Recognizing the ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ in child protection cases

Abstract

In this article, we explore how ‘family’ is conceptualized and negotiated in a Mexican and a Chilean child protection institution. We draw on empirical material from two qualitative studies, employing a multi‐method approach. By using a theoretical framework from family sociology, we explore how ‘family’ is done and displayed by families of children in residential care despite socio‐economic, structural and institutional constraints. These displays consist mainly of ‘little things’ of a mundane character, such as homemade food, sweets, gifts, clothing and family photos, and more intangible displays as family narratives, affection and parental responsibility. The empirical material reveals how professionals commonly disregard these displays in favour of ‘big things’ such as housing, employment, nuclear family structure, therapy and parental school attendance. The professionals' recommendations and decisions in child custody cases can be interpreted as recognitions or rejections of family displays, as the acceptable limits of unconventionality are legally, socially and culturally drawn.

Conceptualisations of Family and Social Work Family Practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway

“…Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS) are identified as moving from a ‘family service system’ towards a ‘child focused’ system (Gilbert et al ., 2011) and in Chile and Mexico, child protection services – traditionally characterised by a child protection approach – have recently adopted practices that are more family service orientated and focus on family dysfunction and therapeutic orientations (Ursin et al ., 2016). For Cabiati (2015), however, only families with complex needs come to the attention of the services in Mexico, and out-of-home placements are often the only measure used to safeguard children.…”

“…This research shows that child protection systems and interactions with families vary across contexts. However, with a few exceptions (Quiroga and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2014; Ursin et al ., 2016), cross-national comparisons between European countries and other parts of the world, including Latin America, are rare.…”

“My Whole Family Is Not Really My Family”—Secure Care Shadows on Family and Family Practices Among Young Adults and Their Family Members

“…As a relational context, placement in secure care can be seen as extreme because of its fundamental (if temporary) intervention in all other relational contexts (Enell & Wilińska, 2021.). During such placement, family contacts are greatly limited due to contact restrictions, and these often happen only at a (sometimes considerable) physical distance, while at the same time the family is faced with professionally-created distinctions between "proper" and "improper" family displays (Ursin, Oltedal, & Muñoz, 2017). Ursin et al (2017) found that professionals considered attendance in therapy and parental programs, improved economy, and a nuclear family structure to be "proper" displays, while in contrast, family members valued "little things" like being physically reunited and socializing.…”

“…During such placement, family contacts are greatly limited due to contact restrictions, and these often happen only at a (sometimes considerable) physical distance, while at the same time the family is faced with professionally-created distinctions between "proper" and "improper" family displays (Ursin, Oltedal, & Muñoz, 2017). Ursin et al (2017) found that professionals considered attendance in therapy and parental programs, improved economy, and a nuclear family structure to be "proper" displays, while in contrast, family members valued "little things" like being physically reunited and socializing. For this reason, secure care challenges family life and family members by creating a unique moral context in which social imaginaries and ideals of family and family lives are revisited.…”

Explorando el sistema de protección de la niñez en Honduras

“…Resulta relevante señalar que gran parte de los estudios utilizan a la Convención y su enfoque de la niñez como marco teórico para analizar los sistemas de protección (Dávila & Naya, 2012;Martínez-Franzoni, 2014;Mieles & Acosta, 2012; Oficina Internacional de los Derechos del Niño, s. f.; Unicef, 2016). Así mismo, una de las consistencias encontradas en la revisión de los diversos estudios es la utilización de metodologías cualitativas para recoger y analizar sus datos (Dávila & Naya, 2012;Martínez-Franzoni, 2014; O#cina Internacional de los Derechos del Niño, s. f.; Olivares & Reyes, 2016;Parada, 2011;Parada et al, 2007;Urzin et al, 2017;Visión Mundial, 2014). Se constató también que gran parte de los estudios o reportes realizados, particularmente en el caso de Honduras, son llevados a cabo por organismos gubernamentales y no gubernamentales; lo anterior implica muchas veces una ausencia de enfoques teóricos que permitan la acumulación del conocimiento relacionado con la niñez y sus sistemas de protección, y el abordaje de sus problemáticas desde una perspectiva afín a las discusiones actuales desde las ciencias sociales.…”