Two Strategies for the Child Advocate
In considering the totality of my Child Advocacy Policy Workshop, I've realized that there are two possible courses of action for a child advocate. The child advocate can either (1) pursue a total restructuring of our society's distribution of rights between children and adults, or (2) embrace newer "holistic"-type approaches that use a piecemeal method of reaching certain portions of the at-risk populations.
To clarify a bit, (1) represents the struggle within the current distribution of constitutuional rights in the family. Currently the parents have nearly 100% of the rights. Children, on the other hand, basically have a traditional right to custody, but not much more than that. There have been growing movements to increase the amount of children's rights, but these have mostly proven unsuccessful in the U.S. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, was not signed by the Senate. Pursuing greater children's protections along these lines seems like a difficult battle. Adults are not generally interested in granting rights to children, because it is viewed as a sacrifice of some of their rights -- rights are often viewed as a zero sum game. Additionally, children do not have the financial, political or organizational capital to really fend for themselves.
Strategy (2) for gaining ground for children has been somewhat successful already. The sorts of holistic approaches are things like new schools that consider the totality of the child, Early Home Intervention, Family Treatment Courts, and the like. These strategies work within the existing distribution of rights. It is much more likely that these sorts of strategies can succeed, but they often miss out on the most at-risk and in-need portions of the child population. Many of these programs are voluntary and involve the parent deciding to relinquish some of their own rights -- which means that the parents who are most likely to abuse their children, will most likely not want to pass on this power.
This dichotomy between (1) and (2) is somewhat superficial, but I hope that it might provide a new way of looking at the conundrum of figuring out how to deal with children's issues. I am pleased that from the Child Advocacy Policy Workshop it has become increasingly clear that there are dedicated and passionate people working to protect the rights of children under both (1) and (2). As of yet I have not yet decided which strategy I will pursue.
To clarify a bit, (1) represents the struggle within the current distribution of constitutuional rights in the family. Currently the parents have nearly 100% of the rights. Children, on the other hand, basically have a traditional right to custody, but not much more than that. There have been growing movements to increase the amount of children's rights, but these have mostly proven unsuccessful in the U.S. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, was not signed by the Senate. Pursuing greater children's protections along these lines seems like a difficult battle. Adults are not generally interested in granting rights to children, because it is viewed as a sacrifice of some of their rights -- rights are often viewed as a zero sum game. Additionally, children do not have the financial, political or organizational capital to really fend for themselves.
Strategy (2) for gaining ground for children has been somewhat successful already. The sorts of holistic approaches are things like new schools that consider the totality of the child, Early Home Intervention, Family Treatment Courts, and the like. These strategies work within the existing distribution of rights. It is much more likely that these sorts of strategies can succeed, but they often miss out on the most at-risk and in-need portions of the child population. Many of these programs are voluntary and involve the parent deciding to relinquish some of their own rights -- which means that the parents who are most likely to abuse their children, will most likely not want to pass on this power.
This dichotomy between (1) and (2) is somewhat superficial, but I hope that it might provide a new way of looking at the conundrum of figuring out how to deal with children's issues. I am pleased that from the Child Advocacy Policy Workshop it has become increasingly clear that there are dedicated and passionate people working to protect the rights of children under both (1) and (2). As of yet I have not yet decided which strategy I will pursue.
posted by eponcz at 11:56 AM
3 Comments:
I have been sheltering youth for about 35 years, mostly teens. I work within the law by warping various legal processes to get a child their day in court. I totally agree with you. I believe that it is not till we give children the right to survive, be safe, and grow, the right to pursue happiness and the other rights we so value for ourselves, will we ever stop child abuse and neglect. Ethically children are not property any more than women are, but legally they are still stuck in the days of slavery. Thanks for putting your thoughts out there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Once you figure this all out... please email me. I'm a former foster child, and working to advocate for current foster children.
Post a Comment
<< Home