Youth Justice and Child Protection

Malcolm Hill, Andrew Lockyer, Fred Stone

• Publisher: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781846425530
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Diritto di famiglia

This book is an examination of recent developments in the areas of youth justice and child protection. It investigates how well young people and the societies in which they live are served by judicial and service systems. Consideration is given to those in care - in young offenders' institutions, foster families and residential homes - as well as those living with their families.

A broad range of international experts discuss the largely segregated youth justice and children's legal and service systems in England and Wales, other parts of Western Europe and the US, and compare these with Scotland's integrated system. The implications of these arrangements are considered for the rights of children and parents on the one hand and society on the other. The contributors also provide insights into the rationale for current and proposed policies, as well as the efficacy of different systems.

This book will be an important reference for policy-makers, social workers, lawyers, magistrates and equivalent decision makers, health professionals, carers, and all those working in youth justice and child protection. It is highly relevant for academics and students interested in children, citizenship, youth crime, child welfare and state-family relations.

1

Different Approaches to the Youth Justice–Child Care and Protection Interface

1

Approaching Youth Crime through Welfare and Punishment: The Finnish Perspective

Johanna Korpinen and Tarja Pösö

Introduction

In a recent legal article, Kimmo Nuotio (2004) noted that only a couple of years ago it would have seemed strange to use such a concept as youth criminal justice in Finland. Even now the concept is used inconsistently and no wide agreement exists yet as to what it means. Despite this fact – or perhaps because of it – youth criminal justice is at present a focus of attention within academic literature.

The recent use of this concept demonstrates that we are living through an era of change. Youth crime policy and its associated systems and practices go back as far as the end of the nineteenth century – if not even earlier (Harrikari 2004a) – with the fundamental legislation having been established in the early part of the twentieth century. Since then Finland has generally approached youth crime by keeping separate the justice and child protection measures and systems. Of the two, the tasks and duties of child protection are much wider. However, recent policy proposals suggest that the role of child protection and the justice system should be rethought and that new approaches should be developed. When the Ministry of Justice launched a commission to reassess the Finnish juvenile justice system in 2001, the aim was to establish a more rehabilitative perspective (Marttunen 2004).

These challenges for change are set against a social, economic and cultural situation where deep concerns about the state of well-being of children and young people have been debated to a great extent both in the mass media as well as academically (Bardy, Salmi and Heino 2001; Järventie and Sauli 2001). There have been reports about the deterioration of welfare and educational services for children, young people and families, who have traditionally been the key target for the Nordic welfare states through social services and income transfers. The core of concern has been directed towards the social stratification of families and childhood. Poverty among families with children increased sharply during the 1990s (Sauli, Bardy and Salmi 2002). It is estimated that 17 per cent of children and young people under the age of 18 experience or witness violence in their homes (Oranen 2001). Furthermore, unemployment is high among young people: in fact, there are regions where every third young person under the age of 24 is unemployed (Suutari 2002). Children and young people have become increasingly polarised into those who have many psychosocial problems of various kinds and those who live a safe childhood with many educational, cultural and social opportunities.

The issues of youth crime and child protection are thereby located at a juncture of debates, changes and crises of different types concerning the role of formal society and the social position of youth. This chapter aims to describe these ongoing discussions as well as to present the systems and practices for dealing with youth crime. The opening section will look at, first, child protection and, second, youth crime from the point of view of the relevant legislation and systems, together with the issues those institutions deal with. The second section will discuss some of the current tendencies and contradictions in policies for children and young people.

Child care and protection

Legislation

The Finnish system for child care has a long history in family and population policy. At present, child care consists of a variety of services and benefits targeted at children and families with children (Millar and Warman 1996). Most of the services and benefits, universalist by their nature, are meant for all children and families. Child protection is directed especially to children and families in trouble and in need but, even so, the approach is broad.

The legislation that governs Finnish child protection is both national and international. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Finnish Constitution provide the basic principles that also direct the practices of child protection work. The leading principle in the so-called ‘child laws’ in Finland, the Child Welfare Act 1983 and the Child Custody and the Rights of Access Act 1983, is the best interest of the child. For their part, the general laws of social welfare (e.g. the Social Welfare Act 1982 and the Act on Client’s Position and Rights in Social Welfare 2000) play a major role in defining the rights of clients and the obligations for local authorities to act.

The starting point of Finnish child protection is that it covers all children in society and that it should extend to schools, the health services, housing policy, the family and culture. All children under 18 years of age are covered and in some cases even persons under 21. Despite the wide nature of the concept, the Child Welfare Act 1983 set out specific criteria specifying when the local authorities have to intervene. According to the Act, family-orientated and individual child welfare comprises assistance in ‘open care’, taking into care, substitute care and aftercare (Section 8).

Open care

In Finland, support for children and families who are considered to be in need of child protection services is provided through so-called ‘open care’, which is roughly equivalent to family support in the UK. Open care covers a wide range of services, from assistance at home to temporary placement in foster or residential care. The need for open care measures are met if the health or development of a child or young person is endangered or not safeguarded by the environment in which she or he grows up, or if a child or young person endangers this environment through his or her behaviour (Section 12). This means that when social workers are informed (for example, via school, neighbours or a child health clinic) of a child who may be in need of some kind of support they will contact the family. If there is a need for help or support, open care measures can then be considered. This may take the form of, for example, financial support, lay helpers, support families, therapy, assistance in education and training, job and house finding, leisure activities or temporary placement outside the home (for a maximum of six months). Social workers are also obliged to make a care plan that should be revised regularly together with the child and the parents.

Open care is voluntary and there are no time limits for its duration. It may last only a short time or continue for several years. Open care is a mixture of support and control and therefore its intensity varies depending on the situation. If open care measures prove to be inadequate, there is the option that the child is taken into care by the local authorities, even against the child’s or the parents’ will. However, Hurtig (2003) argues that open care measures may last several years even if the requirements for taking into care have been met earlier. The strong emphasis on supporting whole families may in some cases neglect children’s individual needs. Despite these problems, open care creates the basis for Finnish child protection social work with the ultimate aim of solving and preventing problems before they become too serious.

Taking into care and substitute care

Taking into care means that the local authorities become responsible for the child’s care and upbringing away from the child’s own home. It can occur only if all three of the following preconditions are fulfilled: the child’s health or development has been seriously endangered; the open care measures taken have proved to be inappropriate or inadequate; substitute care is deemed to be in the best interest of the child (Section 16). Substitute care may take the form of foster care, residential care or some other appropriate form of care. Compared with Sweden and Norway, a relatively large number of children are placed in residential care in Finland. In 2002, 57 per cent of the children in substitute care were in institutions and 45 per cent in foster care (Rousu and Holma 2003). Substitute care terminates when the child reaches 18 years of age, or earlier if it is considered there is no longer such a need.

Aftercare

The local authorities are also required to provide aftercare for children or young persons who have been in substitute care. The idea is to support both the child and the parents in everyday life when the child returns to his or her home or moves to his or her own apartment. The help and support is provided through ‘open care’. Financial support and different types of sheltered homes are important forms of assistance for young people. The obligation ends when the young person turns 21.

The system of child protection

Historically, the social welfare boards have been important actors in carrying out child protection work. Their role was defined in the first child protection law in 1936, since when they have been central decision-makers concerning child protection issues. Prior to 1936, children’s well-being was based mostly on the patriarchal and autonomous family. On the whole, only orphans and children abandoned by their parents were taken into public care as part of poor relief. Children who had committed criminal offences were looked after by the justice system (Hearn et al. 2004).

The law of 1936 gave the local authorities the right to remove a child from his or her parents into the care of local authorities (Forsberg 1998). It emphasised the need to protect children from their parents, and contact with the biological parents was not seen as being important. The guardianship of the child was transferred to the social welfare board, which meant both the custody of the child and the administration of his or her property. The new Child Welfare Act 1983 abandoned the old problem-based perspective and broadened the idea of child protection. In particular, it emphasised preventive work, which is the cornerstone of the current system.

Social welfare boards are part of the local administration. The seats on the board are occupied by politically elected lay people. The number of seats for each political party is based on the percentage won in the civic elections. The board is responsible for overseeing the operations and finances of its specific sector. The board can, however, delegate its decision-making power to municipal office-holders, that is to say social workers, except when the measures are compulsory. Therefore, social workers have a lot of discretionary power to decide when and how to intervene. The board itself will handle child protection issues if a child is taken into care against the parents’ will or if a child over 12 years of age opposes the taking into care or has not been heard. The board can hear different parties in their meetings, but it is not obligatory. The board has to submit its decision to the Provincial Administrative Court within 30 days, which may also arrange oral hearings. However, in most cases, the Court’s decisions are based on documents.

The functions of the welfare board have been criticised for contravening Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on fair trial. There have also been doubts regarding whether lay people are sufficiently qualified to make decisions concerning difficult family situations, especially in small communities. It has been said that lay people do not possess the kind of expertise that decision-makers need; however, this critique is not based on any research and there are no studies of how the boards actually work. There are also contradictory views of what kind of expertise counts and what qualifications decision-makers need. Proposals have been made to transfer all the decisions concerning the taking into care of children from the municipal boards to the administrative courts except in cases of emergency care orders (Oikeusturva-asiain 2001). However, opposing views suggest this would have negative effects on child protection work carried out at a local level. From a social work perspective it might increase ‘legalism’ (for example, the use of solicitors would increase) and reduce the discretionary powers of social workers. On the other hand, it could clarify the decision-making process, clearly identify social workers as the children’s advocates and lessen the differences between municipalities.

Although municipalities are responsible for official child protection work, different voluntary organisations, the Church and private service providers are also important actors in the field of child protection. They provide information and training, carry out research and sell services to municipalities.

Children, families and social work methods in child protection

The clients of child protection services could be described as a last resort when universal services have failed (Forssen 1998). The recession at the beginning of the 1990s resulted in many cuts in social service provision while also heightening the number of child protection problems (Bardy et al. 2001). Therefore the need for services increased but there were fewer resources with which to respond. The cuts have not been compensated for, even though the number of children in open care has more than doubled in ten years. There were 23,456 children in open care in 1992 and by 2002 it was 54,458 children (4.9% of all children under the age of 18) (Sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon 2003). The clientele in open care has also become long term, which suggests that the problems are more severe (Bardy et al. 2001).

There are two specific age groups that seem to arouse concern and need for action: the very young and adolescents (Bardy et al. 2001). For example, in 2002, 42 per cent of placements outside the home concerned young people aged 12–17 (Sosiaali- ja terveudenhuollon 2003). Family conflicts, alcoholism and problems in daily care are the major problems experienced by this group (Bardy et al. 2001). In the case of small children, the typical reason for ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Of Related Interest
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: The Principles and Practice of Compulsory Intervention when Children are ‘At Risk’ or Engage in Criminal Behaviour
• Part 1: Different Approaches to the Youth Justice–Child Care and Protection Interface
• Part 2: Trends in Child Protection and Youth Justice Policy
• Part 3: Issues in Evaluation
• Part 4: Decision-making and Rights
• The Contributors
• Subject Index
• Author Index