making better sense of children's trajectories in child protection in france

Making Better Sense of Children's Trajectories in Child Protection in France

Gilles Séraphin2, Flora Bolter2, Marie-Paule Martin-Blachais1

1GIP Enfance en Danger, Paris, France,2ONED (National observatory for children in danger), Paris, France

Groupement d’Intérêt Public de l’Enfance en Danger

1 Child protection in FranceAn overview


, professional training

1 Child protection in France/ France’s administrative divisions


Prevention and universal services

With 3.7% of its GDP spent on children and families, and in particular 27 Billion EUR spent on the care of children aged 0-6, France ranks high in terms of public spending on policies for children (UNICEF 2013).

Family benefits are received by 6.8 Million families, with an average amount of 377 EUR/month/Family.

Public services such as schools, universal-access mother-and-child health services (PMI), general social services and affordable healthcare are widely accessible, and provide a prevention net.

1 Child protection in France/ Other services


CARE

Children concerned by at least 1 measure: 275 000 (= 1.9% total child

population) on Dec. 31st, 2011

Anyone witnessing a situation that puts a child in dangerIn particular : education, social services, health professionals, law enforcement + 119

Information giving rise to concern (« IP »)

The CRIPassesses the situation and

decides with social services

The judicial system assesses the situation and

decides

Judicial protection-The child is in danger- Even if the family does not accept the decision- This relates to child protection in itself. Prosecution for criminal charges (CAN) is separate

If there is no cause for action: no action taken

Direct referral

Administrative protection

-No immediate danger- Only if the family agrees to the proposed measure- If repeated attempts have failed, the situation is referred to the judicial system

IF the situation requires judicial intervention: referral

IF the situation doesn’t require judicial intervention: transmission

1 Child protection in France/ Functional diagram after 2007


Minors:275 000 minors in the child protection system

(19‰ of the total population of under-18s in France)

Minors are predominantly (87%) concerned by judicial measures:52% Open-settings assistance measures/ 48% Placement measures Of these placement measures, 53% are in foster families and 38% in residential care.

Young adults: 21 000 young adults in the child protection system(9‰ of the total population aged 18-20 years in France)

Young adults are almost exclusively concerned by administrative measures:83% of measures are placement measures

ONED, 9th Annual report to Parliament and Government, 2014 (Data: 2011)

1 Child protection in France/ Population


2 Status-based approaches and their limitations


Specific interventions by CPS are conditional on a child or family being in a specific situation that is recognised by CPS as creating a right to care: the status triggers the right to receive assistance.

The first and foremost status involved in CPS is age: being a child or a young adult (18-21), being in a particular age group (young children, teenagers...).

Other types of statuses are linked to specific types of situations (that need to be assessed and recognised by services): situations of risk/danger, CAN...

The type of care measures that are involved also create different types of statuses (open-settings/placement, administrative/judicial)

Broader child-and-family measures that can play a part in the family’s context also involve status-based approaches : the family’s income (for benefits), a child or parent’s medical condition or disability...

2 Status-based approaches/ Status as an entry point


The status-based approach is in line with the equality principle, since entitlement to benefits and intervention is conditioned by an ascertainable situation to which anyone (in theory) could be confronted.

This approach also helps to identify the population concerned, since the situation that gives access to the help must be recognised through objective criteria. This makes it considerably easier to document the effects of a policy and the evolution of the population concerned.

However, status-based approaches lead to a number of difficulties that are increasingly being recognised as major issues by practitioners.

2 Status-based approaches/ Status as an entry point


2 Status-based approaches/ Limitations

Limitations in the access to care

Status-based policies require the definition of ascertainable criteria to justify intervention. This invariably causes threshold effects, with two otherwise similar situations being treated differently, for instance, because of a few months’ age difference.

Transition into adulthood/ contrats jeunes majeursThe decision recognising a variety of statuses happens at a given time and doesn’t necessarily require periodic assessment or renewals. Decision can be sometimes “freeze” a situation, even though the status of parents and children can change.

Limitations for education and care

Not preparing transitions. Focusing on the child’s status and basing the nature of care on this status overshadows the fact that this status is not permanent:

Children in care becoming wards of the state


Limitations for the children’s understanding of their trajectoryNo access to past events. Children are allowed access to their administrative and judicial files (January 2, 2002 Law- Article 1187 Civil procedure code). But because services are organised on a status basis, they are scattered across various service.

“Life albums”No certainty for the future. The age of 18 is seen by many children in care as a cut-off point, despite the existence of care measures for 18-to-21 year-olds.

Variations in Contrats Jeunes Majeurs

Taking into account multi-dimensional, evolving situationsStatus-based approaches are a way to make sense of the variety of situations by creating a variety of statuses that can overlap. But the accumulation of various statuses can preclude n multi-dimensional, holistic approach.

The other main limitation of status-based approaches is their blindness to evolutions: recognising a status at a given time triggers an intervention that can become irrelevant or should be modified in time, and creates administrative stratifications that give little visibility over time (past/future).

This need has been identified: PPE (individual care plans)

2 Status-based approaches/ Limitations


3 Taking into account life trajectories


The need to better take into account children’s life trajectories has been recognised by all 4 reports made in preparation for the “Children and Families” Act in early 2014:

For the working group on Children’s rights: JP Rosenczveig, D. Youf, F. Capelier, De nouveaux droits pour les enfants ? Oui… dans l’intérêt même des adultes et de la démocratie, January 2014

For the working group on Child protection and adoption: A. Gouttenoire, I. Corpart, 40 propositions pour adapter la protection de l’enfance et l’adoption aux réalités d’ajourd’hui, February 2014

For the working group on Parentage, origins and parenthood: I.Théry, AM Leroyer, Filiation, origines, parentalité: le droit face aux nouvelles valeurs de responsabilité générationnelle, April 2014

For the working group on Mediation and co-parenting: M. Juston, S. Gargoullaud, Médiation familiale et contrat de coparentalité, April 2014

3 Taking trajectories into account


3 Taking trajectories into account/ Trajectories as children’s rights

Framing trajectories in terms of children’s rightsTaking trajectories into account in child protection is primarily understood in the framework of children’s participation in line with national and international texts (“listening to children and young people and giving due weight to their views in accordance with their age and maturity is necessary for the effective implementation of their right to have their best interests be a primary consideration in all matters affecting them”, CoE Rec(2009)1864).

Two of the reports (Gouttenoire, Rosenczveig) propose elements to strengthen children’s participation in the decisions that affect them (article 13 UNCRC), as a way to exercise more control over their own trajectoriesRight to be heard by a judge (Rosenczveig 1.75)/ reform of L 223-4 CASF (Gouttenoire 13)

The question of a child’s access to the identities of his/her parents (Article 7 UNCRC) is also a question that is mentioned by 2 reports(Rosenczveig, Théry), with different propositions, in this framework. These reports as well as the Gouttenoire report all try to extend the possibilities for some information to be given to children born under secrecy.


The role of adults in the child’s life trajectoryOther propositions concern the role of adult caregivers and the recognition of their ties to the child as a way to consolidate the child’s life trajectory. French law typically does not give much possibility to recognise step-parents and foster parents’ involvement in the child’s life, requiring the legal parent’s explicit authorization for “important acts”

All the reports stress that adult caregivers in the child’s life should be given more recognition as a way to guarantee more stability in the child’s life trajectory.“Parental responsibility” vs authority (Rosenczveig 1.31), “everyday education mandate”

(Théry p.289), strengthening ties with foster carers and other adult caregivers (Gouttenoire 24), co-parenting contracts (Juston 17)

The Juston report also stresses the importance of mediation when parents are separating. This would allow a judge to mandate mediation services over time to make sure the separation goes as smoothly as possible (22-24): this would protect the parent’s role and promote the continuity of the child’s relationships with them.

In this framework, the Gouttenoire and Théry reports also propose changes to adoption procedures so as recognize and protect the role of adult caregivers in the child’s life (which would also help for children under kafala status and other residency issues).

3 Taking trajectories into account/ Recognising the adults’ role


3 Taking trajectories into account/ Trajectories in care

Specific trajectories in child protectionThe Gouttenoire report emphasises that “the Child protection system should be made more adaptable and its actors should be encouraged to not “lock up” children in the status they were given to begin with, so as to adapt to their evolving needs and projects”

Practices in child protection can be geared toward a more trajectory-oriented approach, getting rid of automatic decisions and installing regular reviewing processes

Pluri-disciplinary monitoring and orientation committee (Gouttenoire 19)Generalization and reinforcement of PPE (Gouttenoire and Rosenczveig)

Systematization of “life albums” (Gouttenoire 13)A stronger observation system to make sense of the overall effects of measures (Gouttenoire

3)

The role of caregivers should particularly be reinforced in child protection by facilitating the delegation of parental authority (Gouttenoire 18) and opening up the possibility for an eventual simple adoption by foster carers (Gouttenoire 28)- with ties to the origin family being kept at the same time.

The transition to adulthood is particularly crucial. Gateways should be provided to allow young adults leaving care to obtain help.

Creating a right to Contrats jeunes majeurs Creating post-exit reviews that can open the right to care (Gouttenoire 16)


Conclusion


CM/REC(2009)10 on integrated national strategies for the protection of children from violence; article 3.1.1: “A multidisciplinary and systematic framework (hereinafter referred to as “the strategy”) integrated into the national planning process, rooted in the UNCRC and bringing together all stakeholders, represents the most effective response to violence against children that is sustainable over time. ”

Past Future

Multiple dimensions PPE

making better sense of children's trajectories in child protection in france

Government & Nonprofit