It has always seemed to me that the Jamaican attitude towards children who are “acting out” and behaving badly has been quite Dickensian (child abuse and neglect, corporal punishment and more are major features of some of Dickens’ novels – but then that was nineteenth century England). It seems that we are now slowly moving away from this colonial mindset, but – perhaps not fast enough.
“Victims of child abuse will now have access to a state-of-the-art facility in which to receive the care necessary for recovery. The Child Protection and Family Services Agencies Therapeutic Centre is a groundbreaking achievement in the English-speaking Caribbean,” said Prime Minister Andrew Holness, as he proudly opened the facility (the first of two) on the grounds of Maxfield Park Children’s Home in Kingston. Meanwhile, State Minister in the Ministry of National Security Juliet Cuthbert Flynn toured the Metcalfe Street Secure Juvenile Remand Centre, which houses some 90 boys, and said the Government wants to ensure that Jamaica’s correctional centres are “up to standard,” with a focus on training and education.
The Prime Minister said of the therapeutic centre: “It will provide vital support to victims of child abuse through essential medical treatment, social intervention, guidance, and psychological support. This project will benefit approximately 4,400 children in state care, including those in children’s homes, places of safety, foster care, and those in need of psychological and mental intervention. This milestone represents a significant step forward in protecting the well-being and future of our children.”
Meanwhile, the debate on proposed amendments to the Childcare and Protection Act (CCPA) was delayed in Parliament today (July 4). Opposition Members were not comfortable with the “rubber stamping” of the amendments before they had time to look at it. Education and Youth Minister Fayval Williams agreed, very reluctantly, to the delay. Here are just some of the concerns that I have picked up while listening to media interviews and this evening’s Twitter Space.
Why is the State insisting on bringing children before the courts, first and foremost? Shouldn’t more stakeholders be involved in the process before the child is hauled up in court (if necessary)? Where do other professionals come in, such as psychologists and social workers? Is the government agency the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) involved – shouldn’t they be the very first contact point – besides the Office of the Children’s Advocate (and did the latter have time to review and comment on the proposed amendments?) Have non-governmental organisations like Eve for Life, who work closely with vulnerable mothers and children, been consulted?
Policy and Advocacy Coordinator at Jamaica Youth Advocacy Network (JYAN) Shereika Mills does not see any improvements in the proposed amendments, apart from the fact that the word “uncontrollable” will no longer be used. Hitherto, a parent frustrated by their “uncontrollable” child’s behaviour (usually adolescents, and often boys) would take their child to the police station. With the amendments, the child can still be brought before the court for a behavioural challenge – by police officer or parent.
Therapeutic centres are only triggered at the discretion of court when they decide on a social enquiry, I understand. Otherwise, where exactly will the children be “placed”? Mills believes that a complete review of the Act is needed, adding in a radio interview that with the amendments, the legislation is “worse than what we had before.”
There is an extraordinarily long list of “behavioural challenges” (a phrase which seems to be a substitute for “uncontrollable“). Some are actual crimes, e.g. malicious destruction of property, etc. Others are certainly not – for example, “displays of irritability”? Pretty normal behaviour, especially for a grouchy teen.
Moreover, a legal officer at the CPFSA herself noted that many of the children she has interacted with have suffered almost unimaginable trauma: one had witnessed his mother’s murder, another her mother’s rape and then became a rape victim herself. As a well-known radio talk show host, the late Wilmot Perkins, used to say, none of the little babies born at Kingston’s Victoria Jubilee Hospital was “born bad.”
And finally, despite the opening of the therapeutic centre, where is the infrastructure to support this (we don’t know much about how the centre is staffed)?
“There’s a lot to unpack,” as the saying goes. Here is the press release from Jamaicans for Justice, and I will post the more detailed Open Letter separately.
CIVIL SOCIETY URGES CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHILDCARE AND PROTECTION ACT
Tuesday, July 4, 2023 – Several civil society organizations and child rights advocates have written an open letter to the members of both Houses of Parliament urging them to exercise caution as they review the proposed amendments to the Childcare and Protection Act. This call follows an announcement made in the House last week by the Minister of Education and Youth, Fayval Williams, that the government seeks to repeal Section 24 of the Child Care and Protection Act (CCPA).
For years, the undersigned have vocalized concerns regarding the gaps in the legislation that allow for children, without crime, who are deemed ‘uncontrollable,’ to be ‘jailed’ at juvenile correctional centres. For those with criminal convictions, the punitive measures, in most instances, are far too harsh, and are not proportional to the offence committed, the child’s age and the ability for reform.
While we collectively find the announcements by the government to repeal the section and establish residential and non-residential therapeutic centres as a step in the right direction, there are serious concerns regarding the proposed amendments.
Our main challenge is that there seems to be a substitution of language where the proposed amendments have sought to define the circumstances within which a child is currently deemed as “uncontrollable” and “beyond parental control.” While removal of the language may reduce stigma and harm, by seeking to define “behavioural challenges,” the proposed amendments maintain deprivation of liberty as the way to respond to children who are experiencing normal reactions to child and adolescent development, mental health challenges and traumatic stress.
Further, the amendments will likely disproportionately affect children from low-income families and place them in an institution for a broad range of reasons.
There are also concerns that the Court is deemed a first point of contact for a child exhibiting “behavioural challenges.” This amendment undermines the principle of child diversion, where a child ought to be diverted from the criminal justice system and judicial proceedings unless it is in the best interest of the child. By seeking to define “behavioural challenges,” the proposed amendments maintain deprivation of liberty as the way to respond to children who are experiencing normal reactions to child and adolescent development, mental health challenges and traumatic stress.
Further, the amendments will likely disproportionately affect children from low-income families and place them in an institution for a broad range of reasons. Critically, this is where the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) would become instrumental.
There are further concerns about the interpretation to be given to the term “supervised placement order” as it seems to be a term new to the legislative landscape. There must be clarity as to the meaning of a ‘supervised placement order’ as proposed, and we recommend that this term is defined in the Act as it has implications for several sections.
Firstly, there are implications for how section 14(2)(c) is applied, specifically where a child who is under the supervision of a probation and after-care officer or a children’s officer may be placed while under their supervision for up to three years. Is it the intention that ‘placement’ indicates a facility, or who the child will be placed under?
Also, if one is to be guided by section 80 of the Act, in particular the remit of the probation and after-care officer, and the power that same section gives to ‘any other officer,’ which can now include a Children’s Officer, then the effect of the supervised placement order is that whether a child has committed an offence or they have other ‘behavioural challenges,’ they can be sent to a juvenile correctional facility if they are brought before the Court. This needs clarity and expressed prohibition.
While the designation of therapeutic facilities is welcomed, there is concern around the lack of guidelines for their creation and development. Neither the amendment or principal act contain any guidance as to the infrastructure of the facility, the staffing of the facility or even how the facility will interact with the Court where the child was placed there in a Court order. Given there are only two such facilities, the group also questions the provisions for capacity and whether the facilities are accessible. Also, what is the relationship with private and community-based institutions offering such services?
The collective is mindful of both history and current practice where children were subjected to abuse in state care. It is on that basis that we have called for a prioritising of deinstitutionalization efforts and a focus on psychosocial interventions as the way forward to ensure the well-being and rights of all children.
Petchary's Blog 
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News.
LikeLike