IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v12y2023i3p49-d1161761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Children’s Participation in Care and Protection Decision-Making Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Cashmore

    (School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Peiling Kong

    (Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Meredith McLaine

    (Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
    School of Law, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia)

Abstract

Laws and policies in different jurisdictions provide a range of mechanisms that allow children involved in child protection processes and care proceedings to express their views when decisions that affect them are being made. Whether these mechanisms facilitate children’s involvement and whether they result in children’s views being heard and “given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”, as required by article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is the focus of this article. The law, policy and practice in New South Wales, Australia, are used to provide a contextual illustration of the wider theoretical and practical issues, drawing on international comparisons and research. It is clear there is still some way to go to satisfy the requirements of article 12 in Australia and other jurisdictions. These mechanisms often do not provide the information children need to understand the process, nor do they consistently encourage meaningful participation through trusted advocates who can accurately convey children’s views to those making the decisions. It is generally unclear how children’s views are heard, interpreted, and weighted in decision-making processes. The research findings from a number of countries, however, are clear and consistent that children often feel ‘unheard’ and that they have had few opportunities to say what is important to them. A number of conclusions and practice suggestions are outlined for how the law could better accommodate children’s views.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Cashmore & Peiling Kong & Meredith McLaine, 2023. "Children’s Participation in Care and Protection Decision-Making Matters," Laws, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:49-:d:1161761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/3/49/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/3/49/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Bruce, 2014. "The Voice of the Child in Child Protection: Whose Voice?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Keddell, Emily, 2023. "Recognising the embedded child in child protection: Children’s participation, inequalities and cultural capital," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Vis, Svein Arild & Fossum, Sturla, 2013. "Representation of children's views in court hearings about custody and parental visitations — A comparison between what children wanted and what the courts ruled," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2101-2109.
    4. Toros, Karmen & DiNitto, Diana Maria & Tiko, Anne, 2018. "Family engagement in the child welfare system: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 598-607.
    5. Enroos, Rosi & Stein Helland, Hege & Pösö, Tarja & Skivenes, Marit & Tonheim, Milfrid, 2017. "The role and function of the spokesperson in care order proceedings: A cross-country study in Finland and Norway," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-16.
    6. Gerdts-Andresen, Tina, 2021. "A scoping review of when and how a child’s view is weighted in decision-making processes in law proceedings," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominique Moritz & Ben Mathews, 2023. "A Continuum of Protection to Empowerment: The Evolving Legal Landscape of Decision-Making for Children and Adolescents," Laws, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berit Skauge & Anita Skårstad Storhaug & Edgar Marthinsen, 2021. "The What, Why and How of Child Participation—A Review of the Conceptualization of “Child Participation” in Child Welfare," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Saar-Heiman, Yuval, 2023. "Power with and power over: Social workers’ reflections on their use of power when talking with parents about child welfare concerns," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Venables, Jemma, 2019. "Practitioner perspectives on implementing an alternative response in statutory child protection: The role of local practice context and leadership teams in shaping practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Gerdts-Andresen, Tina, 2021. "A scoping review of when and how a child’s view is weighted in decision-making processes in law proceedings," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. Balsells Bailón, M. Àngels & Urrea-Monclús, Aida & Vaquero Tió, Eduard & Fernández-Rodrigo, Laura, 2022. "The voices of children, mothers, and fathers: Can parenting programs improve reunification processes in the Spanish child protection system?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Christine Morley & Joanne Clarke & Chez Leggatt-Cook & Donna Shkalla, 2021. "Can a Paradigm Shift from Risk Management to Critical Reflection Improve Child-Inclusive Practice?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Križ, Katrin & Roundtree-Swain, Dakota, 2017. "“We are merchandise on a conveyer belt”: How young adults in the public child protection system perceive their participation in decisions about their care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 32-40.
    8. Gal, Tali, 2017. "An ecological model of child and youth participation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 57-64.
    9. Gerdts-Andresen, Tina & Aarum Hansen, Heidi, 2021. "How the child’s views is weighted in care order proceedings," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Williams, Tracey L. & Parry, Sarah L., 2023. "The voice of the child in social work practice: A phenomenological analysis of practitioner interpretation and experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Lee, Charmaine J.M. & Goh, Esther C.L., 2020. "Using vignettes as a ‘safe space’ for low-income children to discuss sensitive topics in social work assessment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    12. Strömpl, Judit & Luhamaa, Katre, 2020. "Child participation in child welfare removals through the looking glass: Estonian children’s and professionals’ perspectives compared," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Bakketeig, Elisiv & Boddy, Janet & Gundersen, Tonje & Østergaard, Jeanette & Hanrahan, Fidelma, 2020. "Deconstructing doing well; what can we learn from care experienced young people in England, Denmark and Norway?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    14. Lätsch, David & Quehenberger, Julia & Portmann, Rahel & Jud, Andreas, 2023. "Children’s participation in the child protection system: Are young people from poor families less likely to be heard?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:49-:d:1161761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.