A child is not a public exhibit in an adult dispute.

The broadcast described in the claim

The lawsuit alleges that a child appeared in a television discussion of a family dispute while a parent made accusations against the other parent in the child’s presence. It says the State Care Agency did not take effective protective action despite complaints. The claim concerns what happened to the child, not simply which adult’s public account was more persuasive. [1]

We do not repeat the programme, intimate allegations or identifying footage. The institutional question can be examined without reproducing the exposure: what was known about the planned or completed broadcast, what risk was assessed, and what lawful response followed?

Being heard is not being displayed

The Convention on the Rights of the Child protects both participation and privacy. A child should have an effective voice in decisions without having to surrender a private family history to an audience. Article 8 of the European Convention also protects private and family life. [2] [3]

A parent’s willingness to speak publicly does not settle the separate question of the child’s interests. Broadcasters, caseworkers and representatives should ask who is speaking for the child, whether the child understands the setting and whether the child is being placed under pressure to confirm an adult account.

Privacy must not become isolation

The same claim raises a different concern: restrictions on a child’s communication and access to information, including the removal of a means of contact. That allegation calls for an individual assessment of the purpose and effect of the restriction. It does not establish an unlimited entitlement to a particular device. [1]

Protection from public exposure and access to safe private contact can coexist. A child should be able to reach an appropriate representative, trusted professional or family member under arrangements suited to the child’s safety and circumstances. Neither unrestricted publicity nor blanket isolation is an adequate default.

The changes we seek

We seek a timely response to complaints about exposing children in family proceedings, a child-specific assessment before institutional participation in publicity and a route to seek appropriate correction or removal of identifying material. The competent body should record the steps taken and their outcome.

We also seek explicit private-contact arrangements in protection plans: how the child can communicate, who may assist, what restrictions apply and when those restrictions will be reviewed. Children need adults to reduce the conflict around them, not to recruit an audience for it.