contractually and legally obliged to do.  The
> safeguarding lead would then pass the report to the local authority.)

But in the meantime, there's a child kicking around unsupervised....
what happens when last one out is locking up and child is still there?
Kick them out (and what if they get run over - whose responsibility?),
or dial 999? Neither seems palatable.

Thanks for the reply. I do though feel there is, in practice, a
significant gap in the rules. I'm not at all convinced the PTB have
thought this through.

[Roger Hayter]

On 7 Aug 2023 at 10:46:05 BST, "Mike Scott"

I understand the church's dilemma; it still seems utterly bizarre that
children should be discouraged from going to church on their own.

--
Roger Hayter

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:57:08 +0100, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>(I asked a family member that works in education what they would do if
>the same circumstances you outlined happened at school and they said
>they would have no hesitation in making a report to their safeguarding
>lead as they are contractually and legally obliged to do. The
>safeguarding lead would then pass the report to the local authority.)

That's somewhat different, though, because schools and local authorities
have specific statutory obligations when it comes to child protection. There
isn't any equivalent generic obligation which applies across the board to
organisations that children might just happen to visit (such as shops,
cinemas and churches).

Mark

[Sara Merriman]

On 7 Aug 2023 at 10:46:05 BST, "Mike Scott"
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

Many years ago I worked in a pub in the West End. After finishing a lunch time
shift I saw there was a small child (about 7 yrs old I guessed) sitting crying
on the steps outside. I took him in, one of the other staff on site kept an
eye on him and I found a copper in uniform - we had them in those days. Said
copper sorted it out and made sure the kid got home.

Seems like what should happen.

--
Billy is silly

[Mike Scott]

On 07/08/2023 10:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2023 at 10:46:05 BST, "Mike Scott"
> <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

.....

>> But in the meantime, there's a child kicking around unsupervised....
>> what happens when last one out is locking up and child is still there?
>> Kick them out (and what if they get run over - whose responsibility?),
>> or dial 999? Neither seems palatable.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I do though feel there is, in practice, a
>> significant gap in the rules. I'm not at all convinced the PTB have
>> thought this through.
>
> I understand the church's dilemma; it still seems utterly bizarre that
> children should be discouraged from going to church on their own.
>

Exactly. Temporarily we're officially barring unaccompanied under-age
youth from attending. But that's only until the legal position is
understood - which, frankly, it isn't at the moment.

There seem to be three sets of rules to apply: legal, diocesan and
moral. Unfortunately, I suspect that if we're not careful, we could end
up with good intentions creating unwanted legal obligations which we'd
not be able to fulfil. Were we to say unaccompanied children were
welcome, that might just be taken in current litigious society to
indicate that we'd also taken responsibility for them.

Does no-one have pointers to relevant parts of legislation?

[Simon Parker]

I don't know if the legal advice you were hoping for ever came through,
but you could do worse than follow the guidance of the Diocese of London
on what to do in the circumstances you outline.

https://www.london.anglican.org/kb/unaccompanied-uncollected-children-guidance

Regards

S.P.

(With apologies for resurrecting a slumbering thread but the advice came
across my radar so I thought it worth linking to this thread.)

[Mike Scott]

On 16/02/2024 10:40, Simon Parker wrote:
>
> I don't know if the legal advice you were hoping for ever came through,
> but you could do worse than follow the guidance of the Diocese of London
> on what to do in the circumstances you outline.
>
> https://www.london.anglican.org/kb/unaccompanied-uncollected-children-guidance
>
> Regards
>
> S.P.
>
> (With apologies for resurrecting a slumbering thread but the advice came
> across my radar so I thought it worth linking to this thread.)

No apology needed. Although I'm afraid the rest of the thread has
disappeared from my newreader. OP here, btw.

FWIW the original problem was AFAIK sorted by having firm words with the
parent(s). Which wouldn't of course stop the problem recurring with
another family.

And thanks for the link - I'll forward to those who might need the
information.

[GB]

I remember, just outside the walled city of Jerusalem, a small crowd had
assembled. At the centre was a small child, around 2 years old. Mum had
arranged a cab driver to pick the child up from nursery and bring it to
a pre-arranged meeting point. Only problem was that mum was late
arriving, so the cab driver had left the child by the roadside and gone
on his way.