This Practitioner's Guide sets out the responsibilities of practitioners and managers when there is disagreement between members of the team around an unborn baby, baby, child or young person. This Guide has been developed in partnership with practitioners across Perth and Kinross from Health, Education, Social Work, Police and the third sector who provided feedback on live issues in practice at a CPC Community of Practice event in February 2025.
A writing group of practitioners came together to create this guidance based on the learning from this event and the existing Practitioner's Guide from 2019. To support different learning styles, this guide is complemented by a short video below and a 7-minute briefing, available in the downloads section on this page. We welcome feedback on this guide which you can provide by emailing ChildProtectionCommittee@pkc.gov.uk.
Introduction
The protection of children and young people is everyone's job and everyone's responsibility. In Perth and Kinross, we consider this to be a shared responsibility for all practitioners and managers working across the public, private and third sectors. It is essential that everyone understands the contribution they have to make in keeping children and young people safe and protected from harm and abuse.
This guidance should complement, not replace, any existing service or agency resolution and escalation guidance.
Guidance alone cannot protect children and young people; but a competent, confident and skilful workforce, working together with families and communities can. First line managers and supervisors are therefore key to the successful implementation of this practice guidance.
Purpose
Professional differences of opinion are normal, healthy parts of working life. In most cases, they can be resolved between individual practitioners without involving others or needing to be escalated. Occasionally, however, disagreements may occur in which a practitioner believes that the actions, inaction or decisions of another practitioner, whether within their own or another service, may not be in the best interests of, or may cause harm to, an unborn baby, baby, child or young person.
This guide aims to ensure that when practitioners encounter a disagreement of this kind, they are equipped to work towards resolution, understand their responsibility to act and the steps they need to take to escalate their concerns if necessary.
Please note: Any concerns which relate to professional behaviour, conduct and/or wrongdoing do not fall within the scope of this guidance. These are matters that should be progressed via existing service / agency formal statutory complaints and / or disciplinary procedures.
The benefits of disagreement in child protection work
Respectful challenge and open, honest conversations between practitioners about differences in opinion, thresholds or assessment all serve to increase the safety of unborn babies, babies, children and young people.
It is important to be aware that just because all professionals are agreed on a course of action, this does not automatically mean that the agreed action is the safest or best way forward. Groupthink is a term that was first used in the 1950s to describe situations in which groups can make poor decisions together simply because people are keen to become and remain part of the group. In a child protection context, groupthink can be dangerous as it can inhibit professionals from sharing their views and opinions honestly and, in turn, lead to negative outcomes for unborn babies, babies, children and young people if risks are not properly addressed.
It is important that practitioners speak up when they have concerns, and that chairpersons of meetings ensure that space and opportunities are provided for different views to be heard. Where the care and protection of unborn babies, babies, children and young people are concerned, professionals should ensure that they share their honest view, even if it seems to be at odds with everyone else in the room or within the virtual meeting space. This may give others the chance to re-think their position and, at minimum, ensures that the practitioner is following their duty of care to the unborn baby, baby, child, young person or adult for whom they are professionally responsible by sharing and stating their concerns openly.
Seeking to understand disagreements
When practitioners find themselves in strong disagreement with a colleague, it can be helpful to take some time to consider why this is happening.
Practitioners in any team around an unborn baby, baby, child or young person will usually come from diverse professional backgrounds and have different levels of training, professional and lived experience. As professionals working together, we should value this diversity for the range of perspectives it brings. We should respect that practitioners will not have arrived at their opinion lightly and that they are acting in what they believe is the best interests of the unborn baby, baby, child or young person.
At all times, focus should be retained on the unborn baby, baby, child or young person and their needs and every effort made to not personalise disagreement to individual workers.
Complexity of decision-making
Decision-making for unborn babies, children and young people who are at risk of harm is rarely simple. Moving a child into kinship care may resolve an immediate issue of safety, for example, but, if the placement is a long distance away, it will also remove the child from their school, friends and community; rupturing important bonds. Given the complexity involved in these kinds of decisions, which have the potential to be life changing for those involved, it is inevitable that disagreements will arise depending on what different professionals deem to be the most important aspects of life for the baby, child or young person. This is normal and tensions in the complexity of decision-making should be acknowledged and teased out.
So, what kind of disagreements may arise?
Here are some examples of disagreements that practitioners have told us they encounter regularly:
- Referral thresholds - when a referring professional believes that the threshold has been met for intervention or support from a service, but the referral is declined.
- Divergent assessments - when professionals have assessed the level of need or risk for an unborn baby, baby, child or young person very differently from each other and cannot agree a course of action.
- Actions not being taken - a member of the team around the unborn baby, baby, child or young person has failed or refused to complete an agreed course of action such as a designated task on a Child Protection Plan.
- Timescales - professionals do not agree with the timescale for an assessment to take place. For example, they may think a parenting capacity assessment is taking too long for a child's timescales or too short to enable an adult to make changes.
- Information sharing - services refusing to share information or failing to share information timeously; particularly where it may not yet be clear that there is a child protection concern. The Practitioner's Guide to Information Sharing (PDF, 342 KB) is a useful document to refer to on these occasions.
The above are all situations which require resolution and may need to be escalated.
It is important to note that there are specific arrangements for strong disagreement at a Child Protection Planning Meeting, known as dissent, which are covered in the Practitioner's guide and toolkit - Child Protection Planning Meetings under the Dispute Resolution section.
Resolution
What do we mean by resolution? Resolution is a process of addressing and finding a solution or way forward when there is a professional disagreement or dispute. The aim is to reach an outcome where practitioners feel satisfied that any potential negative impacts on unborn babies, babies, children and young people and their families have been reduced or removed.
Resolution can be achieved through open communication. Practitioners must be clear about what the issue is and seek to address concerns directly with individual involved whilst ensuring that the baby, child or young person is safe throughout the resolution process.
Where there is a professional dispute or disagreement, practitioners should request a meeting with the other practitioners and agencies involved in the dispute or disagreement as quickly as possible. This could be face to face or on MS Teams.
Having a clear agenda for the resolution meeting can be helpful to ensure practitioners views are listened to, respected and efforts made to understand all agencies perspectives. It may be helpful to clarify roles, remits and responsibilities of practitioners and agencies involved as a lack of understanding of these can contribute to disagreements.
During the resolution process, it is important to always respect and recognise the experience of practitioners involved. It is always hoped that a shared/agreed solution or way forward can be reached at practitioner level without the need for escalation.
What happens when staff cannot reach a resolution?
There are occasions that staff are unable to reach a resolution and due to the level of risk or concern, it is not appropriate to 'agree to disagree'. When this happens, it is appropriate to escalate the concern. At all times, the safety of unborn babies, babies, children and young people remains the paramount consideration, and it is essential that concerns are escalated in accordance with the urgency of the concern. For example, if there are high level safety concerns for a child on a given day, the actions detailed below would need to be progressed on that day itself. If there were concern for a plan of action some weeks in the future, there would be some breathing room for practitioners to reflect and move the concern forward at a more measured pace. Practitioners should always be aware that family situations are not static and that further information coming to light can mean that plans for unborn babies, babies, children and young people change quickly so at each stage of resolution, it is important that practitioners are aware of the up-to-date picture for the unborn baby, baby, child or young person.
Key principles of Escalation
Before moving on to explore the stages of escalation, which is a tiered and proportionate process, it is helpful to outline the principles of escalation at each stage.
- The focus must remain on the unborn baby, baby, child or young person and their safety and wellbeing at all times.
- All practitioners and line managers involved in the process must ensure that they write clear case records explaining the nature of the dispute and the actions taken to resolve it. The records should be made at the time, or as close to the time as possible, of the events.
- Every effort should be made to resolve the dispute at the lowest possible level.
- Two-way communication should be in place between the practitioner raising the concern and the managers involved in escalation so that the practitioner is updated on the progress of the escalation at each stage and the managers are aware of any new developments in the case which would support a change of approach.
- Throughout the process, practitioners and managers should be transparent and advise their counterparts of their intention to escalate their concern at each stage if further escalation is necessary.
Escalation Stage 1
This is where resolution between individual practitioners has not been successful. The next step is for the practitioner to discuss the situation with their line manager, and this should happen without delay. To prepare for this, the practitioner should note down what their concerns are and what the potential negative consequences for the unborn baby, baby, child or young person may be if action is not taken. The practitioner should also advise what steps they have taken to resolve the issue and their understanding of the other practitioner's position. A discussion with a line manager at this stage will provide an opportunity for a reflective space and for the practitioner to check that they have understood the situation correctly and assess whether further action is required.
If the line manager agrees with the concerns that the practitioner has raised, they should arrange a meeting with their counterpart in the other team, agency or service as quickly as possible to discuss the concerns and to agree a way forward. This level of intervention will usually be sufficient to address concerns and agree a solution. However, if it has not resolved the issue, it will require to be further escalated.
Escalation Stage 2
If discussion between line managers has not resolved the issue, further escalation is required at the next level of management. The line manager should advise the relevant senior manager of the concern, the actions taken to resolve the dispute to date and the potential consequences of not doing so, this will make sure that the senior manager is equipped with the information they need to move forward with the concern.
As with earlier stages, the senior manager should arrange to meet with their counterpart without delay and discuss the concerns, the process that has been followed so far and agree next steps. This level of escalation will usually be sufficient to resolve most concerns and ensure that the team around the unborn baby, baby, child or young person continues to function as efficiently and to be as child-centred in its focus as possible. On the rare occasions that this is not sufficient, the senior manager or equivalent will need to decide whether further escalation is needed through Stage 3.
Escalation Stage 3 - Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO)
Where stages 1 and 2 have been followed and the senior manager believes, after careful consideration, that it is necessary to escalate the dispute or disagreement to the CSWO, the senior manager should seek a meeting with the CSWO without delay.
At the meeting, the senior manager should be prepared to explain what the issue has been, what the potential consequences may be for unborn baby, baby, child or young person, the steps that have been taken to resolve the issue so far and what has got in the way of resolution being achieved. The senior manager should reach an agreement with the CSWO regarding whether the dispute should be escalated to the Child Protection Committee (CPC) or Chief Officers Group (COG).
What is the role of the CSWO?
The CSWO's role includes a responsibility for providing professional advice and challenge to all partners on values and standards; practice and managerial decision -making; leadership; accountability; reporting arrangements, and learning and development through reflective discussions and constructive debate.
For further information on the important role of the CSWO, detail is provided within the Scottish Government's Protecting Children and Young People: Child Protection Committee and Chief Officer Responsibilities (February 2019).
The CSWO will have the final determination responsibility in terms of any unresolved dispute or disagreement. If, in the unlikely event, the original dispute or disagreement remains unresolved, the CSWO may decide to refer the matter to the CPC and/or the COG.
Resolution and Escalation - top tips
Do | Try to avoid |
|---|---|
Listen to understand. Listen carefully to the reasons others provide for their decision and reflect carefully on your own assessment of the situation. | Personalising issues. Assuming ill-intent on the part of the person raising an issue or making a decision that is different from yours can be very unhelpful. |
Treat your colleagues with care. Be respectful, clear and courteous with your colleagues at all times. Children and young people rely on professionals working well together to keep them safe. | Attacking or criticising colleagues in unhelpful ways. Allowing frustration to spill over into disrespectful calls or emails is harmful to working relationships and reduces the safety of children and young people. |
Be upfront. Letting your colleague know that you are going to escalate a concern might not be easy, but it is better that they hear it directly from you.
| Using escalation as a threat. If you need to proceed with escalation, it is to resolve the issue for the child or young person and should never be used to manipulate less experienced or confident colleagues. |
Keep clear records which are timeous and child focused. At all times, keep the situation for the unborn baby, baby, child or young person central in records and remember that the record is, first and foremost, for them. | Using records to vent about the dispute. Children and young people's records should not be used to set out grievances against decisions that are made. They need to be clear, factual accounts of what has happened. |
Remember that we are all people with competing demands on our time. It is important to remember that professionals can be affected by events in their own lives and that we must demonstrate compassion to our colleagues as well as to those who use our services. | Using emails unhelpfully. Whilst an email can be helpful as a contemporaneous account of concerns and evidence of sharing them, avoid sending emails when heightened or unnecessarily copying others in to email threads as this will only serve to increase tensions. |
Shared Learning
Throughout this process, all participants should be provided with regular feedback and where necessary de-briefed in terms of the outcomes. To be effective, the process of resolution and escalation should be followed quickly and without delay in every case.
Throughout this process, any practice, policy and/or procedural learning should be identified and shared with the practitioners, services and agencies involved.
Where there is an identified need for practice, policy and/or procedural improvement work, then this should be referred to the CPC and/or the CPC Practice Improvement Working Group.
This will promote and encourage continuous improvement and effective partnership working.
If appropriate, single and/or multi-agency whistleblowing procedures can also be considered, and if necessary, applied.
Share this page
