You don't have to agree with me - but you're doing a good job of coming up with a counter position. By all means continue to debate until you reach either consensus or firm disagreement.

I don't think 'it's my job' is enough for me to undertake an action. I would make a good defence attorney because I believe in the principle of fair trial. I wouldn't be an executioner, because I do not believe the State should have control over the life of the individual. So perhaps 'i was just doing my job' - the defence used by countless half-assed Nazis isn't the best way of explaining this.

The job of an advocate in this instance is to represent the views and wishes of children and to give their voice power where their voice is often overlooked, unheard or easily dismissed. It is very easy to say 'this girl doesn't understand what is happening is abuse and therefore she can't see her dad' if there is no counter argument. It's an easy decision. It's far harder to take this position when a Penguin sits in the meeting and says 'what authority do you have for this', 'why are you interfering' and 'she wants to be sent back to her Dad today'. When this happens, people really have to know what they're doing and be sure of themselves. In this case, she didn't return home (and I was very pleased) but she did have greater contact with her Dad (which I was also pleased about) - because she loved him and that's what mattered to her. State interference in this case was cruel, not because she didn't need rescuing from abuse (she likely did) but because she didn't have a wider contextual understanding and so to her it felt like she was being held against her will. I suspect she was worried about her father, because in her entire 8 year life span they'd likely never spent more than a few hours apart. The State has a moral duty to act, but it also should consider HOW it acts, that was my job. Protection shouldn't run rough-shod over children's rights - and it's not always for the best. Check out the 1980s Orkney scandal as an example.

If she'd said 'I consent' - I would've said, 'she consents', they would've pointed out the law is clear that she doesn't really consent and at eight she's not psychologically competent enough to understand the implications of consent. Her feelings are valid but that doesn't mean they're necessarily actionable. I represented children as young as four in adult care meetings, so their feelings could be recorded and considered. Many of those four years olds might be on the cusp of adulthood now - they won't remember the Penguin coming and talking to them about whether they wanted to live with X or Y, or why they stayed with their siblings when they were scheduled to go to different foster placements. The notes will all be there. Little hand drawn pictures and worksheets from which their feelings could be understood and then I could action on their behalf - even if they didn't get what they wanted, at least they'll know that the State took them seriously and assigned someone to make their case. I think these things matter.

I don't trust large centrally controlled organisations like the Government to make the right choice without being challenged. If I were subjected to a process by a large organisation I would want my feelings to be taken into account, not just written down as a paper exercise. I would want hierarchies of power challenged. I am a skilled challenger with little regard for hierarchy able to put my feelings aside for a wider moral win. Particularly if asked to so on issues where the morality is less straightforward. The title of this piece was initially 'the most difficult argument' - but that wasn't true. I had little difficulty with it.... there's another case I'll write about that was far more difficult - but this case (and one other) was the most disturbing I'd ever made and left me feeling the most disturbed over the longest time.