Child protection is used to describe a set of usually government-run services designed to protect children and young people who are underage and to encourage family stability. These typically include foster care, adoption services, services aimed at supporting at-risk families so they can remain intact, and investigation of alleged child abuse.
Most children who come to the attention of the child welfare system do so because of any of the following situations, which are often collectively termed child abuse:
Child sexual abuse
Emotional abuse
Neglect including the failure to take adequate measures to safeguard a child from harm and/or gross negligence in providing for a child's basic needs:
Physical abuse
Psychological abuse
The United States government's Administration for Children and Families reported that in 2004 approximately 3.5 million children were involved in investigations of alleged abuse or neglect in the US, while an estimated 872,000 children were determined to have been abused or neglected and an estimated 1,490 children died that year because of abuse or neglect. In 2007, 1,760 children died as the result of child abuse and neglect.[1] Child abuse impacts the most vulnerable populations with children under age five years accounting for 76% of fatalities.[2] In 2008, 8.3 children per 1000 were victims of child abuse and neglect and 10.2 children per 1000 were in out of home placement.
Most children who come to the attention of the child welfare system do so because of any of the following situations, which are often collectively termed child abuse:
Child sexual abuse
Emotional abuse
Neglect including the failure to take adequate measures to safeguard a child from harm and/or gross negligence in providing for a child's basic needs:
Physical abuse
Psychological abuse
The United States government's Administration for Children and Families reported that in 2004 approximately 3.5 million children were involved in investigations of alleged abuse or neglect in the US, while an estimated 872,000 children were determined to have been abused or neglected and an estimated 1,490 children died that year because of abuse or neglect. In 2007, 1,760 children died as the result of child abuse and neglect.[1] Child abuse impacts the most vulnerable populations with children under age five years accounting for 76% of fatalities.[2] In 2008, 8.3 children per 1000 were victims of child abuse and neglect and 10.2 children per 1000 were in out of home placement.
History
The concept of a state sanctioned child welfare system dates back to Plato's Republic. Plato theorised that the interests of the child could be served by snatching children from the care of their parents and placing them into state custody. To prevent an uprising from dispossessed parents: "We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers."[4]
Usually the responsibilities are stated within an act of a provincial legislature of provincial parliament. This then empowers the government department or agency to provide services in the area and to intervene into families where child abuse or other problems are suspected. The government agency that manages these services has various other names in different provinces, e.g., child and family services, children's aid. There is some consistency in the nature of laws, though the application of the laws may vary across the country.
The United Nations has addressed child abuse as a human rights issue, adding a section specifically to children in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding… should be afforded the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.”
The concept of a state sanctioned child welfare system dates back to Plato's Republic. Plato theorised that the interests of the child could be served by snatching children from the care of their parents and placing them into state custody. To prevent an uprising from dispossessed parents: "We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers."[4]
Usually the responsibilities are stated within an act of a provincial legislature of provincial parliament. This then empowers the government department or agency to provide services in the area and to intervene into families where child abuse or other problems are suspected. The government agency that manages these services has various other names in different provinces, e.g., child and family services, children's aid. There is some consistency in the nature of laws, though the application of the laws may vary across the country.
The United Nations has addressed child abuse as a human rights issue, adding a section specifically to children in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding… should be afforded the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.”
U.S. History
In 1853, the Children's Aid Society[5] was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York. Rather than allow these children to become institutionalized or continue to live on the streets, the children were placed in the first “foster” homes, but typically with the intention of helping these families work their farms.[6][7]
In 1874, the first case of child abuse was criminally prosecuted in what has come to be known as the “case of Mary Ellen.” Outrage over this case started an organized effort to against child maltreatment [8] In 1909, President Roosevelt convened the White House Conference on Child Dependency, which created a publicly funded volunteer organization to “establish and publicize standards of child care.”[6] By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work.[7] Issues of abuse and neglect were addressed in the Social Security Act in 1930, which provided funding for intervention for “neglected and dependent children in danger of becoming delinquent.” [8]
In the 1940s and 1950’s, due to improved technology in diagnostic radiology, the medical profession began to take notice of what they believed to be intentional injuries.[9] In 1961, Dr. Kempe[10] began to further research this issue, eventually coining the term “battered child syndrome.”[9] At this same time, there were also changing views about the role of the child in society, fueled in part by the civil rights movement.[7]
In 1973, congress took the first steps toward enacting federal legislature to address the issue of child abuse. The Child Abus Prevention and Treatment Act[11] was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.” [8]
Shortly thereafter, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed. This act was passed in response to concerns that large numbers of Native American Children were being separated from their tribes and placed in foster care.[12] This legislation not only opened the door for consideration of cultural issues while stressing ideas that children should be with their families, leading to the beginnings of family preservation programs.[13]
In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act[14] was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement.[7] Although this legislation addressed some of the complaints from earlier pieces of legislation around ensuring due process for parents, these changes did not alleviate the high numbers of children in placement or continuing delays in permanence.[13] This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.[7]
In addition to family preservation services, the focus of federal child welfare policy changed to try to address permanence for the large numbers of foster children care.[13] Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act,[15] 1988 Child Abuse and Prevention and Adoption and Family Services Act, 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Adoption and Family Services Act . The 1994 Multi Ethnic Placement Act, which was revised 1996 to add the Interethnic Placement Provisions, also attempted to promote permanency through adoption, creating regulations that adoptions could not be delayed or denied due to issues of race, color or national origin of the child or the adoptive parent.[16]
All of these policies led up to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act(ASFA), much of which guides current practice. Changes in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act showed a interest in both protecting children’s safety and developing permanency.[16] This law requires counties to provide “reasonable efforts” (treatment) to preserve or reunify families, but also shortened time lines required for permanence, leading to termination of parental rights should these efforts fail.[7][16] ASFA introduced the idea of “concurrent planning” which demonstrated attempts to reunify families as the first plan, but to have a back-up plan so as not to delay permanency for children (Michell, et al. 2005).
In 1853, the Children's Aid Society[5] was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York. Rather than allow these children to become institutionalized or continue to live on the streets, the children were placed in the first “foster” homes, but typically with the intention of helping these families work their farms.[6][7]
In 1874, the first case of child abuse was criminally prosecuted in what has come to be known as the “case of Mary Ellen.” Outrage over this case started an organized effort to against child maltreatment [8] In 1909, President Roosevelt convened the White House Conference on Child Dependency, which created a publicly funded volunteer organization to “establish and publicize standards of child care.”[6] By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work.[7] Issues of abuse and neglect were addressed in the Social Security Act in 1930, which provided funding for intervention for “neglected and dependent children in danger of becoming delinquent.” [8]
In the 1940s and 1950’s, due to improved technology in diagnostic radiology, the medical profession began to take notice of what they believed to be intentional injuries.[9] In 1961, Dr. Kempe[10] began to further research this issue, eventually coining the term “battered child syndrome.”[9] At this same time, there were also changing views about the role of the child in society, fueled in part by the civil rights movement.[7]
In 1973, congress took the first steps toward enacting federal legislature to address the issue of child abuse. The Child Abus Prevention and Treatment Act[11] was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.” [8]
Shortly thereafter, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed. This act was passed in response to concerns that large numbers of Native American Children were being separated from their tribes and placed in foster care.[12] This legislation not only opened the door for consideration of cultural issues while stressing ideas that children should be with their families, leading to the beginnings of family preservation programs.[13]
In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act[14] was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement.[7] Although this legislation addressed some of the complaints from earlier pieces of legislation around ensuring due process for parents, these changes did not alleviate the high numbers of children in placement or continuing delays in permanence.[13] This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.[7]
In addition to family preservation services, the focus of federal child welfare policy changed to try to address permanence for the large numbers of foster children care.[13] Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act,[15] 1988 Child Abuse and Prevention and Adoption and Family Services Act, 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence and Adoption and Family Services Act . The 1994 Multi Ethnic Placement Act, which was revised 1996 to add the Interethnic Placement Provisions, also attempted to promote permanency through adoption, creating regulations that adoptions could not be delayed or denied due to issues of race, color or national origin of the child or the adoptive parent.[16]
All of these policies led up to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act(ASFA), much of which guides current practice. Changes in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act showed a interest in both protecting children’s safety and developing permanency.[16] This law requires counties to provide “reasonable efforts” (treatment) to preserve or reunify families, but also shortened time lines required for permanence, leading to termination of parental rights should these efforts fail.[7][16] ASFA introduced the idea of “concurrent planning” which demonstrated attempts to reunify families as the first plan, but to have a back-up plan so as not to delay permanency for children (Michell, et al. 2005).
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has a comprehensive child welfare system under which Local Authorities have duties and responsibilities towards children in need in their area. This covers provision of advice and services, accommodation and care of children who become uncared for, and also the capacity to initiate proceedings for the removal of children from their parents care/care proceedings. The criteria for the latter is 'significant harm' which covers physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. In appropriate cases the Care Plan before the Court will be for adoption. The Local Authorities also run adoption services both for children put up for adoption voluntarily and those becoming available for adoption through Court proceedings. The basic legal principle in all public and private proceedings concerning children, under the Children Act 1989, is that the welfare of the child is paramount. In recognition of attachment issues, social work good practice requires a minimal number of moves and the 1989 Children Act enshrines the principle that delay is inimical to a child's welfare. Care proceedings have a time frame of 40 weeks and concurrent planning is required. The final Care Plan put forward by the Local Authority is required to provide a plan for permanence, whether with parents, family members, long-term foster parents or adopters. Nevertheless, 'drift' and multiple placements still occur as many older children are difficult to place or maintain in placements. The role of Independent Visitor, a voluntary post, was created in the United Kingdom under the 1989 Children Act to befriend and assist children and young people in care.
In England, Wales and Scotland, despite the Children Act, there never has been a statutory obligation to report alleged child abuse to the Police. Northern Ireland is the exception to this legislative omission. In 2007 the Department for Children, Schools and Families created the Local Authority Designated Officer, "LADO" to whom alleged abuse should be reported. The appointee is designated to act as an independent set of eyes and ears to assess situations prior to contacting any other agencies. However, there is no statutory obligation to report alleged abuse to this officer, and no sanction on any setting or organisation for failing to report.
The CAF database, under which information on children is shared between professionals, has been identified by the Joseph Rowntree Trust as illegal or "red" due to the lack of an opt-out for parents or children.[1] It is also under scrutiny by other child rights organisations [2]. Working Together To Safeguard Children 2006 and the subsequent The Protection of Childhood in England: A Progress Report (Laming, 2009) continue to promote the sharing of data between those working with vulnerable children.[17]
A child in suitable cases can be made a ward of court and no decisions about the child or changes in its life can be made without the leave of the High Court.
The United Kingdom has a comprehensive child welfare system under which Local Authorities have duties and responsibilities towards children in need in their area. This covers provision of advice and services, accommodation and care of children who become uncared for, and also the capacity to initiate proceedings for the removal of children from their parents care/care proceedings. The criteria for the latter is 'significant harm' which covers physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. In appropriate cases the Care Plan before the Court will be for adoption. The Local Authorities also run adoption services both for children put up for adoption voluntarily and those becoming available for adoption through Court proceedings. The basic legal principle in all public and private proceedings concerning children, under the Children Act 1989, is that the welfare of the child is paramount. In recognition of attachment issues, social work good practice requires a minimal number of moves and the 1989 Children Act enshrines the principle that delay is inimical to a child's welfare. Care proceedings have a time frame of 40 weeks and concurrent planning is required. The final Care Plan put forward by the Local Authority is required to provide a plan for permanence, whether with parents, family members, long-term foster parents or adopters. Nevertheless, 'drift' and multiple placements still occur as many older children are difficult to place or maintain in placements. The role of Independent Visitor, a voluntary post, was created in the United Kingdom under the 1989 Children Act to befriend and assist children and young people in care.
In England, Wales and Scotland, despite the Children Act, there never has been a statutory obligation to report alleged child abuse to the Police. Northern Ireland is the exception to this legislative omission. In 2007 the Department for Children, Schools and Families created the Local Authority Designated Officer, "LADO" to whom alleged abuse should be reported. The appointee is designated to act as an independent set of eyes and ears to assess situations prior to contacting any other agencies. However, there is no statutory obligation to report alleged abuse to this officer, and no sanction on any setting or organisation for failing to report.
The CAF database, under which information on children is shared between professionals, has been identified by the Joseph Rowntree Trust as illegal or "red" due to the lack of an opt-out for parents or children.[1] It is also under scrutiny by other child rights organisations [2]. Working Together To Safeguard Children 2006 and the subsequent The Protection of Childhood in England: A Progress Report (Laming, 2009) continue to promote the sharing of data between those working with vulnerable children.[17]
A child in suitable cases can be made a ward of court and no decisions about the child or changes in its life can be made without the leave of the High Court.
Ideology of Child Protection
When a case of child abuse is reported, an investigation begins. This can result in significantly different responses from the affected family and the child protection service workers. The family experiences fear, anxiety, and the need to cope with the situation, whereas the professional has to stick to procedures to avoid blame in case something goes wrong. The best outcome for the child occurs if the congruence between professional and family perspectives is high. Ideology associated with child protection involve distinct discourses, which are people’s communication practices at an intersubjective level. These ideological discourses are blame, bureaucratic, medical, penal, humanistic, and technocratic. The blame discourse involves people holding others, like the parent or social worker, responsible in case something bad happens to the child. Here, the media might be used as a tool for moral crusades. Bureaucratic procedures engage all the steps which an organization like Child Protection Service has undertake, e.g. case conferences, reviews, registers, etc. Hereby, the purpose is to avoid criticism. From the medical perspective, the offender is viewed as an individual with a medical history, syndromes, and pathology. The purpose is to treat and cure the parent, with the aid of medical expertise and technology. The penal discourse implies the legal actions that follow the act of depravity or abuse punishing the offender. Humanistic discourse encompasses sympathy or feelings of pity that the Child Protection worker might have towards people who are responsible for the situation in which the victim is in. The technocratic discourse involves risk assessment gadgets in order to solve the situation. Here, a mechanical classification and processing of the client is thought to be useful.[26]
When a case of child abuse is reported, an investigation begins. This can result in significantly different responses from the affected family and the child protection service workers. The family experiences fear, anxiety, and the need to cope with the situation, whereas the professional has to stick to procedures to avoid blame in case something goes wrong. The best outcome for the child occurs if the congruence between professional and family perspectives is high. Ideology associated with child protection involve distinct discourses, which are people’s communication practices at an intersubjective level. These ideological discourses are blame, bureaucratic, medical, penal, humanistic, and technocratic. The blame discourse involves people holding others, like the parent or social worker, responsible in case something bad happens to the child. Here, the media might be used as a tool for moral crusades. Bureaucratic procedures engage all the steps which an organization like Child Protection Service has undertake, e.g. case conferences, reviews, registers, etc. Hereby, the purpose is to avoid criticism. From the medical perspective, the offender is viewed as an individual with a medical history, syndromes, and pathology. The purpose is to treat and cure the parent, with the aid of medical expertise and technology. The penal discourse implies the legal actions that follow the act of depravity or abuse punishing the offender. Humanistic discourse encompasses sympathy or feelings of pity that the Child Protection worker might have towards people who are responsible for the situation in which the victim is in. The technocratic discourse involves risk assessment gadgets in order to solve the situation. Here, a mechanical classification and processing of the client is thought to be useful.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_protection
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий