Children at the centre of safety: challenging the false juxtaposition of protection and participation
| Published date | 05 September 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-09-2019-055 |
| Date | 05 September 2019 |
| Pages | 133-142 |
| Author | Camille Warrington,Cath Larkins |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Children/youth,Parents,Education,Early childhood education,Home culture,Social/physical development |
Camille Warrington and Cath Larkins
Children at the centre of safety: challenging the false juxtaposition of protection
and participation
Setting the scene: the principle of indivisible rights
In total, 30 years on from the adoption of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child
(United Nations, 1989), the indivisible and mutually reinforcing relationship between children’s
rights to both “protection”and participation is long-standing. Yet despite its longevity, the
practical realisation of this relationship remains significantly under-explored.
Child participation is variously understood as having a say, being involved in decision making and
achieving influence (through words and actions): within personal lives, communities, practice,
research and policy. Children’s rights to participation, enshrined in the 1989 United Nations
have their views taken into account in matters that affect them (Article 12), the rights to freedom
of expression (Article 13), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14), the right to
associate with others (Article 15), the right to privacy (Article 16) and the right to access
information (Article 17). Crucially Article 12 as one of the general principles of the UNCRC, should
be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights.
Meanwhile children’s rights to protection are more often related to rights explicitly focused on
children’s physical and psychological safety. They are noted to draw attention to the special
status of children due to their relative immaturity and associated dependency, vulnerability and
potential defencelessness (Archard, 2004). Centrally this includes the three remaining general
principles: children’s rights to protection from discrimination (Article 2), upholding their best
interests in decision making (Article 3) and their right to survival and development (Article 6).
Further rights address more specific forms of maltreatment and neglect, including physical and
mental violence (Article 19), harmful work (Article 32); sexual abuse (Article 34) and cruel or
harmful punishment (Article 37).
Despite these perceived distinctions the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child helpfully draws
attention to the interdependency of all children’s rights. Crucially for this journal, they provide
guidance on the implementation of Article 12 (General Comment Number 12) which includes the
statement that:
Much of the violence perpetrated against children goes unchallenged both because certain forms of
abusivebehaviour areunderstood by childrenas accepted practices, and dueto the lack of child-friendly
reporting mechanisms […] Thus, effective inclusion of children in protective measures requires that
children be informed about their right to be heard and to grow up free from all forms of physical and
psychological violence.(United Nations Committee on the Rightsof the Child, 2009, Paragraph 120)
Furthermore General Comment 12 states that there can be no assessment of best interests
without giving due weight to children’s views.’Noting for example:
Whenever a decision is made to remove a child from her or his family because the child is a victim of
abuse or neglect within his or her home, the view of the child must be taken into account in order to
determine the best interests of the child. (Paragraph 53)
Despite this framework, multiple authors point to perceived tensions between these two sets of
rights and the challenges in simultaneously prioritising them (Healy, 1998; Archard, 2004; Hinton,
2008; Healy and Darlington, 2009; Coppock and Phillips, 2013). Frustratingly few examples exist
which seeks to more deeply explore or resolve these tensions. Instead several authors suggest
Camille Warrington is based at
the University of Bedfordshire,
Luton, UK.
Cath Larkins is based at the
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JCS-09-2019-055 VOL. 14 NO. 3 2019, pp. 133-142, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
j
PAG E 13 3
Guest editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial