INFORMAL CARE FOR CHILDREN AS AN OPTION

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognises that children have the best chance of developing their full potential in a family environment.

The primary responsibility for their care rests on parents and legal guardians. Support from the government in terms of policies and legal tools are a must. When parents are not able or willing to fulfil this responsibility, kinship and community resources may be relied upon to provide care for the children.

However, the ultimate responsibility falls on the government to ensure that children are placed in appropriate alternative care. Of the two major forms of alternative care that we have are: formal and informal. Conceptualising “alternative care” is somewhat challenging for us as helping professionals because the standards under the CRC and the Guidelines differ in a significant way.

Neither document defines ‘alternative care’, but under Article 18 of the CRC, “parents, or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility of the upbringing and development of the child,” and Article 20 mandates that alternative care be provided when a child is “temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment” (Part 2). The Guidelines, however, imply that a child’s right to alternative care springs in to effect when he or she is deprived of “parental care” (Part 1–1).

“Family environment” is defined by cultural and social norms while “parental care” is more clearly established, although in some cultures who is a “parent” can be questioned as well.  As a social worker I believe potentially all children who are not being cared for by at least one parent or ‘legal’ guardian are candidates for alternative care, and the next question is: what kind of alternative care? 

For the purpose of this article I adopt the definition of informal care as: Any private arrangement provided in a family environment, whereby the child is looked after on an on-going or indefinite basis by relatives or friends (informal kinship care) or by others in their individual capacity, at the initiative of the child, his/her parents or other person without this arrangement having been ordered by an administrative or judicial authority or a duly accredited body.

Research has shown that, because informal care in developing countries often exists without an effective system to track and monitor such living arrangements, most information is produced piecemeal by location specific for certain activities. Even when they are available, data is often organised along different criteria and is inconsistent, so the total number and percentage of children in alternative care, and more specifically in informal care, is difficult to estimate. Informal care is provided in three major settings: kinship, community and other family-based arrangements.

UNICEF observed that, the main caretakers for these children are grandparents and other relatives. Double orphans are more likely to live in a female-headed household than children living with parents. This arrangement is not the best option but one tends to agree that it might be the best option. The reason being that, In terms of benefits, kinship care is believed to preserve continuing contact with biological   family, if desirable, siblings and the extended family network, to help maintain identity, to decrease trauma and distress of relocation and grief of separation from parents, to reduce the likelihood of multiple placements and to expand capacity for self -sufficiency, on-going support throughout life, and that children and relatives provide mutual care and support.

However, evidence can be mixed the evidence is mixed, depending on the outcomes being measured. On the one hand, there is positive evidence that kinship care is advantageous to the child. One of the most clearly established findings from research is that the degree of relatedness is a pivotal factor in the quality of care that children in informal care receive.

Biological relatedness is an important predictor of the quality of care given to children in most societies like ours. Positivity depends on the age and sex of the child, the degree of relatedness between the child and caregiver, our culture regarding non-parental care, the relative wealth or poverty of the caregiver, the circumstances under which the child is being brought into the family.
Compiled by:
Prudence Hlatshwayo

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: