Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] Our responsibility is not to respond to the loudest voice, but to protect every child according to their individual needs and the risks identified. We will neither minimise genuine safeguarding concerns nor artificially elevate the assessed urgency of a matter in response to external pressure.
“The Department will continue to act in accordance with its guiding principles of Confidentiality, Compassion and Cooperation…”
The following Letter to the Editor, which responds to a request for greater transparency, feedback and timelines from the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (TTFA) Safeguarding Department, was submitted to Wired868 by TTFA Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department manager Gary St Rose:
I have taken note of the letter published by Wired868 on Sunday 11 October 2026, entitled: Child safeguarding is not a waiting game; parents have right to demand answers!
While I welcome constructive discussion on safeguarding and the rights of parents, it is important to correct the apparent misunderstanding of my original position.
At no point did I suggest that parents should not receive appropriate information concerning matters affecting their children, nor did I suggest that the TTFA Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department should operate without accountability.
(via TTFA Media.)
What I have consistently maintained is that safeguarding investigations must be guided by professional risk assessments, established procedures, the available evidence, confidentiality and the best interests of the children involved.
The right to report a concern and request feedback does not confer the authority to dictate the priority, investigative process, protective measures or outcome of a safeguarding matter. These decisions must remain the responsibility of the appropriately designated safeguarding professionals.
It is particularly noteworthy that, based on the Department’s assessment and records, the child of the parent who raised the concerns was not left unsupervised at any material time, nor did the Department identify circumstances indicating that the child had been placed in danger as alleged or implied nor is currently in danger.
This distinction is critical because the correspondence involved two separate matters concerning two different children, with different circumstances and safeguarding considerations.
The Department is concerned that these matters have been presented together in a manner that creates an impression of a level of immediate danger or urgency that was not established by the assessment of the reporting parent’s own circumstances.
Photo: CFU.
Furthermore, the second matter concerns another child whose parent has expressed a clear preference that the issue be addressed discreetly and outside the public spotlight. That preference deserves respect, subject always to the Department’s independent responsibility to assess risks, take necessary protective action and comply with any applicable statutory reporting obligations.
One family’s circumstances must not be publicly conflated with another family’s private safeguarding matter to create an impression that is not supported by the individual risk assessments.
For completeness, the Department received the original correspondence on 15 September 2026, acknowledged it on 17 September 2026, and provided a substantive response on 27 September 2026. On 28 September 2026, the parent requested further information and imposed an additional five-day period for a response.
These dates demonstrate that the Department neither ignored the concerns nor refused to engage. Rather, it acknowledged the correspondence, considered the matters raised and communicated within the framework of its responsibilities.
The Department wishes to make it abundantly clear that all matters raised are being examined, and the appropriate level of confidentiality, risk assessment and procedural consideration has been applied to the circumstances of each child separately.
The reporting parent will receive further communication in due course concerning those matters that directly relate to their child and to which they are appropriately entitled. However, the Department will not disclose confidential information concerning another child or family merely because that information has been requested or because public commentary has generated additional attention.
Romain, the National U-14 team manager, was accused of leaving a 14-year-old national player alone at the Piarco Airport, after the 2026 CFU Boys Challenge Series.
Photo: Daniel Prentice/ Wired868.
The writer correctly observes that safeguarding must not become an excuse for unnecessary delay, and on that principle there is no disagreement. However, the equally important principle is that the urgency of a safeguarding intervention must be determined by the nature, likelihood and potential consequences of the risk identified—rather than by the insistence of a complainant or the intensity of public commentary because two matters were conflated as one.
Where a child is assessed to be in immediate danger, the Department has a responsibility to act without delay, including implementing appropriate protective measures and making referrals to the relevant statutory authorities where necessary.
Where an assessment does not establish immediate danger, the matter must still be addressed, but through a proportionate process consistent with the available evidence and circumstances. Not every concern requires the same response, and treating every allegation as though it presents an identical level of risk would undermine the very principles of professional safeguarding assessment.
Confidentiality, due process and appropriate investigative procedures are not obstacles to child protection; they are essential components of it.
I also wish to address the suggestion that accountability requires the Department to provide information or conclude matters according to deadlines imposed through public correspondence.
The TTFA Safeguarding Department is accountable to its governing policies, applicable laws, competent statutory authorities and the children and vulnerable persons it is mandated to protect. It is not, however, obliged to depart from established procedures because an individual chooses to escalate a matter through the media.
We will not permit public pressure, repeated demands or attempts to combine unrelated circumstances to distort the professional assessment of a case or compel the disclosure of information that ought properly to remain confidential.
This is not a refusal to be accountable, nor is it an attempt to diminish the concerns of any parent. It is a necessary affirmation that safeguarding decisions must be independent, fair, evidence-based and proportionate.
Parents have every right to advocate for their children, but that right must coexist with the rights of other children and families to privacy, dignity and appropriate protection.
(via TTFA Media.)
The TTFA Safeguarding, Player Care and Wellbeing Department remains fully committed to examining every concern brought to its attention and responding according to the nature and seriousness of the circumstances presented.
We recognise that parents are entitled to reassurance that concerns affecting their children are being appropriately addressed, and we will continue to communicate relevant information through the established channels. However, safeguarding cannot be swayed over whose concerns receive the greatest public attention or whose demands are expressed most forcefully.
Our responsibility is not to respond to the loudest voice, but to protect every child according to their individual needs and the risks identified. We will neither minimise genuine safeguarding concerns nor artificially elevate the assessed urgency of a matter in response to external pressure.
The Department will continue to act in accordance with its guiding principles of Confidentiality, Compassion and Cooperation—recognising that the best interests of children, rather than personal disputes or public controversy, must remain the foundation of every safeguarding decision.
|
Wired868 has provided readers with solid, independent journalism since 2012. If you appreciate our work, please contribute to our efforts. Support Independent Journalism |
“[…] In April 2025, Wired868 reported that TTFA safeguarding manager Gary St Rose said his department had handled 561 reported Read more
“[…] There are also concerns about statements reportedly made to players and/or during discussions with members of the football community, Read more
“[…] The safeguarding process belongs to the protection of the child and the proper management of risk—it does not belong Read more
“[…] A Trinidad and Tobago National U-14 player was reportedly left at Piarco International Airport at approximately 3am, after the Read more
“[…] Safeguarding is often discussed primarily in terms of protecting children and athletes from abuse, neglect, exploitation, harassment and other Read more
“[…] Never mind the ‘media specialists’, apologists and enablers (paid and unpaid by TTFA) who seek to convince us otherwise. Read more
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.
