THERE is something troubling about a child who sues for fabulous sums of money, because you know the case almost certainly has not arisen out of her own volition.
The £70,000 claim by a teenage girl against Highland Council for inadequate supervision of her nine years in care has raised "novel, difficult and important" questions which have set the Law Lords huffing and puffing, looking for a precedent. In my l
imited experience, suing for damages can seriously undermine your mental health and peace of mind, and the particular tragedy for the young complainant is that this is the last thing she needs, having already in her short life suffered longstanding mental and developmental problems.
The complaints against Highland Council are diffuse, but one particular component that stands out is the question of religion. The litigant is described as a Roman Catholic teenager who was placed with two sets of foster carers who were Protestant. The council "failed to facilitate her continuing to follow her religious persuasion", her lawyers contend. I have big problems believing this complaint arose at source. If this girl had been truly earnest in her devotions, it is impossible to believe that foster parents would obstruct or even remain indifferent to helping her practise them. If they did, the implication is that there were other more serious shortcomings in their fostering, such as lack of empathy and failure to gain trust.
The diffuseness of the various component parts of the complaint create an impression that it has been cobbled together with bits and pieces to bolster an otherwise feeble case, particularly when observed by an older generation. We post-war stoics were, I suppose, more in awe of authority and less likely to expect it to fulfil our every need, still less to blame it for failing. To us folk, born long before taking legal action American-style became so accessible, it is difficult to avoid perceiving that, just sometimes, issues of human rights turn everything on its head. We also see how victims can be doubly jeopardised when opportunities arise for juveniles to be manipulated for adult purposes, and we fear this sort of venture might make fast and fabulous bucks for some - but not for the poor lass at the centre of this row, who has already had a raw deal and a most unhappy start in life.
Of course it is good that Joe Bloggs and his female counterpart are equal to the heavyweights of the Establishment before the law, but there is not yet in place a mechanism for sorting out the tawdry and the trivial complaint from the genuine and worthy. And unfortunately the legal profession is not motivated to help make that distinction.
To the lay onlooker, the difference is often obvious, and we wonder why such heavy weather is made of it all. We see that Highland Council is being pursued for rather peripheral failures of care. But we also believe - and devoutly hope and trust - that children are only taken away from their families as a last resort in failure of core parental nurture. Therefore, we argue, if we are playing the blame-game, the family is hugely more at fault than the council. Which leads on to a nightmare vision where children begin to sue their parents for various shortcomings in the past. Indeed, the stage is set, with a population of senior citizens comfortably off in retirement, while their newly fledged youngsters struggle in an ocean of debt with remote, ever-receding prospects of stability.
The question of religious incompatibility in a fostering arrangement seems to be the most tricky aspect of the case, but in a secular society there really should be other, more pressing, considerations in placing children with foster parents. With the recent ruling on anti-discrimination even by Catholic adoption agencies, it is difficult to see why there should be any legal mileage in the religious dimension of this young woman's case. It has become plain as daylight that, however well-intentioned and efficient are the residential care-homes for children, the youngsters there are seriously and protractedly disadvantaged compared with family children. The obstacles in their progress to foster-homes and/or adoption should be those designed to ensure security, not tick-list matching-up of irrelevant ephemera. All mainstream religions in the UK purport to promote morality and neighbourliness, and it is mystifying to the non-sectarian atheist (such as myself) why lining up on dogma and divisive creeds should be accorded any importance whatever.
The tribal aspect of religion is the nub of the matter, for children are engaged to follow in their parents' footsteps long before they are able to understand anything about it. We talk about a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child" or a "Protestant child" of perhaps four or five years. It is nonsense, for they have not yet reached the age of reason and understanding. By labelling them thus, we are ensuring their future intolerant behaviour and perpetuating sectarian division, contention and even violence. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says we should all "raise the roof" when we hear these labels. But the children are engaged and imprinted by baptism or some such ceremony when only days or hours old.
It is indeed consciously tribal and harks back to our hunter-gatherer pre-history when your group of 150 or so were family and friends while everyone else was an enemy. This minuscule world was, in fact, where modern morality had its roots - not in the essence of religion, though mainstream faiths monopolise and preach moral codes for their own purposes. It is no wonder it is often so difficult to apply morality to global, modern situations.
The novel features of this case, viewed under the cold clear light of the non-finessing, non-finicky, non-legal mind do not impress. It is to be hoped that those professionals bent upon its ramifications will see it that way, and not give oxygen to potential tribal and primitive motivations.
The full article contains 1017 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
