CHILD PROTECTION & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS:
DIFFERENT LENSES
Jeanette Schmid 30 November 2009
Global Conference on Research & Child Rights Addis Ababa
What shapes lenses?
Local values, norms & practices regarding children & families determine operative child welfare system
UNCRC: Children are accorded rights
Child welfare systems & Rights • socially constructed, • often appear immutable • become entrenched. ‘Truth’.
3 broad types
Categorization of systems based in & on knowledge from ‘the north /1st world /developed world’. 1. Child Protection2. Family Services3. Community Care
Much flexibility within each model- ‘stereotype’. Each model is based on different assumptions which
shape intervention.
Dimensions
Used in ....
Goal
Relationship betw. family & state (incl.rights)
Authority
Location
Substitute care
Critiques
References
Bennett & Blackstock, 2006; Blackstock, Trocme, & Bennett, 2004; Cameron et al., 2001; Crichlow, 2002; Cross, 2005; Doek, 1991; Ferguson, 1997; Freymond & Cameron, 2006; Grevot, 2006; Hetherington, 2006; Hetherington & Nurse, 2006; Love, 2000. 2006; Mandell, Blackstock, Clouston-Carlson, & Fine, 2006; Merkel-Holguin, n.d.; Parton, 1996; Prilletensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 1997; Segal, 2004; Smith, 1999; Swift, 1995; Swift & Callahan, 2006; Tilbury, 1998; Tauri, 1999, Waldegrave, 2006.
Child Protection
Used in: • Anglo-American countries
• Approaches in ‘developing’ countries appear to mimic
Goal: To address maltreatment
Child Protection Relationship betw. family & state
Parents (mothers) held responsiblePunitiveState intervenes when child at risk or in need of protection: primary concern is child’s right to safetyDeficiency-basedIndividualistic
ResidualMinimal support to parentsSystemic issues tend to be overlookedFocus on nuclear family, with relatives peripheral Focus on children’s rights (individualized)
Child ProtectionAuthority
Derived from courts
Adversarial
Investigative, based on proof
Aims at control & parental compliance
Limited discretion for workers, particularly associated with increased risk management approaches
Location
Stand alone
Single point of access for families
‘Threshold system”- need to meet criteria for service
Limited preventive activities focused on enhancing parenting skills
Expert-led
Substitute Care
Stranger (middle class) care
Significant use of residential care
Children returned when parent can demonstrate that can offer a safe environment
Critiques
Individualistic Remedial Adversarial Minorities & poor over-represented CostlySeldom customizedCoincides with neo-lib. PerspectivesMay unintentionally undermine rather than support rights
Corrections
Partnership, tho‘ remains expert-led
Recognizing ‚disproportionality‘
Differential response
Family Services
Used in: Japan & Europe e.g. Nordic countries, Germany, Holland, France
Goal:To support families in child rearing
Family ServicesRelationship betw family & stateState shares responsibility for child rearing- collective, solidarity, social cohesionUniversal support offered to families: no distinction between programs for families at risk & well-being of familiesRights of child integrated with rights of parents (tho’ individualistic too)Some appreciation of systemic issues
Family ServicesAuthority
Derived from courts/ local authority
Inquisitorial; informal approach by judge
Cooperative
Consensus based; mutual agreement
Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution & lay forums
Workers have broad discretion
Family ServicesLocation
Embedded in broad social welfare system: prevention, early intervention & protection activities are integratedIntersectoral approachPrevention is broad-basedMultidisciplinaryMultiple access pointsUse of social workers, but also alternative service providers e.g. lay persons, volunteersCollaborative approach
Family ServicesSubstitute Care
Children removed as last resort
Contact with immediate family maintained
Adoption rare
Family supported to take care of child even when maltreatment
Family ServicesCritique
Doesn’t focus on needs (rights?) of children
Instead focused on individual & parents
Also expert-led
Increasingly influenced by neo-liberal thinking
Community Care
Used in:• Indigenous communities in Canada, U.S.A &
Australia, usually subject to dominant practices
• Integrated into dominant system in New Zealand (FGC)
Goal:To support family networks in child rearing
Community CareRelationship betw family & state
Family & community share childrearing
Rights & identity of child inseparable from collective rights of family & community
Fundamental appreciation of oppressive mechanisms & their impact (developed as alternatives to these -structural approach)
Community CareAuthority
Derived from tradition, history, culture & spirituality
Interdependence & inclusion
Focus on family & community planning for child without courts
Community CareLocation
Embedded in broader functioning of communityHolistic, ecological understanding of difficulties within familyIdeally, family network driven rather than expert led – privileges family group knowledge & voice (i.e. More than ‚partnership‘)
Community CareSubstitute Care
Children to be cared for within kinship & community system
Cultural bond & identity is important
Community CareCritiques
Often diluted as attempting to function within a context of a dominant culture • This dilutes also ability to ensure rights of child, family
From point of view of child protection:• Doesn‘t work for all families or all kinds of abuse-
compromises best interests of child• Too expensive• Why need an ‚independent‘ coordinator?• Professional knowledge sidelined
An alternative lens:A Developmental Model
Based on Developmental Social Welfare as articulated in White Paper 1997, South Africa. My interpretation!Goal: to support family networks & communities in raising children (welfare in broadest sense, rather than child protection)Working with community members rather than clients
Developmental ModelRelationship betw family & stateFamily network, community & state share child-rearingRights focus: Rights & identity of child inseparable from collective rights of family group & communityIntersectional approach- recognises role of oppression & different facets of power on parenting capacity
Developmental ModelAuthority
Derived from common values
Interdependence & inclusion (Ubuntu)
Focus on family & community planning for child ideally without courts
Collaboration driven by family group & facilitated by professionals
Developmental ModelLocation
Embedded in broader social welfare systemIntersectoralFocus on prevention: building networks & capacity, not simply abuse preventionAccessible hubsStatutory work rare, collaborative & inclusiveInterdisciplinary teams
Developmental ModelMethod
Participatory at all levels of service delivery
Group work & individual work remain valid
Socio-econ synergy through collaboration
Issues to consider
What assumptions inform local approaches to child welfare & understanding of children‘s rights?
• How are children, parents, families, communities, service providers (rights) constructed?• Are the primary causes of abuse & neglect located in individuals or structures or both?• How does ‚international‘ thinking impact local policy & practice?
What conditions specifically impact children & their families (rights) in this context?
What local knowledges can be tapped into?
How do current resource constraints & possibilities impact ideal responses, & how can this be addressed?
Thank you!
Any questions?
Top Related