Reflexivity and participation in communities CZ

International level of rights:
“Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNICEF, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention) – article 12:” Children have the right to give their opinions freely on issues that affect them. Adults should listen and take children seriously.”

Nevertheless: national law imposes limitations, e.g.
- Access to children may require court sanction
- Children may only be interviewed on consent of parents
- Young children cannot give meaningful consent

Agency context:
- Professionals working in non-government child protection roles can more easily adopt an “inductive approach” (letting the problem definition emerge) to problem identification and solution with children and families.
Can place more emphasis on relationship aspects from the outset
- Those working in statutory roles, or those whose roles closely aligned to statutory. practice, are
mostly limited to see participation as involving service users around problems as already defined, in large part, by the statutory agency.
Need to focus on obtaining accurate and substantive evidence

To what extent does my intervention plan
correspond to the articles of the UN Convention?

How well informed am I about legal limitations to involving children directly?

To what extent does my agency context
determine the framing of the worrying issues under discussion?

In cases of concerns about child welfare and protection, the following formal scenarios pose challenges to the extent children can be directly
express Voice and become involved in decision-making:

Child Protection Conferences: “there is a substantial body of evidence indicating that, despite children’s social care meetings with professionals and families being a key forum for making decisions (Healy and Darlington, 2009), many meetings such as child protection case conferences do not seem to embody or enable principles of self-determination for parents and children. Perhaps because of this, they are often reported to be very difficult for parents and, when they attend, children” (see Hall and Slembrouck, 2001). Cited in Stabler, 2020 p. 30.

Family group conferencing is a way of transforming decision making and planning for children into a process led by family members … Children and young people can also be directly involved in their family group conference, usually with the support of an advocate. (ibid) Families here can be given more responsibility for making decisions – and taking
responsibility for achieving the set goals. (see Marsh & Crow, 1998; Ashley et al., 2006).

Family Team Decision Making / Family Involvement Meetings and joined case planning have been
introduced in many different contexts globally. “Including parents in planning could be a motivating force for parents to work alongside professionals to make agreed plans work, increasing the likelihood of
change” (Featherstone et al, 2019).

What structural, organisational and relational factors may impact the manner in which a child takes
“voice” in each of these scenarios?

To what extent can your role modify the extent of direct participation by
children in each scenario?

Prevailing background:
Findings indicated that only a small minority of children were aware of different ways in which their views could be provided at the meeting. Most of the children who attended conferences found them difficult and few
felt even partly listened to. The authors highlighted the potential harm caused from participation where children are not adequately prepared or offered choice in how to participate. (Stabler, 2020, p.32 reporting on UK commission finding)

Research on children’s experiences and preferences emphasise the following key principles for achieving more positive outcomes:

• Collaboration and engagement: before the meeting working with the child/young person so that they are fully prepared for what the meeting is about, what it will look like, what might be shared; during the meeting the child/young person has access to an advocate to support them to take part; after the meeting the child/ young person is offered support that  is relevant to their preferences and needs based on people at the meeting having listened to what they had to say.

• Building trust and reducing shame: before the meeting the child/ young person is given choices around elements of the meeting, such as where it will be held, who might attend to support them, where everyone should sit; during the meeting the child/young person has some control over how they are involved in the meeting, and are able to leave the room as they need to; after the meeting the process of having participated and shared in a meeting, and having been responded to in a positive way, can build confidence and encourage the child/young person to actively participate in decisions about their lives.

• Enabling participation in decision making during the meeting ensuring involvement throughout the meeting, rather than just including children and young people at a point specified for ‘the child’s voice’;
after the meeting ensuring that the child/young person understands fully what was discussed, the decisions that were made and the reasons behind them. (Stabler, 2020, p. 34)

In what circumstances can participation by
children in meetings / conferences be
meaningless, in which potentially harmful?

What are the factors that prevent a
participating child from taking part in
discussions?

What are the consequences for your preparation for family meetings drawn from research findings?

Can you suggest
improvements in the law of your country
that would give
children a stronger voice in decision-
making over their lives?