A Strategy Discussion with the Police

A parent reports that she found her under 5 child having its genitals licked by the family pet. When questioned by the parent the child said it was ok as the other parent would lay the child on the sofa and allow the pet to do this. The parents are divorced, so this was happening in a different home. I had a Strategy Discussion with the Police who accepted that there was potentially a serious issue here, but amazingly were not sure that any law was broken. Initially they decided that it would be a single agency (Children's Services) Section 47 Investigation. I believe that the DC I talked to was uneasy with the decision that was made by his DS and asked them to reconsider. They did then reverse the decision and a joint investigation was undertaken. 


I think this illustrates that whilst we often work with the Police their remit is clearly prosecution, which is the one of the main tools at their disposal for protecting children. However when they do not involve themselves in an issue, or do involve themselves but chose not to pursue a case, Children's Services are then left with a problem. The problem is the message sent to parents/carers (or other perpetrators when the situation arises). Many of us will have had somebody ask us 'the Police aren't going to be prosecuting so why are you still involved?'. Frequently it is difficult to explain the difference between the Police working to 'beyond reasonable doubt' versus Children's Services working to 'on the balance of probability'. 

I am not suggesting that the Police should prosecute more people to help us out, but I am suggesting that we need to work in joined up way so that clients and their parents/carers or perpetrators can understand there are two processes taking place when Children's Services and the Police investigate a case.