4.1 Article

Vulnerable children's rights to participation, protection, and provision: The process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare

Journal

CHILD & FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 316-323

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12424

Keywords

child abuse (neglect); child protection; child welfare; child-centred research; children's participation; children's rights

Funding

  1. Children's House Foundation, Sweden
  2. Majblomman, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study addresses the relationship between children's participation and the protection and provision offered to them by social services in Sweden. It applies a theoretical framework for analysing child welfare that is anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. How child participation may affect child protection and provision is examined empirically using case documentation from 2 municipalities. The main finding is that when children are not given voice or opportunity to influence the framing of what the problem is, the design of protection and care tends to be poorly matched to the actual problems documented in the child investigation and vice versa; when children can influence framing, this is associated with well-matched protection and care. This suggests that traditional child welfare ethos, to the effect that protection should be of such overriding concern that children even should be protected from participation, is misguided. The study further illustrates the intrinsic problems with the family orientation of Swedish social services and its reliance on partnership with parents, which makes it difficult to live up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Incorporating child participation into existing service models can transform Swedish social services to an augmented child-focused system that by ensuring participation also promotes protection and provision.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available