Radically rethinking child protection work with the four pillars of institutional justice capital.
Photo by Bruno Nascimento on Unsplash
In this post, Dr Sharynne Hamilton, Ngunnawal woman and Post doc at the Telethon Kids Institute (UWA) and Dr Sarah Maslen, Associate Professor of Sociology (UC) argue that the structural injustices produced by the child protection system can be tackled through building ‘institutional justice capital’
We often think about justice as a personal right. At a minimum, we should expect that individuals will have equitable access to systems of care. That is, they have access to resources, information, advocacy and support that gives them the best chance at beneficial outcomes, or what we term justice capital. Systems and institutions in Australia often do not support the justice capital of individuals. How can this be improved?
There is no better place to begin these conversations than in our child protection system. As our history tells us, the consequences for children when systems designed to protect them fail them are life-long, and frankly, disastrous.
Families involved with child protection system often have complex problems involving mental health issues, alcohol and other drug use, homelessness, and family violence. They are often the most marginalised and stigmatised members of our community and have few avenues to legal support and advocacy. The many reports and inquiries into the Australian child protection system highlight the harm incurred by children, families and communities and we have long argued for the rights of these families. Many are now experiencing child removal across generations, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families yet connections are not being made between past harm and contemporary family problems in child protection policy and practice. As a result, there is little chance to redress the harm past child welfare policies have inflicted on their families.
Photo by Ben Wicks on Unsplash
How is it that the system itself further entrenches marginalisation and stigmatisation? What could make up the principles of a more 'just' child protection system?
This is the focus of our latest work where we examine how the system compounds harm. We use Iris Marion Young's work on oppression to highlight how injustice is first and foremost structural. That is, injustice is sustained by the norms, rules and practices present in social, economic and political structures. Young shows that injustice and oppression is driven by exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence.
In Child Protection, this approach directs attention towards:
the power imbalances that exist between families and authorities,
the often unspoken ideas of ‘good enough’ parenting that inform removals, and
the violence enacted by authorities that parents so often describe, such as the problem of unclear or shifting tasks that enable reunification or interference with contact arrangements with their children.
To shift these dynamics state actors must support justice at an institutional level particularly in relation to the distribution of power, the cultivation of relationships and breaking intergenerational cycles of harm.
To do this we need the four pillars of institutional justice capital: parental rights, public debate, respectful relationships, and non-violence.
Four pillars of institutional justice capital
Parental rights. Parents need access to effective legal advocacy and representation in courts. Just like the criminal courts, parents should have a right to the presumption of innocence and to have access to justice capital, or the resources to understand and to challenge decisions that are being made about removing their children to out of home care.
Public debate. We need to have open, public conversations about what constitutes child maltreatment. Given most children are removed due to subjective perceptions of 'neglect' we need to debate what it means to be a 'risky' parent. We need to question whether having a disability, having a mental health issue or using drugs and alcohol necessarily presents risk. Perhaps there is safety to be found in the networks and supports that surround children that offset that risk.
Respectful relationships. The saying goes that it takes a village to raise a child. We need to be actively supporting communities, and community organisations, to support families. Child welfare leans too much on the interventions of child protection authorities, with relationships between authorities and community actors frequently adversarial. We need to think about how we can better support relational and responsive systems. Community organisations who are often working with families have far more knowledge about the families and the resources that allow for innovative interventions that support the safety of children. We need to much better utilise and respectfully support these relationships.
Non-violence. We need to combat violence enacted by the state. Families involved with the child protection system are the most marginalised and powerless members of our community. We need to actively guard against further adding to the ‘violence’ that they experience. Families need clear and consistent goals to work toward reunification. Intergenerational removals are a shocking reality, especially for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. What is at risk is nothing less than a future of stolen or forgotten generations of children. We need to do better.
Authors
Dr Sharynne Hamilton. Ngunnawal woman. Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia (@sharynnehamilt1)
Dr Sarah Maslen. Associate Professor of Sociology, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra
Mod:
Deb Cleland