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?