In all occidental countries, child protection systems are moving towards the greater implication of birth families and towards providing increased family support. Most legal frameworks recommend increasing parental participation, but this objective remains challenging in practice (Boddy et al., 2013). In France, since the 1980s, the legal framework of the child protection system has evolved from the logic of substitution to the logic of support for parenthood (Fablet, 2010). However, the practice of workers in child protection services is often far off these recommendations (Boucher, Belqasmi, Pouchadon, Eloi, & Petit, 2014). Research findings which take into account parents’ perspectives describe that feelings of shame and inadequacy can result in a difficult relationship with professionals, whether in the situation of out-of-home care (Join-Lambert et al., 2015) or in early family-focused intervention such as in maternity homes (Ganne, 2013).
At the same time, successive legislative reforms have emphasized the importance of early intervention and prevention. In this context, over the last ten years or so, different institutional actors have set up « parental centers », which house and support parental couples and their babies who find themselves in situations with multiple weaknesses: material precarity (such as socioeconomic resources and housing conditions), fragile social support networks and predating interpersonal difficulties (institutionalization, family break up…). These centers are not part of shelter and insertion services (although they work towards helping adults in these areas), but are really part of child protection services. Their objective is one of prevention and, through early intervention, they promote the protection of the children by their parents. There are now a dozen of these centers in France.
The aims of the ongoing research presented in this communication are to identify and understand the relationship dynamics between parents, infants and professionals during these early family interventions, in a child protection context. The first step of this research consists of the analysis of institutional contexts, inspired by the work of Breugnot (2011). The data collected includes 10 group interviews with the professionals from ten parental centers and the analysis of the institutional documents from these ten centers. The results highlight the diversity of the different interpretations of the notion of prevention. This diversity is linked to local contexts, in terms of theoretical framework but also in terms of the expectations of the local administrative authorities. The prevention of institutionalization is a key issue between the institutional actors. The different ways of thinking about prevention also have consequences on the relationship between parents and professionals, and on the place of infants in these dynamics.
Bibliographic references
Boddy, J., Statham, J., Danielsen, I., Geurts, E., Join-Lambert, H., & Euillet, S. (2013). Beyond Contact: Work with Families of Children Placed Away from Home in Four European Countries. University of Sussex.
Boucher, M., Belqasmi, M., Pouchadon, M.-L., Eloi, M., & Petit, A. (2014). Participation des usagers et transformation des pratiques professionnelles des acteurs de la protection de l’enfance. Observatoire national de l’enfance en danger.
Breugnot, P. (2011). Les innovations socio-éducatives: dispositifs et pratiques innovants dans le champ de la protection de l’enfance. Rennes, France: Presses de l’EHESP.
Fablet, D. (2010). De la suppléance familiale au soutien à la parentalité. Paris: l’Harmattan.
Ganne, C. (2013). Le devenir des enfants accueillis en centre maternel: approche écologique du parcours et de la qualité de vie des enfants sept ans après la sortie d’un hébergement mère-enfant (Thèse de doctorat). Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, France.
Join-Lambert, H., Euillet, S., Boddy, J., Statham, J., Danielsen, I., & Geurts, E. (2015). L’implication des parents dans l’éducation de leur enfant placé. Approches européennes. Revue française de pédagogie, (187), 71‑80.
