Transcript CHILD PROTECTION & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS: DIFFERENT LENSES Jeanette Schmid 30 November 2009 Global Conference on Research & Child Rights Addis Ababa.

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 Protection
2. Family Services
3. 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, CloustonCarlson, & 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
responsible
Punitive
State intervenes when
child at risk or in need of
protection: primary
concern is child’s right to
safety
Deficiency-based
Individualistic
Residual
Minimal support to
parents
Systemic issues tend to be
overlooked
Focus on nuclear family,
with relatives peripheral
Focus on children’s rights
(individualized)
Child Protection
Authority
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
Costly
Seldom customized
Coincides with neo-lib. Perspectives
May 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 Services
Relationship betw family & state
State shares responsibility for child rearingcollective, solidarity, social cohesion
Universal support offered to families: no
distinction between programs for families at
risk & well-being of families
Rights of child integrated with rights of
parents (tho’ individualistic too)
Some appreciation of systemic issues
Family Services
Authority
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 Services
Location
Embedded in broad social welfare system:
prevention, early intervention & protection
activities are integrated
Intersectoral approach
Prevention is broad-based
Multidisciplinary
Multiple access points
Use of social workers, but also alternative service
providers e.g. lay persons, volunteers
Collaborative approach
Family Services
Substitute Care
Children removed as last resort
Contact with immediate family maintained
Adoption rare
Family supported to take care of child even
when maltreatment
Family Services
Critique
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 Care
Relationship 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 Care
Authority
Derived from tradition, history, culture &
spirituality
Interdependence & inclusion
Focus on family & community planning for
child without courts
Community Care
Location
Embedded in broader functioning of
community
Holistic, ecological understanding of
difficulties within family
Ideally, family network driven rather than
expert led – privileges family group
knowledge & voice (i.e. More than
‚partnership‘)
Community Care
Substitute Care
Children to be cared for within kinship &
community system
Cultural bond & identity is important
Community Care
Critiques
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 abusecompromises 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 Model
Relationship betw family & state
Family network, community & state share
child-rearing
Rights focus: Rights & identity of child
inseparable from collective rights of family
group & community
Intersectional approach- recognises role of
oppression & different facets of power on
parenting capacity
Developmental Model
Authority
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 Model
Location
Embedded in broader social welfare system
Intersectoral
Focus on prevention: building networks &
capacity, not simply abuse prevention
Accessible hubs
Statutory work rare, collaborative &
inclusive
Interdisciplinary teams
Developmental Model
Method
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?