Child Advocate Children's Rights

Child Advocate
Introduction
There have been widespread writings regarding the promotion of children’s rights to support their well-being, development, as well as capacity to realize maximum potential ever since the 1960s (Bruyere, 2010). It is a common human dignity value that people get to possess indisputable rights. An important issue in child activism, however, is establishing the best rights extension to kids in the milieu of their need for utmost protection, partly since kids do not possess basic rights and also partly since they lack the competency to settle on the best decisions for their best interest. There is, therefore, the considerable debate concerning the suitable protection for kids, how far a state should or can go in ensuring these rights are granted to kids, and who sits in the best position to make certain decisions regarding the best interest of kids when guardians or parents are not capable of such (Cascardi, Brown & Shpiegel, 2015).
Politicians, experts, and parents have come together over the years to support the rights of children. Support can occur either collectively, individually, or a combination of the two. Even though various advocacy efforts tend to be more effective compared to others, it is the people behind the advocacy and the process involved that matter the most. Professionals of early childhood often experience issues that relate to young kids and households. Unlike doing or saying nothing when confronted with injustices, advocates challenge the status quo as they are risk-takers. An individual who advocates is considerably different from someone that remains silent and follows the “road of least conflict.” Advocacy is explaining or illustrating something you are familiar with another individual to improve the life quality of other people (Royea & Appl, 2009).
This paper discusses the notion of child advocacy, the NOHSE standards linked to it, the historical outlook on federal laws connected to child advocacy, and the client confidentiality as well as ethical responsibilities linked to this profession.
Child Advocacy
Child advocacy refers to any joint or individual action that aims to improve the lives and well-being of children. In certain cases, experts might feel that their employers are somewhat limiting their advocacy efforts. Advocacy is, however, considered a professional responsibility (Royea & Appl, 2009).
In the last few years, child advocacy has surfaced as an important area of study. Even though child advocacy strives to promote the well-being of children in different life arenas, in reality, it is normally regarded as safeguarding kids from any dangers (for example, Melton, 2011; Myers, 2008; Winter, 2011). To demonstrate this particular point, request for a child advocacy text from a textbook publisher. The usual recommendation is normally on child maltreatment books. Similarly, theoretical library searches on the topic of child advocacy only produce papers on the different kinds of child maltreatment, stressing on different disciplinary outlooks (e.g., public policy, law, psychology, social work). Safeguarding kids from danger is an essentially ethical and moral duty; protection should, nonetheless, also be regarded in the framework of children’s natural personhood rights. Even though other texts on the significance of rights of children exist, rights of participation are often seen as contradicting with children’s need for safety. Thus an integrated perception of protection and rights continues to grow. Assumptions, values, and ideologies regarding the best interest of children have also considerably affected child advocacy (Cascardi et al., 2015). A child advocate assists with the psychological and social welfare of kids as well as their families. Cases of abuse and neglect are normally assigned to them by the criminal justice system. They work together with the courts and authorities to make sure that the child gets the best possible care.
Children advocated normally work with kids within the children’s criminal justice system. They are normally chosen to work with kids that are neglect and abuse victims. They look into the cases, report their findings to the court or relevant authorities, and deal with legal matters that might surface concerning child custody or abuse. Additionally, they offer to counsel the child, their family, and even arrange for helpful support services. Child advocates should possess strong problem-solving, organization, and communication skills and also be able to sympathize with all their clients. Moreover, they might help with foster care, adoption, as well as reducing physical and psychological health risks. They might also, in the long run, improve the child’s performance in school and even decrease the rates of school dropouts (Southeastern University, 2020).
Thesis Statement
The absence of referrals to support and therapeutic services, possibly traumatic and procedurally flawed investigation services, as well as disagreements among the different legislative bodies involved, are thought to play a part in the low abuse conviction rates and poor outcomes for the affected children.
National Organization for Human Service Education (NOHSE)
NOHSE is an umbrella organization that was formed to unite practitioners, clients, students, and educators back in 1975 during the 5th Annual Faculty Development Conference of SREB (Southern Regional Education Board). It also originally got support from the National Institute of Mental Health. NOHSE perceives the education of human service as interdisciplinary and assumed the position that its workers ought to be greatly concerned with the issues, help clients to meet certain basic needs, and fight for changes in the system that affect the lives of clients.
Purpose of NOHSE
Below are some of NOHSE’s purposes:
1) To offer cooperation medium amidst Human Service Organizations as well as faculty, students, and practitioners
2) To encourage, help, and support national, state, and local human service organizations
3) To fund publications, institutes, and conferences that provide creative approaches to the education and delivery of human service
4) To promote excellence in research and teaching for the improvement of education among those that offer human services
According to the National Organization for Human Service Education, its members have varied professional and educational backgrounds with the inclusion of mental health, additions, social services, gerontology, recreation, human service resource management, child care, and development disabilities (Rosenthal, 2003).
NOHSE Standards
According to NOHSE’s Ethical Standards of Human Service Professionals (2000), human service experts are expected to fight for and support their clients. These standards make it very clear that the experts need to advocate when the statutes and regulations are not consistent with the client’s rights (Statement 10), as well as in cases whereby there exist unmet community and client needs (Statement 13). Experts are given a wide mandate to partake in advocacy as per Statement 16, which states that human service experts should advocate for every member of the society, especially those that belong to minority groups together with the groups that have directly encountered discriminatory practices.
Historical Perspective on Federal Laws Relating to Child Advocacy
Child Saving Laws
In general, child advocacy is regarded to have surfaced with the rise of childhood as an individual and socially constructed stage of life during the Romantic and Enlightenment phases. During these phases, philosophical stimuli of autonomy and paternalism exerted considerable influence on the views regarding the role of the government in the society. Paternalism refers to the nation having the responsibility to protect its people and decide on what is best for them with very minimal regard to autonomy or an individual’s preferences (Feinberg, 1971). This notion is applied to kids that are perceived as defenseless, vulnerable, and lack the ability for autonomy. Paternalism is, in policy, translated to the public (for instance, child well-being) and social (for instance, family) institutions are safeguarding kids from danger (Myers, 2008). During the 20th century, the distribution of public resources and public policy discussions mainly concentrated on the protection of children as depicted in a patriarchal belief. The most sweeping child saving era influences in America were perhaps intervening in the cases of neglect and abuse and the formation of the Juvenile Justice System to rehabilitate and safeguard delinquent kids (Myers, 2008).
The popular case of Mary Ellen Wilson is recognized for starting the American child protection movement during the late 1800s. This case also inspired the creation of the first children protection body that fought all kinds of demoralization and cruelty against juveniles. A hundred years later, the American federal government created CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) of 1974, setting minimum standards to the prevention and treatment of child mistreatment and also allowing states to intervene in case of child neglect and abuse. Agencies soon got overwhelmed by the great demands for child abuse services and investigations and caseworker preparation wasn’t enough to deal with the complex requirements of the kids and families that needed intervention. Numerous highly broadcasted failures to safeguard kids in state custody led to child advocacy groups launching class-action complaints against various child welfare bodies. In between the years 1995 and 2005, 32 states presented class-action complaints against such bodies, which led to settlement agreements with the provision to better professional development. Other federal statues also incorporated the directive to better training for the child welfare experts (for instance, Deficit Reduction Act (2005); Child and Family Services Improvement Act (2006); Keeping Children and Families Safe Act (2003), a CAPTA amendment).
University-Based Education on Child Maltreatment
Legal directives via federal law, settlement agreements, and class-action complaints influenced the formation of educational programs, particularly in higher education, to train the child welfare experts. For example, started in 1999, Montclair State University, situated in New Jersey, trained numerous child welfare personnel in the revised or new case practice model before assuming fieldwork of supervisory obligations. A similar initiative was started at the Winona State University of Minnesota, which stressed on multidisciplinary cooperation both across and within the delivery systems responsible for serving and safeguarding mistreated kids. From the late 1990s, the figure for American university-based child advocacy programs exploded countrywide, with over 40 programs in 27 different states. The programs concentrated on child abuse and reflected the focus of public policy on protection. At the same time, scholarships on child mistreatment substantially increased, and they concentrated on the identification of neglect and abuse cases, together with enhancing the understanding of its prevention, etiology, and prevalence. All these efforts resulted in the acknowledgment of child advocacy as an individual area of study, mainly concentrating child mistreatment (Cascardi et al., 2015).
Confidentiality
This is an important principle in victim services. When the victims of violence get assured of the utmost confidentiality, they become more willing to disclose the actual nature of the assault or abuse that they encountered. This provides room for efficient, personalized advocacy response and safety planning. Violence victims often encounter shame, humiliation, depression, fear, guilt, and self-blame as an outcome of the violence that they faced. Additionally, talking about violence or abuse could be quite traumatic. Those worries and feelings could be defeated when such victims can seek assistance in confidential settings.
Moreover, confidential services improve the safety of the victim. A lot of the victims are normally scared that accidental disclosure might place them at higher violence risk or even escalate the violence. Disclosure might reveal the victim’s location and thus compromise their plan of safety (SATF, 2016).
Whereas advocates within different child advocacy agencies might have varying roles, all the advocates share a commitment to confidentiality. They recognize that confidentiality is key to victim safety. They perceive it as an important aspect of their practice as well as ethical standards. Nearly all advocates collaborate with child advocacy bodies that get funding, which requires them to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of the clients they serve. Every advocate should follow the same rule concerning confidentiality. It is, nonetheless, significant to acknowledge that the advocates at government-based initiatives also have responsibilities related to holding lawbreakers accountable within the criminal justice system (SATF, 2016).
Ethical Responsibilities
There are numerous statements within the NOHSE Ethical Standards and the NASW Code of Ethics that experts need to heed as they partake in advocacy practice. Below are some of the most relevant ethical principles about child advocacy:
· Promoting and respecting the rights of the clients to self-determination
· Offering services only after informed consent is obtained
· Conducting advocate when competent to do so
· Informing clients of the risks involved, available alternatives, as well as their right to withdraw or refuse consent
Simply put, these standards need practitioners to simultaneously operate in the best interest of the employing agency, client, profession, and society (Ezell, 2013).
To stick to the ethical principle of respect for people, adolescents and children should be treated with both integrity and honesty. Their opinions offer an important outlook that needs to be respected and reacted to in an age-appropriate manner. Researchers have the responsibility to identify suitable roles and opportunities for young individuals to communicate their views regarding information-collection activities in ways that are age-appropriate for them. Adolescents and children can offer important information regarding their needs as well as how to react to them. They could, for instance, review questionnaires and inform researchers if the suggested information collection methods are suitable or likely to be dependable, or even if any of the questions may cause distress and need to be changed. Also, they could help in the collection of information from other kids and assist with communication and interpretation of results. The involvement of kids in the age-appropriate making of decisions might also have additional benefits, such as offering improvement opportunities for their self-esteem. Promoting the involvement of adolescents and children acknowledges their potential for enriching decision-making processes. Additionally, it is wrong to stop adolescents and children from taking part in decision-making regarding things that impact their lives (Schenk & Williamson, 2005).
Conclusion
Child advocacy has become a well-organized political and social movement that is helping governments across the world to make better decisions regarding children’s welfare. Over the last couple of decades, the nature of child advocacy has changed significantly from a mere grassroots movement to a discipline that is being studied in institutes and universities across the globe. Child advocacy is all about supporting children’s dignity in the delivery of services in public systems (e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, and education), law, and policy. It is crucial to note that child advocacy considers the rights and the protection of children as important for their healthy development. Children ought not to be burdened by responsibilities that are beyond their years, even if they can physically handle them. They should only be engaged in activities and decisions that they can handle. It is very important to note that this fact is upheld by science, modern societal standards, beliefs, and values. Child advocates must push for this and other pro-children services and policies to be availed to children across the state and the world (Cascardi et al., 2015).
References
Cascardi, M., Brown, C., & Shpiegel, S. (2015). Where have we been and where are we going? A conceptual framework for child advocacy. SAGE. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015576763
Ezell, M. (2013). Advocacy in the human services. USA: Cengage Learning.
Feinberg, J. (1971). Legal paternalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1, 105-124.Melton, G. B. (2011). Young children’s rights. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/en-ca/home.html
Myers, J. E. B. (2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly, 42, 449-463.
Rosenthal, H. (2003). Human Services Dictionary. New York NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Royea, A. J., & Appl, D. (2009). Every voice matters: The important of advocacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 89-91. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-009-0335-y
Schenk, K., & Williamson, J. (2005). Ethical Approaches to Gathering Information from Children and Adolescents in International Settings: Guidelines and Resources. USA: The Population Council Inc.
Sexual Assault Task Force. (2016). Confidentiality and privilege. Retrieved from http://oregonsatf.org
Southeastern University. (2020). What is a child advocate? Retrieved from https://online.seu.edu/career-outcomes/child-advocate/
Winter, K. (2011). The UNCRC and social workers’ relationships with young children. Child Abuse Review, 20, 395-406.