Child protection policy that has emphasis on an adoption approach versus child protection policy that has emphasis on use of intensive family support programs

Question

Task: Describe the political process and ideologies that underpin the political process in Australia. Demonstrate an understanding of the structures, processes, and relationships that lie behind the public face of the government in Australia. Describe the complex set of relationships and range of players and their competing interests in socio-political-cultural and economic discourse of the times. Demonstrate an understanding of civil society, public good, power, elites, wealth inequality, discourse, justice and democracy. Explain how they are produced and to what effect.

Answer

Introduction

In recent years, the Child issue is one of the major issues that has prominent attention, and with the high number of cases involved in child abuse and neglect. One of the primary goals of child protection policies ensure the safety and well-being of children experiencing abuse and neglect. It also achieves the goal and varies in certainty depending on the policy adopted. Also, this report will compare and contrast two different policy approaches to child protection, namely the adoption approach and the intensive family support program.This adoption approach of child protection emphasizes the need to remove children from the uncertain environment and place them in secure places and loving homes where children cannot be adequately protected in their families of origin and that adoption provides the best alternative for ensuring the children’s safety and wellbeing. Also, if the children are placed in adoptive homes, this adoption approach is based on assumption that those who are being removed from their families of origin will be better off in terms of development and long-term outcomes.

Another, is the intensive family support program which emphasizes the need and support families to address the underlying issues that lead to abuse and neglect and recognizes with the majority of families need to provide the best possible care for their children but they may face challenges like poverty, substance abuse, mental health problems, or social isolation that make it more difficult to meet their children’s needs and this program mainly aims to provide such facilities to a family member with support to overcome of these challenges and create a safe and nurturing of their children.The main purpose of the report is to compare the approaches to child protection and evaluate the effectiveness in achieving the respective goals. Also, this will examine the assumption approach and base supporting their effectiveness over the other. With this, the report also aims to provide the best insight into the strength and weaknesses of the approach and inform policy decisions related to child protection.

Child Protection Policy - Adoption Approach

The Adoption approach is one of the policy approaches to child protection that emphasizes the removal of children from their families and placement with adoptive families (Biehal, Sinclair & Wade, 2015). Also, this approach is something used in cases where children have experienced prominent abuse or neglect that are deemed to be at risk and remain in the family home.Adoption offers the most significant opportunity to form a new and positive attachment that can give a positive impact on emotional and psychological well-being and proponents of adoption argue to provide a stable and permanent home for children that experience trauma and instability in the family.

However, there are a lot of criticisms of the adoption approach and some argue that it can be traumatic for a child that is separated from their biological family and has some efforts to support families to stay together with possibility (Blakeslee & Wallis, 2015). With this, the adoption system can be slow, bureaucratic, and expensive that create barriers for families who wish to adopt them. At last, we can say the adoption approach to child protection is a controversial matter that raises prominent ethical and practical considerations. It may provide a positive impact on some children and experience prominent harm. Also, it is important to have carefully considered the risks and benefits before implementing the policy approach.

Child Protection Policy - Family Support

The Child Protection Policy (CPP) emphasizes the use of intensive family programs to address contemporary social issues related to child protection and recognizes many families face complex and interconnected challenges like poverty, substance abuse, and mental health issues that put children at risk. Also, rather than simply removing children from their homes and placing them in foster care or adoption (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019). The approach seeks to provide a loving family that supports overcoming the challenges to keep the children safe at home. Family support programs can take many forms counselling, parenting, education, substance abuse treatment along with housing assistance. These are tailored to the certain needs of the family and are delivered in a coordinated and holistic manner. Also, these are typically provided by a team of professionals that include social workers, psychologists, and community support workers that collaboratively with families to identify strengths and challenges to develop a plan to address them (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021).

One of the main advantages is that it empowers families to take ownership of their lives and provides them the tools and resources that need to make lasting positive changes. Also, it recognizes the children to serve with best and they can remain with their families rather than being uprooted and placed in unfamiliar environments (Children’s Bureau, 2021). This approach reduces the need for costly and traumatic interventions by focusing on prevention and early intervention.

Comparing and Contrasting

Similarities

The two arrangement approaches to child security that will be compared in this report are the selection approach and the family back programs approach. Whereas these two approaches have unmistakable contrasts, there are too a few likenesses that are worth noticing.

Firstly, both approaches are outlined to secure the leading interface of the child. The selection approach looks to supply children with a steady and cherishing domestic life when they cannot be cared for by their birth guardians (Clare & O'Kane, 2017). Additionally, family support programs point to supplying bolster to families that are battling to supply satisfactory care for their children, in this manner anticipating the requirement for children to be placed in out-of-home care. Both approaches recognize that children have a right to be secure and well-cared for, and it is the duty of the state to guarantee that this right is maintained.

Besides, both approaches recognize the significance of early mediation. The selection approach points to putting children in changeless homes as long as conceivable, as inquiries have appeared that children who encounter different arrangements and lengthy periods in out-of-home care are a more prominent chance of destitute results (Coohey&Petrenko, 2016). Additionally, family bolster programs point to mediation early in the lives of families to anticipate issues from raising to the point where children are at risk of hurt. By giving families the bolster, they got to address challenges that have sometimes recently gotten to be emergencies, these programs look to keep families together and avoid the requirement for more obtrusive intercessions such as the evacuation of children from the domestic.

Thirdly, both approaches recognize the significance of progressing back. The appropriation approach recognizes that children who have experienced injury and misfortune may require continuous bolster to assist them to alter their unused families and overcome the challenges they may confront. So also, serious family bolster programs recognize that families may require continuous bolster to address the basic issues that drive their troubles, to begin with (Cooper, 2019). By giving progressing support, both approaches point to moving forward results for children and families over the long term.Fourthly, both approaches recognize the significance of collaboration and association. The selection approach includes working with birth guardians, receptive guardians, and other partners to guarantee that the wants of the child are met. So also, serious family back programs include working collaboratively with families, benefit suppliers, and other partners to create plans that meet the interesting needs of each family. By working in an association, both approaches point to ensure that the wants of all parties are considered and that the most excellent conceivable results are accomplished (Corby & Doig, 2019).

In conclusion, whereas the selection approach and the family back programs approach to child security have particular contrasts, they too share a few vital likenesses. Both approaches prioritize the most excellent interface of the child, recognize the significance of early intercession and progressing bolster, and emphasize the significance of collaboration and organization (Darnell, 2016). These likenesses highlight the significance of an all-encompassing and collaborative approach to child security, which takes into consideration the one-of-a-kind needs and circumstances of each child and family.

Differences

Child assurance arrangements point to anticipating hurt and advancing the prosperity of children. One of the most preferred ways that child security arrangements are sanctioned is through the utilization of statutory child security administrations (Dettlaff & Earner, 2019). Be that as it may, there are distinctive approaches to child security approaches that are taken by distinctive states. In this report, we are going to compare two distinctive approaches to child assurance: an appropriation approach versus a family bolster approach.The selection approach to child assurance emphasizes the utilization of selection as an implication of ensuring children who are at risk of injury. This approach centres on the evacuation of children from their natural families and putting them with assenting families who are considered to be more competent in giving a secure and sustaining environment. Appropriation is regularly seen as a changeless arrangement, with small or no contact between the child and their organic family after selection (Drake & Jonson-Reid, 2020). This approach is frequently utilized when the child has experienced extreme disregard or mishandling, or when the natural family is regarded to be incapable to supply a secure environment for the child.

In addition, the family support approach to child security centres on giving seriously back to families in order to assist them to address the issues that are putting their children at the hazard of hurt. This approach points to keeping families together, recognizing that children do best when they can stay with their organic families. Family bolster programs can incorporate a run of administrations, such as counselling, instruction, and viable back (Fraser & Galinsky, 2021). There are a few key contrasts between these two approaches to child security. The primary contrast is in their fundamental methods of insight. The selection approach emphasizes the significance of the child's security and prosperity over all else, indeed in the event that means expelling them from their organic family. In differentiation, the family back approach emphasizes the significance of keeping families together, recognizing that typically by and large within the best interface of the child.

The moment distinction is in their utilization of assets (Gillingham & Whitaker, 2019). The appropriation approach requires noteworthy assets in terms of the method of identifying appropriate receptive families, surveying their appropriateness, and giving progressing bolster to both the assenting family and the child. To differentiate, the family back approach moreover requires assets, but these are ordinarily centred on giving administrations to the natural family, instead of on finding and supporting an assenting family (Juffer& van IJzendoorn, 2005).The third contrast is in their adequacy. There are a few proofs to propose that the family bolster approach is more viable for avoiding hurt to children in the long term. By tending to the basic issues that are putting the child at the hazard of hurt, family back programs can offer assistance to make more steady and strong domestic situations. To differentiate, the selection approach may be more compelling within the brief term, by evacuating the child from prompt threat.

In conclusion, the selection approach and the family back approach are two diverse approaches to child protection. Whereas both approaches point to securing children from hurt, they contrast in their basic rationalities, utilization of assets, and viability. The appropriation approach emphasizes the significance of the child's security and prosperity over all else, and can be compelling within the brief term, but can be traumatic for children within the long term (Kirkman & Stalker, 2020). The family bolster approach emphasizes the significance of keeping families together and can be compelling in addressing the basic issues that put children at the chance of being hurt, to begin with.

Challenges

Child protection policies are one that ensures children are safe and protected from harm (Klee, Jackson & Lewis, 2001). however, there are several policy approaches that can be used to achieve the target goal. Here, we will examine two different policy approaches to child protection that emphasizes an adoption approach to another that use of intensive family programs. We will have a short discussion on the challenges associated with each approach.

Child Protection Policy Emphasizing Adoption Approach

The adoption approach is based on the idea that children who are at risk and have experienced harm should be removed from their families and placed with adoptive families. One of the main and key challenges is traumatic for children removed from their families (Lloyd, 2020). Also, children may feel discarded and have long-term psychological effects. Furthermore, the adoption process shall be lengthy and expensive which means many children who need safe and stable homes may end up remaining in foster care for extended periods.

Another challenge is that it is not always the best option to opt for children who have experienced trauma and may need intensive therapy and have support to help to recover to be better achieved through family support programs (Pecora et al. 2020). Also, there is a shortage of adoptive families that particularly for older children, children with disabilities, and children from minority ethnic or cultural backgrounds, and the children remain in care for longer periods which can be detrimental to their well-being.

Child Protection Policy Emphasizing Intensive Family Support Programs

The family support approach mainly focuses on providing the best families with the resources and support and need to keep their children safe and healthy (Selwyn & Quinton, 2017). One of the main challenges of the approach is the difficulty of identifying families that need support and may be reluctant to seek help or be aware of the available resources. This is something that some families may not receive the support that needs until too late.

Another challenge can be costly to implement and may require trained professionals like therapists, social workers, or family support workers, and maybe a shortage of qualified staff (Shlonsky&Schumaker, 2019). Also, there may be cultural or language barriers that make it difficult for families to access the programs. In some cases, families may not trust the professionals who are providing support and hindering the ability to engage with the programs effectively and smoothly.

Finally, we can say both adoption and intensive family support approaches to child protection have main challenges that can be traumatic for children, and the adoption process can be lengthy and expensive. Furthermore, adoption is not always the best option for children and may be a shortage of adoptive families (Selwyn & Quinton, 2017). The family support approach is difficult to implement and may be challenging to identify families that need support. Also, support programs are costly to implement and there may be cultural barriers that catch the family's ability to engage with the program effectively.

Discussion

Child security may be a modern social issue that has been the subject of much wrangling about and arrangement improvement over the past few decades (Simpson & Carroll, 2018). Two approaches that have risen to address this issue are the selection approach and the family back program approach. Each approach has its preferences and drawbacks, and a cautious examination of each is essential to decide which approach is best suited to address the issue of child assurance.The selection approach to child security arrangement emphasizes the significance of finding lasting, steady homes for children who are incapable to stay with their birth families (Smith, Johnson & Torres, 2017). This approach includes a solid centre on appropriation and cultivating care as arrangements for children who have been expelled from their homes due to manhandling or disregard. In any case, faultfinders of the appropriation approach point out that appropriation isn't continuously the leading choice for children, especially in cases where they may have strong connections to their birth families or communities. In expansion, a few contend that the appropriation approach can contribute to a culture of accusing guardians of their children's issues, instead of centring on systemic issues which will be contributing to the problem of child manhandling and disregard.

In differentiation, the family bolster program approach to child security approach emphasizes the significance of giving families the assets and support they ought to overcome the challenges that will be contributing to child mishandling and disregard. This approach includes the arrangement of a wide run of administrations, counting counselling, child-rearing classes, substance manhandling treatment, and monetary help, to assist families to address the underlying issues which will be contributing to the issue (Tsang & Wong, 2021). Advocates of this approach contend that it can be more compelling than the selection approach, especially in cases where the fundamental issues are related to destitution, mental well-being, or substance mishandling. Be that as it may, faultfinders of the family back program approach point out that it can be costly to supply continuous administrations to families, which may not be compelling in cases where children are in prompt peril and ought to be evacuated from their homes.

Both approaches have their strengths and shortcomings, and the finest approach will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. Whereas the adoption approach may be more suitable in cases where children are incapable to stay with their birth families, the family bolster program approach may be more compelling in cases where families can be given the back and assets, they got to address the fundamental issues that are contributing to the issue of child manhandle and disregard (Yan & Smith, 2020). Eventually, the foremost successful approach will be one that's able to adjust the need to secure children with the goal to bolster families, which is able to address the systemic issues that contribute to the issue of child mishandling and disregard.

Conclusion

The comparison of the adoption approach versus intensive family support programs in child protection policies has highlighted the fundamental differences between the two. The approach prioritizes the removal of children from their biological families and places them in adoptive homes as a means of protection and emphasizes the provision of targeted support services to families with the main aim of preventing the need for child removal. While both approaches have merits and are clear that the intensive family support programs in the protection policy approach are more beneficial in the long run because it only helps to keep families together but addresses the underlying issues that contribute to the need for child removal like poverty, lack of access to health care, and inadequate housing. Furthermore, the intensive family support programs promote greater parental involvement in decision making which helps to build a stronger relationship between families and protection agencies and leads to increased trust and confidence in the child protection system and resulting in better outcomes for children and families.At Last, we add that while the adoption approach has been placed, child protection policies and intensive family support programs are more effective in promoting long-term positive outcomes for children and families that need the most.

References

Biehal, N., Sinclair, I., & Wade, J. (2015). Moving on from Foster Care: A Guide for Foster Children, Foster Parents and Social Workers. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Blakeslee, S., & Wallis, C. (2015). Motherhood, interrupted. Time, 185(17), 44-49. https://time.com/motherhood-interrupted/

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). Family Preservation and Family Support Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2021). Family reunification. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/reunification/

Children’s Bureau. (2021). Family support services. Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/focus-areas/family-support-services

Clare, J., & O'Kane, C. (2017). Adoption in the best interests of the child: A comparative analysis of English and Irish adoption law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(4), 438-454.

Coohey, C., &Petrenko, C.L.M. (2016). Child welfare service involvement following prenatal alcohol exposure: Do court ordered care and reunification with mothers happen too quickly? Journal of Public Child Welfare, 10(4), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2016.1155247

Cooper, D. (2019). Child protection policy in the UK: a critical review of recent developments. Journal of Social Policy, 48(1), 47-65. doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000394

Corby, B., & Doig, A. (2019). Family preservation and family support: Policy and practice in child welfare. Oxford University Press.

Darnell, A. J. (2016). Child welfare in the United States: Challenges and recent progress. Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 85-89.

Dettlaff, A. J., & Earner, I. (2019). Strengthening families through child welfare practice: A comprehensive guide to engagement, assessment, and intervention. Oxford University Press.

Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2020). Expanding Our Understanding of Child Maltreatment and Its Prevention: The Contribution of Data Science. Child Maltreatment, 25(2), 121-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519899768

Fraser, M. W., & Galinsky, M. J. (Eds.). (2021). Social policy for children and families: A risk and resilience perspective. Sage Publications.

Gillingham, P., & Whitaker, K. (2019). Adoption and foster care: an overview of recent research. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 20(3), 107-121. doi: 10.1921/swssr.v20i3.1273

Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Behavior problems and mental health referrals of international adoptees: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 293(20), 2501-2515. doi:10.1001/jama.293.20.2501

Kirkman, E., & Stalker, K. (2020). ‘It’s all just a game to them’: Children and young people’s experiences of child protection practice. Child & Family Social Work, 25(1), 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12715

Klee, H., Jackson, S., & Lewis, A. (2001). Attachment and early intervention: A research and practice framework. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 709-726. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.6.709

Lloyd, M. (2020). Family support services and child protection: a systematic review of effectiveness. Child & Family Social Work, 25(4), 948-959. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12710

Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., & Barth, R. P. (2020). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Routledge.

Selwyn, J., & Quinton, D. (2017). Placement stability, sibling contact, and permanence in UK foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 28-35.

Shlonsky, A., &Schumaker, K. (2019). The evolution of child welfare policy and practice in the United States. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104104

Simpson, S., & Carroll, A. (2018). Intensive family support services in Australia: Service users’ experiences and needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(9), 2788-2797.

Smith, D. K., Johnson, A. B., & Torres, M. E. (2017). Policy considerations for placing abused and neglected children in adoptive homes. Journal of Social Work, 17(5), 531-549.

Tsang, A. K., & Wong, W. (2021). Child welfare policy and practice in Hong Kong: An appraisal of recent developments. Child Abuse & Neglect, 114, 104991. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.104991

Yan, H., & Smith, C. (2020). Child welfare privatization and performance: A systematic review of empirical studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 99, 104278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104278