Advertisement

The Participation of Children in Care in the Assessment Process

  • Pierrine RobinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 8)

Abstract

In French child protection policy, children are regarded more as objects to be protected than as subjects of rights. Nevertheless, the status of children in care has evolved considerably with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989). The UNCRC requires that children shall be consulted on any decisions concerning them, including placements and the care they receive. In France, the Child Protection Reform Law of March 5, 2007 sets out a number of specific rights for children living in care, such as the right to take part in the assessment process. But there is a huge gap between the formal rights of the child to be heard in assessment processes and the opportunities to actually exercise those rights. Our empirical study shows that in a highly constrained and descending participatory context there is little possibility for children to take part in decisions regarding their case. Nevertheless, opportunities for children to participate in the assessment of their situation can increase through interaction with individual factors and social factors. This study empirically shows the interlinkages, interconnections, and complementarity of individual features and social opportunities in decision-making processes in care. It also points out that participation is a non-linear process that is cumulative but also retroactive.

Keywords

Assessment Process Child Protection Capability Approach Social Opportunity Foster Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abels-Eber, C. (2006). Pourquoi on nous a séparés? Récits de vie croisés: des children placés, des parents et des professionals [Why were we separated? Life stories from foster children, parents and professionals]. Erès: Ramonville Saint Agne.Google Scholar
  2. Astier, I. (2007). Les nouvelles règles du social [The new social rules]. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  3. Astier, I. (2009). Les transformations de la relation d’aide dans l’intervention sociale [Transformations of the aid relationship in social intervention]. Information Sociales, 152(2), 52–58.Google Scholar
  4. Bernoux, J.-F. (2004). L’évaluation participative au service du développement social [Participatory evaluation in social development]. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  5. Bessin, M. (2009). Parcours de vie et temporalités biographiques: quelques éléments de problématique [Life-course and biographical temporality: Some elements of the problem]. Information Sociales, 156(6), 12–21.Google Scholar
  6. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2011). Children and the capability approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boutin, G., & Durning, P. (2008). Enfants maltraités ou en dangers, L’apport des pratiques socio-éducatives [Abused or children in danger, the contribution of socio-educational practices]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (2007). Le récit de soi [Telling your own story]. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  9. Cashmore, J. (2002). Promoting the participation of children and young people in care. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26(8), 837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chauvière, M. (2002). Les usagers, Ambiguïtés d’un nouveau paradigme pour l’action sociale [Users, Ambiguities of a new paradigm for social action]. In C. Humbert (Ed.), Les usagers de l’action sociale. Sujets, clients ou bénéficiaires [Subjects, clients or beneficiaries]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  11. Commaille, J. (2008). La politique de la famille [The politics of the family]. Paris: La découverte.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe. (2005). Recommendation on the rights of children living in residential institutions.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe. (2009). Rights of children in institutions. Report on the implementation of the Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2005)5 on the rights of children living in residential institutions.Google Scholar
  14. Crabtree, A. (2008). The centrality of basic social capabilities: “To go without shame”. In J.-L. Dubois, A. S. Brouillet, P. Bakhshi, & C. Duray-Soundron (Eds.), Repenser l’action collective, Une approche par les capabilities (pp. 37–60). Paris: l’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  15. Ebersold, S. (2002). Le champ du handicap, ses enjeux et ses mutations: du désavantage social à la participation sociale [Disability, its challenges and changes: Social disadvantage in social participation]. Analyse Psicologica, 10(3), 281–290.Google Scholar
  16. Feeny, T., & Boyden, J. (2004). Acting in adversity- rethinking the causes, experiences and effects of child poverty in contemporary literature (Working paper series, WP 116). Oxford: QEH.Google Scholar
  17. Frechon, I., & Dumaret, A.-C. (2008). Bilan critique de 50 ans d’études sur le devenir adultes des children places [Critical review of 50 years of studies of children in care becoming adults]. Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence, 56(3), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamman, P. (2002). Quand le souvenir fait lien [When memory creates a link]. Sociologie du Travail, 44, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holland, S. (2001). Representing children in child protection assessments. Childhood, 8, 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaffé. (2001). L’expertise judiciaire des capacités parentales: subjectivité de l’évaluation, utilité du rapport [Forensic parenting skills: Subjectivity in evaluation, utility in the relationship]. In J. L. Viaux (Ed.), Ecrire au juge (pp. 119–132). Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, L. G. (1995). Talks with teachers of young children. Norwood: NJ Ablex.Google Scholar
  22. Lansdown, G. (2010). The realisation of children’s participation rights. Critical reflections. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation. Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 11–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Leeson, C. (2007). My life in care: Experiences of non-participation in decision- making processes. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 228–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liebel, M., in collaboration with Robin, P., & Saadi, I. (2010). Children, droits et citoyenneté, Faire émerger la perspective des children sur leur droit [Children, Rights and Citizenship, Bring out the children's perspective on their right]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  25. Mason, J., & Michaux, A. (2005). The starting out with Scarba project: Facilitating children’s participation in child protection process. Paddington: The Benevolent Society.Google Scholar
  26. Münder, J., & Mutke, B. (2001). Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz- Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes. München: Sozialpädagogisches Institut im SOS-Kinderdorf.Google Scholar
  27. Münder, J., Mutke, B., & Schone, R. (2000). Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz. Professionelles Handeln in Kindeswohlverfahren. Münster: Votum.Google Scholar
  28. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, M. (2004). Hiding from humanity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill, O. (1998). Children’s rights and children’s lives. Ethics, 98, 705–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Payet, J.-P., Giuliani, F., & Laforgue, D. (Eds.). (2008). La voix des acteurs faibles [The voice of weak actors]. Rennes: PUR.Google Scholar
  32. Pluto, L. (2007). Partizipation in den Hilfen zur Erziehung, eine empirische Studie. München: Verlag Deutsches Jugendinstitut.Google Scholar
  33. Ricoeur, P. (1990). Soi même comme un autre [Oneself as another]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  34. Robin, P. (2009). L’évaluation du point de vue des children [Evaluation from the point of view of children]. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 25, 63–81.Google Scholar
  35. Robin, P. (2010). Comment les adolescents appréhendent-ils l’évaluation de leur situation familiale en protection de l’enfance, L’enfant au cœur des politiques sociales. Revue Informations sociales, 160, 134–140. Caisse nationale des allocations familiales.Google Scholar
  36. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  37. Sen, A. K. (2000). Repenser l’inégalité. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, A.-B. (2002). Interpreting and supporting participation rights: Contributions from sociocultural theory. The International Journey of Children’s Rights, 10(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
  39. Stoecklin, D. (2013). Theories of action in the field of child participation. In search of explicit frameworks. Childhood, 20(4), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Truc, G. (2005). Une désillusion narrative? De Bourdieu à Ricœur en sociologie [Disillusionment narrative? from Bourdieu to Ricœur in sociology]. Tracés, 8, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. United Nation as General Assembly. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Childrens.Google Scholar
  42. Wiesner, R. (2006). Was sagt die Verfassung zum Kinderschutz? In H. Kindler, S. Lillig, H. Blüml, T. Meysen, & A. Werner (Eds.), Handbuch Kindeswohlgefährdung nach § 1666 BGB und Allgemeiner Sozialer Dienst (ASD) (pp. 1–5). München: DJI. http://db.dji.de/asd/F001_Wiesner_lv.pdf.Google Scholar
  43. Wolff, R. (2007). Demokratische Kinderschutzarbeit zwischen Risiko und Gefahr, Die KinderschutzZentren. http://www.kinderschutzzentren.org/pdf/info_wolf_demokratischekinderschutzarbeit.pdf
  44. Wolff, R., Flick, U., Ackermann, T., Biesel, K., Brandhorst, F., Heinitz, S., Patschke, M., & Robin, P. (2013). Kinder im Kinderschutz – Zur Partizipation von Kindern und Jugendlichen im Hilfeprozess – Eine explorative Studie. Köln: NZFH.Google Scholar
  45. Youf, D. (2002). Penser les droits de l’enfant [Thinking about the rights of the child]. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of Paris Est CréteilCréteil, ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations