Legislation and Policy of Child Protection

Over decades, child protection has been a major concern on the political agenda of the international community. Moreover, child protection laws historically illustrate a great impact on changing attitudes and beliefs regarding the role of government in protecting children from being maltreated.  In 1919, the first legal framework for child protection was adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which set the minimum age of Industry Convention. In 1924, the concept of ‘rights’ was used for the first time by the Geneva Declaration on the Child’s Rights (Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1924; Olowu, 2008). In 1959, the Declaration on the Childs’ Rights included ten non-legally bindings principles set by the General Assembly for the purpose of providing special protections for children (Pinheiro, 2006; Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959).
Legal instruments for the protection of children’s rights faced further elaboration and evolution over the years. The most notable and influential global policy document  were the United Nations (UN) Declaration and UN convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) amongst others (Assembly,1989). In 1989, the General assembly adopted legally binding standards that were set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (Assembly,1989; Pinheiro, 2006).
Definitions have similarly evolved during this period. The United Convention on the Rights of the Child defined a child in article 1 as: “every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, the majority is attained earlier” (Unicef, 1989, p.1). The UNCRC is provides children and young people who are under 18 years old a comprehensive set of rights in 42 fundamental articles, within the context of international human rights. Certain articles have been particularly important for child protection policy, legislation and service development. Article 19 calls for child protection from all forms of violence and abuse by proposing legislative, educational, administrative and welfare actions; “Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence): (a). Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However, any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour. (b). Ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child’s level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention” ((Unicef, 1989, p. 2-3). Articles 32 to 36 emphasize the legal rights of the child to be protected from exploitation, including economic and sexual exploitation, forbidden use of illicit drugs, kidnapping, sale, and trading; “Article 32 (Child labour): The government should protect children from work that is dangerous or might harm their health or their education. While the Convention protects children from harmful and exploitative work, there is nothing in it that prohibits parents from expecting their children to help out at home in ways that are safe and appropriate to their age. If children help out in a family farm or business, the tasks they do be safe and suited to their level of development and comply with national labour laws. Children’s work should not jeopardize any of their other rights, including the right to education, or the right to relaxation and play”. “Article 36 (Other forms of exploitation): Children should be protected from any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development” (Unicef, 1989, p.4).
Children’s rights have been acknowledged and almost universally adopted, as 192 countries have approved the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and are still bound by their articles, except two countries, the USA and Somalia (Olowu, 2008; Pinheiro & Unies, 2006; Zolotor & Puzia, 2010). Reading and colleagues (2009) stated that “the failure to ratify the UNCRC should not be taken to indicate that the USA disregards children’s rights, as it has been a perverse incentive to policy makers and academics to pay greater attention than in many other high-income countries that take their obligations less seriously” (P.334). However, in other countries such as the UK, laws that, for example, discourage asylum seekers and those refused asylum may contradict the Convention on children’s basic rights by depriving them from essential benefits and services. Similarly, in the USA, Latino families are marginalised because of inequalities in welfare and healthcare policy; consequently, although their children living in poverty and are more likely to be recorded by child protection services than white children, their access to support services is limited (Zambrana & Capello, 2003). Therefore, despite the endorsement of children’s rights principles, even in high income countries their situation appears to have worsened in recent years (Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 2008; UK Children’s Commissioners, 2008).
Although it is mandatory that the UNCRC is enforced and necessary for the child-maltreatment policy of any country, with the desirable impact on children’s well-being, it is often challenging to implement the UNCRC, given the political and social norms. For instance, contradictions appear in every country and region, because of tensions between the rights of the child and other conflicting values. In Africa, for example, Article 31 on the child’s rights and welfare stated that the child should take responsibility of contributing to family solidarity, obey and respect parents and elder people at all times, and provide them with support when this is needed (Organization of African Unity, 1999). Thus sociocultural values, as well as soiconomic factors such as living in harsh environments with limited resources adversely impact the implementation of international conventions (Ajayi and Torimiro, 2004). In the same light, whilst many countries are adopting a more child-centred approach, others still believe, to a variable extent, in physical punishment as an acceptable parenting approach of discipline (Runyan, 2008; UNICEF, 2007).
The Committee on the Rights of the Child emphasized the requirement for banning all types of violence against children, including all forms of corporal punishment. In 2006, the Committee highlighted the duty of all countries to move forward in prohibiting all forms of punishment of children (Pinheiro & Unies, 2006). Zolotor and Puzia (2010) published a systematic review on bans against corporal punishment. The study focused on the legal context in the 24 countries with legislative prohibitions on corporal punishment, and the relationship between the law and changing attitudes. The main results were: one country in the Middle East, 19 countries in Europe, three in Central or South America, and one in Oceania have legislative bans on physical punishment. These countries have elected or representative types of government. A range of penalties are defined by law such as imprisonment, fines, probation, community service, or correctional labour. In terms of attitudes, a dramatic reduction in attitudes favouring corporal punishment has been shown by most studies following a legislative ban, by using historical or geographic comparisons.
In order to implement the UNCRC to improve the children’s health and well-being, Webb and colleagues (2009) proposed that, firstly, there must be raised awareness of the convention among children, young people and their advocates. Secondly, this should be followed by all health professionals through training on the relevance of the UNCRC to health and health care. Thirdly, the UNCRC can then form the foundation for service standards and guidelines.