The particular edge to this case is that we only managed to identify the natural father late in the proceedings, and then we had to advise him that he might be able to help with a possible transplant need for the child he will never now see. Of course, the way it's presented largely ignores the facts of a scrupulous court process that the father was party to, and the independent assessment that failed to persuade the court he should have care of this child.
So we go on the front foot with the media: the mission to explain. A week of relentless briefings and interviews. And, in fairness, most give us good space to argue - they're just pleased we're prepared to say more than "no comment". But the sheer complexity of the process we have to defend means it's hard work to deflect journalists from the salacious and simplistic story they could tell. I still think being as open as possible is the right approach, but one radio interview at the end of the week moves to a phone-in resembling one of those Americanised free-for-alls.
Register Now to Continue Reading
Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's Included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector
Already have an account? Sign in here