IT appears that the Scottish Government’s Named Person scheme is no more. Having been ruled to breach data protection laws by the UK Supreme Court, the Government failed to find a way of making this scheme work and have decided to abandon it.

Of course, it should not be courts that are scrutinising legislation in this way but our political representatives, who, in the main, found nothing wrong with the idea of the Named Person. Courts are made up of unelected, generally upper class, judges, who may well know the law but in no way represent the people of Scotland. Indeed the Named Person was given the nod of approval by the Scottish Court of Session which described the campaign against the Named Person, of which I was part, as ‘hyperbole’ – demonstrating the danger of relying on the courts.

The campaign against the Named Person was far more than a mere court case however and the hard work of individuals like Lesley Scott, Maggie Mellon and Alison Preuss, as well as the significant work of the Christian Institute, and Conservative MSP Liz Smith, all helped to raise concerns about this initiative and to keep the pressure on the Government. The worry, however, is that the ethos behind the Named Person remains.

READ MORE: Scottish Government to scrap Named Person policy 

The Named Person is a product of a number of trends in society, not least of all the move to view private relationships through the prism of risk and abuse. Within this context the parent-child relationship is increasingly viewed as problematic, as something that authorities should keep an eye on, as part of the myriad problems that take place behind closed doors.

The Named Person is not an anomaly it is a by-product of New Labour’s Every Child Matters approach in England and the Getting It Right for every child approach in Scotland. This approach broadens the framework for intervention into family life by making it the state’s job to oversee the "wellbeing" of children. And what does this therapeutically-inclined idea of wellbeing mean? It means almost anything. Coupled with the modern belief that children are profoundly vulnerable, this focus upon wellbeing means that the scope for professional intervention is extraordinary.

READ MORE: Admit defeat on named person scheme, Scottish Government urged 

The data protection aspect of the Named Person is being dropped but this broader approach towards children and families continues to dominate “good practice”. Tragically, it is likely to mean that parents in general, rather than the very small number of abusive parents, continue to be viewed with suspicion. Professionals will be trained to understand problems and to act accordingly based on the 308 “wellbeing indicators” provided by the Scottish Government rather than on their common sense and their human instincts. As a result, the tiny number of seriously vulnerable children will potentially be lost in the bottomless sea of wellbeing concerns.