Comparing child protection policy in three European countries

Objectives The Hestia study (2015-17) aims to compare child protection policy, systems and practice in England, Germany and the Netherlands. This presentation will present a comparative analysis of child protection policy and... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives
The Hestia study (2015-17) aims to compare child protection policy, systems and practice in England, Germany and the Netherlands. This presentation will present a comparative analysis of child protection policy and systems in these three countries.

Method
This analysis is based on the Hestia team’s detailed review of policies, national statistics and the policy literature in each country.

Results
As rich European nations, the three countries have much in common. All provide specialised child protection services which are located within a framework of universal and preventive services. In all three countries, ‘what counts’ as child maltreatment has undergone similar shifts since the 1960s and developments in policy and systems have often been prompted by child deaths from maltreatment and the impact of the media attention these have received. More recently, the scope of child protection activity has widened to include domestic violence, child trafficking, female genital mutilation and, especially in England, child sexual exploitation and radicalisation.
There are also differences, for example in legal definitions of the harm to which the state should respond. Although the legal threshold for compulsory state intervention is ‘significant’ or ‘serious’ harm in all three countries, there are differences in the way this is conceptualised and in the degree to which the impact of harm on the child is prioritised in law relative to other considerations.
Differences in the relation between the family and the state are reflected in the balance between the provision of preventive and protective services. All three countries provide family support services and emphasise the need for early intervention, but there is currently a greater emphasis on voluntary intervention in Germany and the Netherlands than in England. The relation between the family, the state and the market also varies, in terms of the relative responsibilities of state and independent agencies. Germany and the Netherlands have long-standing traditions of subsidiarity, whereas England has a more integrated service framework with more direct provision and oversight by local authorities, although there has been a recent push for greater privatisation of child welfare services largely driven by wider political considerations.
All three countries are situated on a continuum between balancing the needs and rights of children with the rights of parents to freedom from intrusion by the state. The UNCRC has been ratified in all three, but its focus on the rights of children is balanced by policy attention to the rights and responsibilities of parents. There is also a shared view regarding the desirability of keeping children within their family or wider kinship network. However, in England the law states that the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration and a more child-centred approach is evident in the policy emphasis on child development and on achieving permanence. While there is serious attention to protecting children from harm in both Germany and the Netherlands, law and policy in these countries suggests that the balance between a child-centred approach and a concern to protect families from unwarranted intrusion by the state tends towards a greater emphasis on the rights of parents, especially in Germany.

Conclusions
Features of child protection policies and systems in the three countries overlap and they have faced similar challenges over time. All three seek to find a balance between a desire to keep children within their families and to protect them from serious harm. The balance achieved at any point in time has been influenced both by the force of circumstances, notably high profile child deaths, and by the legacy of historical child welfare regimes and attitudes to state intervention.