Voice of the Child –What does Good Practice Look Like?

What do we mean by ‘Voice of the Child?’

The term ‘Voice of the Child’ refers to all children under the age of 18. It refers to not just what they say but also what their behaviour tells us. 

It should be included for all children, including pre-verbal and non-verbal children.

It could also refer to the voice of young people with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities up to the age of 25, and the voices of care leavers up to the age of 25.

Attention should be paid to ensuring their ‘voice’ is heard whether that is through their behaviour, actions, written or spoken words.

Why is it important?

It is part of ethical and respectful practice as set out in Article 12 of the UN convention on rights of the child: 

Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously.

‘Working Together 2023’ also makes it clear that hearing the voice of the child is a core principle of effective safeguarding practice. 

In order to protect children, we must take a child-centred approach which aims to understand children’s lived experiences and seeks their views about their lives and circumstances (Department for Education, 2023).

Where children’s voices have not been heard by professionals in safeguarding work, serious mistakes have been made or vital information overlooked. 

This was true, for example, in the shocking case of Victoria Climbié and has consistently been raised in Serious Case Reviews and Safeguarding Practice Reviews ever since. (Assumptions were made in relation to racial or cultural difference and not adequately explored)

LADO to be aware of what may have been the Barriers to seeking / listening to the voice of children

• Too much focus on the needs of adults
• High caseloads and/or turnover of staff meant relationships were not formed
• Children were not seen alone, not seen often enough or were not seen by the same person
• The views of children with disabilities or complex communication needs were not sought due to a lack of confidence in how best to communicate, including non-verbally
• The views of pre-verbal and non-verbal children were sought through their parents or caregivers, rather than being observed e.g. in play or in interactions with parents or caregivers.
• The voice of children was more likely to be sought and recorded after a particular incident- meaning changes and developments were sometimes missed.
• Practitioners were too ready to accept explanations for children’s behaviour from adults
• Children were not asked about their experiences- their confidence to speak out was lost
• Practitioners made assumptions about children’s feelings or wishes rather than actually seeking their views
• Children who were not in school became even less visible
• Assumptions were made in relation to racial or cultural difference and not adequately explored
• Adolescents seen as ‘hard to engage’ or ‘uncooperative’ were misunderstood- practitioners stopped trying to understand their experiences rather than the behaviour prompting further investigation. 

Challenging Barriers to Hearing the Child’s Voice

Seeing children alone.

We need to challenge what we mean by this term. 

Practice reviews have shown time and again it is not enough to see children on their own in a room of the house where the abuser is in the next room. 

Think about the kind of conditions a child might need to talk about their experience(s) of abuse and facilitate this kind of environment and engagement.

Consider where to see children, including outside of the home.

Children will believe abusers who wish to silence them

For example, abusers might tell children that if they say anything they will be taken away, or that they won’t see siblings etc if they tell. Or just that they won’t be believed. 

If the child sees the practitioner chatting with the abuser, they may be more likely to believe they are friends with them.

Alternative ways to engage with children

Practitioners need to explore alternative ways to engage with children where parents were actively creating a barrier to them being seen or relationships being built. 

Absence of voice in records/ reports / assessments

The absence of the child’s voice in records and discussions should always lead to further curiosity. 

Why is the child’s voice absent?

Hearing the Child’s Voice through other Trusted Adults

Another way to hear the child’s voice is through other children and adults who they know and trust. 

When other children and adults in the child’s life are not spoken to, practitioners miss vital opportunities to understand what was happening. Some of the findings from Safeguarding Practice Reviews include:

• People who knew the child best were not involved in the assessment. 
• Records were not shared between agencies
• Those who could have helped with communication or provided advocacy for the child were not involved
• Practitioners did not give sufficient weight to third party reports of disclosures made by the child, for example, disclosures made to neighbours or friends. 
• The voices of siblings, including older siblings who had left home, were not included. 

It is important to ensure all the children in the household are spoken to independently and assessed to minimise the possibility you are missing the child who is being scapegoated in the family, as happened with Daniel Pelka.

‘Think the unthinkable’. 

There are occasions where practitioners have been ‘groomed’ by abusers to help mask what is happening. 

Sometimes, the warning signs were there but workers did not think the unthinkable was happening. 

For example, practitioners believed that illness or injury to children, particularly disabled children, was due to their condition, rather than to abuse. 

This is even more likely where the carer/parent is female. 

Explanations for things like injuries to children and sexualised behaviours should be treated with respectful uncertainty (Laming, 2003) or authoritative doubt (B. Mason, 1993, Towards a position of safe uncertainty) particularly by managers in supervision. 

‘I Wanted Them All to Notice’ Key Findings

Not hearing children’s voices and understanding their needs.

Practitioners relied on children verbally reporting their abuse before taking action. 

This had particular implications for pre-verbal and non-verbal children.

Children were not being given opportunities to communicate what was happening to them or were not believed when they did tell.

The voices of non-verbal children/babies should be included in assessments and plans by analysing and triangulating all of the following:

• By asking their parents/care givers
• By asking their siblings
• By asking someone independent who they know well (e.g. their school teacher) to support you in talking to them using their preferred communication method
• By observing their behaviour in different settings

It would not be correct to guess what a child of their age and understanding might think or want in their circumstances. 

The criminal standard of proof (which requires evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’) was frequently used as the threshold for ascertaining whether a safeguarding response was required, instead of the safeguarding threshold of ‘balance of probabilities’ which includes an evaluation of likely or actual significant harm. 

The child’s voice in LADO referral /processes / meetings/ decision-making

• Include a “Voice of the Child” section in all LADO referral templates and final LADO meetings / management summaries — include quotes, mood indicators, and the child’s stated wishes.
• Child’s wishes: specifically record what the child wants to happen (safety preferences, whether they want to participate in processes, anonymity preferences).

• Agenda item in strategy/strategy discussion: the LADO should ensure child’s views are presented at multi-agency strategy meetings (even if via advocate).

• Document rationale: if decisions diverge from the child’s expressed wishes (e.g., criminal investigation proceeds despite child’s desire not to), record explicit rationale and how the child was supported through that.
• Feedback loop: after key decisions, provide a child-friendly update: “You said X. We decided Y because Z. Here’s what we will do next.” Use accessible language.
• Independent Advocates: Ensure every child in safeguarding processes can access someone who helps present their views.

• When there are concerns that a child has been abused, including sexually abused, the threshold of concern that should lead to child protection planning is evidence based on the ‘balance of probabilities’.
• Consider an escalation route if child’s wishes are routinely ignored — report to LADO manager/independent reviewer.
• Include child-voice measures in KPIs (e.g., proportion of cases with verbatim child statement on file; timeliness of child feedback).
• Use trauma-informed, age-appropriate methods:
• Offer options: face-to-face, video call (if safe/secure), drawing, audio, or selecting emojis/traffic lights to indicate feelings.
• Use an advocate or trusted adult: the child should have someone they trust to support them (not the alleged perpetrator). Offer an ISVA or independent advocate.
• Communication support: provide interpreters, Makaton, PECS, visual prompts for neurodivergent children.
• Explain limits: use age-appropriate language to explain what will happen with the information and who will see it.

Voice of the Child Checklist for consideration

Who will hear the child? (Name & role) ___________________________

Has an independent advocate/ISVA been offered?                          ☐ Yes ☐ No

Child statement captured verbatim and attached to LADO file?         ☐ Yes ☐ No

Forensic/police involvement – statement?                                      ☐ Yes ☐ No

Safety plan recorded and shared with necessary staff?                    ☐ Yes ☐ No

Child’s wishes and feelings explicitly documented?                          ☐ Yes ☐ No

Impact on child (education, sleep, wellbeing) noted?                        ☐ Yes ☐ No

Child-friendly feedback provided after decisions?                            ☐ Yes ☐ No

Feedback to parents / carers?                                                        ☐ Yes ☐ No

Therapeutic support offered / identified and who?                            ☐ Yes ☐ No

Named contact given to child on who will feedback / offer support? ☐ Yes ☐ No

• Get confident in asking curious and probing questions
• If the voice of the child is absent from an assessment, intervention, supervision or discussion with peers- ask yourself why?
• Agencies / practitioners  / the police need to take time to build relationships with children- where necessary consider using text, phone or online communications as well as face-to-face where this supports relationship building.
• Get curious and pro-active if you are being blocked from gaining a child’s views or seeing practice that their voice was not sought.

Ofsted wants to see evidence on how the LADO captures / considers the voice of the child.

• Consider adding a separate casenote in the LADO records when the voice of the child is captured shared with the LADO; i.e. statements of an incident taken / Highlighted Case note specific re Voice of the Child.
• In LADO Meeting Minutes; a separate section for the Voice of the Child
• In Action Logs of LADO meetings / processes at the start on who and when this will be done and end of the process on what feedback will be given.

Leaflets:

Consider also Children with Complex Needs – Amended leaflet for children with words and pictures / also for parents with learning needs.

Impact Statements to be captured in LADO meeting minutes / LADO process for consideration:

Voice of the child: Children with Disabilities / Special Needs

The LADO will ensure the voice and impact of children with disabilities and communication barriers is reflected within the LADO process.

Direct Harm (Abuse or Neglect Toward the Child)

[Child’s name] experiences the world primarily through relationships, consistency, and sensory cues. When a child with disabilities who has limited or no language is harmed directly, the impact is profound, even if they cannot describe it verbally. Such harm can manifest through changes in behaviour, withdrawal, distress responses, or regression in skills.

The breach of physical or emotional safety for a child who relies on adults for care, mobility, or communication represents a deep violation of trust and autonomy. The child’s voice in this case is represented through their behaviour, emotional cues, and observable wellbeing — each indicating their need for consistent, safe, and attuned caregiving. Their impact must be understood as both physical and emotional, requiring specialised therapeutic and communication support.

Indirect Harm (i.e. Exposure to Domestic Violence)

Although [child’s name] may not have the words to describe what they witness or feel, children with disabilities are acutely sensitive to emotional and environmental cues. Exposure to shouting, fear, or physical violence can trigger heightened anxiety, confusion, or distress, especially where the child depends on those same adults for care.

The child’s voice is represented through non-verbal signs of distress (e.g., changes in sleep, eating, routines, vocalisations, or self-soothing behaviours). Their experience of fear or instability is as real and impactful as for any child. The impact must be considered not only in terms of emotional harm, but also the erosion of predictability, safety, and trust in the adults around them.

Harm by a Person in a Position of Trust (Non-Family)

For a child with disabilities and limited communication, safety and trust depend heavily on consistent, caring adults in educational, health, or care settings. When a person in a position of trust causes harm, the impact extends beyond the incident itself — it undermines the child’s entire sense of safety in environments meant to protect them.

Even if the child cannot articulate what has happened, their response may be visible in behavioural changes, avoidance, distress during personal care, or emotional withdrawal. The child’s voice in this case is represented by these cues, and by the professional duty of all adults to interpret, respect, and act on them. The impact is amplified by the child’s dependence on adults for care and communication; therefore, advocacy and representation of their needs must be prioritised within the LADO process.

🧠 

Guidance for Use

• Insert these statements into LADO meeting notes, case summaries, or referral forms under “Voice of the Child” or “Impact on Child.”
• Personalise each statement with the child’s name, age, type of disability, and any observed changes in mood, routine, or functioning.
• Draw from professional observation: Use reports from carers, therapists, SEN staff, or medical professionals to evidence how harm has affected the child’s wellbeing and development.
• Ensure advocacy: Always include the role of an independent advocate, communication specialist, or trusted adult who can interpret the child’s behaviours and emotional cues.
• Reflect systemic vulnerability: Recognise that disabled children face greater barriers to disclosure and are at higher risk of harm being missed or misunderstood.

Voice of the child: the child is too young (e.g., a baby) or unable to express themselves directly

In these cases, the LADO process can and should reflect their experience and impact through a carefully framed impact statement that draws on child development research, safeguarding practice, and trauma-informed principles.

Direct Harm (abuse or neglect towards a baby/young child)

Although [child’s name] is not able to verbally express their experiences, the impact of direct harm at this stage of life is significant. Babies and very young children rely entirely on adults for safety and care; any abuse or neglect undermines their basic trust in the world and can cause immediate distress, pain, or fear. Research shows that early harm can disrupt brain development, attachment, and emotional regulation, with lifelong consequences if not addressed. The child’s voice in this case is represented through their vulnerability, dependency, and observable needs for safety, nurturing, and protection from further harm.

Indirect Harm (babies exposed to domestic violence)

While [child’s name] may not understand or describe the violence they have been exposed to, even very young children are deeply affected by unsafe, hostile, or frightening environments. Babies can absorb the emotional tone of their caregivers and environments; exposure to domestic violence can cause stress responses that affect sleep, feeding, attachment, and development. The child’s voice in this case is represented by their need for a safe, calm, and predictable environment, free from fear and instability.

Harm by a Person in a Position of Trust (Non family)

Although [child’s name] cannot verbally share their views, the breach of trust by an adult in a position of responsibility over them has a profound impact. Babies and young children depend on adults not only for care but for protection; when that trust is violated, it represents a fundamental betrayal of safety. Even if the child cannot articulate this, the harm is real — reflected in their vulnerability, in the breach of safeguarding standards, and in the need for others to advocate strongly on their behalf. The child’s voice is represented by the right to be safe, nurtured, and protected from those who misuse positions of trust.

Voice of the child: IIOC offences / Online Offences relating to children

Impact statements:

Offences involving indecent images of children represent a profound violation of the rights, dignity, and safety of children. These images are not victimless; each one depicts a real child who has been subjected to abuse, exploitation, and harm. The creation, possession, or distribution of such material perpetuates a cycle of trauma and revictimisation, often without the child ever knowing who has viewed or shared their image.
From the perspective of the child, the impact is enduring. The knowledge that images of their abuse may continue to circulate indefinitely can lead to long-term psychological distress, including anxiety, shame, and a persistent sense of powerlessness. It undermines their ability to feel safe, trust others, and move forward in their recovery.

Children have the right to be heard and protected. Their voices, though often silent in these cases, must be amplified through our safeguarding responses. It is imperative that professionals recognise the ongoing harm caused by these offences and respond with a child-centred approach that prioritises the welfare, dignity, and recovery of every child affected.

Or

Although no individual child has been identified in this case, every indecent image represents the sexual abuse of a real child. The making, possession, or sharing of such material continues that abuse, causing ongoing harm including loss of safety, fear of re-victimisation, violation of privacy, shame, and long-term trauma. This harm must be recognised and reflected in all LADO deliberations and decisions.

Or

The conviction of an individual for offences involving indecent images of children, particularly where that individual held a position of trust as a (POT role), raises significant safeguarding concerns. Such roles inherently involve close contact with children and young people, often in settings that rely on trust, mentorship, and emotional safety.

This breach of trust not only undermines the integrity of the safeguarding framework but also poses a potential risk to the emotional and psychological wellbeing of children who may have been under the individual’s supervision. While there may be no direct evidence of contact offences, the nature of IIOC offences reflects a harmful interest in the sexual exploitation of children, which is incompatible with any role involving access to or influence over young people.

As the Local Authority Designated Officer, I have ensured that a multi-agency response has been initiated to assess any potential harm, identify any children who may have been affected, and implement protective measures. This includes liaising with relevant organisations to ensure that the individual is barred from working with children and that safeguarding policies are reviewed and strengthened within the (employment / volunteering context).

The voice of the child remains central to our safeguarding practice. We must continue to promote environments where children feel safe, heard, and protected from all forms of exploitation.

Or

The individual in question has been convicted of offences relating to the possession and/or distribution of indecent images of children. These offences are serious and represent a significant breach of safeguarding principles, particularly given the individual’s role as a (the POT role) —a position which involves direct engagement with children and young people in a context of trust, mentorship, and physical proximity.

While there is no current evidence of contact offences, the nature of IIOC offences reflects a harmful sexual interest in children. This is incompatible with any role that involves access to or influence over children and young people.

Or

Although no direct victims have been identified within the (the POT role) context, it is essential to recognise that IIOC offences are not victimless. Each image represents a child who has been exploited and harmed. The voice of the child must remain central to our safeguarding practice. Children have the right to feel safe, to be protected from exploitation, and to have their dignity upheld.

This case reinforces the importance of robust safeguarding measures, clear reporting pathways, and ongoing vigilance in all environments where adults hold positions of trust.

Or

Although no specific child has been identified locally in this case, it is important to recognise that every indecent image or video depicts a real child who has been subjected to sexual abuse. The creation, possession, and distribution of these images causes ongoing harm to those children in the following ways:

• Loss of safety and dignity: Children describe feeling that their abuse is “never over” because images are permanent and may be repeatedly shared.
• Violation of privacy: Their most intimate and traumatic experiences are taken from them and used without consent.
• Fear and anxiety: Survivors report distress at the thought that strangers, peers, or family members may access the images at any time.
• Shame and identity impact: Children often internalise feelings of blame, shame, and humiliation, even though they are victims.
• Long-term trauma: The knowledge that the material exists online contributes to anxiety, depression, and difficulties in relationships well into adulthood.

Therefore, in considering this case, the child’s voice is represented through the collective experiences of victims of image-based child sexual abuse. The harm caused by the making, possessing, or sharing of indecent images is not abstract: it is the continuing abuse of real children.

Practitioners must be professionally curious and evidence how the voice of the child was captured.

Prepared from different sources for 2025 NLN Conference Workshop – ‘The Voice of the Child’ by Ancil Gerber, LADO, Norfolk Children’s Services