doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00606.

Hearing the child

cfs_606

391..399

David Archard* and Marit Skivenes

*Philosophy, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK, HEMIL-Centre, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Correspondence: David Archard, Philosophy, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, LA1 4YG UK E-mail: d.archard@lancaster.ac.uk Keywords: child protection (policy and practice), childrens rights, social work ethics, youth policy Accepted for publication: November 2008

A B S T R AC T Given that in our view the child has a fundamental right to be heard in all collective deliberative processes determining his or her future, we set out, rstly, what is required of such processes to respect this right namely that the childs authentic voice is heard and makes a difference and, secondly, the distance between this ideal and practice exemplied in the work of child welfare and child protection workers in Norway and the UK, chiey in their display of an instrumental attitude to childrens views.

INTRODUCTION (see Note 1) Child protection workers in England and Norway are clear that children should be involved directly, explicitly and from the outset in their own cases.The testimony we have gathered makes this plain. Nevertheless, it also reveals striking ambiguities and uncertainties in their understanding of the precise role children can and should play as participants. Our ndings conrm those from other studies (Thomas & OKane 1998; Shemmings 2000). The equivocations we discerned derive from the dilemmas social workers face when considering how exactly children should be heard in child welfare and child protection proceedings: how should we balance the childs right to be heard with the childs right to be protected; how should we balance the imperative to gather evidence against a concern for the childs entitlement to reveal information on his or her own terms; how should we acknowledge the custodial role of the parents but also guarantee that the child has her or his own right to participate; who assesses the maturity of the child and by what criteria; how should we determine what is in the best interests of a child. One particularly critical question is how social workers ought to handle those situations in which the childs own view contradicts their professional judgement of what is best. What, then, is the function and value of hearing the child? We think that an important reason for the difculties

social workers face in resolving these issues is the absence of any clear understanding of the reasons why children have a right to be heard. In this respect, social workers are not necessarily alone. Adults generally lack a perspicuous sense of why, when and how children should participate in proceedings affecting their interests. Thus, one aim of our paper is to contribute to a better understanding of how to hear a child. Other researchers have also recognised the importance of a child-centred approach to child welfare and child protection. Some have evaluated emergent good professional practice in respect of the participation of children of all ages (DCruz & Stagnitti 2008). Our own approach criticizes existing practice concerning the specic right to be heard of a capable child. Some research concerns the difculties of involving children whose circumstances or character makes it harder for their voices to be heard (Gilbertson & Barber 2002; Curtis et al. 2004; McLeod 2007). Our own approach is directed to the more general prejudicial assumptions that stand in the way of hearing any child. Finally, our concern was not with how the children viewed their role in decision-making processes (Leeson 2007) but with the attitude displayed by child protection workers towards this role. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to

391

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. This Articles recognition of the importance of hearing a childs views represents for many commentators a striking achievement of the Convention (Freeman 1993). But what exactly does this Article require, how can we be assured that the requirements have been met, and how far does practice match up to the ideal? In this paper we address the imperative of hearing the child by discussing three questions. In the rst section we dene what it means to hear the child; in the second section we will spell out the conditions for ensuring that the child is heard. In the last section we will examine the testimony of experienced child protection workers in England and Norway as illustration of how a child can be heard. I A child can be heard in many different ways: directly if the child gives oral testimony or submits a written statement; or indirectly through the intermediary of an adult such as a specially trained legal advocate or a relevant professional. Howsoever we hear the child we do not do so as we would a competent adult. An adult is self-determining and entitled to make free choices whereas the childs age and maturity must be evaluated. Decisions in respect of children are made collectively by children and adults who must also take into account what is in the childs best interest. The imperative to hear the child conjoins with an equally important imperative to give, as Article 3.1 of the UNCRC states, primary consideration in all actions concerning children to the best interests of the child (see Note 2). Nevertheless, we do not seek the views of the child simply in order to demonstrate the childs possible competence to decide for himself or herself; nor only so that they might play a consultative role in helping adult decision-makers judge what is in the overall best interests of the child. We think that the expression by a child able to do so of his or her views has independent value as an essential element in the decision-making process. The value derives from the fundamental respect a child is owed as a distinct

individual in that process (Archard & Skivenes 2009). Furthermore, any process touching on some matter affecting the childs interests should be both one in which the childs authentic voice is heard and a deliberative one. First, children must be expressing their own views on the matter in question. A 10-year-old child may not have entirely sensible desires and beliefs, and he or she may be very heavily inuenced by a sense of what his or her parents want for him or her. Nevertheless, we can still assure ourselves that his or her views really do reect his or her own outlook on life, what he or she wants to see happen. Second, the childs own view must not merely be heard but play its proper part in the deliberative process of determining what shall happen to the child. There are ascending levels of possible childrens participation up to real and non-token involvement in the determination of outcomes (Hart 1992; Shier 2001; Murray & Hallett 2002). Moreover, giving effect to that involvement should involve the thoughtful and creative construction of appropriate practices (Alderson 2008, Chapters 59). The obligation to hear the child enshrined in Article 12 of the UNCRC is, it should be noted, carefully and conditionally phrased. The right to express a view is accorded only to a child capable of forming his or her own views, and is given a weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Stimulated by the UNCRC but not restricted to explication of its content, there has been extensive discussion over the last 20 years of a childs right to express her own views, and of the childs capacity to make decisions in his or her own best interests. Of most relevance to the current discussion is the accumulated evidence that it is a mistake to presume a simple linear progressive development of every child and thus that it should always be possible straightforwardly to read off a childs maturity from his or her age (Richards & Light 1986; Bruner & Haste 1987). Social processes play an important role (Smith 2002). Moreover, childrens ability to participate in processes determinative of their own interests is precisely enhanced by granting them proper opportunities to do so (Smith et al. 2003, p. 211; Alderson 2008, Chapter 4). Put at its simplest, Treating children with respect can markedly increase their competence (Alderson 1992, p. 175). II We now turn to the question of how we might ensure that the childs authentic voice is indeed heard and

392

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

given its due. Here, we appeal initially to considerations drawn from general deliberative theory and to four governing principles underpinning any deliberative process. First, all participants involved in the case must be given the opportunity to participate. In a child welfare case these might include, at a minimum, the child, the childs parents and social workers. Second, there must be an appropriate location for the presentation of views, claims and arguments. As far as possible this should not disadvantage any participant. Children should not be intimidated by the circumstances in which they are asked to present their views. Third, it is important that there should be no signicant differences between the participants in their ability to articulate a point of view, present an argument, advance a claim or understand the terms of the case. Here, children are clearly at a disadvantage. It is thus important that due allowance is made for their inability relative to adult participants: in the language used and in the foregoing of deliberative procedures with which a child would be unfamiliar and uncomfortable. There is further detailed discussion of what this means in the following section. Fourth, the deliberative process is one in which everyone participating hears everything that everyone else has to say. Review of the process by an impartial outsider to ensure fairness is perfectly consistent with the maintenance of condentiality and limited disclosure. Conditions for facilitating participation To ensure that the childs voice is authentic and given its proper due, children clearly need to be adequately informed about and able to understand the issues at stake. Information must be provided to children in a manner sensitive to their character, abilities and particular circumstances. If and when children do have questions, these need to be comprehensively answered, and it is crucial that there is somebody with whom they can fully and frankly talk through all the issues. Children need the space and time to think about matters and to form an opinion. The further question then arises of how to make certain that the childs view is best presented. The child may be able, in propitious surroundings, to say what she or he thinks. The child-friendliness of these surroundings will be constituted by the dcor, lighting, size and location of any room chosen. A child may nd it easiest to express her or his views in unorthodox circumstances out on a walk, while being driven in a car, for instance. Equally younger children may need their views to be teased out by the use of methods

such as drawing, role play and the telling of stories. Those who work with children and charged with learning their views thus need to be exible and open to various possibilities. Soliciting childrens views on matters touching centrally on their own welfare or future cannot probably be done in a single meeting. Nor can they be obtained immediately by someone in whom the child has not yet had a proper opportunity to develop trust. Views will emerge and be conrmed over time once a relationship has been built between the child and the relevant adult. Again, resources and time must be devoted to ensuring that this can be managed. Studies of childrens participation conrm these ndings: Developing an effective procedure for eliciting childrens perspectives and establishing a trusting relationship takes time. Rather than a one-off interview it may be necessary to talk to the child several times or to talk while participating in their normal everyday activities (Smith et al. 2003, p. 212). It is of the utmost importance, from the outset, that a child is seen as being the principal participant in any proceeding administrative or judicial which considers his or her interests. It may be easier if the number of adults is kept to a minimum, and children can be understandably nervous and restrained if their comments concern those, such as a parent, whose presence would frighten or intimidate the child. Children may simply lack the condence to speak their mind, even in the most favourable circumstances and to the most sympathetic adults. Consideration then needs to be given to the role a trusted or experienced or trained adult might play as the childs spokesperson. Given a childs vulnerability to the inuence of adults close to them it will always help to measure a childs explicit preferences against behaviour. If a childs actions say something different from the views he or she actually expresses, then there are reasons to conclude that his or her views are inauthentic.This, in turn, provides adults with reasons to think again about the circumstances in which the childs views are being elicited. Adults involved in the deliberative process are required to give the views of the child due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. There should be transparency and fairness in the way that this is done. A determination of the childs maturity should not simply follow from a prior judgement of the prudence or imprudence of the childs views. It is also unwise to permit the same people who judge what is best for the child to make a judgement of the childs maturity. Any discussion between children and

393

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

adults that touches on an adjudication of the childs maturity and the worth of the childs views should be conducted impartially and in a manner that respects the opinions of everyone. If the childs views are not seen as determinative of the issue, it is important that the child should be given reasons why not. Most importantly, and as an overarching rule, we think that it violates a principle of equity to require the child to display a level of maturity that it would be unreasonable to expect of most competent adults.Whatever the decision eventually taken, but especially if it is one that goes against the childs own wishes, it is important that the child understands how the decision has been reached, what role his or her own views played in making the nal decision and what the decision means for the child. These measures taken together can be seen as essential to ensuring that the child is a genuine participant in the discussions. How does it work out in the real world of dealing with children? III HOW SOCIAL WORKERS IN CHILD W E L FA R E A N D P R OT E C T I O N W O R K P E R C E I V E C H I L D R E N S PA R T I C I PAT I O N The testimony of the Norwegian and English child protection workers, as we now show, provides extremely illuminating evidence of how practice can both honour the general principles we have indicated and exemplify what in our view are profoundly mistaken understandings of what hearing a child requires (see Note 3). The empirical material that we have used comprises the testimony of 53 experienced (see Note 4) child welfare workers working in English and Norwegian jurisdictions, both of which impose a clear duty upon them to hear the views of the child. In Norway, children aged 7 years or older have a right to be heard (Child Protection Act 1992, 6-3); in England an age is not specied, but the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned must be considered in the light of his age and understanding [Children Act 1989, Part I, 1(3)(a)]. In the interviews, social workers were asked open-ended questions about their understanding of a childs participation, the dilemmas it might give rise to and their own reective thoughts about when and how children participated in child welfare cases. We only prompted participants for examples or for additional explanations if the interviewer had trouble understanding what the respondent meant; we did not inuence or skew respondents perceptions of, or their denitions of, childrens participation. The

questions asked are set out in the Appendix. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. The interview data we collected yielded rich, in-depth information on social workers perceptions of childrens participation. The thoughts and reections of these workers serve as exemplary illustrations of how the right of children to participate and to be heard is honoured or not in practice. It is important to add that the social workers in question are professionally obliged by the terms of their job to make decisions and conduct assessments of the children they work on behalf of. They also work with different age groups, and clearly have such differences in mind when answering the questions. However, it is not our intention to offer a comprehensively representative account of how social workers in Norway and England actually go about hearing children. Rather we use this material to illustrate the general points already made about what it means to hear the child. Social workers who work on the front line of their countrys child welfare system are legally obliged both to hear children and to promote their best interests. Yet child welfare or protection cases can be very complex. Decision-making is complicated by the existence of the distinct interests of all the parties involved. What is best for any child is the subject of reasonable disagreement (Mnookin 1979; Elster 1989; Alston 1994). Finally, decision-making is complicated by a requirement to weight the childs views according to age and maturity. Social workers in the child welfare front-line system consistently answered that children should participate and that they, for their part, usually involved the child at the earliest possible stage of any case. Asked if there were circumstances in which it was not appropriate to involve children in a case, some conceded that there might be such situations. For those who did, the reason given was the seriousness of the cases, and their consequent concern to protect the child. They cited cases of sexual abuse and domestic violence. They added that if a child ought not to be allowed to participate in such cases, the child should nevertheless be spoken to and have matters explained to them. However, the material clearly shows that social workers, whether in Norway or in England, have a variety of views as to how a child can be and should be a participant. Thus, our concern here is to show by selective illustrations how social workers actually go about including children as participants, and thereby to display their very different understandings of what hearing the childs view means.

394

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

Taking the childs view seriously We begin lest our subsequent discussions suggest impossible ideals with examples of good practice. These demonstrate an explorative approach whereby children are given a prominent place in the deliberations of the social worker who takes their views seriously. The two examples come from the caseload of participant (23).They serve to illustrate how the views of the child can make a difference and how, while believing the child, the social worker was able to keep an open mind in exploring the possibility of new solutions. The rst case is that of an adolescent with very signicant behavioural problems who lived at a residential care unit specialized in handling such difculties. His parents could not be of any help.
The boy told me that he did not like it at the residential unit. I tried to get a better understanding of the problem, but he had difculties articulating his feelings and reasons. He just said he couldnt stand living there. I then chose to apply for a place at another residential unit. I thought, even if they (at the residential unit) wanted to keep him there and had made a plan for his treatment. . . . something was not right. . . . The boy moved, and after a period he got much better and it turned out that things went really well with the boy.Today hes educated, has become a father himself and seems to have a nice life.

services. Things again turned out very well: the adolescent is in work and attends counselling sessions. Asked about the reason for her decision, the social worker commented: His intensity you might say. He said he missed his mother and that nobody understands him like his mother . . . It was through dialogue with the boy that the decision was made . . ., adding, for me it became clear that this (living with mother) was the most important thing in his life. The attitude displayed in these two cases might be labelled the adoption of a deliberative child perspective putting the child at the centre of the child welfare work. The worker hears children because he thinks they deserve to be heard and is aware that it is the childs life which will have to be lived in accordance with any decision made for them. In consequence, the social worker takes the childs views seriously, making sure that they and the reasons for them are explored thoroughly, believing that a legitimate decision cannot be made unless the child has participated and has been fully heard. Given our own stated outlook, we nd the emphasis that some social workers do put on giving proper reasons for their arguments and actions very promising. Communication about any disagreement, discussion between worker and child about how to solve the problem at hand, may well suggest as the two cases illustrate a new, and a successful, solution. Reasons for hearing the childs view Many of those interviewed acknowledge the importance of hearing the child for the very basic, and correct, reason that its their lives . . . and they have a right to say what they think (30, 32, 3, 12) (see Note 5); its about them (34, 26, 27, 29); its about their lives. Its about whats happening to them (56, 57, 11, 16); everybodys got a right to say what theyre wanting to happen, really, so thats why its important (56, 22). Its disrespectful not to hear children (4), its about respect (14); its decisive that they participate (13); its decisive that we hear their perception of their life (15, 25); child protection work is about the childs best interest, and thus we must hear what children have to say (17); its them (children) that are the main focus (23, 28, 35). There is here some perceptible difference between Norwegian and English social workers, far more of the former (over half) seeing the hearing of children as a fundamental right, as opposed to about a quarter of the latter. In a possible explanation of this difference, Norway, unlike the UK, has incorporated the UNCRC into its domestic law, is legally explicit about

In exemplary fashion, the social worker takes the boys feelings seriously, tries to explore the reasons for his dissatisfaction and decides to apply for a new placement. This decision is down to the wishes and feelings the boy expresses, even if he is not able to articulate these well, and even though they are at variance with the professionals at the residential unit. The social worker chose to believe the boy and to respect his feelings about not liking and doing well at this particular unit. The other case concerns a 16-year-old boy who had lived in a foster home since he was 6 years old. He wanted to return to his mother who had been misusing substances for many years but who for the last year had been rehabilitated. Nevertheless, she still had a long way to go, and the social worker believed that the mother lacked the minimum parental competence necessary. However, the boy was very persistent in the expression of his wish; he did not like the foster care in consequence of which there was a great deal of conict. The social worker tried different types of provision but the boy remained adamant in his views. The social worker then decided to move him back to his mother, but supplying a full package of in-home-

395

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

the childs right to express his or her views and has had a Childrens Ombudsman for over a quarter of a century. Workers do not always seem to see a childs participation in a case as involving the expression of views. Sometimes a childs views are thought important only inasmuch as view is taken to mean a factual claim or assertion, such as most obviously an allegation or disclosure of abuse (41). A revelation of this kind is not a view in the sense that Article 12 understands it, namely as the expression of a preference. Again, some social workers think it is only a matter of giving children information about what the child welfare agency has decided or what is going to happen; we explain about foster care . . . and about what is going to happen in court (6); the child receives information (9). Furthermore the importance of hearing the child is frequently described as ensuring that there are better outcomes (48). This does not mean allowing the childs views to have some weight in determining the outcome. It means that an outcome xed on by the worker can benet from hearing the child: rst, inasmuch as hearing the child will allow the worker to form a more accurate opinion of what is best for the child; and, second, inasmuch as knowing the childs views helps the worker more effectively to bring about the outcome. A childs participation is often only understood simply as meaning that a child should be properly informed of a process or an outcome. Indeed social workers concerned with implementing decisions in child welfare cases will often view participation as useful only in so far as it makes the compliance of the child with the decision more likely or less difcult. For instance: if we know what their needs are, then we can surely deliver services better (39); we should listen to children because they know whats happening to them . . . if we dont know what that reality [their reality] is then the decisions we make will, of necessity, appear to be wrong to the child (35). Consulting children makes them feel involved and thus likely to go along with the decision: And if they feel theyve been consulted and listened to, then theyre more likely to work with us (46). But again instilling such feelings in children serves principally to help the worker to deliver an outcome that he or she has already decided upon: If children have condence that theyre being heard then they also have condence in the decisions that you make (49). Quite a few see participation as a way of securing acceptance from the child that is, in turn, important for successful implementation of a service; if they

dont participate, then they dont want to take part in the service (24). Many of those who accord children a rather limited participatory role in their own case do so because they want to protect the child from the burden of making a choice or because they think this is a responsibility best handled by adults (parents or social workers); . . . the responsibility for decisions should be with the child welfare agency, or the parents in cases where they have the power to make a decision (9); a 7 year old does not know what is in his or her best interest (5). Ensuring authenticity None of the social workers mentions the importance of giving a child the opportunity to form an authentic opinion. Furthermore, social workers rarely involve children actively in the processes of assessment and decision-making, such involvement being one way of encouraging and supporting the child in the development of his or her authentic voice. Some social workers do emphasize the importance of close interaction with the child, or more correctly with adolescents; I give the child a higher status in the case than their parents I make contact with the adolescent rst . . . I need to know who this child is . . . we discuss all options (23). But the overall sense is that the social workers give very little attention to the importance of participation as a means of developing and discerning the childs authentic voice. Child friendly approaches Many of the social workers interviewed do display a great deal of sensitivity about how information is given to children and how views are solicited.Thus, a young child is told not that mum murdered dad, but that mum was naughty (31). There is a recognition that it is proper to communicate with children at a level that they can understand (32), or to use methods that are sensitive to a childs age and maturity. One, for instance, used the example of trains travelling down different tracks to illustrate different options and their consequences (33); pictures may be deployed to represent prospective situations such as a court appearance (33, 38); or children may themselves be encouraged to draw pictures that more accurately represent their views than their words. A little girls dislike of her father was revealed by her placing of him in the far top-right corner of a drawing of her family (49). Dolls might be useful to let smaller children tell about difcult things, and storytelling can also be employed:

396

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

I make a story about a child, which is quite similar to the child concerned in the case, but on purpose I make some differences often then the child will make corrections to the story and tell how it really is (7). Many see the importance of getting to know a child, building up trust and a relationship with the child. This is important because it would be wrong to place reliance on a single interview: If youre going to talk to a kid about their wishes and feelings, its no good going once and taking that as writ (55). And it is also important because it is easier when the worker and child enjoy a relationship of trust to recognize when the child is telling the truth: I think perhaps over time youve got to know that child and you can pick up the signals about their behaviour when theyre lying to you or anxious about something or feeling uncomfortable (52) (see Note 6). Some see the need for sensitivity and exibility in nding the right opportunities and circumstances to talk with the child: If theyre easier talking when youre going for a walk somewhere, then take the time, or through this, that you did nd they would only talk when you were driving in the dark, and they didnt have to face you (54, 14). But the same English worker (54) acknowledges the resource implications of providing sufcient child friendly spaces in which to hear the child. In sum, the social workers do display a great deal of awareness of and skills in the employment of the appropriate ways in which to elicit information from and provide information to the children with whom they must deal. The childs view does not make a difference Nevertheless, having acknowledged the above, there is not much evidence of the workers seeing the childs views as making a real difference to what happens. If the child agrees with the child protection worker, then that is all well and good; if the child wants something else, then he or she can at least have his or her dissent recorded: They cant always have what they would wish for because it might be dangerous, but theyre entitled to say what they want and have an explanation as to why it cant happen (54). Participation here means little more for the child than being present. Their views may be heard but they do not really count: Its an involvement in the process, but they are not going to affect the decision if the professionals think that this is what needs to happen (59). Social workers can simply fail to acknowledge that the childs views

differ from their own: Ive not experienced children being against a service we have suggested (2). The testimonies offer evidence of a tendency to use the childs view as conrmation on their own, reasons being found to disregard the view if the child disagrees: . . . too quickly (we) make a childs view true and authentic when its to our advantage, but if the child disagrees then its more difcult . . . then we tend to explain this view by reference to circumstances that reduce the validity of the childs view. I nd this difcult (28). We think this tendency is one that both represents a real challenge to hearing the childs authentic voice and one that must be explicitly recognized by those professionals and adults who interact with children. Our research did not explore all the possible reasons workers might have for not always hearing and giving weight to the views of children. A concern to give overall priority to what is thought to be the childs best interests might, for instance, reect the real pressures child protection workers are currently under certainly in the UK to avoid being subsequently blamed for any failure adequately to protect the child. Further work needs to be done to understand fully why childrens views might not be weighted as they should be. IV CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Our concern in this paper was to offer a perspective on hearing the child that makes it evident how one can both dene and facilitate childrens participation even in difcult and complex situations such as child protection cases. Further, we aimed to illustrate how children actually are heard in the area of child welfare and child protection in two countries. The backcloth for this article is Article 12 of the UNCRC. Our starting point is the view that a child should be accorded fundamental respect as a distinct individual in any decision-making process affecting him or her, and a recognition that decisions concerning children are made collectively. We set out two requirements of any process involving children: one of authenticity, meaning that the childs own views must be heard; the second, that children ought actually to participate in the decision-making process, not just be listened to and then have his or her views discounted or ignored. To ensure that children are properly heard in deliberative processes, we suggested four general governing principles: that all relevant participants in the case must be given the opportunity to participate; that there is an adequate location for the discussions; that

397

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

all participants have an equal opportunity to participate; and that the processes are public. We then displayed the distance separating the reality of childrens participation within the context of child protection from the ideal that is specied in Article 12 of the UNCRC. The evidence drawn from the testimony of English and Norwegian social workers is clear, if limited, in that it does expose the extent and the nature of that gap between ideal and practice. We identify two reasons to hear children.The rst is pragmatic or instrumental, and views the childs participation as a way of securing information or evidence that facilitates the making of a decision and its subsequent implementation. As we have seen, many social workers think these are the basic if not the only reasons to hear childrens views. The second reason is principled or moral and sees children as having a basic entitlement to express a view and to be involved, as the source of a view about their own interests, in the decision-making process. It is, in our view, impossible to make legitimate and rational decisions about a childs welfare without taking proper account of the childs view. However, this principled reason to hear the child is far from being prominent in the material we have collected. Nevertheless, the testimonies clearly suggest that, ironically, social workers do possess the skills and abilities to interact with children and thus to hear their views in the appropriate manner. We are surprised by the almost total lack of concern the workers show about the way in which any child comes to form his or her own view.This is particularly so in the light of the fact that many social workers think children simply fail to have an authentic voice inasmuch as they are loyal to their parents, are ignorant of alternative ways of living and so on. If social workers have all too readily to hand reasons to discount or ignore the views of children, then they ought at least to consider those reasons that would lead them to take those views seriously. We have set out what we believe to be some illuminating examples of how childrens views can be handled in a respectful and serious way, and how doing so had a signicant role in the discovery of solutions to problems. We conclude by urging further exploration of how those who deal with children in other domains actually do understand participation, for extensive education of professionals in what a childs right to participate really does mean, and for further research into why childrens views are discounted.

REFERENCES
Alderson, P. (1992) The rights of children and young people. In: The Welfare of Citizens: Developing New Social Rights (ed. A. Coote), pp. 153180. Institute for Public Policy Research/ Rivers Oram Press, London. Alderson, P. (2008) Young Childrens Rights: Exploring Belief, Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Alston, P. (1994) The Best Interests of the Child: Reconciling Culture and Human Rights. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Archard, D. & Skivenes, M. (2009) Balancing a childs best interests and a childs views. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 17, 121. Bruner, J. & Haste, M. (1987) Making Sense: The Childs Construction of the World. Methuen, London. Child Protection Act (1992) (Norway). Available at: http:// www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/usr/www/lovdata/all/ nl-19920717-100.html&emne=barnevern*&& (accessed 2 August 2008). Children Act (1989) (England). Available at: http://www. opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890041_en_1.htm (accessed 2 August 2008). Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Copperman, J., Downie, A. & Liabo, K. (2004) How come I dont get asked no questions? Researching hard to reach children and teenagers. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 167175. DCruz, H. & Stagnitti, K. (2008) Reconstructing child welfare through participatory and child-centred professional practice: a conceptual approach. Child & Family Social Work, 13, 156 165. Elster, J. (1989) Solomonic Judgements: Against the Best Interests of the Child, Section III of His Solomonic Judgements, Studies in the Limitations of Rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Freeman, M. (1993) Laws, conventions and rights. Children and Society, 7, 3748. Gilbertson, R. & Barber, J.G. (2002) Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research. Child & Family Social Work, 7, 253258. Hart, R.A. (1992) Childrens Participation: from Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. Leeson, C. (2007) My life in care: experiences of nonparticipation in decision-making processes. Child & Family Social Work, 12, 268277. McLeod, A. (2007) Whose agenda? Issues of power and relationship when listening to looked-after young people. Child & Family Social Work, 12, 278286. Mnookin, R. (1979) Foster care in whose best interests?. In: Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reections on Parenthood (eds O. ONeill & W. Ruddick), pp. 179213. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Murray, C. & Hallett, C. (2002) Young peoples participation in decisions affecting their welfare. Childhood, 7, 1125. Richards, M. & Light, P. (1986) Children of Social Worlds. Polity Press, Cambridge.

398

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Hearing the child D Archard and M Skivenes

Shemmings, D. (2000) Professionals attitudes to childrens participation in decision-making: dichotomous accounts and doctrinal contests. Child & Family Social Work, 5, 235243. Shier, H. (2001) Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities, and obligations. Children and Society, 15, 107117. Smith, A.B. (2002) Interpreting and supporting participation rights: contributions from sociocultural theory. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 10, 7388. Smith, A.B., Taylor, N.J. & Tapp, P. (2003) rethinking childrens involvement in decision-making after parental separation. Childhood, 10, 201216. Thomas, N. & OKane, C. (1998) When childrens wishes and feelings clash with their best interests. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 6, 137154.

6 Here, as elsewhere, illustrative quotations from the English social workers can be found echoed in those from the Norwegian social workers and vice versa.

APPENDIX Questions asked of social workers regarding childrens participation in their casework: 1 What is your understanding of participation for children in child protection cases? 2 In your opinion, why is it useful to let children participate in decision-making? If not, please explain. 3 At what stages in a case do you involve children? 4 Can you describe a situation in which the childs opinion mattered a lot in your decision-making? (Or, if there has never been such a situation, please comment on the weight to be attached to the childs opinion in the vignettes.) 5 In cases where you disagree with the childs opinion how do you proceed? 6 In your work, how do you give the opinion of the child due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child? 7 If you are asked to review several cases to see if the child has participated, how do you know that a child has participated properly? 8 When a child states an opinion, how do you know that this opinion is what the child really means? 9 Are there situations where it would not be appropriate to involve children in a case? 10 In your opinion/experience, is the government in England committed to childrens participation in child protection? a. If yes/no, how do you notice?

N OT E S 1 This piece derives from a research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council. We owe great thanks to the social workers who participated in this study, the council research ofcers who provided logistical support and the research assistants involved in this project. 2 Under English law, and more particular, the Children Act (1989), Courts are enjoined to take the childs welfare as their paramount, rather than simply primary, consideration [Children Act 1989, I (1)]. 3 The study is part of a larger research project that combines a case vignette survey with in-depth interviews to analyse how social workers in England and Norway reason in their assessments of child welfare/ protection cases. 4 On average, the social workers interviewed have 7 years of experience in the child welfare system. 5 Throughout the paper, the social workers in both England and Norway are identied simply by an allocated number.

399

Child and Family Social Work 2009, 14, pp 391399

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd