Consent and responding when it is absent

Key takeaway

A lack of consent signals the need for a clear and confident response focused on the child’s safety, not a reduction or ending of involvement. Where concerns persist, professional decision-making should be driven by the child’s circumstances and level of assessed risk, not by parental consent or a lack of parental consent and engagement alone.

Why this matters

Reviews consistently identify situations where a lack of parental consent, engagement or cooperation contributes to delay, drift or uncertainty in safeguarding responses. 

Practitioners can experience uncertainty about consent, information sharing, escalation pathways and safeguarding responsibilities. This uncertainty can be heightened by organisational culture. When these issues are not explored through supervision or multi-agency discussion, opportunities to protect children can be missed. 

What this looks like in practice

A lack of consent can sometimes lead to reduced professional involvement despite ongoing concerns about a child’s safety and wellbeing. Professionals may feel uncertain about what action can be taken without parental agreement, particularly where there are complex family circumstances or resistance to engagement. The Panel’s recent thematic analysis of child neglect also highlights situations where attention shifts towards parental engagement rather than the child’s lived experience. Legal advice, escalation processes or safeguarding actions may not be considered early enough, leading to a sense that “nothing more can be done”.

Practitioners should distinguish between consent and genuine engagement, recognising that consent does not necessarily mean that effective partnership working is taking place. They should consider the level and quality of engagement being achieved and whether decisions about consent form part of a wider pattern of avoidance, resistance or apparent cooperation without meaningful change. Where concerns persist, practitioners should consider what this means for the child’s safety and wellbeing.

Some reviews have highlighted situations where practitioners placed significant reliance on one parent’s ability to manage concerns or protect children from risks posed by others within the family. This includes situations where mothers experiencing domestic abuse, coercive control or other vulnerabilities were viewed primarily as protective factors. As a result, risks to children may be underestimated.

Repeated refusal to engage can become familiar over time. When this happens, expectations of change can reduce and opportunities to reassess risk or consider a different response may be missed.

What practitioners and managers can do 

• Consider whether the refusal to give consent is limiting your ability to understand the child’s lived experience and level of risk.  
• Be open and transparent with families about concerns, expectations and the actions that may be required to safeguard children.  
• Use supervision and multi-agency discussion to explore uncertainty, disagreement and professional judgement.  
• Explore how previous concerns or patterns of declining consent have affected interventions and the child’s lived experience and ensure this informs current analysis.  
• Share relevant information when there are safeguarding concerns, clearly recording the rationale for any decisions made about consent and information sharing.  
• Ensure support and intervention are only withdrawn where there is evidence that concerns and risks have reduced, not simply because parents are refusing to engage or provide consent.  
• Ensure supervision supports analysis, confidence and decision-making by providing clear direction and management oversight where lack of consent remains a persistent issue.