Voice of the Child - Essay Example

? Voice of the Child A child is a person between the stage of birth and teenage years. They ought to be protected through children’s right. Voice of the Child is a children’s right that guard and protect children. It seeks a consideration to the rights of special defense and concern for minors. In addition, it contains the right to involvement with their parents, human distinctiveness as well as the essential necessities like food, paid education and health care. This chapter reviews the rights of a child, and why they should be listened within the Multi Arena Agency. Usually, it is necessary to have a mission in order to support rules, regulations and improvements so as to make sure that the rights secures each child and the children are no longer at jeopardy of violation. There is a belief that the wellbeing and protection of every child can only be comprehended through the endorsement of children’s rights, and the continuous implementation on meeting the rights of the child. The metaphor of the child’s voice, if taken literally, means that it is likely for a youngster to have a voice and be able to speak or express himself out loud. Looked at in this way, it is about the act of being able to articulate in certain ways the values of a child. It is also about having something to say in terms of experiences, opinions or ideas of a child. It is necessary for a child to be heard or listened to by others and the words having an impact (Mapp, 2011, Pg 256). In some communities, children’s lives and experiences are not valued or given any attention in areas such as the law or education. In legislation, the law bounds to be on adult or parental interests, but children seem to be dependent, as the property of parents and as being of lower status and value. Children are not seen to be able to articulate anything about themselves in any worth. Adults represent children in their ‘best interests’ and only adult opinions about the child’s life depict the way adults look upon the values of a child. Usually, a child’s role in the society is to be listened to and be looked after by adults. In addition, they are best served by adult actions based on adult experiences and judgments of children’s needs or adult intentions for children’s development and future (Jones, Welch & Welch, 2010, Pg 89). Services such as education, health or social care are structured and delivered in ways that are devised and implemented purely by adults, but some of them see children as immature, and what they think and say cannot be trusted. Parents ought to understand that a child's voice has to do with a child's live and it is worthy of attention and value. Children sometimes have opinions and inputs to represent themselves in matters that pertain their lives, they have a perception that is diverse from that of adults, and that this is of equal value to that of adults. On the other hand, they are active, able participants and are capable of judgment. To be specific, children are experts in their own lives. Although societies nowadays, do not enable children to have input in ways that encourage and develop children’s capacity as decision makers and to be valid contributors. Instead, adults create relationships and organizational structures on their own capacity as decision makers while they assume and assure that children see their own ideas and arid expressions as of less value and status than that of adult (Folbre, 2009, Pg 80). Theories about children have become a large concern in the societies of today. This model is, in this sense, deterministic. It bases in a theory of an axed child’s nature that develops according to a natural law. The goal of a child is usually autonomous or has independent moral conscience. However, progress through the various stages of moral development is not inevitable for them; they need social interaction to develop as moral beings. They require experience that is educative in the broadest sense; experience to challenges them to move ahead from one stage to the next. Children need to be challenged with dilemmas that prompt them to move on to the higher stages of moral development toward mature moral autonomy. Besides development stage model of childhood, postmodernist have come up with theories of childhood as social construct. Developmental theory defines childhood as a natural and determinate stage or series of stages on the way to becoming a complete human being. According to Chris Jenks, a representative of the postmodernist school, he argues that one should not only think of childhood as a set of predetermined natural or biological stages of growth and maturation, but also portray childhood as a sociological conception. In childhood and social theory, the initiative in theorizing childhood has been derived mainly from advances within sociology. It is established that the arm that grounds childhood is essentially sociological concerns derived from the intimate relationship between the child and the idea of social order. Although adults themselves have to be constrained into the social order, children usually exercise revolutionary tendencies and sociality up to the limits of adult tolerance. Hence, the children become unstable, systematically disruptive and uncontained. Alternatively, children can be managed, though barely, under a variety of different rubrics that are often developmental (Jenks, 2005, Pg 78). Physical or mental morphology may contain a structure of dissimilarity among people in a certain situation, but it is not sufficiently a comprehensible basis for the relationship between the adult and child. Indeed, naturalism and determinism diminishes the humanity of children rather; one must regard and treat children as being genuine human agents. With respect to the essentialist error, the postmodernists argue that childhood is neither a natural nor a common characteristic of human groups but become visible as a particular structural component of the societies. The child is brought into being through the dominant modes of speech that exist in a society concerning age, dependency, development or the family. Childhood is not a single or universal phenomenon but is, rather, diverse phenomena. In general, there are no universally valid criteria for judging the moral status of a child (Brennan, 2008, Pg 108). Voice of the child began with the solitary idea of one woman who wanted to make a disparity in the lives of financially underprivileged children. Through the first hand knowledge and investigation, the woman came into recognition that there were factually thousands of offsprings who were lying between the cracks and required healthcare, services, and essential needs, which were not offered by the level of insurance, government or other association. In 1995, she made an assurance to those children and created a child’s voice foundation, a place where kids come first. Children require a voice and the exact tools to work against poor nutrition, poverty, risk of social surroundings or whatever thing that would deprive their lives. A number of these children are from low-income family unit or foster care. Some children suffer from health conditions, yet their families are troubled economically. As a result, more services are needed to care for this children but private, and government insurance programs ignore them. The faces of these kids are many and diverse, and a Child’s Voice Foundation is dedicated to assisting these huge and essential sectors in the society that keep on falling between the cracks and has nowhere to turn (McLeod, 2008, Pg 20). A child’s voice foundation is a proletariat group of people who are based not-for-profit but for charity. It functions nationally to arrive at every child in need of support. Generating a complete programs and community resolution to accomplish these needs, the foundation works diligently to recommend children with many desirable services. A support through its two dedicated programs is devoted to supporting and improving the physical and emotional well being of economically disadvantaged children. A child’s voice basis ensures all of the corporate nature; foundation’s process, programming, and behaviors are informed and shaped by its mission vision and values constantly developing to meet the changing needs of the children the foundation assists (Otten & Schmidt, 1989, Pg 68). Studies show that most of the children in the society are not listened. This is because adults assume the strength of mind about the best welfare of the child. They are not understood and treated within the health care law. Another major cause of why children are not listened is the fact that some children are portrayed as corrupt; they do not live according to the values which adults would not emulate. (Bridgeman, 2007, Pg 6). Multi-agency is a local children's boards that safeguards the rights of a child and it contain statutory requirements. Children’s values are guarded through this board. New organizational structures such as children’s trusts and children’s centers are the mainstream of the Multi-Agency policy. A number of key issues have become increasingly salient as new service configurations develop in valuing children’s rights. Such issues include the role of Multi-agency domestic violence partnerships, data sharing and referral. It will also touch on the general issue of effective Multi-agency and multi-disciplinary work. It is important to practice a front-line working condition with children whereby this addresses the complex array of language proliferating in the area. The terms employed in Multi-agency working is used to describe the work which occurs across and between different agencies. A continuum of work can be identified with relatively minimal co-operative relationships at one end, moving on to co-ordination of work towards a common goal, through to active collaboration at the other extremity. At one single level, the necessity for multi-agency working is applied in a child’s protection in order to exercise their values. Family support work area is nowhere more obvious than in the area of domestic violence, where perpetrators of violence need to be challenged. Supporting the protection for adult and child survivors need to be delivered. It is not the work which can be undertaken by one worker or one agency and frequently requires collaboration with housing, police, education, women and children’s voluntary sector organizations, black and minority specialist agencies, health services and probation officers. There are excellent examples of Multi-agency working in the domestic violence arena that shows the policy and practice that can change to support survivors and address the issues of children with voices (Humphreys & Stanley, 2006, Pg 37). Children should be concerned with the course of determining family law disagreement. There is extensive acceptance in the Western globe that the view of children should be considered. The weight set to this analysis should rely on the children’s age, and maturity. There is very less accord about how children's voices are heard, and the way they are to be listened and valued (Shapiro, 2008, Pg 80). The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a simplified version of the Assessment Framework. It is designed for use by practitioners from all settings and agencies working with children at an early stage of assessing needs. It is completed with the voluntary agreement of a child, and this depends on their age and understanding, and their family. The intentions of CAF are to ensure that any practitioner can become the leading professional in an assessment using a standardized national approach and a common language. This offers an opportunity for early intervention and involves sharing responsibility. It ensures an improved recording of information gathered which can then be accessed by any professional working with the family. It intends to decrease the numeral times in which a family has to replicate orders to different professionals. The Common Assessment Framework also ensures that decisions about whether to refer a child on to a more specialist agency such as social services are evidently based. It hopes that appropriate services can be coordinated via the leading professional. The changes are being made to ensure improved communication between agencies and are at a relatively early stage. It is expected to improve better co-ordination of services and assessment of material. They may even prevent possible future tragedies for some children. The fact remains that, the person who abuses the child, is ultimately responsible rather than a social worker or agency. There are always some of the people who harm or murder children, and as a result, CAF is there to value children (Hughes & Owen, 2009, Pg 233). Although nowadays, the CAF does not give the impression of valuing children, this is because it is still under its final stages of development. Also, there have been operation issues about implementation of aspects such as Every Child Matter program. In addition, CAF has without doubt raised concern amongst some about the possible force on the workload. On the other hand, lack of trained staffs enabled CAF not to co-operate in valuing the children (Pycroft & Gough, 2010, Pg 49). The Children Act 1989 Legislation is the most far reaching reform of childcare law. Section 1 of the Act lays down three key decision-making principles. The Act provided a "welfare checklist" i.e. a list of issues that were vital for the court to consider when hearing any contested application for an order or applications for orders under certain part of the Act. With two, exceptions, the checklist was derived from existing case law. First, under section l (3) (a), court has regard to determine the needs and thoughts of the child apprehended; considering in the light of his age and perception. The common law realizes the decision-making autonomy of children. Under the Act, the court merely has to take the child's wishes and feelings into account. The court's view of the child's welfare will prevail. It is more that the court has to reflect on the child's desire and feelings as a matter of routine. This provision allowed the court to make an order different from the order applied for and thus underlined the courts ‘new decision- making flexibility. The Act introduced the concept of parental responsibility. This concept can be seen as promoting a new model of parenthood. For instance, under this Act, parental responsibility for the child survived from an order for divorce. In the area of public law, even when a child was being taken care of by the local authority under a care order, the child’s parents shared parental responsibility with the local authority. Practically, the concept is important because it is linked either with other provisions in the Act or developments outside the legislation. The intended net effect of the concept was to reduce the likelihood of matrimonial disputes over children. Children and parents acquire new procedural and substantive rights under the Act. For instance, parents whose children have been taken from their home under an emergency protection order could challenge that order. There is a presumption of contact between children and their parents (Franklin, 2002, Pg 62). Children’s rights The Act has advanced the welfare rights of children through its endorsement of the paramount principle hence the proving the welfare checklist and the rights principle of children. The threshold criteria can be seen as an attempt to limit state intervention into family life. This is done by requiring a minimum threshold of harm to be established before any compulsory powers over a family and this can be acquired by the local authority. It is not proper to intervene on any level of harm (Bell, 2011, Pg 164). Examples of children who were not listened to is the case studies of Victoria Climbie and Daniel Pelka. Victoria Climbie was an Ivorian girl who was eight-years of age, and she lived in London. In the year 2000, she was tormented and killed by her custodians. Her death was investigated by the public and created major change in child protection strategy in England. Local churches were affected by Climbie's death although they had noted the signs of abuse. However, the judge who was following Climbie's death depicted the case as "blinding incompetence". Her guardians were found guilty of killing, the ended up in prison for life. There were numerous occurrences where Climbie could have been saved, but it showed that many of the organizations that were concerned in her care seemed to be were badly run. This is because there was a racial aspect surrounding the case as lots of the participants were black. Her case made several suggestions related to child protection in England. Daniel Pelka was another example of a child who was not listened. Daniel did not speak English as his first language, and because of this, he lacked confidence because his voice was not heard. In March 2012, Daniel, a four-year-old died in front his mother and his step father. He was subjected to starvation frequently. The serious case review found frequent failure by the organizations set up to defend children's welfare. Experts found Daniel was at times 'invisible' since his mother and his step father-a wicked ex- soldier, misled and betrayed a host of child defense agencies by revolving a network of lies to cover regular abuse of the boy. Throughout their trial at Birmingham Crown Court, the jury heard how Daniel had been kept locked in a box room as a virtual prisoner and at one point his so called mother held his head underneath the water in the bath. His guardians both came from Poland, and they were found guilty of the child’s murder following the trial and each was detained in prison for years not less than thirty. Finally, these case studies call for superior communication and harmonization between the diverse child protection agencies, and an escalation of working measures and staff training (Great Britain, 2004-05, Pg 56). Reference Mapp, S. C. (2011). Global Child Welfare and Well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, P., Welch, S., & Welch, S. (2010). Rethinking Children's Rights: Attitudes in Contemporary Society. Canada: Continuum.  Folbre, N. (2009). Valuing Children: Rethinking the Economics of the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jenks, C. (2005). Childhood: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Volume. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. Brennan, P.M. (2008). The Vocation of the Child. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.  McLeod, A. (2008). Listening to Children: A Practitioner's Guide. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Otten, C. F., & Schmidt. G. D. (1989). The Voice of the Narrator in Children's Literature. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Bridgeman, J. (2007). Parental Responsibility, Young Children and Healthcare Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press : Humphreys, C., & Stanley, N. (2006). Domestic Violence and Child Protection: Directions for Good Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Shapiro, L. (2008). Learning to Listen, Learning to Care: A Workbook to Help Kids Learn Self. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications. Hughes, L., & Owen, H. (2009). Good Practice in Safeguarding Children: Working Effectively in Child Protection. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Pycroft, A., & Gough, D. (2010). Multi-agency Working in Criminal Justice: Control and Care in Contemporary. Bristol: The Policy Press. Franklin, B. (2002). The New Handbook of Children's Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice. Britain: Routledge. Bell, M. (2011). Promoting Children's Rights in Social Work and Social Care. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Great Britain. (2004-05). Every Child Matters: Ninth Report of Session. Southern Ireland:  By Parliament House of Commons. Read More