Cultural Competence in Safeguarding 

What is cultural competence and how could it impact our practice? 

‘A lack of understanding of the religions and cultural context of families can lead to professionals overlooking situations that may put family members at risk; whilst the desire to be culturally-sensitive can result in professionals accepting lower standards of care.’ 

– NSPCC 

Cultural competence in children’s safeguarding is the ability to protect children from harm by understanding and responding appropriately to cultural differences, while ensuring that culture is never used to justify abuse or neglect. Understanding how culture, family norms, language, religion and other experiences shape a child’s life is imperative to supporting children and families but it can never be an excuse for abuse or neglect. 

Children from minority or marginalised backgrounds may face additional barriers to being heard or protected. These can include: 

• Fear of authority figures 

• Language barriers 

• Shame, honour, or family loyalty 

• Previous trauma or mistrust of systems 

• Immigration or asylum concerns 

Cultural competence helps professionals get it right, protecting children while engaging families respectfully and effectively. 

Arguably one of the most well-known cases of cultural incompetence is Daniel Pelka. Daniel died at the age of 4 in 2013 after suffering abuse at the hands of his mother and her partner, hitting headlines due to the missed opportunities to help Daniel, from agencies. Daniels’s case identified key failings relating to cultural competency such as a language barrier that wasn’t explored and the mother’s explanations being taken at face value often due to assumptions based on cultural norms.  

There have been more recent cases such as Child U (2025) a preschool aged child who died due to a head injury in 2020 after coming to the UK with someone who claimed to be an adoptive parent. There were other children in the home with the two adults claiming to be his parents, the family had interactions with various agencies such as school, nursery, mental health support and their local GP. 

The review into Child U’s death noted a lack of exploration of the impact of domestic abuse within the household, the voice of the child, the child legal caregiving arrangements and cultural and migration-related factors. Non-traditional family structures and assumptions about caregiving roles were not adequately analysed within safeguarding assessments.  

The Child Safeguarding Practice Review into Child U’s death reinforces the fact that cultural understanding is not optional in safeguarding – without it, assumptions about family dynamics and caregiving can lead to missed risk indicators. 

Avoiding common safeguarding pitfalls

There are two key mistakes that cultural competence helps prevent: 

1. Cultural minimisation: Dismissing harmful practices as “just cultural” 

2. Cultural stereotyping: Assuming risk based solely on ethnicity, religion, or background 

Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023) clearly outlines the importance of professionals building “an understanding of the child’s strengths, interests, identity, and culture’” whilst ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the child is paramount. The Children’s Act (2004) also states professionals should always “give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”. 

But what does this mean in practice? 

• Listening carefully to children and adapting communication to their age, language, and understanding 

• Using trained interpreters as opposed to family members or friends 

• Recognising that children may not have the language or confidence to describe harm 

• Being alert to specific risks (such as forced marriage, FGM, honour-based abuse, or hidden neglect) without making assumptions, making sure all staff in schools are able to identify and recognise abuse and how to report 

• Working collaboratively with families while being clear about safeguarding expectations 

• Ensuring the child’s voice is heard and their welfare remains paramount 

• Listening beyond words. The voice of the child isn’t always verbal – communication through play, behaviours and relationships is key 

• Keeping the rights of the child central to our work 

• School staff being confident in identifying concerns and having conversations without fear of disrespecting a family’s culture  

Respecting culture and protecting children are not competing priorities, they go hand in hand when approached correctly. 

Understanding a child’s cultural, religious, and family background allows professionals to witness their daily lived experiences, identify risks, and respond appropriately. At the same time, cultural awareness must never impact our duty to protect children – harm cannot be excused in the name of culture. By embedding curiosity and anti-discriminatory practice into a school’s safeguarding culture and practice, professionals not only comply with the law but also ensure that every child, regardless of background, receives the protection, care, and respect they deserve. 

Child Safeguarding Practice Review – Child U.

For further information and advice, please contact our Safeguarding Team.