5.2.2 Resolving Professional Differences

1. Dissent at Referral and Enquiry Stage

The Pan Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy and Procedures Group recommend the following statement is read out at all relevant meetings.

Professional Difference Statement: It is acknowledged that when working in the arena of safeguarding, it is inevitable that from time to time there will be professional differences.  This is a positive activity and a sign of good professional practice and effective multi-agency working.   During this meeting practitioners, irrespective of their seniority are encouraged to say if they feel that decisions, practice or actions do not effectively ensure the safety or wellbeing of the child / children.

Professionals providing services to children and their families should work cooperatively across all agencies, using their skills and experience to make a robust contribution to safeguarding children and promoting their welfare within the framework of discussions, meetings, conferences and case management.

All agencies are responsible for ensuring that their staff are competent and supported to escalate appropriately intra-agency and inter-agency concerns and disagreements about a child’s wellbeing.

Concern or disagreement may arise over another professional’s decisions, actions or lack of actions about a referral, an assessment or an enquiry.

Professionals should attempt to resolve differences through discussion and / or meeting within a timescale, which is acceptable to both of them, usually within a working week or a timescale that protects the child from harm (whichever is less).

Each Safeguarding Children Partnership has a forum that reviews (intending to improve) joint working practice in respect of inter-agency child protection processes. The forums afford an opportunity for safeguarding managers across the partnership to have open and honest conversations about what is and is not working. Practitioners are encouraged to share any cases where there are early concerns about the effectiveness of multi-agency working.  You can refer a case here – see Local Contacts.

Most day-to-day inter-agency differences of opinion will  require a Children’s Social Care Manager to liaise  with their  (first line manager) equivalent in the relevant agency, for example:

• a detective sergeant;
• a designated safeguarding children health professional;
• designated safeguarding children teacher.

These first line managers should seek advice from their agency’s designated safeguarding children professional.

If agreement cannot be reached following discussions between the above ‘first line’ managers, within a further working week or a timescale that protects the child from harm (whichever is less), the issue must be referred without delay through the line management to the equivalent of service manager / detective inspector / headteacher or other designated safeguarding children senior professional.

Alternatively (for example in health services), input may be sought directly from the designated safeguarding children doctor or nurse in preference to line management.

The professionals involved in this conflict resolution process must contemporaneously record each intra- and inter-agency discussion they have, approve and date the record and place a copy on the child’s file together with any other written communications and information.

2. Dissent with Decision to call a Child Protection Conference

A request to convene a Child Protection Conference may be made by a senior staff member of any of the member agencies and should be made and responded to in writing to either a Service Manager or a Child Protection Adviser.

A decision not to convene a conference must be confirmed in writing to the requesting agency/ies, giving reasons.

Where there remain differences of view over the need for a Conference in a specific case, every effort will be made to resolve them through discussion and explanation.

As a last resort the decision to hold the conference will be made by the senior child protection manager following discussion with the relevant Safeguarding Children Partnership members.

3. Practitioner Dissent at Child Protection Conference

3.1 When Dissent Applies

Dissent applies when a practitioner attending a Child Protection Conference holds a different view about the decision made by the conference. This process relates to decisions made within the conference. Decisions about whether a conference should be convened are explored through Strategy Meetings and supported by the Professional Differences, Resolution and Escalation Protocol.

3.2 Sharing a Difference of View in the Conference (Verbal Dissent)

Practitioners are encouraged to share their views openly during the conference, including where they feel a decision may not fully support family help, child protection, or wellbeing. Differences of view are best raised at the time of the meeting when everyone is present and able to reflect together.

The Conference Chair creates space for respectful dialogue and ensures practitioners feel safe and supported to express their perspective. Any difference of view shared during the meeting about planning or decision‑making is reflected in the conference record, supporting transparency and shared understanding.

This framing supports practitioners to use curiosity and reflective questioning to voice concerns, without feeling they are immediately escalating the issue into a formal process. Where concerns fall outside the meeting or arise later, practitioners can be signposted to the Professional Differences, Resolution and Escalation Protocol for further guidance.

3.3 Formal Agency Dissent (Written Submission)

Where a practitioner continues to hold a different view after the conference decision has been reached, they are encouraged to discuss this with their line manager or safeguarding lead. This helps explore the concern through a reflective agency lens and ensures that any next steps represent organisational, not individual, thinking.

If, following this discussion, the agency believes the conference decision should be formally reviewed, it may choose to submit a formal dissent. Formal dissent reflects an agency position, not an individual practitioner view. For this reason:

• The agency is encouraged to set out its rationale in writing, ideally within 72 hours, so the concern can be considered openly and transparently;
• The written dissent is endorsed by a senior manager, confirming that it carries the agency’s collective professional judgement;
• The formal dissent should be submitted to the Child Protection Conference Service Manager, who will acknowledge receipt and update the child’s record so the agency’s position is clearly recognised and can be taken forward as part of the dissent and review process.

This approach supports thoughtful escalation, strengthens organisational accountability, and ensures disagreements are explored collaboratively and proportionately, with a shared focus on the child’s safety and wellbeing.

3.4 Reviewing the Dissent

The Child Protection Conference Service Manager will:

• Acknowledge and consider the agency’s written dissent and arrange a discussion with the dissenting agency to clarify any points and explain the review pathway and outcome;
• Review the conference records, including reports submitted to the conference and the Chair’s Summary and Plan;
• Reflect on the agency’s rationale, ensuring the concern is understood in context.
• Consult with the Head of Safeguarding or Quality Assurance before deciding whether the dissent is upheld and whether the conference should be reconvened.

3.5 Timescale

The aim is to complete the review within 10 working days of receiving the formal dissent.

3.6 Reconvening the Conference

If the dissent is upheld, a reconvened Child Protection Conference may be arranged within 15 working days of the decision.

4. Dissent Process

The Child Protection Reviewing Officer will ensure Conference members understand the dissent process and will empower professionals to dissent if they do not agree with the decision that has been made.

All dissents will be recorded formally within the Chair’s Summary and Plan and the Chair will notify their line manager immediately.

The Head of Safeguarding and Review service will review the reports submitted to Conference, the Chair’s summary and plan. They will communicate with the dissenting professional before deciding about whether to uphold the dissent and reconvene Conference.

This decision will be made within 10 working days of the Conference. Any reconvened Conference will be held within 15 working days of the reviewing manager’s decision.

All professionals who have dissented at a Child Protection Conference will need to discuss their reasons with their line manager / safeguarding leads.

Professionals should read the Pan Sussex Professional Challenge Resolving Professional Differences Guidance (and link to attachment).

5. Dissent regarding the Implementation of the Child Protection Plan

Concern or disagreement may arise over another professional’s decisions, actions or lack of actions in implementing the Child Protection Plan, including the timing, quoracy or decision-making of Core Group meetings, progress of the plan or professional practice.

Professionals should always attempt to resolve differences in line with the actions outlined above.

6. Where Professional Differences Remain

If professional differences remain unresolved, the matter must be referred to the professional leads for safeguarding and child protection within the agencies involved and include the senior child protection manager.

If the issue is not resolved by the steps described above and / or the discussions raise significant policy issues, the matter should be referred urgently to the Safeguarding Partnership for resolution – Local Contacts.

See also Pan Sussex Professional Differences, Resolution and Escalation Policy.

Professionals in all agencies have a responsibility to act without delay to safeguard the child (e.g. by calling for a case to be allocated or for a Strategy Discussion, for a Core Group meeting or a Child Protection Conference or Review Conference).

Specialist facilities such as specialist children’s hospitals or a psychiatric or other mother and baby unit must have in place a conflict resolution protocol that sets out how conflict resolution will be managed, through the line management of the specialist facility and the LA Children’s Services or other services with responsibility for the child. This protocol should take into account the role of the LA Children’s Children’s Services in the locality of the specialist service.