No distinction between children and adults

What it does

The Bill makes no distinction by age and makes no reference to parental responsibility. A child’s own account can determine three elements: whether a protected identity exists (cl. 1(8)), whether harm occurred (cl. 2(1)(b)), and whether proceedings begin (Sch. para 2(2)). Elsewhere, the law calibrates a child’s decisions to their age and understanding. Gillick competence is assessed decision by decision, consent to treatment is presumed only from 16, the Children Act requires courts to consider a child’s age and understanding, and coercive control excludes parents of under-16s. The Schedule asks the court to consider the individual’s “health, safety and wellbeing” (para 1(2)), but the criminal offence contains no equivalent.

Effects: A 13-year-old’s stated identity and distress carry the same legal weight as an adult’s. Parents cannot rely on their responsibility for the child as any part of a defence. Early affirmation becomes the low-risk default for every adult around a child, identities that might have changed become fixed, and safeguarding questions go unasked.