It was disturbing to learn that many children are not only unprepared for their placement in residential care, but continue to be unaware of how long they are required to stay. In addition, in cases where the care home is a private one, caregivers are not briefed on the status of the child/children’s circumstances and are often unprepared for the situation that presents itself at the time of admission. This is according to a study undertaken under the auspices of the non-governmental organisation ChildLink.
One gets the distinct impression that children in difficult circumstances are shifted around with about as much finesse as a supermarket stacker moves a sack of peas from the bond to the shelf. While this is probably not always the case, it happens often enough for the researcher Donelle Bess-Bascom to hear it from more than one child and more than one caregiver and to make recommendations to address it.
Why this is distressing is that vulnerable children, even when they appear to be stoic, are already emotionally fragile. According to the state agency tasked with protecting them, children are only taken into the care of the state when their circumstances are so dire as to warrant their complete removal from the situation. The process, it said, is that it tries as much as possible to work with families to resolve the situation before taking such a decision and also attempts to make contact with close relatives living elsewhere to see whether they would be in a position to care for the children, even temporarily.
So we know that when children are removed it’s because that is the very last straw – or so the agency says. That being the case, everyone concerned, not least the staff of the agency, would be acutely aware of the mental and emotional state of the child or children in the situation. One way of alleviating the emotional issues, or at least not making the situation worse would be to talk to the child/children every step of the way. This is especially necessary where the issue is sexual abuse and the suspect/perpetrator still lives in the home as the child might feel he/she is somehow to be blamed and would view the removal as punishment, rather than a means of saving him/her.
In addition, when caregivers are not briefed on the child’s circumstances, it is difficult, if not impossible for them to stage an intervention, when one might be desperately needed. In the end the child suffers more than is necessary and there is every possibility of a setback in his/her recovery.
One hopes then that the ChildLink study of ‘The Nature and Extent of Institutionalization of Children in Guyana,’ and the recommendations emanating therefrom could be used to improve these and other aspects of the state’s child care programme.
Time was when there had been constant lobbying in this column for child services to be removed from the then Ministry of Labour, Human Services and Social Security building close to the fire station, as it was not conducive to the sensitive nature of what was required. It took years and it was with the oversight of Mrs Priya Manickchand as minister that the Child Care and Protection Agency was set up and removed to its current site at Broad Street. Then, under the current administration, the Ministry of Labour, Human Services and Social Security became the Ministry of Social Protection, with departments dedicated to Labour, Child Care, Human Services and other such. Perhaps these changes were meant to reassure the public that better attention would be paid to human and social services and child care. But is this really the case?
It was Shakespeare who said in Romeo and Juliet: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” It is absolutely true that a name does not make anything sweeter or any less bitter. Likewise, name changes do not imbue agencies or institutions with efficacy. Rather, what is required is an unlearning of the old habits and the inculcating of good standards like professionalism, decency and empathy that sadly often seem to be lacking.
