Juvenile Justice and Child Protection - Assignment Example

Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Name Institution Course Date Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Question One Introduction Despite having two children, Rosie (5 years old) and Mary (2 Years old), Megan normally spent some of her nights out drinking with lots of her friends. The situation was exacerbated when Jo and his brother, Ron moved into her house. The safety and wellbeing of Rosie and Mary were put at risk considering that the children were sometimes left alone in the house with no one to take care of them. The negligence can be evidenced by Mary’s severe thrush attributed to soiled nappies. Despite being neglected by their mother, the children are at risk of physical harm as demonstrated by Ron’s action towards Mary after getting home late at night and very drunk. Child protection is crucial in this situation since abuses have already happened. As it will be demonstrated in this essay, caregivers, parents, and all other individuals with parental responsibility have a duty under the law to offer life necessities to children they care for. This entails offering food, financial support, accommodation, clothing, access to education, and healthcare. Clearly, Megan has failed her parental responsibility to offer her children the basic needs and protect them from harm in consequence of neglect. Therefore, her action constitutes an offence under child protection laws or the general criminal law. The objective of this piece is to provide the best course of action for Megan’s children with a view to the Act and the DECIDE model for ethical decision-making. Discussion Child abuse can be described as actions that lead to non-accidental harm to the developmental, emotional, physical, or behavioural status. Megan’s children are protected by Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 which handles issues associated with the children as well as young people welfare in New South Wales. The Act allows for child abuse reporting as well as investigation, care proceedings, child care services licensing, and children employment. The NSW’s Department of Community Services (DoCS) is mandated to intervene in issues where the child welfare is affected. Normally, interventions include respite child care, family support provision, or even child removal from his/her home. There is a need for a response for Megan’s children since they are being maltreated and neglected. Megan’s children could be considered to be at risk of significant harm, in view of s.23 of the Act, because their basic physical needs are not met (Mary’s soiled nappies). Despite being informed about Mary’s situation, Megan showed an unwillingness to arrange for Mary to get the needed medical care and allowed Ron to physically ill-treat Mary. As mentioned by Fernandez (2014), the majority of parents that have co-occurring problems are more likely to maltreat their children. Some of the factors that lead to child abuse include substance abuse, housing and financial problems, domestic violence, as well as social isolation. It is widely recognised that substance use is related to other circumstances such as child negligence, domestic violence as well as mental health problems. In view of Greipp (1997) study, there is a need for an ethical decision-making model when trying to solve a suspected child abuse cases. Without a doubt, making an intervention decision is a difficult and challenging process. But still, reporting child abuse is mandated by law. Therefore, ethical decision-making model would be crucial since it would help analyse and examine the relationships, structures, and systems of child negligence and maltreatment at Megan’s home. The Greipp’s Model, as evidenced in Greipp (1997) study, can be utilised to make an ethical decision regarding the situation. The model includes care recipient (as the client), the caregiver (as the practitioner), ethical principles, factors that influence the participating persons, and eventually the decision outcome. Greipp’s Model concentrates on human variables that profoundly affect how people interact as well as the process of making decisions. In view of this model, the practitioner (in this case, DoCS’s worker) must try to intervene in all suspected child abuse cases. This should involve the gathering of relevant information to facilitate the making of informed decisions. Ignoring Megan’s children plight would amount to a violation of nonmaleficence as well as beneficence. Without a doubt, this would be a violation of the principle of justice, since no person deserves to be ill-treated and abused. Justice mandates me (DoCS’s worker) to protect Megan’s children from abuse. As pointed out by Davies (2011), practitioners could become more intentionally reflexive regarding the balancing power with compassion. In the decision-making process, a failure can happen because of poor communication. But the ethical decision can be achieved if the intervention by the social workers is less bureaucratic and courageously autonomous. Healy and Darlington (2009) emphasise that the concept of child protection as well as parent participation is endorsed broadly in the existing child protection laws. But still, the expression and meaning of this concept rely on the context. Failure to understand the concept’s contextual nature can lead to misinterpretation and possible harm to defenceless children. The dualist approach can be applied easily to social problems such as child maltreatment since there exists identifiable material reality that the child’s body constitutes, for instance, through bodily traumas such as broken bones or even death, whereas simultaneously allows for multiple meanings regarding such embodied realities which have to be practically negotiated (D'Cruz et al., 2009). As observed by Wood (2008), offering nourishing food, physical care, and stimulating programs can positively impact the child outcomes as compared to the parents-focused interventions. The problems facing Megan’s children can be solved through a family conference (given that Megan’s family had, for the most part, worked together with an NGO to meet special needs of Mary and also to look after Rosie), whereby people having interest in the well-being of children would be inviting as the conference participants. The first stage of the conference is preparation; where all people with interest in the children’s wellbeing (Megan, Her Family, the NGO representatives, and officials from DoCS) are liaised by the convenor liaise. Besides that, the convenor communicates the concern issues, as well as the proposed solutions to the participants and the resources to Megan’s children are explored in the professional and family network. The second stage is the family group conference, which is divided into three phases. Phase one is information sharing, where the convener introduces the issues to the professionals and family. In this case, the bottom lines for decision-making are clarified and professionals offer resources and information which could help the family make the right decisions. In this case, the convener‘s role is to facilitate constructive discussion and would remain neutral. The second phase is allowing for a private time, whereby the convener together with the professionals gives the family members some private time to talk about the issues and get to conclusions. The last phase is the implementation, where the family make a decision and provide a basic plan. The convener drafts the plan as a written agreement by and it is signed by all the participants. The final stage of the family conference intervention is the follow-up, whereby the convener will contact the participants after eight weeks to inquire how the plan is progressing. If the plan has been beneficial, the convener can arrange another conference with relevant people. This intervention is deemed restorative and different from other decision-making processes, like mediation, therapy and courts because it acknowledges imposed as well as inherent power imbalances and offers an environment where people with interests in Megan’s Children are offered an opportunity to reach an amicable solution. With the view to The DECIDE framework by Lonne et al. (2016), it is imperative to articulate and conceptualise the task of decision-making comprehensively owing to the complexity associated with child protection. The DECIDE model focuses on the complexity of decision-making process, especially in the situational context. The model helps in sense-making strategies, which takes advantage of relational and relationship-centred practice, as well as the reflexivity and reflection capacity on the part of people making the decisions. The first stage of the model is defining the problem by ascertaining the needs and asking questions. In this case, the problem is child negligence and maltreatment. The second stage is the ethical review, whereby the ethical principles crucial to this problem are identified. Mary and Rosie are the dominant stakeholders and they are owed the dominant duty of care. Still, Megan, as their mother is inevitably stakeholder since her children are vulnerable and one of them is disabled. Therefore, she needs a duty of care from the NSW’s state government. Given that this situation involves power relationships, it is imperative to determine the structural factors that influence and balancing the twin duties of care and justice. The third stage is considering the available options as well as the practicality of choosing them (Lonne et al., 2016). This can be achieved by brainstorming the choices and examining how they accommodate the important duties and principles. The fourth stage is investigating outcomes do as to determine whether Megan’s children would be harmed and determining the possible ethical outcomes for all the options. The fifth stage of DECIDE model is deciding on action, whereby a clear plan of action that can communicate the reason for making the decision is espoused. The decision must be able to balance the priorities as well as principles needed in the process. The last stage is evaluating the results through reflexive and reflective practice so as to determine which decision works well with the situation at hand. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that Megan’s children are protected by the Act which allows for child abuse reporting as well as investigation, care proceedings, child care services licensing, and children employment. The NSW’s DoCS is mandated to intervene in issues where the child welfare is affected. Some of the interventions that can be used to solve the issue discussed include respite child care, family support provision, or even child removal from his/her home. The most suitable course of action for the problem is family group conference, but if the situation remains unchanged, DoCS should take legal action against Megan. Question Two Introduction Lack of decency has become a major issue in the society and delinquent children are currently roaming different streets not only in NSW but in all states across Australia. Technology has changed the way of life since most children prefer playing games on the mobile devices than playing outside with other children. If unchecked, bad parenting has lead to a child abuse police and poor literacy. According to s.23 and s. 27 of the Act, a statutory intervention is justifiable if there is sufficient evidence to possible ’risk of significant harm’ to a child or young person. After the ‘risk of significant harm; is assessed, the state can take intervention that would facilitate the protection of the young person or child’s welfare and well-being. The objective of this piece is to describe the historical context of child protection practice and to examine the issues associated with the state intruding into the families’ private lives. Discussion As mentioned by Wood (2008), finding a family’s child protection history under the current KiDS system needs many hours in order to navigate through numerous s data fields. Searching for history is a tedious and time-consuming process. For that reason, it becomes easier to miss the history since one has to go to all screens on all reports and examine them. Therefore, the KiDS Core Redesign Project is expected to address these issues. According to Wood (2008), the project’s value would depend on its ability to allow for better informed and quicker decision making. Still, the key issues affect the Helpline’s work before the inquiry is the recorded information accuracy as well as the history checks’ accuracy and completeness. Bad parenting results from the interplay of environmental risk, family, and individual (parent/carer) factors. Addressing such factors would be beneficial in handling bad parenting and juvenile delinquency in NSW. When investigating the individual-related risk factors, DoCS have to take into account the risk factors related to both parents. More focus should be direct towards the child protection practice history. Examining the family’s child protection practice history involves the past supportive interventions provision as well as their failure or success. This could help the DoCS determine the parental capacity level and the change motivation. Still, it should not be assumed that failure to change in the past exhibits limited capacity. The range of services and interventions provided in the history of child care practices should be considered so as to determine whether appropriate support and follow-up were offered. It is imperative for the children’s household conditions to be observed closely at the time of the assessment since this would offer information regarding the quality of the offered care. Some of the things that should be observed include: observing whether the children’s bedrooms have adequate beddings, whether the bathroom and kitchen are clean, and the safety and security of the home. According to s.23 and s. 27 of the Act, a ‘risk of significant harm’ creates a basis for statutory intervention; therefore, DoCS should determine whether there are objects pose a risk to the children such as methadone and other drug paraphernalia. Neglectful households and delinquent children roaming in NSW streets can be attributed to lack of play items that are crucial for promoting the developmental needs of children. It is crucial to fully understand as well as accurately examine the cultural factors that drive and influence family dynamics as well as parenting practices in families. Disregarding the cultural factors could lead to inaccurate or incomplete assessments that can consequently lead to unsuitable interventions. According to McIntosh and Phillips (2002), child protection policies have remained 'cyclical' and child abuse awareness has increased to the extent the reporting have become more open. The existing child protection policies are moving far from the more punitive measures towards an educative and early intervention strategies. Theorisation of the children’s rights has resulted in many paradoxes that have made the government role in protecting the rights of the children in the family extremely delicate as well as complex. The majority of children, according to Woodhouse (1999), grow and prosper within the family circle intimacy. Therefore, privacy has become a crucial ingredient within the family life. Parents should allow raising their children freely and governments should desist from interference with families. Family autonomy is very important since it enables the children’s parents to conduct themselves in a way that favours their children. To feel safe, children must be with parents. Furthermore, children should be sheltered and nurtured by adults they are familiar with and whom they love and trust. Evidently, the NSW government have to steer clear of family-related issues so as to ensure that the children’s rights to privacy within the family context are protected. Still, family autonomy has some shortcomings since children have less power in the decision-making process because they are the family and society’s least powerful members. Occasionally, the children’s parents misuse their powers to take away their rights instead of nurturing them. In some families, the parents utilise their powers to break-up the family; for instance, woman or man could ask for government protection against his/her violent spouse. Unlike adults, children have to depend on other people to voice their concerns and needs. They cannot act autonomously to bring the government intervention into play, even when desiring it very much. Evidently, for the rights of the children to have an effect or meaning, the state government have to be prepared to invade the family privacy so as to protect the rights of the children. The UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) offers direction on how to balance the government responsibility to protect the rights of the children and to respect the family privacy. According to UNCRC, as cited by Woodhouse (1999), all children have a right to education, for their basic needs met, as well as be nurtured for independent citizenship. Besides that, they have right to family ties preservation, to a family identity, to bodily integrity, and to protection from exploitation and ill-treatment. Therefore, both the family and the government share the responsibility of making sure that the abovementioned rights are fulfilled and respected. The children’s can be protected by the government through parents’ empowerment. Parents play an important role in the lives of their children; for instance, they serve as children’s agents in the world and also as guides when children grow into adulthood. On the other hand, the government plays an important role in making sure that the Children’s Rights are respected. This can be achieved by helping parents in raising children through espousal of family-friendly policies (quality childcare, safe neighbourhoods, good schools, good remuneration for the working parents, as well as income supports for poor families. In so doing, the government would be children’s rights in the family without intruding their privacy. As pointed out by Shedlosky (2007), the interest of the state in child protection from physical harm can lead to privacy intrusion and conflicts. Therefore, to make sure that the children can develop as well as flourish as productive society’s members, the government must protect the children’s psychological development and emotional welfare. Even though parents have an intrinsic interest in nurturing the children, it should be within the society’s confines. When the government imposes criminal liability, instead of civil remedies, in circumstances where the parent place a child's emotional, psychological, or physical wellbeing at risk, it would be serving the dual purposes of impacting the expectations in the society with regard to such situations as well as protecting children effectively from the parents’ harmful behaviour (Shedlosky, 2007). Conclusion In conclusion, this piece has demonstrated that children protection relies on the delicate balance between family autonomy as well as government intervention. Clearly, human rights are insignificant unless remedies are offered by the government when they are infringed. However, government intrusion on families can lead to victimisation of the children since their rights to privacy will be shattered. Children are the fulcrum of this tantalising balancing act; therefore, a partnership between families and government can help reduce children sufferings through protection of their rights. To reduce children delinquency and promote productive lives in NSW, the state government must partner with families to protect children’s rights. In terms of child protection history, the DoCS normally focus on the past supportive interventions provision as well as their failure or success. However, it is impossible for DoCS to effectively determine the parental capacity level without help from members of the society. References Davies, P. (2011). The impact of a child protection investigation: a personal reflective account. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 201–209. D'Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2009). Exploring the Possibilities of an Expanded Practice Repertoire in Child Protection:An Alternative Conceptual Approach. Journal of Social Work, 9, 61-85. Fernandez, E. (2014). Child Protection and Vulnerable Families: Trends and Issues in the Australian Context. Social Sciences, 3, 785–808. Greipp, M. E. (1997). Ethical Decision Making and Mandatory Reporting in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 11(6), 258-265. Healy, K., & Darlington, Y. (2009). Service user participation in diverse child protection contexts: principles for practice. Child and Family Social Work, 14, 420–430. Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (2016). Working Ethically in Child Protection. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. McIntosh, G., & Phillips, J. (2002, September 13). Who's Looking after the Kids? An Overview of Child Abuse and Child Protection in Australia. Retrieved from Parliament of Australia: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/ChildAbuse Shedlosky, E. C. (2007). Protecting Children from the Harmful Behavior of Adults. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1), 299-328. Wood, J. (2008). Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW (Vol. 1). Sydney. Woodhouse, B. B. (1999). A Delicate Balance; The Role of Government in Protecting Children’s Rights within the Family. International Conference on Children’s Rights (pp. 1-12). Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Education. Read More