Rethinking Child Policy Post-UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Vulnerable Children's Welfare in Sweden

Abstract

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) formulates the rights of children in terms of provision, protection and participation. CRC implies a multi-dimensional view of children's welfare, including agency. This enables us to rethink the way we research and design policies aimed at promoting child welfare. In the past, Sweden has been seen as a forerunner when it comes to children's rights. However, the weak imprint of CRC on Swedish legislation and CRC implementation is not only a puzzle but also this apparent lack of impact makes it an interesting test case for exploring post-CRC policy developments. The purpose of the study is to identify what has prevented the evolution of Swedish social policy in this domain. We propose a framework for analysing policies aimed at promoting children's welfare (child policy) that goes beyond ‘family policy’. This, we argue, is critical for identifying obstacles to such a policy evolution. The framework is normatively anchored in CRC and theoretically inspired by the notion of participatory rights. By examining the legal reform work in Sweden over the past three decades with regard to how children's right to voice is treated in three areas of social service delivery, we observe that the lawmaker recognises parents’ rather than children's participatory rights. The lack of recognition of children's agency implies that a reconceptualisation of child welfare is necessary in order to unlock the stalemate in child policy development in Sweden, as well as to dissolve the tension between children as ‘beings’ and ‘becomings’.

Vulnerable children's rights to participation, protection, and provision: The process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare

“…Incorporating child participation into existing systems carries the potential of transforming the present family‐oriented social service model into a child‐oriented one. This is why we need a conceptual framework for analysing child welfare that takes not only protection and provision but also participation into account (Heimer & Palme, ). Our study lends empirical support to the notion that protection and provision may be partially conditioned on children's right to voice and that children's participation improves the chances of adequate interventions and ultimately to better welfare outcomes for vulnerable children.…”

“…The missing element is found in the conceptual framework of child welfare developed by Heimer and Palme () that takes into account not only protection and provision but also participation as provided for by the CRC. Children's participatory rights and social rights are in their framework seen as interrelated, and it is suggested that different kinds of social support to children may be partially conditioned on children's right to voice.…”

Age limits for participation in child protection court proceedings in Sweden

“…Both Shier's [] and Hart's [] models have been criticized. It has been argued that they do not work very well when discussing children's participation in child protection proceedings, as in these situations, it is not possible to give the child full participation and power [Dillon, Greenop, & Hills, ], for example, children's participation has to be assessed in relation to parents' rights and responsibilities [Heimer & Palme, ].…”

Transferring custody from birth parents to foster parents – an ambiguous matter

“…Contemporary research reveals that the Swedish Social Service still gives priority to a parents' rights perspective, despite the aim to promote children's participatory rights. For example, Heimer and Palme (2016) show that children's voices are weakened in the investigation phase and the care phase. Children rarely participate in meetings for treatment whereas the parent's voice is strengthened.…”

“…Children's rights and what is in the best interest of children are still things that are mostly defined by adults, with the focus on protecting children from harm. This implies that children are first and foremost seen as becomings, rather than as beings (Heimer & Palme, 2016). Heimer and Palme argue:…”