A child protection manifesto for the country

Dr D. Chandraratna

POLICY: Since there are many players in the child welfare field in the country it is necessary that we lay down the key assumptions underpinning a good child protection policy for our particular needs in the country.

Though the subject is deserving of in-depth analysis by experts (not necessarily foreign) it is my intention here to address the main elements in this short essay.

In the 1980's in the UK when the old protection policies were critically reviewed the main ingredients included in the new vision were the ideology of care which refers to the care versus control debate, role of inequality as manifested in the class (poverty) disparities, role of the family, discrimination and a coordinated service delivery.

There was also one more thing that the Australian policy makers highlighted at the time and that was the strong top down perspective of the policy makers involved in service delivery. I shall address these points briefly as they apply to the Sri Lankan context.

The rhetoric of care and the reality of control

While many sanguine statements are made about the care of children the reality is still control and punishment. The social control objective of existing policies is apparent when we hear that the first therapeutic solution that statutory agencies apply to child protection is institutionalization.

It is sad that when the world has moved virtually away from this pretty abominable feature which is a last resort, in Sri Lanka it is viewed as a first resort. There is no point in blaming the statutory officers because the policy options left for the protection worker is just that.

The police, prisons and the children's courts are hamstrung by legislation and past practices and also interference by powerful interests force the police and others to stick to legal remedies to save themselves from accusations of various kinds.

More often than not corporal punishment at school and home are not infrequent. I still maintain that there is a gap between the rhetoric of child welfare as promoting the protection of children on the one hand and the punitive nature of interventions by children's courts and other statutory bodies.

The protection workers though well intentioned are struggling with the contradictions between the demands of their role and bureaucratic pressures. While the child welfare/judicial system represents itself in welfare terms and in the best interest of the child the question is asked whether it is experienced as such by those who pass through.

Where is the protection for girls from incestuous homes, street children, children of offenders in the prisons, teen mothers and remandees.

In the Anuradhapura district alone it has been reported that teen marriages are over 2000. These statistics are only the tip of the iceberg as over nine out of ten are unreported usually. What about the girl victims of abuse languishing in Anuradhapura in detention for years. These are not offenders but made victims by powerful people. "Where is the justice your Honour".

We also need to disabuse our minds of the view that institutions are a solution and must remain convinced that they are part of the problem.

We need to understand that the preponderant majority of children who are in need of protection come from the most marginalized, socially and economically oppressed families. They experience further marginalization when removed to the care of others. Even removing them legally to the care of foster parents labelled as fit persons for the sake of receiving some grant from the state is a dehumanizing alternative.

If that is needed we must change the C and YP ordinance and not take the easy way out because the poverty of parents is also putting children at risk in terms of the Act. In Sri Lanka more than others poverty must be addressed in the children's manifesto because it is more than mere material deprivation because children experience stigmatization, humiliation and insecurity.

Objective indicators of poverty such as malnutrition and mortality are only the appearance but the reality is felt in the whole 'being' of the child. Hence we must address the poverty issue as a priority.

The friendships, schooling and relationships are all but destroyed for these kids. It is about time that we ask all interested parties committed to the cause of quality childhood for Sri Lankan children what are their contribution for the eradication of poverty in children and if they have no positive proposals their cry for our poverty is just crocodile tears.

Poverty is such a devastating factor in the life of a child and children who experience poverty can only understand the gravity of the issue. The ramifications are even greater. Let me quote from a document of one of INGOs in the country which has understood the crux of the matter.

'Children interpret a large part of their well-being (and indeed that of others) thorough qualitative assessment of their relationships, and this means that interventions targeted to address the purely physical characteristics of impoverishment may not necessarily improve a child's well-being or quality of life, nor resonate with what children are actually seeing or feeling'.

No child development is really possible without addressing the severity and intensity of the lack of access to basic material services. Therefore the first condition of a good child development policy is to link with their material condition of existence and let all, both the state and the non state actors show this link in all their projects and programs and if they fail they are not fulfilling the claims they make.

Centrality of the family

The next point that I need to make is the centrality of the family. For child development protection we have to understand the importance of the family in their life. This is a taken-for-granted truth, scientifically made popular by Bowlby and Co in the middle of the last century.

It is essential that adequate means are put in place to ensure adequate resourcing of the family support system. This is of paramount importance. Needs of the family are not consistent with the needs of all in the family. One sick child eats into the emotional well-being of the other. One handicapped child is taking the mothers love and care from the other.

Sex abuse in the family may be related to the ability of the mother to care for the girls. Are we going to let the lone fathers look after the adolescent girls when mothers go for employment abroad. Family sex abuse is supposedly on the rise. Are we going to be labelled an incestuous tribe.

Are we going to keep the fourteen odd thousand children in children's homes when we are cannot spend one night peacefully when our children are away. What about the research findings of the studies done with millions of dollars. We must act now.

There is no point in passing the buck to the state whose finances are not strong. Research is not a leisurely past time. What about the promises made to children in institutions about results on their behalf. Is there not an ethic now that no research is ethical when the respondents are not receiving the deliverables.

If we are keen on child protection and development all projects and programs must have the ground investment component and if not you are compromising the ideals in your vision and mission. Let me also include here the importance of the practice philosophy of a strength based approach to protection work.

All people and environments possess strengths and these can be marshalled into improving the quality of children's lives. This also reduces the temptation to blame the victim and enables the discovery of means by which clients can survive in the most inhospitable of circumstances.

A child protection worker or social worker must work with a true partnership between family members, involving the family in case management. Giving more credence to children and families increases the likelihood of facilitating positive change in the family.

Giving voice to children is also a priority. The top down perspective that we have must be turned to accommodate the views from the bottom. The exclusion of children from participation in activities that affect their lives must be mitigated and the best strategy to achieving this is by giving empathic hearing to their voices.

Parliaments for children is a valuable tool before policy making. Along with this the policies must also mitigate vulnerability of the child. Natural disasters, HIV/AIDS, armed conflict, domestic violence, death of parents and many others are prone to make them vulnerable and insecure.

Finally we must address a very important issue in making social protection policies in Sri Lanka. The reality is that the child is fractionated between the many instrumentalities of the state, the provinces and the non governmental sector. Coordination is a compulsory topic that has to be understood by all parties. Coordination only at the top is insufficient to make the machinery work at the grass roots.

Coordination at the grass roots only is a get together party of the Indians without the Chiefs. Coordination to be effective must have teeth. To have that power proper mechanisms must be set up. In the context of Sri Lankan administrative set up today this coordination mechanisms are as important as other regulatory mechanisms such as the P.S.C Ministerial sub committees or even Parliamentary sub committees.

The child welfare subject falls on so many Ministries, Departments and other agencies which should work in a smooth way. I remember the horrendous Bush Fires in Australia. The coordination mechanisms put in place are exemplary.

They are on paper and will not change according to the whims or power plays by the actors. The lives of millions of children are at risk and this subject cannot tolerate intransigence or procrastination. We all must act soon.

(The writer is Associate Professor, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.)