| Where are Children Protected? | | | |
12/10/15
|

| Where are Children Protected? | | | |
12/10/15
|

Where are Children Protected?

Children across the globe have a fundamental right to be safe while they grow and mature into adulthood. Our responsibility to the future, as adults, is to protect all children. When private familial structures are broken down or tragedy occurs and leaves a child without parents then the Government has an obligation to protect this valuable natural resource. This report will attempt to explore “state care” in a few countries across the globe. “State care” for all intents and purposes will be defined in relation to the child who has been removed from the care of their biological parent(s) and includes institutions in France and foster care in Japan and the U.S. In order to illuminate my concerns it is necessary to first look at some evidence of the outcomes and well-being of children who grew up in “state care” exclusively. Foster care is intended to be a safe and temporary placement for children removed from their homes. Yet there is ample proof that once a child enters into the foster care system their quality of life is almost always compromised.
Worldwide caring for abused and neglected children varies greatly. France historically uses institutions to care for their removed children. The prevalence of children placed into state care are removed from one parent families. It was the feeling that institutions were more convenient for the health and safety of the children especially those under three years of age. Another reason was to comfort the parent to foster a feeling that reunification was still possible. Over time the institutions in France reduced their size and increased staff to help facilitate the much needed attachment between care taker and child. Attachment is the need to establish a relationship to a caregiver. Without this connection a child develops all kinds of negative psychological and social problems. Children who are removed from their biological caregiver can form attachment to a substitute caregiver with little effort. However as the child grows the sense of isolation and rejection combined with feelings of anxiety can result in developmental as well as mental health issues. Unfortunately France is limited by beliefs that infants can stay in an institution for very long lengths of time without running a risk of damaging the child. There is not very much evidence on the effects because the protective system in France is not very evidence driven. This is not very progressive in the realm of effectively delivering social services (Antoine Guedeney, 2008).

Japan and the United States are both powerful first-world countries whose approach to child protection varies considerably. In the area of Child Protection Services (CPS) I intend to compare the two nations based on their cultural differences. In the U.S. foster care was intended to be a temporary fix while a parent does necessary adjusting to create a good environment for their child; seems reasonable enough. However, the caseworkers are not focused on the preservation of the family anymore. Nor are they able to assist the parent with any programs to aid in the process of reunification. Congress abandoned attempts to preserve the family and Clinton implemented the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 which cemented the policy of adoption over reunification (Roberts, 2002). Today if a child doesn’t get adopted they will spend their childhood in foster care. The average foster child is faced with instability, disrupted attachment and the odds are fairly good that further abuse will follow. Foster care is known to produce poor social results across the board in terms of future success. Most children who “age-out” of foster care end up addicted to drugs, homeless and have criminal tendencies. In the seventies Congress researched the experience of foster care and the effect it has on families which led to critical reviews from top scholars that accused the system of unnecessarily taking children from their parents only to place them in foster care. Michael Wald, a law professor at Stanford revealed that the only way the state loses money from placement of a child is if the child is returned home (Roberts, 2002). Why are children removed from their homes? In the U.S. like in many nations worldwide, child abuse and neglect is a substantial problem that proves to be an arduous battle. Child abuse, like the kind that was identified by Dr. Kempe in 1964 through the publishing of his paper entitled, “Battered child syndrome” is not very common (Melton, 2004). Dr. Kempe and his colleagues theorized that children were being violently maltreated in a few hundred homes per year in the United States. It seemed at the time that parents who were responsible for such crimes were seriously criminally minded and evil. The policy of professionals to report any and all suspected child abuse or neglect to public authorities became mandatory in all 50 states within a couple years of publishing Dr. Kempe’s report. Many medical professionals have stated since that very rarely do they see brutal cases of physical child abuse. Child neglect, on the other hand, is defined as failing to provide adequate food or shelter for any child. Leaving a child alone for a substantial length of time or failing to facilitate emotional or mental health. Although there is no direct stating in the law that children are to be removed from their parents for being poor, it sure does bring about the question of neglect. Are not the symptoms of poverty stress, depression, low self-esteem, an unstable external locus of control and substance abuse? Does not poverty bring about a mindset that is primal in the need to fight for survival? Poverty and familial problems are the main reasons children in the U.S. have problems. The factors that cause problems for Japans children are not as well-known due to a more closed culture of the family’s rights to privacy (Segal).

In Japan the governmental division for family assistance is called the Child Guidance Center (CGC). Children who are in need of protective residential care get there through parental death, abandonment, abuse and neglect. Japan has more foster care homes then they utilize. This is quite different than the U.S. Only 10 percent of children removed from the biological parents are placed in foster care, compared to nearly 76 percent in the U.S. Japan’s culture dictates many guidelines for child protection. Foster care in Japan is looked at like a precursor to adoption. The goal of foster parenting in Japan is not to collect a check, like in the U.S. but to try out a child in hopes for finding the one they want to adopt. The first place the CGC looks to assume parental responsibly for a displaced child is to extended family of that child. Culture dictates a more collective attitude of familial support in Japan than in the U.S. Moreover, Japan has an excellent practice of nurturing and supporting the well-being of children, all children. Adults in Japan watch over the children and look for opportunities to aid in the development of their “Ibasho”. Ibasho is created through acceptance. A child needs a place where they can be themselves. A place where they are fully valued and supported by both adults and their peers. The Japanese believe that a child without Ibasho develops a variety of psychological problems. The Japanese view children as being naturally good and they will conform to social structures when they are valued and cared for (Bamba, 2010).
The U.S. and Japan are at two separate ends of social systems. Japan nurtures its maltreated children naturally through delivering acceptance and giving value to their future generations. Whereas the U.S. tears apart poor families to increase profits to the foster care system. Many other countries have followed the U.S example in designing their child welfare systems. Hopefully they have more deeply rooted cultural beliefs that will guide their developing policies. Unfortunately, third world economies following the U.S. policy might find a majority of children in poverty and how will the case of “neglect” be addressed then?
When children are removed from their homes due to abuse and placed in state care it seems that the responsibility to the child’s welfare falls on the State. Laws that stimulate economic gain over the best interest of the child through federally funded initiatives show a complete lack of actually protecting anyone. In fact, following the U.S. model of child protection might not deliver the appropriate outcomes. Japanese seem to have a better take on protecting and facilitating the strong sense of self-worth our children deserve.

Bibliography
Ainsworth, F. H. (2012). Doing Harm While Doing Good: The Child Protection Paradox. Child & Youth Services, 33, 146-157.
Antoine Guedeney, N. G. (2008). Infant Protection System in France: How Does it Work? Infant Mental Health Journal, 29(1), 5-20.
Bamba, S. (2010). The experiences and perspectives of Japanese substitute caregiversand maltreated children: A cultural-developmental approach to child welfare practice. National Association of Social Workers, 55(2), 127-137.
Melton, G. B. (2004). Mandated reporting: a policy without reason. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 9-18.
Roberts, D. (2002). ASFA: An Assault on Family Preservation. In D. Roberts, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. New York: Civitas Books.
Segal, U. A. (n.d.). Child welfare programs and services: A comparison of the USA and Japan. International Social Work 47(3), 370-390.