Children's Human Rights in the USA: Challenges and Opportunities (Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice) 3031308476, 9783031308475

Citation preview

Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice

Yvonne Vissing

Children's Human Rights in the USA Challenges and Opportunities

Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice Series Editor Jan Marie Fritz, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

The series explores key research and practice in this rapidly expanding field. Topics include ethical and legal aspects of intervention; the nature of client relationships; methods of intervention and evaluation; and the role of clinical sociology in specific settings. This open-ended series appeals to practitioners, policymakers, students and professors in sociology, social work, community psychology, public health, health education, social policy and counseling.

Yvonne Vissing

Children’s Human Rights in the USA Challenges and Opportunities

Yvonne Vissing Center for Childhood & Youth Studies Salem State University Salem, MA, USA

ISSN 1566-7847 Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice ISBN 978-3-031-30847-5 ISBN 978-3-031-30848-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Quixada, Christopher, and Leah

Foreword

I warmly welcome this book, with its courageous ‘rights-respecting’ approach linked to the international law on the rights of the child. Courageous, because such a stance goes against the dominant political grain in the USA which remains famously the exception to the now global norm of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Courageous also, because the pre-cursor to this approach is necessarily to assert that as a social group, children are almost ubiquitously disempowered and oppressed in society and under the law, and that as adults we bear responsibility to own and address this uncomfortable fact. The nature and consequences of this situation are rigorously supported throughout this volume by copious examples from within the USA and other nations of the world. Where I come from, in Wales, human rights-based approaches to law, policy and practice regarding children enjoy increasing acceptance, yet remain under-explored in professional training and research. The role of professionals, which many students will go on to become, is crucial to operationalizing rights-based approaches in the everyday experiences of children and youth. For this reason, this volume is a most welcome contribution to available resources for higher level and professional education and training. In Wales, a country within the United Kingdom, with over 20 years with its own government and parliament, it is unremarkable to say that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a bedrock of principle and a normative framework for society’s interactions with children. One of the hallmarks of Welsh politics during this period has been the broad consensus on human rights of children as a defining quality of the new governance. It is accepted that public decisionmakers have a duty to involve children, listen to them and engage with them as citizens of today, not just citizens-in-the-making, as well as to provide children with the support and services that are necessary to enable them to grow as human beings and build their own future. This broad political consensus is enshrined in Welsh law: on Rights of Children and Young Persons (2011); Social Services and Well-being (2014); Well-being of Future Generations (2015); and establishing the Children’s Commissioner for Wales (from 2001). vii

viii

Foreword

Within Europe, Wales’ innovations are comparatively progressive but not against the grain. Over the past two decades, the European Union has increasingly recognized that all EU member states have legal obligations to respect, promote and protect human rights of children. The EU Commission has programmes of work on child-friendly justice, the child’s right to be heard and participate in decisionmaking, protection of children from violence, children in migration and missing children. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is both touchstone of normative standards and dynamic driver of change, emergent from the last two decades of the twentieth century, is an important influence on policy advocacy and academic activism in this milieu. This book offers a highly accessible account of and contribution to understanding a different way to look at children: the ‘exploration of children as an ever-changing but always unequal social group who experiences varying types of inequality and oppression over time’. Acknowledging the complex web of approaches, theories, cultural and historical contexts, political influences, disciplinary and professional perspectives that are in play, Dr. Vissing’s book presents a cogent analysis of the variable construction of children and childhood. In a highly accessible yet also academically rigorous style, it offers myriad examples reflecting wide-ranging and painstaking research. It recognizes the intergenerational intersection of experiences and responses that arise from the coincidence in one child or group of children of being also of a certain gender or ethnic origin, or from a religious, socio-economic or cultural group, or living with their own or others’ disability, or some other characteristic which justifies special protection from discrimination. But it also maintains, consistently, the importance of understanding that being a child—understood here, as in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as meaning under the age of legal majority—is, intrinsically, to experience discrimination, whether any of those additional characteristics are present or not. Its policy implications are therefore huge. As a teaching aid, this volume it will be invaluable, across several disciplines. It is ordered in a way that is ideal for teaching and leading discussion. It presents established approaches in a balanced way, whilst constantly also stimulating vital reflection and new thinking about what it means to say that a child is human, a child has rights, and that children’s rights are human rights. Observatory on Human Rights of Children, Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, Swansea University Wales, UK

Jane Williams

Preface

This book examines the need for, and challenges confronting, the children’s human rights movement in the United States. It is designed to take a scholarly look at the conceptual framework that is commonly used to understand both children and childhood, examine how this framework came about, explore why a different framework would be “in the best interests of the child”, and identify the obstacles that loom before us in changing that framework. As a clinical sociologist who has worked for decades in the areas of pediatric and community sociology and human rights, I am convinced that changing the frame we are using to address children’s rights will result in positive benefits for children, families, communities, and the nation as a whole. As a National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, I know that life experiences of children are shaped by social contexts and human interactions. The intersection of my work as a policy-maker, teacher, researcher, and clinician affirm that the directions of children’s physical health, mental health, identities, and life-trajectories are predictable from a sociological perspective. From my research studying child rights programs in the UK and EU as a Whiting Foundation Fellow, it is clear that a children’s human rights framework shifts how governments, organizations, and individuals interact with young people. This shift can change not just the lives of individual children but societies as a whole. This book is based on research that has taken over 15 years in development. I am the US policy chair for the Hope for Children UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Policy Center that is housed in Cyprus. I am the founder of the Center for Childhood & Youth Studies at Salem State University, member of the Human Rights Council for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), on the Steering Committee of Human Rights Educators USA, a fellow at the Dialogue and Democracy Initiative of the University of Connecticut’s Dodd’s Human Rights Center, and a member of the Committee for the Ratification of the US Convention on the Rights of the Child. I was trained at the Equitas International Training Program in Human Rights in Montreal, and traveled to Europe to study first-hand how children’s rights make positive benefits. ix

x

Preface

As a sociologist and co-founder of the Department of Healthcare Studies at Salem State University, I offer human rights courses to students. I have learned that almost none of them ever had a human rights course; at the end of the course almost all of them recommend that it be a required course for all students. I run international, national, state, and local conferences teaching people what children’s human rights are and how to implement and evaluate them. My publication list on children’s human rights is extensive, with over 19 books and countless chapters, articles, and reports. From my work, it seems obvious that we cannot expect people to be rights respecting if they never learned what human rights are or how to implement them. This book is designed to help us see what “is hidden in plain sight”, to borrow a phrase from child rights scholar Barbara Bennett Woodhouse (2008). There are many reasons to be optimistic that children will soon be entitled to human rights. There are also many reasons to assume that they will not. Both will be explored in this book. It is my hope that by the end of my book that you too will see why children’s human rights are fundamental not just to their lives but to the success of the nation and the preservation of our democracy. Salem, MA

Yvonne Vissing

Acknowledgements

This book has been many years in creation and countless people, materials, and ideas have been provided to help me in the construction of this book. Special thanks are given to Jan Marie Fritz, whose inspiration of clinical sociology has made this book possible and helped to shape not just my life but the lives of countless scholars and beneficiaries. Gratitude is given to the staff at Springer who have so professionally managed the production of this book. Jane Williams has been my right-hand support in the construction of this book, and her brilliant contributions are woven through out it. Special acknowledgements are given to her and the Swansea Observatory for the Human Rights of Children in Wales. The previous work of Barbara Bennett Woodhouse and other scholars have been inspirational and foundational for the child rights field. David Alexander’s work on frameworks and the shift in how we view children has been of utmost importance, a view facilitated by the University of Connecticut’s Dodd Human Rights Center where I was a fellow in the Dialogue and Democracy program. The Jasper Whiting Foundation provided me the opportunity to travel to Europe and observe first-hand the importance of children’s human rights implementation in government, higher education, and social institutions. It is through that fellowship I had the opportunity to meet and be inspired by the work of Laura Lundy, Kay Tisdall, Hugh Starkey, John Davis, Karen Wells, faculty at the University of Galway, Queen’s College, Queens University, Birkbeck, University of London, University of Nottingham with Saul Becker and Aoife Nolan, and others. I have loved being a judge at the University of Leiden’s Child Rights MOOT Court and thank Ton Lieffard for his generosity, inspiration, and opportunities. It is with pride that I thank Joseph Borghese for appointing me to be US policy chair for the Hope for Children CRC Policy Center in Cyprus, and for the opportunity to work with Ema Sofia Leitao, my co-author on other child rights books, and Pinar Ioannides the new coordinator. The Committee for the Ratification of the CRC and our meetings have been illuminating and I wish to thank members Meg Gardinier, Bruce Lesley, Christine James-Brown, Jonathan Todres, Mark Engman, Reid Maki, and Wallace Mlyniec. Appreciation is given to Equitas for my participation in their international human rights training program. Being a member of the xi

xii

Acknowledgements

Human Rights Council at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and input from Theresa Harris has been influential in seeing how scientific disciplines benefit from a human rights orientation. The work of Human Rights Educators (HRE) USA and the support of the Steering Committee, particularly Kristi RudeliusPalmer, Lina Lenberg, and William Fernekes, has been very helpful to seeing how essential human rights education is for people of all ages and all professions. Thanks are given to Salem State University for their support and for allowing me to found its Center for Childhood & Youth Studies and bringing together the thousands of people who have attended our conferences and workshops. Special thanks are given to Eric Knudsen for his attentiveness and kind spirit in the creation of this book. Appreciation is given to Joseph Zajda who has so kindly published many of my writings on child and human rights. Reviewers Melissa Juchniewicz, Nazneen Khan, Tanya Herring, and Jane Williams have provided valuable feedback for this book. Claire McCarthy, Ralph Chan, Sarah Richards, and Joann Gu have procided unique support and perspectives that have been very helpful. Thanks to Laura, Nancy, Marsha, Chris, Diane, and Michele for all the walks and talks. I wish to remember Walter Baily, David Walters, and Ray Helfer for their teaching me things I did not know about child abuse, and to David Knoke for helping me to appreciate the importance of quality research back in my undergraduate days at Indiana University Bloomington. To my parents, Richard and Edna Vissing, thank you for what you gave me and for allowing me to attend college, even when you didn’t understand why girls needed higher education. And for the inspiration for my work, I thank the people I love most of all—Quixada, Christopher, and Leah; I wish I knew what I know now when you were young. Thank you for loving me for what I gave you, and for forgiving me for what I couldn’t or didn’t know. We do the best we can, but undoubtedly we could all do better. I hope this book improves the lives of all children everywhere. Yvonne Vissing

Contents

Part I

Constructing the Foundation

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introducing Children’s Human Rights in the USA . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Guiding Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Clinical Sociology and Children’s Human Rights: A Good Marriage of the Minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Central Themes to Be Addressed in This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Structure of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 8 9

2

Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Construction of This Book and Children’s Lives . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Construction Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Construction Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Furnishing the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11 12 13 14 15

3

What Is a Child? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Why Words We Choose Are Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Words We Choose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Human Beings Versus Human Becomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 The CRC Determination of What Is a Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Categorical Determinations: When Is a Child Not a Child? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 17 18 20 22

Framing of Children and Their Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 What Is a Framework? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 40

1

4

3 3 4

24 25

xiii

xiv

Contents

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6 5

What Is a Narrative and How Does It Relate to Child Rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Examples of Narratives That Reinforce Frameworks About Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed . . . . 4.4.1 Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Relationships Between Beliefs and Values . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Bias Against and by Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is the US Framework About Children? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 The Official Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 A Ctradictory Official Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 The Unofficial Official Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 The Confusing Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 The Informal Child Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 42 42 43 45 45 47 51 51 52 53 55 56 58

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights . . . . . 61 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.2 What Are Rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.2.1 Moral Foundation of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.2.2 Rights in Different Spheres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.2.3 Positive and Negative Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.2.4 Human Rights and Human Rights Law . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.3 A Brief History of International Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.4 A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.4.1 Nomadic Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.4.2 Greek and Roman Influence on Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.4.3 Child Rights During the Dark and Middle Ages . . . . 69 5.4.4 Renaissance and Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.4.5 The Industrial Revolution and Children’s Rights . . . . 74 5.4.6 The Victorian Era, Industrial Revolution, and Child Rights Progressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.4.7 Histories for Children of Color and Global South Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.5 Creation of International Human Rights Treaties for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.6 The Geneva Convention and Its Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.6.1 The Fourth Geneva Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5.7 Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . . . . 81 5.8 Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . . . 86 5.8.1 History of the CRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.8.2 The Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . . . . . 88 5.9 Foundation of Children’s Human Rights as a Framework . . . . . 106 5.9.1 Defining Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Contents

5.10 6

7

xv

5.9.2 The 3 P Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 5.9.3 Partnership Model for Child Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Importance of Good Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 The Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 World Health Organization: UNICEF: Lancet Commission 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Health Affairs 50 Year Comparative Analysis . . . . . . 6.3.3 UNICEF Worlds of Influence Report . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Other Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Kids Rights Foundation and Children’s World Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.7 International Commitment to Children’s Rights . . . . 6.4 How Do the 50 States Compare on Child Rights? . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Poverty and Its Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Health and Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Child Abuse in All Its Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Adverse Child Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Juvenile Justice Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 113 114 116

123 124 126 129 130 135 141 142 143 145

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building a Children’s Human Rights Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Heterogeneity of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Social Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Sex and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Sex, Gender, and LGBTTTQQIAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Family Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Economic Challenges Facing the Family . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Economic Challenges Facing Children . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Childcare as a Child’s Universal Right . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 Family Lifestyle Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Exposure to Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Child Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147 147 147 149 151 154 154 156 157 159 160 162 163 164 169

117 118 119 120 121 122

xvi

Contents

7.6

7.7 Part II 8

7.5.3 Corporal Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Gun Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflict Over Who Owns Children’s Bodies and Healthcare Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Accessing Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Accessing Sex Education and Reproductive Care . . . 7.6.3 Accessing Vaccines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.4 Medical Treatment for Ill Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

170 171 173 174 175 176 176 177

Constructing the Floor

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Importance of Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Historical Skews of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Journey of Children’s Human Rights in the USA Across Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 A Brief Overview of the History of Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Impact of the Suffragette and Progressive Movements on Child Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Presidential Child Rights Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 President Theodore Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 President Howard Taft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3 President Woodrow Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.5 President Herbert Hoover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.6 President Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.7 Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.8 Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson . . . . . 8.4.9 Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford . . . . . . . . 8.4.10 President Jimmy Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.11 President Ronald Reagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.12 President Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.13 The Bush Presidencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.14 President Barack Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.15 President Donald Trump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.16 President Joe Biden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Framing History Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 The Fight Over Whether to Keep the Past . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 The Need for Changing the Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181 181 182 184 185 186 188 190 191 191 192 193 194 196 197 198 199 200 201 201 202 204 205 205 206 206 208 211

Contents

9

10

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Fragmentation of Academic Fields Influences Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 History of the Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Academic Determinations of Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . 9.5 Bio-Medical, Bio-Social Social Children’s Theories . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 Sociobiology and Child Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 Pediatrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 Anthropology and Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 Children’s Rights Within Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10 Political Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11 Law and Legal Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12 Child Psychologists and Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . 9.13 Sociology and Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13.1 Structural-Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13.2 Conflict Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13.3 Symbolic Interaction and Labeling Theory . . . . . . . . 9.13.4 Reproduction Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13.5 Social Constructionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13.6 Clinical Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.14 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15 Social Work, Nursing, Public Health, Criminal Justice, and Applied Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16 Children’s Human Rights as a Growing Discipline . . . . . . . . . 9.17 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are Children Parental Property? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 What It Means to Own Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 History of Children as Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Legal Considerations of Children as Parental Property . . . . . . . 10.5 To Whom Do Children Belong? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.1 Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.2 Child Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5.3 Philosophical Thoughts of Children Not as Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 CRC as a Pro-Parent Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.1 Specific Articles Supporting Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6.2 Myth Busting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 Psychosocial Theories About Children as Property . . . . . . . . . 10.7.1 Reactance Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7.2 Labeling Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

213 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 225 226 227 228 230 231 231 234 235 235 236 237 238 239 240 243 243 245 246 248 250 252 253 254 254 255 257 259 259 262

xviii

Contents

10.7.3 Conflict Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications of a Child-as-Property Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case of Uvalde: An Example of Child-Parent Partnership Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

263 265

Are Children a Minority Group? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Criteria for Being a Minority Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Prejudice and Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Dehumanization of Minority Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 The Ageism Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.1 Misrecognition, Microageisms, and Macroageisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Child Stereotypes Are Similar to Elder Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . 11.6.1 Dependency Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.2 Physical Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.3 Emotional Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.4 Cognitive Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.5 Separate Housing and Care Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.6 Social Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.7 Work and Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Adultification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 Childism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271 271 272 273 274 275

10.8 10.9 10.10 11

12

Stratification and Castification of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Contextualizing the Concept of Social Stratification . . . . . . . . . 12.2.1 Types of Stratification Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 The Stratification of Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Stratification’s Impact on Adolescent Transition to Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 Intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 Intergenerationality and Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . 12.6.1 Changing Intergenerational Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 Contextualizing the Concept of Caste and Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7.1 An Alternative View of “Cast” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 The Castification of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8.1 Child Castification Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8.2 Ranking of Castification Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

267 268

276 277 278 278 278 279 279 279 280 280 283 285 287 287 288 290 291 294 295 297 298 300 301 302 306 309 311

Contents

13

Rightsology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Types of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 The Making of an “. . .Ology” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Key Parts of Children’s Human Rightsology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.1 Interdisciplinary Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.2 Scholars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.3 Child Rights Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 Fundamental Rightsology Assumptions: Static or Changeable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 Socialization and Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6.1 Socialization of Children as Rights-Holders . . . . . . . 13.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part III 14

15

xix

313 313 314 316 317 318 320 321 323 324 326 327

Constructing the Walls

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 What Are the 3Ps? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 Defining Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3.1 CRC Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 Defining Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4.1 CRC Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 Defining Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5.1 CRC Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 Why Are the 3 Ps Important for Children? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6.1 Why Provision Is an Important Children’s Human Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6.2 Why Protection Is an Important Children’s Human Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6.3 Why Participation Is an Important Children’s Human Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7 US Child 3P Systems: Where Is the Human Rights Framework? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

331 331 331 333 334 335 336 338 338 340

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Provision System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Provision Misunderstandings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1 Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2 Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.3 Child Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.4 The Vulnerability-Risk Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

347 347 348 349 349 351 351 351

340 342 343 344 346

xx

Contents

15.4

Targeted Provision Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4.1 History of Targeted Models Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4.2 Problems with Targeted Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Universal Model of Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5.1 The Medicare-Medicaid Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Targeted Universalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7.1 Keep Doing What We Are Doing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7.2 Systems Redesign Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 365

Systems of US Child Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 What Is Child Protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 Child Protection Systems in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.1 A Brief History of Child Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.2 What Exactly Are We Protecting Children From? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.3 Who Are We Protecting Children For? . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System . . . . . . . . 16.4.1 Comprehensive Children’s Human Rights Protection System (CCHRPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.2 Community Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.3 Corporate Protections of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.4 Global Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

367 367 368 370 371

Systems of Child Participation in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 Ways To Conceptualize Youth Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.1 Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.2 Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2.3 Volunteerism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 History’s Mixed Message About Child Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 The Child as Citizen Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 The Child Participation Conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5.1 Children as Decision Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 Participation and Play as Children’s Human Right . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 Research About Youth Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8 Demographic Factors Impacting Youth Participation . . . . . . . . 17.9 Scaffolded Models of Youth Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9.1 Hart’s Ladder of Youth Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9.2 Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . 17.9.3 The Act for Youth Engagement Model . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9.4 Other Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

399 399 400 401 402 403 404 406 407 409 410 413 414 415 416 416 417 417

15.5 15.6 15.7

15.8 16

17

375 375 378 378 389 391 394 396

Contents

17.9.5 Longitudinal Model of Youth Engagement . . . . . . . . 17.9.6 Generational Trend Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Participation in Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.10.1 Clubs and Organizational Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 17.10.2 Participation in Work Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taking a Seat at the Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation in the Digital World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.13.1 Youth Digital Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.13.2 Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warnings Against Children’s Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

418 418 419 420 421 424 425 426 427 428 429 430

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example . . . . 18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 Education and Children’s Human Rights Provision . . . . . . . . . 18.3 Who and What Is Education For? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 Locations for Delivery of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4.1 Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4.2 Charter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4.3 Private Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4.4 Homeschools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4.5 For-Profit Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 Pressure to Change Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 Human Being or Becomings Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 Importance of Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 School Structure and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9 Curriculum Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.9.1 Book Banning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10 Are All Children Taught Equally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10.1 Educational Apartheid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10.2 Institutionalized Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10.3 Institutionalized Genderism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10.4 Language and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.10.5 Students with Ability Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.11 Are Schools Social Service Agencies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.11.1 School Healthcare Provisions and Participations . . . . 18.12 Education and Children’s Human Right to Protections . . . . . . . 18.12.1 How Safe Are Children at School? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.12.2 Rights-Respecting School and Climates . . . . . . . . . . 18.12.3 Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.12.4 School Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.12.5 Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.13 Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation . . . . . . 18.13.1 School Climate and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

433 433 434 434 436 436 437 438 438 439 440 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 450 451 452 453 454 455 455 456 457 458 459 460

17.10

17.11 17.12 17.13

17.14 17.15 18

xxi

xxii

Contents

18.14 18.15

18.16 Part IV 19

18.13.2 Student’s Legal Rights to Participation . . . . . . . . . . . A Children’s Human Rights Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.14.1 Human Rights Education (HRE) as the Key . . . . . . . Case Studies and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.15.1 Scotland Getting It Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.15.2 Canadas Human Rights Education Approach . . . . . . 18.15.3 UNICEF’s Education Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.15.4 Wales Children’s Rights Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.15.5 Save the Children Education Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.15.6 Other HRE Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

461 467 467 469 470 471 472 473 473 474 474

Constructing the Roof

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2 Rights in Different Spheres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.2.1 Individual vs Community: Spheres in Conflict . . . . . 19.2.2 Hard and Soft Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 Underpinnings of the Constitution, UDHR, CRC and Child Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 The US Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4.1 Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5.1 Court Rulings Supporting Children’s Rights . . . . . . . 19.5.2 Children’s Rights to Education in the US . . . . . . . . . 19.5.3 Right to Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5.4 Other Considerations of Children’s Constitutional Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6 Child Protection and the Criminal Justice System . . . . . . . . . . 19.6.1 CRC Article 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.6.2 Children as Perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.7 Brain Development and Juvenile Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 Police Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.9 Juvenile Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10 Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.1 Children’s Human Rights and the Court . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.2 Social Class Bias in the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.3 JLWOP and Death Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.10.4 Restorative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.11 A New Paradigm for Child Law and the Constitution . . . . . . . 19.12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

479 479 480 481 482 483 484 484 498 501 504 507 510 511 511 513 516 519 520 522 523 525 526 527 528 530

Contents

20

21

22

The Children’s Human Rights Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 A Brief History of Children’s Human Rights Movements . . . . . 20.2.1 Declaration on the Rights of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.2 American Youth Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2.3 Other Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.3 Public Misinformation Thwarting Child Rights Movement . . . . 20.4 Directions for Children’s Human Rights in the USA . . . . . . . . 20.4.1 Is There a Children’s Human Rights Movement in the USA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 What Exactly Is a Social Movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5.1 Steps in a Social Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5.2 Human Rights Social Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 Where Are the Children in the Children’s Rights Movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 Applying Social Movement Theory to the Children’s Human Rights Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.8 Piggybacking on the Anti-Trauma Social Movement . . . . . . . . 20.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxiii

531 531 531 532 533 535 537 537 539 543 543 545 546 547 550 551

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Constructing a Narrative of Children as Rights-Holders . . . . . . 21.3 Conceptualizing Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Using Child-Rights Conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 Common Troubles Talking About Children as Rights-Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 The Value of Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.7 Dialogue and Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 Freire Model of Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 How to “Do” a Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.10 Dialogue as Key to Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.11 Dialogue and Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.12 Teaching Dialogue to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.13 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

561 564 565 568 569 570 571 572 573

Investing in Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Investment, Cost, and Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 Why Investing in Child Rights Is Essential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 Types of Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4.1 Financial Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4.2 Social Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4.3 Government Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

575 575 576 577 578 578 578 579

553 553 554 557 558

xxiv

Contents

22.5 22.6

22.7 22.8 22.9 22.10 23

22.4.4 Family and Emotional Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Investing in Children Decision-Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5.1 Deciding Who’s Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Models of Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6.1 Inaction Model of Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6.2 Rational Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6.3 Good-Enough Decision Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investing in Children’s Development from a Human Rights Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Investment Example: Student Loan Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Do We Get Others to Care About Children? . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunities and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.1 Change the Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.2 Change the Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.3 National Reorganization of Children’s Programs . . . . 23.2.4 Embed Child Participation at All Levels . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.5 Ratify and Implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.6 The CRC by Another Name and Form . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.7 The All Children Thrive National Children’s Strategy (ACT America) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.8 The Frameworks and Leading for Kids Approach . . . 23.2.9 Children’s Human Rights Public Health Model . . . . . 23.2.10 Build a Children’s Human Right Education Learning-to-Action Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2.11 Scaffolding Children’s Human Rights Education and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.1 Updating the CRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.2 Lack of National Support for International Human Rights Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.3 Federalism and Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.4 Targeted Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.5 Systems Are Not Designed to Deal with Unaccompanied Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.6 Child Maturity Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.7 Parental Fears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3.8 LSEDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

579 580 582 583 584 585 585 586 587 589 591 593 593 594 595 597 597 599 600 602 603 605 606 609 622 623 626 628 629 629 630 630 631 631 632

Contents

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 Revisiting the Building Construction Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 Curse of the Child as Property Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.4 Why the US Should Institutionalize a Children’s Human Rights Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 Change the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 Creation of a New Social Contract for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6.1 President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal . . . . . . . . . 24.6.2 President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society . . . . . . . . 24.6.3 Did Ronald Reagan Create a New Social Contract? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 Proposed New Social Contract Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7.1 Global Social Contract Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7.2 National Social Contract Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7.3 State and Local Social Contract Models . . . . . . . . . . 24.7.4 Social Responsibility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7.5 Impact of the Pandemic and Social Contract . . . . . . . 24.8 Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8.1 Step One: Change The National Narrative About Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8.2 Step 2: Change in Our National Structures Regarding Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8.3 Potential Directions for US Children’s Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8.4 Who Are Going to Be Children’s Human Rights Defenders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxv

633 633 634 636 638 638 642 642 645 645 646 646 647 648 649 650 651 651 654 657 658 660

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797

Part I

Constructing the Foundation

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is. Greta Thunberg at the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, January, 2019

Part I introduces readers to what children and children’s rights are and how they have gotten framed across time. It explores why we believe what we do and challenges the reader to consider why changing the nation’s framework would be in “the best interests of the child”. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built Chapter 3:What Is a Child? Chapter 4: Framing Children and Their Rights Chapter 5: Understanding the Foundation for Children’s Human Rights Chapter 6: Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important Chapter 7: Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building a Children’s Human Rights Framework

Chapter 1

Introduction

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from the jail in Birmingham, Alabama, April 16, 1963

1.1

Introducing Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Children’s human rights are one of the last bastions to be shattered in the larger human rights movement. The lowly way that children are viewed is no accident. The fight for, and opposing, children’s human rights is embedded into complex structural, institutional, and ideological positions that have been socially constructed across time. As human beings, all children are entitled to human rights. The fight for civil and human rights in the United States is far from over; the nation is at a critical junction as it decides how it will proceed with respect to democracy, justice, equality, health, and world leadership. The future of a society depends upon our investment in children. Our investments, in attitude, action as well as money, will influence whether children will have well-being in every sense of the word. A children’s human rights framework, as outlined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), provides a roadmap for us to chart a good course of action for children, families, and the nation. As today’s conditions influence tomorrow’s reality, what course we choose to chart will determine what we as a nation can expect to see in the future as children today become the parents, workers, or, leaders.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_1

3

4

1.2

1 Introduction

Guiding Assumptions

This book starts with three assumptions. One, we all care about children. Two, we all want what is best for them. Three, most people misunderstand what it means to have human rights, and this misunderstanding has complicated the way children are treated. These assumptions bond us together and are key to how we decide to move forward regarding the issue of children being given human rights. The thing that differentiates us is how we conceptualize care and define what is best for them. On the surface, best care should be obvious; it is encapsulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). What is challenging is the different ways that we think about children, what they need, and what they are entitled to have. Even if we define what they need similarly, we may find ourselves caught over how to implement them pragmatically. Inherent are issues of humanity, compassion, responsibility, respect, power, control, and human rights. We do not operationalize rights issues in the same way and we may carry them out quite differently. Children may be our national treasure, but they aren’t a national priority. The USA was once a world leader in promoting children’s human rights and well-being. It’s not anymore. Today, children are our main group of citizens who are most likely to experience poverty, homelessness, exposure to violence, obesity, and health problems (Frameworks Institute 2021; Haider 2021; Lowrey 2018; Oberg et al. 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic has made apparent a fight over whether children have rights to healthcare, education, food, and basic survival. Economic inequities have resulted in children being the group most likely to be poor in the nation. Violence has become seen as an acceptable strategy for dealing with interpersonal tension. Racial oppression has resulted in disparity in even young children’s lives. Political and religious groups put children in the middle of an ideological tug-of-war. Gun violence has become part of their everyday lives. Trauma, mental illness, and suicide have become normative experiences. Children’s realities, opportunities, and the way they see the world are being crafted by the way we have directly or indirectly chosen to construct their lives. There are many adults who are horrified that this has become the reality for millions of American children. Countless individuals work tirelessly to improve the lives of children. But as seen at heated school board meetings across the nation where anti-masker-anti-vaxer adults threaten education officials who require that students and teachers wear masks and get vaccinated to curb the spread of the coronavirus, it is clear that adults are not on the same page about how children are to be protected. Differences about how children’s rights are to be addressed is seen in whether gay couples should be allowed to go to the senior prom together, of transstudents can use the restroom of their gender, if young people should be able to own or buy a gun, what they wear, or whether students can wear their hair a certain way if they are to participate in school athletic team sports. Children (who are defined as anyone under age 18) have different experiences and opportunities because of the way their childhood is constructed.

1.2

Guiding Assumptions

5

The future of America rests in part on how the country prepares the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments that last a lifetime. Yet, many children in the United States do not have the resources or relationships they need to build a strong foundation for their future. (Cabrera et al. 2022)

This book takes a serious look at the narrative we hold about children and how the human rights of children got framed in the United States. Using a clinical sociology framework, this book will examine research, trends, history, ideology, where we as a nation have done well, and where we still have a long way to go when it comes to addressing children’s human rights. Readers will be provided credible data for consideration, data that often paints a picture that’s not very pretty. Different ways children, and their rights, have gotten framed will be examined. These differences have contributed to a form of social schizophrenia, where we think children’s lives are fine when in reality they are anything but for millions of them. Complex conceptual, ideological, and structural factors have morphed into a national framework about whether children are entitled to human rights. A review of the Constitution, human rights treaty articles, and legal standards about children will provide opportunities for readers to grapple with how children and their rights will be addressed in the future. The book will explore what children’s human rights are and how we could make a rights-respecting framework work (Hammarberg 1990). Ask anyone what they think about children and childhood today and they will spin a narrative that is rich with details, examples, and assumptions. One person’s narrative may be quite different from that of other individuals because we have had different experiences, histories, and cultural expectations about what childre’s lives are supposed to be like. This makes communication between us challenging, especially when we cling to our narratives as being right and correct. The problem with the narratives that adults may spin is that they may not include children’s perspectives and experiences from their point of view. As long as adults are in charge of deciding the “correct” narrative or framework about children’s lives, the voice, and agency of children are muffled. It’s like having men set the narrative about women’s lives, Christians about Muslims, white individuals about black individuals—or vice versa. We all benefit when there is a real, authentic, and transparent dialogue about our experiences and needs. Moreover, when children are talked about, they are not talked about as rightsholders. Narratives about children being poor exist, but where is the discourse about poverty being a violation of children’s rights? Well-meaning discussions about children’s well-being are not the same thing as discussions about being rightholders. Children’s bodies and minds are the most valued targets of adults. Adults feel it is their responsibility to shape children’s minds and control their actions. Certainly, it is the adult’s responsibility to care for children and protect them. They are our most cherished parts of ourselves that embody our hopes, dreams, family legacies, and the recipients of our time, social, financial, physical. and emotional investments. Their successes become our successes, their failures our own. Yet there is a boundary issue inherent in our relationship with them. One extreme treats children like fish in a bowl, allowing them to swim around only in a limited environment that we adults

6

1 Introduction

control. Overprotective, we fear that they will die if they are out of the bowl so we go overboard trying to micromanage every possible thing that could go wrong for them or harm them. This, from a parents’ point of view, is obsessive and exhausting. There is another school of thought that we do what we can to keep children safe but children have agency and benefit when allowed to have more control over what they want to do, think, and adventure (Crawford 2021). The question is how much freedom to give children to do what and when. Neglect over the details has put children at risk. The way we have been taught to view children is not dissimilar to how women, people of different religions or of racial and ethnic groups have been viewed, stereotyped, and had their rights ignored. Women, the Grey Panthers, the Black Lives Matter, or LGBTQ+ groups have had the ability to mobilize and advocate for fair and just treatment. Children, however, have relied upon adults to do so. Despite the rhetoric that children are highly valued, we have come to put a price on our “priceless” children, according to scholar Viviana Zelizer, with some children being seen as worth more than others. Data indicates that we do not invest in other people’s children like we do our own. Theories of stratification, labeling, intersectionality, and intergenerationality provide plausible explanations. Age is the common factor that I am using to examine the oppression of all people under age 18. In the past young people have not been perceived as a social activist group. But this is changing. This book will help explain why.

1.3

Clinical Sociology and Children’s Human Rights: A Good Marriage of the Minds

Children and human rights can be explored from many different perspectives, as will be elucidated in this book. The primary approach chosen for this book is a clinical sociological approach because of its richness in explaining both the macro and micro dimensions of these concepts. Clinical sociology provides an orientation that unites macro, meso, and micro level social levels, structural and process factors, as well as institutional and interpersonal reactions in ways that help us to make sense of complex social phenomena. Once we understand what’s going on, a clinical sociological approach gives us tools that we can use to make things better. A clinical sociological approach is based on a human rights framework that is data-driven at a practical as well as theoretical level. The types of applications, assistance, and interventions put into place determine the direction of the children’s futures. A clinical sociology framework is fundamental in being of assistance in influencing organizational decision-making in a positive direction for this vulnerable population. The clinical sociological approach demonstrates how research can be applied to organizational policies, practices, processes, and procedures that directly impact individual lives. Its emphasis on the application of scholarship to everyday practice

1.3

Clinical Sociology and Children’s Human Rights: A Good Marriage of. . .

7

is significant. The line between scholarship and advocacy is a thin one when it comes to the study of human rights, which makes a clinical sociological approach a useful fit in understanding how our nation is addressing the human rights of children. “Virtually every issue involving human rights raises questions about justice and the ethical responsibility to act to prevent or intervene in human suffering whenever possible. . . To educate about human rights is to advocate for their protection and to progress toward the elimination of the conditions and practices associated with the violation of these rights” (Wilmer 2015).

Clinical sociology is a humanistic, rights-based, and multidisciplinary specialization of the field of sociology (Fritz 2020a, b). Theoretical and research-driven, it is a field designed to improve life situations for a variety of individuals and groups, including children and youth. Its applicability to different situations and contexts is rich and flexible. The human rights underpinnings of clinical sociology are apparent in its values, contextualization, methodology, and applications. Clinical sociologists rely upon good theory and research to design interventions that are effective in improving the lives of individuals, groups, and communities (Zevallos 2014). The field can thus be seen as a bridge between scholarship and advocacy. It is a mainstay of sociology that has been traced back to the fourteenth-century work of the Arab scholar and statesperson Abd-al-Rahman ibn Khaldun (1332–1406). The term clinical sociology was mentioned in Spain as early as 1899. The term became common in the United States during the late 1920s and early 1930s and appeared in course titles at the University of Chicago, documents written by a medical school dean at Yale who wanted to have physicians trained in what he called clinical sociology, and a 1931 American Journal of Sociology article, “Clinical Sociology,” by sociologist Louis Wirth. Since 1983, clinical sociologists can be certified by the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology (AACS) and, since 1995, academic programs have been accredited through the Commission for the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology (CAPACS) (American Sociological Association 2003; Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology 2019; Commission on the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology 2019). The term “clinical” applies to the transformation of scholarly information into pragmatic use within a variety of institutional and organizational (macro) contexts, as well as by individuals and groups within how they interact with and treat others (micro context), or meso level. Clinical sociological work can be multisystem in nature (e.g., interpersonal, family, organizational, community, national, international) and its approach can be used by policymakers and in strategic planning or problem-solving by many different fields (e.g., education, healthcare, social services, immigration, housing, environment, counselling). Clinical sociologists work to assess situations and avoid, reduce, or solve problems through a combination of analysis and intervention. Clinical analysis is the critical assessment of beliefs, policies, or practices, with an interest in improving a situation. It is research and data-driven. Interventions are based on continuing analysis; effective social change requires the collection of new data and revisions

8

1 Introduction

for more impactful implementation. The focus of clinical sociology is a rights-based, humanistic approach that implies that existing social systems and institutions may need to be changed in order to be more effective; new ways of conceptualizing problems or interacting with others may need to be created. It has an emphasis on prevention or promotion (e.g., preventing improper treatment of juveniles or promoting excellent healthcare delivery or education systems). Children’s lives naturally intersect with a variety of social institutions. Because clinical sociologists have many areas of expertise such as education, law, healthcare, environmental protection, challenging social inequalities, community development, social conflict reduction, evaluation research, or cultural-competence, they are able to bridge the different parts of children’s lives in an efficacious manner (Bruhn 2001; Cole 2017; Fritz 1989, 1992, 2020a, b; Zevallos 2014). They may work in various capacities, as educators, juvenile justice, social services, healthcare, and other types of organizations. A children’s human rights-respecting framework implies that partners within different social institutions coordinate their efforts to achieve the desired result. If children are regarded as entitled to human rights, as rights-holders their rights should be honoured in all arenas of life, such as in the family, in schools, criminal justice, social services, healthcare, media, sports, and other community institutions. Clinical sociologists acknowledge that a systems model exists where all social institutions are interlinked and interdependent. A change in the way children are treated by one institution has implications for they are treated in others. If their rights are honoured in the family they are more likely to be implemented in other institutions by parents who are rights-defenders. If rights are honoured by governments, measures may be taken to embed them into schools, courts, healthcare, and other organizations. Conversely, if rights are not respected at one social level, this reduces the chances that rights will be respected by others. The types of assistance and interventions that a community puts into place largely determine the direction of the children’s futures. Organizations and communities that exude an affluent rights-respecting climate create different outcomes for young people than do those that are paucity and oppression, marginalization, paucity, and problem-infused. Clinical sociology frameworks can be of assistance in creating better community climates, caring organizations, and positive adult-child communications. It has valuable potential for influencing organizational decision-making in a constructive direction for this vulnerable population of young people to secure their rights and obtain better treatment, particularly in the areas of provision, protection, and participation.

1.4

Central Themes to Be Addressed in This Book

Themes that will be advanced in this book include the following:

1.5

Structure of This Book

9

1. Explanation of what children’s human rights are and why they are important. 2. Children’s human rights have not been defended in the US and we are seeing the negative consequences of that. 3. A new children’s rights framework is needed by the US to improve children’s well-being and the well-being of the nation. 4. Children are a minority group who have suffered stigma, marginalization, and discrimination similar to other minority groups. 5. A national lack of commitment to defending all children’s human rights exists in practice and policy at all institutional levels. 6. Social systems designed to address children’s provision, protection, and participation are fragmented and a major source of longitudinal inequality. 7. The 3 P’s of children’s rights will be explained. 8. Whether children are covered by the US Constitution will be explored. 9. Competing social movements and political agendas exist that may determine the direction of children’s human rights in the US. 10. Future directions for children’s human rights will be examined. Readers will leave with a scholarly understanding of the children’s rights movement, its origins, implications, and considerations for their applications.

1.5

Structure of This Book

This book is divided into four parts and builds the chapters within a constructionist skeleton. Part 1 focuses on Constructing The Foundation of children’s human rights, where they are defined, explained about why they are important, and foundational information about how we have come to view children the way we do. Part II, Constructing the Walls, details the processes by which our different views about children have been formed and how they serve to keep our views intact. Challenges to those views are provided as windows to look out at different ways to view children’s rights. The third part of the book, Constructing the Floors, examines how children are grounded within the areas of provision, protection, and participation and how social systems build into their structures and infrastructures views of children that would better serve young people if they moved to a rights-respecting framework. The last section of the book discusses options for how we are Constructing the Roof of children’s human rights and how we could build upward a children’s rights narrative or whether we will keep a lid on them. The study of children’s human rights in the United States is filled with questions to be answered in this book, including—Do children have their rights protected in the United States? Which of their rights are protected, which ones aren’t—and why? Who makes those decisions? How did the conceptual frameworks we assume to be true about children and their rights get socially constructed? Why do we choose some views of children and their rights instead of other views? What are the implications of the frames we choose and the decisions we make—not just for

10

1 Introduction

children but for society as a whole? Ultimately, an overarching question looms—are children entitled to the same human rights as any other group? If they are entitled to them, then do they receive the same human rights access and protections as other groups? If not, why not? These questions will be examined in the pages that follow.

Chapter 2

Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built

“Our house is a very very very fine house”. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young

2.1

Construction of This Book and Children’s Lives

I live in a 1743 post-and-beam house. It has served dozens of generations and families over the years, and will likely serve dozens more. It is a strong, wellconstructed house. The Wason family who built it when George Washington was only 11 years old, long before the United States became a nation in 1776, did not have sophisticated tools. But they knew the fundamentals about what a house required in order to be strong and last many lifetimes. It is beautiful and solid; it serves us well and undoubtedly will support others in the future when we too are long gone. A few years ago, I decided we should build a post-and-beam barn on my property. It was a team effort to design and construct it. The first beam hammered into place, the mudsill, anchored the foundation and ran along the base of the barn. Once in place, it could bear the weight of the entire structure and support the walls, doors, windows, second floor, and ultimately the roof. Everything built was contingent upon the strength and placement of the first beam. Architects know that without designing and constructing a strong first floor they cannot build an enduring second floor. Without a strong second floor, there can’t be a third, fourth, attic or penthouse from which to survey the world. Good materials must be used in order to make any building sustainable. If builders cut corners and don’t buy quality materials or have shoddy workmanship, we will all pay for it down the road. A lack of investment may not show up immediately. But sooner or later, a house made with a poor design, low-grade products, a lack of good craftsmanship, and inferior construction will cause the house to fall. If we want to repair it and shore

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_2

11

12

2 Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built

it up, it may end up costing us a lot more and be more aggravating than if we had invested wisely and well in the first place. Children are our society’s first floor. Everything we build is dependent on the foundation and investments we make in our children. The future of a society depends upon its investment in children. Our investments, in attitude, action, and money, influence whether children will have well-being in every sense of the word. If we design good programs and make appropriate investments in children, children will survive and thrive—and so will societies. Nations and communities that invest heavily in children are also investing heavily in their future. People will long to live in places that have invested in the goodness of children, families, communities, institutions, and their future. If we don’t, they won’t. A children’s human rights framework provides a blueprint for the nation to build a good structure to support children, families, and the nation. As today’s conditions influence tomorrow’s reality, the framework we choose and the decisions and investments we make will determine what we get. What we can expect to see in the future as children today become parents, workers, criminals, and leaders is dependent upon our choices today. Children’s lives in the US are the way they are because we have constructed them to be this way. We have a variety of ways that we can choose to perceive children, their rights, and the way we think they should be treated. If we don’t like what we see, we as adults and community leaders have the power to change it.

2.2

Construction Images

Four construction images are useful in helping us understand what’s going on. One: Research conducted by countless scholars around the world proves that what happens in the early years of a child’s life will have lifelong consequences. If we don’t help children to build healthy bodies, minds, and spirits, chances for their longterm success may crumble. Two: Anyone who has ever worked on a jigsaw puzzle or built a Lego structure knows that seeing the picture first of what we are to construct makes it a lot easier to work the problem. Looking at all the disparate, scattered pieces makes it hard to figure out how the pieces fit together. It will take a lot more time to put together because we don’t have an image of where we are going. Some of us may throw our hands up in dismay and give up on the task. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a children’s human rights framework, provides us a set of instructions for how we can go about constructing a better world for children. Three: Clinical sociologists utilize the notion of the social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann 1996). What we see today is a product of the way we have constructed the way we view individuals and the way we transform those beliefs into our social institutions, norms, folkways, mores, and laws. Reality is not static but can manifest in a variety of forms, many of which may be more aligned with meeting “the best interests of the child”.

2.3

Construction Processes

13

Four: Child studies scholars developed the theory of the social construction of childhood. It is a thoughtful examination of how the ways we construct the lives of children will yield predictable results (Freeman 2017; Prout and James 1997; Qvortrup 1991, 2009). As it stands now in the US, if we do not like what we see, we have the opportunity to construct a different framework, policies, and practices that will lead to better lives for children and society. How children turn out depends upon the resources and opportunities we invest in them. Looking around the world and across time, it is clear that some children have fared very well while others experience tragic lives. It has less to do with their gender, race, or biology than our structures and interactions which adults construct that determine how children’s lives will unfold. From a prevention and public health approach, we are reaping what we have sown. My mentor, pediatrician Ray Helfer taught me that if we invested today in giving children the central resources identified in the CRC, in a single generation we’d shift the way we think about and care for children, and in two generations we could turn the tide to create a better world. People in the United States care about children. We say we love and protect them; we also say we care about democracy, freedom, independence, self-determination, and equality. But when it comes to children, we have broken our promises to them. There is a national disjuncture between what we say we believe and what we do as a country for them. Children are vulnerable members of society; the fact that children are vulnerable means that they deserve special protection. Children are also members of society—that is, individuals with rights of their own. But all too often both they and their rights come as an afterthought, if at all (Lee 2017). Some children, like our children, are regarded as priceless miracles to be treasured and in whom we willingly invest enormous sums of emotion, time, energy, and money. But some children— especially other people’s children—do not receive the same amount of attention or resource. Isabel Wilkerson (2021:17) observes that the US has “an unseen skeleton that is as central to its operation as are the studs and joints that we cannot see in the physical buildings.” This skeleton is our social caste system. She regards caste as the infrastructure of our social divisions, the architecture of the human hierarchy in which we pass along a subconscious code of instruction for maintaining our social order. In this book, I allege that childhood is a form of caste system. The caste system we created put children into a separate and identifiable category. The ways we view and treat children are an example of social construction. If we refuse to redesign how we are constructing their lives, and unless we are willing to invest in more strengths and supports, we better be prepared for very heavy repair costs.

2.3

Construction Processes

Constructing a house, office building, or mega-complex cannot happen overnight. There are steps that must be taken in building anything. Think about it—first the land is cleared, a basement is dug, then a foundation is poured, followed by the mudsill,

14

2

Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built

sides, walls, windows, doors, and ultimately the roof. Building means we must have hammers and nails, screws and drills, insulation, heating, water, and electric systems, and countless other pieces of equipment to put wood, plastic, glass, concrete, metal, and other pieces in place. We rely upon a blueprint to tell us what needs to go where, and in what order. When new buildings are constructed, frameworks are built from A to Z. A “fixer-upper” buildings starting to fall down, or in need of renovation require other construction details. For instance, my 1743 house had “good bones”. I have kept much of the house in its original form. But I have torn down walls and put up new ones; I have ripped out entire rooms and redesigned them to better suit our needs. I’ve put in new windows to let the light in, and put clapboards over some other ones where the rain kept leaking in—the original design was so flawed that there was no way to fix it, even though we tried multiple other ways. Starting with a solid structure allowed us to make it beautiful and more functional. There are still pieces that need tweaking. I suspect that is a reality for life—everything and everybody needs attention. The new car we buy will eventually need an oil change and new tires to keep running safely; the furnace will need to be cleaned periodically to keep it running efficiently to keep us warm. Building a children’s human rights framework is a similar process. It cannot be constructed overnight. But we are not starting from scratch; there are already pieces of a children’s human rights framework that are available. They are not coordinated. We have been tweaking some of the pieces for years and some parts are better, while some don’t work particularly well and need to be removed. We need new additions. It is possible to design a new blueprint that will show us what pieces to keep, what needs to go, and what can be removed to fit the new framework. For instance, I hear complaints about the child protection system in the US. There are complaints aplenty about the police. Who will take care of abused children if we get rid of child protective services? Having nothing will only put all children at terrible risk. Defunding the police could result in having no officers there to help us when we have a car wreck, someone is shooting at us, or we need help finding someone who stole our dog. We need systems. They were created because they worked better than nothing but they could be redesigned to work more effectively and efficiently for the good of all. We have a framework for how we are addressing the lives of children. It is not working well. We need a new design, a new framework, a new way of building their futures—and the future of our nation.

2.4

Furnishing the House

The outside of a house can look beautiful; the walls can look sturdy. What what we put into the house determines its utililty. As a Guardian ad Litem, I have done home visits to fancy houses and found little in the refridgerator, no books or toys, animal feces on the floor, and environments that are not conducive to supporting a child’s

2.5

Summary

15

wellbeing. In other home visits, the outsides were far from elegant but there was joy inside, an an abundance of love between the family members, nutritious food to eat, and interesting things for children to do. What we put inside the house inluences the trajectory of a child’s life. Certainly, money and elevated social classes provide parents more opportunities to furnish the house with resources that can support children, but money and material items are not the only things that children require in order to grow well. Lyrics of the song, The Good Guys, convey words worth remembering: “. . .you’re building the halls with the outer walls But you haven’t got a thing within. . . Eventually the whole façade [will fall]” if we aren’t careful about what we put inside the walls (Melanie 2022). In our constructionist approach, what we put inside the walls and into the halls of the houses and institutions we construct for children matter. Are doors open or locked shut? Is their sunlight or darkness? Are there enough of the good things that children need in order to surive and thrive? Do the interactions inside the buildings support the walls of our children, and what they contain inside? It is important to furnish the physical structures, and important to be careful about what we put inside them. If we do not invest in good electricity, plumbing, heat, furniture, and material accoutrements, the house is not going to work well. The same thing applies to children. If we do not put the essentials that children require for a good life, they are going to crumble. We already see the national lack of investment wearing away at their mental health, anxiety, depression, and physical health ailments.

2.5

Summary

A constructionist model is used throughout this book. The ways that we have come to view children and childhood have been socially constructed across time and by different ideologies and academic disciplines. The laws, policies, and practices that we use to address children’s issues have been socially constructed as well. Certainly, the way individual children’s lives unfold are associated with the resources, opportunities, and challenges they face. As a nation, the way we are investing in children and constructing their options is designed to get the outcomes we observe now. There are ways to ensure that children are set up to have good lives today and for their futures. A wise strategy is to invest in the future of our nation; we have the capability to become an international the role model for human rights and the care for our children. We know the steps on how to build a good society and good lives. It is not enough just to build a good house. We have to be very careful about what we put into it. We must be very careful about what kinds of investments we put into our children’s lives. If we want children to construct their lives in a rights respecting way, it can shape a positive direction for the world. Human rights, freedom, democracy, and being a kind and moral person are all related. Clinical sociologists like me grew up believing

16

2 Constructing the House on Which Our Nation Is Built

the strains of songs like If I Had A Hammer: “I got a hammer And I’ve got a bell And I’ve got a song to sing All over this land. It’s the hammer of justice. It’s the bell of freedom. It’s the song about love between My brothers and my sisters All over this land”. Lives of children, their future and ours as a nation, hang in the balance. Song lyrics from Led Zepplein’s Stairway To Heaven affirms that we “still have time to change the road we’re on”. But do we? And if not now, when? The field of clinical sociology shows us the directions for what we can do on individual, group, institutional, and social levels to advance human rights. It gives us a blueprint so we can be architects of a better future for our youngest citizens and the future of the nation as a whole. As clinical sociologists and human rights advocates, we have the tools to build a better tomorrow for children and youth, and each other. This blueprint and these tools will be shared in the pages that follow.

Chapter 3

What Is a Child?

Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world. Albert Camus

3.1

Introduction

As a nation, we are not in agreement about what a child is or how people of particular ages should be treated. This lack of agreement has contributed to our differential investment in children and our unwillingness to defend universal human rights to all children. This chapter is designed to illuminate some of the basic reasons surrounding our lack of clarity of exactly what is a child.

3.2

Why Words We Choose Are Important

How we refer to young people says a lot about how we view and think about them. We choose words that consciously or unconsciously convey symbolic meanings about their worth, our expectations for them, and the conceptual framework that we use to understand them. The words we use have impacts on how others see children—and how children see themselves. The question “what is a child?” seems on the surface to be straightforward and simple, yet defining what is a child is very complicated. Its confusion has contributed mightily to tensions surrounding children’s human rights. Ideologically, how children are defined and conceptualized impacts theory construction, their place in society, and why things are the way they are for them. Examining the multitude of factors considered in the definition of both children and childhood is fundamental to understanding the conundrum of why children haven’t been afforded human rights in the United States. This chapter explores their ascribed and achieved statuses and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_3

17

18

3

What Is a Child?

the roles they play, as well as how academic disciplines have contributed to different understandings of children and their rights. It also lays the foundation for why different organizations and policies cleave to one definition rather than another, and how children have been cut into pieces that fit adult agendas and organizational operations instead of serving them as a totality. Media messages reinforce certain depictions about what we are to supposed to believe about this young segment of our population. A clinical sociological perspective helps us dissect the macro and micro implications of how we label children.

3.3

The Words We Choose

There are many words that refer to children. The words we choose shape and reinforce underlying assumptions about who children are and what we can expect from them (Shashkevich 2018). We make active decisions regarding how we talk about children. The words we use demonstrate the framework that we hold about children, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. Words have symbolic meanings; they provide a narrative or strategically crafted representation of what we think—and what we want others to think. Inherent in the words are biases and beliefs. The narrative we create about children is paradoxical because it seeks to convey truth by hiding certain aspects of it (Beemgee 2022). The labels to which we refer to children convey sets of connotations, as children will angrily inform you if you refer to a six-year-old as “a baby”, or if you call a 15-year old African American male a “boy”. The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (Kay and Kempton 1984) poses the question—do words shape reality or does reality shape the words we use? As this pertains to what words we use to talk about children, the words we use create public assumptions of what children are. If children are talked about as “brats”, then our minds search for naughty children who need to be controlled; when children are termed immature, unable to make good decisions, and are stupid, these words become a tool to justify limiting their opportunities. But if we refer to young people as rights-holders who have agency and are rational and smart, this creates a different way of viewing them that affords them respect, dignity, and opportunity. Words empower or limit what or who others think we are—and what children see themselves to be. For instance, in the book, Matilda, her father berates his daughter when he is angry, telling her that “when a person is bad, they must be punished” (Dahl 1988:61). By calling her a person, rather than a child, he implied that Matilda had the same rights as other people. In doing so, he inadvertently unleashed the girl’s agency, empowerment, and the opportunity to discover her gifts and talents, and how to use them. Since the terms we use to describe people may be offensive, what should we call this group of people? Figure 1 lists common terms they are called; some terms are vague or disrespectful, others genteel and sweet, but all of them are skewed and convey a set of expectations. For instance, the term “tom-boy” evokes an entirely different message than “doll-baby”. Realizing that certain terms held negative

3.3

The Words We Choose

19

connotations, I used to think that using the word “kids” was safe. But when I showed a group of teens a draft of a survey I wanted to conduct, they made it clear that the term “`kid” was disparaging since they weren’t baby goats. The term kids has negative implications to them and points to their position of inequality. Their choice of best term is “younger person”. In this book, the terms of preference will be a child or young person. There may be times that other words are used, but generally, they will reflect a quote or particular author’s writing terminology. Disparaging terms for young persons will try to be avoided. What’s In A Name? Names have different connotations. What’s the most respectful term? Which terms are offensive? Why? Baby Toddler Preschooler Girl Little boy Little man Little adults Kid Tot Bairn Ephebe Backfish Bud, Buddy Chick Sprout Tyke Devil Imp Lad Nipper Babe Urchin Tom-boy Offspring Anklebiter Descendent Small fry Doll Pubescent Dickens Whelp Youngster

Infant Rugrat Child Boy Little girl Little lady Young adult Kiddo Moppet Bambino Younker Adohooder Chap Cub Squirt Kindergartener Cherub, Angel Minx Lassie Little Shaver Rascal Whippersnapper Teenybopper Progeny Mite Tadpole Little one Darling Brat Innocents Youngling Youth (continued)

20

3

What’s In A Name? Adolescent Tween Juvenile (Age of) Minority Young people Young woman Next generation

What Is a Child?

Preteen Teenager Minor Underage people Young man Young lady Under age

It is common for adults not to consider all young people to be children. Rather, they tend to categorize young people in the following way: babies or infants; toddlers who are new walkers to around age 3; children, which usually considers people age 4–10; adolescents or those around age 10–12, and then teenagers who go from 13–18. According to the United Nations in the CRC, all people under age 18 are considered children. There are different criteria that could be used for the determination of who is a child and there are many factors that complicate that designation. Age 18 is used as the defining factor for who is a child will be used in this book. Teens in countries that have instituted a children’s human rights framework may proudly refer to themselves as children because being a child may be regarded as a special, respected, and protected status. But in the US people learn at an early age that being considered a child refers to a demeaned group of people to whom they don’t want to belong. Hence the push to act grown-up begins at a very early age.

3.4

Human Beings Versus Human Becomings

Children soon learn in the US that they are valued more for what they will become rather than for what they are here and now. Even young children may be asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”, a question that detracts from the focus on who they are at the present moment (Engle 2019). Such a question represents the classic tension that confronts children over whether they are valued as “human beings”, “human doings” or “human becomings”. When children are valued as human doings or human becomings instead of human BEings, what they will become in the future is seen as more important than who they are today (Qvortrup 2009). Everything invested in their life is not necessarily for their enjoyment and benefit now, but designed for their future possibility to get a good job, higher education, health, or social status. Thus, adultification pressure starts when children are very young and gets more intense over time. As human BEings, children are shaping reality right here and right now—theirs as well as yours and mine. Children have agency, which refers to them having the ability to activate their own interests, talents, abilities, and wills. Babies learn how to make parents laugh; older children help care for younger ones; students calculate complicated math homework problems that their parents can’t solve; adolescents

3.4

Human Beings Versus Human Becomings

21

meaningfully volunteer in the community; and children learn how to “play their parents like a violin” to get what they want. Children from a rights-perspective have value not because of what they do or might become in the future but because of who they are in this moment. Children matter merely because they exist. Their worlds of today matter; the future hasn’t happened yet and what will happen tomorrow is dependent upon what happens today. The focus on the importance of the here-andnow-ness of children’s lives is often ignored by adults whose sights are set on what they may become tomorrow. There is an observation that people have historically not been awarded rights if they were not seen as fully equal human beings. The line between one being considered as a human being versus being entitled to human rights has not been clear in the US; the Constitution’s three-fifths clause held that slaves were only entitled to three-fifths representation in Congress (Simba 2014); some women have had rights to representation while others have not (Waxman 2020), and children rights have been ignored because young people were not accepted as fully human beings (Qvortrup 2009). Children’s accepted socially structured inequality has been a justification for their oppression, just as it has been for people by race, gender, ability, and religion (Amnesty 2020; Hund and Mills 2016; NPR 2021; Smith 2011; Washington Post 2015). Are children treated with the same respect and dignity designated for other human beings, or are they regarded as human “becomings”, not fully human yet? The way we answer this question has huge implications. If children are not seen as fully human, hitting them to comply with adult demands or denying them resources may be regarded by some to be “acceptable”. If children are seen to lack intelligence then they are thought not to be able to make good decisions or understand what is going on, thus they may not be allowed to vote or have their views considered by authorities in the same ways as adults. If their contributions are not valued, then not providing them food, education, or healthcare may be justified by leaders who see adult supremacy to be more important to support. Denying children equality and opporunity is part of the argument over whether they are fully human (Murray 2017; Qvortrup 2009; UNICEF 2012a, b). Children are naturally in the process of Be-come-ing. This is a cultural universal—no matter our age, we are all always works in progress. Scholars like Erikson (1980) point out that socialization begins when we are born and doesn’t end until we die. When children come into this world their identities, experiences, personalities, and futures are shaped by messages, resources, and opportunities they receive from parents, social institutions, media, and the world around them. They may have free will, but their destinies are influenced by social forces over which they may have little control, such as gender, race, appearance, or who their parents are (Islam 2019; Lundberg 2020). Children’s lives are shaped by social systems and their processes (Lachman 2021). When they are born, children enter worlds that have pre-established norms, values, and beliefs about people’s abilities and worth—factors that influence institutionalized classism, sexism, racism, and ethnocentrism. Social institutions, such as schools, welfare, governments, businesses, recreation, or healthcare organizations

22

3

What Is a Child?

have policies that vary in the services they provide. Institutions open or shut the doors of opportunity to different groups of children. We invest in some children more than others. The nations, communities, neighborhoods, religions, and other groupings into which children are born to have direct and indirect influences on the way they see themselves and the worlds in which they live. Through ascribed characteristics like their gender, race, ethnicity and appearance, and acquired factors like wealth, social class, education, where they live, and what social networks they belong to, the trajectories of children’s lives are not the same (Goldfeld et al. 2018; Pickett et al. 2022). From the moment they are born, children receive messages about who they are and what the world expects from them. If children are told they are no good or unwanted, their self-esteem and identities form differently than if they are told they are beloved miracles who can do or be anything (Cooley 1902a, b; Mead 1934). Whoever controls the mind, body, and activities of the child controls the future. This is why adults eagerly invest in their children’s lives (Breiner et al. 2016). Parents may fight for their children to get into elite schools because they believe their children are superior or deserve superior chances to succeed. A common phenomenon is that parents invest heavily in their children, and do not heavily invest in other people’s children. While understandable, this links back to the notion that children are parental “property”, not independent beings and community members. This calls into question who are the appropriate duty-bearers to ensure children’s well-being are protected—there is disagreement over who that should be—parents, government, schools, healthcare providers, political or religious leaders. The issue of inequality begins not in just in the money we spend but primarily in the way that we think about children. Sociologist W. I. Thomas said that whatever we believe to be real or true will become real in its consequences (Merton 1948; Thomas and Thomas 1928). If we believe children are born smart we invest in them differently than if we believe they have been “doomed in the womb”. If we believe that all some groups of children aren’t as worthy of the same social and emotional investments as others, children get treated differently. How they get treated determines they will see themselves and what options are available to them. If we change the way we view children, it changes the way we treat them. If we change the kinds of childhoods they experience, if we change their opportunities today and the way they think about themselves and others, we can change the child today and for the future tomorrow. According to a children’s human rights framework, children have a right to be a child. But what exactly does that mean? It all depends upon how you view children and childhood.

3.5

The CRC Determination of What Is a Child

The CRC lays forth some major assumptions about how children should be regarded. It holds that children are entitled human rights. Human rights are inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. From the moment children are born,

3.5

The CRC Determination of What Is a Child

23

they are a person on their own accord, with their own name. By law it is incontrovertible that children are autonomous human beings. As human beings, they are automatically entitled to human rights. One human being is entitled to the same human rights as another because we are all persons. Therefore, fundamentally, all children have inalienable human rights. This fact is not negotiable from a children’s human rights framework. The debate over whether children are entitled to rights could end right here. If children are regarded as human beings, and all human beings are entitled to human rights, then it doesn’t matter what age, gender, race, or other characteristics they may have. All people are to have rights, no matter who they are. They aren’t entitled to some rights but not others; all rights are for all people. Relying on this definition of rights, the issue over whether children have rights could be closed at this point. According to the CRC, all children have rights, no matter who they are, But in the US children are not entitled to equal rights. The US has not ratified the CRC, nor has it established a national commitment in support of all children being entitled to all human rights. But some children are given more rights than others. Rights in the US are often misunderstood; rights and privileges are different things. A sixteen-year-old does not automatically have the right to drive a car - they must prove they are capable to drive safely. Does everyone of every age have a right to own a AK-47 rifle? This is now a national debate. The US has a history of categorizing people by age, race, gender, and other characteristics like social class or mental status. These differences between people are socially constructed. As Roediger (2020) notes, “The world got along with race for the overwhelming majority of its history. The US has never been without it”. We categorize children not just as people under age 18, but we shred them into finer and finer lines of distinction. Some dissect children into categories like infants, toddlers, preschoolers, preteens, adolescents, youth, or young adults. We also divide them into distinct divisions of sex and genders, which may be why gender fluidity and trans children are perplexing for many people. Children may be assumed to be homosexual even very early in their lives, when later their sexual orientations may be much more diverse. Often, we look at children as first as things, like black, straight, feminine, disabled, and the like. Our categorization of them can be made without even exchanging a single word with them. This shredding of a child renders a child virtually invisible. When we start dissecting the child into pieces, this is when the debate over whether children should be entitled to human rights becomes heightened. The more we dissect the child into non-CRC components, children’s human rights become questionable. The use of other explanations makes our understanding of children as rights-bearers murky. If a hierarchy emerges where some people are entitled to more human rights than others, this implies that some people are less of a person than others, less of a human being. Once a child is designated as lesser-than others, it opens the door to them being seen as not entitled to the same rights, privileges, and treatments as others. It creates a de facto separate and unequal condition for children.

24

3.6

3

What Is a Child?

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

Over time and place, some children have been given many of the same rights, obligations, and penalties as adults, but the criteria for making those determinations are quite variable and subjective. The result is a great deal of confusion about what rights children “should” have, what their obligations as children should be, and what should occur if those obligations are not met (National Council of State Legislatures 2011; National Juvenile Defender Center 2021; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2001). Neither the public nor experts can agree upon if it is in the child’s best interest to be treated adult or not. As an example, there are articles on “how we hurt our kids when we treat them like grown-ups” (Sax 2017) and “stop treating kids like tiny adults” (Ramey 2016; Rosemond 2016) that exist alongside articles on why parents should treat children like adults and encourage them to “grow up” (Davis 2019; Lucyathome 2018). There is an antipathy when it comes to the contemporary value of children. Zelizer (1985) observes that we have come to place a value on children, not just emotionally but financially as well. Lancy (2014) argues that America has become a neontocracy, a type of society, unique to “Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic” (aka WEIRD countries), in which children are the most valued members which results in parents allowing children to take up most of their time, thoughts, money, social life, and physical space as things to entertain and care for the child takes precedence. Schlessinger (2000) notes that as a nation, we don’t value children and it’s clear from the way we don’t invest in them. We will talk more about our investment in children later in this book. Fass (2016) observes that childhood and adolescence have always been associated with the social structures and frameworks of the day. Weintraub (2020) argues that “kid culture” has grown in importance in recent years (at least for parents who have children) and highlights how children have become yet another object malleable for commercialization and conspicuous consumption. There are articles aplenty about why children should be the most important thing in our lives (Schlessinger 2000; Steyer 2015), articles about why they shouldn’t be (Cutbert 2020; Rosemond 2017), and essays on why children’s importance has been overblown (Crawford 2021; Grose 2021; Moyer 2021). Some experts have alleged that the social construction of childhood in and of itself is bad for children, and that childhood as a developmental stage from which children routinely try to escape and should be reconsidered (Hannan 2018; Holt 1975). Descriptions about how children are defined help us to understand the competing narratives about whether children have rights, should, or shouldn’t. They are discussed next.

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

3.6.1

25

Categorical Determinations: When Is a Child Not a Child?

Identifying when a child is a child, and when they are not a child, is complicated. Children realize that being a child is hard; it is a stigmatized state in which they experience violence, oppression, and discrimination (Downshen 2015; MooreMalinos 2007; Yanklowitz 2014). Children receive social messages that being an adult is a more desirable state of being and that being childlike is something that they should grow out of soon. When are you really considered to be an adult? That isn’t clear (Cramer 2020). But it is clear that children are being groomed with everything from bubble lawnmowers to toy cellphones to be ready for adulthood. Despite age 18 often being used as the cut-point for determining who is a child and who is considered an adult, there are many other conflicting and competing factors that make it confusing to know exactly when a person is considered a child or adult. Historically, designations of childhood had less to do with biological or chronological factors and more to do with social considerations (James 2008). Rudolf Steiner viewed childhood as not just a physical stage but also a spiritual phase occurring between age seven and fourteen (Burke et al. 2016). Children learn that it isn’t clear when you are really an adult or when you are still a child because there are so many shifting definitions (Cramer 2020). It also isn’t clear to children exactly what it means to be an adult, except to have power and options to do more things. When we question “who is a child?” or “when is a child not a child?” there are many things to consider. To physicians and psychologists, [childhood] is a stage of human development to be studied and analyzed. To historians, it is a term whose meaning varies from epoch to epoch and according to race, class and region. To anthropologists it is a social phenomenon to be observed in cultural context. To lawyers it is a time for invoking age-based legal protections and imposing age-based legal disabilities (Woodhouse 2008:15).

Common parlance views a child in relational terms; someone is still considered the child at age 50 of their 80-year-old parent. A child is often regarded as someone from infancy to puberty, but this simplistic definition masks its complexity, since puberty can now arrive at increasingly younger ages. Allison James (2008) feels there’s no clear answer to when childhood ends. Look now at some common ways that childhood is distinguished.

3.6.1.1

Chronological Consideration of Child Status

The CRC designates anyone under age 18 as a child. Using age chronology to calculate age is the most commonly used standard of determining child or adult status. Ages 18 or 21 are a black-and-white standard used to delineate who is an adult; until someone passes that age marker they’re considered a child. While a chronological determination seems clear-cut, a 17-year-old may be considered the

26

3

What Is a Child?

same child but on the very next day, a birthday, that child suddenly transforms into an adult with a different set of rights and responsibilities. It may be only a day apart, but the person will be viewed entirely differently. A sixteen-year-old may be independent and “adult” in some ways; a thirty-five year-old may be dependent and “childish.” Thus, one may question whether chronological age is the best factor to determine someone’s status. The age we are has biological markers that go with it, like puberty, height, weight, hair, and other developmental factors. But usually we associate age in factors that are a product of social construction. While age is a biological process, what it means to be “young” or “old” is socially determined. In some cultures, and throughout history, one could be considered old at 35, other societies may not consider someone old until 80 (Cockerham 1996). Likewise, we attribute what people can and cannot do, or what they think, to things that may have no correlation with chronological age. For instance, six-year-old-children can be adept computer users, as well as someone who is 90. Cultures imbue youth and age with meanings. A person could get pregnant at 14, be a grandmother at 28, a great grandmother at 42, and a great great grandmother at 56—while someone else who is 56 may feel themselves to be young, fit, and just getting into the swing of their life. Aging is perceived differently around the world, demonstrating its social construction. This implies there is no inherent cultural meaning to chronological designations of age.

3.6.1.2

Legal Considerations of Child Status

The age of who is legally considered child/adult keeps shape-shifting depending on where the child lives. There are situations when the chronological age of when one is considered a child doesn’t hold muster, like when someone can get a job, be held criminally responsible, or seek services. In the U.S., a single youth can be allowed to marry at 14 if parents/courts approve, be sentenced to life in prison at 15, licensed to drive a car at 16, vote at age 18, but not able to drink alcohol or gamble at casinos until age 21. States decide the age of sexual consent, when one can marry, quit school, drink alcohol, drive a car, smoke, vote, or do “adult” things (Hanson 2017; Lee 2013). They may not be allowed to buy a handgun at 21 but able to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at 18 or even younger (Wheeler 2018). Sixteen-year-olds must pay taxes when they work but cannot vote, a form of taxation without representation. Eighteen-year-olds can run for office, go to strip clubs, and volunteer to go to war or be drafted, but in many states can’t vape, smoke tobacco products, or drink alcohol (Cramer 2020). Cross-culturally, there may be different standards for when people can legally partake in certain behaviors. A person at age 18 may not drink alcohol legally in the U.S., yet can skip across the border to Canada or Mexico and drink there legally. Sixteen-year-olds can legally drink alcohol in Antigua, Morocco, Austria, and the British Virgin Islands. While there is no drinking age (but there may be a purchase age) in Jamaica, Denmark, Cambodia, Croatia, Italy, and Russia; one can’t drink legally at any age in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The legal smoking age in some US

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

27

states, Singapore and Honduras is 21, in Egypt it’s 14, in Belize and Gambia there is no age, but in Bhutan, it’s illegal for everyone (Wong 2017a, b). The age of majority differs depending on the activity or where one resides. In England, minors are people under age 18 but the age of criminal responsibility is age 10; in Scotland age of majority is 16 but age of criminal responsibility is 12—and used to be age 8. Religious groups may have traditions that negate secular legal norms; Muslims may marry at 16 for males and 12 for females; Hindus at 18 for males and 14 for females and in some parts of the world, the entire community comes out to celebrate weddings for girls as young as five-years-old (Daily Mail 2011; Mortimer 2015, 2016; UNICEF 2015a, b, c, d; Wells 2015; World Policy Analysis Center). In an increasingly globalized world, no wonder why we’re confused about when childhood ends and adulthood begins.

3.6.1.3

Citizenship Considerations

If children are born in the United States, they are citizens. If they live here but weren’t born here, they may not be citizens. What it means for children to be considered citizens is unclear. A citizen is defined as a participatory member of a political community who obeys their country’s laws and defends them against its enemies (Wayne State University Center on Citizenship 2021). The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This means that if a mother is present in the U.S. when a child is born, then the child is a U.S. citizen. Known as anchor babies or birth tourism, there is a misunderstanding that immigrants may come to the US to have their babies here, thinking that it will automatically allow their parents to become citizens too. This is not the case. Parents who are from other countries could be deported, forcing them to either leave their babies in the US with family, friends, or foster care systems, or flee the US taking their US citizen child with them (Canzater 2018). Because children cannot vote or hold political office until they become legally designated as adults at age 18, sometimes they are termed “citizens in waiting”, “hypothetical citizens”, “citizens-in-the-making” or “adults-in-preparation” (Morrow 2011; PD Collaborative 2021). Jaap Doek (Lieffard and Doek 2015) refers to “a citizen child” and Osler and Starkey (2017). talks about children as “global citizens” whose have agency, attitudes, and actions that influence the lives of others. The Children Are Citizens project at Harvard University was created after scholars realized that children did not get viewed as citizens and need to learn how to work with others in rights-respecting ways in order to participate in democracy as an informed and caring citizen (Krechevsky et al. 2015).

28

3.6.1.4

3

What Is a Child?

Humanitarian Designations

According to Medecines San Frontieres (2021), children are persons who do not have an individual legal personality, meaning they are not recognized as independent persons before the law. The protection and defense of children’s interests are entrusted by law to their parents and relatives; when they fail to do so, social and judicial services take charge. The child’s provision and protection are to be provided by the family or, in the absence of a family, by society. They alleged that the words minor and child are not synonymous legal terms, so national laws must consider that needs of children vary depending on their age, and different minimum legal ages are set for purposes such as employment, marriage, testifying in court, criminal liability, imprisonment, and recruitment in armies. International laws typically refer to “children” under a specific age (usually 18) instead of “minors.” In times of conflict, international humanitarian law gives children both general protections, as civilian persons taking no part in hostilities, and special protection, as particularly vulnerable and unarmed individuals. They have the right to specific material assistance and to strengthened protections. International humanitarian law usually does not speak of “minors” because the age at which a child reaches legal majority varies from one country to another. The Geneva Convention considers children to be all persons under age 18 and it enumerates additional specific rights and guarantees for newborn infants and children under fifteen, with additional attention to children under five (Medecines San Frontieres 2021).

3.6.1.5

Biological Considerations

It’s hard to tell by looking who’s a child. Taller children may be treated as if they are older than if they’re short; if they have a big body, muscles, curves, and weigh amounts similar to that of adults, there may be different social expectations than if the child is small with an immature-looking frame. Height, weight, and body build all influence differential treatment among children of an identical age. In some cultures, girls and females are regarded to be biologically inferior, smaller, less strong, less smart, and less capable than boys and men. Sometimes children with ability challenges have been thought to be biologically inferior as well. Biological rationalizations for institutionalizing children’s discrimination and second-class citizenship have existed around the world and continue to be used to justify their marginalization (Wilmer 2015). It is common for young people to try to alter their appearance through clothes, hair, cosmetics, drugs, or medications so that they may look older than they are in order to gain more adult respect (Kite and Kite 2021). Appearance becomes a big consideration in how children are perceived and treated. This fact has been exploited by advertisers in sales of products and commercials that promote products to children as well as to their parents. These include clothes, cosmetics and make-up,

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

29

hair-styles, undergarments, use of steroids and pharmaceuticals, as well as cosmetic surgery even in younger children (Calvert 2008; Linn 2004; Mohamadi 2017; Singh 2015).

3.6.1.6

Puberty and Pregnancy Considerations

Whether a child has gone through puberty is a major factor that differentiates whether someone is treated as an adult. When someone can procreate, this alters their perceived status from child to adult. A few decades ago it was common for young people to arrive at puberty around age thirteen but today puberty may occur as young as eight for females and nine for males; children as young as six may experience “precocious puberty” (Woodham 2015). Diet, obesity, or stress may influence when puberty occurs. Longitudinally, in 1860, the average onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years, in 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and by 2010 it had dropped to 10.5. Similar trends have been reported for boys. If a boy has a beard and developed muscles he may not be regarded the same age as a boy with neither. If a girl has a curvaceous figure she may be perceived and treated differently than a flat-chested girl the same age (Herman-Giddens et al. 2012). Physical maturity may not equate emotional maturity or mature decision-making. It is not uncommon for girls as young as ten years or younger to become pregnant. It is highly discouraged by pediatricians, midwives, and obstetricians because their pelvis is too small to allow passage of even a small fetus. It creates a long, obstructed labor that creates internal injuries to the girl. Complications are common for girls under age 15, especially high morbidity and mortality rates, not to mention psychological and social distresses for girls who are forced to bear children at such young ages (Nolen 2022).

3.6.1.7

Marital and Parental Status Considerations

If a child is married or has children, are they still considered to be one? Many children in the US, as well as globally, get married or have children before age 18 (Child Trends Databank 2016c; Save the Children 2016). When children are married, and especially when they become parents themselves, their definition as children or adults gets extremely complicated. When a 14-year-old female has a child she likely considers herself to be adult and others may expect her to act more responsibly than a 14-year-old who doesn’t have a child. If a 13-year-old male becomes a father, people may expect him to act more mature than someone his age who isn’t a parent. Ironically, children who are parents may not be able to legally access services or advocate for themselves because they’re still considered children. The author first realized this when a 15-year-old new mother was thrown out of her parent’s house and couldn’t receive help at a homeless shelter; legally, she could

30

3

What Is a Child?

request services for her child but she couldn’t receive services because she was “under-age” and no guardian was willing to sign for her.

3.6.1.8

Maturity Considerations

When considering “when does someone cease being a child?” it’s clear that just looking at someone’s date of birth or size isn’t sufficient. The more mature a child is perceived to be, the more latitude that person is given; the more immature the child, the more adults try to control them. Being labeled “childish” is associated with being silly, trifling, immature, docile, and innocent while acting mature is associated with adulthood and labeled more admirably (Morrow 2011). Biblical passage 1 Corinthians 13, reads “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things”. Maturity is often conceptualized as positive and immaturity as negative; hence adulthood = good, childhood = bad. Immaturity refers to not being totally grown. Scholars agree maturity takes time to occur and it’s normal for young people to act immaturely because of interaction between hormonal, physiological, psychological, peer, family, and social factors. Immaturity is an important developmental stage for children, not a bad thing. We must crawl before we can walk. Periods of physical, emotional, and intellectual immaturity are essential for the journey to adulthood (Bjorklund 2009). There are standard markers of maturity, such as good decision-making, responsibility, thoughtfulness, not doing or saying “bad” things, and being patient and thoughtful. Children go through maturational steps in a rather predictable order, but the ages at which they do so varies. Like physical maturity, there’s a wide range of emotional maturity levels in children and we can be mature in one way but immature in another (Denny 2005). It may take a long time for all maturity types to evolve. Immaturity is not the same as stupidity; as philosopher Aristophanes (2016) is credited with saying, “youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” Some scholars feel children are more irresponsible than ever before while others point to their greater accomplishments, altruism and responsibility (Pollock 2007; Science Daily 2016b; Such and Wallace 2015). Many children have schedules so tightly packed with responsibilities they may have little time to relax or engage in traditional childhood activities. Pushing children for greater responsibility, success, and not allowing them time to play and “just be a kid” is a topic of debate within the child rights community (Coles 2000; Entin 2011). Playing games gets associated with childishness, but is this accurate? Consider the millions of people who are video-game aficionados. While young people who spend hours playing games are criticized for being lazy or childish, such games can create positive brain and social relationship benefits, as found by Columbia University’s School of Public Health (Kovess-Masfety et al. 2016). As PAX or ComiCon Expos show, games and fantasy can bring people and families together as new skills develop. It might be time to re-evaluate what we consider immature or childish.

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

31

The maturity standard has become particularly concerning when it comes to juvenile criminal justice treatment. The American Bar Association (Tyler 2015) reports that legal culpability of young people is challenging because their brains are not fully developed. Harvard Medical School (2020) reports that scholarly research into neurophysiology and brain development of young people must be considered when understanding people’s criminal behavior. Juvenile justice means that young people should be given just treatment when they have engaged in dangerous or inappropriate behavior. Juvenile criminal justice organizations and the American Psychological Association report that giving children a life-sentence, death penalty, put in jail with adult offenders, or being treated like adults is not appropriate or in their best interests, or society’s best interests (Stringer 2017).

3.6.1.9

Brain Development Considerations

Brain research scholars have found the human brain isn’t developed until age 25 or older (Center on the Developing Child 2010; 2021; National Institute of Mental Health 2022; Simpson 2008). Brains and resilience are “grown” over time; deprivation limits children’s abilities while rich environments enhance them. Neuropathways are created physically and socially. Experts find at age 17 people are more impulsive, aggressive, emotionally volatile, risk-taking, reactive to stress, vulnerable to peer pressure, overestimate short-term payoffs, and underplay longerterm consequences of actions. Young brains function differently in cognitive development, executive decision-making, impulse control, emotional regulation, brain systems wiring, learning and memory, behavior, hormones, and genetics, and all may be adversely impacted when exposed to trauma or adversity (Ritter 2006; Scott and Steinberg 2008; Solloway 2022). Knowledge that young people’s brains are not able to process information in the same way as adults is useful when assessing whether they should be held to the same standards as adults. Instead of blaming children as “bad”, “sinners”, or “a bad seed”, studies about how young brains develop have shed light on the fact that juvenile’s brains are quite different than adults, especially due to immature prefrontal cortex development of young brains. Developmentally, the brains of children are not considered to be mature into well into their twenties or even thirties so holding children to the same logic and standards as adults is appropriate. Tyler (2015), in a review of studies on child brain development and legal culpability posted by the American Bar Association, encourages courts to consider the convergence of adolescent brain science and juvenile culpability. Briefly, the prefrontal cortex controls humans’ ability to take all options into account to think before acting, contemplate risks and weigh consequences, to be empathetic, and deal with issues of peer pressure, of which children are more susceptible. Science finds brain systems influence how young people perceive and act to situations. One is the socio-emotional system of the limbic midbrain system and the orbital areas of the frontal lobe. They control the emotional state of the brain and influences children’s increased need for rewards, sensation-seeking, their attentiveness to social cues, and

32

3

What Is a Child?

their reactive emotional responses to both positive and negative emotions. The other is the cognitive control system of the dorsolateral area of the frontal lobe, which provides a check to the socio-emotional system but takes years to mature. A fullyfunctioning cognitive control system increases impulse control, emotional regulation, more foresight and detection of options, better planning and anticipation of outcomes, and greater resistance to stress and peer pressure, all which take time to develop and explain why it is so hard for children to do. Brain science concludes impulsivity and sensation-seeking decline with age, as does susceptibility to peer influence. As children age they develop better problem-solving skills and can delay gratification, which reduces their tendency to make poor choices. Just because children’s brains are developmentally different from brains of adults, this does not negate their right to have their human rights defended. Children, like older persons or persons with disabilities, are simply different—it does not mean that difference erases the fact they should be awarded human rights.

3.6.1.10

Agency and Behavioral Considerations

Children who exert more positive agency and socially acceptable behaviors get regarded with higher status than children who don’t; those who are viewed in more satisfactory ways may be given more opportunities and respect, hence rights, than those who aren’t. But who gets to do what isn’t an even playing-field. Children’s ability to act on their own behalf, or as part of a group, is influenced by demographics, ascribed and achieved statuses, their parenting style, the way they’re perceived, and the way social institutions are structured to encourage, or discourage, their involvement. The word for children’s seizing life’s reins is “agency”. Children’s agency ranges from being not being allowed to make decisions, forced to do things against their will, being given minimal choices, to openly demonstrating their abilities in public settings (Bandura 2001; Carpendale and Lewis 2006; Giddens 1991; Hart 1997; Macfarlane and Cartmel 2008; Prout and James 1997). Society gives contradictory messages about children’s agency. A traditional view is that children are incompetent, immature, incapable, dependent, and therefore unable to engage in meaningful social participation until they get older or demonstrate maturity standards that prove they are fit to make decisions (Mashford-Scott and Church 2011). Another view is that children may be told that they can “do anything”, and they are supposed to use their agency to become the change they want to see in the world. Children are also told that childhood is the best time of life and they should play and be irresponsible (Smith 2016). Depending on where children live and who they are, there’s widespread difference in their agency to care for themselves, make decisions, participate in social practices, use weapons or engage in sexual intimacy (Goncu and Cannella 1996; Mosier and Rogoff 2003; Ochs and Schieff). Wyness (2011) alleges that adults create social structures and demand behaviors that turn children into subordinate citizens instead of allowing them to become active agents charting their destinies. Participation, thus, is an important concept in the study of whether children have

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

33

rights. Children who exude positive agency are treated more respectfully when adhering to adult standards of behavior like being successful, engaged in community activities and having “potential”. The less children participate in “desirable” adult behaviors, the more they’re seen as childish, immature or irresponsible. Therefore, agency is a criterion used by adults to decide which individuals are childish or adultified.

3.6.1.11

Education and Cognitive Considerations

It is a fact that many children know more about a particular subject than some adults. For instance, many adults rely upon their children to help them when they get snagged with computer or tech problems because their children know more about some computer programs than they do. If children are smart, gets good grades, or have higher levels of educational attainment, does that make them more adult-like? Education and cognitive ability influence how young people are perceived. Young people who present as articulate, well-reasoned, with academic prowess and success potential get treated more respectfully than peers who are academically or cognitively challenged (Seidman 2014). When an eleven-year-old graduated from college while many adults have not—should they be treated more child-like or adult-like? (NBC 2015; Palmer 2021; Teach Thought 2017). Sometimes cognition is assessed through intelligence tests, such as the Stanford Binet Intelligence Quotient (IQ) exam, and some children as young as toddlers have been inducted into MENSA. While children may score high in intellectual capacity, does that mean they should be considered adult? There are other things than being a genius that must be considered when assigning adult status (Ferguson 2019). Many different forms of intelligence exist, many of which are more relevant to people of different abilities, genders, races, or cultures (Encyclopedia of Children’s Health 2015). Howard Gardner (2006) finds people have different types of intelligences which include linguistic, logicalmathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, inter/intrapersonal or naturalist intelligences. Because mass amounts of information are available, it is likely young people know more about certain topics than many adults. Adults may speak down to people with disabilities and treat them in stigmatized ways as if they were more childlike and incompetent when they may be quite capable and bright (dosReis 2010). Whether we should link knowledge and ability to child/adult status is a worthwhile consideration.

3.6.1.12

Work Considerations

If a young person does work that adults traditionally do, is employed, or if their activity becomes a major source of income for the family, are they still considered to be children or fulfilling adult roles and responsibilities? While it is commonly assumed that children have leisure time to play and be irresponsible, the reality is

34

3

What Is a Child?

that many children don’t have nurtured, carefree childhoods. Many children work in order to keep their family afloat or for their own personal survival. A report on child labor (UN 2018) found over 215 million children work, many full-time. Many don’t go to school and have little time for play; they may not receive proper nutrition or care and are denied chances to have “normal” childhoods. They may work in hazardous environments, forced labor, armed conflict, drug trafficking or prostitution. US laws prevent children from working certain types of jobs or long hours for pay, but many are involved with the invisible labor force and miss school or recreational opportunities because their family needs their help. Children under age 16 are usually excluded from formal employment counts but may do child care, yard work, or things for family and friends in unregulated, uncompensated employment. Many of these jobs are in agricultural settings where they are exposed to hazardous chemicals and use dangerous equipment (Human Rights Watch 2014; US Department of Labor 2015). Immigrant children may fall through the cracks; if they are undocumented they may not be allowed to attend school and may instead work long hours doing jobs that are disadvantageous to their health. Children may be primary caregivers to siblings, ill parents, or other family members (Joseph et al. 2012). They conduct medical procedures, cook, clean, and don’t attend school because families depend on them. Often, they get paid less or receive no money for what they do. Many live triple-responsibility days, where they attend school, have jobs to earn money, and care for dependent loved ones (Becker et al. 2000). While many children do jobs that sustain themselves and other, they aren’t counted as “real” workers merely because they’re young. When children are formally employed for money, they pay taxes on their income, just as adults do. Unless children are working in jobs like grass-cutting or babysitting, their employer is required to take out federal income tax, state income tax, FICA, or Social Security. Even if children work “under the table” and earn more than $400 they are supposed to pay taxes because they are considered self-employed (Taxslayer 2021). If children cannot vote or have input into decisions that affect them, is this taxation without representation? This is a human rights issue as well as economic and political ones.

3.6.1.13

Political Involvement Considerations

Children are often regarded as ‘citizens in waiting’ who have no political rights and are dependent on adults to act on their behalf. Whether children are fully citizens, not citizens until they become adults, or if they are only citizens-in-waiting, is hotly contested (Marshall 1950). Reacting to the student inspired March for our Lives protest against gun violence, former FOX political correspondent, Tucker Carlson announced that youth had no right to do so because they weren’t citizens (Daily Show 2018). While people under age 18 contribute to society, volunteer, work, and make major contributions to their communities, their participation has not resulted in

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

35

inclusion in democratic processes or direct political representation, whether in changing policies, making laws, or voting. Scholars argue that democracies will be able to represent children only by transforming what is meant by democratic representation in the first place. They argue that democratic theory has traditionally excluded children. The voices, opinions and ideas of young people have no systematic way of being expressed at the local, state or national governmental institutions (Wall 2011). Only when they turn 18 can young people vote or run for office. The US isn’t the only one who fails to limit representation of youth in the political arena. This is due to age restrictions, devaluation of young people by adults, and reluctance of young people themselves (Mertus and Helsing 2006; McEvoy-Levy 2018). Half the world’s population is under age 30 and yet they have no political representation (United Nations 2016). Less than 6% of world parliamentarians are under age 35 years and only 1.6% of parliamentarians around the world are in their twenties. Children aren’t allowed positions of governmental leadership; exceptions include 12-year-old Ptolemy XIII, pharaoh of Egypt 51 BCE, and King Tut (Tutankhamen), fourteenth century BCE; teenager Mary Queen of Scots, ruler of Scotland and France, and 12-year-old Shunzhi emperor of China in 1650 (Andrews 2012). Therefore, while children have been rulers of their countries, they have no political presence today in the US where it is an adult-only activity. On the other hand, countries like Scotland have actively become world leaders because they have sought to incorporate children into various parts of national and community governance and decision-making. Wales and other nations have attempted to do so as well. In the US, students may be elected to school student councils, but are absent at the community, state, or national level.

3.6.1.14

Lifespan or Scaffold Approach to Children’s Human Rights

Once-upon-a-time people were either considered dependent babies or independent adults, but contemporary views aren’t black-or-white. Age can be viewed along a continuum where there are many different markers, events, and experiences that compile over time for someone to transition from being a child to being an adult. These stages may be physiological, chronological or social; they may differ crossculturally and historically. Knowing exactly whether someone is young or old doesn’t plague just our understanding of childhood; when one surveys the other end of the age continuum and asks “when is someone old?” similar issues make an answer complicated. Someone may be 80-years-old and employed, physically fit, healthy, intellectually sharp, and socially engaged. While they may be considered “older” on one variable, they may not on others (Hooyman et al. 2014). Calling someone a “baby” or “old” reflects ageist views that extend across our lifespan. Lifespan models of development focus on life-to-death aspect of age, embracing certain abilities or levels of maturity at particular points in time (Heckhausen et al. 2010; Peterson 2003; Rudolph and Zacher 2017). There is a great deal of fluidity in stages addressing maturity, biological development, cognitive ability, work, or civic

36

3

What Is a Child?

Fig. 3.1 Interactional Lifespan Model Chronological Age

Community Standards

Biological Ability

Awarding of Rights

Emoonal Maturity & Behavior

Relaonship Demands

Work, Educaon & Knowledge

activity. People move through the stages in a non-linear fashion, with some skills developing faster or slower than others. From a rights perspective, there are those who argue that children should have rights accrued across time. The argument focuses on denying children certain rights until they are older and meet some arbitrary criteria, rather than acknowledging that all children are entitled to rights. One must remember that rights are not the same thing as privileges. Rights are inherent, privileges must be earned. For example, a child does not have the right to drive a car—that is a privilege that has to be earned through driver education classes, practice, and taking a formal test. It is a privilege for a child to have a pet; if they cannot adequately care for the pet, the pet should be removed where it can be safe and live a better life. Similarly, just because someone can get pregnant and have a baby, having a child could be considered a privilege—a child can be removed if the parents don’t adequately care for it. Inherent in a rights approach is with rights come responsibilities. They go hand-in-hand. Figure 3.1 illustrates how different designations of children’s abilities influence the degree to which they are perceived to deserve human rights. The notion behind this approach is that the more factors that a child has that pushes them towards having an adult status, the more rights they “should” have. The status of a child as a rights holder is influenced by a variety of intersecting factors. A person could be considered young on some factors but considered to be an adult or adult-like on others. This then requires interpretation by people in power to determine what label should be assigned to the young person. This labeling process is another example of social constructionism. Childhood is a product of social

3.6

Definitional Confusion Leads to Social Confusion Over Child Rights

37

construction, not an unchanging biological state (James and Prout 1997; Jenks 2004a, b; Mayall 2002; Mintz 2004; Mouritsen and Qvortrup 2006; White and Wyn 2017). Interestingly, it is almost always that adults who make the final determination of whether someone is a child or an adult; young people themselves are not typically engaged in that decision-making determination. It is clear that there are many different ways the statuses of children are evaluated to determine where childhood ends and adulthood begins. The lack of uniformity is across cultures and within the US as a whole. This makes it challenging for children, adults, and social institutions to state unequivocally when children should be afforded adult rights, children’s rights, or no rights at all. When making decisions about children’s lives, input from higher education scholars may be called upon. In the US, human rights in general and children’s rights, in particular, are not topics typically taught in school (Cargas 2019; Vissing 2020, 2021a, b). Thus, the way children are perceived in both the public and scholarly community varies, which has contributed to the disjuncture of children being able to obtain rights. When using a subjective approach to determine whether a child is entitled to rights, rights are not seen to be universal, indivisible, and inalienable. A scaffolding approach may seem to make sense to caregivers, but it misses the point that all children have the same rights merely because they are equal human beings. Certainly, a young child developmentally does not have the same capacity as a much older child. A children’s human rights framework focuses on providing children their rights as developmentally appropriate. This is an important thing to consider when understanding what it means for children to be rights holders.

3.6.1.15

Summary

How we talk about children and their rights is so variable and fragmented that it is no wonder that symbolically our understanding of them puts us into different camps. While children may be considered “older” on one variable, they may not be on others (Hooyman et al. 2014). Cultural considerations, history, political and religious agenda-staking, combine with academic ideological underpinnings that result in our differential, and often competing views. Understanding that we do not look at children in the same way, and why, is a very important part of our analysis of the children’s human rights movement in the US. It influences how the important institution of media complicates our understanding of children and their rights and why the media will be an ever-growing institution that impacts where the child rights movement heads. As pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, if we adhered to the definition of a child as anyone under 18, as the CRC or Geneva Convention states, and if we award rights to all people as human beings, then the discussion of whether children should be given rights could end right there. But we do not adhere to this definition. Given all the different criteria we use to determine who is a child, it is no wonder that the public is confused about how to assign rights to young people. It is clear that we have made rights designations are variable, not static. We have juggled the weight of one

38

3

What Is a Child?

factor against another. This is why a children’s human rights framework that states that all children have the same rights is fundamentally important. It avoids arbitrary, prejudicial, and discriminatory determinations. Words and actions are all fundamentally tied to our belief and bias systems. We need to watch what we say, because they are not merely words but they reflect a world of assumptions and unmask what we are really thinking.

Chapter 4

Framing of Children and Their Rights

We need to build constructive beliefs, behaviour patterns, thought patterns, habits, values and principles to override the deconstructive ones. Barry Naude, The Essential Skills for Success.

4.1

Introduction

In the previous chapter a variety of different names to call children were discussed, along with schemas to determine if they should be considered a child or not. How we come to believe something to be true is a central component of clinical sociology. Works by theorist W. I. Thomas (1928) holds that whatever we believe to be true will become true in its consequences. Berger and Luckmann (1966) wrote extensively about the social construction of reality, and how what we perceive to be real is an arbitrary creation of our minds that are influenced by, and then influence, a variety of social factors. In using the sociological imagination, when we are able to see the world from other people’s point of view, it helps us to understand or question our own. (Mills 1959; Tönnies 1957). Saussure, a follower of Durkheim, studied how the philosophy of language refers to reality, making the use of word choice, narratives, and frameworks important (Stoltz 2021). The words we choose to use underscore larger belief systems, beliefs and biases that influence the way we conceptualize reality. Why do we view one narrative as the correct version of reality when other narratives are possible? Our biass and conceptual underpinnings become apparent through the use of our narrative and frameworks we create. These are important to understand in the debate about why the US refuses to award children human rights. In this chapter, frameworks and narratives will be discussed. How beliefs and biases are constructed are reviewed. The chapter concludes with consideration of how children and their rights are framed in the United States. If a national social change is to occur towards greater rights respect for children, it is important to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_4

39

40

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

understand the nature of beliefs, biases, and the frameworks. This information sets the stage for a chapter later in the book that will discuss the importance of dialogue in changing the frameworks and narratives we hold about children are in creating a national commitment to children’s human rights.

4.2

What Is a Framework?

Simply stated, a conceptual framework is a way to think about a topic (Kivunja 2018). Frames create what can be viewed as schemas or theoretical underpinnings that shape our expectations. Conceptual frameworks have a disciplinary focus and are often guided by research and theories that emerge from different academic fields (Harmon 2020; Lather 2006; Leshem and Trafford 2007; Ritzer 1975). A framework is a conceptual structure that links together ideas to create a view about why things are the way things are. The way we talk about people or events and frame them matters. As an example, in the mass January 6, 2021 event that occurred in Washington DC at the US Capitol, people make active choices about how to talk about it. These choices range from it being a riot, a tour, an insurrection, a coup, a group of patriots fighting for democracy, an autocratic conspiracy, or a criminal act. People make active choices about how to talk about issues. The words we choose are typically associated with a variety of other assumptions as well. How we talk about children is no different. We have choices of what to call them and how to view them. As shown in the previous chapter, there are many ways to decide if someone is a child or not. We hear very different opinions about what children are like, what they need, how they should be treated, and what they have a right to expect. The term child rights may evoke an emotional response from adults depending upon how they frame the word. Some may find it to be positive and supportive of young people, while others regard the term to essentially be an act of war that threatens the rights of parents and their control of their children. The word is just a word but what it symbolizes to individuals incorporates a wide array of assumptions, values, biases, and experiences. The fight for, or against, child rights embodies much more in people’s minds than what is stated in the CRC.

4.3

What Is a Narrative and How Does It Relate to Child Rights?

The words we use and the frameworks we create about children are designed to tell a story about what we believe are true about them—or what we want others to believe is true. A narrative is the choice of which events to relate and in what order to relate them, thus it is a representation or manifestation of the story, rather than the story

4.3

What Is a Narrative and How Does It Relate to Child Rights?

41

itself. The story we tell may, or may not, be based in facts and reality. As clinical sociologists, we seek to tell stories that are data-based. However, when it comes to how the nation talks about children, facts may take a backseat to agenda-staking. A framework may consist of one dominant or multiple narratives. Emotions and experiences color the way we choose to remember or tell a story. As Becker (1967) points out, how we perceive things depends upon whose side we are on. In the narrative telling about the life of a child, we may focus on some pieces that are relevant to our interests but we may fail to incorporate other pieces. As adults, we may tell a child’s story quite differently from how the child may see their experience. The narrative we use turns a story into information, hence knowledge, that can be seen as “fact”. A narrative is a paradox because it may seek to convey a truth by hiding parts of it. Information may be imparted in such a way that obscures the truth behind what is told and may end up effectively being the opposite of reality (Beemgee 2022). It is possible to believe that one is defending children’s rights by denying some of them. According to the Frameworks Institute (2021:7): Narrative has many meanings, which are tied to its many uses. . . [by different groups. Parents and politicians may refer to a narrative of children that fits their agendas.] For those who work for social change, narrative is important because of its role in shaping how we think about and engage with our social world. The patterned nature of narratives is particularly important in the context of social change. Cultural narratives shape how we think about our social world because they cut across and pervade our discourse; they provide common ways of organizing and making meaning across the different contexts in which we communicate with one another through words and images. This leads to a particular definition of narrative, which is related to but different from story: Within the field of narrative change, narrative is sometimes talked about as being located in discourse, and sometimes as being located in mind. In other words, narrative change practitioners sometimes think of narrative as a particular type of talk and at other times as a particular type of thinking. Because the narratives our society tells are so closely related to the narratives we tell ourselves, narrative change work tends not to distinguish between the two. For clarity, we reserve the term “narrative” for patterns in discourse. When talking about patterns in thinking, we use the term “cultural mindsets.” Distinguishing between the two is valuable for multiple reasons. . . . the explicit narratives we tell in discourse have a specific form that is tied to the form of stories. The stories we tell each other have a set of features that structure narratives in a particular way. In addition, by distinguishing between narratives and mindsets, we can more clearly articulate the relationship between them. Narratives both reflect and shape the cultural mindsets people hold—the deep, taken for-granted assumptions about the world that we use to make sense of our circumstances, our experiences, and the communications we receive. Making this distinction helps articulate the purpose of narrative change: because the narratives that circulate within our public discourse shape our mindsets, changing which narratives are dominant can shift how people understand society and their role in it.

42

4.3.1

4

Framing of Children and Their Rights

Examples of Narratives That Reinforce Frameworks About Children

Poems, songs, and public sentiments laud the importance of children as cherished miracles for whom we must take good care because they are our legacy and our future. An idealized version of childhood exists in which every child is beloved, happy, healthy, have time to play, and whose starry eyes gaze towards productive, stable, and secure futures. The problem is, for the majority of children, this simply isn’t true, as is pointed out over and over throughout this book. The notion that children are one of the most oppressed and victimized groups in the United States may seem unthinkable to the public, but data would indicate that they are. Unlike other social categorizations, like race, religion, or gender, children as a group are not entitled to protection of their human rights. Their rights to healthcare, education, housing, and food are often denied. So are their rights to safety and protection, shown by high rates of child abuse that exist despite decades of prevention knowledge made available to the public. Young people are not systematically able to participate meaningfully in decisions that influence their lives—not by the government, schools, agencies that serve them, and not even in many households. Why do we believe the slogan “the kids are alright” when they’re not? Howard Becker in his article Whose Side Are We On? (1967) observes that reality as we see it depends upon our perspective, experience, and agendas. If we ask the question— how are children doing in the USA? we get different responses. One response is “They’re doing great, we take good care of children, they’re happy, healthy, got good schools, and are doing better than children anywhere in the world”. However, there is an entirely different narrative response to the question that could be “We’re failing caring for kids, they’re more likely to be poor, in systems are racist, experiencing all kinds of preventable adversity, including police brutality, mental illness and suicidal thoughts; our kids are really in trouble”. A children’s human rights framework is a different critique of the systematic way children are treated than the approaches typically used. A data-driven narrative could put us closer to sharing the same narrative since I believe most people care deeply about children and want them to be healthy, happy, and have good lives. Let us now consider the literature on belief and bias to help us understand how and why we hold the narratives we do about children and what it might take to shift them.

4.4

How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed

Many of the views we hold about children come out of our own experiences and cultural traditions. Some come from what authorities tell us, like politicians, religious leaders, or the media. Others come from the way different academic fields have

4.4

How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed

43

taught us about them, as we will explore in a forthcoming chapter. What we believe may influence the biases we hold, and our biases may influence our treatment of children.

4.4.1

Beliefs

The belief of children as angelic or brats, deserving of rights or not, all stem from what individuals believe to be true about children. Reality is arbitrary and socially constructed, as sociologist W. I. Thomas (1928) states in what has become known as the Thomas Theorem—if we believe something to be true, it will become true in its outcome. In short, we construct the outcome that we see. When we change our belief system, we can change social systems. Shermer (2011) finds that we form our beliefs first and then go looking for evidence to substantiate their existence. This is similar to the assumption in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that examines language—do we observe a phenomenon and then find a word for it, or have a word or concept that we then go out fishing to latch on to examples that “prove” it is true (Kay and Kempton 1984). As this pertains to children, Charles Horton Cooley (1902a, b) coined the term the looking-glass-self to say that children come to believe what people tell them that they are. Once our brain has constructed a belief, it rationalizes it with explanations, almost always after the event. The brain thus becomes invested in the beliefs and reinforces them by looking for supporting evidence while blinding itself to anything contrary. Shermer describes this process as “belief-dependent realism”—what we believe determines our reality, beliefs, and what we see, not the other way around (Grayling 2011; Shermer 2011). Eric Hoffer (1951) discussed the processes by which we become “true believers” of something. Once we become wedded to a particular belief as true, we may develop an attachment to it and are reticent to let it go. John Bowby’s (1969) work on attachment showed that individuals attach to key persons in their lives, and the degree of attachment gets associated with events and even material objects. When we believe something to be true we become attached to persons and ideologies (Weber and Federico 2007). Interpersonal relationships promote the creation of attachment to persons, experiences, situations, and ideologies, which leads to our belief about something. This makes changing belief patterns hard because it’s not just the concept that is at stake, but it is associated intermingling with other people, relationships, and our understanding of history. We cling to beliefs as if they were “ours”, tangible, possessions (Abelson 1986). We don’t easily give up things that matter to us unless there is a good reason. Stanovich (2021) conducted a thoughtful analysis of what he calls “myside thinking”. He observes that as a nation, we seem unable to agree on commonly accepted truth and facts. We believe that our side knows the truth. Republicans see things differently than adults; progressives view what is necessary to make a good society differently than do conservatives. Myside bias creates a true blind spot where we

44

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

cannot see, and are unwilling to accept, the views of others when they are incongruent with our own. Things that we come to believe when we are children to be true and right get carried into our adult perceptions (Wearden et al. 2008). This could be one explanation for why children grow up to replicate the same kinds of attitudes and childrearing practices they had, as their parents and grandparents did in turn. However, old patterns are not necessarily best for children. Scholars find that changing beliefs and practices may be necessary in order to support the best interests of children today (Grusec 1994).

4.4.1.1

Belief Example: Use of Violence as a Disciplinary Tactic

In teaching classes about child abuse, I include a unit on spanking and give them peer reviewed scholarly research articles to read. Students are shocked to learn that in most European countries, corporal punishment (which spanking is) is illegal; in fact, in a list of 58 countries across the world, it is illegal—the US is not on that list because in 19 states hitting a child is legal (Morin 2020; Strauss 2014a, b; World Atlas 2022). In most countries, hitting anyone is considered assault and it doesn’t matter the age of the person being struck. The data is quite clear—spanking and using physical violence to modify a child’s behavior results in the child’s replication of violence as a problem-solving strategy with others, such as siblings, peers, adults, and in intimate relationships. Likewise, data from longitudinal studies by hundreds of scholars find an association with being hit and criminal behavior, lower IQ, troubles in school, mental and physical health problems (remember the ACES we talked about earlier), and interpersonal relationship challenges (Centers for Disease Control 2012; Child Welfare Information Gateway 2013; Merrick 2021; Moylan et al. 2010; Straus 2001, 2013). Observing student behavior to the response to the literature about spanking a child is fascinating. One group of students was never hit and they believe hitting a child is wrong. One group was hit and they start the course believing that hitting is good discipline but they change their belief after exposure to research studies and thoughtfully considering the information. A smaller group was hit and they refuse to believe the research reports—they were spanked or hit and they feel they turned out just fine and believe that children need to be hit to keep them in line. They believe that the peer reviewed research methodology and data is wrong and it seems they are unwilling to change that belief even in the face of high-quality scientific data. Curiously, some of the ones who believed in spanking became angry, aggressive, and even threatening towards me, merely because I encouraged them to consider research reports that were counter to their position. There are some adults who believe that children deserve to have rights. There are some who aren’t sure but after thoughtful consideration of the material contained in this book, maybe they may change their beliefs as they see the benefits of children having rights. They may not accept all of the CRC premises, but acknowledge the importance of many of them. There are others who will read this book who believe

4.4

How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed

45

that children need to be kept in their place and do not deserve to be awarded rights; they were convinced before and they remain convinced that children should not hold rights. This is the nature of beliefs. Why we are willing to stay firm or shift our convictions about child rights is worthy of contemplation.

4.4.2

Relationships Between Beliefs and Values

What we believe to be true may be related to our values. Values are principles or ideals, that we hold as appropriate standards for behavior. Beliefs are convictions that we accept as true. Beliefs are contextual, in that they arise from learned experiences and are related to what we assume to be true based on our past experiences. Beliefs do not have to be true or fact-related. Families, relationships, culture, media, research, data, environment, and situational context all impact what we believe. Values, on the other hand, are universal and are not based on past experiences. Beliefs are context-related; values transcend context and are based on what is important to us. An individual’s values comprise the belief system or framework that structures the manner in which individuals view the world. In other words, this value system serves as the framework that creates an individual’s paradigm regarding policy and politics or things like children’s human rights. Values form the foundation for making decisions. Raths et al. (1978) observe that values clarification is important as it relates to identity and how one behaves. Values clarification is related to what one chooses, what one prizes, and how one decides to act. People have many things to choose to value; considering why we cherish something and wish to promote it in the public sphere is a useful conceptual exercise as one explores children’s human rights. Values become guiding principles that direct our attitudes and actions. As noted in the Harvard Business Review (Doochin 2010), the best decisions are those that are derived from positive values, not biases.

4.4.3

Bias

Bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Bias is a pre-judgment view in favor or against a person or group compared with another in a way that is considered to be unfair. There is conscious, or explicit bias, and unconscious, or implicit bias. Bias may be conscious or unconscious. Unconscious biases are stereotypes about certain groups of people that are formed outside of our conscious awareness; everyone holds unconscious beliefs about various groups and are products of how people are socially categorized. Implicit bias is far more common than conscious prejudicial beliefs and may seem incompatible with one’s conscious values (Navarro 2021). Acknowledging bias about children is so

46

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

unconscious for most people that they are shocked to even imagine that children were or felt oppressed. A bias can be positive or negative. Positive biases include eating healthy food or preferring to be with people who are kind; negative biases may motivate us to avoid eating certain foods or being with people who represent characteristics we have found in the past to be mean or hurtful. Negative biases may rely upon stereotypes rather than fact. Biases may be based on incomplete information; it is common for people to have prejudice towards groups of people whom they have never met. For instance, I know someone who says disparaging things about people who are Muslim or Mexican—but they have never even met anyone who has that religious faith or that ethnic background. Negative biases may lead to poor decisions and discriminatory practices. Olympic gymnast Simone Biles was demeaned for removing herself in a competition because she was experiencing mental health distress—the people who demeaned her choice likely had never been a gymnast, never been in a high-pressure Olympic competition, and never struggled with the multitude of stressors that a young woman had to manage (Miller 2021a, b, c). Perhaps if people talked with Ms. Biles, or people from Mexico or who were Muslim, they may have gained information that may make them rethink their biased assumptions. Likewise, adults may make statements about groups of children without ever talking with them to learn what their experiences were like. A cognitive bias is an error in thinking that leads us to prefer one thing over another in an irrational way that is not based on fact. Implicit bias refers to the unconscious reactions that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions about a group. The unconscious way that biases get embedded into our institutions, culture, and everyday interactions go unnoticed—except by those who are oppressed by them. Most people do not see themselves as biased and may vehemently defend that they are not when they are (Beeghley and Madva 2020; Ross 2015). Harvard University has constructed a set of implicit bias tests. There are many tests that allow someone to assess their bias in topics like race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, religion, or appearance. Ironically, even the Harvard University Implicit tests are biased on the issue of age. They present tests linking bias against older persons but totally ignore the bias inflicted upon children, adolescents, and teens. Their lack of mention of bias against youth is an obvious example of how implicit bias blinds even highly trained scholars. Bias is an important thing for clinical sociologists to examine because leaders may assume that they are developing programs that are value-neutral and helpful, but in actuality, our biases may interfere with good policy development. Perez (2021) writes about how women are often invisible because we live in a world in which there is data bias designed by, for, and about men. A similar sentiment regards the invisibility of children: data bias makes children invisible in research, policies, and decisions that are designed by and for adults. If young people do not have a seat at the table of organizations, committees, or government agencies, they are not represented, despite adults think they are doing a good job representing them (Lesko 2021).

4.4

How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed

4.4.4

47

Bias Against and by Children

Young people readily report bias against them; they aren’t allowed to vote or have input on decisions that directly impact their lives, there are places that are not welcoming to the presence of young people, they may be watched more carefully by store owners for fear they will steal, they get paid less when employed for doing the same job as adults, and the list goes on. Bias or preference for some children more than others occurs in families and classrooms. Children know about being biased against. Adult discriminations and biases can concern how children look, act, think, or who their families are. There is a substantial literature about how children learn to be biased, which show that children learn to prefer some races or categories of people by age three (Armstrong 2019; Thompson 2021a, b; Winkler 2017). This is true about race, religion, social class, gender. There is literature about bias against child-free people (Vissing 2001, 2002). There is literature on bias against older people. Yet the research on bias against children is sparse. What we know is that children learn to be biased but not just against people who are different from themselves but against people who are similar—children discriminate against other children. Conceptually, let’s unpack this.

4.4.4.1

Children, Bias, and False Consciousness

Children’s disempowerment is achieved with the complicity of children themselves as they give credence to a monolithic form of adult power. Children hand over power to adults with acceptance and without complaint in a process similar to what Marx and Engels (1948) described as false consciousness, which was elaborated upon by Lukacs (1923). The Marxist concept of false consciousness pertains to oppressed groups who accept their subservient status. False consciousness is the systematic misrepresentation of dominant social relations in the consciousness of subordinate classes in which the realities of subordination, exploitation, and domination are concealed or obscured in such a way that oppressed groups come to think their oppression is normal and acceptable (Little 2020; Lukacs 1971; Mannheim 1959). Other words for false consciousness may be illusion, delusion, or misconception (Gosha 2021), or when an individual or group willingly participates in their own oppression. False consciousness can be observed in a variety of conditions across time. As examples, women have been led to think that men have their best interests in mind. Despite the fact that women are a statistical majority in the US, the Equal Rights Amendment has not been passed, and women have not found themselves in charge of their reproductive rights (Cohen and Codrington 2020; Institute for Women’s Policy Research 2022; Warner et al. 2018). If they were like-minded on behalf of women’s rights, one can assume that such the ERA would have been passed and that Roe v Wade would not have been overturned. But they are not like-minded. Another

48

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

example of false consciousness is seen when impoverished and working-class people support certain politicians and policies that are not going to benefit them. Perhaps they are not seriously scrutinizing the news, but in watching the Republican Congress systematically refuse to support programs that would benefit them and cut programs that would benefit them, it calls into qestion, why oppressed people would continue to support oppressive policies and politicians (Bade and Ferris 2017; Calfas 2017; Pruitt 2022; Sides 2020; Silverstein 2017; Vavreck et al. 2018). Poor and middle-class people are targets for media propoganda that pits them against others who would benefit from social programs, even when they know that such politicians would never want to be friends with them. Their egos are massaged only to get their vote. Thinking that if they support elites that somehow, they may become one themselves is distorted logic. Children of all ages come to accept without question the authority and legitimacy of whatever adults demand. Because they are innocent and do not always have access to full information, children can be manipulated to see certain people or the world in particular ways. Children figure out that adults know how to do things that they do not, and relying on adult help and information is beneficial for them. While I believe that most adults do have children’s best interests at heart, there are situations where children accept adult maltreatment and think they might have deserved it. They may later replicate a such dult behavior in their treatment of others. We see it when children have been sexually abused by priests or coaches because the adults told them it was acceptable and they believed them (Murray et al. 2014). When they hear their powerful and wise parents uttering discriminatory or hateful comments about others, children too may internalize and mimic such behavior (Coloroso 2009; Gordon 2020; Klein 2013). Extremist views and actions are becoming replicated by youth because adults in authority convinced them these behaviors are acceptable when they are not; it is essential to change the narrative towards support of human rights to stop this cultural and intergenerational escalation of violence (Vissing 2020). Children observe that all government, business, and religious leaders are older; adults are in positions of power and children are not. Traditional news outlets focus on adult perspectives with little mention of children’s views. Children come to see themselves as inferior and adults as superior because that’s the dominant narrative that adults and social systems convey. Messages that children aren’t smart and adults know best are regularly imparted in countless ways. Relationships and social structures impact our perception of children and what rights of what children are allowed to have (Lesko 2022; Morrow 2011). Children develop beliefs and biases as children, which get reinforced over time by interactions, media, policies, and the way institutions are structured. For generations, prejudicial learning has shaped how children are viewed and resulted in a wide range of discriminations against children and adolescents (Brown 2017, 2021). We learn categories of who is good, bad, right, or wrong, trustworthy or not. Children learn to be biased against other children too from what their parents and significant others in their lives say and do. Children observe this when adults cross the street to avoid certain people, or give short, stiff answers to some people but warm greetings to

4.4

How Beliefs and Biases About Children Get Constructed

49

others. Bias is present in the policies, practices, and procedures that are embedded and drive virtually every social institution, from schools, social services, courts, or restaurants and businesses. In the media, bias is everywhere, from the content covered, pictures used, who is covering it, how they cover it, and the tone in which it’s covered. Bias is an essential driver by the algorithms used by computers to target us with ads, pictures, and messages so subtle that they are easily dismissible but heavily impactful on a subconscious level (Pariser 2012). Bias isn’t necessarily regarded by their parents or adults to be bad, rather, it is dismissed as “that’s just the way things are”. But the way one person thinks things are acceptable are not the way another person does. Consider the story of Christina, my 18-year-old student who dropped her friend off in front of the Boston airport door a few days after the 9–11 bombing. She got out of the car, opened the trunk to give her friend the suitcase and a hug before driving off when suddenly she found herself surrounded by what felt like 100 people screaming at her. “Three-thousand people died because of people like you!” they yelled as the frightened girl scrambled into her car to drive away. Upset over why people would be so mean to her she sought perspective from her father, who explained it this way: “Honey, they look at you and see tan skin, straight black hair, and brown eyes. To them you looked like an Arab terrorist. I guess they don’t recognize a good Italian Catholic girl when they see one.” Children learn to be biased, they believe the biases are true reflections of reality, and they grow up to act upon them. The relationship between belief and bias is pervasive, as Brown observes: Discrimination impacts most youth at some point. Almost all children and adolescents belong to at least one other stigmatized group, whether they are a Black or Latino boy in school; an immigrant or refugee; a LGBTQOA+; a special education student, or a bespectabled girl in physics class. Discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, ability, appearance, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity can have long-term academic, psychological, and social repercussions, especially when it is directed at a cognitively developing child or an emotionally vulnerable adolescent. How children and adolescents are impacted by this discrimination depends on their cognitive ability to perceive the bias, the context in which the bias occurs, and resources they have to help cope with the bias. Before we can fully address the persistent achievement gap between White and BIPOC children, the high rates of suicidal thoughts among LGBT youth, and the underrepresentation of girls in STEM careers, we must first examine the ways in which discrimination influences and is understood by children, with their unique cognitive constraints and within the specific contexts in which they live (Brown 2017).

Socialization Leading to Bias Have you ever found yourself saying or thinking something that you learned as a child that as an adult now know was wrong-headed? Children are naturally socialized to hear, and believe, what primary group members (like family) and secondary groups (like friends, coaches, or the media) encourage us to think. We inevitably heard stereotypes about what children were supposed to be like, and why we should

50

4

Framing of Children and Their Rights

be like certain types of children but not like other types. In our young brains, we constructed typologies of people that by default may stick with us today. Categorical thinking is a normal brain process. It is part of what’s known as the science of recognition. The problem manifests when we don’t just recognize “difference” or “similarity” but attribute goodness or badness to it. People in a group may seem to look alike or act alike—until we get to know them. The way we perceive others is so pervasive in our brains that its impact can even be observed in neurological brain scans (Eberhardt 2019; Nordell 2021). Bias is present in the toy’s children are given to play with, the clothes they wear, what they watch and who they listen to. It is spread through the words we use, our glances and facial expressions, and our body language. It is fascinating to watch children oppress other children who are younger than them, different from them. Even preschoolers have biases pro and con about certain individuals or entire categories of people. Babies as young as three months old show preferences for some people over others (Armstrong 2019; Brown 2021; Hamlin et al. 2010a, b). Children are constructing their understanding of themselves and others conceptually, and what they construct in their minds has long-term implications (Gelman 2009). They quickly learn that being called “a child”, “childish”, or “a baby” are demeaning and damning terms. This process occurs through socialization. Child socialization historically took place in the home and in limited spheres of the community that the family had contact with. Children may have contact with people at church, stores, workers, or extended family and friends of the parents but these networks were limited and selfselected. When formal education became a priority and schools were developed and attendance required, there was more socialization by trained teachers who exposed them to information beyond the confines of that which was available at the family level. Schools also provided greater exposure to a larger network of peers. As communities developed with more businesses and services, children became involved as community members and utilizers. They also had more contact with “different” types of people. Because we have shared an unstated narrative or framework about children and this narrative is imparted to children directly and indirectly and is a process in which we shape how children see themselves and others, and the rules and roles they are supposed to adhere. Socialization thus concerns mind-molding and mind-melding. Once children’s minds are molded to see themselves and the world in a particular way, there is an attempt to meld all the children’s minds to see things in the same way. It is a very effective strategy, as Gunel (2022) shares in this story: As a man passed by elephants in a circus, he saw that the huge animals were only tied to a small rope. He wondered why they didn’t just break free and live a life in freedom as there were no cages or chains holding them back. The ropes were obviously provisional. There was no chance they could hold the animals back from moving around. So he asked one of the trainers responsible for the elephants. The man told him: “We use the same rope to tie them when they’re young and small. At a young age, the rope is strong enough to hold them back from escaping. Over the years, they’re conditioned to believe that they can’t break free. So when they grow up, they don’t even try.” Just like the elephants, most people are chained to wrong beliefs and minor matters that hold them back from living a life they truly enjoy.

4.5

What Is the US Framework About Children?

51

Instead, they choose to stay chained. Those elephants could break free and enjoy a beautiful and rich life, but instead, they choose to stay chained to a tiny rope because they believe it’s not worth trying to escape.

4.5

What Is the US Framework About Children?

There are multiple dimensions to the framework the nation holds about children. One is what officials say should exist for children. The other is what actually transpires. There is a huge chasm between the two, a big difference between what we say and what we do. There is ideal culture, or the way we think things should be, and real culture that reflects the way things are. It is my opinion that many people and organizations say the “right thing” but fail to carry good intentions forward for a variety of reasons.

4.5.1

The Official Line

The official narrative is that US children are healthier, better educated, and have more opportunities than children in the rest of the world. It is part of a view of American Exceptionalism (Walt 2011). The view that we are better than other countries is justified by pointing to immigration and why so many people wish to move here for school or work. This builds upon a classic version of the US being the land of opportunity where streets are paved with gold for those who work hard. Indeed, there is free public education for all students through high school. There are fine health facilities—but children need to have insurance to access them, either through their parent’s employment insurance or through child insurance programs that require payment. Medicaid may be available as healthcare for some, but they must qualify and this type of insurance may not pay for all the healthcare services that are needed. There are social services, recreation, and other opportunities for children, but they are not universally available; often there are hidden costs or qualification criteria. There are many government and NGOs that work to directly support children and indirectly advance their rights. However, few of them have in their mission statements that they are defenders of children’s human rights. If challenged, they may argue that they take actions that support child rights, but they avoid using the term child rights because it has become such a hot-button term. What typically happens is twofold; there is a focus on well-being instead of rights, and the creation of targeted systems that address those children who have vulnerabilities instead of providing services universally to all children. This will be discussed later in the book when provision systems are examined. Government agencies know what all children need to survive and thrive. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control (2021a, b, c, d, e) published “Essentials for

52

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

childhood; Creating safe, stable, nurturing environments and relationships for all children” and the government publication by Child Stats.gov (2021) identified national indicators that impact children’s well-being. These indicators include: • Family and Social Environment indicators that characterize children’s family lives and social settings. • Economic Circumstances indicators related to children’s basic material needs. • Health Care indicators that characterize access to and the use of health services among children. • Physical Environment and Safety indicators that characterize children’s environmental conditions or are related to children’s safety. • Behavior indicators that characterize personal behaviors and their effects. • Education indicators that characterize how children learn and progress in school. • Health indicators that characterize the physical, mental, and social aspects of children’s health. If you think these indicators sounds good, they are. They are also some of the key elements contained in the CRC. Just because the government has identified indicators that the CRC recommends doesn’t mean that they, or the public, support child rights. Many groups have not endorsed these services. Just because leaders say that all children need and deserve these things doesn’t mean that they are committed to delivering them. Ideally, yes—but pragmatically, no. There are always obstacles that prevent them from occurring. These obstacles, I allege, could be overcome IF we decided to make children a national priority and were willing to implement the pieces necessary to protect their rights.

4.5.2

A Ctradictory Official Line

While the official line is that the US does a fantastic job taking good care of children, another official line admits that we could be doing better. This line promotes good intention but poor execution of children’s rights. It’s the rhetoric that we are doing the best we can. We are trying. It’s not our fault. There are just a lot of obstacles to overcome. We need more time, more money, different people in leadership positions. Excuses abundantly justify that some children aren’t doing as well as others. Two examples of how children’s rights aren’t a priority can be seen in the news. One is observed through the nation’s failed gun control effort to protect children. It is seen in school shootings from Sandy Hook to Parkland to Uvalde, in toddlers having access to guns, to children being killed at home, at parties, or walking down the stree. There is much rhetoric about the importance of children being safe; but substantial gun control measures have failed, and money is being put into school police officers and metal detectors instead of school counselors and mental health supports for youth (Brownstein 2022; Miller 2017a, b; Phillips 2018; Vissing and Vernick 2021). Karni and Broadwater (2022) highlight a long history of missed opportunities to support meaningful gun legislation that could have protected

4.5

What Is the US Framework About Children?

53

children. As Brown (2022:4) notes, such tragedies could prompt policy changes and new gun control laws that could curb future massacres. America has a long history of failed attempts at such legislation, despite approaching it from various angles—domestic violence, 3D home printed guns, the rapid fire of semiautomatic weapons, longer background checks, keeping guns away from terrorists. Opposition from Second Amendment hard-liners and the deep-pocketed National Rifle Association (NRA) has kept gun control legislation from passing since the 1994 assault weapons ban—which “sunsetted” in 2004 and was not renewed.

Recently some gun legislation for assault weapons and age restrictions was passed, the first Congressional legislation in 30 years. Critics allege it is not strict, as gun control measures go, and was constructed to get “something” passed regarding gun control in order to appease both sides of the gun control argument. Some states are even making it easier, not harder, for children to access guns (Detrow and Shivaram 2022; McDermott and Jones 2022). Thus it can be argued that the nation is trying to protect children from guns, but in reality it isn’t doing what is needed to actualize their safety. Another example is the lack of federal funding for universal daycare. The US government and taxpayers have long resisted supporting universal daycare, even though it did during World War II. (Miller 2017a, b). Over 93 percent of fathers and 72 percent of mothers with children at home are in the labor force, and parents cannot work if they don’t have childcare. Miller (2021b) attributes the lack of social policy support for universal daycare back to a view that mothers should stay home with their children. Because children are seen as a private, family issue, this means that childcare is a private, thus to be privately funded, issue too. Allowing universal child care would support women in the workforce and challenge the widely held assumption that women belong in the home and men should be the breadwinners. Barbara Risman’s classic work on gender inequality reminds us that the gender income gap is really a motherhood gap, and that the US is far behind other countries because of an antiquated gender ideology (Borkholder 2022). Childcare workers are poorly paid and they too are not a priority because children—and women—are not (Albrecht 2022; Ansel 2017a, b; Henderson 2022; Little 2021). In both cases, the government could have taken actions to ensure that gun control was in place, and that good quality, available, accessible, affordable childcare was available to all children. Note that I said to all children—not parents. This linguistic difference is significant for it speaks volumes about who we see as the recipient of services and rights.

4.5.3

The Unofficial Official Line

An article published in The Hill asks the question—what rights do US children have? None, they conclude (London and Ramstetter 2022). In 1989 world leaders came together to recognize that childhood as “a special protected time in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop, and flourish with

54

4

Framing of Children and Their Rights

dignity” in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This international framework is the most supported human rights treaty in the history of the world, with 196 countries ratifying it, all United Nations countries except for the United States. This treaty affirms that children are not possessions of their parents but have their own rights as individual human beings. Yet in the US, this is not the narrative that most people hold about children. Despite the rhetoric that children are the most important thing to the nation, the government has not invested in children as a high priority. It has not created a national government agency to oversee all of the disjointed pieces of children’s lives, including healthcare, education, transportation, media, abuse, crime, violence, food security, housing, etc. It has refused to ratify the CRC or create an integrated children’s human rights platform. One of the characteristics of a human rights approach is that rights are inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. Officially, children in the US are not designated to have human rights, so it should be no surprise that what we provide them is fragmented, dispersed, and not available to all (Benforado 2023). The lack of support for children can be seen in how the nation inadequately invests in children financially, how legislation has not focused on children’s safety or rights, or in programs to support them in basic services like education and healthcare. Countless bills and proposals have been put forth to support children and most have been sidelined or watered-down. The biggest issues are the official choices to support adults over children and to argue that there isn’t enough money to give children all they need—although there certainly seems to be enough money for military endeavors or the refusal to tax wealthy individuals and corporations at the same level as individuals. Government representatives have demeaned young people like Greta Thunberg, Simone Biles, David Hogg who fight for their rights. When government leaders use their positions to say disparaging things about youth and who refuse to support funding for programs that help them, actions speak volumes about their views of children and their place in society. Why children aren’t a national policy priority is explored by Frameworks authors L’Hote and Volmert (2021). How media portray children impacts the public perception of children as vulnerable, a family concern, and not a policy issue (Hestres et al. 2021a). In a report on how child advocates talk about children’s issues, they state: By many measures, America is failing its children. In 2019, 14.4% of all children under the age of 18 in the United States were living below the official poverty line. Children of color in this country fare even worse. This is not the result of immutable forces of nature, but of specific policies that misdirect resources away from where they are most needed to ensure the welfare of all children. . . . But as recent FrameWorks research shows, the public lacks an understanding of how most public policy relates to children. In order to begin to shift public thinking through framing and narrative efforts, we must grasp how the field is currently framing children’s issues. (Hestres et al. 2021b:1).

4.5

What Is the US Framework About Children?

4.5.4

55

The Confusing Line

The terms child rights and parent rights have become terribly confusing since the COVID-19 pandemic. I truly believe that most people love their children, want them to be safe, happy, healthy, and successful, and want what is best for them. The problem is that we are not in agreement about what that is or how to achieve it. The politicization of children’s lives stems from different ideological versions about what children are and the framework we hold about them. This ideological warfare is stoked by social media (National Geographic 2021; Wallace 2017). Instead of all parents being on the same page fighting for the same things for all children, “our” children get pitted against “other people’s children”, with our children being seen as more important. The more we attribute bias and a belief that other children aren’t as good or don’t have as much potential as ours, the more we can justify seeing them as objects that simply aren’t worth investing in. They’re not going to contribute much anyway, from this exceptionalism view. Polilticalization of children and childhood pits parents against each other, labeling others as good or bad, right or wrong. Innocent children have become pawns in a war that is not of their making. Today misinformation and disinformation are at the center of social debate over things like child rights. Scholars have identified “information disorder syndrome,” the creating or sharing of false information out of error—misinformation—or to mislead or cause harm—disinformation or mal-information (Northwestern University 2022). People tend to no longer rely upon traditional news networks to get information. Instead of going to sources like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or PBS, or newspapers like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, or Washington Post, people gravitate to their social media sites. In many ways, social media sites have been highjacked by those with skewed agendas. They may get tweets or posts on Facebook, Instagram, or other sites and trust the information because they like or trust the people in their network who are posting information. People are busy and may rely upon 20 second sound bytes to get their news. Very few members of the public read scholarly journals or ever go to reports that may be excerpted in news items. As a result, they do not know about the theoretical framework used in the article, the sample or where the data came from, the methodology, the hypotheses, variable, or survey questions asked, the data collection method, or how it was analyzed. If they did unbiased research to assess information and reports, this may allow for a higher level of discourse about what is going on. Who is funding the research or distributing the information is important to know. It is common to hear advertisements that promote a 10 second idea or tell us to vote for a certain bill or candidate—and blindly, people get on that bandwagon and believe what is being reported as truth. This results in a population who is ill-informed, but think they are well-informed because they heard information from somebody that they thought was true without ever taking the time to ascertain if it was (Fox 2018a, b, c).

56

4

Framing of Children and Their Rights

The pandemic crisis set the stage for the morphing of issues of parents wishing to control vaccines, masks, safety procedures, school curriculum, what is taught and how, what books are to be read or banned, sports participation, sex education, place of LGBTQ+, school board control, and more. Certainly, parents do not want their children harmed. In the quest to keep children safe, a bifurcation has resulted over the role of science, schools, medicine, public health, and government. The discussion shifted from the importance of public health to constitutional rights, with most people never actually reading the constitution. Social media was captured by people who were angry with the public health measures, and while they were the minority of people, their narrative became a dominant one on social media (Bond 2021; Joi 2022). The result is that some people think they are advocating for their children’s rights when they have a misunderstanding of whose rights they are fighting for, and why. The debate over who controls a child’s education and health, their participation and agency, and access to materials that inspire critical thinking have become central in whether we are going to protect our democracy (Moyer 2022). The mantra of “our kids, our choice” became a dominant theme during these times. This mantra holds at its center is that children are parental property, and that parents, not medical professionals, professional educators, or public health leaders, have the right to decide what children may and may not do. If a parent decides not to vaccinate their child and their child spreads disease to others, it IS a public health issue. The lack of access to information that is true, but makes some people uncomfortable, is suppression of education. The question about whether children are independent beings or parental property is at the heart and soul of the parental rights versus child rights debate (Frenkel 2022). It is also an example of how social media and misinformation have corrupted people’s understanding about human rights, especially for children.

4.5.5

The Informal Child Framework

There are those in the US who support children’s rights and they attempt to adhere to a children’s rights framework. However, few people are immune from a dominant narrative about children. An informal adherence to children being rights holders does exist, to some degree. When push comes to shove, I want to believe that when adults really think about it and consider the data and what life is like from a younger person’s point of view, they will see why it is important to support children as human rights holders. As a nation we love children—especially our own. But the not-so-secret reality is that as a nation, we do not do a good job of taking care of other people’s children. This is especially true when it comes to children who are born to parents who have financial challenges, or who are from different races, ethnicities, religions, and cultures. An “us” verses “them” mentality exists, where we are more likely to take care of children who are members of our family, our neighborhood, or our group. For example, people often protest when their taxes go up to pay for a new school when

4.5

What Is the US Framework About Children?

57

they don’t have children in the school—they don’t think they benefit from the school directly so they don’t want to spend money for supporting other people’s kids, since they do not share a collective vision of all children being our children. In another illustration, the more a child is seen as different, an outsider, like an immigrant child at the Mexico border, the less welcomed they may be. We may deport them, knowing full well that where they are going their lives may be filled with hardship. While we may do a pretty good job of helping high-profile children or those who are in distressed, life-threatening situations, the typical children in between are invisible and under-served. Places like the Ronald McDonald House or St. Jude’s hospital provide care for children often at no cost, but millions of children have no health insurance. We create systems to support ‘exceptional’ and ‘gifted’ children but fail to see those who are hungry, live in distressed housing, or exist in abusive households. If a child is missing, (especially white children from well-resourced families) media airwaves may be filled with announcements to help find them. Children from wealthy families get to go to highly resourced schools while public schools are under-funded, under-staffed, with elites demanding school-choice voucher support to offset their children’s private school education. Average children may not be on our radar. Like it or not, children are still regarded as property of parents. Naturally every parent has a bond with their children. But children are not possessions, even though we talk about “my child” as if they are. Parenting is a privilege. It is an obligation that requires that parents do the right things to ensure children’s safety, development, and well-being. But it is only in extreme cases that outside interventions occur to challenge the child as property position, and rarely are children removed from inadequate homes. I have worked with courts and agencies for decades and found that parent rights always come first because they “own” their children. The assumption that because I have a child it is mine and I can do whatever I decide and outsiders should keep their nose out of my business is one that is not designed to be in a child’s best interest. Children are smart and have agency, but we generally don’t listen to children or discount their opinion. We may not give them opportunities for true input or respect what they say, want, or need. Some parents role-model rights-respectful behavior and give their children authentic decision-making capability. Giving children the opportunity to explore their emotions, thoughts, lives, decisions, and opportunitie in a rights-respecting ways, the more they can develop positive attributes leading to better health, responsibility, and democracy (Lee 2017). Parenting styles have changed significantly over the years, thanks to good research on best practices and longitudinal data linking cause and effects. Many parents are doing super jobs caring for their children in a best-practices way as a result. But many of us default to old-school methods and attitudes. We replicate what we learned as children, even when we didn’t like it back then. A common parenting style is still to spank a child or use corporal punishment or physical aggression to punish a child. Hitting a child is not illegal in the US in most family situations, and it may be acceptable in non-familial situations, like schools or institutions. It is

58

4 Framing of Children and Their Rights

common to shame and blame a child, since many people assume that verbal and emotional abuse doesn’t really hurt a child but rather inspires them to act more in accordance to what the parent expects. Data has found that these strategies do a variety of damage to children in the long run (Gershoff and Font 2016; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 2016; Straus 2001, 2013). There is also an anti-intellectual bias occurring in which some people automatically reject a child rights approach when working with children. This is largely because people have never been taught about what child rights are, how to implement them, or why they are important. Data shows that few people dispute the basic premises about provision, protection, and participation that are inherent in the CRC. Some adults automatically discount them without ever reading the treaty or considering what they are, not because they are opposed to the actions but because they have misunderstood the label of human rights (Lesley 2022). Programs are not designed to first focus on children; adult rights always take precedence. It is assumed that if families are helped there will be an automatically trickle-down effect to benefit children. Sometimes this works, as observed through financial benefits to families during the COVID pandemic. But consider the positive potential effects of the reverse strategy—if first children were given support (remember that many do not have parents or guardians who provide for them), parents, families and children would all directly benefit. Meeting children’s needs automatically benefits parents. Universal supports for all children, not just at-risk ones, could have positive consequences not just for them, but for the entire family system.

4.6

Summary

Frameworks matter. They influence our beliefs. The way we develop systems, organizations, and choose to act all depend upon the frameworks and narratives we hold about children and what rights we think they have. The United States has not committed to a children’s human rights framework by law, theory, or practice. Unlike children in Scandinavian or United Kingdom countries, children in the US are seldom identified in the public eye to be rights-holders. Adults and organizations do not see themselves as obligated to be duty-bearers to protect and defend children’s human rights. Children, comprising a quarter of our national population, are recipients of major public health and social problems, yet those social problems are seldom considered as children’s problems. Belief is a huge motivator for how children are treated. The problem with belief is that it isn’t always fact-based; there are many protective emotions involved that seek to buffer us from future harm. It is cyclical—belief creates bias, bias creates belief, and biased belief creates prejudice, or preferential views that can then lead to discriminatory actions. The whole process can be subtle or overt as children come to view distorted perceptions as true reality. Moreover, once learned, this bias is hard to un-learn. As children attach bias to themselves and others, they carry it through

4.6

Summary

59

into the rest of their lives as they perceive and interact with others. As they do, they teach their bias as truth to others, and inevitably to their own children who venture forth carrying their acquired biases into the future as if it was genetically predetermined as real. This is where the big danger lies. It is also why grabbing hold of what children think, learn and come to “know” is so vitally important. Children’s minds are a political tool, make no mistake about it. Whoever controls the mind of a child controls the future. We are tone-deaf to the bias of children that leads to their marginalization, oppression, and discrimination. We don’t see it, we don’t hear it, and we don’t talk about it. And for those of us who dare to do so, we often find ourselves challenged or quickly “put in our place”—which follows the power model of inevitably a subservient one. Seldom are children regarded as rights-holders in any way, shape, or form. Institutions are created by adults for adult purposes. The CRC framework states that the state, hence organizations and adults, are duty-bearers who should consider the best interests of the child in any decision that they make. Therefore, from a children’s human rights framework, institutions could be designed to meet young people’s needs as much as adult needs. But this can only occur if we believe that children are worthy of the investment. Clinical sociology relies upon data to guide action. Because data indicates that people do not fully understand human rights in general or children’s human rights in particular, this chapter will discuss them in detail. No movement towards rightsrespecting behavior can result until people understand what it is and how to implement it.

Chapter 5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Our hopes for a more just, safe, and peaceful world can only be achieved when there is universal respect for the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family. UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka

5.1

Introduction

This chapter is designed to provide an introduction into what children’s human rights are. It starts with the assumption that most people do not know what a children’s human rights framework is it or why it is important. It is common in the US for people to never have a human rights class. As a result, we do not know the history of human rights, do not know how many human rights treaties there are or how many the US has ratified, and most have never really read the Constitution, have no knowledge of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Convention on the Rights of the Child or what they state. Yet despite our lack of actual knowledge of human rights, it is typical for people to think they know what they are (Kolbert 2017). This disparity between what we think we know, what we know, and what we do not know is important to recognize as we analyze why the US has become the only member of the developed world not to commit to defending children’s human rights. This chapter will introduce the general notion of children’s human rights. Detail on their civil rights and how child rights pertain to the US Constitution will be provided in Part IV of this book.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_5

61

62

5.2

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

What Are Rights?

In order to under what children’s human rights are, it is useful to step back and consider what rights are in general. There are many different types of rights, but often they pertain only to certain groups of people. Human rights are rights that are universal and apply to everyone, just because we are human beings. The UN identifies at least 30 rights that all people are entitled, and the term for them is categorically “human rights” as they are described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which will be discussed in detail momentarily. A children’s human rights framework presents a significant paradigm shift to the way young people have typically been contextualized in the US. It is data-based, human rights based, and incorporates a variety of both macro and micro levels of intervention and implementation for a clinical sociological perspective. There are many different ways to view the concept of rights (More 2021). This fact adds to the complexity over whether children should have what kind of rights. Before it is possible to understand this paradigm shift, let us explore the foundation of human rights.

5.2.1

Moral Foundation of Human Rights

The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others (Paden 2003; Puka 2022). The Golden Rule in all of its forms across time and around the world is an example of natural law. The premise of acting kindly to others and expecting to be treated in the same kindly manner was first labeled as “the Golden Rule” in 1604 by British Anglican theologians Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson (Gensler 2013). It is attributed back to ancient Confucian, Buddhist, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Christian, Judaism, Islam, and other faiths (Blackburn 2001; Epstein 2010; Kidder 2003). However, not everyone agrees that the Golden Rule pertains to rights. Damrosch (2008) views rights as a modern political ideal and philosophical concept promulgated by work of Jean Jacques Rousseau in eighteenth century France and argues that to confuse the Golden Rule with human rights is to apply contemporary thinking to ancient concepts.

5.2.2

Rights in Different Spheres

How rights are perceived depends upon the level at which one considers them. There is a legal sphere, a public sphere and a private sphere. The legal sphere consists of laws that have been determined by courts within a judicial process; they are to be

5.2

What Are Rights?

63

followed and if they are violated there could be penalties, jail, or fines. The public sphere is the realm of politics where strangers come together to exchange in ideas and to create collective actions; the collective actions are designed to become norms that people are expected to comply with but are not necessarily legally binding. The private sphere focuses on the home or individual level where people exert choice over what they will do and who can enter their world. Children have been regarded to be part of the family and home, thus the private sphere. The private sphere prioritizes an individual’s responsibility to themselves and their family, and what happens in the private sphere is thought to be independent from that of the greater society. Some children are given lots of agency at home; some are not. What they are allowed is determined by their parents and unless some legal lines are crossed, the public has no say in what happens to them. Children, like women, people of color, and people with ability challenges, have often been excluded from participation in the public sphere. Women’s rights and children’s rights are historically, and biologically intertwined (Todres 2016). The economic, social, political, and physical struggles that women face today become part of children’s struggles as a result. The public sphere, according to Habermas (1989) is the cornerstone of democracy. It is where individuals (of the private sphere) interact and exchange ideas with others to articulate the public needs of society and the state. Out of this public sphere grows a public authority that dictates what should be the norms, values, and goals of society. Habermas alleged that a public sphere must be inclusive, focused on common concerns, and allow everyone to participate, regardless of social status. The private sphere is ever-evolving and what happens within it may fluctuate and address the norms or conditions of a given point in time or geographic location (Crossman 2020; Habermas 1989; Turkel 1988). At the legal level, there is no CRC commitment for children’s rights. The US Constitution does not speak directly to the issue of children having rights; courts make determination on cases on who has what kind of rights. There is no US commission for children’s rights as found in countries like Iceland or Scotland. States make their own laws and they may vary significantly from one to another. This has contributed to differential narratives about what kinds of rights children may be entitled to hold. There are “natural rights”, as explicated in the works of Cicero, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau (Stein 2005). Natural rights are inalienable, in that they cannot be repealed by human-made, social laws. Before there were laws of society there were some called the laws of nature. These included the right to life, to have property, and to do what one wanted. Legal rights are those bestowed to people by courts or legal systems. Legal rights are arbitrary and can be created, modified, or repealed according to the will of those in power. There are three types of legal rights—civil, political, and economic rights. There are also moral rights, or rights born out of human consciousness that reflect upon goodness, justice, helpful conduct, and kindness. Moral rights may be embraced by religions but are not necessarily enforceable by law. Human rights are based on the idea that every single person on the planet deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

64

5 Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

identifies five kinds of human rights: economic, social, cultural, civil, and political. Human rights are “truly a profound idea that has changed the course of human history. Human rights frameworks have become a global gold-standard by which to judge the moral integrity of a nation in terms of how it treats its citizens” (Chong 2014). Because there are different definitions of what it means to have a right, conflict, and competition exist over what right or whose rights should be honored. Individuals, courts, and society struggle to resolve rights-based issues (Waldron 1989). The discourse and debate over which right is in the public’s interest, and which right is to take priority, is part of an ongoing social construction of rights standards (Xu and Wilson 2006). Consideration about whether children should be afforded rights is part of this debate.

5.2.3

Positive and Negative Rights

One can think about rights being either positive or negative. Both categories of rights are designed to guide people to create a better, more respectful world. A positive right would be one that empowers us to get something that we need or want. Having healthcare is positive. We benefit from having a good quality education. Being able to vote and have a voice in what happens in your community is a positive thing. There are many rights we feel strongly about, like the right to have a home, to have a family, to have reliable transportation, heat, food, or clean air and water. It is our right to be respected and be treated with dignity. We have a right to work, to play, and to rest. Having friends or belonging to faith communities or social groups is a positive right. Some rights are framed in a negative fashion, of what you do not have a right to do. We don’t have a right to punch someone in the face because we don’t like what they said. We don’t have a right to force someone to have sex with us just because we want to have sex with them. We don’t have the right to deny someone the opportunity to vote because they might vote in a way we don’t like. It is not our right to vandalize property, steal, or drive too fast on the road. It’s not a good thing for the environment for us to litter or pour toxic waste into water that someone else may eventually drink. There are times when we may question when is something a positive or a negative right, or a right at all. One person may think something is a right when another person believes the same thing is a violation of the rights. This can get confusing and result in conflict as people try to reconcile whose right is more right. For instance, children’s rights are regarded to be a positive thing by their advocates but it is regarded as a negative thing by parents who feel if children have rights it negates their own. Trying to resolve the conflict may result in interactions that are far from rights-respecting. A human rights framework provides a way to resolve such issues.

5.3

A Brief History of International Human Rights

5.2.4

65

Human Rights and Human Rights Law

“Human rights” as a term may be used in a philosophical sense or pragmatically in the creation of “human rights law”. While the origin of “human rights” lies in the nature of the human being itself, as articulated in all the world’s major religions and moral philosophy, “human rights law” is associated with the rise of the democratic state that legitimizes legislation and bureaucratic functioning through the creation of constitutions and laws. Human rights activism can be described as a struggle to ensure that the gap between human rights and human rights law is narrowed down in order to ensure the full legal recognition and actual realization of human rights. Rights are sometimes categorized in three generations, whereupon one generation leads to the development of the next higher order of rights. These include first generation rights focusing on Liberty, or civil and political rights, second generation rights of Equality, or socioeconomic rights, and third generation rights of Fraternity, which focus on solidarity and collective rights (Viljoens 2020).

5.3

A Brief History of International Human Rights

Historical accounts show that in primitive times, there were no human rights per se. Your access to resources, protections, and power were dependent upon what social group you were part of. After Cyrus the Greek (539 BC) conquered Babylon, he announced revolutionary things like slaves and captured people were free to go, people could choose their own religion, and the importance of racial equality. These principles were carved into stone in what has become known as the Cyrus Cylinder and regarded as the first human rights document (MET 2013). These ideas spread to India, Greece, Rome, and other places. There was no formal human rights mandate but people everywhere seemed to rely upon the same basic standards of how to treat one another, in what became known as “natural law”. But people in power systematically trampled on others with no regard to their rights for a thousand years until in 1245 English King John ruled that no one has the right to violate the rights of other people—not even a king. The document guaranteeing regular people rights and privileges was called the Magna Carta. Ideas supporting rights continued to grow and ultimately led in 1776 to the American Revolution where people who had traveled to a new continent overthrew British rule. The French Revolution followed suit, and determined that there were “natural rights” of man that governments were obligated to respect. But Napoleon wanted to be ruler of the world and overthrew the budding democracy, which led to major warfare over whose rights were to be dominant. While much of Europe supported the growth of human rights and democracy, other parts of the world were slow to do so. In 1915 a lawyer, Mahatma Gandhi, led a revolution in India by insisting that people all over the world, not just in Europe, were entitled to human rights. Gandhi’s work has been inspirational across the

66

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

world, and remains so. However, violations of human rights have always arisen, as shown in World War I, World War II, and other wars that have been more regional in nature. Natural rights over time became seen as human rights. In order to protect human rights, preserve peace and justice, and work to establish conditions that will lift up people’s humanity and livelihood, the League of Nations was created, which led way to the establishment of the United Nations (UN). The mandate of the UN is to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person. Under Eleanor Roosevelt, all countries agreed to a set of standards of what constituted human rights for all in a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This led to the creation of a variety of other human rights treaties and documents that have been ratified around the world (Human Rights 2020; Viljoen 2020).1 The UDHR did not specify address children’s rights, which led to the development of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which will be highlighted in this chapter. The UN has worked diligently across the planet to help create peace, increase access to good health and life-sustaining conditions, and to find constructive ways to reduce violence and inequality. But human rights, as seen in the UDHR and CRC, are “ideas on a page” with no legal mandate. This is why laws made at the city, state, and national level are so important. History shows that governments do not generally grant rights willingly; rights gains are only secured through a successful challenge to absolutist authority. Following on the Magna Carta, which set limits on the powers of royal Government in thirteenth century England, the 1776 American Declaration of Independence and the 1789 French Declaration des droits de l’Homme et de du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen) were landmarks of how revolutionary visions could be transformed into national law and made into justiciable guarantees against future abuse (Viljoens 2020). The US is in a moment in which human rights violations are occurring at a national level as across the world supporters of rights and democracy struggle to preserve human rights as a large, motivating and governing principle. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. used a human rights framework to advocate for breaking segregation, women, older people, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and other characteristics have been forced to seek justice through the courts because there is no universal acceptance of all people having all human rights. The fight for children to be awarded human rights is just the latest iteration of an ongoing struggle for human rights and justice for all.

1 Human Rights.com – History of Human Rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XXGF_ V8_7M

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

5.4

67

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

Human rights have been written in such a way that on the surface, they are to apply to everyone. However, because human rights are not necessarily legal concepts, they may be supported from moral positions, from a “natural rights” approach, or through court actions and legislative mandates. I have looked extensively at children’s rights history and have created a general description of how they have evolved over time. It is important to realize that what we know about children’s lives has always come from adults who have written the narratives. This means that while we have some information historically about the lives of children, it is limited in scope. What we know about children’s history not only is adultified but comes from a largely white, European, and Christian historical frame of reference. Thus, what we know is just a snippet of what occurred. Even so, I write this history as a beginning to collect stories about what some children experienced and how it set the standards for what we know of childhood during certain points of live. Even with its limitations, this is still useful since it lays a foundation for many of the divergent views people hold about children as rights holders today. Children have always been reared within both family and community contexts. How families and communities have reared children and addressed them rights has been highly variable across time, place, and culture. Understanding the historical underpinnings of how we view children helps us to critically evaluate current social policies. Historians provide information from which we can glean perspectives about what children’s human rights were like. There is a paucity of details about children as rights-bearers. Rather, we have to largely infer what they were. Like sewing patches for a quilt, we have to see what stories about the history of children we have available and how to fit them together into a coherent pattern that makes sense.

5.4.1

Nomadic Families

Anthropologists conclude the earliest peoples were nomadic, hunting and gathering societies in which families lived in small groups eating available plants and animals; when food sources were depleted they moved elsewhere, repeating this pattern. They were likely egalitarian, valuing the contribution of children and elders, females and males. Everyone helped the community survive; since children were small and nimble they could do things that larger people couldn’t. It is thought that everyone had value and were treated similarly with respect to having basic rights for survival. Children were cared for by the entire community (Bowles and Gintis 2011; Orme 2003). Nomadic societies became supplanted by pastoral and agrarian societies, which were later replaced by agricultural ones. This was the beginning of role specialization and rights inequality. As people no longer needed mobility in order to survive, houses were built, more material possessions were acquired, communities became

68

5 Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

larger in size, and role differentiation more pronounced. Women became relegated to childbearing and domestic chores; being pregnant and nursing babies kept them from seizing opportunities to travel farther from home to engage in the buying and selling of goods. As a result, men became in charge of money and disseminating both it and information learned through traveling. This resulted in stratification on the basis of gender, age and ability. Men controlled the economy of the family, which transformed into social and interpersonal power. While all children did chores, girls replicated maternal activities like cooking, cleaning, and caring for children as boys were socialized to replicate fatherdesignated activities in the social and economic sectors of the community. When societies became more economically stable and social environments more organized, children collectively fell down the rungs of the stratification ladder (Lenski 1970, 2005). Children’s rights, like those of women or the elderly, were simply regarded as less important than the rights of men.

5.4.2

Greek and Roman Influence on Children’s Human Rights

Most reported histories of children’s rights begin with the contributions of Greek and Roman philosophers. The Roman law of patria potestas gave fathers absolute power over children, who were seen as parental property. As head of the family, men had power over wives and slaves as well. Fathers had the authority to sell or kill children until the first century without it being a punishable offense. The right to abandon one’s child remained into the fifth-century; abandoned children were often the product of rape or affairs. Because there were no schools, daycare centers, or social organizations, children stayed at home with parents until they were seven-years-old, when they were put into training for occupational pursuits. Teenagers were considered adults and expected to fend for themselves or marry. Therefore, they likely had similar rights to that of adults. Plato organized the first school known as the Academy where people would sit together in a grove of trees and listen to lectures, debate ideas, and learn from each other. In his Utopian work, The Republic, Plato laid out a model in which he felt children should learn to become good citizens in a productive society, that children were born with an inherent understanding of the world, that education could help remind children of their intuitive knowledge, that both boys and girls could benefit from attending community nurseries, and being exposed to a varied curriculum could teach them values, games, music, drama, and other skills. Plato’s views of a positive childhood and good education influenced others. Plato’s student, Aristotle reiterated the value of both play and education, development of the mind and body, and the importance of creating good habits early in life. Aristotle’s student, Alexander the Great, whose conquests reached from Greece to India, spread these ideas throughout his empire. Despite the influence of the Greek

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

69

co-educational model on Rome, over time the state created educational systems targeted only to males. Roman emperor Quintilian (A.D. 35–95) felt children under age 7 benefitted from play and should learn through imitation rather than intimidation, encouraging parents to choose their children’s tutors and nurses with care. While not rights as we know them today, there were significant strides to improving children’s lives through education. It is noteworthy that Plato is also thought to have advocated infanticide as a form of eugenics. Sparta and its athletes are known for pederasty, which is sex of the adult athletes with the boys who were assigned to help them. It was very common for men and teenage boys to have sex and boys were seen as especially valuable sexual partners to the adult athletes (Cartledge 1981; Mason 2020). During that period, there was not a strict delineation between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sex was sex with whatever partner one desired, male or female, younger or older. Therefore, the sexual boundaries that exist today were not common in Greece during the days of the Spartans. Children were not seen to be abused or exploited, but desirable and mutual sexual partners. Thus, the impact of how children were treated in the Greek and Roman empires set the stage for both the positive and negative views of children and how they were to be treated.

5.4.3

Child Rights During the Dark and Middle Ages

This period in history was not supportive of children or them being awarded rights; indeed, some historians argue that childhood during the Middle Ages didn’t exist (Economist 2019; Heywood 2001). Education fir children became less important after the fall of the Roman Empire, which was followed by the Middle Ages or Dark Ages. It was a time of social migration and struggle during which many intellectual advances of the previous era were discounted. Infant and child mortality became high; scholars estimate that one-fourth of infants born died before their first birthday, usually from accidents or disease. Children from more well-to-do homes fared better than children born into impoverished homes. Those who survived had lives filled with illness, hunger, and poor nutrition. Medical care was expensive, hard to obtain, and generally ineffective. Life was so challenging that children who lived were thought to be gifts from God. Often children were given names that had Biblical or saintly connotations or were given magical charms, in hopes heavenly bodies would protect them (Snell 2019). Mothers continued to be primary caregivers, especially in poorer families. Swaddling, or wrapping a baby tightly in cloth to hold arms and legs close to the body, was a common practice. Swaddling was thought to help babies’ legs and arms to grow straight and to protect the babies from insects. It also prevented babies from moving around, which kept the baby out of trouble and allowed mothers to undertake their daily domestic chores (Newman 2016). As infants became mobile toddlers, they could get into trouble quickly so they were literally “tied to their mother’s

70

5 Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

apron strings” (Stirler 2013). Aristocratic women were encouraged to have as many babies as possible, so they didn’t nurse their babies since that might inhibit fertility. Nursemaids were employed by wealthy families to care for and provide milk to the babes. This freed wealthy mothers to engage in high-society while their children were raised almost exclusively by nurses (Stirler 2013). Historical reports of this time period are mixed about the degree to which mothers valued their babies, were involved in their care, sang, or played games with them. The Middle Ages was primarily an oral culture, not a literate one even though reading and writing were regarded as good skills to have. Parents taught children daily skills for survival in learning by doing. When children acquired skills, they were deemed competent. They fed farm animals, planted vegetables, and harvested them, cared for children in the home, cooked, cleaned, and sewed. There was no public schooling; few children attended school and those who did came from affluent families. Formal education was rare and provided to boys by the church for the priesthood. Trade schools trained boys for jobs such as carpentry, farming, and candle-making, or professions such as medicine or law (Newman 2016; Snell 2019; Stirler 2013). Girls learned domestic tasks they were expected to use for the rest of their lives. Most children were deemed competent to do adult tasks by age thirteen. Houses tended to be small with few material objects since they were expensive for average people. Adults and children enjoyed similar recreational activities; gambling, especially with dice or cards was a common pastime. Children also played with dolls, blocks, tops, or board games. Outdoor play with siblings or peers was common, with wrestling, running, skipping, climbing trees, fishing, or playing hideand-seek enjoyed by both children and adults. Privacy was rare and children were expected to sleep with siblings until they were around age fourteen. Sleeping with others kept them warmer in cold weather. Poor children slept on the floor or on hay-stuffed pillows; beds were for adults or the wealthy. Nudity was normal and expected for children, who often did not wear many (or any) clothes (Stirler 2013). Adults did not conceal sexual drives in front of children since sexual expression was an ordinary and expected activity. Children became sexually active around puberty, even though marriage might not occur until later. With indoor plumbing unavailable, toileting, bathing, menstruation, and body functions were not private experiences. People, especially males, tended to toilet publicly with no embarrassment. During medieval times, children and adults “lived in the same (physical), social and intellectual world” (Postman 1994:36). Children and adults shared the same routines and experiences, but children weren’t shielded from harsh realities and shameful secrets of the adult world. They weren’t generally abused, had time to play, and had some rights protections (Hanawalt 1993). Postman argues that, for this reason, “childhood” as we now know it didn’t exist. Infants and young children were seen as immature, fragile, and unable to do complicated tasks. They were seen as essentially useless. French historian, Phillipe Aries in his book, Centuries of Childhood (1979; Palaiologou and Male 2019) claims that “childhood” is a concept created by modern society in the sixteenth century:

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

71

In medieval society the idea of childhood did not exist; this is not to suggest that children were neglected, forsaken or despised. The idea of childhood is not to be confused with affection for children: it corresponds to an awareness of the particular nature of childhood, that particular nature which distinguishes the child from the adult, even the young adult. In medieval society this awareness was lacking. (Ariès 1962:128).

Aries’ work has spawned significant debate among scholars by arguing childhood is a product of social construction. Newman (2016) observed that during medieval times, children are absent in both literature and art, which is seen as proof that either children were deemed unimportant or merely not useful. This would indicate that they had few rights and that society did not perceive itself to be a duty-bearer to them. But Gabriele (2019) challenges this view of children in the Middle Ages. He finds that a substantial body of evidence exists that children in the European Middle Ages were protected, loved, and recognized as different from adults. He observes there are many portrayals of adults allowing children to play, grieving the death of a child, and were caring of children. This leaves us considering if rights afforded to children by the state and those in the home may be similar and if children may have been more important, and perhaps rights-respected than some historical accounts convey.

5.4.4

Renaissance and Enlightenment

Children’s rights were not an issue back when the French Declaration of the Rights of Man was written in 1780; children then were regarded as a residual category of person, who lacked full human rights. European societies thought of children as the property of their parents, property that could be sold, and children weren’t seen as particularly valuable property at all (Cunningham 1991, 2005; Ennew 2000a, b). Over time children may become considered fully human, but the immaturity of their being put them in a separate and not equal category to that of adults. Just as the shift from hunting and gathering societies to farming societies transformed the lives of families, technological changes that brought about the end of the Dark Ages changed the lives of children (Baggerman and Dekker 2009). Around 1445 the printing press was invented and written words replaced oral transmission of information. The printing press ushered in the Renaissance, 1485–1517, a Golden Age of artistic, cultural, and intellectual thought (Postman 1994). At first, literacy was the domain of elites, but soon learning how to read and write became viewed as a necessary skill for adults, and later children. Literacy and access to information began to even the playing field between children and adults. The Renaissance was a time of increased education, more material possessions, luxuries, elegant clothing, and finer foods. Cities grew into centers for trade and artistic expression. A middle-class developed who had money to spend on goods and services. Craftspeople, artisans, merchants and professionals emerged. Painting, sculpture, music, and dance became more popular. Social events and festivals became more common and were enjoyed by all classes and ages of people.

72

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

During the Renaissance, Enlightenment, or Romantic historical periods, children became more beloved and their rights became seen as more important. In Benzaquen’s review of children during the Enlightenment, she provides a detailed analysis of how philosophers such as Buffon, Rousseau, and Jauffret shifted the narrative about what children were like, in comparison to those of the Dark Ages. The child came into being as a scientific object of study “in parallel with significant transformations in notions of selfhood” and childhood became “a mirror in which we can see ourselves young and old at the same time”. Early Renaissance children were treated like small adults and expected to walk, act, talk, and dress like mini-adults. Most were not well-educated. As soon as they were able, children were expected to begin working. They generally were not hugged or coddled, but as the Renaissance matured, the view of children softened. This can be seen in the works of famous artists of the day, for instance, Sandro Botticelli painted infants as angels or the baby Jesus in a loving pose with the Madonna. Children were depicted as innocent, healthy, beautiful, and well-cared for by adoring mothers. The presence of angels conveyed a sense of blessedness and the beauty of innocent children became seen as an alternative to the mini-adult model. The shift in how children were perceived can be seen in other ways. Many early schools were run by the Catholic Churches and focused on religious indoctrination with strict rules for student compliance in order to control the ‘sinful’ nature of children. Martin Luther, a former monk, broke from the Church and began the Protestant Reformation which opened up new different ways not just of worship, but of social life. Luther believed schools should include the intellectual, religious, physical, emotional, and social aspects of children and both boys and girls ought to be able to read the Bible for themselves. Sir Thomas More of England and Desiderius Erasmus encouraged parents and teachers to use less harsh forms of discipline and punishments, believing children would learn better if they found the process of learning enjoyable. John Amos Comenius, who wrote early teaching materials for children, believed children should be taught in their native languages, all people were equal before God, and rich, poor, male, or female, all should be entitled to the same education. He introduced the concept of “grades”, or different levels of education determined by each child’s age and developmental stage. His beliefs led to a formalized system of education focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic for children beginning around age five (Historical Foundations of Early Childhood Education 2015; King 2014). During the Renaissance, there was a shift from the conception of natural law from duties to rights. Teachings of Aquinas and Hugo Grotius, the creation of the Magna Carta (1215), the Charter of Forests (1217), Petition of Right (1628) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) indicated that human beings are endowed with certain eternal and inalienable rights (Weston 2020). The global movement towards the importance of human rights was underway. The Renaissance laid foundations for the Enlightenment, a period of increased reverence for logic, disdain for superstition, and the value of discovery, especially in science, mathematics, and technology. This view rejected tradition as people searched for new knowledge. Science, rather than the church, became the authority

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

73

for understanding the world. Research by Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Liebnitz, and Baruch Spinoza encouraged the rise of science, ethics, and the importance of treating others, including children, with fairness and justice. Thinkers of the Enlightenment articulated the idea that human beings, not institutional authority or power, out to be the central concern of governance. From this perspective, the state is an institutional expression of the Enlightenment’s ideals (Wilmer 2015). This view also raises the issue—are children considered human beings or not? How that question was answered greatly influences whether or not they should be awarded rights. The Enlightenment changed the lives of children, especially in families and schools. A primary goal of parenting was to discipline, which had meant breaking the will of a child, usually via shame or corporal punishment. During the Enlightenment this brutality was questioned; molding children’s minds lovingly came into favor (Carlson 2014; Foyster and Marten 2010). Philosophy grew in importance and John Locke’s view of children and adults being separate beings became influential. Children became seen as innocent, vulnerable and required adults to teach them about the world. Locke viewed newborn babies as a tabula rasa, or blank slate. It was the responsibility of parents and teachers to teach children rules and values for living good lives. This put adults in charge of molding children’s destiny. Because children are born without innate ideas, experiences shape what they know. Locke insisted parents should set time aside to help their children learn. Schools became formalized. Books and instructional materials focused on values and reading-writing-arithmetic skills. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile (1726) describes how humans are born good but become corrupted by society as they grow into adulthood. He wrote, “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man” (Rousseau 1979:37). To combat this, he recommended bringing up children away from the city to help them discover their own natural gifts. Rousseau’s philosophy focused on helping children learn how to reason and develop character and moral sensibility that could lead to good citizenship. If children were grounded in their natural goodness, they could practice self-mastery and remain virtuous. Learning how to think and play would help them to better withstand hardships. He did not advocate for girls to have the same opportunities as boys and was a firm supporter of patriarchy (Carlson 2014). These were important time periods when the roles of children became debated and refined. Children were more regarded, human rights more of important, but children were not afforded human rights, as we have come to perceive them today. But it was a time in which conversations about the goodness of people, the potential of children, and how children should be treated occurred.

74

5.4.5

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

The Industrial Revolution and Children’s Rights

As a response to the Enlightenment came the Romantic period (1790–1830) and the Industrial Revolution (1760–1830), overlapping eras that continued the debate about the appropriate roles of children. Poor children experienced the childhood of the Industrial Revolution while wealthy ones had the luxury of the Romantic view. Romantics saw youth as a golden age of innocence and adulthood as a time of corruption (White 2015a, b, c). Children were thought to have a unique innocent worldview because they had not yet assimilated the adult view of society (Metz 2015). During this period, upper-and middle-class children lived comfortably, often raised by nannies, were educated, and adequately nourished. This was not the life of poor children during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution began in England and swept across the globe. During this period, manufacturing was increasingly machine-driven as the invention of water and steam power created new opportunities for business and commerce. These new factories needed more workers, and children became a convenient target. Living in the city cost more so parents relied upon their working children’s wages. Children had often worked, so working during the Industrial Revolution was not a new experience for them. Factory work pushed children to work for long hours in hazardous conditions, whether they wanted to or not. Children younger than ten years of age worked in US factories, often doing the same work as adults but for much less pay. Factories had few rules, regulations, and safeguards to protect children. Rights for child laborers were few and far between. High rates of maternal mortality left many orphans, so children often had no one to advocate for their safety and well-being. Others were abandoned by adults who were unable or didn’t want to care for them. Orphans and abandoned children were at the mercy of rapidly changing social and economic systems. Religious figures, political leaders and public reformers struggled to care for these children left without support. Many children during this time had to fend for themselves in order to survive, taking jobs or living on the streets. Death and illness were common for children. The Industrial Revolution saw the rise of factories in need of workers. Children were ideal employees because they could be paid less, they were the right size to perform minute tasks, were less likely to organize and strike against their working conditions, and there were few laws to prevent bosses from ordering them to do dangerous tasks. Hours children worked were long, bosses were harsh, and some children were tied to workbenches so they would not escape. Lack of rights for children made them attractive workers to factory managers.

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

5.4.6

75

The Victorian Era, Industrial Revolution, and Child Rights Progressions

The Industrial Revolution overlapped with, and was followed by, the Victorian Era (1830–1900), which was defined by the reign of British Queen Victoria. It was early in the twentieth century that discussion on children’s rights became more intentional (Sterns 2016). As people moved into cities to find jobs and mortality rates declined, the population swelled. During this time one of every three of Victoria’s subjects was under the age of fifteen (Guber 2015). Historical accounts of childhood during the Victorian era indicate a bifurcated experience depending on one’s social class. Wealthy children were socialized to engage in polite and proper behavior. Their caregivers were often nannies employed to make sure they dressed appropriately and exhibited good manners. Upper-class children had little communication with their parents and received little affection from them. Routines were predictable, monotonous, formal, and redundant, and lives of children were often described as boring, sad, and lonely. Nannies were generally unmarried, strict, and intolerant. Children born to poor parents did not have access to the material comforts or engaging toys that rich children had. Living accommodations were small and having enough to eat was challenging. Families were large, often with ten or more children. Many children went to work for pay at age four or five for long hours each day to help their family. The author’s own great-grandma worked daily at age six, sitting on a high stool in a factory sewing buttons on uniforms of Union soldiers during the Civil War. Because children were considered cheap labor, they were often in demand for jobs such as domestic work, textile mills, mining, factory work, clothing and hat makers, street and chimney-sweepers, farming, match sellers, street hawkers, and even prostitutes. There were few safety measures put into place to protect childworkers. The small size of children made them desirable for tasks that adults were too large to do. On the upside, while things were hard financially for them, many of these children had tightly-knit families where they experienced more affection, interaction, and playfulness than wealthy children. But the hard life that accompanied poverty put children at risk of abuse, neglect, and orphanhood. The challenging life of children depicted in photographs by Lewis Hine (Sullivan 1987) depicts the hard life children experienced during this time period (Hinrichs 2022). Children during the Victorian age had no rights; the mere idea that children should have protected rights may have seemed ridiculous. But high infant mortality rates, inadequate schooling, child labor, and the presence of street children motivated activists to challenge childhood exploitation. Gruber’s (2015) Victorian pro-child activism to be influenced from the Romantic era idea that children are innocent, angelic creatures who should be shielded from exploitation and allowed to enjoy childhood. Advocates stepped up to improve the lives of poor and exploited children, including religious leaders, philanthropists, physicians, writers, educators, and artists.

76

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

In 1840, Lord Ashley, Earl of Shaftesbury, established the Children’s Employment Commission which published parliamentary reports on conditions in mines. His Ragged School Union established schools for poor children. Writers drew upon their own experiences to advocate for change; for instance, author Charles Dickens was only twelve when his father was imprisoned for debt and he was sent to work in a blacking factory, which he identified as a horrific experience. His classic tale of Oliver Twist (1837) was written in response to the New Poor Law of 1834, which relegated the needy to workhouses, splitting up families and putting them into prison-like institutions with repugnant living conditions to do hard labor. Poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote a famous protest poem “The Cry of the Children” (1844). Child-savers Mary Carpenter and Dr. Thomas Barnardo advocated for destitute youth; investigative reporter Henry Mayhew documented the dire conditions endured by many working-class families (Guber 2015). Child labor became more regulated but not outlawed. In the 1860s the Royal Commission on Popular Education declared that compulsory schooling for all children was “neither obtainable nor desirable.” Because children’s wages were deemed crucial to maintaining the family’s economic security, they wrote, “it is far better that it should go to work at the earliest age at which it can bear the physical exertion than that it should remain at school” (Guber 2015). Advocates continued to whittle away at such views. While one-third of English children received no education at all in 1850, by the end of the century, nearly 90% went to school for seven years. Writings like Catherine Sinclair’s Holiday House (1839), Edward Lear’s A Book of Nonsense (1846) and Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) are evidence of the explosion of books, magazines, toys, and games aimed at entertaining children in a time that has become known as the “Golden Age.” Children’s lives gained more attention with the creation of furniture like the bassinet and the perambulator (the precursor of the stroller). Child actors began performing on stage in record numbers in pantomimes, ballets, operettas, straight dramas, minstrel shows, music halls, and circus acts. In the 1880s the Drury Lane Theatre hired 150-200 children per performance, child prodigies like Jean Davenport and Lydia Howard gained recognition, and poet Ernest Dowson argued that child actors who loved their performance art should be allowed to earn money and gain recognition from it, just as adults could, in his 1889 article, The Cult of the Child (Guber 2015). Decades before, Plato may have encouraged critical thinking, and while 18th and nineteenth -century cultural changes romanticizing creativity and freedom emerged, a view of childhood being a time of play, beauty-and-innocence view was in stark contrast to the reality of children working long hours in dangerous factory or mining jobs. This bifurcation of ways to think about children is thus an age-old conceptualization whose remnants remain with us today.

5.4

A Brief Global History of Children’s Rights

5.4.7

77

Histories for Children of Color and Global South Children

As noted earlier, most literary-historical descriptions of children tend to be about white, Western children, as if theirs were the normative experience and the baseline from which all others are judged. It is important to remember that alongside the common narrative about the history of children there are many other groups of children whose histories have not been adequately recorded. There are other conceptions of what’s normal and other bases from which to compare and understand children’s lives. This diverse view of global children’s experience is particularly relevant to today’s children’s human rights debate in the US because the demographic characteristics of our population are changing to reflect a not-white composition and backgrounds from people other than Europe. Understanding child rights brings together views and assumptions from people from around the world. Parents, grandparents, and cultural histories are brought into the lives of today’s children. Understanding that we are not all coming from the same backgrounds, experiences or notions of what is correct is helpful for us to live in an inclusive, rights-respecting society. Lived experiences and youth voice are important things to consider as we seek to understand why children need access to their human rights. In fact, there are a variety of movements throughout history that nurture the importance of understanding how it comes to pass that we see ourselves in particular ways (Open Society Foundation). Chiara, in her analysis of children in the Global South, observes that a new paradigm to study non-Western children is needed. Childhood is understood as a social construction that appears as a specific structural and cultural component within different societies. This means that there exist a number of childhoods that vary across time and place as there is not a single or universal childhood. Another essential feature of the emergent paradigm regards children studied as social agents, active in the construction of their own social lives and those around them, in microas well as macro-social contexts. Through an emergent paradigm, the new social studies of childhood have yielded constructive critiques of dominant discourses and challenged hegemonic representations of childhood. Anthropologists have studied childhood with a focus on traditional societies, customs, and norms. Children around the world have been exposed to capitalist, Western material, and nonmaterial culture for decades. Children have different experiences of rights protections and violations, depending upon their backgrounds and experiences. This omission has been recognized and there have been laudable attempts to broaden our understanding of how different the lives of children have been. Failure to do so could deny diverse children to identify with children who have similar characteristics to their own; it also denies children the opportunity to see the humanity, dignity, and commonalities among all people. Recognizing that there is diversity and honoring differences is part of a rights-respecting framework.

78

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

There are many examples of attempts to help broaden our understanding of children’s history from different perspectives. For instance, James Bell (2015) has written an extensive history of the rights of children of color in the justice system; Jabeen (2013) examined the history of child protection in the Global South; histories of the rights of Black children have increased (Acharya et al. 2014; Bernstein 2021; Loury 1998; Miller 2020; Mintz 2018; Mitchell 2010; National Archives n.d.-a, b, c; National Geographic 2018a, b; Reeder 2011), and anthropologists have recorded lives of Native American childhood (Dennis 1940; Dwyer and Stout 2012; Illick 2002; Kidder 2007; Little 2018; Leighton and Kluckhohn 1948; Levin 2007; Pritzker 2000; Whiting 1966). Critical race theory has been an attempt to broaden our understanding about the history of children and society that has been unfortunately misunderstood in both intent and content (Delgado and Stefancic 2001; George 2021; Sawchuck 2021). How we talk about the oppression and enslavement of children that was and continues to be a global phenomenon that exists in one form or another today is important (American Historama 2018; Vasconcellos 2018). Ten million children are current-day slaves, with the majority doing forced labor or are sex slaves (Tutton 2017). Immigrant and migrant children have histories that shape their worlds, but may be unfamiliar to others (Clark-Ibanez 2017; Garrett 2006, Human Rights Watch 2018; National Farm Workers Ministry 2018; Nawsaw 1985; rstevens 2001; Zhou 1997). Discrimination and oppression of children on the basis of their demographic characteristics remain rampant. It is important to have a critical eye to what children’s experiences are today since tomorrow those experiences will be part of our history. For instance, the mainstream literature discusses childhood as if it was a commonly shared experience, but it’s not. It is clear that at some times and in some places, children of color were denied the opportunity to be a child or experience childhood in the customarily-stereotyped way (Patton 2012). Human rights of children as they go through assimilation, accommodation, and other attempts to “fit-in” point out challenges for children who are trying to adjust to a new nation or culture. It is even more difficult when structural obstacles to make their “difference” a master status that justifies discrimination, like the Native American Trail of Tears, Mexicans being removed in the Great Depression, Japanese internment camp at World War II, and the current experience of border children being detained at the US southern border and then detained into oppressive living arrangements. Their stories are part of all of our history. We have a decision about how to talk about them—and to frame them (Kaur 2018; Lindskoog 2018; Vissing 2018). Attempts to white-wash and eliminate stories of history and other people’s experiences limits knowledge essential for an inclusive future.

5.6

5.5

The Geneva Convention and Its Importance

79

Creation of International Human Rights Treaties for Children

Throughout history we have seen that there were no standards or rights that were attributed to all children. There have been some periods of time in which children had more rights than others, such as some labor protections that were born out of the Industrial Revolution or the right for free public education. Some children have been afforded more rights than others—especially male children and children from wealthier homes. There has long been a disparity of rights inequality between genders, race of children, and their social class. As a result of World War I and World War II, caring adults joined together to advance the idea that children should be protected, provided-for, and a higher priority for government action. Children categorically are regarded as human beings with the same needs and rights no matter who they are or where they live. The creation of international treaties to defend the rights of all children became a priority. This commitment to improve the lives of children took particular form in the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

5.6

The Geneva Convention and Its Importance

World War I and slaughter of innocent children motivated interest in children’s rights protection. Work of Polish physician Janusz Korczak and Eglantyne Jebb’s work in the United Kingdom led to the creation of the Geneva Convention, which was a major step towards the children’s human rights protections that we know today. Jebb has been credited with being first to identify children as subjects of rights rather than objects of concern. Jebb did charitable work during the Balkan War and outbreak of WWI, insisting that “all wars are waged against children”. She was the prime mover starting the Save the Children Movement in 1919 and the International Peace Union. Save the Children was dedicated to child protection and operated under a Declaration of Child Rights, which became the first global charter protecting children’s rights. Known as the Geneva Convention, it was adopted without alteration by the League of Nations in 1924 as the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Ennew 2000a, b; Plattner 1984; Yarrow 2009). It decreed that humanity owes children the best that it has to give and pointed out adults’ obligations to make sure all children, especially orphans and those in distress, were provided essentials for survival, including food, healthcare, aid, care. This declaration was the first human rights instrument approved by an international institution and enumerated rights such as the right of a hungry child to be fed, have a name, receive healthcare, and education. The Declaration articulates that all people owe children the means for their development, both materially and spiritually; special help in times of need; priority for relief; economic freedom and

80

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

protection from exploitation; and an upbringing that instills social consciousness and duty. “Backward” children must be helped, the delinquent child must be “reclaimed”, orphans and waifs must be sheltered. It alleged that parents and the community were to protect all children, irrespective of race, nationality or creed, and assist their development, opportunities to earn a livelihood and help others. It demanded that children must be the first to receive relief in times of distress. Children are also to be helped to ensure that they could earn a livelihood and “be protected against every form of exploitation”. The Preamble states that ‘Mankind owes to the Child the best it has to give’. The Geneva Declaration became fundamental to the advancement of future children’s human rights (Plattner 1984). Thus, under US President Woodrow Wilson’s administration, there were both national and global efforts occurring trying to advance children’s rights. These actions led the way for the creation of the UNCRC.2 Plattner (1984) observes that since WWII the international community has witnessed the appearance of new forms of conflicts that have targeted civilians, including children. A Diplomatic Conference was held from 1974 to 1977, whose aim was to supplement and develop international humanitarian law to address the shift in war tactics. Two additional protocols were added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977 to improve the protection of civilian population and, consequently, that of children.

5.6.1

The Fourth Geneva Convention

There have been four major revisions to the original Geneva Convention that support child rights. In 1949, it was felt that children should be especially protected against warfare but the principle on which the rules relating to children were based were not stated explicitly anywhere in that Convention. Protocol I, under article 77, asserted that “children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault”. The principle of the special protection of children during international armed conflicts is thus explicitly laid down. Protocol II, Article 4, requires that “children shall be provided with the care and aid they require”. Children are awarded special provisions against the effect of hostilities; those in besieged areas should be evacuated (Article 17), and all children of every age are to be admitted into hospitals and safety zones (Article 41). Protocol I seek to preserve family unity during armed conflicts and requires that children be supplied with identification discs so they can be reunified with their family if separated. The Fourth Geneva Convention additions also address the protection of the cultural environment of children, their education, their treatment, personal rights, recreation, healthcare, and other aid. If children are orphaned they must receive special attention. If children

2

See the Articles for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child at http://www.ohchr.org/en/ professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

5.7

Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

81

are arrested, detained, or interned they are to be treated fairly and respectfully, without torture, and with no possibility of the death penalty. Because the nature of war has changed, it is possible that children may be recruited to take part in hostilities. This is a special group of children with special problems that must be considered in their entirety; even when children are engaged in adult-type behaviors, they are still children and have developmental differences that put them into a different category for treatment and legal actions, especially as addressed by the International Criminal Court and the International Commission of the Red Cross (Fritz and Vissing 2022; Plattner 1984).

5.7

Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The foundational texts of the modern children’s rights efforts were set in the 1924 Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 1948 creation of the UDHR and other human rights treaties were motivated by World War II and its genocide. The Commission on Human Rights that drafted the UDHR consisted of 18 members from various political, cultural and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. The document set out a universalist vision of a better world that focused on bringing peace and justice to all peoples on the planet. The treaty implied that all governments should comply with the new norms because there is a higher power that binds all people together, regardless of the rules in the country where they may live. This is the crux of the human rights system—they are designed to transcend all other forms of government and establish a higher legal order and structures for cooperation and dispute resolution. The human rights texts that built upon that foundation, including the CRC, can be seen as providing flesh on the bones of this idea of universal norms guiding governmental behavior and global cooperation towards peace and justice. In this way, they were very twentieth century, compared to the US Constitution which was of the eighteenth century (Williams 2021). When you look at the actual text of the UDHR, its aspiration is clear in the Preamble (United Nations 1948): Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of

82

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The UDHR contains 30 articles describing how human rights should be addressed by states. Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

5.7

Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

83

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

84

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

5.7

Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

85

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

86

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. The UDHR’s first article, ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’ implies that human rights include everyone from birth on, meaning babies, children, teens, as well as older persons. It incorporates the idea of natural law—that people are given this status of equality, dignity, and rights just by being born. Then it provides the justification: ‘They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ Leaving aside the gendered language of ‘brotherhood’, what does this mean in relation to the newborn child or a mentally impaired person of any age? It suggests that the ‘will theory’ of rights underlies the thinking of the drafters. So here in the very first article are the seeds of the case rights for all, including specialized protection for those who will otherwise fall off the radar because they are not deemed capable of ‘reason and conscience’ (Williams 2021).

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights set the stage for the foundation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. On the surface one could argue that the UDHR should have been sufficient to protect all rights for all people, but this has not been the case. This has resulted in not just the creation of the CRC but the development of other human rights treaties that target special populations and issues as well (University of Minnesota Human Rights Library 2022). Other treaties that have emerged out of the CRC include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Family (ICMW), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRC is the most ratified of any international human rights treaty and is regarded as the most important document in history to protect children. Without the CRC, children may not be recognized as subjects with constitutional protections.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

5.8.1

87

History of the CRC

Children’s advocates bonded together in the 1970s to construct a treaty that would protect children as human rights-holders and go beyond what the UDHR outlined. On 7 February 1978, Poland presented the idea of a United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It consisted of 19 articles, of which ten were legislative and nine were procedural. In contrast to the Geneva Declaration, it proposed that adhering to the articles would be binding for states. A working group consisted of members from 48-member states of the Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and other non-government organizations was charged with writing the future Convention of the Rights of the Child. The system by which the bill was written was one of consensus and political compromise, in order to achieve unanimity. Through this system, it allowed each government to make contributions until they were all satisfied. Poland’s leaders anticipated that it would be universally adopted in 1979, which was designated as the International Year of the Child. But it took a decade for it to gain unanimous support of the international community. The US was a major contributing author to the 1989 document that resulted in the CRC and it had bipartisan support throughout the country. The CRC as a framework provides a practical set of guidelines for working with and for young people. It sets forth assumptions about how children are to be treated at both the individual and system levels. Its Articles are designed to help states implement the laws, policies, and standards necessary to defend children’s rights. It also is a guide aimed at shifting attitudes about the role of children in societal settings. It does not have the universal power to impose legally enforceable rules, it is aspirational in nature, holding forth children’s human rights as a bright light for societies to aspire and achieve (Lee 2017). However the CRC was signed but never ratified by Congress. This lost moment in time has contributed to the current debate over child rights in the US. The treaty provides nations with an opportunity to assess the state of children in modern society and the proper role of parents in looking after them. It also holds governments as the responsible duty-bearers who are obligated to ensure that children’s rights are defended (Lee 2017). There are 54 Articles in the CRC that set forth how governments should work together to meet all children’s basic needs and help them to reach their full potential. Their rights are designed to help children live a safe, healthy, and happy life that all children are entitled to have, just because they are human beings, and they cannot be taken away from you. This means that governments cannot pick or choose which rights they will honor or reject. All of them are important and intersect with one another. It is the responsibility of governments and organizations to respect and protect children’s rights when they plan services, make policies, and make decisions. The CRC is regarded as the most important document in history to protect children. Its positive impacts have been overwhelming and made significant improvements in the health, safety, and well-being of children around the planet. It is now the most widely ratified of any human rights treaty in the world. The fact

88

5 Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

that the treaty has been ratified and implemented by almost all developed and many developing countries underscores their recognition that all children matter. All make contributions to their families and communities and it is important to invest in all children because we cannot have strong and healthy societies without having strong and healthy children whose rights are defended.

5.8.2

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

Because there is much misunderstanding about what this international children’s human rights treaty says, the treaty has been provided here in its entirety: Convention on the Rights of the Child Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49

Preamble The States Parties to the present Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance, Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community, Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

89

Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children, Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”, Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration, Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries, Have agreed as follows: Part I Article 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. Article 2 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members. Article 3 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

90

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. 3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision. Article 4 States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation. Article 5 States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. Article 6 1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. Article 7 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless. Article 8 1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. 2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

91

Article 9 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence. 2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known. 3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests. 4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned. Article 10 1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family. 2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

92

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Article 11 1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad. 2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements. Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Article 13 1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice. 2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Article 14 1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. 3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Article 15 1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

93

public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 16 1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article States 17Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall: (a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29; (b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; (c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books; (d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; (e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18. Article 18 1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. 2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. 3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible. Article 19 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental

94

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. 2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement. Article 20 1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State. 2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child. 3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. Article 21 (a) States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall: (b) Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary; (c) Recognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin; (d) Ensure that the child concerned by inter-country adoption enjoys safeguards and standards equivalent to those existing in the case of national adoption; (e) Take all appropriate measures to ensure that, in inter-country adoption, the placement does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it; (f) Promote, where appropriate, the objectives of the present article by concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements, and endeavour, within this framework, to ensure that the placement of the child in another country is carried out by competent authorities or organs.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

95

Article 22 1. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties. 2. For this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co-operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason, as set forth in the present Convention. Article 23 1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community. 2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. 3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development 4. States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

96

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Article 24 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. 2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; (e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; (f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services. 3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. 4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries. Article States 25.Parties recognize the right of a child who has been placed by the competent authorities for the purposes of care, protection or treatment of his or her physical or mental health, to a periodic review of the treatment provided to the child and all other circumstances relevant to his or her placement. Article 26 1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law. 2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

97

Article 27 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. 2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development. 3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing. 4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements. Article 28 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all; (b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need; (c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means; (d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children; (e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates. 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention. 3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

98

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Article 29 1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to: (a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; (b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; (c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; (d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin; (e) The development of respect for the natural environment. 2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State. Article In those 30 States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language. Article 31 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. 2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity. Article 32 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. 2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

99

regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular: (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment; (b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment; (c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article. Article 33 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances. Article 34 States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. Article States 35Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form. Article 36 States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare. Article 37 States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age; (b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; (c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best

100

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action. Article 38 1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child. 2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities. 3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest. 4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict. Article 39 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child. Article 40 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society. 2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

101

(a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed; (b) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees: (i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law; (ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence; (iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians; (iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality; (v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law; (vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used; (vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular: (a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law; (b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.

102

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Article 41 Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in: (a) The law of a State party; or (b) International law in force for that State. PART II Article 42 States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike. Article 43 1. For the purpose of examining the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the present Convention, there shall be established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. 2. The Committee shall consist of eighteen experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field covered by this Convention.1/ The members of the Committee shall be elected by States Parties from among their nationals and shall serve in their personal capacity, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution, as well as to the principal legal systems. 3. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. 4. The initial election to the Committee shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of the present Convention and thereafter every second year. At least four months before the date of each election, the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations shall address a letter to States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within two months. The Secretary-General shall subsequently prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Convention. 5. The elections shall be held at meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General at United Nations Headquarters. At those meetings, for which two thirds of States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting. 6. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. The term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the meeting.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

103

7. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or declares that for any other cause he or she can no longer perform the duties of the Committee, the State Party which nominated the member shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of the term, subject to the approval of the Committee. 8. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure. 9. The Committee shall elect its officers for a period of two years. 10. The meetings of the Committee shall normally be held at United Nations Headquarters or at any other convenient place as determined by the Committee. The Committee shall normally meet annually. The duration of the meetings of the Committee shall be determined, and reviewed, if necessary, by a meeting of the States Parties to the present Convention, subject to the approval of the General Assembly. 11. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under the present Convention. 12. With the approval of the General Assembly, the members of the Committee established under the present Convention shall receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as the Assembly may decide. Article 44 1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee, through the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights (a) Within two years of the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned; (b) Thereafter every five years. 2. Reports made under the present article shall indicate factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the degree of fulfilment of the obligations under the present Convention. Reports shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention in the country concerned. 3. A State Party which has submitted a comprehensive initial report to the Committee need not, in its subsequent reports submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of the present article, repeat basic information previously provided. 4. The Committee may request from States Parties further information relevant to the implementation of the Convention. 5. The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, every two years, reports on its activities. 6. States Parties shall make their reports widely available to the public in their own countries.

104

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Article 45 In order to foster the effective implementation of the Convention and to encourage international co-operation in the field covered by the Convention: (a) The specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and other United Nations organs shall be entitled to be represented at the consideration of the implementation of such provisions of the present Convention as fall within the scope of their mandate. The Committee may invite the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund and other competent bodies as it may consider appropriate to provide expert advice on the implementation of the Convention in areas falling within the scope of their respective mandates. The Committee may invite the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and other United Nations organs to submit reports on the implementation of the Convention in areas falling within the scope of their activities; (b) The Committee shall transmit, as it may consider appropriate, to the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund and other competent bodies, any reports from States Parties that contain a request, or indicate a need, for technical advice or assistance, along with the Committee’s observations and suggestions, if any, on these requests or indications; (c) The Committee may recommend to the General Assembly to request the Secretary-General to undertake on its behalf studies on specific issues relating to the rights of the child; (d) The Committee may make suggestions and general recommendations based on information received pursuant to articles 44 and 45 of the present Convention. Such suggestions and general recommendations shall be transmitted to any State Party concerned and reported to the General Assembly, together with comments, if any, from States Parties. PART III Article 46 The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States. Article 47 The present Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 48 The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 49 1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession. 2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

5.8

Introducing The Convention on the Rights of the Child

105

Article 50 1. Any State Party may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to States Parties, with a request that they indicate whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that, within four months from the date of such communication, at least one third of the States Parties favour such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly for approval. 2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present article shall enter into force when it has been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of States Parties. 3. When an amendment enters into force, it shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted it, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted. Article 51 1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States the text of reservations made by States at the time of ratification or accession. 2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted. 3. Reservations may be withdrawn at any time by notification to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall then inform all States. Such notification shall take effect on the date on which it is received by the Secretary-General Article A State 52 Party may denounce the present Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General. Article 53 The Secretary-General of the United Nations is designated as the depositary of the present Convention. Article 54 The original of the present Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In witness thereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.3

3

UNCRC https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

106

5.9

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Foundation of Children’s Human Rights as a Framework

A children’s human rights framework is a principled and practical approach that honors children as human beings who are entitled to universal, inalienable, indivisible, and interdependent rights. It recognizes that children are in a different situation than adults and need special protection as a result. The framework emphasizes the importance of ensuring children are provided things necessary for a good life (like supportive families, healthcare, education, food, housing, etc.), protection from harm, and the ability to use their agency and participate in their communities, and decisions that impact their lives. Children face particular challenges and needs because childhood involves crucial stages of physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development. What happens in the early years can have lifetime impacts, so it is of utmost importance to children, parents, and societies to ensure that children are given the best life chances. The framework is related to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC or CRC),

5.9.1

Defining Key Terms

The CRC focuses on duty-bearers to be responsible in defending the best interests of the child. These two terms need a bit of clarification as we proceed.

5.9.1.1

Rights-Holders and Duty-Bearers

With rights come responsibilities. To have a right, one must have the capacity to exercise that right. In turn, one must also have the capacity to insist that duty-bearers perform that obligation to make access to rights possible and for that obligation to be enforced. Central to the idea of human rights is establishing and sustaining the relationship between the rights-holder (who has the right) and the duty-bearer (who has the obligation to fulfill the right). A duty-bearer is the person or institution which have obligations and responsibilities in relation to the realization of a right, such as the right to education. When a state has guaranteed the right to education, it has the obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill this right. The same goes for any other service. Duty-bearers are to be held accountable for fulling their obligations (Save the Children 2007). Because children are generally perceived to lack capacity, they do not have rights unless duty-bearers provide and protect them. To have a right without the power to enforce the right would not be much of a right at all (Federle 2000). The CRC imposes obligations on the state, or government, to be duty-bearers to enforce the goals set forth in its Articles. The CRC requires monitoring to ensure that

5.9

Foundation of Children’s Human Rights as a Framework

107

the Articles intentions are met, but there is no enforcement mechanism to penalize a nation if they fail to do so. This is an important thing to remember. The CRC is therefore an idealized framework of how governments should care for their children. It may not be 100% embedded, but every step along the way is an advancement towards children’s well-being and defense of their rights. According to the treaty, the state, not individuals, is the official duty-bearer for children’s rights protections. This is because the state has agreed by ratifying the CRC to be committed to pursuing the best interests of the child in all of its decisions and in accordance with the Articles. Non-government responsibility-holders (parents, guardians, caregivers) are informal duty-bearers and have duties and obligations under the CRC, binding them to respect, protect, and fulfill children’s rights. But they are not legally binding obligations for which there are official penalties for noncompliance. Rights violations often occur because the duty-bearer has not met their legal obligation or responsibility to fulfill a child’s right and, because the rights holder, in this case, the child, does not possess the knowledge, capacity, or support to claim their entitlement or right. Duty-bearers have an obligation to respect and protect children and their rights and to do all they can to fulfill their obligations to ensure their rights are addressed in all decisions that individuals, organizations, and governments make (European Commission 2021). The CRC is thus aimed at governments, not at organizations, individuals, or parents per se. What it sets forth is a blueprint for how organizations, individuals, and parents should treat children, if they were committed to defending children’s best interests. From a human rights perspective, people in charge—whether organizations, caregivers, or parents—would have a responsibility to protect and defend children. This means that they are also, in effect, duty-bearers. While the CRC does not define parents or organizations as duty-bearers, for the purposes of this book, I operate under the assumption that they are in practice. What this may mean in the US is that parent and adult treatment of children is a separate issue from what the government may affirm in the ratification of the CRC or even in particular state laws. The framework of the CRC provides a framework about how children should be treated if their rights to a good life were defended. Children’s rights exist regardless of what the obligator does or who it is. The child has a right to be cared for regardless of the identity of the individual who has a duty to provide that care. If the duty-bearer fails to perform their duty, the right of the child still exists.

5.9.1.2

The Best Interest of the Child

A children’s human rights framework takes the position that children’s best interests should always be considered when making any decision that could impact a child. This includes the laws, policies, and practices we develop. Children’s needs should guide how programs and services are developed, how funding is distributed, and how decisions are made. Young people have a right to have input into decisions that will influence the trajectory of their lives.

108

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

When the best interests of the child are discussed, we find that term is unclear. The UN created a General Comment No. 14 (2013) (art. 3, para. 1) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration in order to clarify any confusion about what the United Nations intended when they stated that the best interests of the child should be considered.4 It could refer to their best interests as persons, or just in the more limited category of children, or in the projected manner as future adults; it could also be a manipulated term that co-opts the focus and shifts it what adults perceive is in their own best interests. While some adults may argue that children, especially very young ones cannot exercise their rights and need someone to do it, using the term child rights reminds adults that they have an obligation to fulfill them. Rights are important if children are to be treated with equality and as autonomous beings; this means believing that any person’s autonomy is as significant as anyone else’s (Freeman 2012; O’Neill 1988). Federle (2000) suggests that an interest-based approach is inherently flawed because it is dependent upon duty-bearers to step up and implement the rights of the child in their decisions, actions, and programs. The inability to monitor and enforce the implementation of a child’s rights is challenging at both the macro and micro, organizational or interpersonal, levels. It is extra troublesome when dutybearers find that children’s best interests interfere with their own. Often, duty bearers decide their rights, not the child’s, should take precedence. The definition of best interests is thus an indeterminant one that is fraught with political and personal bias. The term best interests became confusing because during the 1980s a national debate started about whether children, as human beings, are the subjects of human rights or need a special human rights instrument to protect them as a group. The conversation quickly moved away from recognizing children as rights-holders to focusing on children’s needs and welfare. This is significant. It moved children away from being rights-holders to being objects to be done-to. This needs-based approach was incorporated by provision agencies to the detriment of a universalist mandate that all children needed provisions not just because they needed them, but because they had a right to them. Often terms like child well-being are used as a substitute for rights when people discuss what best interests of the child means. While well-being and rights are related, they are not the same.

5.9.2

The 3 P Framework

A shorthand interpretation of the CRC articles has become known as the 3 Ps, which refer to the rights of children to provision, protection, and participation. Provision refers to ensuring that all children’s basic needs and assistance are met. This includes welfare, a quality education, good mental and physical healthcare, adequate food and nutrition, decent stable housing, legal protections, social services, and a happy home.

4

https://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/crc/docs/GC/CRC_C_GC_14_ENG.pdf_

5.9

Foundation of Children’s Human Rights as a Framework

109

Protection of children is designed to prevent harm to children whenever possible and to take action against maltreatment, discrimination, oppression, neglect, abuses, war, terrorism, and exploitation. The third P is that of participation. It refers to giving children limited authority over their lives, and includes children’s right to play and to have friends, to have access to information and have their own thoughts, to be given respect for their views, and to actively participate in decisions that impact their lives, supporting the notion of “no decisions about us without us”. Another 3 P model focuses on prevention, protection, and promotion. Prevention refers to taking efforts to reduce harm to children, harms that can result from exposure to risks or failure to institute the resources and services necessary for healthy development. Protection focuses on keeping children safe, while promotion highlights the importance of education and public awareness of children’s entitlement to rights. An alternative view of it is the 4 main pillars of support for children. These include the pillar of nondiscrimination and equality (Article 2), the best interest of the child (Article 3), survival and development (Article 6), and the pillar of participation and inclusion (Article 12). (European Commission 2021). States, organizations, and individuals may not fully achieve all of the standards in the CRC articles but the treaty gives them a blueprint for designing what children require (Gran 2017). Children’s human rights scholars Byrne and Lundy (2019) acknowledge that societies in general still have a way to go before they have implemented comprehensive, universal children’s rights. They observe that while public policies increasingly reference the CRC and involve young people’s input more, there is not yet a universally agreed-upon understanding of what a children’s rights-based approach to policymaking should look like. With a view to addressing this gap in the practice and scholarship of children’s rights, Byrne and Lundy offer a framework for understanding children’s rights-based approaches to policy based on not three but six ‘Ps’ of child rights. These include the principles/provisions of the CRC; the process of children’s rights impact assessment; the participation of children and young people; partnership to ensure joined-up working; public budgeting to ensure that the resources are in place for implementation; and publicity to make policies known to children and young people. They note that a human rights-based approach to policy formation, for children and others, requires a focus not just on rights-holders and outcomes but also on the information, resources, and collaboration required to make children’s rights a reality.

5.9.3

Partnership Model for Child Rights

A child rights approach sets forth a blueprint for the relations between parent, state, and child. Think of it as a triangle of equal sides (Fig. 5.1). The treaty is detailed in how to defend children so they can survive and thrive. On the state part of the triangle, the CRC defines what the state is obligated to do to defend children’s rights. On the parent part, it gives us a vision about how to think about the roles of and relations between parents, children and state.

110

5

Understanding the Foundations of Children’s Human Rights

Fig. 5.1 A Children’s Human Rights framework

Government & Instuon Commitment

Children's Lives

CRC Framework

Parent & Caregiver Acon

A rights-respecting model means taking good care of children and considering how best to address children’s best interests. In this model, the CRC’s framework motivates governments and institutions to commit to its Articles, and to support parents to fulfill the treaty’s intentions. In doing so, children’s lives are improved. When there is no commitment to the CRC on the part of the state, its institutions, or by parents and caregivers, it puts children in vulnerable and in at-risk situations of their rights not being defended. The treaty is designed to help children survive and thrive, and ensure safety and reduce harm to them; it views parental support as fundamental to help them do a good job caring for their children. Children are given opportunities to learn how to make good decisions on their own behalf, which is an essential skill for someone being a participating citizen in a democracy. Shifting the national conversation away from a scarcity and competition model to one that emphasizes how adults and organizations can work to ensure the best interests of the child are met is a goal of the CRC (Lee 2017). The CRC is innovative in making it clear that children require certain forms of protection in addition to the “normal” entitlements of human rights law because they are in a vulnerable position, both legally and developmentally. These entitlements include the right to have their opinion taken into consideration when adults make decisions on their behalf (Article 12), to express their views (Article 13,) and to join or form associations to represent their own interests (Article 15) (Ennew 2000a, b). The convention is a framework, a guideline, a roadmap that can help guide nations and families on how to work together to ensure that the needs of our youngest

5.10

Summary

111

members of society are well-cared for so that they can have meaningful lives that they can use for the benefit of the world.

5.10

Summary

This chapter has provided a solid foundation on what human rights are and the main events and treaties that have led towards the construction of a children’s human rights approach. It explored what rights are in general, different types of rights, and how perceptions of children as rights holders grew and changed across time. It paid particular attention to describing the Geneva Convention and UDHR’s importance in constructing the CRC. It focuses on historical events that are important to understand. This information will help to make sense of options for the future of children’s human rights in the USA, which will be examined throughout this book, particularly in Part IV.

Chapter 6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it. Neil deGrasse Tyson

6.1

Introduction

Children’s human rights in the US have not been regarded to be an important issue for several reasons. One, the public largely assumes that children in the US are faring better than children around the world. It is the view that if children here are doing better than children in countries that support the CRC, why on earth would we want to change what we are doing for something that might not work well? Two, there is the opinion that children belong to the family, not the community; therefore, it is up to parents to decide what their children can get and do and unless they default on that obligation, government should keep its nose away from children’s lives. Three, if children are not doing well, it is seen as their fault or the fault of their parents. This view holds that children who are poor, who have health or behavior problems, challenges at school, home, or in the community—parents or the children themselves are responsible for their ill outcomes, not the social system. Four, most people are unfamiliar with good data that describes the condition of children in the US, especially compared with the rest of the world. When confronted with data that they do not like, there is a tendency to disregard it and believe the data is wrong or not true. Five, some people may assume that children do not need or deserve rights. They can get rights when they get older and able to handle them. This view misses the point entirely about what human rights are and why people are to have them. Six, in the adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, when people assume that children in the US are doing well so there is no reason to institute a children’s human rights model. Seven, opposition to changing the existing model is not recommended in the eyes of many individuals and organizations because of fear over what would

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_6

113

114

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

happen if children are awarded rights; some people fear they can’t ‘control’ children if they have, or know they have rights. When we look at children as rights-holders, who have a right to be entitled to different standards of interaction, provision, protection, and participation, it leads us to a different place than thinking of children as objects to be done-to. This chapter examines data about how children are faring in the US. Data comparing groups of children within the nation are provided, as well as data contrasting US children to children around the world. Spoiler alert—US children are NOT doing as well as they could be. Together, data paints a clear picture about why developing a children’s human rights initiative in the US is important.

6.2

Importance of Good Data

The data about the status and condition of children in the US reflects a reality that we must pay attention to. Clinical sociology requires that scholars rigorously adhere to the scientific method and employ meticulous study designs, samples, instruments, analysis, and interpretation within a clear theoretical framework (Denzin 1970; Ritzer 1975, 1991; Wallace 1971). What clinical sociologists produce is far superior to what a novice thinks is research; experts confirm that doing good research is a lot harder than most people assume (Ballantyne and Dunning 2022). Clinical sociologists are data-driven in their search for best practices. High-quality research requires sophisticated expertise, adequate funding, time, quality instrumentation, access to appropriate subjects, and a well-designed methodology. There are strict ethical protocols that must be observed, especially when studying children (Tisdall et al. 2008). Methodologically, what we know about children has been complicated by the fact that much of the available research is conducted by parents, for parents, using an adult agenda, and adult-focused instruments, analysis, and interpretation (Fraser et al. 2004; Greene and Hogan 2005). Often, data is collected from parents, teachers, or other adults in caregiving positions about what they assume to be true about the lives of children, without talking directly to young people. Data is typically collected at a family level with inferences made to children. The result is that whatever data we collect may be an underestimate of the actual amount of distress that children may experience. This makes it important that practitioners weigh findings carefully about children’s lives as they transform them into action (Alderson 2000a, b, 2008; Alderson and Morrow 2011; Beazley et al. 2009; Boyden and Ennew 1997; Christensen and James 2008; Christensen and Prout 2002; Hood et al. 1996). Best practices are almost always data-driven, not based on intuition, convenience, or agenda-staking (Hudson 2021; Vissing 2021a, b). And certainly, children as rights-holders need to be addressed in any research project (Lundy and McEvoy 2011; Qvortrup et al. 2009). Data is often designed and collected by specific agencies that may not use the same measures or samples or merge them into a unified, comprehensive data bank that is easily accessible. Children are often not included directly in the study sample,

6.2

Importance of Good Data

115

instrument design, or data implementation. What results are countless data systems that are not integrated, not coordinated, and fail to give a full picture of a whole-child experience? Longitudinal data on children are scarce. Children’s lives are fragmented by the data and the gaps in what we know about them, especially from children’s perspectives, are troubling. What we generally know about children almost always comes from adult perspectives and reflects only a scattershot of pieces from their lives. Just as children may be served by a multitude of social institutions, data is collected upon them in countless ways—data that is never culled or combined in such a way to give us an authentic, full picture of their lives. That said, the trustworthy data that we do have available paints a concerning picture of how we are constructing children’s outcomes. Research-wise, developing a high-quality research project is hard. It is expensive to do well and requires extensive time and training. There are countless ways that a research project must be rigorously designed and managed, otherwise the findings could become questionable. Despite the fact that there is a plethora of research available to individuals, much of it is of poor quality; having the background to truly assess trustworthy data from bad research is a skill that frankly most people do not have. Knowing how to assess a piece of research is important; I say this with over a half-century of analyzing research reports, being a National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, head of research projects, program and project evaluator, and reviewer for many scholarly journals to ensure that what gets published is of good quality. Given the internet’s flexibility, anybody can spew any information and call it fact or research. Finding some of this absolute crap on line and social media may be easier than finding high-quality research. This speaks to the importance of information literacy and how one can find good research and discern it from bad. It isn’t necessarily the public’s fault for believing misinformation when it is shoveled so abundantly around us. But it is a serious problem that requires the development of critical thinking skills for children in school today, as well as for adults who are in the positions of guiding them. Instead of automatically saying that something is wrong when we do not like it, developing the skills to look at funding, researcher skill, methodology, theory, data collection, analysis, and accuracy are vital. A grounded methodological approach enables us to observe the causes of a phenomenon by looking at its outcomes (Charmaz 2014; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Glaser 1978). One way of analyzing the failure of American provision systems is by observing the glaringly apparent outcomes that result from our fragmented human services systems (Levitz 2019). Methodologically, there are a variety of data organizations and reports which have posted findings that reiterate the basic conclusions.1 These are: (1) that children in the US fare less well than children in developed

1

Credible data sources and reports can be found from American Progress, Brookings Institute, Child Trends, Child Welfare League of America, First Focus, Harvard Center on the Developing Child, Pew Research, and a variety of university reports. These are referenced in the bibliography at the end of this book.

116

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

nations that have instituted a children’s human rights framework; (2) that there exists significant disparity in the provisions children are provided, with impoverished and children of color systematically receiving fewer provisions or those that are of lesser quality; (3) the outcomes of children reflect that children who are given significant provisions fare better than those who do not. The studies also indicate that the way provision organizations are structured use frameworks that are not children’s human rights-based, and as a result, they do not provide the same provisions to all children. Let us take a closer look at the data.

6.2.1

The Data Sources

The first day of my first professional job at a community mental health center, the brand-new CEO held a staff meeting. He boldly announced, “I don’t know you and I don’t trust any of you. You have to earn my trust.” In this book I am providing you the best state-of-the-art information that I can, and I am not sure you are going to like what it says. Sometimes people attack the messenger when they do not like the message. Therefore, I am going to provide you just a few data sources that you may wish to visit yourself and check out what they say. I believe my background makes me trustworthy and I am telling you the truth as I have come to see it through my professional work of over a half-century. You may choose not to trust or believe me. In the attempt to empower you to have the resources to make good decisions about children and their rights, here are some data sources that you would be wise to consider. There are many more, but these will give people a place to start: Annie E. Casey Foundation collects data to help develop policy and programs to address a variety of children’s issues around the USA. https://www.aecf.org/ Capstone child abuse research centers are sponsored by the National Institute of Health and contains years of child abuse data across the United States that you can access at https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/CAPSTONE Center for Excellence in Child and Adolescent Health Research is connected with the University of Pittsburgh and Children’s Hospital of Pittsburg—https://www. chp.edu/research/research-excellence Child Friendly Cities Initiative—https://childfriendlycities.org/ Child Trends https://www.childtrends.org/ is the nation’s leading research organization focused exclusively on improving the lives of children and youth, especially vulnerable ones. Children’s Defense Fund https://www.childrensdefense.org/ Crimes Against Children Research Center http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/ is at the University of New Hampshire and directed by Dr. David Finkelhor. Equitas in Montreal is human rights organization that provides training and resource that defend people’s human rights across the planet. They provide a data base where you can search for topics and resources. Here is the information they have

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

117

on child rights: https://equitas.org/equitas-resources-2/?language=English& search=child+rights&orderby=publish_date&order=desc#resource-form-top First Focus is a bipartisan child policy regarding child well-being and collects a variety of cutting-edge child, adolescent, and family research. https://firstfocus. org/ Johns Hopkins Child Abuse Research Center https://www.jhsph.edu/research/ centers-and-institutes/moore-center-for-the-prevention-of-child-sexual-abuse/ Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect provides national data on child abuse and neglect, based on work by pediatrician Henry Kempe. https://medschool.cuanschutz.edu/pediatrics/sections/childabuse-and-neglect-kempe-center The organization Kid Rights, https://www.kidsrights.org is rich with information about children’s human rights around the world. Please note that the US is not included in their index Leading For Kids focuses on data from the Frameworks Institute and other scholarly sources that show how children are faring in the US and why changing the narrative we hold about children would be helpful. https://www.leadingforkids. org/ The National Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare https://ncsacw. samhsa.gov/ National Institute of Mental Health Child and Adolescent Services Research Program https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/organization/dsir/services-researchand-epidemiology-branch/child-and-adolescent-services-research-program UCLA Center for Children, Families and Communities https://ph.ucla.edu/ research/centers/center-healthier-children-families-and-communities UNICEF seeks to help children survive and thrive around the world. They have many different programs and research—here is the UNICEF USA link—https:// www.unicefusa.org/ The University of Minnesota Human Rights Library and Resource Center is a treasure-trove of information about all kinds of human rights treaties around the world. It is a very searchable and rich site that you can reach at http://hrlibrary. umn.edu/and http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/center/hronline.html The Urban Institute https://www.urban.org/research-area/adolescents-andyouthfocuses on research especially on children transitioning from childhood into adulthood.

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

Data indicates that countries ratifying the CRC and committed to supporting children more comprehensively have children that are healthier, happier, and more satisfied and successful (Edmond 2020; Gromada et al. 2021; OECD 2009). A public health approach to child wellbeing is essential if we want them to grow up healthy, hopeful,

118

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

and well-adjusted (Goldhagen et al. 2020). Child-friendly communities are anticipated to provide more support to children than communities that have not made such a commitment to young people (Wridt et al. 2023). Turning a blind eye is commonly done when confronting something we don’t want to see. The US has long been regarded as a world leader, yet data from countless major reports and studies indicate that the US has fallen from being the frontrunner when it comes to how we are caring for children. Data proves disparity and describes the troubles that millions of US children of every age face. Many studies compare how American children fare when compared to children around the world and they come up with the same basic conclusion—that the quality of our children’s lives has fallen on almost every dimension and has become similar to those found in developing countries (Parramore 2017; Temin 2017; Washington Post Editorial Board 2016a). “The United States of America is in danger of becoming what is regarded as a third-world nation. The evidence is all around us” (Huffington 2011). This is embarrassing, uncomfortable, and we may not want to believe that it is true—except it is. We are no longer at the top but at the bottom of the pack.

6.3.1

World Health Organization: UNICEF: Lancet Commission 20202

A global index, presented in a landmark WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission (Clark et al. 2020) from thousands of data pieces, shows that children all over the world are in a desperate situation; of 180 countries examined, no single country provides the conditions needed for a child to live a healthy life today and tomorrow. The US scored 39, behind 38 other nations. The report noted that almost 4 million US children are not covered by health insurance, that US healthcare costs are the highest of any developed nation in the world, and are the third-highest childcare costs out of 41 other developed nations. Regarding the country’s sustainability goals, the US scored in the bottom 10 countries of the 180 included in the study (Austrew 2020). Despite dramatic improvements in survival, nutrition, and education over recent decades, today’s children face an uncertain future. Climate change, ecological degradation, migrating populations, conflict, pervasive inequalities, and predatory commercial practices threaten the health and future of children in every country. In 2015, the world’s countries agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), yet nearly 5 years later, few countries have made much progress towards achieving them. This Commission presents the case for placing children, aged 0–18 years, at the centre of the SDGs: at the heart of the concept of sustainability and our shared human endeavor. Governments must harness coalitions across sectors to overcome

2

Clark et al. (2020)—https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32 540-1/fulltext

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

119

ecological and commercial pressures to ensure children receive their rights and entitlements now and a livable planet in the years to come. Their findings are clear—early investments in children’s health, education and development are the best investment that a society can make. Successful societies invest in their children and protect their rights, as is evident from countries that have done well on health and economic measures over the past few decades. Yet many politicians still do not prioritize investing in children, nor see it as the foundation for broader societal improvements. Even in rich countries like the US, many children go hungry or live in conditions of absolute poverty. The US’s refusal to commit to a children’s human rights framework was noted in their report as responsible for the challenging conditions that US children, especially marginalized ones, face. The report emphasizes that government leaders and decision makers need a longterm vision and the commitment to lay the foundation for a healthy life course for all children and make sure that children’s provision and protection must be a top priority across all sectors. Countries that support future generations must put a high priority on ensuring all children’s needs are met, by delivering entitlements, such as paid parental leave, free primary health care at the point of delivery, access to healthy food, clean air and water, free education, climate protections, and other social protection measures. Policy makers must pay particular attention to marginalized populations, like girls, children with disabilities, race, nonconforming gender identities, immigrants, and impoverished children, as well as regulating commercial harm to children in its various forms. In short, children are dependent upon leaders to make them a priority and follow the blueprint laid out in the CRC. All of our futures depend upon it.

6.3.2

Health Affairs 50 Year Comparative Analysis

In a high-quality comparison of child mortality in the US and in 19 OECD, or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, countries over a 50-year period of time, it was found that the United States has poorer child health outcomes than other wealthy nations despite greater per capita spending on health care for children. This study used a rigorous methodology from highly respected data sources to examine mortality trends for the US and nineteen comparator nations for children ages 0–19 from 1961 to 2010 using publicly available data. While child mortality progressively declined across all countries, mortality in the US was higher than in peer nations since the 1980s. From 2001 to 2010 the risk of death in the US was 76% greater for infants and 57% greater for children ages 1–19 and children ages 15–19 were 82 times more likely to die from gun homicide in the US. Over the fifty-year study period, the lagging US performance amounted to over 600,000 excess deaths. Across almost every domain, the United States has poorer child health outcomes than other wealthy nations. A UNICEF report from 2013 summarized these findings by ranking the US twenty-fifth of twenty-nine developed countries with respect to

120

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

overall child health and safety. Compared to other high-income nations, mortality rates for US infants are higher and life expectancy at birth is lower. Children in the US also face a morbidity disadvantage, with higher rates of injury, obesity, HIV infection, and adolescent pregnancy, compared to children from peer countries. The study concludes that care of children is a basic moral responsibility of society, both because children are inherently vulnerable and because disease can profoundly affect a child’s life course. The US outspends every other nation on health care per capita for children, yet outcomes remain poor. It is therefore not only money, but policy decisions, that are driving the high rates of preventable child morbidity and mortality in the USA (Thakrar et al. 2018).

6.3.3

UNICEF Worlds of Influence Report

UNICEF regularly posts studies that give important insights into the lives of children. In a 2020 study of child well-being in more developed nations, children were challenged everywhere, but some nations were consistently more responsive to defending the needs of children than others. Scandinavian countries generally scored well on most indicators, but there were other nations that fared well too. However, when it comes to the US, children here could be doing much better. Of 41 countries, the US scored 38 for children in poverty; only 3 nations had higher child poverty rates, and these were Turkey. Romania and Israel. Of 41 countries, the US scored 36 for having the lowest birthweight babies. Of 41 nations scores on child mortality, the US was among the lowest, at 33, while Scandinavian countries, Italy, and Japan had the fewest child death rates. In comparing the rates of youth having math competence by age 15, the US scored 28 of 39. Of 33 developed nations, the US scored 28 in children’s assessment of life satisfaction, behind the Netherlands, Mexico, Romania, and Croatia. Feeling positive and being in good mental health are key aspects of quality of life. However, a striking number of children in rich countries do not have good mental well-being. In 12 of 41 countries, less than 75% of children aged 15 have high life satisfaction. While there are no comparable data on children’s mental health across rich countries, suicide is one of the most common causes of death for adolescents aged 15–19. The report encourages nations to adhere to the Sustainable Development Goals, which provide a roadmap to ensuring child well-being now and for the future. Governments should intensify and accelerate efforts to meet these goals, including: reducing poverty, ensuring that all children have access to the resources they need. States must improve access to affordable and high-quality early years childcare for all children with more workplace family friendly policies. Mental health services must be improved, and immunizations for preventable illnesses must be more available.

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

121

Table 6.1 How the US compares on child well-being to other OECD countries Indicator Household disposable income Children in poverty Children in jobless households Infant mortality Low birthweight infants Adolescents skipping breakfast/dinner Adolescents regularly exercising Adolescents with desk and quiet place to study at home Adolescents with books for schoolwork at home Adolescents who feel anxious about school and testing Adolescents who expect to go to college Adolescents who feel they belong Adolescents who feel bullied Reading performance at age 15 Math performance at age 15

6.3.4

Top x

Middle

Bottom X

x X X X x X X X x x x x X

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Report

Data from the OECD Child Well-being Data Portal (2017 and 2022)3 ranked how children were faring in 20 countries. They included factors such as poverty, education, health, life satisfaction, and other traditionally accepted indicators of wellbeing. Table 6.1 shows a sample of how the US children’s lives compare with other countries, ranking the nation as being in the best or top third, middle, or bottom (worst) of the OECD nations. Children in the US were found to enjoy some of the highest levels of disposable income of all the OECD nations but experience higher income inequality. Child poverty rates in the US are very high with 20% of children living in relative income poverty compared with 13% of OECD nations. Infant health outcomes were ranked as poor, with infant mortality rate higher in the US than in most OECD countries (5.8 deaths per 1000 births compared to OECD average of 3.9) and low infant birthweight (8.1 in US compared to OECD average of 6.5). Teenagers in the US are less likely to live in homes with educational resources like a desk, quiet place to study, and books to help them with their schoolwork. They report anxiety about their school performance, experience bullying and feeling that they may not belong, but believe they will go to college. Male children report higher life satisfaction than female children, pointing to continued gender inequality. These trends are consistent with findings from other studies.

3

OECD Child Well-being Data Portal. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/child-well-being/data/

122

6.3.5

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Other Reports

There are more reports than there is room to provide here. Depending upon when the study is conducted, who is conducting it, the variables used, their operationalization and measurement, the sample, and other factors, it is likely that there may be different numbers that emerge. The point of this chapter is to look at common trends that have been occurring across time, trends that will continue unless different strategies are employed. For those who wish to argue that while things are bad here in the US for children, it’s worse for children elsewhere, it’s time to challenge that misperception. The US has not only lost its leadership position when it comes to protecting children, it has fallen to the lower rungs of all developed nations. The United States is consistently ranked as having one of the worst child poverty rates of all developed nations (Haider 2021; Nadasen 2017). The U.S. infant mortality rate has been consistently higher than other developed countries for years, and now 1.5 times higher than the average (3.8 deaths per 1000 live births) among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2021) countries. Research indicates socioeconomic inequality in the United States is likely a primary contributor to its higher infant mortality rate (America’s Health Ranking 2020; Rapaport 2018). UNICEF surveyed 29 developed countries on a series of child well-being factors, and the US scored 26th, with only 3 nations scoring even lower (Adamson 2013). Factors included: health and safety; education; material well-being; housing and environmental well-being; and behaviors and risks. In a 2020 UNICEF study reviewed in The Lancet, global comparison of 180 nations (developed and less developed) measuring child flourishing the US came in at 39, with 38 other nations scoring higher caring for children (Clark et al. 2020). A 2020 Save the Children report on the hardest and easiest places to be a child found the US coming in at 43rd place—behind countries like China, Russia, Hungary, Poland, and South Korea. According to Asher & Lyric (Bloom 2020), out of a study of 35 countries measuring 30 statistics in six categories identifying favorable conditions for raising a family, like safety, happiness, cost, health, education, and time, the US came in at 34th place, beating out only Mexico. When children in 38 countries were asked how satisfied they were with their lives for a UNICEF-World Economic Forum report (Edmond 2020), the most satisfied children live in Romania and Mexico while children’s well-being was highest in Nordic countries. Where was the US in the rankings? Second from the bottom, at 36. In the World Happiness Report, an annual survey conducted by the UN’s Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the US came in at 19 of 20 countries in 2019; up one notch in 2020, and this year was ranked at 14 (Bloom 2021). In many nations around the world, governments support universal preschool. There is no such action at this time in the US (Barnett 2004). The United States ranks 30th out of 33-member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in public spending on families and children, which includes policies such as child payments and allowances, parental leave benefits, and childcare

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

123

support. As for childcare, the United States ranks 20th out of 31 OECD countries (for which we have data) in percentage of children ages 0–2 who are enrolled in formal childcare and 29th out of 31 countries in percentage of children ages 3–5 who are enrolled in formal childcare. Only 28% of children ages 0–2 in the United States are enrolled in formal care, far behind most other advanced economies (Ansel 2017a, b). Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Elizabeth Davis and Aaron Sojourner for the Hamilton Project find that the US spends about 1/60 on children in their early years compared with other countries. For instance, Norway spends $29,726 per child age 0–3, while Finland spends $23,353, Germany spends $18,656, while the United States spends $500. This is a shocking difference. Some scholars have tried to counter that disparity, but find that even using different calculations, the closest the US comes is still much lower ($3000 per child) (Kertschler 2021). The implications of our lack of investment in early childhood are notable. An article in Scientific American (Suskind and Denworth 2022) reminds us that children’s learning starts the day they are born, not on their first day of school; 85% of a child’s brain development occurs between birth and age 3. International studies indicate that on average, US children had lower literacy and numeracy scores, poorer self-regulation skills, and engaged in fewer acts of cooperation, kindness and other prosocial behaviors than did children in England and Estonia, the other countries studied. The study points out the disconnect between what science finds that children need and what we as a society do to help them. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not mandate paid leave for a parent after childbirth. Children are the poorest of the poor in our nation. In 2020 4 in 10 children lived with families who struggled to afford basic necessities. Half of children live in childcare deserts where there aren’t nearly enough facilities or caregivers, and fewer than 10% of them are considered to be high-quality. These factors are significantly different in most developed nations, who have made children’s rights a priority. Overwhelming evidence indicates that children in the US rank lower in almost every criterion of child well-being compared with nations that have embedded a children’s human rights framework or the ratification of the CRC. We may wish to believe that children are a national priority in the US, but the data simply doesn’t beat that conclusion out. We used to be a world leader in protecting children, but we are not anymore.

6.3.6

Kids Rights Foundation and Children’s World Reports

The Kids Rights Foundation (2020) assessed what countries were doing well in protecting children’s human rights and which were not. They ranked nations on five domains, including the right to life, right to health, right to education, right to protection, and enabling environment for child rights. Countries scoring highest and lowest are shown in Table 6.2. The US was not included in the ranking because it has not agreed to ratify the child rights treaty.

124

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Table 6.2 Ranking of child rights domains Country Iceland Switzerland Finland Sweden Germany

Best rank 1 2 3 4 5

Netherlands Slovenia

6 7

Thailand France Denmark

8 9 10

Country Chad Afghanistan Sierra Leone Equatorial Guinea Central African Republic Papua New Guinea Democratic Republic of the Congo Guinea El Salvador Guinea-Bissau

Lowest rank 182 181 181 179 178 177 176 175 174 173

The report weighted countries based on their capacity, and in doing so found that developed countries do not necessarily do better than developing countries in terms of the realization of children’s rights. Other international ranking reports will be provided later that compare the US to other nations and systematically find that the US scores among the lowest of all developed nations. The Children’s Worlds survey examined children’s views on their lives and wellbeing in 15 countries (Rees and Main 2015). They argue that international comparison of children’s well-being is not only possible but also desirable for anyone interested in the study of well-being and essential for the promotion of children’s well-being across the globe. However, like many international studies, the US was not included because it has not made a commitment to support children and their rights.

6.3.7

International Commitment to Children’s Rights

Traveling across the world, the importance of children’s human rights becomes obvious. The Scandinavian countries have been ranked highest for years as defenders of children’s human rights. Iceland4,5 is currently scored as the best in the world with its child rights protections. I met with their ombudsman and she told me stories about how the national policy had meaning to the lives of individual children; the head of child protection who took me to their Barnhaus to see how sexually abused children were processed in ways to reduce trauma and to increase

4

Fridriksdottir, Hrefna. (2019). Protection of Children’s Rights in the Icelandic Constitution. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004382817_006 5 https://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rights-education-project/human-rights-concepts-ideasand-fora/the-human-rights-protection-of-vulnerable-groups/children and https:// scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1347&context=swb and https://rcw. law.yale.edu/jurisdiction-research/iceland

6.3

How Do US Children Compare with Children Around the World?

125

prosecution of their offenders. While I was there, teams of child advocates from different countries were there to learn from them, reinforcing the importance of children’s human rights that people from other nations embrace. Nordic countries have moved from just constitutional support of children and youth having rights to them being accepted by the public as normal and just, and with child rights being embedded into all of their social institutions and daily interactions6 (Mattsson 2019). The Constitution of Finland embeds the rights of children and youth,7 child rights are part of Swedish law,8 implemented in Norway’s laws and constitution,9 and the benefits of a nation having committed to defending children’s legal rights are obvious in the children’s rights emphasis at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.10 United Kingdom countries have made a commitment to children’s human rights. Wales has a national commitment to children’s rights11,12,13 and their report, The Right Way, examines how to implement a Children’s Human Rights Framework For Education In Wales.14 Scotland has developed a comprehensive children’s initiative that addresses government and organizational actions that have become renowned.15,16,17,18 England and Northern Ireland have committed to a national children’s rights framework as well,19 as has neighbor Ireland.20

6

https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004382817/BP000008.xml#:~:text=The%20Swedish% 20constitutional%20framework%20depicts,integrate%20them%20with%20everyone%20else 7 https://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/en_GB/web/lasten-ja-nuorten-sivut/children-s-rights and https:// archive.crin.org/en/library/publications/finland-national-laws.html and Hakalehto, Suvianna. (2019). Constitutional Protection of Children’s Rights in Finland. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004382817_005 8 https://www.government.se/articles/2018/03/new-legislative-proposal-on-the-convention-on-therights-of-the-child/ 9 https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/0ada3bee46b54f498707f51bbc7d4b2c/ barnekonvensjonen-engelsk-versjon-uu.pdf and https://www.nhri.no/en/2019/the-human-rightsframework-in-norway/ 10 https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/ton-liefaard#tab-1 and https://www. kinderrechten.nl/assets/2016/11/249.pdf and https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/ childrens-rights-netherlands/ 11 https://senedd.wales/laid%20documents/cr-ld13405-r/cr-ld13405-r-e.pdf 12 https://gov.wales/childrens-rights-in-wales 13 https://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/observatory/ 14 Children’s Commissioner of Wales. The Right Way – Education. https://www.childcomwales. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Right-Way-Education.pdf 15 https://www.gov.scot/policies/human-rights/childrens-rights/ 16 https://www.ed.ac.uk/education/rke/our-research/children-young-people/childhood-and-youthstudies-research-group/research/observatory-of-childrens-human-rights-scotland 17 https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/media/1567/shrc_uprfactsheet3_childrens_rights.pdf 18 https://www.universal-rights.org/uncategorized/scotland-taking-a-child-rights-based-approachfurther-than-ever/ 19 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/childrens-human-rights 20 https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/about/advocacy/our-policy-on-childrens-rights/

126

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

In many nations around the planet, children’s rights are recognized and embedded. Australia has ratified the CRC and instituted national policies to support children, including a national children’s commission21,22,23 and developed a national action plan for implementing children’s rights.24 While Canada is known for its historical maltreatment of First Nation children, it has taken active steps to honor children’s human rights by ratifying the CRC and working with its provinces to institute child rights-respecting actions, laws, and programs.25,26,27 The point is that many nations around the world have become leaders in defending children’s human rights. There are designing blueprints and roadmaps that we can use as a nation to help us construct a successful children’s human rights framework. Because we cannot do what we do not know, in order to be effective a comprehensive children’s human rights education framework is necessary. In order for the narrative to be moved towards being more rights-respecting of young people—and ultimately for everyone in society—children’s human rights must be introduced at all educational levels, including groups of parents, preschool, K-12 students, higher education students, professional and organizational groups, government and leadership groups, and the media. More detail about what this could look like in the US will be discussed in Part IV of this book.

6.4

How Do the 50 States Compare on Child Rights?

There is significant variability across the US. Many of the issues addressed in the CRC are left to the jurisdiction of individual states, not the federal government. Human Rights Watch (2019, 2020 and 2021a)28 measured four key issues of child marriage, corporal punishment, child labor, and juvenile justice through the assessment if twelve specific state level laws. Child Marriage Over a quarter million children, with some as young as ten years old, were married in the US between 2000–2018, even though the CRC and most legal documents hold age 18 as the age of consent. Child marriage was legal in all 50 states until Delaware changed its laws in 2018, but it is still legal in 43 states. Almost all these child marriages are girls marrying adult men, with spousal age disparity that would otherwise be considered to be a form of sexual violence. The

21

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/childrens-rights/about-childrens-rights https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/legal-and-policy/australias-human-rights-framework/ 23 https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/australian-child-protection-legislation 24 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/NHRA/Australia-NHRAP2004.pdf 25 https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/crc-crde/conv2a.html 26 https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-children.html 27 https://childrenfirstcanada.org/blog/12-child-rights-everyone-should-know/ 28 https://www.hrw.org/featuDre/2022/09/13/how-do-states-measure-up-child-rights 22

6.4

How Do the 50 States Compare on Child Rights?

127

only states that comply with an age 18 marriage minimum are Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Corporal Punishment Approximately 160,000 children are subjected to corporal punishment in school each year, even though it has been found to be both infective in correcting the child’s behavior and is harmful to their development, physical, social, and emotional wellbeing. Black children and children with disabilities are significantly more likely to experience corporal punishment, violating CRC Article 2 that prohibits discrimination of any kind, including race or disability status. Only 2 states have prohibited corporal punishment in both public and private schools—Iowa and New Jersey. Twenty-three (23) states do not prohibit corporal punishment in either public or private schools, with the remainder only prohibiting it in public schools. Not a single state prohibits the use of corporal punishment in the home, despite other nations have laws that prevent corporal punishment of children anywhere. Thirtynine (39) states have prohibited the use of corporal punishment in alternative settings; the others have restricted usage while only South Carolina has no restrictions of its use. Child Labor Children work, but not all types of work or ages of young workers are protected. Article 32 of the CRC protects children from work that is hazardous or harmful to their health, safety, education, and oral development; the International Labour Organization (ILO) the minimum age at 15, and Article 5 of their convention #138 specifically protects children working in the agricultural sector. The US Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) align with most international child labor standards except in agriculture, where weak protections exist. For instance, a 12-year-old may work full-time and a child of any age may work on a farm part-time. On a family farm, there is no minimum age for employment or rules of financial compensation. Juvenile Justice The report reviewed minimal age of juvenile jurisdiction, trying children as adults, and sentence of life without parole. The CRC calls on nations to establish a minimum age of 14, preferably 16, where they should be presumed not to have the capacity to understand or infringe the penal law (Article 40). Yet over 30,000 US children under age 12 are referred to juvenile court annually. Not a single state meets the international standard age of 14 for juvenile jurisdiction; the majority of US states have no minimum age and only 5 states set a minimum age higher than 10 years old. The CRE holds that no child should be tried in the adult criminal system, no matter what category of offense; over 50,000 people under age 18 are tried in US adult courts annually. CRC Article 37 prohibits sentencing children to life imprisonment with the possibility of release (JLWOP), but in 2020, over 1465 children were serving life without parole sentences, some of whom were as young as 13 years old. Twenty-five states allow JLWOP and the other prohibit its practice. The data revealed the 20 states received an F grade. Of the remaining states, 26 received a D grade, 4 received a C grade—and not a single state received a B or an A (Table 6.3).

128

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Table 6.3 Human rights watch ranking of child rights by state State New Jersey Ohio Iowa Minnesota Massachusetts Colorado New York Virginia Florida Alaska Connecticut Nevada Oregon Pennsylvania Utah Arkansas Kentucky Nebraska Maryland Montana Vermont Kansas North Dakota Alabama South Dakota Delaware Rhode Island Hawaii Arizona California Texas Missouri New Hampshire Wisconsin Illinois Louisiana South Carolina Idaho Maine New Mexico North Carolina Michigan

Point value (%) 73.75 68.75 67.50 67.25 60.00 60.00 59.38 59.38 58.75 58.13 57.50 57.50 56.88 56.88 56.25 55.63 55.63 55.63 54.38 53.75 53.75 53.13 52.50 51.88 51.88 51.25 51.25 50.63 50.00 50.00 49.38 48.75 48.75 48.13 46.88 46.25 44.38 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 41.25

Grade C C C C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D F F F F F F F F F F F F (continued)

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

129

Table 6.3 (continued) State Indiana Tennessee West Virginia Washington Georgia Oklahoma Wyoming Mississippi

Point value (%) 39.38 36.88 35.63 34.38 33.75 26.25 26.25 19.38

Grade F F F F F F F F

Other indicators could have been selected, but methodologically it is very challenging to find the same variables measure in similar ways across the country. This is why the data was measured in the way it was.

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

Go to any major child research institutions within the US, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Trends, Child Welfare League of America, First Focus, or UNICEF USA. Look at their reports in detail. Check out positions by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, American Psychological Association, American Bar Association’s Center for Children and the Law, the National Center for Children in Poverty, National Coalition for the Homeless and other professional associations about what they see are public health risks for children and what we could be doing to help children. While they collect data differently, they all end up saying the same thing: children in the United States are in trouble. If we do not do something about it, things are going to get worse for them and for us as a nation. What we are doing to help children isn’t working. It’s time to make a change. Poverty, health, racism, demographic changes, and other trends will be explored that gives weight to why US children would benefit from greater rights protections. In this chapter, data on things that impact most children will be examined. In particular, data on poverty, healthcare, child abuse, childhood adversity, and juvenile justice will be introduced. Data and information on race, gender, ability, and education and how these factors impact the lives of all children will be provided in more detail in forthcoming chapters as separate topics.

130

6.5.1

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Poverty and Its Impacts

Who is the poorest population in the United States? Children. Think about what that means. Consider the cause of it and what outcomes should we expect. Poverty and the implications associated with it are a violation of children’s right to have the things they need in order to survive and thrive. If we agree that it is not in the best interests of children to grow up poor, what are we going to do about it that we are not doing now? There have always been people who were poor, but poverty is now so pervasive that it is divided into subcategories such as “absolute” or “relative” deprivation, “deep,” “severe,” or “extreme” poverty (Center for Poverty and Inequality at the University of California Davis 2021; Natour 2021; United Nations 2022). The Institute for Research on Poverty (2022) finds that different organizations, nations, and political agendas do not define poverty the same way, resulting in masking of the real-life impact of poverty and a low estimate of its actual prevalence. Whatever number reported is likely an undercount of the amount that exists. Numbers alone fail to tell the rest of the story of the many ways that poverty hurts children’s brains, bodies, minds, relationships, opportunities, and futures. Poverty is associated with a host of adversities for children that can torpedo positive trajectories for their lives (American Public Health Association 2021a, b, c; Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b; Edelman 1992; Haider 2021). It would seem that from a survival perspective every society would see the benefits of investing in children to make sure they have everything they need to build a strong future for themselves and the nation. But we haven’t. This is perplexing and troubling indeed. Children are the poorest age group; 70% of poor children are children of color but the National Center for Children in Poverty (2018) reminds us that “Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a White problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. Not just are there more poor people, the severity of poverty is much worse. “The prevalence of extreme poverty in the United States may shock many. . .our analyses show that about 1.65 million households with 3.55 million children were surviving on $2 or less . . .per day” (Shaefer and Edin 2014). Children under 5 are the poorest of the poor, with half living in extreme poverty, which is below half of the already low poverty-line designation. Child poverty had already been high but increased significantly during the COVID pandemic (Chen and Thomson 2021). About 11 million children in the United States have been counted as not just poor, but very poor. That’s one in seven children who make up about one-third of all people living in poverty in this country. Other reports indicate that 1 in 5 US children are poor (OECD 2015). “This number should be unimaginable in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and yet child poverty has remained stubbornly high for decades” according to the Center for American Progress (Haider 2021). The Children’s Defense Fund reports that 1 in 6 children in America officially live in poverty, making them the poorest age group

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

131

in the country. Half of those children live in “extreme” poverty, with about a third of Black and Native American children living in poverty, as do a quarter of Hispanic children. Poverty is highest among children of color and for children under age 5, which is a crucial time for their development. A 2022 report made big national news by declaring that child poverty had significantly decreased (DeParle 2021; Parrott 2022; Shafer et al. 2022; Thomson and Ryberg 2022). It found that child poverty fell to 5.2%, which was the lowest rate ever recorded, pulling and additional 3.4 million childn out of poverty. This was hailed around the world as a symbol of the US caring for children. However, it is necessary to contextualize this success. The reason that the child poverty rate fell was because of the US stimulas packages provided to families during the pandemic. It is clearly a sign that investing in families helps children to live healthier, better lives. There are two problems associated with getting comfortable that child poverty is going to continue to be so low that we don’t have to worry about it anymore. This simply is not true. Problem one is that Congress has balked in authorizing additional funds to families since the pandemic is supposedly over. Problem two concerns how one counts poverty. Life for many children isn’t as rosy as the report may reflect. For instance, Matt Bruenig at the People’s Policy Project examined the data used in the report and found that there were a variety of other measurement options available, but a decision was made to chose the option that made the government stimulus package look more successful than it was. The stimulus package was helpful—but not as helpful in reducing child poverty as the report stated, according to Bruenig. He states: “There is no other word for this presentation [by DeParle in the New York Times] than dishonest. The whole report up to this extensive. . . .disclaimer makes it sound like the welfare state—or “the safety net” in their idiom—is actually having an effect it is not having”. Bruenig goes on to state: Using this data to say that “America’s high levels of child poverty” no longer “set it apart from other rich nations,” as DeParle does in his piece, is just laughable. Even with the problems identified above, the OECD relative child poverty rate in the US was 21 percent in 2019. By comparison, in 2018, using the exact same measure, Finland’s child poverty rate was 3.5 percent and Denmark’s was 4.9 percent. This is not convergence.

The government is not providing stimulus checks to families anymore. Hunger among children is at crisis levels since the pandemic and they haven’t really recovered, as food pantries across the nation will testify. Add in the problem that the current cost of food has skyrocketed (Hales and Coleman-Jenson 2022; Moran 2022). SAMHSA, the government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2022 April), reports that “Family and child homelessness is a crisis and it is not getting the attention it deserves.” Current data points out that shelter costs have dramatically increased, with mortgage rates doubling, and utility rates of all types going through the roof (Moran 2022). My own work indicates that as a phenomenon, homelessness in children is ‘thriving’, which is not good news (Vissing et al. 2020; Nilan 2020). It is clear that government supports reduce child poverty, but what it has done in the past isn’t enough, and the current indicators

132

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

predict that we can expect child hunger, housing distress, and poverty to rise again in the near future. This poverty epidemic is occurring in the US while the rich continue to get richer. In 1981, the top 1 percent of adults earned on average 27 times more than the bottom 50 percent of adults. Today the top 1 percent earn 81 times more than the combined incomes of the bottom 50 percent (Nadasen 2017). The amount the government spends for welfare to individuals is about $59 billion (3% of the federal budget), but $92 billion for corporation “welfare” (Baumberg et al. 2010; Sim 2017). America’s economic systems are not designed to support all families (Haider 2021). The US economic system is designed to support the wealthy and it fails both the lower and middle-classes. The amount of money the wealthy have not paid in taxes costs much more than welfare to the poor—or for programs for children (Bump 2019; Mascaro and Kahlil 2021; O’neil 2002a; Oxfam 2023; Renshaw 1977). As the COVID pandemic shows American billionaires got $12 trillion richer during the pandemic, while the majority of families suffered a loss of jobs, incomes, and homes. (Peterson-Withorn 2021). Poverty is associated with a variety of factors, such as homelessness and hunger, which are discussed next.

6.5.1.1

Housing Distress

Economic inequality burdens children on a daily basis and can take forms like hunger and homelessness. Housing issues are perceived to be adult issues but they dramatically impact children’s lives. Housing and homelessness ARE children’s human rights issues (United Nations 2022). Homelessness violates the principle of human dignity enshrined in Articles 1 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11(1), states recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including to food, clothing, and housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. Article 12 states that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of health. States must furthermore guarantee according to Article 2 (2) that all economic, social, and cultural rights “are exercised without discrimination of any kind as to . . . national or social origin, property, birth or other status”, meaning that children’s rights to secure housing are to be protected as a human right. According to a report by First Focus on Children, the average homeless person in the United States is only 11 years old, and 1 in 30 children are homeless with many more in housing-distressed situations (Daniels 2015). Child and youth homelessness in the US have often been downplayed. One reason concerns the definition of homelessness used by formal institutions. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which holds the pocketbook for most housing services, uses a much more restrictive definition of child homelessness than does the Department of Education (DOE). This means when these two organizations file enumeration reports, HUD numbers will always be smaller than DOE’s counts of homeless children. The research methodologies they use to count children are entirely different. HUD numbers are usually stated as the standard because they

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

133

are lower than DOE’s numbers—which means that the government can announce fewer homeless children exist and they do not have to spend more money as a result. Homeless children and families cost more to help than older, single adults. Another reason under-count of homeless children exists is because counts are often conducted at the family level, not at the individual child level. Unaccompanied youth, runaways, throwaways, independent, and “invisible” children are not usually counted; babies and children too young to be in school or not connected with formal organizations may also not be counted when they experience housing distress. If they are counted, then they exist; this means that if there is documentation that they exist, then as a community we “should” do something for them. When resources are slim and political agendas are high, not counting them may be a course of action pursued to avoid spending money or intervening in complex situations. The definition-methodology-count-outcome issue is discussed at length in my book, Changing the Paradigm of Homelessness. People seem obsessed with counts of “how many” people are homeless, without understanding that the numbers that get reported are always gross underestimates of the real number of children who are in housing-distressed situations. There is a political reason for the undercounts. The bigger the numbers, the more people may feel compelled to do something about it, which would cost more money. Conservatively, in a study I conducted of multiple New England high schools, at least one in ten students reported experiencing housing distress. This was the same number that Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago found in a study of 26,000 households nationally (Morton et al. 2017). It is also about the same count as School House Connection (2021a, b) found in a study of high schools in 24 states, in which at least two-thirds of students who experienced homelessness were not identified as homeless by their schools. Over a third of all children live in homes burdened by housing costs and are at risk of becoming homeless, especially since homelessness is best understood as a spiral or roller-coaster instead of a singular outcome (Vissing et al. 2020). The number of people losing their homes or being evicted has skyrocketed during the pandemic, with 40 million people estimated to lose their homes in what is regarded as the worst housing crisis in the history of the USA. Evictions and bankruptcies were big during the 2008 economic recession, and it will be a long while before housing distress stabilizes for millions of families (Benfer et al. 2021a, b; Desmond 2016). The Children’s Defense Fund (2021a, b, c) report that almost two-thirds or 2.6 million of poor families with children experience “worst-case housing needs,” meaning they are extremely rent-burdened, their income is at or below the poverty line, they spend half of their income on housing with no housing assistance from the government. The number of homeless students in the United States is at its highest in more than a decade, at over 1.5 million, according to the National Center for Homeless Education. But this number is an underestimate for reasons already mentioned. Housing makes it possible for children to get sleep, to be able to store and cook food, to stay clean, to keep healthy, to have a stable place to do their homework, and have a “normal” life. Homelessness and housing distress limit all of those things.

134

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

School House Connection provides a long list of ways that housing distress disrupts children’s lives, as have studies by child homelessness scholars like pediatric psychiatrist Ellen Bassuk, MD, or shown in movies by homeless child and family filmmaker, Diane Nilan. Data is incontrovertible—homelessness is bad for children’s development, physical health, mental health, social relations, education, and chances for a good future (Bassuk et al. 2014, 2015; Cutuli et al. 2017; Grant et al. 2013; Gultekin et al. 2020).

6.5.1.2

Hunger

Hunger is becoming the new normal for children, according to foodways scholars. More people are hungry, eat less food, and fewer meals in order to save money, and consume less healthy but more available foods, especially if they live in food deserts (Coleman-Jenson et al. 2011). Over 72% of US households live at or below 100% of the federal poverty line; without programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food-stamps), the rates of poverty and illness would be even higher than they are (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011). The number of households receiving SNAP increased 50% since 2009 and before the pandemic, and has massively increased since then. A survey by the US Council of Mayors (2020) found in the 29 cities studied that one in four people needing emergency food assistance were unable to receive it. Community food pantries have been unable to keep up with the need, especially since the pandemic. Feeding America (2023) has found that it is no longer just the poor and destitute who are going hungry, it is the middle-class, working-class, college students, single parents, two-parent working families, children, youth, elderly, and everyone else (Delaney and Schelle 2015; Patton 2012). Children may get their only meal of the day from school. When school is not in session, when schools go remote, and during summer and weekends, children may lose access to their only reliable food source. There have been food backpack programs popping up around the country where known hungry children can take home backpacks full of food so they can survive for the weekend or school breaks. But this compassion is not universal—some schools have refused to allow children to eat if they don’t have money, or deny them to go to prom or graduate if they have unpaid food fines in what is referred to as school-lunch shaming (Murphy 2022; Nasheed 2019). Over 11 million children experienced hunger or food insecurity with insufficient nutrition to meet the needs of developing brains and bodies, and over half of American babies are at risk of malnourishment (Weber 2018). The hunger situation has gotten significantly worse for children since the pandemic with the numbers rising to over 14 million children going hungry (Peck 2020). “Failure to provide key nutrients during [the first 1000 days of life] this critical period of brain development may result in lifelong deficits in brain function despite subsequent nutrient repletion,” according to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. No amount of catch-up can make up for the lost time of this critical brain formation.

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

135

Malnourishing the brain produces lower IQs; a lifetime of chronic medical problems; an increased risk of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes; and compromised future academic achievement and job success. “The impact can even be generational, perpetuating a cycle of poverty for lifetimes to come” (Schwarzenberg and Georgieff 2018). Poverty and homelessness bring adversities and insecurities that harm children’s bodies, minds, relationships, and ability to succeed in school, work, relationships, and society. The Academic Pediatric Association stated in their task force report, The existence of poverty is only possible if abided by a social indifference, ignorance, or outright callousness that allows the indignity and existential distress of scarcity to persist. That our society tolerates this violent indifference to the lived experience of millions of impoverished children remains a profound failure and abdication of our most fundamental responsibility to future generations. It does not have to be this way. (Schickedanz et al. 2021:2)

6.5.2

Health and Healthcare

The United States is known for having the best healthcare system in the world, yet today US children are found to be less healthy and more likely to die than children in most-developed nations (Giedd and Rapoport 2010; Thakrar et al. 2018). We have a bifurcated healthcare system with some people of all ages receiving excellent care while others may not have access to health insurance or even basic healthcare (Ollove 2020). This is despite the mandate of Article 24 of the CRC which protects children’s right to good health and to access healthcare. Healthcare data on children is systematically collected at the state and federal levels. The National Institute of Health is the main government healthcare agency, but there are a variety of other organizations that regularly produce health research and policy. For instance, the US Census Bureau conducts about 130 surveys, the Health Resources Service Administration coordinates the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings Institution conducts regular research, as does Pew Research, American Progress, the Kaiser Family Foundation, scholars at institutes and universities across the country, public health departments in states or communities, or support from foundations like Robert Wood Johnson. These studies universally find that US children’s poor health is associated directly with the high rates of poverty they experience: Poverty cuts lives short and strips livelihoods bare. It is linked to increased risk to countless dimensions of child health and development, it disrupts medical care that could address those risks, and it carries these health harms into adulthood and across generations. No group is more vulnerable to falling into poverty in the United States than children, whose health and development are exquisitely sensitive to the adverse effects of being poor. (Schickedanz et al. 2021:5)

The kinds of healthcare institutions, their location, accessibility, affordability, and availability all influence whether children can access care. Reports by the National

136

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention (2021) or Olafsen et al. (2018) note that everyone in the community is responsible for the health of children and youth, including government, businesses, agencies, schools, and parents. We are all stakeholders and stewards in the creation and maintenance of children’s health. From a children’s human rights perspective, we are all obligated to be children’s human rights defenders.

6.5.2.1

Childhood Illnesses

Chronic disease used to be something that was expected to occur in adults, but not children. In recent years, however, the rise of chronic diseases in children has markedly increased (Mundell 2017). About 37% of children now have at least one significant healthcare condition, and millions experience a wide range of both physical and mental illnesses. Twenty-percent of children, or about 14.5 million people under age 18, have allergies. According to the CDC, childhood obesity affects 19.3% of children—or 1 in 5 children are obese and 76% of children do not get the recommended amount of exercise. Food insecurity is up, as is consumption of empty-nutrition foods (Regis College 2020). Processed and fast-foods increase chances of obesity. The Centers for Disease and Prevention post extensive information on the types of illnesses that children commonly get, which include both communicable and chronic diseases.29 According to the Centers for Disease Control (2021a, b), more than 40% of school-aged children and adolescents have at least one chronic health condition,1 such as asthma, obesity, other physical conditions, and behavior/learning problems. The healthcare needs of children with chronic illness can be complex and continuous and includes both daily management and addressing potential emergencies. Schools may not have the resources to adequately deal with them, due to under-funding and lack of on-site healthcare practitioners. Moreover, some ambulances or emergency transport vehicles may not have pediatric-size equipment to use, especially for babies and small children. Chronic disease is now even found in infants (Perrin et al. 2014). While Infectious diseases have substantially diminished, and survival rates for children with cancer, congenital heart disease, leukemia, and other conditions have greatly improved, over the past fifty years chronic health conditions and disabilities among children and youth have steadily risen, primarily from four classes of common conditions: asthma, obesity, mental health conditions, and neurodevelopmental disorders.

29 Centers for Disease Control (2022). Children’s diseases and conditions. https://www.cdc.gov/ parents/children/diseases_conditions.htmland https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

6.5.2.2

137

Childhood Mortality

Around 20,000 children in the US die each year in the US, with most deaths being preventable. While motor vehicle accidents account for 20% of their deaths, for children under age 4 the most common cause of death is drowning. The second leading cause of children’s death (15%) are guns and other firearms, most being homicides. Children and adolescents in the United States were more than 36 times as likely to be killed by gunshots as their counterparts in other high-income countries. Most of these homicides are committed by family members for young children and acquaintances for older ones. Homicides and assault-related injuries cost over $18 billion to the nation annually. Cancer is the third-ranking cause of children’s death (9%). The fourth leading cause of death was suffocation, responsible for 7% of all child deaths. Suffocation was typically caused by bed linens, plastic bags, obstruction of the airway, hanging, or strangulation (CDC 2022; Cunningham et al. 2018). Child work-related injuries are high, even though young workers are to receive special protections when they are employed (Advisory Board 2018).

6.5.2.3

COVID in Children

Nationally, COVID became the third leading cause of death in 2020 and 2021 (Ortaliza and Cox 2021). Over 2.6 million American children have tested positive for COVID-19, with 4.8 million cases reported in the first two months of 2022 (Lewis et al. 2022). At first, children were not identified to be at high risk for the virus, but this was untrue then and the variants of the virus have continued to make children sick. “We started with this myth that kids were spared—they’re not,” according to Lawrence Kleinman, the vice-chair of the Department of Pediatrics at Rutgers University. “If we weren’t comparing [COVID-19 infection in kids] to adults, this would independently be a public health crisis in children.” (Lewis et al. 2022). Many children have died from the virus and the long-term impacts of it on children are unknown (Stainton 2022). COVID-19 is associated with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), which targets organs like their lungs and gastrointestinal tract (Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b). When exposed to the virus, studies indicate that up to 80% of children may be asymptomatic from it and may suffer long-term health problems because of it (Ainsley et al. 2021; Belluck 2020, Sheikh and Belluck 2022). The long-term effects on children have included malaise, depression, anxiety, brain fog, smell and taste issues, and extreme fatigue. The negative long-hauler impacts are bad for children in all social classes, from the very poor to the wealthy, including star athletes and honor students. No child is immune from the impact of the virus (Lewis et al. 2022). Since many children may have underlying conditions such as diabetes and asthma, their underlying health conditions could mask the presence of the virus and could put them at higher risk for long-term severe illness associated with it (Golden 2021).

138

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted impoverished and BIPOC children most heavily. This population of children was least likely to get vaccines, treatment, be orphaned, have difficulties obtaining quality education, and have parents who were financially distressed. The virus showcased the existing social class and inequality divide (Wright 2022a, b). The pandemic especially showed how inequality put children at risk for physical and mental health challenges, education and social stressors, and put them at long-term economic risk (Khan 2022). A public and community health focus provides a framework for improving children’s lives (Waterston and Goldhagen 2007). Vaccines have long been required for children because they have been tested and found to save lives, reduce illnesses, and stop the spread of diseases. Polio and other epidemics have been all but eradicated thanks to the use of vaccines. Despite some current debate over the use of vaccines, from a public health and pediatric care and disease prevention approach, vaccines—including childhood COVID-19 vaccines—have been shown to be safe, effective, and save lives.30 The adverse impacts of COVID-19 on children have been so great that the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has developed specific guidelines and statements to protect children during COVID-19. These are important documents for anyone working with children to consider, but especially important for those who care about poor, homeless, or excessively vulnerable children (Office of the High Commission on Human Rights 1989, 2023).

6.5.2.4

Healthcare Insurance and Access

Despite multiple attempts to create a national health insurance system that would universally cover all children so they get the care they need, especially during the time when their bodies and brains are developing, more than 20 million children in the U.S. still lack sufficient access to essential health care, according to a 2016 report by the children’s Health Fund (CHF). Eight years after the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, 28% of children do not have full access to healthcare. In 2020, 4.3 million children under the age of 19—5.6% of all children—were without health coverage for the entire calendar year despite the raging COVID-19 pandemic (Bunch 2021).

30

For more information on vaccines, visit the following sites: CDC—https://www.cdc.gov/ vaccines/parents/index.html; HHS—https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/get-vaccinated/for-par ents/five-reasons/index.html; NIH—https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/importance-child hood-vaccinations; UNICEF—https://www.unicef.org/parenting/health/parents-frequently-askedquestions-vaccines; Stanford—https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=why-child hood-immunizations-are-important-1-4510; WHO—https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/ novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice; Johns Hopkins—https://www. hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-vaccine-what-parentsneed-to-know

6.5

Another Data Snapshot of Children in the USA

139

Fig. 6.1 Adverse child experiences Model

Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute Center on Children and Families reported the following about children’s health insurance in the US: For many years, the United States was on a positive trajectory in reducing the number and rate of uninsured children; in 2016, the nation attained a historic low of 3.6 million uninsured children. This progress occurred as a result of expansions of public coverage—primarily Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—and was accelerated by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) major coverage expansions in 2014. As employer-sponsored insurance became increasingly unaffordable for dependents, public coverage ameliorated the impacts of private coverage losses for children. However, the number of uninsured children began to increase in 2017 as Medicaid enrollment began to decline, and as Fig. 6.1 shows, reached 4.4 million in 2019. This represents an increase of 726,000 children during this three-year period. The rate of uninsured children rose a full percentage point from 4.7 percent to 5.7 percent. Much of the gain in coverage that children made as a consequence of the ACA’s major coverage expansions has now been eliminated. Moreover, the most recent year of data (2018 to 2019) shows the biggest one-year loss in children’s coverage during this time period, with 320,000 more children becoming uninsured. These coverage losses occurred in a healthy economy with the lowest unemployment rate in decades prior to the economic shocks and job loss associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. (Alker 2020:8).

6.5.2.5

Geography and Healthcare

What part of the city and country children live impacts their health with respect to resources, whether there are healthcare or food deserts, levels of exposure to pollution, toxins, noise, land, air, or water quality. Early epidemiologists like

140

6 Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Hippocrates and John Snow recognized the connection between our health and the spaces in which we live. Children’s built environment—the physical spaces where they live and spend their time—influences the trajectory of their lives. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has undertaken a project to learn more about neighborhoods where children live and how they impact health. They are finding correlations with food availability (a key factor influencing health), ADHD, kidney stones, water purity, and other issues (Griffis 2017). We know that drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan was made worse because of the way the city and state handled the preventable exposure to thousands of children (Hanna-Attisha et al. 2021). Transportation to medical facilities, distribution of specialists and other healthcare providers, availability of nutritious foods, sick building syndromes, crime-infested neighborhoods, green spaces, waste dumps, traffic congestion, and other factors all have a bearing on a child’s health. Where people live is related to social class, income, and opportunity, so it is no surprise to learn that poor areas may have more adverse health geographies and environments than affluent areas. This is linked to racism and contributes to racial disparity in health conditions (Collins 2020a, b). As we have learned through the COVID-19 pandemic, school geography and environmental considerations impact whether they can open safely for students. It is totally possible to design environmentally healthy schools, homes, and communities.

6.5.2.6

Mental Health

Children’s mental health needs have skyrocketed as mental illness in children has become pervasive. At least one in five children have mental health challenges, according to the CDC. Our children are increasingly being medicated for depression, anxiety, stress, ADHD, and behavior problems (Bushnell et al. 2018; Jonas et al. 2013; Turgay and Ansari 2006). Even preschoolers are medicated with psychiatric drugs. Trauma so toxic is regarded as a national childhood experience by the Centers for Disease Control. Bullying is common, as is sexual harassment. Rates of physical, emotional, verbal, or sexual abuse, remain high despite massive child abuse prevention campaigns, with the majority of perpetrators being family members or people who children know and trust. To top it off, children can’t vote and have very little representation or participation at local, state, or national levels to advocate for better care. Children are dependent upon a parent or guardian to authorize mental health care. Without parental approval, children who need mental health care and social services cannot access it. Only 20% of children receive mental health professional services (CDC 2022; Children’s Defense Fund 2021a, b, c; First Focus 2022). As will be shown in the chapter on education, at best there is only 1 school counselor for every 250 students, making it unlikely that children in need of mental health support will get it. The National Council for Mental Well-being reports that lack of access to mental health care is the root cause of the mental health crisis in the US (Vissing and Vernick 2021; Wood 2018).

6.6

Child Abuse in All Its Forms

6.5.2.7

141

Child Suicide

Suicide is now the second-highest cause of teen death, and even elementary schoolage children report suicidal ideation (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2021a, b; Sheridan et al. 2022). Ruch et al. (2021) found in a multistate population-based qualitative study, childhood suicide was associated with multiple risk factors including mental health, prior suicidal behavior, trauma, and family or peer relation issues, with most suicides occurring by hanging or suffocation in the decedent’s bedroom. Firearms were the second most prevalent suicide method, and among cases with detailed information, all children obtained guns stored unsafely in the home. The findings underscore the importance of early suicide prevention efforts that include improvements in suicide risk assessment, family relations, and lethal means restriction, particularly safe firearm storage. The C.D.C. found that in 2020 mental-health-related visits to hospital emergency departments by people between the ages of twelve and twenty-seven were a third higher than in 2019. The C.D.C. also reported that, during the first seven months of lockdown, U.S. hospitals experienced a twenty-four-per-cent increase in mentalhealth-related emergency visits for children aged five to eleven, and a thirty-one-percent increase for those aged twelve to seventeen (Soloman 2022).

6.6

Child Abuse in All Its Forms

Despite extensive research on the causes and consequences of child abuse, and despite countless child abuse prevention efforts, child abuse in the US remains high. Child Help (2022) reports that “The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations—losing on average 5 children every day to child abuse and neglect”, with a report of child abuse made to authorities every 10 seconds. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2022a, b), in 2019 there were 4.4 million child abuse referrals concerning 7.9 million children—only 16% of which were designated as “substantiated”. The highest rate of abuse is in babies less than one year of age, and 25% of victims are younger than age 3 (American Academy of Pediatrics 2022). But most child abuse is never reported. The numbers available are touted as the tip of the iceberg. When cases are reported, the majority are not substantiated or meet the criteria necessary for active intervention or child removal. In assessing decisions that child protective service workers make, they experience lots of pressure from parents to justify their actions as non-abusive, from lawyers who want to prove an action meets the letter of the law. When confronted on whether to make a Type I or Type II statistical error, intervention on behalf of a “potentially” abused child may not rise to an actionable state (Vissing 2020). This is another example of how systems bend to please the parents (and avoid lawsuits) instead of putting children as a priority.

142

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

Child abuse is not one thing but consists of different types, such as physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and psychological abuse. Neglect is often characterized as a form of abuse, but it is a separate category of maltreatment. The causes of each type are different, as are the types of prevention and treatments needed to address them. In a court of law, hard evidence is needed, such as semen, bruises, cuts, and multiple eye-witness accounts. People are often reticent to report suspected abuse, and official investigations of abuse are often inconclusive, which puts at-risk children in vulnerable situations that can lead to greater maltreatment. Therefore, any child abuse numbers are sure to be gross underestimates of the actual number of children who are being abused. The costs of child abuse are extensive. There are the costs of abuse on the body, mind, and soul of the child. There is the social cost from relationships and things in life that don’t go well. There are also economic costs—the estimated lifetime cost of lost worker productivity, health care costs, special education costs, child welfare expenditures, and criminal justice expenditures is over $830,000 per victim. The estimated U.S. economic burden of child maltreatment based on 2015 investigated incident cases (2,368,000 nonfatal and 1670 fatal victims) was $2 trillion (Child Help 2022).

6.7

Adverse Child Experiences

The CDC (2022) has identified that exposure to adverse childhood experiences, like abuse, exposure to violence, or poverty, can lead to a range of long-term health impacts. Children who experience six or more adverse childhood experiences or toxic trauma have a life expectancy two decades shorter than those who reported none. Conditions that have been directly linked to traumatic childhood adversity include ischemic heart disease (IHD), Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), liver diseases, alcoholism, drug abuse, smoking, depression, anxiety, paranoia, relationship problems, trouble with school, crime, interpersonal violence, and suicide attempts (Child Help 2022). Children who were sexually abused have been found to have early initiation of sexual activity, multiple sexual partners, sexually transmitted diseases or unintended pregnancies. Trauma has become epidemic in the lives of US children. Trauma as an experience threatens a person’s very life or the possibility of death, or permanent separation or loss of someone they love or depend on. When children experience trauma, they live in near-constant states of stress. That stress can manifest in emotional and behavioral problems including hypervigilance, constantly being on edge waiting for bad things to happen, aggression, delinquency, problems with learning and concentration, hyperarousal, risky behavior, defiance, withdrawal, sleep problems, selfharm or depression. These behaviors are coping strategies for traumatized children to carry on in situations that seem impossible to endure (Woods 2018). By the age of 4, one in four children in the U.S. has experienced a traumatic event. For impoverished kids that risk doubles to 50%. For children in the juvenile justice

6.8

Juvenile Justice Issues

143

system, 90% have experienced trauma that led to their being incarcerated. Studies show that by adulthood about 60% of all people in the US have experienced at least one or more traumatic events. This fact is easily observed by how many people are in therapy—or should be, as they find themselves as adults rehashing traumatic incidents that occurred in their youth (Woods 2018). Figure 6.1 was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) and shows how trauma creates future negative responses that can lead to a host of preventable problems and early death. From a children’s human rights perspective, reducing possibilities for abuse and trauma is extremely important. It is important to realize that hitting a child is not normal or acceptable (Strauss 2014a, b), nor is verbal abuse (Vissing and Baily 1996). In my classes, students sometimes defend their being spanked, beaten, or demeaned by their parents as appropriate parenting strategies but come to realize that there are better, more effective, and responsible ways of working with children that aren’t abusive. But this attitude of “spare the rod and spoil the child” continues to prevail. Moreover, there is a movement to justify adults who are sexually attracted to children not as pedophiles or people who are of potential danger to children, but as “minor-attracted persons” (MAPs) who deserve dignity (Walker 2021). How we view children and their treatment is thus an important consideration in the development of a children’s human rights framework.

6.8

Juvenile Justice Issues

There have been increased concerns that children’s criminal justice rights and their rights to protection by systems are being violated in the US; children as young as 4 years old have been arrested, 6-year-olds handcuffed, 9-year-olds pepper-sprayed, and countless numbers are physically assaulted by police and persons in positions of authority. Corporal punishment is allowed in 19 states and often used even without parental consent. The death penalty for children was legal until 2005. The US is the only nation in the world where children can still be in jail without chances of parole (Rovner 2021). There are also concerns that BIPOC children are disproportionately targeted as perpetrators when they are not, and receive harsher treatments when violations occur (Robles-Ramamurthy and Watson 2019). Today, 50 years after Gault, a Supreme Court decision that protected the rights of youth, young people of color continue to be disproportionately suspended and expelled, arrested, processed in courts rather than diverted, detained in secure facilities and transferred to adult court for prosecution (Henning 2021). Black youth were more than five times as likely to be detained or committed than were white youth (National Association of Criminal Lawyers (2021).

144

6

Why Children’s Human Rights Are Important

According to the US Department of Justice (2006:22),31 the way juveniles are handled in the US needs to undergo significant revision: All human rights treaties include the rights of children; and two treaties—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)—contain specific provisions for the treatment of youth who break the law. Juvenile justice advocates can incorporate the language of human rights in promoting policies and reforms that emphasize the humanity and dignity that should be accorded to all youth. The ICCPR and CRC both prohibit capital punishment for persons under 18 years old. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for youth under 16 years old; and in 2005, the Supreme Court specifically referred to both treaties when it extended the ban to all youth under 18 years old. The CRC also prohibits life imprisonment without the possibility of release for juveniles under the age of 18. The vast majority of U.S. States permit this sentence, and 10 States set no minimum age for life without parole. The CRC considers all youth under age 18 to be children. According to the ICCPR, youth offenders should be separate from adults when incarcerated and receive treatment appropriate to their age, with a focus on rehabilitation. These provisions directly contradict the practice in place in some U.S. jurisdictions that transfer youth from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal system. Alternatives to incarceration are also examined under the norms of international treaties, along with over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. Recommendations are offered for increasing U.S. juvenile justice policies' compliance with international treaties and norms.

There are common abuses and problems within the juvenile justice system, especially when it pertains to diverse youth. Minors are often faced with punishment instead of rehabilitation, an outgrowth of political and cultural issues across the nation. Youth are still developing and research indicates their brains are not able to process information in the same way as adults until they are in their twenties or even thirties. Yet in the criminal justice system, children are treated as adults (Bates and Swan 2021). Incarceration of juvenile offenders has not been found to be a panacea, and many juvenile detention facilities and supportive services are far less helpful than the public assumed (Lambie 2013). I was on my state’s Juvenile Parole Board for over a decade and observed that juveniles were often put into detention for minor offenses, had troubled family systems where parents could have been responsible for the youth rather than themselves being at fault, the treatment they received was sometimes questionable, and they were typically released back into communities that had no resources or parents who had received no therapy. Recidivism was common as a result, but it was in my opinion more of a system problem than one of “bad kids”.

31 US Department of Justice. 2006. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/humanrights-catalyst-juvenile-justice-reform

6.9

6.9

Summary

145

Summary

This chapter has explored data from multiple credible sources about how children are faring in the United States. It compared US children with children across the globe on a series of well-being variables. Data confirmed that while US children are not “at the bottom of the barrel” on all factors, they score among the worst of all developed nations, and even behind some countries that are considered to be under-developed. Preventable challenges facing children in the United States include poverty, housing distress, hunger, lack of healthcare, and exposure to violence and abuse. The major difference between how poorly US children fare compared to children in other developed nations is how children’s human rights are prioritized and embedded in social policy, programs, and institutions. This overwhelming data sets the stage for understanding why the rights Articles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child could improve the lives of children and help them to survive and thrive. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the systems designed in the US to support children are not just inadequate, but failing. Institutions that we count on to protect and defend our children are struggling mightily in order to survive, or have been alleged to even create more insecurity or harm (Thompson 2021a, b). It is in looking at the data that support the nation’s feigned child-as-priority argument crumbles. As we review what child rights-defending nations doing that we are not, a two issues emerge—the way children and rights are perceived here, and the way those perceptions manifest into practice. The countries that report higher rates of health, well-being, and quality of life for children have all ratified the CRC and have made systemic and governmental commitments to protect and defend the human rights of children. The way that they frame their understanding of children as rightsholders, and the subsequent way they have designed their social systems to respond as duty-bearers may be responsible for the reason that children are faring better in some countries, and why children are not faring as well in the US. Clinical sociologists have the expertise to research and help organizations to conduct strategic planning and program designs that will improve access and justice for everyone involved.

Chapter 7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building a Children’s Human Rights Framework

A society that cuts itself off from its youth severs its lifeline; it is condemned to bleed to death. Kofi Annan

7.1

Introduction

Children’s lives today are much different than they have been in the past (Beck 2019; Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs 2020). Their composition, lifestyle, and experiences are markedly different from those of their parents, and certainly much different from people only two or three generations ago. To assume that their needs and desires are the same as they were even a decade or two ago is to make a faulty assumption about reality. This chapter explores demographic and lifestyle factors in children’s lives today. They point to the need for implementation of a children’s human rights framework around their needs for provision, protection, and participation.

7.2

Heterogeneity of Children

Social and demographic changes are demonstrating the need for a children’s human rights movement. The US has a two-fold history, one that showcases homogeneity while the other embraces heterogeneity. In a homogeneous community everyone looks, thinks, and acts pretty much the same. For instance, the town where I grew up was largely a white, Christian, middle-class community. Children went to school with others who looked like them; they went to church together; their parents knew each other and attended the same civic events. We were subtly expected to date and marry someone from the town from the same race, faith, social class, and educational © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_7

147

148

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

background, with whom we would have children, get local jobs, and become part of the same community as we replicated the lifestyles of our parents and their parents before them. This was common in the population of children in 1950, and largely in 1980. The notion of the “melting pot” emerged as people were expected to give up their uniqueness to become alike in what became a stereotype of “the real American”. But today’s children are not growing up in homogenous communities. They are growing up with diversity in all of its forms engulfing them. As members of heterogeneous communities, people may speak different languages, eat different foods, have different faiths, and look and dress in ways that are not the same. They have customs, traditions, and experiences that have led them to look at and do things in ways that may seem unfamiliar to each other. In a heterogeneous community, it is likely that children will play with children from diverse background; they may develop friendships and intimate relationships with others. They may incorporate other people’s diverse orientations into their own minds, families, and lifestyles. Diversity can strengthen a society. But it may not always be accepted smoothly and without conflict. The separation of children between races, social classes, and genders are obvious with huge implications impacting their lives and futures. Treatment of children and opportunities afforded them are far from equal. The United States is undergoing huge demographic and lifestyle shifts that have implications that we can either address proactively in a constructive way or wait to deal with in a destructive, reactionary way. In my opinion, there is only one positive, logical, course of action for the nation to follow. That is to pro-actively accept that the population of young people in the US is changing and will create new realities and opportunities for them and for us. Children today are tomorrow’s parents and leaders. A child rights-respecting framework will enhance positive outcomes for all. Change often does not arrive smoothly, history shows us. There has often been a national backlash to social changes, and youth have often been blamed; if youth would just act in accordance with the desires of adults, adults assume that all will be well (Gillan and Edwards 2020). Anthropologists remind us how ideal culture refers to the way we might want things to be in what someone sees as a perfect world while real culture deals with things the way they are. There is often a disjuncture between the two. Wanting to force things that we don’t like to be in accordance with our ideal standards generally does not work well. It is fraught with challenges, aggravation, and frustration because we cannot force something out of our control to be the way we want it to be. We can either accept the differences in the world of children and work with them to create positive outcomes, or we can complain and fight against them, which will result in no positive outcomes for anyone. These are significant trends that are not going to change in the foreseeable future. A human rights perspective could improve the lives of both children and society. The demographic trends occurring in the US are global in nature. “The shifting sands of the US reflect wider—and highly controversial—changes elsewhere in the world. . . around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of the population” (Browne 2000). The United Nations collects and produces population statistics but few countries besides the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands

7.2

Heterogeneity of Children

149

collect their own figures on ethnicity. The UN’s State of the World Population report predicted that 98% of the world’s population growth by 2025 would be in lesser developed and poorer regions of Africa and Asia while birth rates in 61 mostly developed nations have fallen so low that people are not having enough babies to replace themselves. China and India are the most populous countries at this time, both with around 1.3 billion people. The US comes in next with 321,000 residents. In 1900, Europe held a quarter of the world’s population, three times that of Africa. By 2050 Europe is predicted to have only 7% of the world’s population. Africa is predicted to have a quarter of the world’s population in 2050. The world has almost 8 billion residents in 2022, and in 2050 it will have risen to 9.7 billion people. More than half those gains will come from Africa; the continent will add 1.3 billion people over the next few daces which is equivalent to the current population of China (Ferris 2015). What happens in these countries will impact life here. There will be immigration to the US, and children here may choose to live elsewhere. We know with certainty that the life of children in the USA will be influenced by political, economic, social, and environmental factors globally. Children in the US consist of a different composition than their predecessors in countless ways. They are confronted with many different social and economic pressures that shape their lives and the trajectories for their futures. We cannot assume that all children have all of their rights defended. While pragmatically it may be challenging to defend all of the rights of all of the child, it is an essential to equality, democracy and justice for all.

7.2.1

Social Class

Social class or socioeconomic status (SES) consists of wealth, prestige, power, and an assortment of material and nonmaterial factors. Material ones include homes, food, transportation, books, computers, and countless more. Nonmaterial factors that are class-bound include education, aspirations, values, norms, recreation, and social networks. Most people in the US consider themselves to be middle-class, but Rand Research (Wenger and Zaber 2021) found that this is not true; just under 50% of the US population is middle class. About 40% of the population is lower-class while 12% are upper class. About half of both Black and Latinx people fall into the lowerclass category hile only 35% of White people do. White individuals are more likely to be in the upper class. Not surprisingly, age and class are related, with children and young people those most likely to be in the lower-classes while older people are more likely to be upper-class. The US Census Bureau (Shrider et al. 2021) in their most recent report found the median household income fell 3% from 2019 to 2020, the most statistically significant decline since 2011. Poverty rate in 2020 increased to 11.4% of the population (37.2 million people), with rates of 8.2% for Asians, 8.2% for Whites, 17% for

150

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Hispanics, and 19.5% for Black individuals. Earnings of workers aged 15 and over decreased as full-time workers declined 13.7 million during that period. Males continue to earn significantly more than females, a trend that has remained for generations.

7.2.1.1

Impact of Social Class on Personal Identity

Material conditions in which children grow up have a lasting impact on their personal wellbeing and social identities. This in turn influences the way they think about their social environment and feel about themselves. Children learn when they are very young about what it means to have material resources—or not to. According to the American Psychological Association’s review of research about the impact of social class on children, SES is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Lower levels of SES are associated with health issues such as high infant mortality, low birthweight babies, obesity, cardiovascular and chronic disease, poor nutrition, asthma, accidents, exposure to communicable disease, to name a few. Children in poverty are likely to experience higher ACEs (adverse child experiences) scores, have higher levels of emotional and behavioral difficulties, including depression, anxiety, attempted suicide, social problems, delinquent behavior symptoms, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, aggression, hostility, alcohol and substance use, and perceived threat. Low SES and toxic interpersonal and environmental exposures are related. Children from lower class homes have outcomes linked to decreased educational success, linguistic, cognitive and socioemotional skill deficits, less access to books and academic enrichment resources, higher absentee and dropout rates, more substance use, higher rates of reported child abuse, and victims of violence. Manstead’s research found that lower class individuals compared to workingclass people are less likely to define themselves in terms of their socioeconomic status and are more likely to explain social events in situational terms. This he hypothesizes is a result of having a lower sense of personal control. Working-class people score higher on measures of empathy and are more likely to help others in distress. Middle-class norms prevail in many workplaces and schools, which makes it harder for working-class people less likely to apply for positions in such institutions, less likely to be selected, and less likely to stay. Social class differences in identity, cognition, feelings, and behavior born out of socially structured inequality create barriers for less wealthy individuals to gain opportunities to improve their material circumstances (Manstead 2018). The conclusion of almost all studies on social class is that providing more equitable resources and opportunities to all people would increase educational and work opportunities, decrease negative physical and mental health outcomes, and prevent a wide array of social, problems including crime, substance abuse, and violence. Given that children’s brains, bodies, and comprehension of their place in

7.2

Heterogeneity of Children

151

the world is formed during their early years, investing in economic equality for children would help even the playing-field for all of them.

7.2.2

Race

Today’s population of children are more likely to be products of difference, including race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. The 73 million children in the US are 22% of the population, and about half are children of color (Children’s Defense Fund 2021a, b, c). This demographic trend is changing the composition of today’s families and workers of tomorrow. While children are today a statistical minority. Think about what that means for the nation’s past and for its future. This reality may be an emotional challenge for people who cleave to uniformity and homogeneity. But for children who grow up with diversity being normal, exclusivity makes no sense. Children today are much more likely to be open to having family members and friends who look different, have different cultures and backgrounds, and do things differently than themselves. And they are accepting of this. For them, this is the new normal. Demographers found that in 2020, children of color had become the majority of the nation’s 74 million children. By 2060, it is predicted that white children will constitute about a third, or 36.4%, of the nation’s population. In 2050, it is estimated that there will be NO dominant racial or ethnic group (Cohn 2015; Mather and Lee 2020). What to call this group of children is perplexing. The term minority doesn’t make sense anymore. While people sometimes confuse race with ethnicity, ethnicity focuses on culture, language, religion, nationality, or heritage and does not include physical characteristics as part of its definition, it is still used as grounds for discrimination (Gonzalez-Barrera and Lopez 2015; Massie 2016). People-of-color has become a questionable term because in mixed-race families, which color do you pick, especially if you could fit into several different categories? Many children have mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds and there is no dominant track; one of my students reported that both sets of his grandparents had been mixed and he calculated he had over a dozen different groups in him—so what should he call himself? BIPOC has emerged as the current trend word to refer to black, indigenous, people of color, but that term isn’t universally embraced (Massie 2016). This is because race and ethnicity are social constructs, not biological ones; scientists argue that race is a term that is scientifically meaningless and should be phased out (Gannon 2016). The traditional majority-minority narrative that has been dominant in our understanding of American society is outdated (Alba 2021). It is another dimension of our need for a new national framework on how to view children and each other. This unheralded demographic development holds the potential to reshape the ethno-racial contours of American society in the coming decades. It means that expectations of how society operates and what individual need will change—and we better get ready for it and proactively assist the children today so that society reflects positive norms, values, and practices that lead to a happy, healthy, safe, and

152

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

prosperous nation. Our traditional understanding of majority-minority relations has to change. It makes ensuring that all children have their rights defended to be of vital importance.

7.2.2.1

Race as a Social Construct

Race is a social, not a biological construct. We are genetically 99.9% alike, according to the Genome Project (Gardiner 2002). While there is no inherent biological difference between races (Wells 2004), race is still used as a major discriminating and sorting factor (Kluger 2010; National Geographic 2018a, b). The majority of children in the United States today are not white. They may be of different racial categories or multi-racial (Massie 2016). A common assumption is that you can tell what race a person is merely by looking. This is not true. As a social construct, race is an artificial indicator used to divide people into categories. Categorization is a common human behavior; the question of what we get out of it is worth exploring. For instance, Barak Obama was the offspring of an African black and a US white set of parents. Why he was labeled to be black, rather than the other 50% of his lineage that was white, is curious. Racial designation is commonly associated with skin color because it is a quick indicator, from which people can then make stereotyped assumptions. But looks can be deceiving. Take twins like Marcia and Millie Biggs, who have both parents who have different color skins, and they were born with one looking like mom (who is white) and dad (who is black) and were on the cover of a 2018 National Geographic magazine (Adams 2018). Over the years different indicators have been used to determine race besides skin color, such as genetics, eye color, eye shape, nose shape, nasal index, cephalic index, teeth, hair color and texture, hair location and amount on the body, as well as social factors such as history, culture, food, style, and communication. Scientific and genetic research on race has undergone significant development, as described in this Harvard publication by Chou (2017), leading to a new understanding of how meaningless race is as a color concept, but an important one for social and political reasons. The melting pot approach promoting sameness has been replaced with the benefit of the salad bowl analogy. What kind of salad would you prefer—a quarter chunk of iceberg lettuce, or a salad of mixed greens, arugula, tomatoes, carrots, onions, cucumber, peppers, with maybe artichokes, cheese, olives, and croutons? The mixed salad is more interesting and delightful. We may not prefer everything in the salad, but we can pick and choose what pieces we favor and not get angry at the parts we don’t like as much, knowing that other people may enjoy them a lot. Children today are of the salad bowl generation, and we can choose to relish their differences instead of preferring them be all alike, as that hunk of iceberg lettuce. Reasons for this demographic shift are understandable. There has been an increase of mixed-race births in the US where one parent is White and the other is a person of color. There is a declining number of white children that reflects the aging of the white population; white individuals have a median age of 43.6 while for

7.2

Heterogeneity of Children

153

instance Latino individuals have a median age of 29.5, which reflects differences in women’s childbearing years (Alba 2021; PBS 2020). Studies suggest that as more children are share mixed-race, ethnic and religious identities, racial, and ethnic identifiers will cease to be a big issue (Few-Demo 2014; Miller 2014; Sharfstein 2011). Adults, not children, seem to have greater concerns about how children will be identified.

7.2.2.2

Implications of Racism for Children

Individual and institutional racism are not the same thing; individuals may perceive that they are not racist but social institutions may be in the ways they operationalize and implement services. Racism increases the chances of one living in poverty, and poverty is associated with a host of preventable health and social problems (American Academy of Pediatrics 2015; Klein 2018; Panko 2017) as well as internalized trauma for those who are discriminated against (Bryant-Davis and Ocampo 2005; Dulin-Keita et al. 2011; Nyborg and Curry 2010; Pachter 2009; Sanders-Phillips 2009). Racism is regarded as a public health issue that creates systems and policies that adversely impact children directly and indirectly for their entire life (Barker 2020). These include physical, emotional, and social outcomes such as asthma, cancer, diabetes, depression, anxiety, trauma, brain and nerve damage, poor nutrition, heart disease, and developmental problems. Schools in areas suffering from institutionalized racist policies and funding mechanisms. Poorly funded schools cannot provide the quality of instruction and resources that affluent schools have, which negatively impacts children’s chances for success. Education policies intertwine with housing discrimination and segregation, which are associated with social class, race, and gender inequality. The American Academy of Pediatrics put forth an extensive review of how racism impacts children physically, emotionally, cognitively, socially, and developmentally. They regard racism as a core social determinant of child health. Their report concludes that “Achieving decisive public policies, optimized clinical service delivery, and community change with an activated, engaged, and diverse pediatric workforce is critically important to begin untangling the thread of racism sewn through the fabric of society and affecting the health of pediatric populations. Pediatricians [and all community leaders] must examine and acknowledge their own biases and embrace and advocate for innovative policies and cross-sector partnerships designed to improve medical, economic, environmental, housing, judicial, and educational equity for optimal child, adolescent, and emerging adult developmental outcomes” (Trent et al. 2019). The data is overwhelming and incontrovertible that racism in the US exists and adversely impacts the health and well-being of children (Gee 2016; Pachter and Coll 2009; Rivas-Drake et al. 2014). The way we view race, like the way we construct our views of children, can be changed if we choose to confront our biases and create a different narrative and resulting children’s human rights framework.

154

7.3

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Sex and Gender

Historically, the traditional view of gender and sexual orientation was circumscriptive with being male or female in accordance with the gender assignment given at birth. People were also assumed, and expected to be, heterosexual. If anyone declared they were anything else, they were seen as deviants. This limited view of sex and gender never explained the wide array of people’s lives. As an undergraduate at Indiana University, I took a course on sexuality from the Kinsey Institute, where I learned for the first time that there were many other options besides the limited ones I assumed were “normal”. Today, children are exposed to the wide variety of “normal” gender and sexual options. They have a broader reality of sex and gender, and more open acceptance of options than many adults (Conron 2020). Children are sexual beings. They explore their bodies and every child will become sexually active at some point. Teen pregnancy rates in the US have been in decline since 1991; about half of US high school students report having had sexual intercourse, with six in ten using condoms (Centers for Disease Control 2022). However, teens are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections. One in four teens contract a sexually transmitted disease every year and the US has the highest rate of STD infections in the industrialized world with 20 million new sexually transmitted infections in the US annually. Gonorrhea and HPV (human papillomavirus) were the most frequently transmitted illnesses (Do Something 2022). It is an adult obligation to protect them from sexual exploitation, but it is also a child’s right to have access to informed sex education. In many parts of the world, children are taught sexual intimacy from a human rights perspective. This “sexual debut” model is built upon empowering children with information so they can make informed choices about the who, what, where, when, and how of sexual contact (Vissing 2017; Vissing 2020). Such a model has been shown to reduce rape, sexual abuse, pregnancy, sexually related diseases, not to mention the emotional distress associated with nonconsensual sexual contact.

7.3.1

Sex, Gender, and LGBTTTQQIAA

What exactly is LGBTTQQIAA? The US government site, Youth.gov (2022), asserts that sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are important aspects of a young person’s identity. Understanding and expressing sexual orientation and gender and developing related identities are typical development tasks that vary across children and youth. For example, some youth may be unsure of their sexual orientation, whereas others have been clear about it since childhood and have expressed it since a young age. Expressing and exploring gender identity and roles is a part of normal development. The process of understanding and expressing one’s sexual orientation and gender identity is unique to each individual. Personal,

7.3

Sex and Gender

155

cultural, and social factors may influence how one expresses their sexual orientation and gender identity. Many people are not aware of the wide array of options that people may not be aware of; PFLAG (2022) provides a glossary to explain many commonly used sex and gender terms. These include AFAB, meaning Assigned Female at Birth and AMAR (assigned male at birth), Agender or people who do not identify with any gender, Androgynous people who have physical elements that are both feminine and masculine, people who are asexual and experience no sexual attraction, and pansexual individuals have attraction to people of all genders. Some people find themselves attracted to people of the same sex, those of a different sex, or all sexes. Polygamy, or having consenting intimate relationships with multiple persons exists alongside of monogamy or serial monogamy, where people have sexual relations with only one person. Young people may find themselves to be bisexual, heteroflexible. Gender binary refutes the idea that there are only two genders, male and female, and that people must be one or the other, instead of gender fluidity and not consistently adhere to one fixed gender and may move among genders. Heteronormativity has been the dominant social narrative in the US. Assuming that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior to all other sexualities is a view now challenged by young people. Heteronormality as a privileged, natural state is not necessarily part of younger people’s mindsets; they are more likely to reject the notion that anything else is inferior, immoral, or wrong (Wills 2021). One can no longer assume the gender or sexual orientation of anyone. There are adults who condemn people who are not heterosexual or express cisgender. To be cisgender, one’s gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth. (Dykstra and Litwiller 2021; Fields 2001). But with approaching ten percent of the US population indicating that they are not conforming with the dominant narrative, this requires that we rethink how we are interacting with young people, especially those that we look at and wonder, “what are they?”—and ask ourselves why does it matter. Over 20 million people in the US report being LGBTTQQIAA. Approximately 8% of respondents report that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender when asked about their identity. A further 2% of participants “identify with a sexual orientation other than lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight.” Data suggests more than 1%, or more than 2 million, people identify as transgender—an increase from prior estimates of approximately 1.4 million. Bisexual people made up the largest single demographic, at about 4% of respondents. California and Texas were the states with the largest number of LGBTQ+ adult residents, with an estimated 2.6 million and 1.7 million respectively (Powell 2021b). Using these estimates, the Williams Institute reports that there are approximately 3.2 million LGBTQ youth between the ages of eight and 18, more than half of whom (52%) are youth of color (compared to 39% of LGBTQ adults who are people of color). LGBTQ youth are at risk for family rejection, homelessness, discrimination and bullying at school, and harmful so-called “conversion therapy” practices. LGBTQ youth are also uniquely resilient and build amazing support structures for themselves. (Williams Institute 2021). It is projected that with more young people

156

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

claiming nontraditional definitions of themselves, the population of LGBTTQQIAA people may easily exceed one in ten people (Yurcaba 2022). Given the wide range of gender and sexual orientations that children may be, the importance of defending their rights for provision, protection, and participation must be considered. This is in light that many experience prejudice, discrimination, bullying, harassment, and marginalization that leads directly and indirectly to their mental distress, physical health problems, or even their deaths (Bochenek and Brown 2001; Southern Poverty Law Center 2021).

7.4

Family Diversity

Family forms have changed. In the 1950s, two-parent heterosexual households were the norm, many women were stay-at-home mothers and homemakers, and divorce was not usual. Marriage tended to be with people from the local community, and people tended to be of the same race, religion, and background (Cohen 2020). The tern “nuclear family” was coined in 1941 and referred to families that consisted only of 2 parents and their children; ideally, dad was the breadwinner and mom stayed home caring for the children. This is NOT the norm today; 93% of all families are something other than that model (WeVoice 2018). To assume that the nuclear family is the ideal, we must realize this form applies to about 7% of the population—which does not make it typical anymore. The number of single-mother households tripled in the last 60 years from 8% to 23% and the number of single-father households saw an increase from1% in 1960 to 4% in 2016 (WeVoice 2018). The composition of the “traditional” family of 2 parents, dad being the breadwinner while mom is not employed and stays home to take care of the children has become increasingly rare (Brooks 2021; Pearce et al. 2018). What is a traditional family today may mean something quite different to children today. Family diversity refers to a broad range of characteristics or dimensions on which families vary, along with a recognition that there is a multitude of different family types that function effectively. Family diversity thus refers to variations along structural or demographic dimensions such as race/ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status, as well as in family processes like communication and parenting behaviors (Van Eeden-Moorefield and Demo 2007). Studies have found that the percentage and number of children living with two parents have declined since 1968 (Hemez 2021). The US teen birth rate has been declining since 1991 (CDC 2022). Two-parent households today could consist of people of the same gender, different genders, people who were married, people who are partnered, or other forms. Grandparents increasingly are raising children. Single-parent households are common, either through a divorce or by choice. Parents may have children through intercourse, surrogates, adoption, fostering, or through the use of reproductive alternatives like intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Friends may live together and co-parent children. There are many forms a family

7.4

Family Diversity

157

may take today,the Pew Research Center (2015a, b, c:4) found in its study on the changing US family: Two-parent households are on the decline in the United States as divorce, remarriage and cohabitation are on the rise. And families are smaller now, both due to the growth of singleparent households and the drop-in fertility. Not only are Americans having fewer children, but the circumstances surrounding parenthood have changed. While in the early 1960s babies typically arrived within a marriage, today fully four-in-ten births occur to women who are single or living with a non-marital partner. At the same time that family structures have transformed, so has the role of mothers in the workplace—and in the home. As more moms have entered the labor force, more have become breadwinners—in many cases, primary breadwinners—in their families.

As families today are more heterogeneous, experiences and needs of children are not alike (Allen and Daly 2007; Benokraitis 2014; Child Trends 2014g, 2016a; CNN 2016a, b; Cohen and Lloyd 2014; Columbia University Law School 2016; Drexler 2012; Guttmacher Institute 2018; Lamanna and Riedmann 2014; Livingston 2014; Pew Research 2015a; Wang and Taylor 2011a, b). This requires a broader perspective about children’s experiences. As parents’ lives have become challenged, parental challenges become children’s challenges (Barlow 2013; Coontz 2016; Legum 2014; Lightweaver 2014; Livingston 2014; Pew Research 2014). With the varied relationships in families today it is important to have good communication and problem-solving strategies. It is not possible to go back to the days of the 1950s traditional family, despite scholars like sociologist David Popenoe (1993) lamenting over the “demise” of the family. But to borrow the title of Stephanie Coontz’s book, it is important not to get caught into the nostalgia trap of The Way We Never Were (2016). She reminds us that much of what we know comes from television versions of 1950s families when throughout time families were never really like the Leave It To Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet portrayals. Moreover, scholars like gerontologist Vern Bengtson (2019) theorized social changes impacting the family could be positive and protective, economically and emotionally. For many Americans, multigenerational bonds are more important than nuclear family ties for well-being and support over the course of their lives. Nuclear families were never the norm historically. For the nuclear family to no longer be the norm, an increasingly common response among scholars and the public at large is “Good”—and perhaps goodbye and good riddance (Grose 2022). Perhaps children would be better off if cared for in a more extended, community context if “it takes a village”? (Clinton 1996).

7.4.1

Economic Challenges Facing the Family

Children’s first line of defense has always been at the family level; parents are deemed the responsible unit for providing for their children. Economic disparity has increased with the rich getting richer faster while parents struggling to make ends meet have increased (Horowitz 2020; Kaplan 2021; Wilkens 2020). Earlier the

158

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

material on social class showcased how most families have challenges meeting housing, food, and healthcare costs, not to mention the plethora of other costs confronting families and children. The Wall Street Journal reports that 40% of families have trouble making ends meet (Calfas 2021), while a Harvard University School of Public Health report found that 61% of households with families face serious financial trouble (Rura 2021). The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (2021) finds that family hardships in the past few years would have been far worse without extraordinary steps taken by the federal government, states, and localities to respond to the pandemic and its economic fallout. Even so, 20 million adults lived in households that did not get enough to eat, 12 million adult renters were behind on rent, and these figures are conservative ones that do not account for the discretionary items that families need to buy in order to survive. Economists note that nobody can make ends meet in the US on a $15 an hour job (Waddell 2021) it is impossible on a $7.25/hour wage. Financial analysis report it takes on average $68,000 to live a modest life (Borden 2021), while others find that realistically, it takes about $300,000 in the US to live a middle-class lifestyle and not struggle today (Dogen 2019; Financial Samurai 2021). Without being paid a sustainable wage, parents have to work not just one but two or more jobs (AAUW 2016). The strain of having to work so hard for so many hours wears and tears on the fabric of the family, of relationships, and having no discretionary time. Work absorbs their life if parents are to make ends meet; otherwise, the ends don’t meet. What is considered a middle-class lifestyle by economists fails to address the real struggles that most families face (Weng 2020). Family challenges confronting today’s children are significant. Besides overwhelming economic stress are family stressors and strains, substance abuse, mental illness, child abuse and domestic violence, the impact of crime, divorce, separation, blended families, partners coming and going, not to mention the wide array of challenges that typical children normally face from birth to age 18 and beyond (American Addiction Centers 2018; Banschick 2012; Bernstein 2016a, b; Heatherington and Kelly 2003; Musick and Meier 2010; Pew Research Center 2015a; Reilly 2013; Sember 2015; Stepfamily Foundation 2016; Sudie 2016; Wong 2017a, b). Parents are the primary resource for children; in order for parents to adequately care for their children, parents must be supported. Parents may be unable to provide many of the things that children need to live optimal lives so they need help from others, including the government and NGOs. It must be remembered that many children do not live with parents or caregivers who adequately address the children’s needs. Unaccompanied children, those who live independently, and children who live with caregivers or parents who are unable or unwilling to adequately care for them exist, even when social policies tend to ignore them. As human beings, all children are entitled to provisions whether their parents are able to provide for them or not. Turn now to few more examples of hot-button children’s rights issue confronting families in America.

7.4

Family Diversity

7.4.2

159

Economic Challenges Facing Children

What goes on in the economy IS a children’s human rights issue. Economic disparities affect the health, wellness, and success of children even before they are born. Economic related health woes are pervasive, but they are also preventable, according to scholars who have been studying the role of the economy on children at the Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs’ Center for Health and Well-being for over 30 years (Williams 2021). During pregnancy, anxiety and poor material healthcare can affect children. Stressful, financial instability, substance use, poor nutrition, or exposure to violence lead to a higher probability that children are born underweight; underweight infants are more likely to develop future health problems like ADHD, asthma, or depression, compared to children of normal birth weight. The Princeton study found that children of color are disproportionately and severely impacted by poor economic factors. Infant mortality among Black infants remains more than twice as high as among White infants. Economic disparity continues to impact children as they grow older as they have less access to resources, safe and healthy environments, and high-quality education. They find that expanding social welfare programs could change this trajectory. Financial challenges ripple through the multiple contexts in which children and youth are situated. Within the nuclear family, stressors such as job loss, home foreclosure or loss in family savings place strain on parental relationships and on the family as a whole. For low-income children, it may be very hard to meet basic needs such as food security, healthcare and shelter. Higher poverty rates are associated with increased rates exposure to violence, crime, and social risk factors. Schools may bear the brunt of stressed economic times as they have fewer resources, bigger classes, and challenges securing high-quality teachers. Children and youth are particularly vulnerable as they graduate from high school. Many may be forced to postpone their plans for higher education and instead take jobs in order to contribute to economically survive or add to struggling household economies. All of these changes can have profound and lasting effects on the mental health of our nation’s children and youth, often causing problems in terms of anxiety, lowered self-esteem and other emotional/behavioral difficulties. It must be remembered that these challenges are much greater for children who are on their own, foster children, those who are independent, emancipated, unaccompanied, or who cannot count on their parents to be good providers and caregivers (Vissing 2012a, b, 2017, 2019a, b, 2021a; Vissing et al. 2020). Increasing awareness is being paid to NEET students—those who are “Not Employed and not involved in further Education and Training” (International Labor Organization 2022). This concept may be misinterpreted as youth being lazy or not capable of working or going to school, but this is not the case. There are many legal, social, physical, and emotional reasons why a young person may not be in school, employed, or in a trainng program. This is a particular problem for youth who are undocumented or who are on their own, trying to survive by trying to

160

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

obtain money, housing, and food in whatever ways they can. As shown in the story of one of my students, he was in college but went to high school with students who were afraid to go on to school because they did not want any authorities to realize that their family did not have proper documentation. These youth were very careful about what kinds of jobs they took, what they did in the community, and any information they may give out about their family’s activities, incomes, or histories (Bump 2019; Wiltz 2018). It must be noted that these problems are unfortunately not unique to the United States. When asked sked how children in their country will fare financially when they grow up, a median of 70% of adults across 19 countries say they will be worse off than their parents, according to a Pew Research Center (Clancy et al. 2022).

7.4.3

Childcare as a Child’s Universal Right

Childcare is a big issue for families (Long 2021a, b). Parents need to work, which means they need care for their children. Young families naturally struggle to pay for housing, transportation, healthcare, and necessities, and the cost of childcare. If they can find child care at all, decent care may cost as much for a baby as college tuition (Albrecht 2022). High-quality care is hard to find and will cost even more. Because most parents work, they can’t unless they have safe, good care for their children that they can depend on. As of 2019, only 34% of American 4-year-olds attended state-funded preschool. Most parents scramble together to find childcare from friends or family, often juggling children’s schedules with no predictability of who will care for them at any particular moment in time (Kristof 2021). Many childcare providers have quit because they are poorly paid, receive no benefits, work long hours, and are exposed to challenging child and parent situations (Long 2021a, b; Wallace 2022). Besides care for young children, there is the issue of available, affordable, accessible, good quality care for primary and secondary students before and after school. There may be some programs in some communities, but often they cost money, which puts poor children in more risky situations as they fend for themselves or become latch-key kids (Kamentz 2021). Childcare as typically seen as something that parents need. But look at it from a different perspective; good childcare is a child’s right, not just a parent right. Do all children have a universal right to receive good quality childcare? This is a different question than “do parents have a right to have accessible, affordable childcare”. It shifts the focus from parental rights to children’s rights. Children have a right to be in safe locations when their parents aren’t able to be with them. Working parents must have care for their children when they go to their jobs, go to address healthcare, recreation, family, civic, or social obligations. While childcare has always been a concern to parents, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted its importance. Universal childcare has moved from being seen as a privilege to being considered as a right.

7.4

Family Diversity

161

There is significant variability in the amount and types of childcare that exist across the country. Organizations like the National Association for the Education of Young Children promote standards for good care, states may license providers to ensure quality care, but children are often in the care of people who may not be wellqualified to care for them (Bateman 2020). Research at Harvard’s Center for the Developing Child concludes that investment in early child development is essential because what they experience early in life sets up their lifelong abilities and opportunities (2021). The rapid brain development that occurs in the first few years of life sets the child on a trajectory for learning and health over their lifetime. Brookings researchers draw upon demographic findings that most parents work and need childcare, and that high-quality early childhood education (ECE) yield positive short-run effects on children’s cognitive skills and long-term benefits that include an increase in educational attainment, greater adult earnings and employment, better health, reduced criminal activity, and less use of public benefits. Expansion of funding and greater access to high-quality ECE will benefit all of America’s children, especially those who experience the greatest disparities in opportunities. Eliminating the income-related gaps in child skills with larger public investments in the first few years of life will help reduce disparities in later outcomes, giving all American children the opportunity to thrive. While children benefit, savings will also accrue to society as a whole through reductions in the need for special education, improved health outcomes, higher future earnings, and reduced crime and welfare program participation (Davis and Sojourner 2021). Universal, good-quality, affordable daycare has also become a contentious political and economic issue (Kristof 2021). While President Biden advocated for a childcare subsidy program as part of his Build Back Better Act that would ensure that no working parent would have to pay more than 7% of their income on childcare, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has helped stall such an initiative, saying that “it is not the government’s responsibility to take care of other people’s children—parents should be prepared to take care of their own or not have them” (Delaney 2021). Nicholas Kristof (2021) alleges that US politicians have declared war on childcare. It is not just ignored as a right, it is castigated as a privilege and something evil. He describes how Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy, warned “‘Universal day care’ is class war against normal people.” US lawmakers have aggressively opposed supporting childcare, alleging that it is a form of government interference in families, socialism, or empowers women who “should” be staying home raising their children instead of working—an homage to a 1950s mentality rather than appreciating the reality of family life in the 2020s. The irony of this opposition is that during WWII, the United States did have universal childcare! It allowed women to work while men were overseas at war. It was a very successful program that had long-term benefits for health, education, and the strength of the nation (Little 2021). But when the men came home, women were forced to either stay home raising children or figure out some way to pay or find childcare if they did have to work. While it would be an investment in children’s future and reduce expenditures for health, criminal justice, and social services in the long run, the nation could once again develop a high-quality childcare system for all

162

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

young children if we would commit to a children’s human rights framework of children being our number one national priority.

7.4.4

Family Lifestyle Changes

The stereotype of children coming home from school at three o’clock from school to have a snack, do their homework, play with their dog, help set the table, and sit down to have a family dinner where everyone shares what happened during their day is largely a thing of the past. Rather, it is likely that every member of the family has activities that create irregular schedules. Families may eat together, but it may be at a restaurant, in the car driving to the next activity, or with only some of the family members together at the same time. Communication patterns have changed for children; there is less face-to-face time with family and friends and more use of cellphones. Texting has replaced voice calls for many youths. There are almost no pay phones available anymore. Accessing social media has become a daily occurrence, with people of all ages checking their phones or computers hundreds of times a day. While there are those who criticize children’s use of phones, the reality is that it is essential for children to have phones in order to keep in touch with their parents and for safety reasons. New forms of communication have allowed children to keep in more touch with grandparents, siblings, and other family members as well. So while face-to-face communication may be in decline, it is entirely possible that young people have time-wise as much contact with family. A question concerns the nature of the communication, and if it is instrumental or an expressive, relational nature. Another question pertains to the role-modeling of parental use of electronic devices and the importance they play with respect to relationship with children. I have observed families out to restaurants together and none of them are talking to each other because they were all engrossed with their devices, compared with other families who are sharing information together, laughing, and processing together what they observe. It is not the device use—it is how the devices are used that impact the parent-child relationship. In many ways, family life has become more transactional. Communication is often about who is doing what when. Mealtimes are organized with convenience in mind since people’s schedules may be erratic and organized around out-of-the-home work, education, and recreation activities. Family meals are no longer a priority. Family conversation about important things in children’s lives may occur in the car as parents transport them from one activity to another location. Many children find their lives over-scheduled and with less discretionary time to do what they want. Children today spend less time outdoors and more time being by themselves, often on phones, computers, or other electronic devices. Known as the NatureDeficit Disorder (Louv 2019), it refers to children’s alienation from nature and its implications. It is not a medical disorder but a way to talk about an urgent problem that has no language to describe it. Thousands of studies provide an expanding body of scientific evidence that suggests that the nature-deficit disorder contributes to a

7.5

Exposure to Violence

163

diminished use of children’s senses, attention difficulties, obesity, lower ecological literacy, less stewardship of the natural world, and higher rates of both physical and emotional illnesses. It is linked with what healthcare experts call the epidemic of inactivity and the devaluing of independent play. As a result of spending less time outdoors and with others, there is a trend for children and youth to feel more isolated, lonely, anxious, and depressed. In the 1980s and 1990s there was a higher rate of teen pregnancy, crime, and youth alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Today crime rates have fallen since the 1990s; pregnancy has declined but STDs have increased; teens may be less inclined to drink alcohol or smoke, but more likely to try other substances instead (Briendel 2018; Murphy 2019; Pew Internet & American Life Project 2009, Pew Research Center 2015a, b, c). Much of the data available concerns life in middle-class households. The information on unaccompanied youth is sparse but what seems clear is that children and youth who live on their own are at high risk of a variety of preventable problems. Children who are homeless are at risk of sexual abuse, substance abuse, crime, exploitation, and victimization of many sorts. Having minimal money resources, their health, nutrition, and ability to care for themselves safely put them at enormous risk for life-threatening conditions (Nilan 2020; Vissing et al. 2020; Vissing and Leitao 2021). Frameworks we use to understand the changing lives of children are important considerations about how we view them. Some scholars feel children are losing their childhood and are being forced into more adultified lifestyles and attitudes (Elkind 1988) and has been called “abelhood” because it focuses on adolescents acquiring skills that enable them to do adult-type things. Others observe that there has been a slow-down of youth behaviors associated with adulthood, and that many young people into their twenties are beyond are still living at home and not yet launched into adulthood (Fisher 2022; Twenge and Park 2019). The prolonged adolescence of people into their mid-twenties has become so pronounced as to be labeled adulthood, or a distinct developmental phase spanning the teenage and adult worlds (Fisher 2022). Is it possible that both extremes are happening simultaneously? This is a point to ponder. But what we know with certainty is that social factors are impacting the lives of children, the way they see themselves and others, and the opportunities the future holds for them.

7.5

Exposure to Violence

Ideal culture says that society and parents protect children from harm. This occurs for some children, but we must accept the fact that violence is part of everyday reality for children. Real culture stares us in the eye when we look and see the exposure to violence in home, at school and in the community. Next are described child abuse, bullying, and community violence are discussed, with particular attention to gun violence.

164

7.5.1

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Child Abuse

Like the term “child rights”, the term “child abuse” is another example of the common misunderstanding of terms. Child abuse is not one thing but many, including physical violence, inappropriate sexual contact, improper ways of speaking to children, emotional maltreatment, and a host of other behaviors that are not in a child’s best interests. Often, neglect is thrown into the pot as abuse. Each of these terms refer to different phenomenon, with different etiologies and different consequences. As a National Institute of Mental Health Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in family violence and child abuse, I know that any number we find about how many children have been abused is always going to be a gross under-estimate of the actual number of children who were abused. Adults who have abused children are not going to report what they did. Children may not recognize that the treatment they received was abusive; they may not know who they can trust to divulge this information; and they may be scared to report it for fear of retaliation if they do. Neighbors and witnesses may feel how parents treat children is not their business; they may not observe what goes on behind closed doors, and they too may be fearful about what could happen to them if they report suspected abuse and the parent finds out it was them who reported it. Police and courts may be slow to act to protect children, since adults almost always have the upper hand in legal proceedings. Teachers, doctors, and other professionals are put in the position of being mandated reporters—if they suspect abuse, they are supposed to report it. In reality they should, but not all do (Finkelhor 2000; Straus 2001; Vissing 2021a, b). The US has a high child abuse rate compared to developed nations, which speaks to the importance for a children’s human rights framework to be firmly established in every organization and community. What all this means is that while we have somewhat of an understanding of what child abuse is, we likely do not realize how pervasive it is, we clump all types of abuse together as if they were the same thing—but they are not, and we seldom know what the abuse is like from the child’s point of view. Adults are the ones who collect the data, interpret it, and report it (or do not). If we asked children about the onset of the abuse, how it occurred, what happened from their point of view, and the impact it had on their lives, we would certainly get a richer and more detailed perspective of its occurrence. We have been trying for decades to train adults not to abuse children, but they keep on abusing them anyway. We have tried parent education, we have used police and court interventions, we have employed social work, we have put people into therapy, but collectively it does not seem to stop the abuse even among highly educated and well-informed people. We need a different strategy—and that strategy could be to empower children to know that they do have rights and that parents and adults do not have the right to hurt them. If children were given human rights, then they would have voice and agency to make their abuse known to others. There would be organizations and institutions mandated to listen to them and help them. A rights

7.5

Exposure to Violence

165

framework means that adults and organizations would be child rights defenders and be obligated to help them. Clearly while there has been some improvement in preventing abuse, the fact that rates still remain so high here in the US indicates that the other options have not worked all that well. . . .

7.5.1.1

A Brief History of Child Abuse in America

In the history of child abuse in the US, first neglect and physical abuse were labeled as abuse. Nine-year-old Mary Ellen Wilson of Hell’s Kitchen in New York became pivotal in the fight for child protection from abuse in 1874. She was badly neglected and abused; when police and neighbors tried to get her help, they learned there were no laws to protect children from such harm. But there were laws to protect animals from cruelty, so they were ultimately able to obtain care and relief for the child, arguing that she was a member of the animal kingdom and therefore was covered by the animal protections set forth by the humane society. This initiated the creation of a variety of child protection programs, first in New York then around the nation (Shelman 2005). Physical abuse did not become a national concern until the 1960s, thanks to the medical community. Prior to the 1960s, medical schools provided little or no training on child abuse, and medical texts were largely silent on the issue. Even pediatricians were largely uninformed. The spark that eventually ignited medical interest in abuse was an article published in 1946 by pediatric radiologist John Caffey. Caffey described six young children with subdural hematomas and fractures of the legs or arms. Although he did not state that any of the children were abused, Caffey hinted at it. Following Caffey’s classic paper, a small but steady stream of physicians drew attention to the abusive origin of some childhood injuries. This trend culminated in the 1962 publication of the blockbuster article “The Battered-Child Syndrome” by pediatrician Henry Kempe, after which the medical community became a major organization working with government and NGOs promoting the prevention of abuse (Myers 2008). It was only later that child sexual abuse became an issue. A law professor of mine, David R. Walters (1975) at Indiana University, pointed out that there was basically no literature on that topic in the early 1970s. Vincent De Francis (1969:1) collected data on sexually abused children and observed that Child victims of adult sex offenders are a community’s least protected children. Frequent victims of parental neglect, they are, almost always, also neglected by the community which has consistently failed to recognize the existence of this as a substantial problem.

Work by sociologist David Finkelhor at the University of New Hampshire helped showcase the prevalence and importance of the sexual abuse of children in the 1980s. Since then, its importance has gained visibility and is part of the Enough Abuse campaign of Mass Kids in Massachusetts and other states and organizations (Bernier 2022; Finkelhor et al. 2021).

166

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Verbal and emotional abuse of children were thought to be so normal and common that they were not considered under the umbrella of child abuse until the late 1980s and 1990s (Vissing 1997). It is likely the most frequent type of abuse that children receive, but it is also the type least likely to be reported or to have court intervention. There is a continuing redefinition of what constitutes abuse. Organizations ostensibly designed to help children were not scrutinized to determine if they were abusive. This is how schools and institutions were able to avoid having caregivers identified as abusers. Today the abuse of indigenous children in Canada at religious schools, children in daycare centers, tough-love camps in the US, children in sports programs like those at Penn State under Coach Joe Paterno or Michigan State University under Larry Nazzer (Boylan 2012; History.com 2018; Vissing 2012a, b), detained children separated from at the Mexico border (Vissing 2021a, b), or youth put in rehabilitation centers, like at the Sununu Center in New Hampshire (Ramer 2022). Corporal punishment is used and sanctioned in many schools across the US, such as the 6-year-old girls in Florida paddled by her principal, and has made a come back as appropriate actions by schools in Missouri and 18 other states, despite the American Psychological Association and researchers proving that paddling can cause injury, trauma, and is not effective at improving a child’s behavior (Diaz 2021; Levenson 2022; Gershoff and Font 2016). Certainly, many children have been abused who have never reported it. Organizations have had lawyers, money, and power to create a narrative that have insulated them from penalties for maltreatment that they have allowed or inflicted upon children. In some ways things are better, but abuses continue. A children’s human rights framework would challenge such narratives and practices if children’s protection rights were deemed a high priority (Walters and Streib 1976).

7.5.1.2

Child Physical Abuse

Physical child abuse consists of physical acts such as punching, beating, kicking, biting, pinching, burning, shaking, hair-pulling, slapping, suffocation, tying a child up, or other forms of harming a child physically. It is typically associated with malicious intent, but the question of intention is a debated one within the field. Even if a parent didn’t intend to physically harm a child but did, such actions could be considered abuse. The appropriateness of spanking or paddling a child is hotly debated, with most pediatric and child rights advocates viewing it as a violation of children whereas some members of religious or fundamentally conservative orientations may feel it is necessary to control a child’s behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics 2022; Straus 2001, 2013). Realizing that the numbers of authenticated abuse are the tip of the iceberg, data reports that 18% of reported abuse cases are for physical abuse with 78% being identified as neglected. The fatality rate is 2.2 per 1000 children, making homicide the second leading cause of death for children younger than one (Brown et al. 2022a, b).

7.5 Exposure to Violence

7.5.1.3

167

Child Sexual Abuse

Child sexual abuse is defined as sexual activity with a child (anyone under age 18) by an adult or older child. There are two main types of child sexual abuse: touching and non-touching. Touching includes touching a child’s genitals, making a child touch someone else’s genitals, playing sexual games, and/or putting objects or body parts inside the vulva or vagina, in the mouth, or in the anus of a child for sexual pleasure. Non-touching abuse includes showing pornography to a child, exposing a person’s genitals to a child, prostituting/trafficking a child, photographing a child in sexual poses, encouraging a child to watch or hear sexual acts either in person or on a video, and/or watching a child undress or use the bathroom (Prevent Child Abuse 2022). Most studies indicate that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are victims of child sexual abuse. Children of all ages and genders are targets of child sexual abuse, but the most common ages for abuse are between 7 and 13. In almost all cases, children knew their perpetrator and knew them well—the stranger danger notion of someone on the street raping children is largely a myth (Dubowitz et al. 2022; Finkelhorn et al. 1990; National Center for Victims of Crime 2022).

7.5.1.4

Verbal and Emotional Abuse

While emotional and verbal abuse may not be the first things that spring to mind when people hear the term “child abuse”, 70% of adults report that they believe words can hit hard as a fist and can create long-term harm for children (Vissing and Baily 1996). Verbal abuse is part of the larger umbrella of psychological abuse or emotional maltreatment (Baily and Baily 1986; Garbarino and Gilliam 1980). Emotional abuse is a pattern of behavior in which the perpetrator insults, humiliates, and generally instills fear in an individual in order to control them. The forms in which emotional abuse can occur are countless; sometimes the intent was to control a child, but sometimes it is malicious and calculated to dehumanize the child and inflict as much distress as possible without being “caught”, as it would be in obvious physical abuse where there is a cut or bruise. In emotional abuse, a child’s reality may become distorted as they internalize the abuse as their own failings. Family violence is complicated to decipher because of its power dynamics and cultural complexities (Cahn and Lloyd 1996). Adults may excuse their emotional abuse or verbally aggressive comments by saying that they were joking, that the child misinterpreted what they were saying, or that the child lied, and unless there were people present who could substantiate what occurred, it is likely that the emotional and verbal abuse that children experience may be shoved into the shadows. It is typical that emotional maltreatment is accompanied by verbal threats: Verbal aggression is a communication intended to cause psychological pain to another person, or a communication perceived as having that intent. The communicative act may be active or passive, and verbal or nonverbal. Examples include name calling or nasty remarks (active, verbal), slamming a door or smashing something (active, nonverbal), and stony silence or sulking (passive, nonverbal). Slamming a door or throwing an object

168

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

contains a symbolic threat that can terrify the observer, who may have fears that the next object to be abused with be themselves (Vissing et al. 1991:225).

The intent of verbal aggression is to inflict psychological pain, thereby resulting in the person feeling less favorable about themselves and suffering self-concept damage (Infante, Chandler and Rudd 1989). While verbal abuse was once considered a part of emotional violence, it is its own category of violence against children (Crittenden 1992; Heitler 2014; O’Toole 2000; Vissing et al. 1991).

7.5.1.5

Exposure to Domestic Violence

Domestic violence can include a variety of aggressive actions but typically the term is associated with partner violence. Other major forms include sibling abuse, elder abuse, and abuse of people with ability challenges. Children are watchers of the world. They learn values, attitudes, and actions from observing those around them. When they watch parents or others in the family, who are ostensibly supposed to love, protect, and support each other, engage in physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, or other types of abuse, children are adversely affected even when they are not the direct recipient of the violence. Studies prove that exposure to domestic violence have many long-term negative repercussions for children (McGee 2003; Moylan et al. 2010; National Child Traumatic Stress Network 2018; Payne and Hannay 2021; Peled 1998; Quigley 2007; UNICEF 2016a, b, c).

Sibling Abuse In the home, there may be violence by siblings against one another, and the perpetrator may receive no penalty and the victims carry experiences of fear and emotional distress for the rest of their life. Sibling violence is very common and takes the forms of physical violence, sexual violence, and both emotional and verbal violence. In the realm of child protection, sibling violence protection is sometimes ill-considered as a children’s right (Boyse 2012; Finkelhor, Ingram 2020; McDonald and Martinez 2019; Teicher and Vitaliano 2011; Tucker et al. 2013; Wiehe 1990).

Older Person Abuse Other forms of domestic violence are violence against older people in the household, or those with disabilities, substance abuse problems, or mental illness. Elder abuse includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, financial exploitation, confinement, isolation, active and passive neglect, willful deprivation, and abandonment. The distinctive context of domestic violence in later life is the abusive use of power and control by a person known to the victim in a close, personal way. One in ten people

7.5

Exposure to Violence

169

over age 60 in the US, or five million people, have experienced some form of elder abuse according to the National Council on Aging (2022). In most cases (60%), the perpetrator is a family member.

Persons with Disabilities Abuse People with disabilities are at a higher risk of abuse, neglect and being victims of crime. Estimates show they are at least four to ten times more likely victims than people without disabilities. Children with disabilities have a higher risk of being abused or neglected. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Justice, 11%t of all child abuse victims had a physical, cognitive and/or behavioral disability, and children with disabilities are two to three times more likely to be physically or sexually abuse or neglected than children without disabilities. In addition, abuse is typically more severe, is more likely to occur multiple times and is more likely to be repeated for a longer period of time (Disability Justice 2022). Similarly, family members have been known to be abusive to people in their household who have mental illness, substance abuse, or other physical and emotional challenges (Vaddadi et al. 2002; Solomon et al. 2005; Triyaspodo et al. 2019). People with challenges may be frustrating to caregivers or family members; it is important that children learn to be rights-respecting to all persons no matter what their condition may be.

7.5.2

Bullying

Bullying is another violence experience that children confront. It has taken different forms over time. While it used to be contextualized to be primary physical aggression, perhaps of one group of boys beating up another, it has shifted in nature and form. Girls are as likely to bully others, but their strategy entails relational bullying. Girl bullying can be devastating because they have likely learned emotionally important information about what their victims fear the most, and then then can use it to ruin their reputation. With the advent of social media, cyberbullying is today perhaps the most common form of bullying. Research indicates that 20% of students report being bullied in school; middle-school is the most volatile time for bullying to occur, and most students have witnessed the bullying of others even if they haven’t been the direct recipient of it (Brazelton 2006; Coloroso 2004; Gershoff 2002; Gershoff and Font 2016; Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 2016; Lisak 2017; Riveria and LeMenstrel 2016). Research indicates that most children have either been victims of bullying or observed it happening to others. Bullying has three components—the bully, the bullied, and the bystander (Coloroso 2009). Often the bully is a child who was abused at home or who learned bullying types of interpersonal communications were

170

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

a strategy to get what they wanted (Lisak 2017). Cyberbullying has increased with the rise of computer use and the increased isolation of youth. Girls are more likely to engage in reputational bullying where they disparage and harass other students (No Bullying 2016). Students with disabilities are often bullied (PACER 2018) as are LGBTQ+ students (Stop Bullying 2021) and the effects quite damaging (Swearer 2015). The effects of bullying can be so significant that bullying is thought to be associated with suicide (Kim and Leventhal 2008). Anti-bullying programs like OLWEUS1 or Stomp Out Bullying2 have become commonplace in schools across the nation. Bullying is associated with discriminatory harassment such as saying demeaning things, graphic and written statements, restraining a person, conduct that is physically, sexually, or emotionally threatening, harmful, or humiliating. Destruction of a student’s personal property also falls in this category. The intended victims can be of any gender, ability, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, or appearance. Harassment can occur in school hallways, in class, during recess, in the cafeteria or bathrooms, on the bus, or on school property. If a school is aware of it and is indifferent to it, a civil rights lawsuit can be filed (Dragan 2022). Bullying is associated with a variety of mental health attacks on children and can be very malicious in intent—and life-threatening in its outcome. It has been associated with victim suicide and self-harm. In an example of President Trump mocking 16-year-old Greta Thunberg after Time Magazine awarded her “person of the year”, we have seen other adult’s role model bullying behavior even against children (Nakamura and Wagner 2019; Ramsey 2022). A variety of anti-bullying programs have been instituted in schools, but their effect is limited when bullying is pervasive in social media, media, music, and games (Bullying Statistics 2016; Kim and Leventhal 2008; Stop Bullying 2022; Swearer 2015). It is difficult to tell children not to bully when it has become commonplace in what has become known as “the bully society” (Klein 2013).

7.5.3

Corporal Punishment

Corporal punishment is a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to a child’s unacceptable behavior and/or inappropriate language. The immediate aims of such punishment are usually to halt the offense, prevent its recurrence and set an example for others. The purported longterm goal is to change the child’s behavior and to make it more consistent with the adult’s expectations. In corporal punishment, the adult usually hits various parts of the child’s body with a hand, or with canes, paddles, yardsticks, belts, or other objects expected to cause pain and fear (American Academy of Child and Pediatric

1 2

https://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_bullying_prevention_program.page https://www.stompoutbullying.org/

7.5

Exposure to Violence

171

Psychiatry 2018a). Children may be paddled on their bare buttocks. It is demeaning and painful. It is outlawed in many countries and most developed ones, but legal in 19 of the US states where it inflicts over 160,000 students annually, and disproportionally on children who are Black, male, and with disabilities. Children in detention facilities, foster care arrangements, and even rehabilitation facilities have been known to use corporal punishment (Afana 2018; Anderson 2018a, b; Bakersfield Now 2018; CBS 2018; Gershoff and Font 2016; Straus 2001; Zumer 2018). It is curious that the actions that constitute corporal punishment are the same those in physical abuse. Yet corporal punishment exists and is accepted as not just normal, but appropriate and necessary in some mind-sets. It would not be so in a children’s human rights framework.

7.5.4

Gun Violence

The US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership—and gun violence, in the world. The number of guns owned by people in the US has increased in recent year, with 40 million guns sold in 2020 alone. It is estimated that 44% of households have guns in them, or 81.4 million people over age 18, owning over 400 million guns. Over 98% of these guns are in civilian hands, with the average gun owner having 5 firearms, most likely handguns, rifles, or shotguns. All genders own guns, with men owning the most. White people are most likely to be gun owners. Geographically, there is one region of the country where citizens are far less likely to own a firearm. Ironically, it is the cradle of American democracy in New England and the northeast where only 27% of households own a gun. The rest of the country is statistically tied at around 45% of households. Gun ownership is highest in Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho, all at over 60% of the population. The states least likely to have gun owners are Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island, all at around 14% (American Gun Facts 2022). Guns are regarded as a major public health problem, killing more children than cancer, yet they are readily available for people under age 21 (Collins 2020a, b; Reich et al. 2002; Slovak 2002). With more than 25% of children witnessing an act of violence in their homes, schools, or community over the past year, and more than 5% witnessing a shooting, it becomes not just an issue of gun regulation, but also of addressing the impact on those who have been traumatized by such violence (Finkelhor et al. 2021). According to the Child Welfare League of America (2020a, b), the discussion about gun safety for children misses the mark. It focuses on mental illness of shooters, but in fact, most people with mental illnesses are not violent and are more likely to be victimized than they are to victimize others (Teplin et al. 2005). It acknowledges that schools, police, child welfare, prevention, and mental health agencies cannot tackle this problem alone. They have created a CWLA’s National Blueprint that encourages communities to take responsibility for the well-being of children and youth. Combating the negative impact of violence on children and

172

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

youth requires the collaboration of teachers, principals, social workers, police officers, doctors, parents, friends, and more. Each person has a role to play, be it screening for exposure to violence, mitigating the impact of violence through emotional support, or preventing violence through community activism and policy initiatives. Only when all facets of society recognize the true negative impact that exposure to violence has on the well-being of children, youth, families, and communities, and actively work to address this problem, will substantive change take place. This can best be achieved through a children’s human rights framework. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution significantly limits the federal government’s ability to regulate guns in the United States. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the state governments, means that gun rules such as where and when you can carry in public, who can purchase guns, and what types of guns and features are legal for purchase are left to the States (American Gun Facts 2022). This means that states have tremendous power and authority to decide the gun control laws in their states. Even if the federal government did not commit to a children’s human rights framework, states could—and if they did, they could legitimately control guns in the state, which would hopefully lead to fewer child gun deaths.

7.5.4.1

School Shootings

It is the right of children to go to school and be safe. The number of school shootings has risen in recent years. Shootings are associated directly with the availability of guns, and caused by unresolved interpersonal problems, mental health issues, or fights (Lapin 2021). Organizations like Everytown USA3 and the Sandy Hook Promise4 point out that most school shootings could be prevented with better gun control and more supportive services for students. Schools have undertaken a hard rather than a soft approach to dealing with preventing possible shootings. A school-shooting prevention industry has emerged that costs well over $2.7 billion to have armored school doors, campus police officers, metal detectors, and the like. There is no proof that these expenses and measures make students and schools safer (Washington Post 2016b). Billions of dollars have been spent in other areas to put in safety measures that resemble a police-state in many schools, with no data to prove that these costs and attempts to harden schools have had a positive impact (Fiddiman 2018). Police-state reactions have been found to target BIPOC students and those with disabilities at much higher rates. There exists significant concern about the motives behind this growing schoolsafety advocacy industry; while on the surface they sound helpful, what they do, the

3

https://www.everytown.org/ https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/gun-violence/16-facts-about-gun-violence-and-schoolshootings/ 4

7.6

Conflict Over Who Owns Children’s Bodies and Healthcare Decisions

173

costs, and the effectiveness hint that this is another market that uses children to make money for corporations (Chatterjee 2021). Instead of hardware, the increased availability of mental health services has been found to be more effective and cost-affordable. Yet schools are not choosing to invest in mental health services, despite a blatantly obvious increased need for them. The standard recommends one counselor for every 250 students; that may seem ridiculously low given the need and the logical wait-time for a student to ever get a couple of minutes with the school counselor. But it is far worse than that. Arizona has the fewest counselors in the nation with one counselor for every 905 students. Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and California each operate schools with ratios above 600 students per counselor (Barshay 2020). Poorly funded schools, especially in the South and in areas where there are more BIPOC students, have fewer counselors than affluent areas. Over 1.7 million students attend schools with police officers but no counselors; 3 million have police officers and no school nurses, 6 million with police but no psychologists, and 10 million students go to schools with police but no social workers (Chatterjee 2021). Shooter training drills and lock-down practices, for even children in daycare centers are occurring, and the effectiveness of such programs are highly questionable. Programs like ALICE (age appropriate elementary school training) are used across the country. In assessing data on whether they make children prepared or scared, the mental health distress these programs create may be greater than any benefit for an unlikely attack, according to some scholars (Brunswick et al. 2021; Jonson et al. 2020). What does seem to help create safer schools is addressing student mental health needs proactively and working to create inclusive and supportive school climates (Vissing et al. 2020).

7.6

Conflict Over Who Owns Children’s Bodies and Healthcare Decisions

If children have the right to healthcare, at what point are they entitled to the agency to make their own healthcare decisions? There are also issues of child privacy and consent which have become child health rights issues. Child health rights issues have become snags often focus on access to care. This is pronounced in several health areas, including sexual and reproductive care, procedures and devices, including access to birth control, pregnancy decisions, prevention and treatment of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. Medical procedures like circumcision are done without the child’s consent on both male and female children (Child Trends 2014).

174

7.6.1

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Accessing Mental Health

Today’s youth have experienced an increase of both physical and emotional problems. Yet it is often challenging for them to access care, especially without parental permission. As a clinical sociologist and former mental health counselor, I have seen first-hand how difficult it is for youth to access care. Getting an accurate diagnosis is the first hurdle, getting parents to agree for the child to have treatment is the next, followed by finding a therapist that will see the child that the child can access and having the money or insurance to pay for the visits. Children who are having relational problems at home, especially if there is the presence of abuse, may find that it is almost impossible for them to access care. Schools have insufficient numbers of counselors on-site, and students may find it hard to get a counseling appointment, especially during times when school counselors are inundated with standardized testing, enrolling students for classes, or writing college recommendation letters. Being depressed, anxious, having ADHD, being on the autism spectrum, or having an autoimmune disease are more common. Autoimmune diseases, like other illnesses, may show up in psychological symptoms as well as physical ones. An increase of chronic disease means that children are more likely to be aware of things that trigger problems or prevent them. They may manage their diabetes through food/drink consumption; they have been taught seizure management strategies. Allergies can be lift-threatening for them, and use of epy pens or Narcan can save their lives. They are also being more medicated for both physical and socio-emotional conditions. The Centers for Disease Control has warned that US children are being over-medicated (Cha 2016). The number of U.S. preschoolers diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) jumped 56% between 2007 and 2012, and the number of children ages 2 to 5 taking a psychoactive medication to treat ADHD doubled while half of preschoolers with ADHD are not getting behavioral therapy (Novotney 2015). Studies have found that 7.7 million US children and teens, or one in seven, have at least one treatable mental health disorder, including depression, anxiety or ADHD. But half of them did not receive needed treatment from a mental health professional, despite the help treatment could yield for recovery and the prevention of future problems. The role of community commitment to help them is obvious by looking at geographic distribution of care and treatment gaps. The prevalence of mental disorders among kids ranged from 7.6 percent in Hawaii to 27.2 percent in Maine. Washington DC is reported to have the most treatment and the lowest prevalence of children left untreated (30%) while North Carolina had two-thirds of children not receiving needed treatment or counseling (72%). Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah were among the highest states in which children with a mental health disorder did not receive needed treatment (Mostafavi 2019). Increasing number of young people are identified to have mental health struggles and would benefit from care, but parents have the legal and financial ability to

7.6

Conflict Over Who Owns Children’s Bodies and Healthcare Decisions

175

provide, mandate, or deny services. Denying care is common when parents are afraid that mental health professionals may suspect that parents have contributed to their children’s mental health problems and criminal or child protective services could be called to intervene. Healthcare providers are mandated reporters. Another area of rights issues surrounds children’s use of psychotropic medications, as well as issues of involuntary commitment of children to psychiatric hospitals or being sent to camps and facilities that use abusive strategies to gain child compliance.

7.6.2

Accessing Sex Education and Reproductive Care

It is a fact that sooner or later children will become sexually active. It is important from a child rights perspective to have accurate information to protect themselves from illness, exploitation, and abuse. In a review of abstinence-only programs in the US, the Journal of Adolescent Health found that it is important for children’s health to have accurate information, and that keeping sexual information from them does them a disservice and may put them at greater risk: Programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) or sexual risk avoidance are scientifically and ethically problematic and—as such—have been widely rejected by medical and public health professionals. Although abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. Given a rising age at first marriage around the world, a rapidly declining percentage of young people remain abstinent until marriage. Promotion of AOUM policies by the U.S. government has undermined sexuality education in the United States and in U.S. foreign aid programs; funding for AOUM continues in the United States. The weight of scientific evidence finds that AOUM programs are not effective in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse or changing other sexual risk behaviors. AOUM programs, as defined by U.S. federal funding requirements, inherently withhold information about human sexuality and may provide medically inaccurate and stigmatizing information. Thus, AOUM programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life. Young people need access to accurate and comprehensive sexual health information to protect their health and lives. (Santelli et al. 2017:273)

Rights advocates support children receiving sex education in increments that are developmentally appropriate with the intent of making sure children know how their bodies work and to have choice over their reproductive choices (Vissing et al. 2017). But some parents prefer to have control over the sex education their children receive, refuse to let them participate in health classes where they may learn about sex, and want an abstinence-only approach. It is a rights issue if the child wants to go on birth control and the parent objects or if girls become pregnant and not given a choice about what they wish to do about the pregnancy. Abortions are a particularly hot-button topic, even when it is a ten-yearold who becomes pregnant through incest or rape. Data shows that pregnancy for young girls is dangerous for their bodies, bodies that are not yet developed enough to bear healthy children. What puts children at-risk and what is considered the best interests of the child must be carefully weighed in such situations (Nolen 2022).

176

7.6.3

7

Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

Accessing Vaccines

Another is around medications such as vaccines; schools have long required that children receive certain vaccines to keep themselves and others safe. Whose rights are the priority if the parent and the child disagree about healthcare—such as if the child wants the COVID-19 vaccine and their parents don’t want them to. The major health issues concern vaccinations in general and the COVID-19 vaccine in particular. Despite scientific evidence proving the vaccines are safe and prevent illness and death in children, some parents do not believe that and refuse to have their children immunized, which can put the child and other children at risk. There has been a long historical debate over whether to vaccinate children; the COVID-19 vaccination debate has merely highlighted an issue that has existed for years. Brian Abramson (2021) teaches vaccine law and notes that in some state’s minors can legally decide for themselves whether they would like to get vaccinated. He notes that the principle that certain minors may be vaccinated without parental consent is woven into our country’s history. The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine created policies and strategies in 2013 that help minors to receive vaccinations when their parents are not present. The norm is for parents to have the legal authority to make health decisions for their children. As of 2021, about one-third of US stats passed laws establishing a “mature minor doctrine” that allowed children under age 18 to obtain healthcare without parental consent so long as the treating physician finds the minor to be sufficiently mature and reasoned to make their own healthcare decisions. However, these laws vary depending on where the child lives. Abramson reports that children of any age living in Alaska, Arkansas, and Idaho may choose their own medical care when their doctors deem them capable of meeting standards of informed consent. In Alabama it is age 14; 15 in Oregon, and 16 in Kansas and South Carolina. When youth disagree with parents who oppose their getting vaccinated, it can deeply strain family relationships. Parents have been known to challenge doctor authority in courts. He finds that most youth are not aware of whether they have the right to get vaccines. Efforts to educate youth about their options to advocate for their own healthcare may prove controversial, as occurred in the state of Tenness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

7.6.4

Medical Treatment for Ill Children

Traditionally, healthcare decisions are regarded to be a product of doctor and parent interaction. But Taub (2003) reminds us, there is a triadic relationship that must be considered. This is the diagnosis and recommendation of the physician, the decisions made by the parent, and the emotions and decisions made by the child patient. In the Journal of Ethics, she explores the importance of children having a voice in healthcare decisions that impact them. The parent-provider conception is rooted in the legal tradition but is inadequate in shaping the partnership between the 3 parties.

7.7

Summary

177

A system based primarily on legal circumstances “fails to consider several essential principles that are at the core of medical ethics and professionalism”. Involving children in their care decisions does not mean excluding parents, but entails involving children at a level commensurate with their development, experience, and desire to participate. Utilizing a scaffolding model of development, children’s involvement in their healthcare decisions begins with informing them of the nature of their condition and should convey full and accurate information regarding tests, treatments, and expectations in an age appropriate way that they can understand. Children should be provided opportunity to ask questions and express their views. They must be respected as decision-makers who function in a partnership with parents, guardians, and physicians. Children may grant or withhold consent. But a children’s human rights framework means that they should be granted the ability to have input over their own lives and what is going to happen to them. A young child may decide the site of a needle stick whereas an older or more developed child should have input into weighty decisions like whether to undertake another course of chemotherapy. There may be rights conflicts over how to treat children with illnesses. Some parents refuse medical treatments for their children for religious or ideological reasons, even in life-or-death conditions. If children are terminally ill, some children may refuse medicines or procedures yet their parents require them anyway, whereas a rights-respecting approach would be to let children have accurate information on their condition and be given options about how they wish to proceed (Alderson 2000b, 2012, 2021). There is the rights issue of honoring terminally-ill children’s decision to die instead of pursuing painful treatments that will not ultimately extend their lives (Bluebond-Langner et al. 2010). Life-sustaining medical treatments and end-of-life-care decisions may be especially challenging when it comes to assessing what is in the best interests of the child.

7.7

Summary

This chapter provided a snapshot of some of the ways that children’s human rights in the US have not been adequately addressed, and why there is a need for the implementation of greater human rights measures for our youngest citizens. When compared with children in most other developed nations, our children are faring poorly. We may not want to believe that is true, but data indicating this is the case comes not from one study but hundreds by different scholars and organizations that adhere to standards of high-quality research. A factor that we ought not to miss is that the countries and states that have embedded a children’s human rights framework create outcomes of healthier, happier, more productive, successful, and respectful children. As demographics change, as a society we must become more attentive to issues of how children are shaped by the world and how they can shape the world and their own lives. There are those who feel children now live in a toxic environment

178

7 Children’s Lives Are Different Today: More Reasons for Building. . .

(Garbarino 1999). What is certain is that social institutions and interpersonal interactions could be much more rights respecting when it comes to how we treat young people. As rights-holders, they will grow forward to transmit their well-being and rights-respecting attitudes and actions to others. As clinical sociologists know, there is a symbiotic relationship between macro and micro factors. We have the capabilities of changing the bleak findings described in this chapter into positive individual and social outcomes if we change the narrative we hold about children and their rights.

Part II

Constructing the Floor

Our hopes for a more just, safe, and peaceful world can only be achieved when there is universal respect for the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, UN Women Executive Director

Overview of the Section Part II of the book continues the examination of how children’s lives have been constructed to be powerless and not to be deserving of human rights designation in the USA. It builds on the Foundation in Part I and takes the framework and narrative constructs further as questions whether children are the property of parents, if they are a minority group, and where they fall on the nation’s stratification ladder. Chapter 8: History of Children’s Human Rights in the United States Chapter 9: Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines Chapter 10: Are Children Parental Property? Chapter 11: Are Children A Minority Group? Chapter 12: Stratification and Castification of Children Chapter 13: Rightsology

Chapter 8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Childhood, the invention of adults, reflects adult needs and adult fears quite as much as it signifies the absence of adulthood. In the course of history children have been glorified, patronized, ignored, or held in contempt, depending upon the cultural assumptions of adults. Gittins 1998

8.1

Introduction

How we look at children has changed over time. Childhood has never been an uncontested concept—people in each historical period have disagreed about whether it exists and what the life of a child is “supposed” to be like. Religions around the world throughout time have laid claim to how children should be treated, and sometimes those treatments supported what we now term to be rights-respecting, but sometimes they were anything but (Gran 2021). The historical Christian view of children was one of original sin. Locke (1690) proposed that children were born neither good nor bad, but were a blank slate whose futures lay ahead of them in any number of outcomes and ways. The eighteenth-century writers like Jean Jacques Rousseau captured the public’s enthusiasm of seeing children in a positive way, and he proposed that education could be the pivotal influence that determined children’s outcomes. Rousseau built upon Locke’s notions of people have a right to things like property and liberty, and extended it to education and other types of human rights notions. Enlightenment authors took it further and came to view negative punishments as a violation of a person’s rights. This helped spawn the underpinnings of child protection measures. France and the early US considered the rights of man to be inalienable, which led to political thoughts, systems, and ultimately documents such as the US Bill of Rights. Understanding that there is a fluidity in how we have perceived children and what childhood “ought to be” helps us understand why people today debate what kind of parenting is best and what children need in order to thrive. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_8

181

182

8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

History shows us that childhood has always been influenced by diversity, in gender, age, social class, and race. One child’s experience may be markedly different than that of another. Every adult generation has conveyed distress over the demise of childhood and the state of today’s children. Children have always been in a less powerful position than adults. But always, children have had agency and often played a large role in shaping not just their own lives, but the lives of their families and communities (Levin 2007; Mintz 2004). So how did their stories get shaped? As this chapter unfolds, certain myths will be challenged. These include the myth that childhood has always been carefree, the myth that children are property of parents, the myth that childhood is the same for all children everywhere, the myth that all parents adore their children, the myth that adults will sacrifice to put children’s needs and well-being first, and the myth that things today for children are markedly better for them than in the past (Mintz 2004). History has contributed mightily to us viewing children and their rights from different perspectives. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has made significant improvements for children’s lives and will continue to do so when societies commit to a child rights frame. Notably, not just children benefit from embedding human rights—parents and the rest of society does as well (Lansdown 2014; Vissing 2017c).

8.2

Importance of Historical Context

Children’s rights are a particular category of human rights. To study it requires considering the evolution of human rights. The idea that human beings have inalienable, universal rights by virtue of being human, and that their humanity is characterized by an essential equality, dignity, and autonomy, is centuries old and traceable to the second half of the seventeenth century. But its importance gain momentum in the twentieth-century (Donnelly 2013). There have been many steps forward, and backward, in the nation’s history as they pertain to human rights in general and children being considered as rights holders in particular. Prior to the emergence of the idea that human rights could pertain to children, parental authority over children was unquestioned (Stearns 2016). Over time, pre-modern, agricultural societies did begin to offer some minimal protections for children; for example, the practice of infanticide was banned in certain religions and regions. The situation for children improved at points over time, but the Roman principle of patria potestas meant that parents (particularly fathers) had the power of life and death over their children and remained a dominant influence in the way people thought about the lives of children. There were times that authorities stepped in to provide some protection to children, but such intervention typically was minimal as parental rights always took precedence. Common law held that parents were to provide children with the necessities of life and set the stage for provision rights of children (Covell et al. 2010). similarly, a preliminary foundation for later developments associated with provision for children. Waldock (2020) observes that despite some improvements in children’s lives over time, children’s status was akin

8.2

Importance of Historical Context

183

to being property of the parents, so state involvement in their welfare virtually non-existent. This left children extremely vulnerable, both within the context of the family, and in society generally. As the belief in universal human rights emerged in Europe, new ideas about children began to emerge, particularly in the intellectual and economic realms. Contributions of John Locke reconceptualized education’s importance by arguing that children at birth were “blank slates,” neither good nor evil but capable of improvement through education (Stearns 2016; Waldock 2020). Children had always been expected to work on family farms or at family businesses, but were not usually paid for their labor, as it was an expectation that all members of the family would contribute to supporting the household. The Industrial Revolution’s increased demand for labor pushed children outside the home to earn money as the drive for capitalism, human capital, nationalism, and ideas by leaders such as Adam Smith contributed to the children as workers. Exploitation of young workers at the sacrifice of their education became an issue, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) emerged to protect worker rights. Viviana Zelizer (1994) examined the value of children across time, and the shifting narrative of their importance to contemporary families. Zelizer’s book Pricing the Priceless Child, described the “sacralization” of childhood and alleges children had economic value to families when they worked either in factories or fields, but when they were encouraged to go to school and not work they became less economically useful and more emotionally valuable to families. When family size became smaller there was more economic investment into each child. As a result, children transitioned from a position of economic contributors to economic recipients, and the response of parents was to view them to be emotionally priceless. Children became the object of extreme emotional investment from parents, where boundaries between parent and child became fuzzy. Children found it challenging to direct their own lives when parents were emotionally wrapped up with their successor when they felt pressure to live out their parents’ dreams. Children have become “priceless” emotionally to parents—and our children are almost always worth more to us than other people’s children. This fact continues to be part of the unstated national narrative in the development of government policy. As COVID-19 raged, importance of children emerged anew in a national debate over whether children were parental or community property ensued. If they are parental property, parents can decide whether to get their children vaccinated, wear masks, decide what children should read, how they should view topics like race, to name a few. When children are seen as communit memers, the emphasis focused on ensuring all children were vaccinated and wear masks so not to spread the virus, that children have a right to learn about sex, other races, be exposed to a wide variety of information to help them find their place in a changing and diverse world. The relationship that “our children” have with “other people’s children” and in the greater society is likely to be with us as part of our national debate for some time to come.

184

8.2.1

8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Historical Skews of Children

History reveals a lot of what we know about children and even more of what we don’t. Analyzing childhood and children’s rights accurately from a historical point of view is fraught with challenges, so let’s put what we know about the history of children into context. Most of what we have learned about children’s history, or any history, comes from what’s been published. But, as the old saying goes, history is always written by the winners. The histories of children and childhood are told from an adultified perspective. Most come from a white, European/U.S., middle-class point-of-view that doesn’t reflect the experiences of children across the planet (Cunningham 2005; Ennew 2000a, b; Fass and Mason 2000; Wells 2015). People in the United States tend to view histories written from WEIRD—white, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic—authors who may also be of WASP—white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant—backgrounds. History has tended to focus on childhood in the Global North, not the Global South; little of the historical literature about children uses a worldwide lens (Stearns 2016; Wells 2015). What we know doesn’t reflect a comprehensive, global, diverse picture of what children’s lives have been like or historical markers that changed them. Just as children have been cut into pieces, history has a fragmented view of their lives. We might learn a bit about certain groups of children at a given point in time, in a specific place, culture, or situation, but seldom has a whole-child view been incorporated. We generalize what we learn from one historical report and apply it to other groups; sometimes we are right, wrong, but always incomplete in our assessment. History itself is inherently controversial, as we have learned through the introduction of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Not everyone agrees with the way others present history (Sawchuck 2021). History is preserved through narratives and by storytellers. When we think about our own unique histories, what do we know about ourselves as babies? It comes from what other people tell us. Were we cute? Were we easy babies or colicky and cranky? What did our grandparents say when they first saw us? What was our first food, our favorite toy? The fact is, we don’t know or remember. We rely upon other people to tell us what happened. Their stories may be accurate reflections of what happened, or they may not. Their stories reflect their interpretation of our histories—not how we perceive our own. The issue is that we believe what we are told about our past. This is true for us as individuals, and for society. All historical tales have a skew, an agenda. There are always alternative stories, other facts, different ways to explain what happened. The historical information provided in this chapter reflects that which is documented, knowing that there is missing data about many groups of children (Fass and Mason 2000). We are wise to “mind the gap,” and consider that there is information we may not know. Children are an invisible social group, an ever-present social minority (Woodhouse 2008). Children have always made major contributions to their families and communities, but since history is written from an adult point of view, the

8.3

Journey of Children’s Human Rights in the USA Across Time

185

contributions of young people have often been ignored, usurped, or downplayed. Most people in the US have heard the story of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus, an event that’s associated with the start of the Civil Rights Movement. But most of us don’t realize that a few months earlier, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin had been arrested for refusing to give up her seat to white students on the way home from school (Kettler 2015; NPR 2009). The Civil Rights Movement leaders thought her case was revealing of systemic issues and they recruited Parks to sit on a bus in the same city and refuse to move when asked. It was Park’s case that gained publicity, which led to the Montgomery bus boycott and eventually to a Supreme Court order outlawing segregated buses. Students today learn about Rosa Parks’ bravery—but most never hear about Colvin’s. Colvin’s contribution to history was downplayed because she was a child and around that time pregnant out-of-wedlock. History was written with adult Parks as the heroine, with Colvin rendered invisible. This is but one example of how contributions of children and youth get lost in history. We know children have earned money, raised siblings, fought wars, worked in factories, marched on picket lines, protected family members, and gone to jail fighting for their rights (Ginwright and James 2002; Ho et al. 2015). Historical records have ignored, purged, or altered stories about children’s agency and voice that make adults uncomfortable. The pivotal role that defiant children have played in history and culture is often disregarded. We’re more comfortable thinking of children as innocent people to be protected and “done-to” than being smart, having agency, making decisions, and taking actions that change the world. We are more comfortable with George Washington’s confession that he cut down the cherry tree with his little hatchet than we are with 16-year-old Benjamin Franklin’s political activism. Franklin was publishing political satires that infuriated the British; at age seventeen he was a fugitive from justice, breaking the terms of his apprenticeship and lying his way into a Philadelphia job (Woodhouse 2008).

8.3

Journey of Children’s Human Rights in the USA Across Time

Historical data supports the idea that childhood has seldom been an idyllic time of innocence, play and happiness for most children. Technological and economic factors have greatly influenced the role of children in society; upper-middle-class children have lives that have always been less harsh and more sheltered than poor and marginalized children, who experience greater exclusion from the benefits of social capital (Aries 1962; Heywood 2001; Lambert 2021). As we look at how children were treated in different points in time, we gain insight into how we came to view children the way we do today. Why is it that the lives of white, Western privileged children remain so dramatically different from nonwhite youth, immigrant children, and those who had the misfortune to be born to poor parents in challenged communities or less-resourced cultures? History is not

186

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

just a study of the past—it also helps to understand the way that children and childhood is framed today. Understanding the disparity and conditions children face today are important activities for clinical sociologists. The stage for the current debate over the narrative surrounding children’s human rights was set many years ago. The United States has a long history of people from different races, genders, religions, sexual orientations, and abilities struggling to actualize their rights (History.com 2021a; Library of Congress 2021). Social movements surrounding ageism have focused only on those at one end of the spectrum— older individuals. The US helped design the international children’s human rights treaty called the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), but became the only member of the United Nations not to ratify it. As human beings, all children are entitled to human rights. America is at a critical junction as it decides how it will proceed with respect to democracy, justice, equality, health, and world leadership.

8.3.1

A Brief Overview of the History of Children’s Rights

Global events influenced the view of both children and human rights in early America. Historian Paula Fass (2016) observes that from the earliest days of the founding of our nation, children were raised with practices conceived in direct opposition to Old World notions of authoritarian power and natural hierarchy. She notes that this ideological, in that the democratizing spirit that drove the American Revolution filtered down to the family level, and it was also out of necessity because family survival depended on every member pitching in, and where children at a very young age worked and bore a huge degree of family responsibility. The early American experience, Fass writes, created a formula or recipe that shifted the standard of what might be expected in the relationship between parents and children, a formula that emphasized children’s independence and limited parental control. In this respect, committing to a framework supporting children’s human rights should seem a logical outgrowth for the US. It is also notable that issues of education and child maltreatment were central components of the early child rights efforts in the US—and still are.

8.3.1.1

Child Labor Overview

Just as the Industrial Revolution got underway in England and spread to the US, so did the seeds of advancing the rights and protections of children. Children worked long hours for almost no pay in dangerous and dirty conditions. Some were chained to tables so they would not escape. Many were physically or psychologically abused. One can argue that children’s oppression during the Industrial Revolution spawned greater concern for children to be given rights. It also triggered impetus for their improvements during the US Progressive era (Hindman 2002; Schmidt 2010). Children also brought agency and creativity to their jobs, things that are seldom

8.3

Journey of Children’s Human Rights in the USA Across Time

187

discussed. They became more independent and in control of many aspects of their jobs (Humphries 2013; Tuttle 2022). This too led the way for children to demand more rights. Different types of child labor have existed across US history, including indentured servitude and child slavery. As industrialization moved workers from farms and home workshops into urban areas and factory work, children were often preferred, because factory owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike. Growing opposition to child labor in the North caused many factories to move to the South and by 1900, states varied in whether they had child labor standards and degree of enforcement. By then, American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. Enslaved children seldom had their work acknowledged as it was expected. When child education became standard in the US, it was primarily focused on obtaining spiritual values and good worker skills, things that adults wanted— compliant and productive children. As the US was colonized, European settlers brought with them political, religious, and philosophical beliefs (Metropolitan Museum of Art 2000). As an agricultural country, children were expected to work alongside their parents in traditional roles while enjoying a sense of freedom that would be considered dangerous or neglectful nowadays, according to Fass (2016). Children grew up rapidly and formed their own lives to a large degree. After the Civil War or if fathers died, many children were forced to live on the streets or find ways to survive on their own. Orphanages and orphan trains that sent homeless children West to find work and make their way were common. Children, including those with enslaved parents, sought education on their own (Fass 2016). By 1900 about 20% of all-American workers were under age 16. During the early 1900s, religious institutions were used by parents and authorities to keep children in line and not challenge authority (Marx and Engels 1948). The saying “spare the rod and spoil the child” became common practice. Hitting a child to keep them in line was a way to ensure children’s godly behavior. On the other hand, the recognition that children had value was present in the view that children were miracles or gifts from God. Parenting reinforced the idea that children should “be good for goodness sake,” for which there would be both spiritual salvation and social benefits. This meant that children should go to school, comply with requests from authorities (especially parents and teachers), behave in accordance with social norms, get a job, one day marry and have children. This would replicate the existing social order and keep society moving forward in a predictable direction. But in a changing young nation, there were those who questioned whether keeping everything the same was really that good—especially for women, children, and people of color. The state of Massachusetts passed the nation’s first child labor laws in the 1800s. They required children under age 15 to attend school for at least three months a year and limited young people to working “only” 10 hours a day in 1842. Massachusetts was the first state to pass other child protection rights, such as requiring in 1851 that adoptive parents be “fit”, and later requiring compulsory

188

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

schooling (Kibler 2020). This led to the eventual transitioning of children out of the workplace and into the classroom. Child newspaper boys mobilized in New York in 1899, formed a union to combat wage cuts imposed by newspaper barons. In 1902, US child laborers went on strike with adults to draw attention to child work in mining (McKechnie and Hobbs 1998). But these were isolated cases of children using their agency to fight for their rights, and Massachusetts was unique with its willingness to begin acting as a duty-bearer for them. Lives are hammered together by pieces of history; like building a house, children’s understanding of themselves and others gets constructed by how their floors, walls are built. There have been critical historical events that contribute to how children and childhood are perceived at this moment in time. The earlier chapter on global history found that children’s lives were differently constructed from agricultural days to the Industrial Revolution into today. Specific attention will now be paid to events in the United States and how they impact the development of children’s human rights.

8.3.2

Impact of the Suffragette and Progressive Movements on Child Rights

The Suffragette Movement of the mid-1800s represented not just the quest for women’s rights but also embodied the protection of children’s rights. Women have been strong advocates for children’s well-being across time and place. While Susan B. Anthony had no children, Elizabeth Cady Stanton did. Other women joined the movement to fight for rights, equality, and social justice, leading to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1870 (Dorr 1910; King et al. 2005; Miller 2008). The fight for “women and children’s rights” became seen as a singularity, but women’s rights are not necessarily children’s rights, nor are children’s rights necessarily women’s rights any more than they are men’s rights. Linking women and children together helped create a legacy of child-saving protection for children—history tells a story that black children in the US were not the group of children targeted for saving, rather, it was a largely a while, middleclass enterprise. Children, no matter who they are, are a separate entity, just as women are. Gender and race of children created different scripts for their value worth saving, just as today race and gender influence the kinds of treatments and opportunities one can expect to receive. Women’s issues are just that, and children’s issues pertain to the group of people known as children and no other group. Cook (2020) examined the history of motherhood and how it was linked with the social construction of childhood and perpetuated class conflict. Nineteenth century mothers meticulously managed their children’s needs and wants, pleasures and pains, through a material world. The result was the production of a “child” as a moral project and ultimately commercial objects or consumers. Mothers ecame in control about what was considered to be in good taste, how children should be disciplined or

8.3

Journey of Children’s Human Rights in the USA Across Time

189

punished, what they should eat, the toys they played with, and how they spent their time. White women used ‘child saving’ to elevate their own status and to define lower-class motherood as somehow different, and even deviant. The Progressive Era in the US (1890–1920) was a time of social activism designed to make life better for people and to end government corruption. Women took to the streets to demand rights, including the right to vote for women—and children. This spawned the beginning of a national child protection movement spearheaded by “child savers.” . There is a hearty literature about how the early child-savers were not just trying to save all child, but only some of them, and that the child-saving movement had larger moral and political agendas that may be antithetical to the lives of women who were not white, who were less affluent, and who lived within different cultural contexts. Child-saving even today remains a somewhat controversial topic, especially as it pertains to culture, class, and race (McNally 1981; Platt 1969; Wells 2015). Until ths child-saving movement, parents had sole responsibility for caring for children; although religious charities might have stepped in for children in desperate situations. But slowly responsibility for making sure children were safe, fed, clothed, and housed shifted to the government. This shift has never been smooth, as disagreements over “the best interests of the child” have occurred between parents (who view children as their property) and the state. Challenges over which groups of children the government should care for is reflected in debates over support for black, Native American, Asian, Latinx, immigrant, migrant and refugee children. Despite this tension, the early 1900s saw the creation of governmental and non-governmental organizations focused on child welfare, such as the Children’s Bureau and the Child Welfare League of America, as well as the passage of new legislation like a child labor amendment. The Progressive Movement had a huge impact on some children’s lives. For instance, the case of Mary Ellen Wilson of Hell’s Kitchen in New York became pivotal in the fight for child protection from abuse and the creation of a variety of child protection programs (Shelman 2005). The early 1900s in America was a time of increased child rights attention at the family, community, and federal levels and children were no longer seen just as property of parents but people who had rights on their own accord and that society had an obligation to help them. By 1910, 1150 institutions housed over 150,000 children in conditions that had been deemed deplorable. Child mortality claimed 25% of children. Only 8% of high school-age children were in school in 1900, and most of those only attended periodically. Childhood was increasingly seen as a distinct stage of life and regarded with more compassion concerning their vulnerability and potentiality. Social reformers and “child savers” emerged to combat problems of poverty, illness, abuse, delinquency, and child neglect (Yarrow 2009). The Progressive Movement of the early 1900s sought to reduce child labor, increase children’s education, and curtail maltreatment in all sectors of society. Laws restricting child labor were passed in some states, which led to federal child labor laws passed around 1916–1919. But Southern states and opposition from farm and church organizations feared increased federal power over children, and they

190

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

acted as roadblocks which influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to declare child labor laws as unconstitutional (Yarrow 2009). State enforcement of child labor laws varies to this day (History.com 2020). In another example of Progressive intention that was met with challenge, when Mary Ware Dennett (1918, 1931) wrote books to teach children how to be responsible when becoming sexually active, she was met with thanks by some people and accusations from others for teaching children to be obscene and immoral. This was a beginning of the fight over children’s sex education, a fight that continues today. The bifurcation of public views, then, towards children having the right to even control their own bodies has a long and touchy history. The Progressive Era supported greater protections for some children, but not all, depending on their demographics and backgrounds. It at least raised the conversation that children were deserving of the delivery of at least some human rights. Despite the social chaos presented by the wars and economic struggles, Postman (1994) alleges that the years of 1850–1950 were a “high-water mark of childhood“in the US. Children were not necessarily given rights, but they were given increased social attention. This was seen as important at both political and public levels. For instance, in children’s everyday lives, their birthdays became celebrated with gifts. Stores started selling children’s clothing. Books and toys specifically designed for children were created. Play was encouraged. Going to school became normative. Romantic era views were rekindled of childhood being seen as an idyllic time of innocence. The thought that children needed, and deserved, to be protected became acceptable to the general population. Whereas harsh punishment had once been the norm, child abuse became viewed as a social problem as children were perceived to be more valuable (Helfer 1988). Things looked like they were improving for children, especially when Presidents got involved.

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

One can argue whether social trends influence the selection of presidents or whether presidential agendas influence social trends. Clearly, they are related. There have been some stellar moments in history where US presidents stepped up and made a visible commitment to children’s well-being and the defense of children’s rights. The nation is at a pivotal point right now as it pertains to the degree to which it will defend children’s rights to provision, protection, and participation. All three are at stake. Provision is at the center of healthcare, education, food, and housing. Protection is central to gun control, school and community shootings, and child abuse. Participation is vital to children having a say in matters that pertain to them at the family, community, government, national, and even international level, as we have seen from access to healthcare to the fight to protect the environment. We must remember that the founding fathers did not address children’s rights, nor did presidents focus their initiatives on children per se—until Teddy Roosevelt took office. Thus the examination of presidential influence on children’s human rights

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

191

will begin with President Roosevelt and go forward through President Biden. What the next section shows is that when Presidents prioritize children, children’s lives and rights advance.

8.4.1

President Theodore Roosevelt

President from 1901–1909, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt had become aware that children’s issues had gained national attention. As pointed out earlier, many children were working in factories and had very challenging lives while others were coddled and well-cared for. According to Lindenmeyer (2020), activists Florence Kelley and Lillian Wald discussed the idea for a federal agency dedicated to children’s issues over breakfast one morning in 1903. They collaborated with the anti-child labor National Child Labor Committee which helped them to get private support from Roosevelt. He verbalized support but did not take the idea to Congress. In one of his final acts as President, he convened the first White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children in 1909. It focused on eliminating the institutionalization of neglected children and promoted the idea that children’s well-being should be addressed by families and private charities, not the government. Participants at the conference passed a resolution of support for the creation of a children’s federal agency (Yarrow 2009). It was not Teddy that was the major child advocate, but people behind the scene who moved children’s rights issues forward because he was not an obstacle to their promotion. Roosevelt’s administration was surely influenced by the 1900 book by Swedish social theorist Ellen Key, who had gained attention of people in the Progressive movement. Key focused on the rights, development, and well-being of children and maintained that motherhood was so crucial to society that the government, rather than husbands, should support women and children. She endorsed the creation of what has been called the Century of the Child, with state-supported legislation, resources, and protections for children (Johamesson 1995).

8.4.2

President Howard Taft

One of President Taft’s greatest accomplishments grew out of the White House Conference on children, the creation of the US Children’s Bureau. While the bureau is often credited to Roosevelt, he was in the process of leaving office and it was Taft’s administration that established it. It took three years after the Conference to get the Senate to establish the bureau by a vote of 54 to 20, and a House of Representatives approval of 177 to 17. Taft signed it in 1912 (Stat.L, 79) and placed the agency under the Department of Labor and was later moved under the Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration on Youth and Families.

192

8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Even though the Children’s Bureau was a federal agency, it had a tiny staff and minuscule budget of $25,640 and had to rely upon other agencies and volunteers in order to accomplish its mission. In 1913 the bureau found that the US had such a high infant mortality rate that the US was behind countries like New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Australia, Bulgaria, and Scotland. Over a hundred years later, our infant mortality rate is still behind them (America’s Health Ranking 2020; Lindenmeyer 2020). A national foster care program was created as a result of the Conference, adoption agencies were expanded, and some impoverished mothers were offered pensions to keep their families intact. In 1916 a federal child labor law was created that prevented the transfer of goods across state lines if minimum age laws were violated. But that law became declared unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart. Three years later the White House Conference on Standards of Child Welfare created a comprehensive report on the needs of children (UNICEF 2020a; Yarrow 2009).

8.4.3

President Woodrow Wilson

President from 1913–1921, in 1919 President Woodrow Wilson convened the second White House Conference on the Standards of Child Welfare. The first White House Conference on Children and Youth was held in 1909, followed by the creation of the Children’s Bureau, and these set the stage for Wilson’s administration to create the Children’s Year campaign (1918–1919). Wilson said “Next to the duty of doing everything possible for the soldiers at the front, there could be, it seems to me, no more patriotic duty than that of protecting the children who constitute one-third of our population” (Woodrow Wilson, Library of Congress, LC-USZC4-9867 Cb p 27). He declared 1919 the Children’s Year. It focused on setting standards for child and maternal health, labor, and needy children. Julia Lathrop advanced the idea that the federal government should provide states for educational programs that could reduce infant and maternal mortality. Wilson, who is famous for creating a League of Nations, worked to support children. He signed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 (also known as Wick’s Bill). It sought to address “the evils of child labor” by prohibiting the sale in interstate commerce of goods produced by factories that employed children under fourteen, mines that employed children younger than sixteen, and any facility where children under sixteen worked at night or more than eight hours daily. The basis for the law was the constitutional clause giving Congress the task of regulating interstate commerce. However, the Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional two years later in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251. Wilson was undoubtedly influenced by Eglantyne Jebb’s work in the UK. She has been credited with being first to identify children as subjects of rights rather than objects of concern. Jebb did charitable work during the Balkan War and outbreak of WWI, insisting that “all wars are waged against children”. She was the prime mover starting the Save the Children Movement in 1919 and the International Peace Union.

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

193

Save the Children was dedicated to child protection and operated under a Declaration of Child Rights, which became the first global charter protecting children’s rights. It was adopted without alteration by the League of Nations in 1924 as the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Ennew 2000a, b; Plattner 1984; Yarrow 2009). This declaration was the first human rights instrument approved by an international institution and enumerated rights such as the right of a hungry child to be fed, have a name, receive healthcare, and education. The Declaration articulates that all people owe children the right to: means for their development, both materially and spiritually; special help in times of need; priority for relief; economic freedom and protection from exploitation; and an upbringing that instills social consciousness and duty. “Backward” children must be helped, the delinquent child must be “reclaimed”, orphans and waifs must be sheltered. It demands that children must be the first to receive relief in times of distress. Children are also to be helped to ensure that they could earn a livelihood and “be protected against every form of exploitation”. The Preamble states that ‘Mankind owes to the Child the best it has to give’. The Geneva Declaration became fundamental to the advancement of future children’s human rights (Plattner 1984). Thus, under Wilson’s administration, there were both national and global efforts occurring trying to advance children’s rights. In 1924 the League of Nations adopted it and titled it the Geneva Declaration (also known as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child). It decreed that humanity owes children the best that it has to give and pointed out adults’ obligations to make sure all children were provided food, healthcare, aid, care (especially orphans and those who are “backward”, delinquent, or in distress). It also alleged that parents and the community were to protect all children, irrespective of race, nationality or creed, and assist their development, opportunities to earn a livelihood and help others. These actions led the way for the creation of the UNCRC.1

8.4.4

Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge

These presidents have no major historical record of advocating for children or their rights. Harding opposed the League of Nations, which did support human rights. Child labor continued to be a concern and in 1924, a proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution would have granted Congress the power to regulate child labor. It was approved by both houses and had popular support, but was not ratified by enough states, especially those in the southern part of the country, making it a moot issue, according to a 1934 issue of The Nation. They are examples of presidents whose administrations could have but did not catapult existing social momentum on behalf of children.

1

See the Articles for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child at http://www.ohchr.org/en/ professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

194

8.4.5

8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

President Herbert Hoover

President from 1929 to 1933, Herbert Hoover’s legacy is a complicated one. On one hand, people remember Hooverville’s, or the rise of shantytowns during the depression that resulted because of the lack of financial support for families. A multimillionaire during his time, some of his policies were regarded as racist. On the other hand, his food policies here and abroad gave him the nickname “the great humanitarian” and his legacy towards protecting children was better than most presidents. He reportedly had a soft spot for children, as he himself was orphaned before his tenth birthday. Throughout the 1920s he served as president of the American Child Health Association (ACHA) where he launched reports on infant mortality that challenged lawmakers to improve maternity hospitals, monitor milk supplies to ensure pasteurization. During his US presidency, Hoover convened the third White House Conference on Children in 1930. Its focus was to study the status of the health and well-being of children and what ought to be done in the areas of medical, public health, education, and disability. A nineteen-point Children’s Charter resulted from the conference that was an extension of the Child’s Bill of Rights that was first published by the ACHA in 1923. The Child’s Bill of Rights originally read: The ideal to which we should all strive is that there should be no child in America that has not been born under proper conditions, that does not live in hygienic surroundings, that ever suffers from undernourishment, that does not have prompt and efficient medical attention and inspection, that does not receive primary instruction in the elements of hygiene and good health, that has not the complete birthright of a sound mind in a sound body, that has not the encouragement to express in fullest measure the spirit within which is the final endowment of every human being. (Herbert Hoover Presidential Library).

It was adapted over time to read: THE CHILDREN’S CHARTER PRESIDENT HOOVER’S WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CHILD HEALTH AND PROTECTION RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AS THE FIRST RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP PLEDGES ITSELF TO THESE AIMS FOR THE CHILDREN OF AMERICA. FOR every child spiritual and moral training to help him to stand firm under the pressure of life II For every child understanding and the guarding of his personality as his most precious right III For every child a home and that love and security which a home provides; and for that child who must receive foster care, the nearest substitute for his own home IV For every child full preparation for his birth, his mother receiving prenatal, natal, and postnatal care; and the establishment of such protective measures as will make child-bearing safer V For every child health protection from birth through adolescence, including: periodical health examinations and, where needed, care of specialists and hospital treatment; regular dental examination and care of the teeth; protective and preventive

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

195

measures against communicable diseases; the insuring of pure food, pure milk, and pure water VI For every child from birth through adolescence, promotion of health, including health instruction and a health program, wholesome physical and mental recreation, with teachers and leaders adequately trained VII For every child a dwelling place safe, sanitary, and wholesome, with reasonable provisions for privacy, free from conditions which tend to thwart his development; and a home environment harmonious and enriching VIII For every child a school which is safe from hazards, sanitary, properly equipped, lighted, and ventilated. For younger children nursery schools and kindergartens to supplement home care IX For every child a community which recognizes and plans for his needs, protects him against physical dangers, moral hazards, and disease; provides him with safe and wholesome places for play and recreation; and makes provision for his cultural and social needs X For every child an education which, through the discovery and development of his individual abilities, prepares him for life; and through training and vocational guidance prepares him for a living which will yield him the maximum of satisfaction XI For every child such teaching and training as will prepare him for successful parenthood, homemaking, and the rights of citizenship; and, for parents, supplementary training to fit them to deal wisely with the problems of parenthood XII For every child education for safety and protection against accidents to which modern conditions subject him—those to which he is directly exposed and those which, through loss or maiming of his parents, affect him indirectly. XIII For every child who is blind, deaf, crippled, or otherwise physically handicapped, and for the child who is mentally handicapped, such measures as will early discover and diagnose his handicap, provide care and treatment, and so train him that he may become an asset to society rather than a liability. Expenses of these services should be borne publicly where they cannot be privately met XIV For every child who is in conflict with society the right to be dealt with intelligently as society’s charge, not society’s outcast; with the home, the school, the church, the court and the institution when needed, shaped to return him whenever possible to the normal stream of life XV For every child the right to grow up in a family with an adequate standard of living and the security of a stable income as the surest safeguard against social handicaps XVI For every child protection against labor that stunts growth, either physical or mental, that limits education, that deprives children of the right of comradeship, of play, and of joy XVII For every rural child as satisfactory schooling and health services as for the city child, and an extension to rural families of social, recreational, and cultural facilities XVIII To supplement the home and the school in the training of youth, and to return to them those interests of which modern life tends to cheat children, every

196

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

stimulation and encouragement should be given to the extension and development of the voluntary youth organizations XIX To make everywhere available these minimum protections of the health and welfare of children, there should be a district, county, or community organization for health, education, and welfare, with full-time officials, coordinating with a statewide program which will be responsive to a nation-wide service of general information, statistics, and scientific research. This should include: (a) Trained, full-time public health officials, with public health nurses, sanitary inspection, and laboratory workers (b) Available hospital beds (c) Full-time public welfare service for the relief, aid, and guidance of children in special need due to poverty, misfortune, or behavior difficulties, and for the protection of children from abuse, neglect, exploitation, or moral hazard. For EVERY child these rights, regardless of race, or color, or situation, wherever he may live under the protection of the American flag. Herbert Hoover, Message Endorsing the Children’s Charter. Obtained online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/212013 In sum, while President Hoover is often associated with the creation of Hooverville’s during the Depression, he made a significant contribution to the promotion of children’s human rights.

8.4.6

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

President Roosevelt, commonly referred to as FDR, was in office 1933–1945, during the start of World War II. He became president during a time when the nation was trying to deal with the impact of two world wars, an economic depression, and a great deal of global tension. Jobs were hard to find, people lost their homes, hunger and homelessness were commonplace, and in a time before birth control was available, there were too many mouths to feed for most parents to afford. This sometimes led to people selling their children. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act and in 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of his New Deal. These policies outlawed many forms of child labor and supported youth employment, daycare, education, maternity laws, and job creation. FDR is known to have said that we can never ensure 100% of the population against 100% of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but he tried to frame a law that would give some protection to the average citizen and family against the loss of a job and old-age ridden with poverty. Programs like the National Youth Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration were created, along with Titles I and III of the acts provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, but Title IV was designated to help not all families and children, but those deemed to be needy families and children. It created

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

197

what would become an Aid for Families with Dependent Children program and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Title V was for “crippled” children’s services, maternal and child health, and welfare assistance, but eventually became aid for the care of homeless, dependent, delinquent, and neglected children. In 1939 the government held a White House Conference on Children in a Democracy (Yarrow 2009). His wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, was a world leader in the promotion of human rights. (Yarrow 2009). She drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is now printed in over 370 languages and is the centerpiece for other human rights treaties. She was a co-founder of the Citizen’s Committee for Children in New York and regarded as a champion for the underdogs of the world, those afflicted by poverty, tyranny, disease, and dislocation. She was instrumental in the development of many of the New Deal programs that the FDR administration implemented that improved the lives of children and their families. He proposed a Second Bill of Rights to support individuals and families in the US, but died before being able to implement it. This Second Bill of Rights is described in Part IV of this book. In sum, the FDR administration created a national safety net to shore up families who were suffering from the Great Depression of the 1930s. This was motivated by economic concerns, but there was also a substantial commitment to a variety of human rights issues through the New Deal and UDHR that impacted children. Both FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt have gone down in history as major advocates for human rights.

8.4.7

Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower

These two were WWII presidents, with Truman serving 1945–1953 during the war, and Eisenhower (a war hero general) serving the nation post-war from 1953–1961. Those were difficult days for the country and their national priorities were on winning, and recovering from, the war. Survival of the country and the citizens were at stake. There were economic and civil rights initiatives, but in the pecking order of priorities, children’s human rights were not one of them—but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t support for them. Behind the scenes, there was a lot going on regarding the way children were perceived and treated. The period from 1945 to the present is referred to as the postmodern era. Federal actions pertaining to children continued during the 1940s, but to a lesser degree. In 1944 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Prince v. Massachusetts that parental authority can be limited by the government in the interest of a child’s welfare. If parents weren’t attending to the safety, food, housing, and care of their children, the children could be removed. It was in the 1940s that the international community undertook greater actions on behalf of the human rights of children. In 1946 the United Nation’s General Assembly established UNICEF as the international children’s emergency fund. It

198

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This consisted of 30 articles that detail individual rights such as the right to life, prohibition of slavery, freedom of thought, and mentioned in Article 25, paragraph 2, that special care should be given to both mothers and children and that all children are entitled to the same social protections and assistance. The 1950 Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth gathered representatives from every state and 460 private organizations, and for the first-time young people. The purpose of that conference was to explore how the necessary mental, emotional, and spiritual qualities may be developed in children and how favorable economic, physical, and social conditions could be assured to attain individual happiness and citizenship. In 1959 the UN adopted an extended version of the Geneva Declaration of Human Rights of Child to provide children more assistance, especially in the areas of education, play, healthcare, and supportive environments. But as child rights scholar Michael Freeman (2000) notes, while the 1959 statement was broader, its emphasis was still on protection and welfare, or social investments. There is no recognition that children have agency, the right to participate in society or decisions that impact them, no acknowledgement of their empowerment or the importance of children’s views. The declaration was by President Eisenhower (Yarrow 2009).

8.4.8

Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

In many ways, it is hard to talk about this time period without combining their impact. Kennedy was president (1961–1963) and Johnson was his vice-president who became president when Kennedy was assassinated early in his term in Dallas, Texas. Johnson later won the presidency on his own (1963–1969) and created what are called The Great Society programs. During this time period, civil rights were the focus, along with protection from Communist countries. These were golden years for human rights in the US. Kennedy’s New Frontier initiatives were designed to open horizons for all citizens, including children. His administration was very successful in passing bills in Washington to create infrastructure programs and to promote civil rights. Schools had been racially segregated, along with businesses and the rest of society, and Black children were educated in schools that were separate but not equal. When integration was ordered by law, those who opposed it assaulted and killed innocent children. In order to go to school under Governor George Wallace’s regime in Alabama, children needed governmental protections. The Civil Rights movement was multifaceted and opened the doors for women’s rights, education rights, reproductive rights, criminal justice rights, and age rights. Under Johnson’s administration, Head Start was developed to fight inequality and to support young learners so they would have greater chances for success. The 1960s in the United States was a period of significant cultural change and support for civil rights particularly of African Americans, women, people with

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

199

disabilities, and the elderly. This cultural context also supported more attention to children’s rights. The 1960s White House Golden Anniversary for Children and Youth conference was held. Programs like Head Start and Special Olympics were born. Public television and support for children’s shows like Sesame Street emerged. President Kennedy called upon Congress to create a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatrician Henry Kempe’s identification of “the battered child syndrome” triggered a national initiative to prevent child abuse (Kempe et al. 2013). In 1965 US Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas wrote a majority decision in Kent v United States on evaluating juvenile court procedures. In 1967 the court delivered the In re Gault decision that stated the 14th Amendment’s due process clause applies to juvenile defendants, and in 1969 the landmark Tinker v Des Moines decision defined First Amendment rights of students in public schools. Also, in 1966, with the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Member States promise to uphold equal rights—including education and protection—for all children. The movement towards realizing child rights in the 1960s was successfully pushing forward (UNICEF 2020a; Yarrow 2009). President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs created a safety net for families and significant financial investments were put into programs to reduce poverty, hunger and homelessness, to address racial segregation, gender equality, education, health, safety, and well-being of the nation. His Great Society programs included a war on poverty, civil rights, unemployment assistance, education support for all ages, Medicaid and Medicare health reforms, Social Security benefits, welfare, support for arts and humanities, support for the environment, transportation, public broadcasting, housing, consumer protections, labor, and public works, to name just a few. They produced major benefits in the health, education, and quality of life for the nation. Experts I have interviewed indicate that if funding and governmental support had continued for the Great Society programs had continued, inequality would have been drastically reduced and the nation would not be in the domestic pickle that we are now. As history shows us, just because one presidential administration supports children, families, and human rights, there is no guarantee that another one will do the same.

8.4.9

Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford

The presidencies of these men must be studied together. Nixon, president from 1969–1974, was impeached so Vice-President Ford took the reins from 1974–1977. Child rights efforts nationally during the 1970s slowed, but Congress did pass the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 and established a national Center on Child Abuse, the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect and the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Four years later it passed the Indian Child Welfare Act that provided tribal governments jurisdiction on children living on their reservations. Internationally, the International Labor

200

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Organization (ILO) adopted Convention 128 in 1973 which set 18 as the minimum age for undertaking work that could be hazardous to health, safety or morals, and in 1974 the UN General Assembly passed a declaration to protect women and children during armed conflict. This does not mean that Nixon was a fan of child rights or provisions. For instance, in 1971, Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act on a bipartisan vote, but Nixon refused to sign it (Cohen 2012). The literature indicates that people were quite surprised that Nixon had turned cold-hearted towards pursuing child development programs that would otherwise have been funded (Karch 2013) and torpedoed education reforms (Schroeder 2018). Nixon undertook a war on drugs and efforts to curtail youthful sexuality and teen pregnancy. Curbing delinquency was also a concern. But so was increasing support of health efforts, like promoting child immunizations. Under President Richard Nixon in 1970, the last White House Conference on Children was held. The theme of that conference was to enhance and cherish the individuality and identity of each American child through recognition and encouragement of their development. Regional conferences in six cities also occurred (Michael and Goldstein 1997). There have been no White House Conferences on Children and Youth since. After Gerald Ford took office, it has been difficult to find threads that indicate he was active in initiative child well-being in general. While reports indicate he was a “nice guy”, there is no evidence that I could find that showed he was a staunch defender of children’s human rights.

8.4.10

President Jimmy Carter

When Carter was president (1977–1981), he did promote human rights, particularly the right to be free from government violation of the integrity of the person; the right to fulfill vital needs such as food, shelter, and education; and civil and political rights. His administration increased awareness of human rights concerns by connecting human rights to the execution of U.S. foreign policy. He also supported children’s human rights. In a speech urging U.S. leaders to ratify the CRC, he announced that he and his wife tried to end the juvenile death. He stated, The United States is seen as the most prominent world leader. . .yet, by not supporting the UN Convention, other countries see that the United States does not have an intense commitment to the rights of children (Death Penalty Information Center 2003).

Carter also announced a commitment to make the International Year of the Child a success (American Presidency Project 2023). However, his administration will not be remembered as being successful in implementing national children’s human rights provisions. After Carter’s presidency, he has continued his commitment to human rights through the Carter Center. It focuses on training human rights

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

201

defenders, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and protection of the rights of women and girls.

8.4.11

President Ronald Reagan

In office from 1981–1989, Reagan has gone down in history with a bifurcated image. He is beloved by conservatives while progressives find his policies cut many social safety net programs that have resulted in increased economic inequality, poverty, and misery for millions of people. He has not gone down as a protector of children’s human rights; indeed, the opposite may be more accurate. If it can be argued that he protected human rights, they focused on religion, the rights of businesses and wealthy individuals, free speech, international travel, and his relations with the international community, particularly the Soviet Union. His legacy is that he had a double-standard on human rights (Park 1983). Many of the existing social problems that face American families and children today were caused by President Reagan’s policies and philosophy (Dreier 2011; Kinsley 2014). In the latter years of his administration, he attempted to turn around his negative role with human rights, but his turnaround was too late (Jacoby 1986). His commitment to the human rights of children or their families is negligible, or worse.

8.4.12

President Bill Clinton

During Clinton’s 1993–2001 presidency, there was an opportunity to ratify the CRC but it was only signed and never implemented. While there were political reasons for the failure to ratify it, this was a moment in time that failed to be actualized. Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act was put forward but he couldn’t secure universal healthcare for children. His program to end welfare was either ineffective (Carcasson 2006) or as Peter Edelman (1997) points out, “the worst thing” he did, and his actions hurt children and families instead of helping them (Bury 2000; Matthews 2016). He had promised that his administration would put human rights first, but it is argued by historians that this did not occur (Bernstein and Dicker 1994). The Clinton Administration launched a number of initiatives to enhance child and family well-being, ameliorate poverty in low-income families, and expand educational opportunities for children and youth. Clinton also convened a 1997 White House conference calling for expanded child care. His administration passed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The White House published a lengthy list of his accomplishments, but they were all focused on parents and families. They did not directly address children as rights-bearers or support rights defenders. Some people interviewed for this book indicate that his inability to move a child rights agenda forward wasn’t his fault, since around 1994 the nation to a sharp curve to the right.

202

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

The United Nations became a particular target for suspicion and irritation for conservatives, who embraced an America First orientation that angered at the idea of outside, international interference in domestic affairs. Conservatives did not want anyone to tell the US what it could, and could not, do. The US refused to ratify a variety of human rights treaties and UN initiatives as a result. While the US has not ratified the CRC, it did sign two optional protocols to it, one on protection of children from involvement in armed conflicts and from sale, prostitution and pornography. So Clinton is going down in history with a two-pronged reputation for both supporting children’s issues, and his failure to do so with the CRC and creating legislation that hurt families’ ability to care for their children.

8.4.13

The Bush Presidencies

This father-son presidential team does not have a stellar children’s human rights history but their administrations did achieve some notable child legislation. After seven decennial White House Conferences on Children, none were held in the decades after 1970. Despite President Carter’s campaign promise for a 1980 conference, funding only was allocated for state conferences, which were held by 47 states in 1981. Similarly, legislation reauthorizing Head Start in 1990 called for a White House conference, but funding was never made available. Nonetheless, President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993) convened a 1989 White House and governors’ summit on education—but not child rights per se. Reacting to the Carnegie Commission’s A Nation at Risk (1983) report on American children’s poor academic performance, the Bush Administration created a federal set of National Educational Goals. President George W. Bush’s (2001–2009) landmark legislation was his Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 focused on improving education, ostensibly for “minority” students. It was not adequately funded and was heavily criticized for forcing schools to “teach to the test” instead of providing critical thinking skills and highquality education (Duignan 2021). Bush signed HR 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and the Child Soldier’s Accountability Act, which makes it a federal crime to recruit or use soldiers under age 15. He also signed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to stop trafficking persons, which became the root of unaccompanied minors at the Mexico border during the Obama administration. He also advocated for school choice, which was embraced by some citizens but criticized by others because it took taxpayer money so entitled people didn’t have to pay as much out of their pockets for private schools or charter schools that aren’t available and accessible for all students. The Bush legacy will likely not go down in history for being known as children’s human rights defenders.

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

8.4.13.1

203

Note on Regan, GHW Bush, and the CRC

The Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations actively contributed to negotiating the CRC treaty’s text. Under these two Republican Presidencies, the US made textual recommendations for 38 of the 40 substantive law articles and contributed more new provisions than any other country. The US contingent helping to draft the CRC included a variety of government officials for both political parties, and knowledgeable outsiders, such as Cynthia Pierce Cohen. It must be remembered that the US Constitution was a model for the CRC, and that US government representatives contributed significantly to the construction of the entire Convention on the Rights of the Child. All countries who helped craft the CRC articles, US included, agreed to every Article in the treaty. The US submitted initial proposals for these CRC Articles: Freedom of Expression (Article 12)—States Parties shall ensure to the child who is capable of forming their own views, the right to express those views, freely and on all matters affecting the child. Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, and Expression (Article 13)—The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Freedom of Religion (Article 14) -States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. States Parties shall respect the right of the parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in the manner consistent with their evolving capacities. Freedom of Association and Assembly (15)—States Parties recognize the rights of children to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. The US also made major contributions to Article 10 on Family reunification, Article 16, Right to Privacy (protection from attacks on family, privacy and home), Article 17 on access to information that enhances well-being, Article 19 on Protection for Abuse and Neglect, Article 24 on healthcare, Article 25 regarding Periodic Review of Treatment (i.e. foster care, alternative placement, etc.), Article 27 regarding assurance of a decent standard of living, Articles 28 and 29 regarding Education, Article 31 about children’s right to leisure and recreation, and Article 36 on children’s freedom from exploitation. The CRC was negotiated by consensus by all member countries, not just a few. The US did support the development of the CRC, which motivated other nations to as well. At the time that the Convention on the Rights of the Child was proposed to the General Assembly, some countries argued that children did not need a special treaty to protect their rights because existing international human rights treaties already protected those rights, such as the UDHR, Geneva Convention or the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (aka Women’s Convention). Some argue that the Women’s Convention applies to all females, and therefore, it also protects the interests of the girl child. (Cohen 1989). This attitude has prevailed in contemporary discussions of whether children need to have an official law or treaty to protect them. This directly addresses the issue of children

204

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

as property. If children are property of parents, then their parents are seen to have an obligation to protect their children in every capacity. When children are seen as extensions of their mothers, if women have rights, then children are assumed to automatically have them because their mothers do. Whether women have rights in 2022 is a highly debatable topic (Gardinier 2022). The US signed the treaty in 1995. No President has yet to submit it to the Senate.

8.4.14

President Barack Obama

Child rights advocates anticipated that President Barack Obama (2009–2017) would send the CRC forward to Congress for review and potential ratification, but these things did not happen. Through interviews with people who were knowledgeable about this situation, Obama decided to first push forward a constitutional amendment supporting people with disabilities and thought that given an endorsement by Senator Bob Dole, who had a disability, it would go through. It did not. Informal reports indicate that Obama felt that if he could not get a disabilities amendment passed, those chances were slim that the more contested child rights amendment would pass. When Donald Trump became president and before Obama left office, it became clear that there would be no chance of endorsing children’s rights legislation under Trump and child rights advocates were hopeful that Obama would seize the moment and push forward the CRC, at least into Senate Committee for review. For a variety of political reasons, he did not. President Barack Obama had a broad agenda of policies geared toward children and families. These included proposals to extend the FMLA, expand child care and preschool, and strengthen fatherhood as part of bolstering families. Obama also called for broadening and strengthening the recruitment pool for K-12 teachers, increasing after-school programs, and expanding tax credits to make college more affordable. SCHIP was expanded, and the Administration’s broader healthcare reform proposals were intended to increase cost-effective access to health care to all Americans, young and old. The economic crisis that began in 2008 and the 2009 federal stimulus package posed roadblocks and opportunities for an ambitious childpolicy agenda, given both fiscal constraints and calls for “investment” in school buildings, teachers, and children’s education, and health. His wife, Michelle Obama, supported good nutrition and exercise for children in an attempt to motivate the nation to reduce children’s tendency towards obesity and sedentary lifestyles. Experts predict that the Obama legacy will go down as one that supported children and families (Center for Law and Social Policy 2022). He expanded health insurance for children with 1.7 million children gaining coverage, child poverty was reduced, disparities for children of color were addressed, as were employment issues for parents. But his initiatives in childcare, Head Start, youth development, and career opportunities did not receive Congressional funding. While support for some provision programs was thus addressed, a children’s human rights agenda was not.

8.4

Presidential Child Rights Initiatives

8.4.15

205

President Donald Trump

Some presidents scored high in children’s rights protections, and some scored so-so. None scored as poorly with respect to defending children’s human rights as Donald Trump. His violations were so significant and frequent that the Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute (2021) developed a Trump Administration Human Rights Tracker. Scholars have found that his administration has undone many pre-existing government programs essential for children’s health, housing, caregiving, medical care, and safety. Black, indigenous, and immigrant children and families were disproportionately targeted for what is called systematic institutional child abuse. Instead of defending children’s human rights, Trump increased food insecurity for children, left millions of children without healthcare insurance, engaged in strategic separation and abuse of immigrant families so severe that it was labeled as torture, increasing homelessness and housing insecurity, bungling the COVID epidemic in multiple ways (testing, vaccines, jobs, the economy, schools, education, safety, etc.) (ACLU 2020; Amnesty International 2020; Robinson et al. 2020; Soboroff 2020; Vissing 2021a, b).

8.4.16

President Joe Biden

It is too early to know what President Biden’s legacy will be, but McQuaid (2021) observes that he is taking a human rights perspective to domestic issues such as housing, education, healthcare, childcare, and economic support for families. There are also concerns about his immigration policies, especially those concerning people coming across the Mexico border. His child tax credit program is predicted to slash child poverty, cutting it by as much as half, and help support social mobility for parents (Pulliam and Reeves 2021). Some people view these Congressional actions to reflect a child rights agenda while others think they have not gone nearly far enough to achieve that goal (Congress.gov 2021). While the tax breaks may help some families, evictions are now occurring that will throw countless children and families into homelessness (Benfer et al. 2021b; Newman 2021), again showing the lack of a comprehensive system designed to care for all children. Biden’s infrastructure plans to help provide aid to families, at the time of this writing, is uncertain to be passed. One can say that under President Biden there have been child advocacy measures undertaken that would support many aspects of a children’s human rights framework. Advancing the CRC directly does not seem to be one of them, but his Build Back Better program advanced many of the articles within the CRC. It did not pass, but Congress passed his Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or Inflation Reduction Act, which has components that will strength the economy, healthcare affordability, and climate protection.

206

8

History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

We have seen that many presidents announce they are going to pursue children’s issues, but their administrations either fail to do so or their successes are lukewarm. Thus, we must wait and see.

8.5

Framing History Today

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow are all interrelated. One directly influences the other. Ten minutes ago is now history; history is always being made at the current moment. Despite rhetoric to the contrary and despite some noteworthy advances, the past century has been a failed one when it comes to children’s human rights protections in the United States (Sealander 2003). The next century could be better—if we decide to defend children’s human rights. A truth is that history is being written today. Every decision we make sets into motion a set of expected, and unexpected, reactions. This is why the frame that we decide to use is of utmost importance. Major developments in children’s status and access to rights have slowly started to occur. We can observe the changes. One has been a shift towards seeing children as more than the property of their parents, although there is still a lot of variation around this. Another has been a shift from children being regarded as valueless objects to beings worthy of protection. A third has been a move towards seeing children as citizens with participation rights; a fourth concerns improving the standards of what it means to have an adequate or good life for children (Ruck et al. 2016). We can see it even in parenting strategies related to child rights that have been popularized in recent years, from how to be a Tiger Mom (Chua 2011) or freerange parent (Skenary 2010).

8.5.1

The Fight Over Whether to Keep the Past

Simple questions loom, when we think about history, the present, and the future. Was the past so good that we want to keep it as the standard for the future? Are there things that we wished were different when we were children that we now have a chance to fix? What now as adults do we see differently, and how does that influence what we want the future to be like for children? What do we want the future to look like for us, for our children, and our children’s children? The Make America Great Again movement is a prime example of choosing to live in the past instead of the future—or perhaps more aptly making the future a mirror image of the past. “Make America Great Again is 100 percent nostalgia, like there was some golden era that we left behind. . . .backward looking for the 21st century” (Cottle and Brooks 2022). A central problem with a nostalgia-embracing view like this is that it is trying to standardize and normalize a time that didn’t really exist for the majority of people (Coontz 2016). It is an illusion that the past seems better than the present; in the past, people didn’t necessarily find their reality to all that

8.5

Framing History Today

207

rewarding (Buckley 2020). There are few children who think their lives are so great at the present moment that they want to relish those moments for the rest of their lives and replicate them for their own children (Richtel 2022; Thompson 2022). There are many people who advocate for keeping childhood as it was and helping children to seize their access to it, like Christakis (2016), who argues in The Importance of Being Little that childhood is a valuable stage of life that is important for children’s development. They view that forcing children out of it too fast is neither in their nor society’s best interest. It’s time to “take back childhood”, according to Nancy Carlsson-Paige (2009), who helps parents to assist their children to survive “a fast-paced, media-saturated, violence-filled world.” Her view resonates with others who are concerned that children are becoming exposed to violence in hyper-sexualized, video-infused, materialistic, lifestyle that leaves little time for relaxation or play (Levin 2013). Scholars such as Buckingham, Neil Postman, and David Elkind question whether childhood as a structural stage is obsolete since children’s lives have become more adultified, especially with the disappearance of play, increased use of technology and importance of success. Buckingham (2010:65) observes that “the claim that childhood has been lost has been one of the most popular laments of the. . .twentieth century.” Some adults think children are “growing up too fast,” as if there was some natural pace at which children “should” grow. Elkind’s work on The Hurried Child (1991) who is All Grown Up and No Place to Go (1998), proposes that parents, teachers, and other adults push children toward a path of adult-oriented behaviors. In his 1982 book, The Disappearance of Childhood, Postman agrees that what we define as “childhood“is a modern phenomenon. He alleges that technological changes drive changes in structure, culture, and the lives of children; childhood and children’s social position is directly related to changes in technology. From the printing press to the internet, Postman identifies both positive and negative changes of technology, and finds that while technology may be designed for a specific purpose it has unintended consequences. This includes the fact that children of all ages and locations today have access to the same information as adults. Technology is evening the playing field between children and adults. Many children make inventions and contributions that equal or rival those of their elders. The internet levels the playing field between children and adults and challenges the authority and function of traditional relationships power relationships (like in the family) and institutions (like schools). “Adulthood has lost much of its authority and aura, and the idea of deference to one who is older has become ridiculous” (Postman 1994:133). Just as the printing press changed children’s social positioning, so is the technology of today leading to new shifts. Children’s access to technology has both benefits and challenges. Children are exposed to media and adult material they come to view as their own, and have wide access to information in a multiplicity of ways that adults can no longer control. Children cannot escape grappling with adult-type issues so helping children to better cope with them is a newer approach than trying to ‘go back to the good ole’ days’. The question of the status of children and their rights in the 21st century continues to be one of debate and disagreement. We know that children need parents and

208

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

adults, they need love and care, and are dependent upon them in every way when they are young. Their need for care and the obligation for parents to do a good job caring for children does not negate children’s needs to have rights. These are confusing times and to question what is childhood today and what rights children have.

8.5.2

The Need for Changing the Frame

Our historical journey leaves us with many ways to contemplate the future for children. Long ago a person was considered to either be an infant or an adult; there was no in-between category, no childhood or adolescence. Children participated in most of the same activities as adults, as seen in work and play and even dressed in smaller versions of adult attire. There were no distinctive interpersonal, special, or material items designated specifically as the territory of children. Today children’s lives are different. Our expectations for them are too. While there may be many treasured aspects of the past that are worthy to keep, what seems clear is that children’s demographic, family background, lifestyle, relationships, knowledge, and needs are different than they were in the past. This fact requires that as caring adults and a caring society, we must explore ways to ensure that they survive and thrive. Until the last 50 years, the notion of affording children equal rights or human rights was not a topic of discussion. It was only about a hundred years ago that this issue was introduced for serious global and scholarly consideration. History shows us that change is the name of the game. We are currently in the midst of a significant redefinition of children and childhood. As Beck and Lau assert (2005:525) All around the world society is undergoing radical change—radical in the sense that it poses a challenge to Enlightenment-based modernity and opens up a space in which people choose new and unexpected forms of the social and the political.

Giroux (2019) points out that the experiences and realities of children today are dramatically different than those of generations before. Young people are faced with different challenges and opportunities than their forebearers. The future will likely unfold in dramatic ways yet unseen. Social media and technology are having profound impacts on young people’s perceptions of themselves and others. Institutions such as schools, families, and governments are being directly and indirectly changed as a result. As we will see in following chapters, the structure and format of education are changing; the monogamous heterosexual nuclear family is no longer the norm, and around the world young people are engaging in political actions that are changing the face of their societies. The adultified, Western, middle-class view no longer reflects young people’s realities. All indications are that childhood will continue to be redefined and change in the days ahead. It is unclear how smooth or bumpy the journey to that undefined destination will be. Scholars encourage us to look at how culture and historical factors shape the way lives and experiences of children and youth are being shaped in the present.

8.5

Framing History Today

209

Aries (1962) indicates that the separation of children from adults, and childhood from adulthood, has not necessarily improved the lives of young people. The move from the amorphous, disorganized and undisciplined nature of medieval childhood to the tightly structured, controlled, monitored and regulated reality children face today crystalizes the shift away from children being part of the larger social collective. He sees this bifurcation as part of other cultural changes that have separated people by race, gender, social class, and other arbitrary designations. He argues that older societies accepted the mixing of widely different social groups. The worlds of people across the age span flowed into the lives of others. But this is not so in modern society. Rather, there are worlds of babies, toddlers, primary schoolers, teens, adults, and the elderly. Dividing people up by age “provides each a way of life with a confined space in which it is understood that the dominant features should be respected and that each person has to resemble a conventional model, an ideal type” (Aries 1962:415). The segregation of people into specific age cohorts with attributional behavioral expectations, from babyhood through old age, is a new and perhaps unhelpful creation of contemporary society. Children historically are regarded as objects, not beings of their own accord not, and seldom as potential adults (Hunt 2007). Children’s primary responsibility throughout history has been to be workers and do work that will benefit the family. Throughout the world and different religions, there was a moral assumption that children should not be lazy or disobedient and these assumptions became integrated into law and normative behavioral expectations (Sterns 2016). Histories of child rights are based on what adults have done and should do for children. They do not provide information about actions children might have taken toward their own selfdetermination. As the historical record has been almost entirely in the hands of adults, this is not surprising (Ennew 2000a, b). Those who lament the troubles of contemporary youth seldom own how adults have contributed to them. Henri Giroux (2019), who is regarded as one of the top fifty thinkers in contemporary society (Palmer 2002), has written extensively about youth and cultural change and argues that childhood needs to be understood historically, since the contextual site or framework within which childhood becomes defined alters over time. The “politics of culture” influences how childhood is constructed, experienced, and struggled over. He finds that while the school served as the principal site of cultural production during the previous century, in the twentyfirst century the media and leisure industries are shaping definitions of childhood and youth. His provocative work explores how youth have become social targets for exploitation from schools to police violence to terrorism. His research is grounded in analyses of how global historical factors are shaping their understanding of, and expectations for the future of children (Giroux and Evans 2015). He alleges that youth today are viewed as a “disposable population” and notes their lack of access to a strong economic future, not being given access to meaningful political participation, high unemployment, high student debt, increased victimization of violence and surveillance leads to their rage, despair, and hopelessness. Zygmunt Bauman asserts this marginalization of children and youth is the first time in which the “plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation” (Bauman 2012). He insists that

210

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

today’s youth have been “cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent” (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged place in the US that was offered to previous generations. They now are more likely to anticipate a future that is indeterminate, bleak, and insecure, which makes them ripe for recruitment into terrorist or violent activities. That version is a pretty bleak picture of the future for young people, but data consistently shows that inequality has been a consistent theme in historical analyses of children’s lives and it has never yielded anything good for them, despite adult rhetoric like “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. The future may look sunny for a handful of children from resourced backgrounds, but for the majority, the clouds are building as fires and floods lay ahead. Our purpose, as historians, is not simply to describe—however ‘objectively’— past cultures, it is to unmask the hidden and apparently ‘natural’ structures of inequalities that existed (and continue to exist) between adults and children, to show how these affected the latter as historical subjects, to examine their influence on the evolution of age relations and to illustrate their significance for the varying concepts of childhood (Hendrick 1997:46). History shows us as populations have grown and there is increased geographic and social mobility, ideas were exchanged and people designed new ways to communicate information and help each other. Perceptions of childhood have changed, as have our views about obligations of adults, community leaders and social systems. We see the shift of how differently children have been viewed, from Locke’s notion of children as a blank slate to be written upon, the Puritan idea that children had original sin that must be contained, Aries’ allegation that children were small adults all gave parents power and control over children, to Zelizer’s observation that children may be emotionally priceless but each has a price according to those who were in charge of investing in children (Fass 2016; Mintz 2004; Present Age 1936). There have been times that children have been treated the same as adults and times when they have been categorized in ways that put them into separate categories where their rights have been violated or defended. We are at a curious moment in time in which human rights issues and the role of children in contemporary society are debated by both the public and politicians. The current rise of a children’s human rights movement is an outgrowth of a variety of intersecting social, political, and ideological factors. Children’s rights in the US has not been an overt issue until recent years. But for children, rights have always been a clear and present reality they had to grapple with. The way we frame children and childhood influences everything we think and do. This is why it is very useful to take a longitudinal view of children’s rights. It is also useful to take a global view of children, perceptions of childhood, and what rights get afforded to children. As we leave this chapter, we must wonder if the concept of childhood outlived its utility and needs to be changed. This question looms as student survivors of a school shooting in Florida demand that lawmakers change laws to protect their rights to be safe (Burch 2018). Young people from around the country are joining what can be seen as a youth rights movement (Vissing 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in latent consequences that have given

8.6

Summary

211

rise to a larger human rights debate on multiple fronts. There is significant debate about how government, social systems, adults, and young people will respond to this watershed event.

8.6

Summary

History shows how frameworks shape the way that both individuals and organizations view and treat children. We see that going from hunting-and-gathering peoples through current day society, our perceptions of children and their rights have changed. As clinical sociologists, it is apparent at both the macro and micro levels; changes at one moment influence others, changes at the social level impact individuals, and vice-versa. What childhood is “supposed” to be like all depends on what time period of history, what group of children we’re talking about, and who’s doing the talking (Heywood 2001). In Colonial days of the US, children were thought to have original sin but during the Enlightenment, children were regarded as innocents. Sometimes children were thought to be animalistic yet in the Renaissance they were depicted by artists like Sandro Botticelli as angelic (Jarman 2020; Lupton 2012). In affluent Western homes, children may have plenty to eat, toys to play with, attend school, have good healthcare, and be cherished. Childhood is a sweet time of life for some children. But there are those that we prefer not to think about—abused, exploited, sad, and oppressed children. History is filled with stories of ten-year-olds working as servants, soldiers, cabin boys, domestic helpers, in fields, factories, mines and mills; enslaved children owned by others; young girls in forced marriages and subjected to unthinkable forms of oppression and discrimination; and First Nation children subjected to disease, or refugee children separated at the border from parents and communities (Brown 2006, 2018a, b, c). What childhood “is” tends to vary considerably. There have been times when childhood has been brutally hard and children were regularly exploited; times in which children have been expected to do little except play and have their every-need met by doting adults; times when the line between childhood and adulthood was virtually invisible, and times when we might wonder if there is such a thing as childhood at all. The lives of children then, as well as today, are not the same. Going back in time, there were periods when children were seen as equals to adults, doing the same tasks with the same obligations and privileges or punishments. Children experienced much equality as part of the American experience of independence and the quest for democracy. Human rights for children were part of the original America experiment in many ways, even if not codified in formal documents. While deemed incomplete adults, they were to spend the period that has become known as childhood to learn requisite skills for adult life. Children have not always been seen as human rights holders as a social group. Indeed, the human rights agenda itself is a relatively recent historical phenomenon that different groups

212

8 History of Children’s Human Rights in the USA

have sought to seize across time. Demographics of the nation and world’s children are changing in ways that require greater attention to their rights. Social, economic, and environmental pressures abound. Technology and communication systems have changed the way we interact with each other and how we think. Every social institution, including the family, education, social services, and government, are in flux. If we stay framed in the past or stare at our feet refusing to move from where we are standing at this moment, we will not be able to move forward to address where children need us, as caring adults, to chart the course for their future. We can learn from the past to wisely configure how we will construct childhood and build the future.

Chapter 9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Children are not a zoo of entertainingly exotic creatures, but an array of mirrors in which the human predicament leaps out at us. John Updike

9.1

Introduction

When we consider how children are framed in the US, we know that history, belief, bias, and experience all matter. When we are not sure what to think, we have been taught to do research and read what scholars have to say. As this pertains to the issue of children’s human rights, scholars are not immune from the dominant cultural biases and narratives pertaining to children. Scholars set the standard for how we are to think about something, be it mathematical concepts, our understanding of geography, or human behavior. Their use of theory, scientific inquiry, research methodology, and analysis of data has been used throughout history to elevate our understanding of phenomena. Higher education has been a very important contributor to our understanding of who children are and what they are capable of doing. Scholars are not immune from dominant narratives about children. The conceptual framework we choose to understand what children are and the way their rights have evolved depends on the different ways that scholars have conceptualized them. Part of the problem facing the issue of child rights is the way we have not been taught to understand either children or human rights. Ferguson (2019) argues that there is a big theory gap in the study of academia about children’s human rights. Kimball (2017) alleges that the methods typically used by scholars fail to include children, as do mental health and social service practitioners. The topics of both children and human rights have not been central to any discipline in the academy. Linking these two concepts together— children’ and human rights—has been noticeably absent. When considered, the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_9

213

214

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

confusion is seen in the focus on examining the rights of children as opposed to the study of children’s rights. Children’s rights education is an essential for universities to embed within all of their academic disciplines and fields (Berms, Desmet and Vandenhold 2019; Freeman 1998; 2002; 2012). Human rights education is an effective way of promoting rights knowledge and increasing the likelihood of students learning and adopting rights-based attitudes (Campbell and Covell 2001). As will be shown in this chapter, most academic disciplines have not adequately studied children or human rights, much less their intersection. Human rights in general is not well-embedded in academia, despite its obvious relevance and importance. Recently I did a workshop at the American Association for the Advancement of Science on how scientists could integrate human rights into the courses. They were very receptive and willing to do so, once they had the skills. This is another example of the mantra that we have come to know so well—you cannot teach what you do not know; you cannot do what you do not understand. This chapter provides a brief overview of where children’s human rights have been in the major academic disciplines. Each discipline has a long and complex history that cannot be detailed here. What this chapter does is provide an understanding that children’s human rights have generally not been a major part of any of the academic disciplines until recently.

9.2

Fragmentation of Academic Fields Influences Children’s Human Rights

Just as it’s confusing for the public to know what is a child, scholars who are in positions of authority to contextualize the field of children’s human rights are also fragmented about how to understand children and their rights. Essentially, years ago academic disciplines divided children up, cutting them and their lives into distinct pieces that were claimed as domains by different academic departments. This fragmentation has made it challenging to see children as whole, integrated, multi-dimensional persons. Human rights as a field was parsed into certain academic disciplines as well. This fragmentation has resulted in the training of professionals who specialize in subsets of children’s lives, rather than the totality of it. The academic inclusion of human rights stemmed from another set of disciplines, particularly law and political science, making it challenging to view children, their services, and their rights, as a unified topic within fields like psychology, anthropology, and others. This is why a clinical sociological approach is particularly valuable in helping us to understand why children and children’s services are the way they are. If someone would ask, where are children in the different academic disciplines? or where is the focus of different disciplines regarding children’s human rights? the answer would be “generally, nowhere”. Children are generally insignificant, an after-thought if present at all, and when they are present, they are present only in

9.3

History of the Academy

215

the context of how they impact adult lives. The emphasis on children as human beings who deserve equal representation in academic disciplines historically has been hard to find. Even when children are mentioned, they are not looking at children’s lives from their perspective or their rights perspective. Rather, an adultified approach is used to contextualize and explain childhood and children’s experience. Children are typically discussed as relevant insofar as they impact the lives of adults, or about how children should be handled in their successful growth toward adulthood. André Turmel’s research (2008) found that the lack of a comprehensive view of children’s history is due largely to academic disciplines dividing up intellectual turf around children’s lives. Each created assumption about how children were “supposed to be”, messages that were then communicated to parents and children that served to regulate children and families (especially mothers) in order to stabilize the “chaotic and disturbed situation in the last third of the nineteenth century” (Turmel 2008:10) when urbanization, immigration, and the effects of modern capitalism led social problems and caused high rates of infant mortality and morbidity (Beatty 2010). In conducting interviews with scholars from various fields around the country, it is clear that academic silos help build a cogent body of specialized knowledge and result in how organizations carry out their work. Professionals and scholars do what is deemed appropriate in their field and typically don’t venture too far afield. In an adultified world, children are generally not a major consideration with organizations, governments, and social systems. The study of, and implementation of, children’s human rights is fragmented at best. As Sullivan (1992) noted, theory is needed to inform practice, and practice also informs the development of theory. This interface highlights the importance of theory, data, and children’s access to the benefits of human rights policies and practices. It is my opinion that most adults would do a much better job being rightsrespecting if they had been taught how. By misunderstanding what children’s human rights are or why they are important, this misunderstanding has fueled polarization between academic disciplines, professions, parents and children, progressives and conservatives, and different political parties. All of this is quite unfortunate. The US was an international leader in child rights until recent years. Recapturing a position of leadership in protecting the human rights of young people would require a greater partnership view and synthesis among all social units, including academic disciplines and its emphasis on human rights education.

9.3

History of the Academy

To wrap one’s head about how all this fragmentation came to be, one has to go into the history of how academic departments within the Academy emerged. While the academy of higher education is traced back to at least the Greeks, it was during the 1800s that academic disciplines as systems began to codify. Scholars began

216

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

specializing their research and teaching into particular areas of interest. These scholars shared their ideas with others and collaborated in ways that resulted in definitions and content areas of their fields. By the twentieth century, categories of knowledge were formed, the concept of disciplines emerged, and university departments were born. Religious studies and medicine were original disciplines, but slowly the social sciences emerged. Scholar-specialists divided knowledge into categories, which became disciplines, and ultimately university departments. Instead of having a general knowledge of how the world worked, scholars focused on understanding small topics in great detail. Science and empiricism provided useful tools for scholars, and there was a push for both legitimatization of the fields and professionalization of them. Human behavior has always been a fascination and social sciences were born and ultimately divided into fields like anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, history, and geography. Disciplinary journals were created to allow specialists to share information with those with whom they didn’t live nearby. Courses were taught, students recruited, and distinct departments within colleges were created (Cohen and Lloyd 2014; Mcelreavy 2020; Peel 2020; Vashishtha 2016). Philosopher Michael Foucault (1982, 1972) observed that disciplines are not just a way to organize and produce knowledge, they are also a mechanism for regulating human conduct and social relations. Disciplines epitomize both the power of knowledge and disciplinary control. While disciplines help to organize information, they have downsides. These include the creation of a tunnel vision where specialists may not be aware of information not within their field. Disciplinary specialization can blind us to the big picture of a phenomenon, or result in our discounting or ignoring competing information. Specialists may become insular and feel they don’t need to consider perspectives other than those in their own field while colleagues may not encourage them to do so. A singular approach may result in our not addressing complex problems comprehensively and could hinder new conceptual breakthroughs. Disciplines may inadvertently impose a past-approach of our study of the present, especially as we rely upon older theories and concepts to explain a topic (Peel 2020; Ritzer 1975, 1991). As will be shown, a specialist approach has resulted in children’s lives not being examined as a totality. We may study their minds, their cognition, their bodies, their families, or their geographies, and we may analyze their placement in schools, families, or organizations, but each is a specific and fragmented part of their existence. The field of human rights has followed a similar process. Human rights have been addressed indirectly but not as a specific field of study until recent years. Components of it have been taught in disciplines such as religion, ethics, political science, history or law. But human rights of children have seldom been directly included, even in disciplines like psychology, geography or sociology. In the evolution of disciplines, human rights scholars feel that the time has come for human rights to be acknowledged as its own academic discipline. It meets all the criteria of a discipline, in that it possesses a canon of literature, shared set of concerns, community of scholars, and a methodology. Cargas (2019) notes that human rights have been relevant to political science, international relations, and law for over half a century

9.4

Academic Determinations of Children’s Human Rights

217

and it is of increased importance in other disciplines as well (Cargas 2019; Chatterjee 2021; Chaudhuri 2018). The field of human rights education (HRE) is evolving around the world but in most institutions it is not required (Cargas 2019; Vissing 2020). As a field of study, human rights may be considered under law or humanities; it may even be regarded to be interdisciplinary because it can be applicable to so many fields of study. However, Caton introduces the concept of underdisciplinarity, or the strategic ignoring of concepts or marginalizing them into oblivion. Rarely considered is the role the humanities could play in preparing tomorrow’s leaders. If one examines the curriculum, theory, and research methodology, many relevant topics, like human rights, are absent. Its absence provides us with a pedagogical opportunity—to include human rights and their real implications into every field and institution within higher education. Academic disciplines determine the trajectory of knowledge, which has led to the professionalization of knowledge. This in turn has led to the training of professionals. Organizations have been developed to serve specific segments of the population and they rely upon professionals to work for them. Careers may rely upon certain types of disciplinary certification More and more professional certifications require human rights training. The problem with most of the disciplines is that they have relied upon theories and research methodologies that are based upon an “adultified” approach rather than studying children’s lives and experiences from the child’s point of view (Burke 2016). Different and even competing childhood images can coexist in one single person, depending upon what theoretical framework one uses (Desmet et al. 2015:414). Turmel (2008) observes the main way most scholars theorized about childhood has been to posit childhood as a lack of adulthood. This view has led to the position that adult have rights and children don’t. This approach fails to consider the importance of children’s lives in the present. As Lenzer (1999) observes, academic and policy research on children is segmented into a multitude of disciplines, fields and topics, as has the field of human rights. This fragmentation is antithetical to the development of a comprehensive perspective of how the field of children’s human rights needs to evolve. So, let’s look in more detail at how the different disciplines compartmentalized our understanding of children and their rights.

9.4

Academic Determinations of Children’s Human Rights

How do disciplines define what is a child, what children do, and how they are studied? Why is this relevant to our knowledge about what children are and what we expect from them? This is examined next, as shown in Fig. 9.1. We will start with the fields of biology, philosophy, and history, then move into looking at the contributions of the social sciences, including anthropology, geography, political science, law, psychology, and sociology. The fields are moving towards a distinct field of child studies or the study of human rights of children. The chapter will end with a

218

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Fig. 9.1 Academic Disciplines Relationship to Children’s Human Rights

synthesis of what the academic discipline and public assumptions leave us about understanding the human rights of children. Vandenhole (2019, 2020) observes that there is a growing acknowledgement of the importance of local context in anthropology as well as other academic disciplines. This process of adaptation to the local context, coined vernacularisation, has been documented in anthropology as a process to which translators are central. Translators balance between hybridisation and replication. Whereas replication leaves the normative universality untouched, it may render children’s rights irrelevant in practice. This has occurred in most academic disciplines as it pertains to the integration of children’s human rights. Hybridisation, on the other hand, may lead to a dilution of normative universality. Thus inserting the importance of children’s human rights into academic fields is not just an issue for one field, but is a larger academic issue. The way that academic departments choose to integrate, or ignore, children and human rights issues is therefore a topic that merits research investigation as a topic of its own accord.

9.5

Bio-Medical, Bio-Social Social Children’s Theories

Children are not just cells and biological organisms. They are sentient beings. How their physiological, cognitive, and emotional selves develop are dependent upon how they are treated. This disciplinary approach considers a child not from a rights perspective but from a social and biological interaction approach.

9.5

Bio-Medical, Bio-Social Social Children’s Theories

219

One of the biggest debates in understanding why children turn out the way they do concerns the degree to which a child is influenced by “nature” or “nurture”. How much of a child’s success or failure is genetic and how much is impacted by the child’s social environment? There are many examples of children who come from challenged lives who grow up to do wonderful things; conversely, there are children who start off in life seeming to “have it all” and end up living lives of sorrow and pain. The answer is both. Children are born with certain genetic and biological predispositions plus they live in social environments that make those predispositions better or worse. Epigenetics research illuminates how social experiences can influemce genetics. The assumption that biology is destiny has been revised. Yet genetics seems to still rule much of our understanding of children’s lives. We see this played out with the issue of gender or transgender as debate rages on whether sex chromosomes are the only way to assign gender determinations. We also see it played out when children have mental health challenges—the go-to within the psychiatric community is for treating the child with drugs or even use of electroshock therapy (which still occurs) rather than trying to address the larger social ecosystem that impacts the child’s life. Female children were deemed physically, emotionally, and cognitively different than males, assumptions that led to girls being seen as fit for domestic life and unfit for leadership roles; nonwhite children were thought to be genetically inferior to white children, which led to justifications for their discrimination. If a child became a criminal or alcoholic, people used to think it was probable they inherited the disorder from a parent, a view that is not substantiated genetically (Goodwin 1976; Wilson and Hernstein 1985). Inferiority and superiority, failure and success, were seen as hard-wired into children and genetics became a defense for social inequality. Today we know that is not true, but this association continues to exist in the minds of many people.

9.5.1

Sociobiology and Child Rights

In 1975, controversial sociobiologist E.O. Wilson proposed that individual behavior was influenced by genetics and social behavior patterns resulting from evolution. He defined sociobiology as the systematic study of biological basis for all social behavior. Drawing upon Darwin’s research, he argued that genes shape not just our bodies but our behavior and thinking patterns was advanced by both biologists and evolutionary psychologists (Barkow 1992; Bethell 2001). Scientists have proven that we are genetically 99% the same (Conley et al. 2014; Jensen 1974; Koerner 1999). How biology, social situations, and the broader environment interact to shape behavior, health, and development continues to be a major area of contemporary research (Falk et al. 2013). Epigenetics is now the study of alterations in an individual’s genes that aren’t caused by changes in their DNA, but instead by brain chemicals that determine how genes are expressed. For instance, children who have been exposed to trauma may experience either short-term or permanent epigenetic

220

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

changes; it’s hypothesized that some epigenetic changes can even be passed along to a person’s offspring (Child Mind Institute 2013; Kaufman et al. 2018). Theories of biological determinants of a child’s behavior have evolved considerably from a simple “nature versus nurture” debate to one in which researchers are interweaving fields of biology and social sciences to better understand how they impact children’s lives (Brazelton 2006; Child Welfare Information Gateway 2019; Fox 2018a, b, c; Bowles and Gintis 2011; Keating 2016; Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Spock 1946; Vissing 2021a, b). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has taken firm positions on child health being influenced by genetic, biological, social and psychological factors. They have developed anti-violence recommendations, advocate for children to receive better nutrition and mental health, see poverty and war as public health problems, support children with disabilities, have created media recommendations, are in favor of gun control, and encourage environmental protection. The American College of Pediatricians also identifies child well-being having not just physical but also sociological and psychological factors and made formal statements on issues like bullying, corporal punishment, parenting, substance use, social media, and pornography and gender identity (Cretella et al. 2016). If biology was solely responsible for how children turned out, an emphasis on social factors like the 3Ps of the CRC might not be deemed particularly relevant. But understanding that nurture and social factors are critically important influences to children’s outcomes makes issues of children’s rights, especially around the areas of provision, protection and participation much, more salient. Because not all children have access to the same support and because physiological factors are influenced by social factors, emphasis on ensuring that all children’s rights are addressed is timely and important (Ryan 2011).

9.5.2

Pediatrics

Within the medical community, pediatricians have been in the forefront of fighting to protect children’s rights. Janusz Korczak was a Warsaw pediatrician who is regarded as one of the first major defenders of children’s rights. Believing in acknowledging children’s full human dignity, their right to respect as beings in the here and now, not just as ‘future people, future workers, future citizens’, he went to death fighting to protect Jewish orphans during WWII (Williams 2022). Honoring child development and children’s rights to provisions, protections, and participations in their lives is a fundamental position of pediatricians (Brazelton 2006; Kempe et al. 2013; Spock 1946; Waterston and Goldhagen 2007). In a lengthy and detailed analysis of the relationship between pediatrics and children’s human rights, Uchitel et al. (2019) affirms that while the CRC has not been ratified by the US, US-based pediatricians should still make the best efforts to incorporate child rights principles into practices. “A child rights approach responds to the vulnerability of children in society, commits to the protection of their health and well-being, and

9.6

Philosophy

221

commits to the establishment of a solid foundation that serves them for the rest of their lives. . . . Now, more than ever, is the time to integrate nurturing care and children’s rights to support Early Childhood Development; now is the time for pediatricians to ensure children’s achievement of their human potential.” The field of pediatrics combines elements from different fields, such as biology, medicine, sociology, psychology, education, development, environment, into a cohesive practical approach for working with children. It has been a staunch leader for children’s human rights and continues to do so in areas such as mental health, gun control, anti-poverty, and pandemic care.

9.6

Philosophy

The discipline of philosophy is rich with contributions to human rights. It is a discipline whose underpinnings get morphed into discussions of virtually every other discipline. It addresses issues of what is a child, who decides what rights children should have when children are mature enough to handle rights, whose rights are more important, and how rights should be carried out (Ladd 2016). Philosophic disagreements about the nature of both children and human rights have been used to substantiate pro and con value positions and discourse (Cruft 2015). Children’s main duty, according to philosophers Harry Brighouse (2002) and Onora O’Neill (1988) is to grow up—and it is society’s obligation to assist them in that process (Emelonye 2018). Exploring children’s moral rights, their abilities, what best interests of the child mean, and the tension stemming from different ideological perspectives are all a part of philosophy’s contribution to understanding child rights. Hopman (2017) traces children’s human rights to works of Immanuel Kant and JeanJacques Rousseau, discusses whether children can be rights-bearers, and examines why adults, as authors of laws, should be in the position of granting, or not granting, children legal privileges. Extensive perspectives about the child-parent rights relationship are outlined in work by Gheaus and Hohl (2020), Archard (2018) and other philosophers (IEP 2020; Schoeman 1980). Cassidy (2017) suggests that children benefit from learning how to think philosophically about rights, and that participating in practical philosophy enables children to practice human rights behavior as a means of participating beyond consultation exercises and as an approach to facilitating their engagement with ideas and issues that are important to the promotion of rights for all. Reed-Sandoval (2020) reminds us that; the value of philosophical discourse is to engage in conversations that help us grapple with complex moral issues with and about children. Cowden (2016) presents a pathway to translating rights into practical social and political instruments for change. As John Wall (2008) argues, children’s rights can transform societies but only when the very concept of “human rights” is reimagined in light of childhood. Deontology is a related theoretical framework based on a sense of moral obligation or duty. Deontology states that an action’s moral rightness or wrongness

222

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

depends on the action itself and the motivation behind the action (Beauchamp and Childress 2012). Deontology acknowledges the moral obligation that individuals feel toward certain actions, and a sense of duty that requires people to act in a particular manner in response to one’s values, beliefs, and perspective of societal norms. This is why the framework we hold about children is important.t. Grounding our understanding of human rights not in modernist ideas of autonomy, liberty, entitlement, or agency, but in a postmodern circle of responsibility to one another is essential. A “childist” interpretation of rights could be constructed by examining various forms of child-centered ethical theory and developing new theoretical groundings arising out of postmodern ethics; and the possibility of human rights as truly including all humanity. The discipline of philosophy can lead people to have meaningful conversations about both children and rights, but it is not a field that will necessarily focus on the importance of defending children’s human rights. Children’s human rights protection is not the focus of the discipline of philosophy, but understanding how they are created and maintained is.

9.7

History

History is an academic discipline designed to tell a story about the past. There have been many accounts of the history of the children’s human rights efforts that are provided throughout this book, particularly in Chap. 3. Aires’ (1962) book on Centuries of Childhood is perhaps the dominant historical account of children’s lives but there are plenty of other accounts, too numerous to mention (deMause 1974; Hawes 1999; UNICEF 2020a, b, c, d). Hart (1991) observes that in the history of children’s rights, it took a long time for children to be transformed from being parental property to being awarded the status as a person. This personhood status transformation has been central to children being seen as human beings who were entitled to universal rights. Children’s human rights history has a distinct skew that is not to be dismissed; historians tend to write about what they see, or find what they are looking for when considering the rights of children (Thomas 2000). The history of children is written by adults, for adults. It is not written by children, nor does it directly contain interpretations of life experiences as children know them. It may fail to accurately represent children’s experiences as the children observed them. The majority of information available on the history of childhood is written from a Western, European, and developed Global North perspective. It does not generally include stories of children’s history from South and Central America, Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asian countries. What we know of children’s history, and tend to generalize to the experiences of all children everywhere, is not necessarily representative of children’s history as they know it (Ennew 2000a, b; Wells 2015). This fact must be taken into consideration as children’s rights are debated and implemented. Koops and Zuckerman (2012) remind us that in 1900, Ellen Key wrote the international bestseller The Century of the Child and proposed that the world’s

9.8

Anthropology and Children’s Rights

223

children should be the central work of society during the twentieth century. They note that during that time the distance between the spheres of children and adults made possible the distinctive study of child development and the creation of legislation to protect children from exploitation, abuse, and neglect. They indicate that the century of the importance of the child has come to an end, but not just because we have entered the twenty-first century. In sum, the discipline of history has taken an adultified approach to the study of children, as well as an approach that has not been inclusive of all children. The lack of understanding of inequality from children’s perspectives, or from understanding the history of children particularly in the Global South, is notable. Whether historical accounts written today will take into account today’s emphasis on rights and experiences from children’s perspectives will take years to unfold.

9.8

Anthropology and Children’s Rights

The discipline of anthropology illustrates that even within a singular discipline there are disagreements over whether to employ a children’s human rights perspective. Anthropologists tend to cluster disciplinarily as cultural anthropologists or archeologists. Cultural anthropologists focus on a wide variety of cultural aspects, while archeologists focus on artifacts left behind and are rediscovered and analyzed to understand their meaning. Bluebond-Langner and Korbin (2007) report that anthropology has had an uneven history when it comes to the study of children. Goodale (2006a, b) observes that a human rights approach had been noticeably absent in the anthropological discipline, particularly in the US. Freeman (2002) states that anthropology has been opposed to human rights on the grounds both of cultural relativism and scientific positivism. He notes that as an academic discipline it is a cultural practice with internal norms that require it to respect the people that it studies. These norms have enabled anthropology to go beyond relativism and positivism and effect a reconciliation with human rights. This reconciliation has strengthened the political and international dimensions of the discipline, while the anthropological perspective of human rights has challenged the legalistic elitism of human rights discourse and shown the way to democratization of human rights. In recent years, anthropology has incorporated more of a human rights perspective (Bluebond-Langner and Korbin 2007; Goodale 2006a, b; Messer 1993; Montgomery 2016). Jean-Klein and Riles (2005) observe that human rights are one of the fastest growing parts of anthropology today. In the study of cultures, particularly about how children in different places evolve in similar and different ways, anthropologists are encouraged to pay critical attention to their work from a human rights perspective (Billaud 2020; Jean-Klein and Riles 2005). The American Anthropological Association (1999) has a formal organizational position on the embeddedness of human rights into their discipline, theories, and methodologies. Childhood anthropologists focus on children, not adults, as the main unit of analysis, viewing children as people to be respected and studied in their own right

224

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

(Korczak 2009). Perhaps the best-known child anthropologist was Margaret Mead (1928) whose study of children in Samoa found adults and children shared the same social experiences and understandings of sex, birth, work, death and everything in-between. She theorized that culture and geography influence children’s socialization, as Samoan children experienced a relatively stress-free and smooth transition into adulthood, unlike Western society where there’s usually tension as children evolve into adults. Anthropologists also theorized that human contact was essential to children’s social and cognitive development through studies of feral children. Feral children are those who have lived in isolation and have no adults to hold them, teach them, or talk with them (Lapointe 2005; Pappas 2012a, b). Recent studies of refugees and children from war-torn areas document how culture shapes children’s attitudes towards war (LeBaron 2003) and how environments impact morbidity, mortality, post-traumatic stress and attachment disorders (Francis-Chizororo 2010). Where we live, the messages we learn and the actions we experience shape children’s lives. Stevenson and Worthman (2014) assert that an anthropological approach to studying child well-being is useful because a broad-based perspective is necessary since cultures vary in definitions of children and their care. But well-being is different from the study of children having rights. Anthropologists study resource distribution in societies as a source of ideologies that guide social actions, especially around health, education, politics, economics and ecology. Reynolds et al. (2006) examine the complexities that exist within anthropology and the study of children’s rights. The anthropological perspective can help overcome a binary view by demonstrating in research that children are not passive recipients of ideas that come from adultified theories and methods; children should be party to their shaping and implementation and they should be actively concerned with their rights. Using a child-oriented perspective is essential since one cannot measure the bearing of another’s life without seeing it from that other’s perspective. The question of how to understand the other’s perspective when that other is a child has become a central issue in the ethnography of childhood. Some danger lies in our use of rights to abstract and universalize at the expense of efforts to imagine the stake we have in mutual comprehensibility and to be responsive to other forms of life, especially those under construction by the young. While the field of anthropology has undertaken some serious scholarship about children and how the discipline should address the issue of children’s human rights, neither children nor children’s human rights have been central to the field. As we compare children and their rights in different cultural contexts, it is clear that anthropology has much to offer the study of children’s human rights that it has not yet undertaken.

9.9

9.9

Children’s Rights Within Geography

225

Children’s Rights Within Geography

How children turn out may be influenced not just by genetics but by where and how they live. Geographers, like anthropologists, have slowly joined the family of child rights researchers and their work demonstrates the cultural and geographic relativity of childhood. People don’t usually think of geographers as childhood researchers because the topic of children and human rights have not been central themes of their work. In recent times they have started doing fascinating work on the lives of children (Ansell 2009; Holloway and Valentine 2000; Kallio 2007; Kraft 2015; Rasmussen 2004; Woolcock et al. 2010). This is most notably seen in their work on climate change as well as their studies of how urban and rural environments impact children’s lives. Human geographers study people’s relationship with space and place and how the people both influence and are influenced by the world around them. Children experience different social realities depending on whether they live in urban, rural or suburban areas; the landscape, climate and environment influence how they live, modes of travel, what they eat, where they go and what they do. Whether children spend most of their time outside or inside buildings colors their life-perspectives and options. Weather, amount of sun or darkness, and community safety factors all affect their lifestyles, as does whether they grow up in the desert, mountains, or seaside. Geographers study children’s interactions within houses and home life, on buses, playgrounds, sidewalks and bike paths, forests, and beaches, and as well as schools, churches, or sports facilities. They may analyze how decisions get made, as well as children’s feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams (Philo 2000). The degree to which children are able to use their agency, participate in society, be listened to and be allowed to make decisions varies significantly across the world (Christiansen 2009; Montgomery 2009; Schildkrout 1978; Szulc and Cohn 2012). As an example of the intersection between child rights, culture and geography, while teaching a class of New England preschool teachers, my students talked about their concern that a girl whose parents came from a Southeast Asian country may be abused when teachers discovered round burn marks on her back. They reported her to child protection authorities. An inquiry by authorities found her parents realized that their daughter wasn’t feeling well and took her to their Eastern medicine healthcare provider who treated her with a procedure to help her called cupping. Investigators determined the family hadn’t been abusive; they were responsible in seeking care for their child. There were geographic, cultural and language barriers that contributed to this misidentification. Understanding the role of geography and climate has become a human rights issue (Thunberg 2020). The environmental and climate crisis that is impacting geographies across the globe is identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as a child rights crisis (UN 2019, 2020). Geographers have opened the door for new dimensions of children’s human rights study that is certain to grow (Gibbons 2014).

226

9.10

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Political Science

Political science as a discipline has not focused on children. Its emphasis is on citizens and voters, so if children were considered full citizens and could vote, they and their rights would likely be more a focus in the field. Movements, protests, governments and legislations have seldom had official representation by children or child advocacy groups. The discipline of political science has not been as human rights focused as one may expect. Until the 1990s when the CRC was ratified in most nations around the world, the topic of children’s human rights was not typically addressed in political science departments. Landman (2005) notes that human rights has long been a part of both domestic and international political science foundations, both directly and indirectly. Human rights within political science has been more focused on the international arena. The study of human rights has not been a focus of education in higher education nor is it an explicit body of literature in most political science research (Pritchard 1989), although it has increased in recent years (Vissing 2021a, b). There has not been an obviously-stated position advocating for human rights to be part of political science in general. Zolkos (2005) observes that this may be due in part to the different threads of the discipline of the field and suggests that the field needs to reflect more critically on its own disciplinary capacities and limitations surrounding human rights, particularly as they influence democracy. There has been in recent years more of a commitment to embed human rights into the discipline’s conferences, literature, pedagogy and research. The American Political Science Association (2021) does have a human rights section. As Landman (2008) notes, this increasing interest within the political science discipline has contributed to the development of empirical theories to explain rights violations, methodologies to study human rights problems and their measurements. It appears that human rights presence in politics is a frequently discussed topic, but that is a different issue than human rights within the discipline of political science, which is the focus here. From interviews I conducted with political scientists, most affirm that human rights in the discipline is focused more on international issues and that the topic of children’s human rights was not a focus in the field. If it was mentioned at all, it may be around issues of child soldiers or child labor. With respect to the CRC, a political science issue on how to embed children’s rights into governance is a topic considered by political scientists (Holzscheiter et al. 2019). There are many social issues that have political and policy implications that concern children. It is therefore hard to dissect the position of the discipline of political science from politics and the politicization of issues that pertain to children, but it does not seem that children’s rights are a big focus of those in the discipline. In sum, the discipline of political science has not been a field that has directly advanced the discourse or activism around children or their human rights. Governments, as an outgrowth of the discipline of political science, are not generally focused on children but on citizens. Unless children are considered full-fledged citizens and have the right to vote or have meaningful input into the legislative

9.11

Law and Legal Studies

227

process, the importance of children in the field of political science remains questionable.

9.11

Law and Legal Studies

The first movers and shakers for children’s rights were not from law, nor did they all have the same prescription for children’s rights or why children should have them (Williams 2021). As an academic discipline, children’s legal issues have taken predominance over their human rights issues. The main difference between human rights and legal rights lies in their aim and impact on individuals. Human rights are seen as moral rights that are universal in nature and which all people are entitled just by virtue of being human. Moral rights provide ethical, natural-law guidelines that people are supposed to follow and stem out of a respect for the universal needs of all people. Legal rights refer to those rights of an individual person that the state or government has authorized or granted through a court of law. If a human right has not undergone authorization by a court to be a legal right, following a particular action may not be legally binding. Civil rights exist only by virtual of legal authorization, such as those imparted by the US Constitution (Vaughn 2015). There is a long and detailed history of how children’s legal rights have manifested in America. From the time of the founding of the nation until today, courts have weighed in to make decisions about what legally could, and could not be done to and for children (Berkeley Law 2021). Child rights are today part of child law, as authorized by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law which provides legal representation to children and work to improve legal systems that impact children and families. However, not all of the articles of the CRC are enforceable by US law. There is a disjuncture between the two, which is a major reason why ratification of the CRC would be a stepping stone towards greater legal protections for children. King and Piper (1995) provide a thoughtful analysis of how the law thinks about children and their rights. They apply an “autopoetic theory” to the subject of legal decision-making about children, which stems from work by Gunther Teubner and Niklas Luhmann. They conclude that the law as a system has its own constructions, language and styles of communication and tends to be self-referential, excluding other disciplines (e.g. the social sciences) or accommodating them in limited ways. The construction of the “best interests of the child” acquires a particular meaning through the interpretation of the courts. A possible solution to the insularity of this approach is for the law to acquire a “reflexive” character, whereby instead of making the substantive decisions it is used as a tool to regulate other bodies or combinations of other bodies—of child care/social care experts, medics, etc.—who are given the task of making the substantive decisions. They encourage the creation of more childresponsive legal procedures that integrates specially trained child rights lawyers and judges, along with the partnership of other interdisciplinary professionals (Williams 2021).

228

9.12

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Child Psychologists and Children’s Human Rights

The field of psychology has long studied children, but it has not focused on the issue of children’s rights until recently Years ago, when scholarly disciplines divided conceptual territory, psychologists took the “child” and sociologists took the “family” (Morrow 2011:20). This explains why how the psycho-social world of children got fragmented so that psychologists focused on children and sociologists did not. Psychology and sociology look at children differently, with psychologists focusing on the psyche of the individual child while sociologists look at the impact of social relationships and institutions. Neither discipline directly addressed the issue of children having rights, but both laid a foundation for a set of research, theories and concepts that have proved useful to our understanding of children’s lives. Significant strides have been made by the field of psychology to incorporate human rights into their work. This is apparent in books like the Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Human Rights (Rubin and Flores 2020) and Human Rights Education for Psychologists (Hagenaars et al. 2021). There are many scholars who have contributed to the discipline of psychology; as specialists in particular areas their work collectively conveys a lot of fundamental information about how we have come to view children, and subsequently their rights. Early psychologists, including Sigmund Freud, tied adult problems to early childhood experiences (Roth 1998). He identified that what happened in the early years could emerge in adult problems with sex, crime, obesity, smoking, hoarding, and other behaviors. While some critics dispute Freud’s ideas, they set a framework of how to understand children’s lives (Popper 1976; Eysenck 1976). Freud’s ideas have been adapted by psychologists such as Carl Jung (1980) and Alice Miller (1997), who studied how abuse and trauma effects children. Granville Stanley Hall was one of the first scholars credited with building a cohesive theory of child and adolescent development. His work stemmed from recapitulation theory, which originated from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that Hall applied to children (Watson 2005). John Bowlby (1969) felt it was important for children to develop a positive, healthy attachment with mothers in order to grow up well-adjusted. If they failed to do so, children could suffer throughout their lives. Watching how children played gave psychologists insight into how children think; Albert Bandura (2001) studied children’s observations of adult behavior and how they replicate it; his work with bobo dolls helped him to learn how children channeled aggression. Skinner (1938) alleged positive reinforcements encourage children to continue engaging in particular behaviors, whereas negative reinforcements discourage them from doing things; parents and teachers use similar reward and punishment systems to motivate children to do what they want. Jean Piaget felt children learn certain things at particular stages of life. Unlike Piaget’s notion that children’s development precedes their ability to learn, Lev Vygotsky (1978; McLeod 2018) argued that social learning comes before development, with culture being transmitted through routine interaction, imitation, instruction, and collaborative learning that influences both the way a child thinks and behaves. Erik Erikson (1980) asserted development is a lifelong

9.12

Child Psychologists and Children’s Human Rights

229

process and proposed eight predictable life-stages children must successfully resolve. These stages of development were relational in nature; how people respond to children would set up trajectories for how they felt about themselves and others. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (1968), identified that issues of provision and protection are essential for children to grow up to become emotionally and physically healthy and able to make positive contributions to their families and communities. Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) studied how reinforcements instill moral correctness and conscience into children. (McLeod 2013). Uri Bronfenbrenner (1997) is credited with developing ecological theory, which alleges children’s development is influenced by where they live and their social networks, like parents, friends, school, culture and media. To understand how children turn out the way they do, the psychology approach has looked primarily at the influence of mothers, parenting, primary and secondary groups and the messages sent and opportunities or challenges social institutions present (Woo 2005). What we think about children, therefore, is a result of many scholars under the psychology paradigm. The topic of children’s human rights has traditionally not been a direct focus of psychology. The majority of articles on human rights in psychology address people’s attitude formation of rights (Stellmacher et al. 2005; Stenner 2011). The focus on children’s internal development is central to psychology and how they form their attitudes and perceptions via intergroup relations (Staerklé et al. 2015). Twose and Cohrs (2015) critiqued the historical relationship between psychology and human rights and found that they were seen as separate fields, but since 2000 there has been more of a disciplinary emphasis on the importance of human rights. They discuss the rise of social-psychological peace research (SPPR) in which attitudes and behaviors are measured towards issues of peace, violence, and human rights (Twose and Cohrs 2015). Psychologists are now viewed as having a societal responsibility for promoting human rights and preventing human rights violations. The European Federation of Psychologists Associations (EFPA) in 2013 established a Board of Human Rights and Psychology in order to raise awareness of the importance of human rights for psychologists (Hagenaars 2016). The American Psychological Association (2009) has included human rights as part of its vision statement. Velez (2016) finds that psychology’s contribution to children’s rights could be substantial and support of the CRC would benefit children. The internal development of the child is seen remains separate from the social context and environment in which they live. When exposed to risks, children become more vulnerable. The CRC would help reduce risks to all children. Velez observes that children’s rights and children’s development are linked, multifaceted and involve individual’s complex processing of their social contexts. In short, the discipline of psychology has begun focusing more on children’s human rights and how the study of human rights can improve the lives of individuals (Helwig and Turiel 2016a, b).

230

9.13

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Sociology and Children’s Human Rights

Most of the sociological research has focused on families; while psychologists investigated the inner-lives of children, sociologists explored societal functioning. Their interest was directed more at what was good for society rather than what was good for an individual child, or even children as a cohort. Mainstream sociological theories, which will be discussed in a bit, contributed to different views of children. A historical review identifies a lack of commitment to human rights in sociology and that the area of child rights has not been directly addressed until recently. Most of the social sciences have come to address human rights in some way, even economics and business (Wabwile 2016), but often children’s rights are absent. Deflem and Chicoine (2011). Hynes et al. (2010) found that sociology has been generally inhospitable towards the adoption of human rights and classical social theorists like Durkheim and Weber declined to adopt rights as a legitimate area of study. Marx argued that human rights were essentially individual liberty rights rather than social equality rights that masked conditions of economic inequality. In the sociology of law, human rights focus on the globalization of law and justice, such as an international criminal court or economic dimensions. While moral rights and norms have been essential parts of sociology, even within the sociology of law there has been an ambivalence towards the discussion of rights. They argue that by virtue of its disciplinary boundaries, sociology cannot engage in the philosophical analysis of human rights, making sociology as a discipline incompatible with human rights. Yet the issue of human rights and the quest for social justice seem to be inherent throughout sociological theories and research. Scholars argue that there is an appropriate discipline of human rights sociology to be developed (Morrow and Pells 2016; Morris 2010; Sjoberg et al. 2001; Turner 1993; Vaughan and Sjoberg 1986; Woodiwiss 2009; Young 1981), and human rights may be promoted under the sub-discipline of public sociology (Burawoy 2006). Frezzo (2015) noted that sociologists treat human rights not as immutable attributes but as highly contested claims that vary across historical time and geographic space; human rights can serve either to empower or to constrain social actors, from large societies to small communities and identity groups. Hynes et al. (2010) contend that a human rights focus could reinvigorate sociology, refine both theory and methodology, and bear on matters of domestic, national and international concerns. The American Sociological Association (2020) created a Section on the Sociology of Human Rights to promote and support critical, interdisciplinary, and international engagement with human rights scholarship, teaching and practice, and foster human rights approaches to the discipline. It meets the criteria to establish itself as a discipline by integrating research, pedagogy, teaching, practice, networking, publications, networking. That said, neither the emphasis on children as a group nor children’s human rights have been a focus of sociology. Even in a book on emerging trends in human rights (Hynes et al. 2012), there is barely a mention of children’s human rights as a collective issue that pertain to all children. It wasn’t until the 1990s that sociology

9.13

Sociology and Children’s Human Rights

231

really focused upon childhood studies, and only recently has it added a focus on children’s human rights (Gran 2013, 2021; Vissing 2020, 2021a, b). Alderson (2012; 2021) observes that since sociology has paid relatively little attention to human rights in general, it helps us to understand why the discipline hasn’t focused on children having rights. Today the field is moving towards the analysis of what rights children have and why they have them, how rights influence children’s perceptions of themselves and others, and whether society believes that children are endowed with the human rights affirmed in the Constitution. Historically three main theory groups in sociology—functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism, and more recently social constructionism, have emerged to become the dominant framework in the sociology of children. Sub theories in the field have also contributed to our understanding of oppression and human rights. Each theory has implications for how we view children and will be briefly discussed next.

9.13.1

Structural-Functionalism

Structural functionalists view society as most efficient when it runs smoothly; in the quest for homeostasis and equilibrium, norms, values, mores and laws are constructed so people will operate from the same set of rules. Social institutions, like schools and families, create frameworks teaching children what others expect from them. Adults are responsible for passing on “the rules of the game” and imparting skills and attitudes that are functional for the running of society. Scholars like Talcott Parsons saw children as threats to the survival and well-being of society unless they’re socialized to become contributing adults. He likened children to pebbles thrown into the social pond, whereupon what they do and think ripples out from the family into broader society (Parsons and Bales 1955). Role disparity between adults and children was justified since, as Emile Durkheim suggested, childhood is a period “in which the individual, in both the physical and moral sense, does not yet exist, the period in which he [sic] is made, developed and is formed. . . the educationist is presented with a becoming, an incipient being, a person in the process of formation” (Durkheim 1979:150). Durkheim viewed children as a socially unformed bundle of primitive instincts that had to be brought under control through the process of socialization (Wyness 2011). This notion held that a child isn’t really a person, but a ‘blank slate’ upon which culture could be ‘written’— hence there was no need for them to be awarded human rights.

9.13.2

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists have contributed much to our understanding of children as an oppressed social group. Since children weren’t viewed as important, it also explains

232

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

why the study of childhood has been of scholarly insignificance to the field until recent years. The lower status of childhood has placed children in a one-down position; children aren’t viewed as equals, despite the façade of importance. Adults are in powerful positions to create rules and institutions designed to benefit themselves. Extrapolating the basic presuppositions of conflict theory (Turner 1985), it is my position that conflict theory provides potential for explaining children’s exploitation, and need for human rights: • Society structures inequalities between social groups. Simply stated, one group (adults/parents) has power and the other (children) doesn’t. • The oppressed group is made to be dependent upon the group in power. This dependency may be financial, structural, physical, social, and/or emotional. The group in power (adults/parents) can thus attempt to control children’s diet, transportation, education, friends, recreation, religious views, aspirations, opportunities, etc. • People in power actively seek to create systems that keep them in power. This includes creating institutions and rules that support their positions and oppressing others who may potentially challenge them. As this pertains to children, it includes family structures, schools, recreation, work, religion, and all the norms that accompany them. Governmental representation consists of adults, not youth who are even deprived of the right to vote. • Authorities create ideologies that support their positions and then disseminate them. Such messages are designed to hide, mask, or re-label oppression and keep the oppressed from recognizing the injustices they face. Elites are able to control what people think about others and establish norms for “appropriate” behaviors. Children learn self-regulation and perpetuate oppression without those in power having to directly do so. We’re taught to embrace the idea of a happy family and idyllic childhood, when it may actually be an illusion promoted to keep children from realizing their oppression and roiling against those in charge. • Oppressed people have few options to refute messages of inferiority. Trying to overthrow the mantel of oppression is almost impossible, lacking access to resources to do so. When children feel oppressed, they may get angry, throw tantrums or engage in acts of resistance, but their acts are met with futility because adults always have the upper-hand. • If oppressed people actively confront the establishment, they’re met with institutional resistance. For children, this means parents, police officers, social workers, health practitioners, principals, or others’ legitimate authority curtail children’s oppositional behaviors. • People in power receive emotional, social and financial benefit from children’s dependency. So, do parents in a multiplicity of ways. Shifting the power differential between may be met with resistance from authorities who don’t want to change their status-quo arrangement. • Over time exploited masses may create collective activities and overthrow oppressors. While youth protests may occur, young people are usually not well-

9.13

Sociology and Children’s Human Rights

233

organized as a social collective so they have not initiated the kind of social change that is possible—but they could in the future.

9.13.2.1

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is an offshoot of conflict theory. While focused on women’s oppression, children are intrinsically linked with mothers. Children have been objectified as “property” of parents. This has resulted in sociological analysis focusing on studies on families, particularly with their relationship with mothers due to the traditional caregiving role of women. During the Suffragette Movement, Susan B. Anthony (who had no children) and Cady Stanton (who did) marched together fighting for women’s rights. Improving women’s lives ostensibly improved children’s lives. Women and children were both seen as irrational, inferior, incompetent, dependent and deserving of control by the male-dominated culture of the day, which causes a paradigm shift in the way they were viewed as they struggled with independence, motherhood, employment, and social status (Geist 2010; Oakley 1998; O’Rilley 2019). Children were women’s appendages and identified as either assets or burdens (Mayall 2002). While children are one with their mother during pregnancy and arguably dependent for nursing, as soon as they are born they are their own independent entity. Their needs are different from those of their mothers. Lumping children into women’s study may have been understandable at one point in time, but even then the feminist movement was not inclusive, as work by Cook (2020) and Hill Collins (2008) point out. Children are an independent, separate group to be studied and regarded as such. The association of children as part of the mother is understandable from a biological orientation, but both mothers and children are unique persons with their own needs, interests, and futures to fulfill.

9.13.2.2

Intersectionality Theory

Intersectionality emerged as a critique of limitations of feminist and some race/ racism theories. It focuses on the interconnection of social categories like race, social class and gender as they apply to groups of people that create systems of disadvantage or discrimination (Collins 2019; Columbia 2017; Crenshaw 1991; 2015). While not typically applied to children this theory could help to explain the educational or healthcare disadvantages of black children. It will be discussed more in Part II of this book. It has contributed to an interdisciplinary view of how science can consider human rights, as shown in this article on chemistry (Hardy et al. 2019).

234

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Whitewashing and Age-Washing of Disciplines? Intersectionalionality exists within a framework that academic disciplines have not always or adequately explained regarding lives of marginalized groups. This is particularly true around the issues of race, gender, and I will assert also about age. Academic disciplines have not always represented the voices or experiences of all peoples. Fields from sociology to social work to education and virtually every field now are confronted with the bias throughout their historical evolution (Wright 2019). In Thomas Kuhn’s study of the evolution of science and the shifting of paradigms, it is normal for what we think to be true today to be different from what people thought in the past. It is the way science works—ever learning from our past and learning how to use our errors to make better science in the future. Because the fields did not represent views of women according to their lived experiences, feminism grew and took hold as an important contributer to our studies. Information has often been presented in a cisgender and heteronormality way, where today it is clear that there are other normal gender and sexual orientations. Similarly, black studies and studies of other groups have emerged to showcase views of historically left-out groups. Academic fields have been largely written by white, global North, men, hence whitewashing what people learn as other information is ommitted. This is where the notion of white supremacy verses the role of critical race theory has gained public attention (Birk 2021; Wright, Carr and Aiken 2019; Zavallos 2023). What is seldom discussed is age-washing of information. Younger people have not had the venues or opportunities to insert their views or input into publically respected forms or outlets. Older persons have had time to build their skill-sets to know how to publish and work with the distribution of materials. There is, thus, an age-ism that results in most of what is known. This is true in the worlds of academia, publishing, television, and other venues. Younger people have found social media to be a vehicle where they can put forth their ideas. Unlike peer-reviewed journal scrutiny that regulates information to make sure what is printed is accurate and using good methodology to avoid bias and rhetoric, social media has no such filters. Anyone can print anything about anybody. While this can be liberating, it has also exploited truth, accuracy, and young people themselves. The regulation of social media as an information highway is of global concern. This leaves us with the question—can accurate information ever be presented? How can the academy step-up its efforts to insure both truth, accuracy, and human rights respect for the betterment of humanity?

9.13.3

Symbolic Interaction and Labeling Theory

Who we consider to be a child varies depending on what we call them or how we perceive them. How children are symbolically labeled and how childhood is framed

9.13

Sociology and Children’s Human Rights

235

are products of social construction, not concrete factors (Blumer 1969a, b; Charon 2009; Cooley 1902a, b; Mead 1934; Yeung and Martin 2003). Theorists of this labeling approach have not promoted a rights-perspective, but clearly, this theory is applicable because we know how children are labeled determines their treatment and outcomes. For instance, data shows black youth are six times more likely to be shot to death by police, which must be associated with how they are identified and labeled (Equal Justice Initiative 2020). Children are frequently blamed for adult misbehavior or to justify when bad things happen to them, such as when parents hit them or when police shoot them (Ryan 1976). A human rights framework could help protect children and afford them justice.

9.13.4

Reproduction Theory

Replication of culture, norms, what life is like, and how people treat each other is known as interpretative reproduction theory (Corsaro 2005). Children role model attitudes and actions they observe from significant others. As this pertains to children’s human rights, when social institutions, caregivers, media, and important people in children’s lives act in rights-respecting ways, the more likely children are to do the same. This is why adults are encouraged to act in kind, rights-respecting ways so their children will learn to do so. Conversely, work on bias and extremism shows that children may replicate harmful behaviors and actions when receiving positive reinforcement for them from significant others (Vissing 2021a, b). We know that children who are exposed to violence as a normative and suitable problemsolving behavior often become violent themselves (Child Trends 2018; Lisak 2017; Weaver et al. 2008). Altruistic parents tend to have altruistic children (Hoffman 1975; Upshaw et al. 2015). It stands to reason that children who learn to be rightsrespected when they are young will replicate rights-respect to others - or vice versa.

9.13.5

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is now the dominant theory in the Sociology of Children. It has been advanced by a variety of theorists (Freeman 2014; Giddens 1984; Prout and James 1997; James et al. 1998; Jenks 2004a, b; Mayall 2002; Mintz 2004; Morrow 2011; Mouritsen and Qvortrup 2006; Prout and James 1997; White and Wyn 1998). The social constructionists view children as “beings”, not “becomings”; they have value for who they are now, not just for what they may become in the future. They argue that children are fully social beings capable of acting in the social world on their own behalf, which is a radical departure from theorists who viewed children as underdeveloped and needing adults to control the directions of their thoughts, actions and opportunities (Morrow 2011; Waksler 1991a, b). Jenks and Qvortrup observe there aren’t just one conception of child or childhood—it’s more accurate to

236

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

talk of many childhoods or a plurality and diversity of experience both across and within cultures. Through social class, ethnicity, gender, culture, race, place of residence, family composition, health, or (dis)ability, children live varied lives. The children’s human rights framework comes directly out of this theoretical framework. It shows how constructing different resources and realities for children results in differential outcomes. How the US has not honored the agency of children, provided for all of them and taken comprehensive measures to protect them shows “how far we adults fall short of implementing children’s rights, [and how we don’t understand] what children’s own experiences and discourses tell us about their understandings of the rights and wrongs of their daily lives” (Mayall 2001:2).

9.13.6

Clinical Sociology

Clinical sociologists have been studying the lives of children since the turn of the twentieth century (Wirth 1931). Ernest Burgess taught a course on clinical sociology at the University of Chicago in 1928 and Harvey Warren Zorbaugh taught a clinical sociology course in the 1930s. Tulane University also was an early location for the development of the field. Alvin Gouldner offered a Foundations of Clinical Sociology in the 1950s at Antioch. The foundation for clinical sociology was to rely upon research before beginning an intervention project to assess the existing state of affairs, during an intervention, and after the completion of the intervention to evaluate the outcome of that intervention. The research activity is an important part of the field. As the sociology of childhood has emerged, clinical sociological approaches have become central (Brady et al. 2015) and advanced because it enables scholars to use their art to become social change agents (Lehnerer 2008). Clinical sociology has been associated directly with children’s issues such as healthcare, child protection (Buchar et al. 2012), unaccompanied youth (Vissing and Leitao 2021), children with disabilities (Thomas 2021), education (Sumida 2004), vulnerable and street children (Albarran and Taracena-Ruiz 2012), and a variety of other youth as described in the Handbook of Clinical Sociology (Rebach and Bruhn 2001). Clinical sociologists are by nature designed to be social change agents: At bottom any science is simply a more penetrating perception of facts, gained largely by selecting those that are more universal and devoting intensive study to them. . . should enable us to devise measures having a good chance of success (Wirth 1931:10).

This means that it is a professional responsibility for clinical sociologists to study topics like the human rights of children, and to advocate for a rights-respecting framework for young people.

9.14

9.14

Education

237

Education

The field of education in the US grew from it not being required in the seventeenth century to it being a major institution in the late twentieth century. Children’s human rights have long been central to the field. Harvard was the first college, established in 1636, focused on instructing wealthy men; the first academy for females was over a hundred years later (1787), and now the academy includes higher education in a variety of community education formats. Educational systems were regarded by the Founding Fathers to be essential to the success of American democracy, freedom and the resistance of tyrants and demagogues. Children needed to understand political, social, and civic issues, and not just the 3 R’s of reading, writing, and arithmetic but other subjects as well to transform into literate, moral, and productive citizens. Many individual scholars contributed to the nation’s underpinnings supporting children’s rights not just to education but to the basic premises embodied in what would become the CRC. Leaders included Friedrich Froebel’s establishment of kindergartens to nurture free expression, creativity, social interaction, and other skills occurred in the early 1800s; Horace Mann promoted public common schools for all, Booker T. Washington and Mary McLeod Bethune who advocated education for beneficial social change for African American children; Alice Palmer’s mission to help girls go into higher education; Jean Piaget supported early childhood education and development; John Dewey encouraged children to develop “free personalities” and be taught how to think and make judgments, not just learn facts; Maria Montessori understood the importance of individualized educational instruction formats; Margret Bancroft supported children with special challenges and abilities; Charlotte Mason’s pursuit of equal educational access for all children, regardless of their economic class, demographics, or upbringing; Howard Gardner identified that children have multiple types of intelligences; Susan Hockfield for the importance of children learning science; and Alison Gopnick’s “theory” of children’s development that examines how children build theories of other human beings (Center for Education Policy 2007; Neem 2017; Wright 2019). While children’s rights are instrumental to the discipline, human rights education is not required in US schools at any level (Cargas 2019; HREUSA 2021). Moreover, the structure of education has been challenged as not inclusive for all (Gross 2001). Teachers cannot teach children’s human rights because they have never been taught about treaties, human rights theory and practice, or pedagogy (Alter and Ferenekes 2022; Vissing 2020). Topics like DEIJ - diversity, equality, inclusion and justice - have become popularized without recognition that DEIJ is actally a subset of human rights education.

238

9.15

9

Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

Social Work, Nursing, Public Health, Criminal Justice, and Applied Fields

The dissection of academic disciplines and sub-specialties could go on and on. At this point, major disciplines have been addressed, but it is important to also give attention to the more applied fields that have become disciplines in their own standing. Briefly, all of these fields are applied fields. All have addressed children’s issues, but most have not established a tight training program within the training of students in the academy specifically around children’s human rights issues. All could benefit from doing so. Healthcare from the days before Florence Nightingale has transformed nursing into a highly regulated profession and public health into an important and sophisticated field. It embraces the importance of different social structures and institutions and how they intersect to impact the lives and well-being of children. Everything from gun control, climate change, pollution, immunizations, poverty, and family security are now considered public health concerns that impact children, their health, and their rights. As an academic discipline, it is a field that has been regarded as in need of more theoretical development (Northrup et al. 2004; Thompson 2009). While pediatric and adolescent care are important components to the delivery of service, the extent of how well children’s human rights are integrated into the field remains questionable as the field determines its dominant paradigm (Groer and Clochesy 2020). The evolution of social work from the days of Jane Addams and Hull House in Chicago has developed specialties in family and children’s care, and the field often is the one put in positions of professional oversight of abused, neglected and foster children. Children’s welfare organizations are largely staffed by social workers but how social workers are trained in children’s rights and how programs are structured could often be more attentive to children’s human rights issues (Reynaert et al. 2010; Roose and De Bie 2008). Because the field of social work attempts to address issues of parents, community, politics, the importance of a children’s human rights perspective in the field is often challenged and could be more productively and systematically implemented (Kosher et al. 2016a, b; Villarreal Sosa and Raylinn 2018). There is a movement by the Network to Advance Abolitionist Social Work (NAASW) to move the field away from carceral forms. It refers to imprisoning people against their will. In some ways, one can argue that children are in a carceral relationship with their families. The NAASW advocates for the transformation of not just the field of social work, but of all social institutions that incarcerate people, which can include the family as well as criminal justice systems. Criminal Justice is a long-standing practice but as an academic discipline in the academy, it is a relative newcomer (Clear 2001; Marenin and Worrall 1998). The field has long been involved with the control of delinquent children and has moved away from the incarceration of youth in adult facilities towards more of an educational and restorative justice approach. However, it has come under scrutiny with regards to how police, courts, and juenile justie systems handle the human rights of

9.16

Children’s Human Rights as a Growing Discipline

239

children. As an academic field, it has been found to be in need of further development, refinement, theory, research, and human rights implementation (Robinson 2001; Williams and Robinson 2004).

9.16

Children’s Human Rights as a Growing Discipline

As shown above, different academic disciplines do not focus on children or their rights as a central part of each field. Children are objects to be included as parts of larger studies and generally not the focus of studies themselves. A question arises— should each field include a focus of children, or would the study of children and their human rights be better served by the creation of a new discipline? It is the position of children’s scholars (Alanen 2010; Hanson and Nieuwenhuys 2013; Moody and Darbellay 2019; Reynaert et al. 2015) that children cannot be compartmentalized to fit neatly into any academic discipline; what has resulted is the need to pull together scholars from different disciplines. Studying childhood, children, and their rights requires a multidisciplinary approach. Some scholars argue that an interdisciplinary discipline is insufficient and doesn’t do justice to children; what is needed could be an entirely new discipline that focuses just on children. The field of childhood studies has emerged to fill that role, but how that field will negotiate the complexities of different disciplines as it attempts to study children as a totality will be worth watching (Vandenhole et al. 2015). Children’s rights are in the process of becoming an academic discipline and is an outgrowth of the interdisciplinary field of childhood studies. The fields of childhood studies and children’s rights studies are similar in many respects; the primary difference is in the way they approach research and analysis of topics, particularly around children as the objects of research, disciplines used to study them and the way they are articulated. As an academic discipline, topical courses have been developed, faculty have developed expertise, students have been recruited, journals have been created, and research protocols developed. Examples of professional journals in the area include the International Journal of Children’s Rights, Childhood, and both Routledge and Palgrave have developed Handbooks of Children’s Rights Studies (Moody and Darbellay 2019). Children’s rights as a discipline is concerned with typical as well as vulnerable children; some fields like social work tend to focus more on the rights of vulnerable children and those who have been excluded due to institutionalized inequality. Children’s rights studies consider the rights of young people in a variety of situations and contexts. While childhood studies rely heavily upon a sociological framework, children’s rights studies are more inclusive of other disciplinary contributions. Contexts in which children’s rights are given meaning, macro and micro constraints, and digging deep into the conceptual underpinnings of the frameworks we use to understand children and their rights are explored within a rights-based disciplinary approach. Participatory research methodologies set the stage for rights-advocacy practices to pursue greater respect for the human dignity of children (Reynaert et al.

240

9 Framing Child Rights Within Academic Disciplines

2015). Stalford and Lundy (2020) examine the future of children’s rights studies and provide a thoughtful assessment of where the field has been, and where yet it needs to grow forward. A codified children’s human rights discipline is in the making but may take years before it is realized as an essential part of the Academy. Its interdisciplinary nature makes it fit everywhere, and nowhere. If it is “owned” by a particular discipline, whether Sociology or Law, it will be influenced by the overarching premises of that discipline and faculty of children’s human rights will be subject to evaluation accordingly. The disciplinary make-up of the Academy provides strength through topic-focused scholarship, but it also means that there is no distinct home for this interdisciplinary field. Human rights education often argues that rights information should be integrated into every class and every discipline (Cargas 2019; Vissing 2021a, b). How a rigorous child rights discipline can be developed is uncertain, or whether it should become its own discipline at all (Moody and Darbellay 2019). Children and their rights must be seen in their current totality.

9.17

Summary

Academic disciplines have contributed to the narrative held about children and human rights. The determination of who is considered to be a child and what their rights are is not clear-cut. There are a variety of extenuating circumstances and disciplinary approaches that impact how children will be perceived, judged, and treated. While the CRC’s designation of age 18 to be the determining factor of one’s child status, there are other factors to be considered. Young people may embrace their agency and participate in the world in ways that are similar or identical to that of adults, yet find they are not recognized with the same rights and privileges. This disparity is troublesome from a child’s perspective. When turning to the Academy for assistance in determining who is a child and what children are capable of, again we find significant variability in how children are perceived and how important they are. Most of the academic disciplines have not included children as part of their main subject matter. The focus on children’s human rights has been even less visible. After the CRC was created in 1989, international focus on the importance of children’s human rights generated more attention within US higher education disciplines. However, even today most do not adequately, or even peripherally, include children’s human rights as an important area of study. The result has been that the academy has turned out professionals in various fields who have been largely oblivious to the issues of children’s rights in their daily work. This is changing. As scholars, we must come to grips with the worldmaking power of our fields (Archibald and Feldman 2003; Aronowitz 2011; Giroux 2010; Hollinshead 2007). If human rights are left out of them, they are rendered impotent in the big sweep of life.

9.17

Summary

241

Among the many intellectual treasures left to the modern world by the ancient Greeks is the notion of paideia. In contrast with the term banausos, which means technical, skill-building education, paideia refers to the education of whole persons toward the pursuit of achieving the full development of what it means to be human (Fotopoulos 2005).

It is clear that children’s human rights need to have its place in all academic disciplines, and it is the obligation of the Academy as a duty bearer to be responsible for the implementation of a children’s human rights framework. As will be shown in following chapters, children’s human rights is fragmented within academic disciplines, which influence professional skill sets and contribute to the development of social institutions that fragment how care is delivered to young people. A unified study of children’s lives could result in more comprehensive caregiving institutions where children cease to fall through system cracks.

Chapter 10

Are Children Parental Property?

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. John Locke

10.1

Introduction

Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. In this way, we are equals, which is a central belief in the US Constitution. How equality gets operationalized in everyday life is another issue. Words and actions are different things. Belief and behavior are not always correlated. The tendency in the US has been to focus on families as the central unit of society, and children are regarded as a subset of that unit. This families-first model has predominated in the way government and institutions have operated for decades. What we are seeing is that this model has some gaps in it when it comes to protecting all children. When families operate at their ideal strength from a human rights perspective, children may do well. Yet families have many pressures thrust upon them that make it challenging for them to do their caregiving job well. These include financial challenges, relationship complexities, work demands, health problems, to name but a few. Most parents, I believe, intend to do a good job parenting and love their children. But there is a difference between intent and outcome. If intent is seen as an independent (causal) variable and child outcome is the dependent variable, it is clear that there are a variety of intervening variables that come in between the intent and outcome that muddy up the result. We may intend to be perfect parents and create the perfect family, but those things may not happen through no fault of our own.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_10

243

244

10

Are Children Parental Property?

A child rights approach holds that children’s rights should be considered in any and all decisions that impact a family. A child-first model focuses on taking actions that best sets children up to survive and thrive. A child-first model does not pit children against parents as competitors for scarce resources. To believe that is a paucity view of mentality, as compared to an abundance model that holds there are enough resources for everyone if divided up fairly. A child-first model supports parents being given the resources and supports they need in order to do their job well. It also ensures that children as rights holders can access the resources they need even when their parents fail to deliver. Ideally, a child-first approach takes nothing away from parents but changes the focus to protect children so they can get what they need and deserve—which is having their rights respected too. We must remember that many children exist pretty much on their own. They may be unaccompanied, independent, or emancipated, but they may also be on their own even within their family units. It is an illusion to believe that all children live in happy, healthy families where children’s needs are met (Moore-Malinos 2007). Data tell us what we do not want to believe is true—that children are often mistreated, abused, hungry, feel so badly about themselves that they may contemplate or attempt suicide, cut themselves, use drugs or alcohol to cope, associate with people who make them feel better but who may lead them into troubled situations. Family dysfunction is becoming the norm. As a clinical sociologist, researcher, court officer, and former therapist, it is my observation that there are few totally healthy families, once you scratch below the surface presentation. If this is accepted as a possibility, then as a society we are obligated to ensure that we are investing the most we can to help children create the lives, and world, that is healthy and strong. As Dwyer (2006) points out, in families, children have relationship rights. This includes relationships with each parent, issues surrounding adoption, relationship with other family members. He concludes that the law should ascribe to children rights equivalent (though not identical) to those which adults enjoy,; this would require substantial changes in the way the legal system treats children, including a reformation of the rules for establishing legal parent-child relationships at birth and of the rules for deciding whether to end a parent-child relationship. This view may be controversial to those who feel that children should do what they are told no matter what, merely because they are children. This chapter considers children as rights-holders who are entitled to be awarded human rights designations in all aspects of their life. It considers children to be equal players in a relationship that requires mutual respect and appropriate interactions on behalf of both parent and child. As the Convention on the Rights of the Child states, rights are associated with the developmental stage of the child and what is appropriate for them and in their best interest. It does not mean that we should give 12-year-olds the keys to the car merely because they want to go see their friends. It does not mean that we should let a dysregulated 4-year-old break dishes or hit their brother because they are tired. Addressing the misunderstanding of what it means for a child to have rights, and for a parent to be a rights-defender for children, is at the heart of this chapter.

10.2

10.2

What It Means to Own Property

245

What It Means to Own Property

Property is a term describing anything that a person or a business has legal title over. This entitles owners to have certain enforceable rights over things defined as property. Property can be tangible or intangible in nature. Tangible property includes material things such as land, houses, cars, furniture, and machinery. Intangible property describes assets like stocks and bonds, or one’s reputation. Property can be considered real-estate, private property, government property, corporate property, and personal property. Personal property is sometimes referred to as “real” property and includes things like clothes, art, jewelry, and cars. Intellectual property is considered a separate category, and includes our intellectual work as documented in inventions, ideas, writings, plays, lyrics, music, logos, or other categories. Private property may include tangible and intangible things and is not open to the public nor owned by a government. Government property includes public schools, libraries, city parks, and municipal buildings. (Bloomenthal 2022). Property can be regarded as transactional, in that owners can buy, sell, rent, and manage the conditions and situations under which something is owned. Property is also relational (Alexander 2013). Property owners have some obligations; for instance, a landlord renting a house to people have an obligation not to have toxic materials in it and to have the house in livable condition. If a business owner doesn’t clear steps in in the building and someone falls and gets injured, the owner may be liable. They have to pay taxes and to have insurance in some cases (Lulich 2018). But as Alexander (2013:4) notes, Private property ordinarily triggers notions of individual rights, not social obligations. The core image of property rights, in the minds of most people, is that the owner has a right to exclude others and owes no further obligation to them. That image is highly misleading. Property owners owe far more responsibilities to others, both owners and non-owners, than the conventional imagery of property rights suggests. Property rights are inherently relational, and because of this characteristic, owners necessarily owe obligations to others. But the responsibility, or obligation, dimension of private ownership has been sorely undertheorised. Inherent in the concept of ownership is an implicit norm that might be called the social-obligation norm. This norm captures the various obligations that owners owe to others, specifically, to certain members of the various communities to which they belong. The moral foundation of this norm is human flourishing.

Can people own living things? People have owned animals such as cows, pigs, chickens, and goats to be sold for food throughout time. Dogs, cats, and other domesticated creatures have been “owned” by humans. It is illegal in many places to own “exotic” animals. If people do not adequately care for their animals, the animals can be taken away for their own safety whereupon better caregivers may enter to “own” them. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a hundreds-year-old organization designed to protect animals from abuse. So yes, people may own animals but if they fail to do so adequately, they may lose ownership of them. Considering whether people can own other people, it is clear that throughout history and around the world, people have tried to own other people as slaves.

246

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Historical accounts indicate that people were enslaved as far back as 3500 BCE in different places around the world. Slavery was authorized in the fifteenth Century which contributed to the colonization of countries and the eventual establishment of slavery as part of US history (New York Times 2022a, b, c). According to William E. Channing, who influenced Ralph Waldo Emerson, “A slave is in the power of the master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but which must belong to his master.” He argues that people cannot be justly owned or be the property of others (Channing 1835). Collins (2014) suggests that women belong to a lower class in a sexual stratification system. The same could be said about children’s lowly position in an age stratification system (Cottle and Brooks 2022). In this system, according to Collins, women can be acquired as sexual property and thus subjugated to the role of “menial servants” (Lévi-Strauss 1949). The same idea about people being property can be applied to children, who have regularly been regarded as parental property. There is a linguistic consideration when we talk about people as property. We may talk about “my family”, “my dog”, “my spouse” or “my kids”. The question that looms is how much do we really believe we “own” them and can make decisions for and about them? The question of whether children are property lies beneath these common turns of phrase. While such terms may seem innocuous, they may in fact have huge implications.

10.3

History of Children as Property

The child as property view dates back to ancient patriarchal societies where wives and children were regarded as male property. Female children were not as highly valued as having a son; girls were fed and cared for, only to be married off to become the property of other men. This is where the notion of a dowry originated; the family of the bride was compensated for what the parent invested in raising her. When males took a bride and had children, they became his property to work and do whatever he demanded. Fathers had the right to even sell children if they chose to do so (Ahmed 2010; Berkeley Law 2021; Ng 2018). The issue of children as property and what parents were obligated to do with and for their children has long been a debated and often contradictory issue. Even in the eighteenth century there were court actions that required parents, especially fathers, to provide for the maintenance and education of children. The court of Chancery in England made decisions that parents must endow younger generations with sufficient resources and property to give them a measure of independence from elders and power over their own lives (Hofri-Winogrado 2012). The early days of Colonial America framed children largely within a British view of children as servants and important economic producers for parents. Courts became principally involved in issues of the custody and control of children to approve contracts for indenture or to resolve conflicts regarding child labor. Adults controlled the lives of children; within the hierarchy of the household, control ranged

10.3

History of Children as Property

247

in descending order from biological father, master, putative father, guardian, stepfather, then to the married mother, mistress, widow, stepmother, unwed mother, and slave mother. Children could be “sons or daughters, apprentices or servants, orphans, bastards, or slaves (Berkeley Law 2021). During divorce hearings, custody of children was viewed from an economic perspective. Families were large and having many children meant that there were more workers for the field, so more income for the household. No birth control was available through most of history. Children were produced and families may not be able to feed and care for them all. My own turn of the last century grandmother had 11 children, not because she wanted so many but because sex was an obligation of which children were the result. There is a family tale that she was so overwhelmed that she sometimes slept with a gun under her pillow, to either shot her husband for demanding sex again, or shooting herself because she could not bear bringing another child into the world. She never shot him or herself, but she carried children as burdens; I seldom saw her smile. Teaching children to be productive members of the household and community was regarded as the father’s responsibility. “Fathers were expected to work hard to provide food and shelter for their wife and children in all the colonies, and it was the community’s responsibility to enforce this obligation” (Berkeley Law 2021), thus fathers were put in the position of being the duty-bearer to what the community (aka state) demanded. Women as mothers were expected to do domestic and caregiving work at no economic compensation per se. Girls were socialized to replicate the kind of work their mothers did. A division between what was considered girls work and boys work emerged, and fathers saw their sons as a greater long-term investment of their time, energy, and money. It is interesting to observe that females are just starting to be accepted into many occupations that have been commandeered by males throughout history. The notion of people being property is part of the US story. People were forcibly brought from Africa to work on plantations and in other jobs for white people. They were bought and sold at slave auctions. A third or more of Southern families owned slaves during the 1800s. If children were born to enslaved couples or the product or raped, the children also became the property of their owners. As valuable assets to the owner, they were not allowed to leave or craft their own lives (King 1995; Mullins 1997). Over time enslaved children were not regarded to be property of the slave-owner. The question looms whether enslaved children were seen more as property of their owners rather than their parents. Moving through history, times of unemployment and economic struggle saw parents selling their children. They could because children were seen to be their property, in the same way a cow or chicken would be considered property that could be raised and sold. During the Depression as well as post-WWII, some parents sold their children for as little as two-dollars each (Taptalga 2020). There is a famous depression era photograph of pregnant Lucille Chalifoux hiding her face in shame after putting her other children on her front porch with a sign that announced the children were for sale (Chicago, 1948 from Rare Historical Photos). She could not afford to feed or care for them; with another baby on the way, this was her only option to hope they could be better cared for.

248

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Children were typically sold to an adult who used them as child laborers, did not pay them, fed them only enough to keep them alive, and chained them at night so they would not escape. While selling them sounded cruel, parents may have done so because they hoped their children’s lives would be better than the meager one they could provide. Because selling children was neither legal nor illegal, proving biological parentage allowed people to buy children for low prices like $2 and then sell them to rich individuals or families for $100. Other people would kidnap children to be sold to others. Barbara Bisantz Raymond reported that between 1936 and 1950 that 0ver 50,000 children were stolen and over 5000 were sold (Taptalga 2020). It became clear that stealing, buying, and selling children was a money-making strategy—one that laid the foundations for the child trafficking that exists today. Hart (1991) notes that there has a slow but study progression from people in general, and children specifically, from being perceived as property to having a personhood status. Being considered a person, a human being, is a relatively recent development in the sweep of history. This status change is directly related to the importance of building a children’s human rights framework. Republicans have labeled themselves to be the self-styled “party of family values”, as if anyone of any other political persuasions are anti-family. Those who see themselves as pro-family values tend to inaccurately stereotype the CRC as antifamily, which it is not, as it specifically codifies parental rights in at least 19 of the treaty. The organization, Parental Rights.org, uses inflammatory language and scare tactics to motivate parents to actively fight against children having rights. Their motto is “Protecting children by empowering parents”. They have fears that the CRC would erode the authority parents were entitled to exercise over their minor children and empower faceless UN bureaucrats to determine matters of a fundamentally domestic character. Of particular concern to the party of family values is control over children’s sexuality, education, healthcare, privacy, decision-making, and religious upbringing (Zolyniak 2022). In the early twenty-first century in the USA, we again find the issue of whether children are property as a national topic of debate. There are those parents who allege that children are parental property and they have sole authority to decide what they eat, what they read, what kinds of healthcare they receive (or don’t), who they associate with, what they can wear, what they can do to their bodies, and so forth. There are others who allege that children are independent persons with agency and autonomy who should be able to make decisions in accordance with their capacity and maturity that impact their lives. This debate is far from over and will undoubtedly be part of historical accounts of this time period that will become part of our national story in the future.

10.4

Legal Considerations of Children as Parental Property

One view regards the family as a community of persons with individual interests that must be protected, which means that there must be limits to what parents can do. Another view regards the family as a sort of mini-state in which parents, as the

10.4

Legal Considerations of Children as Parental Property

249

head of the state, are given absolute power. In an article in The Modern Law Review, Jonathan Montgomery reviews the legal relationship between parents and children and finds that “Under the first theory parents hold their power as agents or trustees on behalf of the children, under the second children are treated as property” (Montgomery 1988:323). This distinction—of parents as trustees of children who operate as caregivers with obligations and limits to their actions, or whether children are their property to be done-to as parents wish—shows up in today’s confusion over what deems the proper relationship between parents, children, and the law. There are many reasons to view children as independent beings that do not constitute property or unduly control by parents (Godwin 2015). Despite the collective view in law and social practice that it is intrinsically taboo to consider human beings as chattel, the law persists in treating children as property. The patriarchal view of fathers owning children is outdated and needs to be reconsidered in light of the best interests of the child (Maillard 2010). Parental rights are better understood as quasi-property interests, residual from historical traditions where children were more explicitly regarded as their parents’ property. Quasiproperty functioning of parental rights is not a contingent feature of American law of parents and children; it is instead characteristic of granting parents separate autonomy interests in determining the path of their children’s lives. Parental autonomy rights displace and diminish consideration for children’s interests and objectify children. Parental autonomy rights are paradigmatically the right to choose desirecontingent goods for children regardless of whether they are desired or not. This denies the equal importance of children’s desires, subjective experiences, and perspectives on their own lives. As a consequence, basic doctrines in constitutional and family law cannot be reconciled with liberal and egalitarian commitments. Alternative theoretical justifications for parental rights include constitutional and philosophical arguments based on personal liberty and family privacy, as well as philosophical arguments based on relational rights, ethics of care, and the Lockean labor theory of value. These arguments all fall short and, in crucial ways, rely on denying children equal moral consideration. Legal reforms are recommended to protect rights of young people. Attorney-scholar Barbara Bennet Woodhouse has written extensively about the legal rights of children and the relationship of children as property. She finds that patriarchal notions of ownership do not lend themselves to a child-centered theory of custody or parenthood. The patriarchal tradition assumes that parents’ rights exist for the parent and not for the child. They overvalue procreation and undervalue nurture and treat children as movable chattel rather than a person, instruments molded to do adult bidding rather than claiming their own lives. Children are denied their own voice and identity and become a conduit for the parents’ religious expression, cultural identity, and class aspirations. The minor child is a key tool of the parents’ free exercise but has no independent free exercise protections. The parents’ authority to speak for and through the child is explicit in court cases such as Meyer’s “right of control” and Pierce’s “high duty” of the parent to direct his child’s destiny. She alleges that our legal system fails to respect children, as the voices they listen to are parent voices, not those of children. By giving parents the right to speak, choose and live through the child has led to children’s oppression by the courts.

250

10

Are Children Parental Property?

From her analysis of the legal questions about whether children are parental property when asked “who owns the child?”, she concludes that “Morally, I believe children own themselves. Neither the state nor the parent owns them, although each must genuinely love them and take responsibility for their future. Legally and politically? (Woodhouse 1992). Courts of law have made determinations on when children are seen as parental property and when they have not. What the law says may be different from the beliefs of individuals and institutions. Going back to our earlier discussion of belief and bias in the construction of our narratives about children, moral beliefs may be key in determining whether we think children should be awarded human rights in policy and practice. Children are generally regarded, legally and morally, as the property of their parents. It is considered normal for adults, and especially parents, to dictate to children what they should believe, what they should want, and how they should act. As children develop into adults, they have little experience with actual compassion, and it is no wonder so few become compassionate adults. . . .I ask parents to fight the urge, driven by our natures, our culture, even our laws, to regard children as objects we possess—property to be treated as we wish. It is an immense task, but extremely important, because the status-quo leads to injustice, pain, and long-term suffering. (Haas 2018)

Bester and Kodish (2017) argue in the American Journal of Bioethics that children are not the property of parents. They assert that there is a need for a clear statement of ethical obligations by parents as they care for children, as well as a marked delineation of boundaries between them. They argue that decisions for children should not be guided by an assumption that parents are always right. For instance, in the case of medical care, healthcare decisions should not solely reside in the hands of the parents but by “the important fiduciary obligation that doctors have to focus primarily on what is best for their patient.” They worry that the approach that parents have sole control of decisions that impact children’s lives opens the door to exploitation, abuse, or neglect. Children, they assert, are not chattel. They do not belong to their parents. Sandel (2013) writes about whether there should be moral standards for things that money can’t buy—like children. He observes that even if buyers did not mistreat the children they purchased, a market in children would express and promote the wrong way of valuing them. “Children are not properly regarded as consumer goods but as beings worthy of love and care.”

10.5

To Whom Do Children Belong?

The distinction that Montgomery (1988) raises of parents as trustees or owners of children raises important points for consideration. It poses the question—Do children belong to parents or with parents? Children benefit from living in loving homes with caring parents. For those who argue that children belong to the parents, the verdict is less clear. The state has deemed it has the right to remove children from parents who are not doing due diligence to provide the care and protection that

10.5

To Whom Do Children Belong?

251

children need in order to survive and thrive. If parents are abusive, neglectful, or proven to be “bad parents”, children can be removed. According to the Children’s Defense Fund’s State of America’s Children 2021 report, a child is removed every two minutes from their family because the family was not attending to the proper care and treatment of them. When parents are taking good care of their children, children can belong with them. It is clear from a legal perspective in the United States that if parents aren’t doing an adequate job caring for their children and are putting them at risk, then they can lose custody of them. This implies that ultimately children do not belong just to their parents. But if children do not belong to their parents, to whom do they belong? Certainly not to their doctors. Nor are they autonomous and capable of taking care of themselves. Perhaps they belong to the state, although that concept has a frighteningly fascist tinge. Or maybe the problem is a misunderstanding of the concept of belonging. Can they belong partially to everyone and absolutely to no one? After all, everyone involved—parents, doctors, the state—has the same fiduciary responsibility to do what is best for children. We all also have potentially conflicting interests of our own, so none of us can be the selfless advocates for children that we would hope to be. . . .So children, it seems, belong to us all, at least in the sense that, because they cannot take care of themselves, we must decide, collectively, what is best for them. We must decide what we owe them, and how we will allocate the responsibility for their upbringing, their basic needs, their education, and their medical care. (Lantos 2017:4)

Lantos observes that the best interest principle is aspirational and we must do what is best for the individual child with no compromises or considerations of competing interests. This goal has been criticized for viewing each child as isolated from both family and society. The harm principle, on the other hand, suggests that we, collectively, can neither know what is best for any individual child or family nor assert a right to demand that parents do what is best for a child. Instead, what results is an insistence that parents meet only the minimalist standard of not doing things to their children that are egregiously harmful. As long as they remain above that threshold, their privacy and their choices should at least be tolerated and accepted. That principle, he notes, leaves children at the mercy of mediocre or even moderately malevolent parents. Together, we need to decide not only what we owe our children but also which children to consider as “ours.” For parents, is it only their own children or is it all children in their community? For doctors, is it only the children under our care, or are we stewards of all child health resources and obligated to be at least somewhat utilitarian? For our country, is it all the children in our midst or only those with proper documents? . . .we owe our children more than simply protection from harm. We want children to flourish, to soar. When any child is denied such opportunities, it diminishes us all. (Lantos 2017:5)

The child as parental property issue can be observed in a variety of situations. Next it will be examined as it pertains to adoption of children and child trafficking.

252

10.5.1

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Adoption

Adoption has become an industry, with an estimate one million people looking to adopt a child and finding that in a supply and demand model, there are not sufficient numbers of adoptable babies available. This has increased the private adoption business, who can now charge huge amounts for people to adopt a child sight unseen (Tik Root 2021). While adopting a needy child and giving it a loving home was the historical narrative, in many ways today adopting a child has become akin to buying a baby. Historically there were abandoned or orphaned children who could be adopted but in recent years the number of available children—especially babies— has dwindled. Infertility is a common reality facing many women and adopting a child is seen as a reasonable option for people who want to build a family. It also makes prospective parents feel good about adopting children who are already here, instead of adding more lives to an ever-increasing global population. The problem is that there aren’t enough babies around to be adopted, so the price to find one has skyrocketed. The result has been the creation of an adoption market (Brennan 2015). In this thriving market, is adoption meant to provide babies for families, or families for babies? (Khazan 2021). Goodwin (2006) observes that adoption processes in the United States were once based on the altruistic child welfare model but have morphed to reflect the desires of would-be parents. The result has been an unregulated marketplace in which children are the commodity. Newborn babies are the “hottest” commodity; older children and those with disabilities are harder to place. While people may be uncomfortable recognizing adoption in the US as a child marketplace, “its existence is demonstrated by frequent financial transactions among adoptive parents, birth mothers, and adoption agencies that resemble payments” (Goodwin 2006:61). There is also a concern that some women may become pregnant in order to put the child up for adoption, since a 9-month time investment could yield them tens of thousands of dollars. In this way, callously children could be regarded as a property that parents choose to have in order to sell. In this adoption market, children are priced—white infants cost more than older black children. A decade ago the price of a newborn was $25000 and the price of a 10-year-old boy was only $2000 (Sandel 2013). Prices have gone up significantly since then, although the disparity continues to exist. A private adoption could easily run over $50,000 or even much more per child (Dodge 2020; Skidmore et al. 2012). The adoption market is not tightly regulated, even though there have been efforts to improve its regulation. There is an underground and black-market baby-buying industry where people quietly “sell” their children or allow someone to adopt them without going through scrutiny or meeting guidelines. Sandel (2013) asks when, if ever, is it permissible for a person to relinquish, voluntarily with or without compensation, his or her parental rights over her child, and questions what conditions and factors, independent of the willingness and ability to buy adoption rights, make a potential parent fit to adopt a child? Should a buyer-parent prove competence before being allowed to do so? The way adoption has evolved, it thus can be argued that children have become property to be bought and sold.

10.5

To Whom Do Children Belong?

10.5.2

253

Child Trafficking

It is commonly assumed that children are not trafficked in the US. It is also assumed that when it occurs, the traffickers are strangers to the children. This is not true. Child trafficking occurs because children are perceived as property that can earn adults money. Because their rights are not protected, it is easy for children to be trafficked (Dore 2019). There are an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 child sex workers in the U.S. The common perception of human trafficking often involves a child being kidnapped and forced into prostitution, but an unknown number are being bought and sold from their own homes (Keely 2020). Children can be trafficked for other things besides sex. They can be trafficked to be laborers and shuttled from one location to another to work for adults doing anything from agricultural work, factory type work, caregiving, to drug dealing. Young people may also be trafficked for their organs to be removed and procured by adults. Older people’s organs have a lot of wear-and-tear on them, but young people’s organs are likely healthier and have more “life” left to them. In some cases, young people may willingly sell a kidney or an organ to earn money; in other cases the children may be unaware that they will undergo surgical procedures until they wake up post-surgery to realize they had organs removed. Unlike the countless people trafficked to perform sex work, there are increasing numbers of people being trafficked into cyberscammimg, where people are lured into working for criminal syndicates to trick and defraud people to participate in financial scams or cybercrime (Podkul and Liu 2022). Raphael (2020) reports that many children who are trafficked were sold as very young children and the abuse continued through their teen years. She finds that the distinction between pedophilia and the sex trade industry is often blurred and discusses the motivations of parents as sellers and buyers of their sexual involvement. The average age of a victim of familial trafficking in the U.S. is only five years old, and some children are victimized as early as infancy; only 10% of trafficked children did not know the person trafficking them (Hartmann 2019). Sprang and Cole (2018) found that in familial trafficking, nearly 65% of the traffickers were the mother and 32% were the victim’s father. Almost 60% of familial trafficking victims have ongoing contact with their trafficker, making it exceedingly difficult for children and youth to remove themselves from harmful situations and protect themselves—both physically and psychologically because their rights are not protected. It is uncomfortable to imagine that parents in the US use their children to earn money for them in this manner. Whether children are property of parents who work in other types of jobs in order to bring money into the household is a curious question. It is clear that in historic and agricultural times that having children enabled parents to earn more money. A question that arises is whether child prostitution by parents is an extension of this age-old phenomenon.

254

10.5.3

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Philosophical Thoughts of Children Not as Property

There are legal arguments around the child as property issue, religious ones, moral ones, and philosophical ones. A few that seem to have shaped some of the narrative around children not being property include bell hook’s quote from All About Love: When we love children, we acknowledge by our every action that they are not property, that they have rights—that we respect and uphold”. The website Better World1 has a large accumulation of inspirational quotes from leaders around the world talking about the importance of children’s rights to be respected that is worth reviewing. Words by poet-philosopher Gibran (1923) are commonly associated with ways many people have come to view children: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth....

10.6

CRC as a Pro-Parent Treaty

The Convention on the Rights of the Child supports the important role of parents in caring for their children. There is an active parental rights movement in the US that has chosen to frame the CRC as anti-parent. It is not. I am a parent and find that the CRC defends not just my children, but my rights to be a better parent to them. Unfortunately, most people have never read the CRC. This is why the entire CRC was posted in Part I of this book. It is important to read each article and consider what it means and how it could be implemented “for the best interests of the child”. It is not a document specifically designed to be in the best interests of parents, but just as supporting families supports children, supporting children supports parents and all the other members of the family. Studies indicate that when asked if they agree or disagree with what is specific content in the CRC, like children have a right to education, healthcare, play, and to be with their families, few people disagree. Of course, few people agree 100% with anything; it must be remembered that the CRC

1

https://www.betterworld.net/quotes/children-quotes.htm

10.6

CRC as a Pro-Parent Treaty

255

is a blueprint of what a society could do if children’s rights were a priority. It is not a law. There are no penalties for noncompliance. It is an aspirational document to help a society to put into place all the things that all children need in order to survive and thrive. If people understood what it said they would support what it’s advocating for children—and families (Gardinier 2022; Lesley 2022). The CRC’s stated support of families was born in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25(2) in the UDHR states, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection”. There are also other human rights treaties that refer to children, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and others. All of these treaties indirectly refer to children having rights. However, none of the specifically define children as primary rights holders. As a result, children were falling through the cracks. Just as the US Constitution theoretically talks about all “men” being equal, court actions throughout history show that it has not automatically protected all groups of people. Court actions were needed to ensure that people of all races were treated equally and have equal access to all opportunities that society can offer. Women have fought long and hard for their rights. People have had to fight for their gender and sexual orientation to be protected. All of these groups are still fighting for equality and for all of their rights to be defended. In the US Constitution, as will be shown in Part III, children’s rights are not automatically protected. Because these laudable documents sound inclusive doesn’t mean that they are. If they did automatically include children and defend them as rights holders, this book would not be necessary.

10.6.1

Specific Articles Supporting Parents

The CRC clearly recognizes that that the family is the basic unit of society and has primacy in children’s lives and development. It calls upon governments as a matter of obligation to support the family to ensure that children are nurtured, protected and allowed to develop. The CRC seeks to ensure that all children, not just some, have the provisions they need, such as healthcare, food, housing, education, etc. This means helping all parents to have the ability to provide these resources. In the Preamble of the CRC, the treaty begins by recognizing the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and wellbeing of all its members and particularly children. . .” The Preamble goes on to state that “[T]he child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. . .”.

256

10

Are Children Parental Property?

The CRC repeatedly underscores the primary role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the CRC to support this, particularly in Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14,18, 22, 26, and 27. Briefly. Article 2—States Parties ensure that child rights are ensured without discrimination to parent’s status, activities, belief, or expressed opinion. This means that children should not be discriminated against if someone does not value the race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics of the child’s family or culture. Article 3 -Best interest of the child standard requires that governments make laws, policies, programs, and funding decisions that ensure that they have addressed what is best for the child whenever possible. This is a good blueprint for organizations, schools, communities, and families to follow as well. Article 5—States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. The responsibilities, rights and duties of parents are identified as important. Parents are in positions to defend children’s rights. The CRC holds that government or people in positions of power and leadership have an obligation to make sure children are appropriately cared for. Article 7—The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. The right for children to know and be cared for by parents protects the rights of parents to have a relationship with their children. In this broad context, a child “belongs” to the parent—but does not mean that a child is property of the parents. Article 8—Preservation of identity, nationality, name and family relations. There have been cases, for example indigenous children in Canada, who were removed from their families and put into institutions where their heritage and language were diminished. Families have a right to share their heritage and culture with their children, and children have a right for it not to be taken away just because someone wanted the child to refer to themselves as something else. Article 9—This article is lengthy and addresses the right not to separate children from their parents against their will, with the exception: abuse and neglect. Authorities are to respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests. Article 10—If a child has been removed from their family or separated from them, efforts are to treat children in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. Article 14—This article protects the right of parents to provide direction on freedom, thought and religion. States Parties shall respect the right of the parents to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in the manner consistent with their evolving capacities. It also protects the rights of children to have their own thoughts and choice of religion. This article talks about respecting one another’s views; it does not force the child to automatically think the same thing as

10.6

CRC as a Pro-Parent Treaty

257

the parents but underscores the value of good communication, dialogue, and respect for one another’s differences. Article 18—The right and responsibilities of both parents to raise the child are listed here; both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. Article 22 Addresses the right of refugee child to reunification with family. This article can pertain to parents in international situations, and addresses the child separation crisis at the US-Mexico border. Article 26—States Parties recognize the right of every child to benefit from social security and insurance (in accordance with national laws). Article 27—(Standard of Living) States Parties shall take appropriate measures to assist parents to implement this right and to make provisions for those in need. The right of the parents to secure the child’s standard of living. Article 29—Education is designed to help the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; to develop respect for the child’s parents and heritage, and to promote peace, tolerance, and equality. The other articles may indirectly benefit parents as well. None of the articles are anti-parent—unless parents choose to create a conflictual, controlling relationship around them.

10.6.2

Myth Busting

Part of the misunderstanding of what it means for children to have rights, and what the CRC says, is due to an intentional misinformation campaign led by adults who wish to remain in control of every aspect of a child’s life. This misinformation campaign has led to the creation of a series of myths that have permeated the narrative about children and rights. It is necessary to directly address them. Myth: The CRC undermines the primacy of the parent-child relationship. Fact: The CRC recognizes the family as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all children. The CRC underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the CRC to support this. (See Articles 3,5,7,8,9,10,14,18,22 and 27.) Myth: The CRC would empower children to boss parents and adults around. Fact: This is absolutely untrue and totally contrary to the premise of being rights respecting. When adults are respectful of children, they role-model rights respecting behavior that children then emulate. As in the research on bullies, bullies are those who most likely were themselves bullied. Children who violate people’s rights of any age are those who learned these representations of rights violations in their own daily lives as normal and acceptable.

258

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Myth: Ratification of the CRC would give government control over children, not parents. Fact: The CRC is a blueprint or roadmap for how a community can best ensure children’s ability to survive and thrive. It is not a law. The government does not want to take control over all the children. The government has bent over backwards historically to make sure that parents rights have come first. This myth is unfounded today, and throughout history. Myth: The CRC would become “Supreme Law” of the land. Fact: As ruled by the US Supreme Court under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution. [Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. The CRC is a non “self-executing treaty”—it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. Each US state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation. Myth: Ratification would allow the UN or international bodies to dictate how parents raise their children. Fact: The CRC does not, by any means, grant the UN authority to control, govern or police US policies for children. The US is a member of the global community and what happens in one part of the world impacts others. The US was once a global leader in children’s human rights, and could be again if it would commit to making children’s human rights a national priority. Myth: Parenting is an individual, private experience. Fact: Parenting is a communal activity. No parent fares well when spending 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for years on end, with just them and their child. To parent well, we need others. This includes caregivers, teachers, social service agencies, healthcare providers, - and the government. We want them to be competent, safe, and provide good quality care to children. Myth: Parenting is an adult-only experience. Fact: Parenting is a child’s experience as well. Parenting is an entry point for connecting children to a broader range of policies. Parenting can be an entry point for considering how social issues and policies might impact children. These include housing, healthcare, Wi-Fi access, childcare, and government representation. Myth:Some parents and children are more deserving than others. Fact: A human rights approach holds that all people are equal to the same rights merely because they are human. All children are vulnerable and are at-risk given the right convergence of situations. A deservedness approach penalizes children. The deservedness approach focuses on what people have done or become; children are human beings, not human becomings. To hold them to a standard of judgment for what their parents have or have not done is a disservice to meeting their best interests. Myth: The CRC gives children the right to sue their parents. Fact:The CRC does not give children the right to sue their parents. Any legal action brought by children against their parents must be based on existing federal or state laws, not on provisions contained in the CRC. Myth: The CRC would encourage children to have sex.

10.7

Psychosocial Theories About Children as Property

259

Fact: Children are sexual beings and sooner or later will engage in sexual acts. The CRC seeks to prevent illness and increase wellness and does not take a position on sexual contact. Advocates of child rights have supported accurate sex education in order to empower youth to be in charge of the who, what, where, why, and how of sexual contact and to protect children from rape, sexually transmitted disease, and other physical and emotional harms. Myth: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions. Fact: The CRC maintains no explicit position on abortion and does not define when childhood begins. Ratifying countries remain responsible for forming public policy on these issues through their own national legislative and judicial process. The Holy See (Vatican) was one of the first parties to ratify the CRC and other countries with anti-abortion bans have ratified the CRC. Myth: The CRC would make it impossible for parents to discipline their children. Fact: A rights-respecting framework encourages parents to guide children towards appropriate, safe, and respectful actions. Violence and aggression are not viewed as respectful means of teaching children how to behave. Discipline and punishment are not the same. Punishment is retaliation, anger-laden, and punitive. Discipline is educational, instructional, and shows children not just how to act but how to make good choices for how to behave and interact with others (Gardinier 2022; L’Hote and Volmert 2019).

10.7

Psychosocial Theories About Children as Property

“Children are not your property; if you treat them like they are, they are attractions or addictions. This is not love” (anonymous). What may be some theories or explanations for why children are treated as if they were objects that were owned by adults? There are several possible frameworks that could elucidate this view that might be applicable, from a clinical sociological perspective. These include reactive theory, labeling theory, and conflict theory.

10.7.1

Reactance Theory

Giving children human rights designations could be perceived as no big deal since all people ostensibly have them, and could be seen as a positive thing. But some people have opted to view children having rights as bad, dangerous, and something that should be curtailed at all costs. One possible psychological explanation can be found in reactive theory. Reactance theory is an approach that hypothesizes when people respond to a perceived threat or loss of something like a behavioral freedom, the person may respond with resistance and react, or reactance. Reactance is a psychological or motivational state that is characterized by anxiety, distress, and a desire to regain a

260

10

Are Children Parental Property?

freedom that they fear could be threatened or lost. Whenever confronted with this threat or if they feel they are being pressured into a particular belief system or behavior, they will react against it with resistance to the influence of others. This theory was proposed by Jack Brehm in 1966 and posits that when individuals feel that their freedom or control is being threatened, they are motivated to protect their autonomy. The perceived threat could be something as simple as advice from others. Threats can be internal or external in origin. Internal threats are self-imposed threats arising from having to choose specific alternatives and reject others. External threats arise either from impersonal situational factors that by happenstance create a barrier to an individual’s freedom or from social influence attempts targeting a specific individual or groups of people. Psychological reactance revolves around the concept of freedom, and our perception of freedom influences the extent to which we may show reactance. Children and adults may perceive freedom differently. Four basic principles are associated in reactance theory. They are first, that in a given situation, reactance can only occur when an individual believes they have control or freedom over the outcome. Two, reactance to a threat will only be as great as the perceived importance of the freedom. If the freedom being threatened is very important, reactance to it will also be great. Three, the greater number of freedoms threatened, the greater will be the reactance aroused. Four, reactance to a threat may increase when there are implications of other threats (Brehm 1966, 1972; Brehm and Brehm 1981; Brehm and Self 1989; Jonas et al. 2009; Miron and Brehm 2006). It is human nature for people to feel convinced that they possess certain freedoms to engage in so-called free behaviors. When they cannot, this evokes an emotional response in which people try to regain control. As reactance theory applies to parental response to control their children, resistance to their having rights, or opposition to the CRC, the pandemic created a situation where a multitude of parental rights were impacted simultaneously. For instance, parents may have had to quit their job to stay home with their children when daycare centers or schools closed. They may have had their hours cut or been fired when businesses closed. This meant that they had a loss of income. Add in the ambiguity of the virus—when it emerged, no one was sure exactly where it came from, how it was spread, its impact, or how to stop it. This created anxiety, insecurity, even panic for parents to try to manage their lives, incomes, and care for their children. There was the additional stressor of everyone staying home 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for weeks on end. No matter how much we love someone, being with them constantly can be tiring and increase relationship disharmony or even heighten the possibility of interpersonal aggression or abuse. Mask-wearing and social or physical distancing was resented by people who wanted to go back to their free and easy lifestyles they had before the virus. Anger and hostility boiled over and became misdirected at schools, teachers, clerks in stores, restaurant staff, and flight attendants. Upset and anger do not justify violating other people’s rights. People who feel threatened experience uncomfortable emotions like hostility, aggression, anxiety, and anger. “Threatened people may exhibit the restricted behavior (direct restoration) or may observe others performing a related behavior

10.7

Psychosocial Theories About Children as Property

261

(indirect restoration). They may aggressively force the threatening person to remove the threat or they may behave in a hostile and aggressive way just to let off steam (aggression). On the cognitive side, people may derogate the source of threat, upgrade the restricted freedom, or downgrade the imposed option” and make the source of the threat seem unattractive, wrong, stupid, bad, or dangerous (Steindl et al. 2015). This is what was observable in adult behavior after the pandemic. Often their hostility was directed at people who had nothing to do with the external origin of what people felt internally threatened about. Healthcare professionals and scientists found themselves physically, emotionally, and socially attacked because they advocated public health positions that individuals resented and felt threated their freedom. Reactance theory holds that if only one thing had happened, the situation may have been manageable. But when multiple threats to one’s freedom are occurring simultaneously, this increases the likelihood that people will react with resistance and opposition. Reactance to a threat may increase when there are implications of other threats. For instance, resistance to being asked to get vaccinations or health procedures could, and did, morph into resistance to birth control or abortion fears. Reactance will increase when other freedoms of choice and issues of control are threatened (Andreoli et al. 1974). Normally functional relationships may become strained during times of perceived threats. When loved-ones asked people to get vaccinated who did not want to, relationships between family members, formerly good parent-teacher relationships, previously strong doctor-patient relations, and even routine interactions with our once friendly store-clerks became conflictual. School boards founds were attacked for adhering with Centers for Disease Control health guidelines. Reactance-prone individuals may be unaware of their nonconscious relationship’s reactance (Chartrand et al. 2007; Wellman and Geers 2009). Increased intolerance against groups who are perceived to be part of those who threaten us is a common response. Reactance to, or acceptance of stereotypes of groups become implicit and explicit responses to group identity threat (De Lemus et al. 2015). As a personal example, I went to a summer town fair and wore a mask since there were going to be many people in close proximity with each other. As I walked down an aisle between outside booths, a group of unmasked adolescent males who I had never seen before started saying what disparaging things about me to one another, such as “Damn Democrat” and “F**cking liberal”. They had no idea who I was, what I believed, how I voted, what I did, or anything about me—they took one look at my wearing a mask, stereotyped, and trash-talked me. From a reactance theory, this was a logical response for them to deal with their own associated threat to the symbol of a piece of cloth on my face. Cognitive dissonance may have been a factor to their response as well. Because human rights have been perceived by some to be something that liberals endorse, it can be easier for conservatives to be critical of the CRC without ever having read it. It is a mentality that “If I don’t like Democrats, and Democrats like the CRC, then the CRC must be something I don’t like too” approach (Zanna and Cooper 1974). When people feel they belong to a group and that group holds a

262

10

Are Children Parental Property?

narrative that they are part of an in-group and there is an out-group who is responsible for threatening their freedom, reactance towards the entire group results (Graupmann et al. 2012). This is perhaps why social media has been very effective in sharing messages within the Facebook or other networks, information that is biased toward the perpetuation of a particular narrative, one that may be designed to eliminate the perceived threat (Wollebæk et al. 2019). As long as there are observable in-groups or out-groups that can be seen as the source of good/bad, or right/ wrong, reactance will be sustained. There is a possibility that if someone in our in-group found that there were some merits to the CRC or a narrative that alleged that having rights could be beneficial to children, that maybe this would sway others in the in-group to reconsider children from a non-property perspective (Schultz et al. 2010). Steindl and Jonas (2012) propose that it would be useful for people to dialogue to better understand one another’s position, and perhaps reconsider one’s own. In Part IV of this book dialogue strategies will be discussed. Why people get so angry when they are in a reactance stage is useful to explore. According to researchers, there is a neural basis of fear that promotes anger and sadness as attempts to counteract the perceived threat (Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones 2004; Pichon et al. 2009; Zhan et al. 2018). Threats are generated from fear, and fear and anger are closely related (Thagard 2018). This notion reinforces the idea that when people feel threatened, they experience fear and loss of their freedoms, which results the increase of reactance. It may not be one specific thing that irks parents but the association that curtailment of that freedom could lead to other loss of freedoms. For instance, a mask is merely a piece of cloth that can be easily put on and taken off, but the mask symbolizes loss of other freedoms such as how education and healthcare are provided, whether people should have access to birth control or abortion, or whether same sex people should marry. Birth control and mask-wearing are different issues entirely, but when one is associated with “freedom”, like dominoes falling, when one freedom is threatened there is fear of something else falling far from the first domino, so unrelated things can seem connected (Zolyniak 2022).

10.7.2

Labeling Theory

Starting with the assumption that everyone wants to have their rights respected, labeling theory helps us to frame our understanding of the dynamics by which some people proport that they deserve rights but others do not. People may use their positions of power to label people with whom they disagree or dislike as somehow inferior, bad, or wrong, while they hold the correct view or position. Stereotyping of others in a demeaning way is an important component of swaying people to believe in the correctness of one’s position, and the deviance or undesirability of those who view things in a way that contradicts it (Becker 1963; Cooley 1902a, b; Goffman 1959; Lemert 1967; Link and Phelan 2001; Mead 1934; Scheff 1966; Schur 1971; Schur 1980; Thomas 1928).

10.7

Psychosocial Theories About Children as Property

263

Child rights could be labeled as a healthy, positive, and good thing. The CRC could be described as parental-empowerment document because it advocates heavily for parents to have the resources and supports they need in order to give children what they need. Yet child rights in some circles evokes anger and hostility in some people, the same way that the term family empowerment is seen not in parents as trustees but in parents as authoritative masters of their children, their property. Psychological processes like cognitive dissonance may influence our perception of certain people or ideologies as good or bad, and associate them with variety of peripherally related issues (Festinger 1957). When people view a certain position, like child rights, as undesirable for whatever reason, they may go out of their way to construct a narrative about why it would be dangerous for children to have rights and why the people who advocate for them are incorrect. In what is referred to as a selffulfilling prophecy, once a view is embraced as the right and natural one another are not, then actions are taken to make their narrative seem to be the appropriate one. Stigmatizing non-adherents to one’s view is a logical step, and using one’s narrative to attack judges, teachers, scientists, or even children can result in this deviantization process. If one considers children from a human rights lens, people may agree with many things like this that are found in the CRC (Lesley 2022). Human rights as a label has come under such attack in the United States that when advocates for children talk about them, they may not use the terms “child rights” or “human rights” because it is inflammatory for some folks who would otherwise agree with the concept. Rather, discussing children in terms like “vulnerable children”, “at-risk” children, “wellbeing”, or “resilient” children occurs. School programs like “socio-emotional learning” have been attacked because it is seen as a code-word for human rights. Should we use different words to make treating children in accordance with being rights holders seem acceptable? This has been tried, to a certain extent, but by not talking about the issue of human rights, it has been easy to avoid the elephant in the room. Words are labels; what pragmatically illustrates rights respecting behavior is another thing entirely. It is not words but actions that tell the tale.

10.7.3

Conflict Theory

There is undeniable conflict between parents and children; this dynamic is embedded in families and society in general. Power and control are at the heart of conflict theory, which holds that the basic feature of all societies is the struggle between different groups for access to limited resources. Societies create distinct structural power divisions and resource inequalities are the result of groups having conflicting interests. These structural divisions are maintained by domination and power, not consensus and conformity. Holding on to wealth and power is achieved by suppressing those who are poor and powerless. Maximizing one’s own position of superiority is essential; those in power will use conflict actions against others in order to maintain their position, even if it means distorting the truth. Expression of

264

10

Are Children Parental Property?

hostility towards those who may threaten their position is a regular response by those who wish to continue their ruling class dominance (Dahrendorf 2008; Habermas 1987; Lukacs 1971; Marx and Engels 1948; Mills 1956; Weber 1978). Inequality and the uneven distribution of resources, wealth, access, and power are maintained through ideological coercion. Adults have created a narrative of framework that paints children as inferior, immature, and not deserving of the same human rights that they have. They have established this dominance through systems of laws, traditions, and other social structures that further to support their own dominance while preventing others from joining their ranks. Children are not allowed to vote and are typically not given a seat at the table to even have their concerns and needs voiced. Entire systems are constructed to maintain that they are separate and unequal; only through time and the performance of adhering to adult requirements and standards are young people able to prove that they have something to offer that might be listened to. From a social reproduction perspective, children are taught what their “place” is within society and they are to stay in it without complaint. When they have their own children, they undertake the next step in the social construction of reality, of making sure that they educate, socialize, and discipline their children to carry forward the acceptance of age inequality as normal, natural, and correct. There are young people who are unwilling to accept their lack of resources, the failure of social systems to protect them, and their inability to actively participate in decisions in their lives, families, homes, communities, and nation. When they react, a labeling process of being called deviant, delinquents, immature, or bad occurs as they may find themselves marginalized, isolated, ostracized, alienated from positions of legitimacy, or jailed or put into delinquency rehabilitation or treatment programs. Instead of considering ways that their opposition may be reasonable responses, it is easier to group them in ways that further solidifies justification for keeping them “in their place”. Adults who wish to maintain the age inequality distributions engage in a two-fold process. One, they try to control the narrative and two, punish those who disagree with it. To date, when young people feel their rights are not being listened to or addressed, their common status-quo responses have been to: (a) reluctantly shrug and accept their positions of inequality; or (b) try to coalize with other young people to fight for a particular issue, such as the March for Our Lives gun control movement, or groups of youth protesting to demand government and corporate actions to protect the environment. In both of these instances, children are playing by the rules that adults and society have set. They are not violent, they are working through official systems, and they are contacting people in legitimate positions of authority, like their governors or congress people, to help them. According to traditional conflict theory, there may come a point with oppressed people have found that working through social systems are ineffective. As individuals, children may revolt against the authority that parents, caregivers, school officials, or the police may wield. In these individuals or small group situations, children may find themselves arrested, put into treatment, or put into detention facilities. They are seen as the bad ones—not the authorities or systems they have

10.8

Implications of a Child-as-Property Perspective

265

rebelled against. Fix the child, then the systems can remain intact. These individuallevel opposition measures have seldom resulted in system change towards equality. On a larger social level, young people have not yet coalized to form power groups to seriously challenge authorities. Even in the Black Lives Matter movement, children were not the focus of their challenge. The child-collective example that showcases what young people can do when they mobilize and stick together is shown in the newsboys strike of 1899. Newsboys or newspaper hawkers felt they were unfairly compensated for the work and when on strike in New York City and essentially shut down the newspaper for several days. This youth-led campaign led to Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst’s newspaper empires deciding to pay the newsies more fairly (Nasaw 1985) and shown in pictures from the New York Times in 1886. Social conflict need not be bad; challenging the status quo has been shown to be historically beneficial as seen through examples like the American Revolution from British rule, the Civil Rights movement breaking racial segregation as a national law; or the Suffragette movement’s fight for women’s ability to cast a vote. Challenging the positions of the status quo and those who wish to keep power and wealth for themselves instead of sharing it equitably with others gives society opportunity to reconsider their values and methods of operation. Conflict theory presumes that rebellion is an inevitable logical consequence when social systems fail to address the needs of large groups of marginalized persons. As the demographics of the world’s population changes, and as BIPOC youth become the national and international majority, we would be wise to remember this.

10.8

Implications of a Child-as-Property Perspective

Despite challenges to a child-as-parental-property view, remnants of a mentality assuming children are parental property has remained and appear to be currently being strengthened in the US. While it may seem politically incorrect today to say that children are property, most parents feel they have the right to decide what their children should think, do and have. When children are seen as parental property, a set of logical implications result. When children are seen as only parental property, this puts a huge burden of responsibility on parents that they may not be comfortable shouldering. There is time, economic, work, childcare, and support issues at stake here. If parents want to “own” the child, it can be argued that they “own” all responsibility for their education, housing, food, childcare, healthcare, recreation, social services, transportation, and other aspects. If a parent chooses to have a child an ownership approach takes all the pressure off the state to help children, hence families which means parents. Most parents do not have the discretionary resources to shoulder 100% of the care of 100% of their children’s needs. Yet there is some resentment by those who fear that government programs will undermine parental authority and erode the individualist virtue instilled in the privacy of the home (Woodhouse 1992).

266

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Data shows that taxpayer money, assistance programs, and government support have made a huge difference in providing provisions and protections for children and families. Most people would be crushed if they lost access to government-supported things like education, food, social security, housing assistance, healthcare, transportation, they were on their own to obtain it (DeParle 2021; Hansan 2019; Holzer 2021; Putnam 2020). The child as property narrative gives children who are in dangerous or at-risk situations with no recurse for external support as a result; parental authority could be seen as the law. Child protective services may not be a perfect system but without them, vulnerable children would have no access to government intervention to remove them from harm or assist their caregivers with education and resources to better care for children (Fegert and Stötzel 2016; Zeanah and Humphreys 2018). Needing help and not being able to access it because children have no rights puts children at risk for abuse of all types, as well as injury or death. It may foster resentment from young people who wish to use their agency to have input over decisions that impact their lives and create preventable interpersonal problems. Parents are in the position of being seen as their children’s rights-holders, not the children themselves. Parents are the ones deemed responsible for their care and upbringing, not the state. The child-as-property frame puts the power to make decisions over children’s lives in the hands of adults. Decisions for and about children are made in the US by adults in power, like government leaders, lawyers, teachers, and parents. Children are usually not consulted about their opinion on things, and if they are, their opinions may be easily discounted. Adult decisionmaking has occurred for two apparent reasons. Adult decision-making can stem from adult need to control children for convenience, emotional, financial, social, or reputational reasons. Parents tend to believe that they know best and that children may not make good decisions. This feeds into the view that children are regarded as objects that are incapable of making good decisions so adults should decide what is best for them. Courts have often agreed with this view, making it illegal for children to seek care from professionals or open bank accounts without parental consent. As one expert interviewed for this book commented, “When children are considered to be property, they have about as many rights as a chair” (Alexander 2022). Children are not consulted and they are done-to as adults deem necessary and are not expected to say a word about it. Thus, from a provision, protection, and participation rights approach, when taken to its logical extent, a child as property framework puts both children and parents at huge risk. This is a different narrative than the one that views parents as trustees for children. Imagine a savings account or a trust fund created for a child by a third party but held in trust by a parent or guardian. The parent or the guardian is a ‘fiduciary’ or a steward of the child’s wealth. In a similar fashion, the CRC looks at parents as the stewards of their children’s rights. Dr. Bob Jacobs

10.9

10.9

The Case of Uvalde: An Example of Child-Parent Partnership Rights

267

The Case of Uvalde: An Example of Child-Parent Partnership Rights

The tragic killing of 19 students and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas on May 24, 2022 showcases the importance of children deserving to have their rights to safety protected. It showcases the violation of parent rights as well. The entire community is an example of what happens when children’s rights are not protected and when those who are supposed to be rights defenders are not. Briefly, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, a former student, displayed aggressive and violent behaviors on social media, but had no documented criminal or mental health problems. As soon as he turned 18 he legally bought an Ar-15 style rifle, another gun, and 1700 rounds of ammunition, all purchased with no difficulty. On that day in May he shot his grandmother in the face and went to the school where she fired shots for five minutes before entering an unlocked door. Nobody intervened or stopped him during the shooting outside, or made sure the building was secure. He went inside his former fourth-grade classroom with an adjoining room and started shooting. He never nocked the door. He was in the school for 90 minutes terrorizing the children and killing them and their teachers. Meanwhile, 376 police representatives came to the building to “help” and didn’t until the border patrol took responsibility to do something. The disorganization of the police response demonstrated that despite having gone through a school shooting training only a few months before, the police officers put their own safety first while children texted their parents pleading for help before they were murdered. Parents were kept away, not allowed to do anything. Months later, they were kept in the dark about details of the day by school, police, and city government officials. Lack of accountability and responsibility demonstrated that the lack of protection of children, and the rights of their parents to send their children to school safely and know what happened on that fateful day, was a community-wide systemic problem (Craig 2022; Despart 2022). Children deserve protection from harm, violence, and being shot. It is their right to be able to go to school without fear of being hurt. Police did not protect them. School officials did not protect them, but some teachers tried and gave their life to do so. Children’s rights were not defended. Reports indicate that officers prioritized their own safety over that of the children. Parents rights were not protected. Many stood outside the building, knowing there was a problem inside the school and they were not given a way to have their rights to know what was going on addressed. Months afterwards, the city, police, and officials refused to address them. Their children were injured or dead, and “thoughts and prayers” were insufficient responses to what had happened. Parents, teachers, police, and government representatives are in positions of being obligated to provide for children and to protect them. They are children’s first-line defense. Parents and all caregivers in a community should act as children’s human rights defenders if a children’s human rights commitment guided the community. With rights come obligations, and with the right to parent a child, school, or community comes to obligation to do so safely and respectfully.

268

10

Are Children Parental Property?

Children and their parents were on the same page. Defending children’s rights would have defended parent rights too. But the other way around—defending adult rights first is no guarantee that children’s rights will be protected. Not unless there is a firm commitment by the community to make children’s human rights always a priority in all cases for all children.

10.10

Summary

The CRC is actually a pro-parent document. Yet calculated, manipulated misunderstanding of the terms “child rights” and “human rights” have contributed to them being regarded so negatively as to be analogous to “dirty words” in certain circles. People who advocate for child rights may be inaccurately seen as people who are trying to give children license “to do whatever they damn well please”. Groups that oppose children having human rights use a framework that actively misrepresents what child rights and the CRC stand for as they promote the idea that children can only be protected by empowering parents. Children are human beings, not human becomings. They are not objects to be done-to. They have agency. They engage the world on their own terms. They make decisions. They are not property of parents. In the big picture, the child-as-property view is neither designed to meet the needs of children nor their families (Hakimpour 2020; Mailard 2010; Montgomery 1988; Burke et al. 2016; Kimball 2017). On the surface, many people would agree that children are not property or objects. It is in the details, the day-to-day situations, actions, and discourses that getting past the objectification narratives become challenging for many people. A possession narrative is a common one in the United States. We regularly claim things as “ours”—our country, our school, our house, our car, our dog, our husband or wife, our family—and our children. When we designate land, buildings, clothes, or bicycles to be “ours”, we consider them to be our property to do with as we please. We have the right to make decisions about them. We decide the rules, how to use them, and whether to buy or sell them. Whether children are ours as a form of property is a contentious one that contributes to tension around whether children are rights-holders. This ownership view emerged in part because biologically children emerge out of their parent’s bodies. Parents have emotional connections with their children, they are part of our genes and family legacy. In many ways, we with that children live out our own hopes and dreams. Boundaries between parent and child may get blurred, which can complicate relationships (Coe 2018; Fosco et al. 2014; Montgomery 1988). We see the “child is mine” issue playing out in contemporary society around healthcare issues, what is learned in school, and the use of corporal punishment as a behavior control strategy. Individuals and institutions are pulled because nationally we are not in agreement on whether children are parental property. This chapter sought to unpack this issue. Like it or not, children are their own person. They are

10.10

Summary

269

not objects to be done-to. They are valued beings who deserve respectful communication and interactions. Few people would disagree with this, but get mixed-up about how to show children respectful relationships. For example, some parents are demanding that teachers communicate with parents if their children use different gendered pronouns. Attacking teachers for the fact that their children do not feel comfortable divulging their gender identity with them is the real issue. If children felt respected and safe with their parents, parents would already know and be communicating with their children in a positive way to understand each other. Human rights respect is at the core of all interactions, and a clinical sociological framework can help everyone involved. Treating even young children with the same kind of respect that adults prefer would go a long way in helping everyone to realize the short and long-term benefits of instituting a child rights framework.

Chapter 11

Are Children a Minority Group?

Children are one third of our population and all of our future. Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health, 1981

11.1

Introduction

Children are an unrecognized minority group when we use the same criteria to evaluate their status as we do other groups. They suffer similar types of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination as other groups, yet they are almost never identified to be a minority group. People may have biases for, or against, children. Why then are children not typically recognized to be a minority group? Identification of children as a distinct minority group would entitle them to equal treatment measures, which means acknowledgment of being entitled to human rights protections. In scouring the literature to explore children as a minority group, children, adolescents, or youth are not listed as a minority group per se unless they have some other accompanying characteristics, such as race or designation as LGBTQ+. Not to be listed as a minority group is compatible with perceptions of children as not needing or deserving rights. A children’s human rights perspective affirms that all people are entitled to human rights. Children have a moral status that must not be ignored (Freeman 1997). It doesn’t matter where you live, what you look like, or your age. Because you exist, you have rights. While leaders espouse much rhetoric about our love and care for children and how they are our future on whom we depend, what we say and what we do are far apart. As human rights become more important in our nation’s international relations, our country is vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy for attempting to maintain a “facade of championing human rights when it does not protect the rights of its own citizens” (Gross 2001:951). Flacks (2014) identifies childhood as a disability, and as a disabled group of people they suffer discrimination like any other minority group. Issues of institutionalized racism permeate the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_11

271

272

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

observation that children of color and indigenous children (BIPOC) are faring the worst, thus hitting certain segments of the child population with a double-whammy (Wilkerson 2021).

11.2

Criteria for Being a Minority Group

What are the criteria for a group to be considered a minority group, and do children fit? Sociologist Louis Wirth (1945a, b) defined a minority group as a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment. This definition includes both objective and subjective criteria: membership of a minority group is objectively ascribed by society, based on an individual’s physical or behavioral characteristics, such as ethnicity and race or gender and sexuality. It is also subjectively applied by its members, who may use their status as the basis of group identity or solidarity. Wirth includes the notion that minority groups come to regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. There are many examples to show this is in process, such as teens being able to work, pay taxes, and drive cars but are not allowed to vote; concerns that black youth are arrested or killed by police more as a group; or limiting freedom of speech and expression in schools. However, children also have a sense of false consciousness and may not consider themselves to be oppressed because they have so sufficiently accepted the narrative that they are to be subservient to adults. In the social sciences, “minority” does not refer to a statistical measure but focuses on powerlessness and the lack of positions of social power in society. For instance, women may be a statistical majority in the US but are considered a minority group because they are in less powerful and more oppressed positions. Children can be considered a minority group not because of their numbers but because of their marginalized social status (Morrie 2019). Definitions of minorities include being a part of a group that is identified by distinguishable characteristics, often physical or cultural, that singles them out for differential and unequal treatment. Children are a physically identifiable group because of their size or other visibly identifiable chrematistics. They are regarded as different from other groups and an entire culture of childhood has been built around them. A minority group must suffer treatment that puts them subordinate to a more dominant group. Children are subordinate to anyone over 21 no matter who they are. Young people are expected to be especially subservient and complaint to parents, teachers, and authority figures. Members of minority groups come to see themselves as different from others, which children do with respect to adults. Minority groups identify that they are subject to differential treatment that is unequal in nature; children regularly do but when they complain about it, they are informed that this is the way things are and they should accept the differential treatment merely because they are children.

11.3

Prejudice and Discrimination

273

Membership of a minority group is objectively ascribed by society, based on an individual’s physical or behavioral characteristics. This again is true; if a child looks older they may be treated like an adult (this is seen especially in cases of rape or being served alcohol) and if an adult looks young they may be treated as if they were a child. Minority status is categorical, in that if we are identified to “be one” we will be accorded the status of the group and subject to the same treatment as other members of that group. This is very true about the stereotyping of children. There is an ideology associated with the minority status and people will automatically assume certain things about our ability, intention, attributes, or actions. Minorities find themselves segregated into groups of others who are like them, and we will find children clustered in daycare centers, age-cohort-designed schools, or recreation programs almost like in a child-apartheid frame. While a minority may disappear via assimilation, children disappear from their minority status when they become considered adults. Interestingly, of all minority status, being a child is the only minority status that every individual will experience. This cannot be said for dominant minority characteristics like gender or race. While people will age-out of their status as a child, the internal experiences gained during childhood stick with us for a lifetime. Being a minority relegates people to be seen as of lesser importance or inferior to others in some way. People who belong to a minority group are stereotyped, stigmatized, and may be afraid to speak their minds publicly for fear of retribution. Another characteristic is that minority groups don’t usually get much support from society for standing up for something that they think is correct, as the March for Our Lives youth would acknowledge in the quest for gun control. In sum, children fit every criterion necessary to be considered a minority group.

11.3

Prejudice and Discrimination

The children’s human rights treaties seek to avoid discrimination and oppression of young people and designed to encourage their equality and respect. Prejudice is prejudgment while discrimination is oppressive action. Because there is no national commitment to prioritize children’s protection and importance in the US, children inevitably learn that they are of lesser importance. The signs are everywhere. Adults belittle, demean and shame children for behaviors that are developmentally normative for being a child (Gershoff 2002; McBride 2012; Vissing et al. 1991; Vissing 1997). Children are allowed to get bullied by both other children and adults (Moore et al. 2017), they are hit, spanked, or physically assaulted by adults (Anderson 2020; Straus 2013). There are restaurants, stores, hotels, apartment complexes, and other buildings with “no children allowed” policies. There is a growing list of places where kids are no longer welcome. In the U.S.—and many other countries—it is illegal for public establishments to deny service based upon a person's race, color, religion or national origin. But it’s perfectly legal for hotels, resorts and restaurants to ban children (Capps 2015; Hull 2019; NECN 2014). Children may not be allowed

274

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

to control their own money even when they earn it, and government agencies hold that individuals under age 18 are generally presumed to be incapable of handling their own funds (McLeod and Powell 2009; Shashikant 2015; SAMHSA 2023). These are forms of discrimination that would not be allowed for other groups. The process by which we learn to think in stereotypic ways about different groups of people and then treat them accordingly has been studied by scholars and has yielded a rich body of research (Allport 1979; Bruner 1990; Christakis and Fowler 2009; Clark 2014; Giddens 1991; Hinton 2017). Research shows that children learn to be both victims and perpetrators of prejudice and discrimination at very early ages (Olson 2013; Oskamp 2000; Nelson 2016; Simpson and Yinger 2013; Tankiwala 2014; Williams 2007). There is concern that despite efforts to counter negative attitudes that the US population is becoming more prejudiced (Resnick 2017). Implicit bias, cognitive bias, and the resultant categorizations of people affect attitudes, opportunities, and life outcomes such as where and how one lives, life chances, health, how long one will live, and the quality of life (Mondal 2016a, b). Whether children are victims or perpetrators of prejudice and discrimination, both are antithetical to a children’s human rights frame.

11.4

Dehumanization of Minority Groups

Visualize majority peoples as the in-group and minority peoples as the out-group. Majority groups, like parents or adults, get to make the rules that minority groups, in this case children, have to comply with. Dehumanization is a common strategy used by in-groups to relegate and maintain out-groups to their demeaned position. It is a process of making someone seem lesser-than others, not equals, not citizens, and in some cases not even human. It is most effective when directed at groups of people rather than individuals. When we are looking at an individual’s face in front of us and we have come to know them, it is harder to dehumanize them. But categorically, we can make demeaning statements about “their kind”, such as with the term juvenile delinquents. It is one thing to think about young people who demonstrate dangerous behaviors as a lesser-than group, and quite another to have sympathy towards a child who has been beaten, raped, and the recipient of words that let them know they were unloved and undesirable from the day they were born. Wilkerson (2021) talks about the functionality of having underdogs in society. Having someone to look down upon and blame is especially helpful for insecure people. Demeaning a person or group is intended to secure a position of betterment in the eyes of others. “Talking trash” or blaming other people (even when they’re not responsible), is a long-used emotional self-protection strategy (Ryan 1976). “Underdogging” is observed even at young ages. “What did you get on the test?” students may ask each other. They are relieved when they learn someone got a lower grade than they did; it solidifies the fact that they are better. Janice beamed when she found out that her house cost more than that of her classmates; Aubrey was delighted that she owned more Beanie Babies than her friends. The stigmatized stratify their

11.5

The Ageism Frame

275

own because no one wants to be in last place, according to anthropologist J. Lorand Matory: “The only way to keep an entire group of sentient beings in an artificially fixed place, beneath all others and beneath their own talents, is with violence and terror, psychological and physical, to preempt resistance before it can be imagined.” (Wilkerson 2021:151). People in the subordinate cast must be reminded of the absolute power of the dominant cast. They must be repeatedly made aware of their inherent inferiority to the inherent superiority of the upper group. In the case of children, they learn they must not do anything that could be perceived as misbehavior, otherwise they could be hit or harmed in some way. “You will do as I say”, “Because I’m the mom, that’s why” adult authorities remind them, whether parents, teachers, or police officers. And most children do—and keep their psychological pain, frustration, and resentment locked inside until or unless some moment arises when they can’t contain it anymore. Compliance with one’s designated status on the age continuum is apparent at each ends of the spectrum, however designation of age as a minority status is almost always discussed with respect to people who are older, not those who are younger. The social construction of research and narratives are more examples of the impact of the adultification of childhood.

11.5

The Ageism Frame

Ageism is regarded as a basis for systematic discrimination, and interestingly the study of ageism has pertained only to one end of the age spectrum—those who are older than 50 (Iversen et al. 2009; Kane 2012). Older persons have been considered a minority group since the 1960s and awarded a wide range of human rights. Children have not. The elder social movement has spread and there is an internationally proposed UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons treaty to address what advocates see as a fragmented human rights structure for elders and support critical human rights which are of concern to older persons (Angel and Angel 2006). One can wonder what it would be like if there was a true ageism movement that protected the rights of people at both ends of the age spectrum, as well as those in between. It is so ironic that even in the ageism movement, children have not been a focus. Ageism is a system of stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination that people experience because of their age. Ageism as a phenomenon skews our perception about what people can, and should, be able to do. One’s age gets associated with expectations about people’s physical, psychological or cognitive abilities. Ageism stereotypes us at all points of our lives, impacts opportunities for what we can do, and stigmatizes who others think we are. Ageist stereotypes and prejudice are cultivated across the life span; children may internalize stereotypes about age when they are younger, which may become more salient as they age (Henry et al. 2019). For example, when I was young I recall my parents being very old, but now that I am the same age as they were then I don’t think they were old at all. Children learn to be disrespectful of people on the basis of age, as we see comedians and

276

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

media poking fun of Joe Biden because he is the oldest US president, but as a Time magazine article observes, “ageist attacks against President Biden reinforce outdated stereotypes and hurt younger people too” (Law 2021). The field of geropsychology has emerged to fight the stigma and negative impacts of aging on individuals, but that field only deals with older individuals (Dittman 2003). The psychological and social impacts of the aging process as it pertains to young persons is seldom discussed in the fight against ageism. If georpsychology exists, where is pediopsychology or adolopsychology—two terms I just made up? Perhaps it exists as part of the umbrella of child development, but even child development is not typically approached in the US from a child-as-right-holder perspective. Ageism is expressed explicitly through actions and behaviors and implicitly through attitudes, beliefs, and values (Nelson 2004). Unlike racism or sexism, ageism receives less scrutiny and criticism and continues to be socially acceptable and ingrained into our culture (Palmore 2015). Ageism is part of everyday life, so people who don’t intend to be ageists can nevertheless make verbal and behavioral choices that fuel ageism. Ageist language is generally accepted as commonplace and routine around the world but is seldom examined. The words used conveys the narratives or frames that underlie those words (Gendron et al. 2018; Kane 2012).

11.5.1

Misrecognition, Microageisms, and Macroageisms

Our perceptions of age and what age means are very different things (Cottle and Brooks 2022). People’s abilities and interests vary widely among any age category, as well as between them. Younger people and older people may both be computer geeks, they may be into hip-hop music or Mozart, they may like to hike do marathons and or prefer to binge-watch shows on Netflix. Whether someone is liberal or conservative, fun or boring, active or reactive have little to do with age. These facts do not stop people from stereotyping and stigmatizing others for ageist reasons. Age has little to do with who we are or what we do, but it has everything to do with how we are perceived. Words that reinforce ageist culture and ageist sentiments shape services, policies, and professional processes in systems that can lead to misrecognition, microageisms, and macroageisms. The process of not recognizing someone for who they are, stereotyping them to fit an agenda-focused narrative, and engaging in “misrecognition” of children to benefit adults is common (Etter et al. 2017; Fraser 2000; James 2015; Martineau 2012; York 2017). Microageisms are everyday verbal and nonverbal slights, snubs, or insults that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons according to their marginalized group status. Microageisms are brief and commonplace indignities meant to slight children by name-calling or excluding them (Capodilupo 2007). A familiar example is holiday gatherings where adults sit at one table and

11.6

Child Stereotypes Are Similar to Elder Stereotypes

277

young people are relegated to “the children’s table”. There is a rite of passage that occurs when a person moves from the child to the adult table. These micro-aggressions may be intentional or unintentional. Often perpetrators may not think that they are being discriminatory in what they say or do. While one aggressive action may be hurtful, it’s the accumulated impact of receiving many micro-aggressions that influence a person feeling a lack of worth. As this pertains to children, it’s the accumulated effect of not being listened to or asked their opinion, being segregated into groups “of their own kind”, being told they don’t know something that they might, having adults decide what is in their best interest, or being told that they can make a difference “later, when you grow up”. These types of statements may feel demeaning to young people but are so culturally engrained that adults don’t realize their words are actions may be oppressive or limit the agency of youth. Macroageisms are socially structured, such as not allowing young people to vote or participate on community committees, adult-only housing or restaurants, or not paying young people the same wages as older workers. Media coverage of children portrays an image of young people en masse that impacts the psyche of millions of viewers simultaneously. It is very difficult for an individual child to challenge socially pervasive stereotypes. Over time, microageism and macroageisms construct a master cultural narrative about children’s identity and place in society, one that children incorporate into their own sense of internalized identity. Macroageism is almost easier to confront because they are more obvious; microageism are subtler, even unintentional, and slips into everyday shaming and disparaging comments and conversations that adults use in front of children and that children incorporate into their own sense of self (Gendron et al. 2018). They impact the development of systems and the conduct of professionals, solidifying socially structured ageism that justifies the oppression of children. The cultural narrative on child ageism impacts how adults talk about children, which impacts the way children see themselves, which results in the child incorporating those views about themselves and passing them on to other children. This subtle but effective method of mind control is at the heart of selfidentity theory and the growth of childish (Aronowitz 2014; Aronowitz et al. 2015; Bourdieu 1992; Butler 1969; Fiedler and Schmid 2001; Festinger 1957; Fiske and Haslam 1996; Foucault 1972; Gendron 2015; Nelson 2004; Kotter-Grühn and Hess 2012; Lev et al. 2018; Popper 1976; Snape and Redman 2003; Tajfel and Turner 1979).

11.6

Child Stereotypes Are Similar to Elder Stereotypes

Disparaging and demeaning stereotypes because of age are abundant; both young and elder individuals are hit with the same labels and behavioral characteristics. Consider the following:

278

11.6.1

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

Dependency Attributes

Both children and elders are stereotyped to be dependent and need help from others physically, socially, emotionally, and financially. They are seen to need guidance, information, help with decision-making, and handling money. Other people feel responsible for them. Children are cared for by parents and nannies; elders are cared for by children and nurses. Children find that parents tell them what to do while elders find that their adult children tell them what to do. Both need guardians to oversee their legal affairs, fill out paperwork, and give consent for them to receive services or care. And both children and elders may find their decisions and mobility curtailed by the actions of their caregivers “for their best interests”.

11.6.2

Physical Attributes

Both children and elders undergo physical changes that are age-related. What people are allowed to do is correlated with their physical ability or inability. Children and elders share similar physical attributes. For instance, both may be unable to do certain types of physical activities and may have balance issues, dexterity challenges, or be unable to lift heavy things. Both toddlers and elders may need help standing or walking, neither may walk far on their own without getting tired. As a result, babies need strollers, elders need wheelchairs. In extreme situations, both may need to be bathed and dressed. Both may wear diapers or pads. Both may spend hours lying in bed. Unable to communicate what they want, they may cry in frustration. Both may need or want special foods, especially liquids and soft foods, dislike hard or spicy foods but enjoy sweets or cookies. In order to keep them safe, both may be ordered by family members in charge that “you shouldn’t go there” or “you shouldn’t do that”.

11.6.3

Emotional Attributes

Children and elders are stereotyped to exhibit similar emotions, including crying, stress, frustration, disappointment, impatience, anger, occasional depression, feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, or suicidal ideation. They share an uncertainty over what is going to happen in the future and may have little control over it. Being self-oriented, they may play the blame-game in which they guilt others or get blamed by others for not doing things right. They expect emotional support from others; children expect parents to listen and help while elders expect their children to listen and help.

11.6

Child Stereotypes Are Similar to Elder Stereotypes

11.6.4

279

Cognitive Attributes

Both children and elders are assumed to be unable to do certain intellectual or technological tasks. In both cases they haven’t learned skills associated with doing something or forget how to do something they don’t do often. Dementia is a different issue because it is biological in origin. Both children and older individuals may not be asked their opinion or advice because what they have to say has already been discredited and discounted before they are given the opportunity. They aren’t asked because their input is already preconceived to be irrelevant, just as symbolically they are perceived to be less relevant than those in other age categories.

11.6.5

Separate Housing and Care Facilities

Daycare institutions exist so both children and elders can be placed there for their own safety while their families go to work or do other things. Institutions are designed to be segregated on the basis of age. Children attend schools and are put into classes with others who are of similar age to them, as well as attending recreation programs, and civic groups with others “of their own kind”. The situation is similar for elders, who may be put live in residential facilities or communities for people age 50 (or 65) up. There are apartment complexes that refuse to allow children to live there, as do some restaurants or businesses. Older children may not want to live with their parents, and elders may not want to live with their children but have to do so because there are no other alternatives, especially for economic or health reasons. Total institutions, orphanages, or nursing homes, are built with paid caregivers who watch over them to keep them safe.

11.6.6

Social Attributes

People at both ends of the age continuum are stereotyped to be clingy, bossy, not have much of a filter, say what they think, and are easy to persuade which puts them at risk of being exploited by others. Children and elders find that their primary network is family and friends of the family. Friendship instability is common— children may find that their friends move away, while elders find their friends move or die. Families try to control who both children and elders have as friends, especially if they are in charge of transportation or don’t like certain people. Both children and elders need to get permission to drive and at some ages, are thought they should not drive; both have higher insurance rates. If a family is responsible for driving us places or doing certain things, one’s world becomes small and controlled by family members in charge. Both children and elders spend a lot of time at home. TV, books, games, and puzzles are common recreational pursuits. If they decide to

280

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

date, they receive negative pressure from family, such as they are too young or too old to get into serious relationships with someone. Regarding drug use, family members may decide they should be put on drugs for their own good—which is true for both children and elders. Younger people may abuse “recreational” drugs while elders may as well, both may misuse prescription or over-the-counter drugs.

11.6.7

Work and Money

Age is a primary consideration of who can do what kinds of jobs or whether they will be employed. They may be told they are too young or too old to be hired. They are regarded as too inexperienced and unfamiliar with new technology. They both get carefully monitored. They may be offered lower-paying jobs than other people. Both may be expected to volunteer, donate their time, and often are not paid. They may both find they are eligible for reduced fees to attend movies, reduced meals, or transportation discounts because of their age. From an income stream, the greatest amount of family money is often spent on children or elders for their care and medical needs. Both may not be allowed to handle their own money, for fear of making financial mistakes, not paying bills, pay too much for something they don’t need, or being subject to financial exploitation by others. Both are targeted by commercial groups—for children it may be for toys, certain foods, music, or activities; for elders, it may be for healthcare, housing repair groups, or insurances. In assessing how these child-elder stereotypes fit, it is obvious that people across the entire age spectrum could experience any of these characteristics. Stereotypes are manipulated and perpetuated to strategically disparage people at both ends of the spectrum that matter but only older people are framed as victims of ageism. The bigger question is why. The bottom line is that despite similarities, older people have rights and young people don’t.

11.7

Adultification

The US has been slow to adopt a children’s human rights orientation because of a frame called the adultification of childhood. Essentially, in this frame adults have the power to interpret a child’s behavior, motivations, interests and speak on their behalf. They look at the experience of being a child through an adult lens and also from their personal experience. What adults see or report may not reflect what children think, feel, or experience. Adults have the power to control the narrative of children’s lives; this is apparent in how children’s lives are researched, how children’s emotions, behaviors, and relationships are interpreted, and what adults report to be the “truth” about children. There is a huge chasm between what adult’s report and what children experience. Children’s rights get framed in accordance with what adults want them to be.

11.7

Adultification

281

Our understanding of what a child’s life or childhood “ought to be” is socially constructed in accordance with assumptions that are dominant at any particular moment in time or place. A child rights frame regards a child as a young individual, a person, under age 18 who has agency and is involved in the creation of their life (Sloth-Nielsen 1995). The adultification frame regards children as a thing or object to be done-to or who is to act in accordance with adult expectations or demands. Childhood is often regarded as a time of play whereas adulthood is seen as a time of work (Wyness 2011). In studying childhood we examine historical, relational, and social contexts in which individual children exist. “In the twentieth century. . .Western childhood . . . .(is) characterized by social dependency, asexuality, and the obligation to be happy, with children having the right to protection and training but not to social or personal autonomy” (James et al. 1998:62). Yet culturally, such assumptions may not be accepted as truth. Individual child experiences may be quite different. Adutification is sometimes referred to as “Gerontocentism”; both terms refer to the process by which adults fail to accurately interpret children’s words and their explanations of their social experiences (Jenks 1996). “Like the white researcher in black society, the male researcher studying women, the adult researcher is obviously different from children that are in the study and try as they might, their interpretations of the “other’s” experience will not be totally accurate (Fine and Sandstrom 2010, p. 151). Different strands of the adultification of childhood are common. One is to regard childhood as “waithood” when children learn norms, values, attitudes, skills, and develop their personality and aspirations. They are allowed to play, encouraged to be dependent, and are thought to be innocent in a cherished moment of life. There is an emphasis on children learning things that will help them to become something special when they get older. Children are objectified and seen as investments for the future; time, activities, and money are invested in setting them up for what they will become. The more elaborate the investments and subsequent “success” of their children, the more they showcase parental investments. Relationship boundaries between the parent and child may become blurred as parents invest into the things they wanted as children, or as symbols of their own status. Little value is placed on children in the here-and-now unless they enhance the goodness or superiority of their parents. Children learn that it is in becoming adult or doing adultlike things that they will have value and agency (Wagstaff and Parker 2020). By adults being in power and children being relegated to powerless positions, young people may resent the status of being a child and make attempts to appear “adult”. We see this in the push for children to start building their tomorrow today. It starts with babyhood; getting our child into the “right” daycare center is associated with them getting the right K-12 school, the right college, and right career. Exposing children to Baby Einstein materials when they can barely sit up is becoming normative (Carlson 2009). Parents are investing in their children for what they could become tomorrow, with a focus on their doing and becoming. As a result, parents may involve their children in activities from dawn to the time they tumble into bed, over-scheduling them in so many things that children have no discretionary time to choose for themselves (Brown et al. 2011; Rosenthal and Wise 2001)).

282

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

Parents may expose children to an overwhelming smorgasbord of activities including sports, arts, academics, and civic activities in hopes they’ll find something that will push them to the front of the pack (Wallerstein 1985). Another strand of adulfication focuses on demeaning attributes traditionally associated with childhood and pushing children towards behaviors associated with adulthood. Playing games, being shielded from adult responsibilities, and spending time dreaming may be discouraged as a “waste of time” in which children are deemed “irresponsible”. Adults may order children to “grow-up”, “not act childish” or not act silly. Children may be expected to work and be responsible for things that adults are responsible for, like emotion management, chores, caregiving, information, or working for money. Scholars like Nancy Carlsson-Page feel it is time for parents to “take back childhood” from the “treacherous waters of childhood” in “a fast-paced, mediasaturated, violence-filled world” (Carlsson-Paige 2009:7). Her position resonates with adults concerned children are becoming hyper-sexualized, materialistic, and living busy lives that leave no time for relaxation or play. But violence, terrorism, drugs, sex abuse, and bullying are real problems that children can’t escape. Boston University Wheelock childhood scholar Diane Levin (2009, 2013) explores issues of war, peace, violence, conflict resolution, sexualization, and the impact of media on children. These are adult-type issues that children cannot escape. Helping children, and parents, know how to better cope with them is promoted by many childhood scholars. Childhood has become a balancing act to know how much to protect children from stark realities of life versus how much to expose them to them. Some adults observe that childhood is disappearing (Christakis 2015; Hemphill 2010; Postman 1985). Just as the Cult of True Womanhood was advocated as the ideal for women a century ago as a desirable disempowered, subservient status some scholars argue that the dependent narrative of childhood does not fit the needs of children today (Welter 1966). Lamenting over the loss of a perceived version of a simplistic childhood when children were “supposed” to play and be “seen and not heard”, some adults want to go back to that time. They are uncomfortable with children’s sexual activity, drug, and alcohol use, being both victims and perpetrators of crime, clothing styles, fluid gender identity, use of “foul” language, social media, or recreation choices. Yet like Pandora’s butterflies that escaped never to be put back into the box, childhood today reinforces the quest for adultification of almost every component of children’s lives. This adultification of childhood experience is referred to as “the emergence of a new youth”, as youth become part of “the new adulthood” in a “risk society” (White and Wyn 1998). Parents and businesses are complicit in this process of adultifying children. While there is an attempt to have more gender-neutral toys, stores still hawk pink and blue sections, and showcase frilly purple glitter or hard black plastic items. They are sold toy lawnmowers and kitchens to socialize them into domestic chores; there are baby telephones and computers available, although many children use adult ones when they are still in diapers. Little girl brassieres and lipsticks groom them to be womanly, as little boys are given vehicles and sports paraphernalia. The dolls they play with convey expectation, from curvy Barbie types to muscular super-

11.8

Childism

283

heroes. Viagra commercials in prime-time TV promote the importance of male sexual virility for him and “for her” as a norm. It is impossible for children to miss the adultification messages. The push for success starts as early as which child walks first, which is potty trained earlier, which speaks most clearly, and can garner more adult recognition that they are special, good, better than others. Children are often pushed into activities that their parents enjoy or pursue, saying that the children prefer them when it’s the parents who are reinforcing certain options. Caleb’s grandma is an accountant, and his favorite toddler toy was an adding machine; Jerry’s dad was a MD, so he knew from the time he got his toy doctor kit that he was going to be a surgeon; Kevin loves motocross and he had his son and daughter in competitions when they were in elementary school. An 11-month-old who can snowboard before she can walk has become an internet sensation (Summer 2021); Tiger Woods was golfing at age 2 and on television golfing against Bob Hope at age 3 (Anderson 2020). The bumper sticker reading “Proud parent of an honor student” is designed for adults to prove that both they and their kids are superior beings. In the curious saying of “the proof is in the pudding”, it is hard to refute the fact that early positive reinforcement can lead to a child’s reputation and subsequent opportunities.

11.8

Childism

Childism is the automatic presumption of superiority of any adult over any child; it results in the adult’s needs, desires, hopes, and fears taking unquestioned precedence over those of the child. It goes beyond the biologic necessity that requires adults to sustain the species by means of authoritative, unilateral decisions. What is at issue is how the decision is executed and how the child is afforded dignity and respect. In contemporary America there is a belief that society is child-oriented and that children take priority. This is, in actuality, far from the truth. Whatever qualities the child possesses, he is discriminated against simply because he is a child. We contend that childism is the basic form of oppression in our society and underlies all alienation and violence, for it teaches everyone how to be an oppressor and makes them focus on the exercise of raw power rather than on volitional humaneness. The object of this article is to emphasize the ubiquity of childism, in the hope that with increased awareness it can be minimized, for—like its derivatives, sexism and racism—it is found in virtually everyone. Modification of childist practices would alter other oppressive systems that retard the development of humankind to its full potential (Pierce and Allen 1975). Like racism, sexism, or classism, childism is a form of ageism and a real condition that afflicts young people. Adults may not recognize it because it doesn’t directly affect them. Childism pertains to prejudice or discrimination against young people at both the individual and systemic levels. Children, even at age 17, are not able to access certain services or make decisions because they are under age 18. Childism includes demeaning behavior and negative stereotyping and treatment of

284

11

Are Children a Minority Group?

youth that is tolerated, accepted, or even encouraged. It legitimatizes and rationalizes a broad continuum of actions that are not in the best interests of the child (YoungBruehl 2018). Every day in countless ways, children receive the message that they are less important, less competent, less deserving of respect, unequal, inferior, and expected to accept differential treatment without complaint. Childism is so ingrained into our society that most adults don’t realize that they are being discriminatory. Children come to accept this differential treatment as normal, natural, and even if they don’t like it, they see it as the way things are. They internalize these stereotypes into their identities and inflict them on other children, even their own. This selfperpetuation of discrimination is a key component of “isms”, where attitudes of childism, like racism, sexism, and classism, permeate minds and social structures. Both macro-childism and micro-childism regularly occur (Little 2020). Macrochildism focuses on structural or system-level factors, such as the high levels of poverty that children as a group experience, how they have no access to legal counsel, not allowed to vote, have no political representation, can’t open bank accounts, sign leases, or own a car that they may pay for. Young people may be excluded from certain stores, housing, or restaurants, or from participating in certain types of organizations. Systems that require parental consent for children to obtain services or go places, like field trips in schools; these are school policies and a form of childism. Barriers to obtaining reproductive healthcare, physical care, or mental health care exist merely because a person is underage. Micro-childism is found in everyday conversations like where adults tell young people what to think or do, or “Parentspalin” information to put their own spin on it as if children weren’t able to understand what was said on their own. Parents may speak for children who are perfectly able to speak or talk about them when the child is in the room as if the children were objects. Expecting compliance “because I’m your parent and told you to do x”, adults may use physical, sexual, emotional, or verbal assaults against children for any number of reasons. They may make fun of children instead of providing them support and compassion, not allow them to pick their own friends, monitor everything say or do, not give children privacy, listen to their calls, walk in on them when they are in the bathroom, withhold food, water, affection or assistance until the child says please and apologizes or complies with adult demands. Parents may not listen to what the child thinks or wants and don’t involve the child in decisions that may affect them, including things like hairstyles, clothes, body art, vaccines, medications, or whether little boys be circumcised without their consent. When parents post their children’s pictures on websites and tell people things that the child may not want others to know, that too is a form of childism. Materials, books, and experts who instruct parents how to deal with “problem” children exhibit childism because they do not consider why the child feels or behaves the way they do. These are very common adult behaviors, so common that they may not even seem abnormal—but are a form of childism (Sara 2016). Calling someone “childish” has become a dig at their integrity and judgment and is a backhanded way of demeaning them. For instance, Donald Trump was regularly referred to as “childish”, a “toddler” an “8-year-old-boy”, a “teenage girl”, (Moran 2018), which was intended to be a slam to him but which are also disparaging to children (Campoamor 2016). Adults

11.9

Summary

285

and politicians regularly call others childish as a slam to their credibility and it is accepted without the public blinking an eye; if a senior citizen, gender, or racial slur was used, there would undoubtedly be outrage (Cillizza 2020; Wilner and Chambers 2020). When “greatest of all time” gymnast Simone Biles took herself out of the 2021 Olympics for health concerns, she was met with slams that she was a “selfish, childish, national embarrassment” by the Texas deputy attorney general—a man who oversees the lives of countless children in his role (Huber 2021). When an upset 9-year-old girl exhibited suicidal behavior and her father called police for help, the police pepper-sprayed the girl and told her to stop acting like a child—to which she responded, “but I am a child” (NPR 2021). There is a very long and sad history of calling someone a child as a dirty word. Again, substitute a gender, race, or religious slur and community outrage would likely ensue—but not when we disparage children. Childism also impacts the decisions that adults make and how we feel about ourselves. Calling someone childish is designed to be a demeaning, hurtful comment. Sociologist John Useem was my mentor for several years when I was early in my career. My primary interest was in children and youth, but at the time it was not regarded as an important part of the field. I was the only pediatric sociologist that I knew—I coined the phrase. I had two young children and he pushed me towards domestic work instead of the international focus that so interested me. One afternoon over tea he got frustrated with me and called me “a middle-age adolescent” and admonished me to “grow up”. This was shocking and hurtful because he meant it to be demeaning. Even in sociology, with its emphasis on studying discrimination and inequality, studying children meant my work must surely be less rigorous and less relevant to the field. This is another dimension of sexism, genderism, and ageism in academia. That afternoon’s conversation altered the trajectory of my career. It is another aspect of how the opinion of older people can sway the decisions a young person may make about what they should do with their lives and careers.

11.9

Summary

It is time to recognize that children are indeed a minority group that experiences marginalization and assaults that are similar to those in other minority groups. Developmentally, children are new in the world and need time to acquire socialization and skill development that enables them to function in society. Children, according to the CRC, are a protected status. They are not in positions of power or authority and rely upon adults to honor their rights. Whether those in dominant statuses will protect the rights of minority groups has long been a concern throughout time and place. Unlike other minority groups, youth have not mobilized for action—yet. Clinical sociologists understand that children are an unrecognized minority group that society would be wise to address in respectful ways. Their future, and ours, depends on it.

Chapter 12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Children are likely to live up to what you believe of them. Lady Bird Johnson, Former First Lady of the United States

12.1

Introduction

Childhood is a time of structured social exclusion and disempowerment (Buckingham 2010). Social institutions are designed in such a way that children are recipients of decisions that adults make; they are not contributors to how institutions or systems work. Laws, policies, and practices are made without input from children. Social structures have evolved over time by adults and for adults from an adultified perspective. If asked, children may have their own perspectives about how institutions like the family, schools, recreation, or government could better include them. Perhaps you too remember the powerlessness of childhood, and times of frustration when you weren’t allowed to participate in decisions that impacted your life, or moments when you did not feel respected. Likely these emotions were associated with your placement on the stratification ladder. As pointed out in the previous chapter, children could be considered a legitimate minority group, like any other minority group. They are also part of the larger social stratification system, which will be examined here. Could children also be considered to be part of a caste system? This is an interesting question because it makes us wrestle with how hierarchical systems are constructed, how they impact people’s lives, and whether one can get out of them. Looking at children’s lives through a lens that considers their perspective, instead of just an adultified one, opens the opportunity to consider other neglected forms of oppression and their impact. First stratification systems will be defined, followed by a consideration of whether caste systems apply to the lives of children. Intersectionality will be introduced and examined as it pertains to children. Implications of stratification and caste systems will be explored. Then a castification of children model will be proposed that © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_12

287

288

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

suggests that the social placement of children is unlike any other social stratification approach and components of it examined. The notion of chronology will also be introduced.

12.2

Contextualizing the Concept of Social Stratification

Social stratification systems organize people on a hierarchical system, or stratification ladder, from those who have the most power to those who have the least. Categorization of people is a common cognitive process in which we mentally take individuals and place them into social groups (Allport 1979). This categorization influences how we think about them and ways in which we stereotype them, and then react to them. It also influences their access to wealth, prestige, and power, which are key components of any upper-class individual or group. Social stratification is not a term that is typically applied to children, but it is something that dictates the direction and opportunities that shape their lives. The term stratification is associated with geology and refers to how different types of sediments are layered upon each other. The strata or layers can be used to tell a story about what happened long ago. Social stratification is a sociological term that refers to how a society categorizes and put people into rankings from high to low. At each layer there are associations of wealth, prestige, and power. Factors such as wealth, income, education, family background, and power are common components of the layers. Social stratification is often referred to as socioeconomic status, or SES. The concept of SES incorporates the idea that it is not just money that dictates one’s social placement, but a variety of lifestyle and social factors as well (Blau and Duncan 1967; Lynd and Lynd 1959; Sewell and Hauser 1975; Warner 1941). Social stratification, according to Sorokin (1959a, b), refers to the differentiation of a given population into hierarchically superposed classes. It is manifested in the existence of upper and lower social layers; its very essence is associated with an unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities, social values and privations, social power and influences among the members of a society. Rewards can be material, like money, objects, or property, but rewards can also be of a nonmaterial nature. Nonmaterial rewards include prestige, respect, reputation, opportunity for upward social mobility, inherited social standing, networks and connections, and other forms of privilege that lead to power. Typically, stratification systems are related to people’s social class. Typical class divisions are lower-class, working-class, middle-class, and upper-class, but the stratification ladder can consist of many more rungs, depending on the definitional criteria used. Social class isn’t just income or wealth, power but may also include one’s occupation, education, race, and ethnicity, as well as gender, religion, and nationality. Stratification systems include both ascribed characteristics like race or gender, but also achieved characteristics like education or where one lives (Sorokin 1959a, b).

12.2

Contextualizing the Concept of Social Stratification

289

Table 12.1 Hierarchy of US stratification factors Factor Race Gender Religion Wealth Employment Education Sexual Orientation Age Appearance Ability Health Height Social Network Property Ownership Citizen Status a

Higher perceived status White Male Christian Rich Employed College Heterosexual Middle-older ages Deemed attractive “Gifted and talented” Good health Tall Large Owns multiple properties Citizen

Lower perceived status BIPOC Female Not Christian Poor NEETa GED, Diploma, None LGBTQ+ Children Deemed unattractive Disability Illness Short Small Owns no property, distressed housing Immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, child

Not employed, in education or training program.

Characteristics of people at the top of the stratification ladder are viewed as more desirable than ones that are at the bottom. For instance, historically in the US, males have had more access to wealth, prestige, and power than women; white-skinned individuals have had more wealth, prestige, and power than people of color. The more education one has, the more highly they are placed on the ladder. The more factors that cluster together for a person on high positions on the hierarchy, the more likely they are to be perceived to be more important (Weber 1949). Table 12.1 shows how demographic and social factors get ranked or stratified from high to low. There is a combined and cumulative effect of the variables. The more high-ranking statuses that one holds, the greater social status and elevated placement on the stratification ladder. Conversely, the greater accumulation of characteristics that are stereotyped to be low on the stratification ladder, the more challenging it will be for that person to be awarded the same opportunities—and human rights—as people at the top. This disparity is a product of a narrative that promotes inequality. Aggregating the factors, Table 12.1 indicates that white, rich, Christian heterosexual older men who are handsome and well-educated will have a large and influential social network that will afford them substantial opportunities to gain more wealth, prestige, and power. In comparison, young women of color who do not have financial resources, who are not well educated, who are under-employed or unemployed, who may be LGBTQ+ and are not deemed to be attractive in stereotypical beautiful ways may have a much harder time gaining jobs, mates, and opportunities to increase their wealth, prestige and power so that they can jump up several rungs of the ladder and be competitive with the types of men in authority described above.

290

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Stratification systems divide people’s worthiness into different categories, such as rich people are more worthy than poor people, the more high-status characteristics that a child has the more opportunities they will likely be given. The more perceived low-status characteristics a child may have on the stratification hierarchy, the more they may be disempowered or looked at in a more negative way. We see this played out in the data, where children of color suffer disproportionately more poverty, lower educational opportunities, more interaction with the criminal justice system, less access to healthcare, etc. (Baciu et al. 2017; Department of Education 2021). Stratification systems are designed to give people at the top of the hierarchy greater access to information and resources than those at the bottom of the stratification ladder. Stratification systems value people’s worth along multiple dimensions, especially gender, race, religion, and ethnicity. Whatever social class or placement on the stratification ladder one holds, people seem better connected to others of their own socioeconomic class rather than to others of different classes (Leo et al. 2016). This creates subcultures in which people associate with others who have similar economic, demographic, occupational, or social characteristics. People come to view the world from these skewed perceptions, and through a group-think climate, people come to think that the way they view the world is correct. Wherever people fall on the stratification ladder is a socially constructed, arbitrary determination of their worth, or someone else’s.

12.2.1

Types of Stratification Systems

Social stratification systems exist in most societies and have throughout history. Social stratification systems are universally found in almost every society, but they may take different forms and compositions depending on the culture, location, and time-period. Stratifications are reproduced from one generation to the next as status becomes inherited. Moreover, stratification systems codify and transmit beliefs and attitudes about what people are like in these different social classes (Grusky 2011, 2014). Sociologists have identified four main categories of stratification systems. These include slavery, caste systems, class systems, and systems of meritocracy. Slaves and indentured servants are at the bottom of the stratification system, as people are considered property and they possess no power or wealth of their own. These forms resulted out of agricultural need around ten thousand years ago when land owners captured people, like prisoners of war, orphans, people who sold their children for money, to work the land for them. In the colonization of other lands, people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds were likely targets for slavery. Caste systems are also among the most rigid and based on lineage, or what one’s parents were. While commonly associated with India, other parts of the world, like South Africa, have had caste systems. In this type of closed stratification system, what caste one was born into determined their future occupation, marital partner, and lifestyle options.

12.3

The Stratification of Childhood

291

Class and meritocracy systems rely upon wealth, education, personal achievement, and networking as major forces to influence upward mobility. In class-based systems, there is the inherent belief that if people work hard and have talent that they can improve their social positioning. This is part of the concept of the American Dream. Such a view downplays the role that inherited wealth, social networks, education, opportunity, prejudice, discrimination, racism, sexism, ageism, and ableism play in curtailing or advancing one’s life chances. Class systems are considered open systems, in that people can move up the stratification ladder to improve their status and lot in life. But whatever goes up can also go down, meaning that in vertical mobility people can also lose the status or rank they are in as they fall downward. There are also horizontal forms of mobility, in which people may change occupation or location but the changes are not significantly higher or lower than their previous status. Meritocracy is considered a hypothetical stage in theory, but in practice we can observe people working harder and harder to gain merits that they hope will elevate their social positioning and enhance their reputation. The goal of meritocracy is to gain power, privilege, and money. This is observable in the routine question we may ask an acquaintance: “What do you do?” If people report something prestigious or interesting, it gains them more attention and privilege than people who say they are unemployed or do menial, non-prestigious jobs. Attitudes of the rich being better and entitled to wealth, while people who are poor are disparaged and thought to be deserving of their lowly status become perpetuated in the minds of individuals and the way institutions operate. As an example of meritocracy’s influence on children, recently I met a15-year-old high school student and his recent college graduate sister. As we got to know each other, the girl waxed eloquently about her scholarship and elite career aspirations. The boy shrugged and said, “I don’t do anything” to describe himself. His mother piped in about how he won a middle-school science award. She missed an opportunity to acknowledge that her son was a kind, smart, loving, and creative human BEing. Rather, mom and sister focused on the importance of their value as becomings. Having a portfolio or resume full of merits results in people thinking more positively about children than those who feel they have not accomplished anything that matters.

12.3 The Stratification of Childhood Children who have potential to become someone special or do something noteworthy get viewed higher on the stratification of childhood ladder than do children who are viewed to be doing nothing and going nowhere. As a cohort, they do not have access to the criteria of wealth, prestige, and power that are typically associated with high status; they can have no wealth because legally they cannot have their own bank account until age 18. Developmentally they are new in the world so their educational attainments must be accrued across time; they have no political representation and

292

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

cannot vote or make major decisions (Prout and James 1997). Children aren’t allowed to speak in their own voice because theirs is not respected as valid (Schapiro 1999). Stratification systems are intergenerational in nature and related to acquisition of resources. For instance, during hunting and gathering societies, high social status was linked to who was a good hunter. In agricultural societies, successful farmers were able to buy more land, which was passed down to one’s children, creating the onset of intergenerational wealth as well as the intergenerational of status according to one’s economic status. During industrial times, fathers would train sons to become competent in an occupation, which set the child up for future success. The common denominator across time was money, in the forms of income, investments, economic assets, property, material objects, and wealth. Thus, a major determinant of one’s social standing depends upon parental status, reputation, and assets. Parents pass their monetary and material assets to their children, but they also pass on their social position, networks, norms, values, and attitudes. Children whose parents went to college naturally tend to seek higher education as well. Those children whose parents are without an extensive educational background may find it challenging to be a first-generation college student. For instance, my parents were high school graduates and never went to college. It was very difficult for me to be allowed to go to the state university. I found it challenging to compete with classmates whose parents had gone to college and who had more elite and resourced households. Fast forward, now all three of my children went to college and have been able to benefit from my status as a professor and the rewards that such a highstatus occupation brings. But in no way could they ever benefit as much as the children from the Trump, Clinton, Cheney, Vanderbilt, Hearst, Gates, or Nobel families. They have an extensive history of acquiring material and nonmaterial statuses that benefit their children, and children’s children, enormously that a refugee child at the Mexico border could never access. This is why, in situations where someone who was born into one social status enters the environment of another, such as the child of an uneducated family entering college, the individual may lack the resources and support often provided to those whose parents have gone to college. This can lead to self-esteem issues called the imposter phenomenon (Duncan et al. 2023; Gutierrez et al. 2023). A child’s social position on the stratification ladder is influenced through a variety of social factors that place them on particular rungs. One’s race, gender, sexual orientation, family background, education, wealth, and reputation influence a person’s “lot in life” before they are even born. There is a saying that some children are “doomed in the womb” when they are born to parents whose social status is low on the stratification ladder (Komios 2015; Sorokin 1959a, b). Wealth, prestige, and power are almost always linked to age; people who are older have more time to acquire these resources. Children do not—and if by chance children have inherited or acquired wealth, the law required that the wealth be controlled and managed not by themselves but by their parents. Likewise, at the other end of the age spectrum, if an individual had not been able to acquire financial

12.3

The Stratification of Childhood

293

resources to sustain themselves, they would be dependent upon others and demeaned. Studies show that when it comes to success, opportunity, and social placement, it is much better to be born rich than to be born smart. The notion that the US is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and willingness to work hard is debunked—it is money that matters, and the opportunities that money brings a child. Researchers have found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among people across the stratification ladder from rich to poor, but a child’s eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of being born to wealthy families. The main driver of intergenerational status are differences investments received during childhood, which lead to improved cognition, better health, and more years spent in education. Less than a quarter of high-potential children born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared with two-thirds (63%) of children born to rich fathers. Children from more affluent homes benefit from access to more early education interventions and enrichments, better diets and healthcare access, and parents who read to them regularly. Family background matters, but only because it affects investments, which then affect cognition and years of schooling. Results from the National Child Development Study suggest that policies that equalise social investments, such as improving school quality and providing universal healthcare, could promote income mobility for children (Ayyar et al. 2021; Bauman 2018; Van Dam 2018). Compare the life opportunities of children born to wealthy homes to those whose parents are fleeing countries where they are oppressed in order to create a better life for their children. The stratification of immigrant children can be seen with harsh treatment of children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border (Vissing 2021a, b). The population of first and second-generation immigrant children in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1990s and many children have undocumented parents or are in mixed-status families (Child Trends 2016a; Foundation for Child Development 2016; Migration Policy 2016). This group of children has been found to experience social exclusions and challenges that lead to anxiety, depression, anger, social isolation, identity issues, disrupted eating and sleeping patterns, distrust, and lack of a sense of belonging (American Immigration Council 2016; First Focus 2016; Foundation for Children’s Development 2016; National Center for Children in Poverty 2016; Sirin et al. 2015). While people may flee to the US hoping that the streets will be paved with gold for their children, the sad reality is that for most, this will not occur. The deck is stacked so that most will never have the cards to play that will allow them to jump several rungs higher on the stratification ladder. A few may, or they may be able to climb up a rung, but the possibilities of a refugee child separated from parents during the early 2020s at the US-Mexico border will not have the same opportunities for success, no matter how good, kind, and smart they are.

294

12.4

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Stratification’s Impact on Adolescent Transition to Adulthood

When a child is considered a child and when that child is considered an adult was introduced in Part I of this book. Going a step further, research shows that where a child falls on the stratification ladder impacts their transition into adulthood. The transition into adulthood is strongly socially stratified. Status attainment literature has documented that children of parents with higher SES tend to achieve higher education levels, jobs that pay more, and social networks and resources that advance their success (Fussell and Furstenberg 2005). Aspirations and opportunities vary by social origin and have consequences for demographic events in the transition to adulthood. Growing up involves rites of passage through marked developmental events. Modell et al. (1976) defined the transition to adulthood as a process marked by five events—leaving school, entering the workforce, leaving the parental home, marriage, and parenthood. When children experience all five of these transitions simultaneously, it is assumed that they have hit adulthood. But what happens when they have made the transition into one or an only a few? This issue was explored in Chap. 3. A person’s status as adult or child influences the number and type of human rights they may be afforded. There are three major pathways that influence a child’s transition into adulthood. These are stratified socialization, stratified agency, and stratified opportunity (Billari et al. 2019). Stratified socialization is the process by which parents influence the values, attitudes, and intentions concerning decisions that children develop. Children at different runs of the stratification ladder learn different messages. For instance, children of high SES parents may be encouraged to postpone marriage and parenthood in favor of going to college, building their career, or traveling to see the world. Children from lower-class backgrounds may choose to have their children early so that they have more of their adult-life later, compared with higher SES children who may postpone childbearing until their mid-thirties. Stratified socialization can be considered as a goal-setting process for children where they learn what the options are available for them and what they should aspire to obtain. Stratified agency is a pathway that influences youth ability to realize their goals or intentions. Parental SES (PSES) influences what resources youth may have to make their dreams come true. Higher SES parents have more discretionary income they can use to buy their children opportunities, camps, trainings, coaches, or material objects like computers, musical instruments, or golf clubs and private lessons if their goal is to be a golf-professional. Children may obtain volunteer or internship opportunities to gain elevated skills that will help them to achieve the next rung on the stratification ladder. Children from advantaged and disadvantaged family backgrounds may differ in mental processes underlying their use of agency. In short, depending on their parents’ SES, they may come to want different things and be given related narratives and skills on how to achieve them.

12.5

Intersectionality

295

Stratified opportunity is the third pathway identified by (Billari et al. 2019). Opportunities can be of multiple forms. It could be that higher SES home children are given greater access to influential networks that their parents can help them to identify and obtain. It could also be that children from lower SES households may be given more opportunity to get a job and move out of their parent’s home to live with friends or intimate partners. Structural factors often lead to an earlier transition to adulthood among young adults with a low-SES background than among young adults with a high-SES background. It seems clear that a child’s socio-economic origin is a major determinant in shaping their transition into adulthood. The concept of diverging destinies is used to explain the cumulative negative consequences of social class across the life-course. For instance, early sexual experience, pregnancy, non-marital childbearing may occur among socially disadvantaged strata children, which puts them at risk for negative education, employment, and health consequences. Children from low and high SES family backgrounds differ in their expectations and intentions concerning the occurrence and timing of major demographic events like having a child, going to college, or living independently. Concerns about upward mobility for their children may result in parents pressuring children to consider work, schooling, and procreation options. Their parents vary in their ability to help children realize their goals, or they may be influential in swaying the child to look only at certain options as they dissuade them from considering others. This is often apparent in parents attempt to prevent their children from experiencing downward vertical mobility. Structural constraints and opportunities that are related to their placement on the social stratification ladder directly and indirectly manipulate the life-trajectories available to children. Gender and racial biases may influence the goals, agency, and opportunities available to children. Socially structured inequality that is embedded into stratification systems set children up as to whether they can achieve social benefits that will improve or limit their lives.

12.5

Intersectionality

Intersectionality refers to the impact of the overlapping strata determinations inherent in a stratification system. An intersectional approach comes out of conflict and stratification theories and examines how interlocking systems of power impact those who are marginalized in society. The term intersectionality became popularized in the work of critical race theorist Kimberle Crenshaw (1991). It provided a frame to examine how intersecting social statuses, like race, gender, social class, or sexual orientation, subject people to oppression. While traditional feminist literature benefitted the status of women, it was not necessarily considered inclusive for all women. A white, middle-class view of feminist literature failed to incorporate the experience of less affluent or BIPOC women. The intersectionality approach alleged that people in a marginalized category are not a homogenous group (Bowleg 2012;

296

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Crenshaw 1991; Crenshaw et al. 2014; Hill Collins 2008; Hill Collins and Bilge 2016; Hooks 2014). It is interesting that while characteristics like race, gender, and class are included, intersectionality doesn’t typically did not include age as a discriminating factor. Taylor (2019:2) in Womankind shows a graphic that includes gender, race, sexuality, nationality, and ability—but not a word about the age at either end of the chronological continuum. She states that “Intersectionality is the acknowledgement that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and oppression and we must consider everything and anything that can marginalize people—gender, race, class, sexual orientation, physical ability, etc.”. Children and older people must therefore be put the “etc.” category. . . So even theories that presents themselves to be inclusive, they have generally been inattentive to the variable of age (Holman and Walker 2021). Children are once again absent. Konstantoni and Emejulu (2017) observe that intersectionality theory has not been well-developed in the field of childhood studies; some scholars argue that there may be other ways to contextualize oppression of marginalized groups (Campbell 2013; DeGigiorio 2017; Robertson 2017). There have been attempts to contextualize children’s discrimination as a systematic problem, but most approaches have focused on some aspects of a child’s being and are not comprehensive in nature. Brown (2021) focuses on race, gender, and sexual orientation as major aspects of the discrimination of children and youth. Even in a democracy where all people are supposed to have the opportunity and be equal, the Orwellian view that everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others, tends to prevail when judging children (Orwell 1946). Intersectionality has the potential for adding to the explanation of why children who are of the same age get treated differently. Stratification of children regularly occurs but is seldom discussed as such. Children “with potential” have an accumulation of high statuses while those deemed to be “losers” have an accumulation of low-status rankings. As this pertains to being awarded human rights, young people ranking high on the children’s social stratification ladder have more rights and opportunities than those who rank in low positions. As an example of children coming from a high-status group having greater access to resources, wealth, prestige, and power, consider Ethan Couch, the Affluenza Boy who killed people but was set free because courts deemed him innocent because he grew up with a skewed perspective by having too much money (Victor 2018). His treatment was dramatically different from how a same-aged young black male who may accidentally kill someone is treated (Selby 2020). Intersectionality is referred to as a form of a caste system (Coates 2015). We see that for some children, childhood is portrayed as the best time of their lives while other children suffer extensive maltreatment, abuse, and exploitation in childhood (Dickens 1859). Their experience of childhood is different because they have different statuses, they fall on different rungs of the stratification ladder. While children who are the same age don’t have the same life-chances since life is easier, or harder for children depending upon their characteristics, life is typically challenging for all children merely because they are children. Children have no control over

12.6

Intergenerationality and Children’s Human Rights

297

where they are born, their race, gender, or what they look like. These are ascribed characteristics that tend to be static. Children also have no control over things like their parent’s social class, religion, ethnicity or nationality, education, job, or whether they become immigrants or refugees, but they may be able to change them over time. They may be more-or-less educated than their parents or move to a better-or worse neighborhood. What might be some alternative ways to understand the lowly social position in which children find themselves? Next intergenerationality will be mentioned, followed by an elaboration of what I am calling the castification of children and the creation of rightsology.

12.6

Intergenerationality and Children’s Human Rights

As explained above, the popular intersectionality frame has failed to incorporate age as a major component contributing to oppressive and discriminatory behavior. Intergerationality as a concept has been around for a while and provides an alternative perspective of how to conceptualize age. In this approach, children’s lives are viewed in comparison with people of other age cohorts as the primary designation for their status (Erikson et al. 2002). Unlike constant, never-changing characteristics like race, age is fluid. Changes in a child’s status inevitably occur across time. Being a child is a status that trumps all others when we are young. Age is the one marginalized and oppressed status that all people everywhere share and it is the basis of common experiences that shape our perception of ourselves and our place in the world. All children, irrespective of their demographic characteristics like gender, race, or culture, suffer from categorical discrimination merely because they’re young. It’s the status of being a child that all young people have in common that helps us to understand why a quarter of the world’s population experiences differential and unequal treatment (Statistica 2017). While their bodies and minds will obviously change over time and children will naturally transform out of the child status into that of adulthood, so will the way they are perceived and the opportunities that are made available, or denied them. Our age, like our race, is something we have no control over, but people react to us based on it anyway. Older people have more social status than do children. What happens during the early years of our lives impact us for the rest of our life. This is true with regards to our physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development. Talk to anyone anywhere and we will hear stories of experiences that shape the way we feel or act, decades later. We can all share stories about our first day of school, our first kiss, and the times when someone hurt our feelings that still stings decades later. Therapists abound who try to help us untangle the threads of toxic traumas that bind us (Center on the Developing Child 2010, 2021; Harvard 2021; Jackman 2020; Miller 1997; Wolynn 2017).

298

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Children quickly learn that there are more benefits, rewards, and opportunities for people who are older. It is no surprise that they come to resent being called a baby or even a child because of all the demeaning and limiting associations with those terms. Children may make efforts to look and act older through the use of make-up, clothing styles, smoking, or favored types of recreation. We are judged by how we look, what we wear, what we have and what we do. Just as someone makes snap judgements of us that influence what they think of us when they glance at us on the basis of our gender or race, it takes 3 seconds for our age-attractiveness to influence how we will be perceived. It doesn’t matter what gender, race, ethnicity, or social class we are. How we display ourselves to the world has real-life implications for our success. Children learn this at a young age. Being accepted and regarded as attractive is of utmost importance to children and youth. Identified as “cool” or “hot” can buy one peer acceptance, dates, attention from teachers and authorities, opportunities, money, jobs and status.

12.6.1

Changing Intergenerational Norms

Standards of who or what is considered mature or attractive vary from time to time and place to place and current social pressures are intense for children to appear older than they are (Białecka-Pikul et al. 2019; Caseley 2018; Levy and Akiva 2019; Mannheim 1959; Pivnick, Gordon and Crosnoe 2022; White and Wyn 1998, 2017). The pressure to appear older is perhaps greatest for those who are in the 12–17-yearold category. Many young people have mature-looking bodies, they may have sophisticated ways of interacting, and may be quite accomplished in certain tasks. They could be seen as a threat to adults and the traditional domains of adulthood. It may be perplexing to view them as children, as they appear more adult-like in many ways. “Young people forge their identities through active engagement with the local and global realities they find, and hence make sense of new social realities in ways that are different from the ways of older generations” (White and Wyn 2008:4). Social pathways have also changed; the Youth Research Centre’s Life-Patterns research program found that young people post-1970 saw life unfolding differently than their parents who tended to have the same home and job for the majority of their lives. Today’s young people are more likely to be geographically mobile and professionally fluid as they try on different occupations and lifestyles to find one that is a best-fit. Developing a sense of individuation, personal identity and taking responsibility for charting one’s own destiny is much greater today than it was for previous generations. Young people are more willing to question authority, demand answers, and resent adults controlling their lives. Intergenerational stages of normative behavior have shifted. In middle-class US during the 1950s it was typical for people to graduate from high school and get married, with babies arriving shortly afterwards. It was common for people in lateteens and early-twenties to have their own home. Today, it’s not unusual for young adults to be living with their parents into their thirties, either as singles, couples, or

12.6

Intergenerationality and Children’s Human Rights

Generation

Born

299

Characteristics

Depression

1912-1921

Conservative, work-oriented, thrifty, patriotic

Post-War

1928-1945

Importance of work, school, security, comfort

Baby-Boomer

1946-1954

Good economic opportunity, optimistic, social protest

Generation Jones

1955-1965

Narcissism, skepticism, self-helpers

Gen X

1966-1976

“Lost”, educated, want to avoid divorce, me-focused

Gen Y, Millennials

1977-1994

Technologically savvy, sophisticated, flexible

Gen Z

1995-2012

Techno-super-savvy, ethnically diverse, independent

Gen Alpha, Gen C

2013-2025

Tech savvy, COVID generation, future concerned

Fig. 12.1 Overview of generations

families. Challenging economic and relationship issues have resulted in childhood being extended for a decade as young people find themselves dependent upon their parents for longer than either may have expected (Sheehy 1996). Generation Z, today’s youth, is growing up within a highly sophisticated media and technological world. The difference of Gen Zers compared to other generations isn’t shown just in technology and fashion but also in political attitudes and lifestyle (Parker 2020). We know children today are more technologically savvy, but given the new political, social, and economic climate, time will tell how they are similar to, and different from, previous cohorts. Where youth who were once into science or computers were considered nerds, today they be regarded to be very attractive indeed. Figure 12.1 shows how generational norms have shifted over time about what young people are “supposed” to be like. This is why what is considered to make one an attractive adult has changed significantly across time, and will continue to do so. Sometimes children born since 2020 are called Gen C for the Covid Generation. How the impact of the pandemic will impact them longterm is yet to be determined. This frame reminds us that it’s confusing to be young—one-minute children are expected to act immature, innocent and free and other times older, responsible and mature. The messages are mixed, possibly because: Americans have an ambivalent attitude toward children. There are times we push them too hard to succeed and some parents try to live out their unresolved dreams through their children’s accomplishments. Sometimes we patronize children when they are young. Other times we underestimate their capabilities. At the same time, we idealize children as the embodiment of innocence and romanticize childhood as a time of carefree play. As they grow. . .and begin to challenge adult control, our tendency to patronize turns to anxiety and mistrust. [As our understanding of childhood changes] we must revisit and examine stereotypes and preconceptions about children and test them against children’s real experiences. (Woodhouse 2008:45).

It is clear that our understanding and expectations of what rights children should have are different today because the demographic characteristics and lives of children have changed. The notion that childhood is socially constructed helps us realize childhood is a continuous variable, not a discrete one. This is where a

300

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

potential linking of intergenerationality with intersectionality theories is relevant; combining age with the achieved and ascribed characteristics can illuminate disparities they face inequitable treatment in areas such as interpersonal respect and fairness, differential treatment in families, treatment by criminal justice authorities, in school, housing policies, civic participation, or recreation. Intergenerational conflict and violence patterns vary, with young people more likely to experience “justified” aggressive compliance, maltreatment, abuse, or violence (Klimczuk et al. 2017; Morton 2014; Newell 2007). Differences matter when they result in some people having access to more resources than others. They matter when one group thinks that they are superior to others and create a perpetuating system of social inequality. At its heart is the Thomas theorem—if people believe a situation is real, it will become real in its consequences (Thomas 1928). Studies considering analyses on both intergenerational or intragenerational would likely advance our understanding of children’s human rights (Alanen 2016; Foot and Venne 2005; Gosseries 2008; Luescher and Pillemer 1998; Shi 2017).

12.7

Contextualizing the Concept of Caste and Children’s Human Rights

A caste system is a stratification system in which one’s social placement is determined at birth. The status a child has and the opportunities that await are contingent upon what caste or social status ranking the parent had. Caste systems assume that the group into which you are born will be your social status for the rest of one’s life; it is unchangeable, even through education and achievement. Caste systems are often associated with India and Hinduism, but caste systems can be found in various forms around the world and throughout history. South Africa is another commonly cited example of having a caste system. The USA prides itself on not having a caste system but one of social mobility in a class system in which anyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and make the American Dream of success occur if they just work hard enough. However, whether there is an implicit caste system in the US is a topic of debate (Wilkerson 2021). Caste, in all its forms, becomes a factor in interactions and decisions according to one’s age, as it does in gender, ethnicity, race, immigrant status, sexual orientation, or religion that have consequences in our everyday lives and in policies that affect the way social institutions operate and treat us (Wilkerson 2021). Like all systems of social stratification, people designated to be at the top in the higher statuses or castes are considered to be better than those at the bottom. In a traditional caste system, people in high-status cases are considered more spiritually pure than people at the bottom (aka the “untouchables”). People who are born into the artisan or merchant castes have their futures designated to follow certain directions. In a caste system, people are expected to live with, socialize with, and marry people in the particular caste. Accepting this arrangement is regarded as a natural

12.7

Contextualizing the Concept of Caste and Children’s Human Rights

301

state, even a moral duty, and children are socialized to believe this is the appropriate way to live from the time they are born. In this way, it is similar to the social class model that US children learn, with the main difference that children in the US are taught that they can change their social status and lot in life.

12.7.1

An Alternative View of “Cast”

The word “cast”, particularly as it pertains to children, has multiple meanings. To cast something means to act in a way that will make something appear. If we are a fisherperson, we may take our rod and cast the line into the water in hopes of catching a fish. If we cast our vote, we are making a formal choice that we hope will have an impact on who is elected. If the sun casts a shadow, it will darken the space. To cast, therefore, can refer to an action that may result in a particular outcome. The infrastructures, decisions, institutions, and interactions available to children cast them in certain directions. In another example of the meaning, if we break our leg the doctor may put a cast on it to hold the bones in place so the leg will heal the way we want it to. Applying this to children, socialization and social stratification can be regarded as cast, a way to keep children in the place we think they should be. It is rigid, provides structure, and is unbendable. It cannot be removed until the doctor makes the decision to remove it. The other common definition of cast is a role that someone plays in a theatrical performance. Determining where we are on the caste or stratification ladder, we are assigned roles, not dissimilar to roles of actors in a theatrical performance. There are expectations of what to wear, what to do and say (or not say), when to come and go, cues that trigger anticipated responses, and sets that dictate who does what where. This too applies to children—they are given expectations for how they are to behave, what they are to say and to, when they should enter, and when they should exit. Adults and children develop this dance where they both come to know and expect one another’s moves. When the child says or does something that is not in the script, this is when the performance shifts and the intended message of the play gets distorted. Children figure out that if they change their role, they will receive different treatment. In a true caste system, one cannot escape their role, but childhood as a caste is one that they can change over time, but only by aging out of it. This is why appearance and competence become so important for young people—how others perceive them will change the way they are treated and the role they are expected to play. The traditional definition of caste does not exactly fit the category of age because children will grow into adults and therefore are able to transcend their status as a child. But caste can be relevant to our understanding of childhood as a caste because it has other dimensions that divide people into categories of high and low; inherent in this categorial division is embedded inequality. In this regard, children are a cast because it does stick with them; until they attain the age considered adult, they

302

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

cannot vote, sign documents, apply for aid without the consent of a guardian (Shankar 2018).

12.8

The Castification of Children

Age can be considered a form of caste in which children are put into a stratification system that keeps them oppressed and there is nothing they can do about it—until they age out of that status. Like race, age is something that people make a judgement about when they look at us. In a blink of an eye we get assigned into categories where stereotypes abound. The judgement that gets made about someone’s age sets the standard expectations for how people are to be treated, where they are expected to live, how they are supposed to act, what kinds of positions they are expected to hold, whether they can obtain services, and whether they should be expected to speak with authority or be subservient to those who are in a higher caste or authoritative group. For children, this means parents, teachers, police officers, and other adults in authority positions. This oppression just because someone is a child is seen all the time, as reflected in father Harry Wormwood’s slam to his daughter in author Roald Dahl’s book, Matilda: “I’m right and you’re wrong, I’m big and you’re small, and there’s nothing you can do about it” (Dahl 1988:54). As Nash et al. (2020) observe, age is like no other form of prejudice and is often neglected in our discussion of prejudice, discrimination, or intersectionality. There are other ways to envision the lives of children’s social placement beside the stratification, intersectionality, and intergenerationality perspectives. This is to look at children as being locked into a form of caste system that determines their options and the ways that they are perceived by others. The way we regard children is so curious—we adore them, but only some of them, and only sometimes. There are groups of children who get regarded, intentionally or inadvertently, as outcasts who many people would rather ignore or wish they would just go away. This statement sounds harsh, and indeed it is. But look at facts that may indicate such a view exists. Arguing that children are a caste, they can be done-to by adults against their will in most every way imaginable, and there is not a thing they can do about it. For instance, young women who have been deemed undesirable for some reason (including being poor, deemed unattractive, with disabilities, mental illness, because of their race, ethnicity, from “bad” families, or other characteristics that marginalizes them) have been sterilized against their wishes for decades so that they will not spawn the birth of undesirable babies (Patel 2017; Stern 2020). Children have been labeled as social outcasts (Crane 2021; Demanet and Van Houtte, 2016) even at two years of age over ascribed attributes over which they had no control (Yim 2009). Some landlords and housing communities refuse to let families with children live there, even though it’s supposed to be against the law to discriminate against children (Saltzman 2015). Hotels, resorts, restaurants, and bed-and-breakfasts can refuse people with children (Gross 2021; Jordan 2020) or make things miserable in order to get people with children to go away, which I found out the hard way when I

12.8

The Castification of Children

303

took my infant daughter to an elegant inn for a getaway and was told I would have to leave because they didn’t want children on the premises. Children at 16 can drive cars, are employed, pay taxes, but they are not allowed to vote and have no official representation at any government agency. They cannot participate in meaningful roles in society until they cross an arbitrary line that designates them to have a different status—the status of being an adult. They cannot control their own money, and many children have had their money extorted from them. They cannot secure legal representation or sign contracts, buy cars if they are earning the money to pay for it, or sign apartment leases even if they are age 17 and are on their own. Until you hit age 18, you cannot buy a pet, cannot purchase a lottery ticket, get a tattoo or piercing, rent a car or a room if you are traveling, work full-time, give blood, or consent to medical procedures. You cannot have sex with anyone over 18 (even if you are 17), cannot legally smoke, and cannot drink alcohol unless you cross the border into Canada or Mexico where you can legally drink at 16. Magically, though, the day before your birthday you cannot do these things, but 24 hours later you can do all of them on your 18th birthday. This designation of what children can and cannot do as a caste member is different from stratification, intersectionality, or intergenerationality. A new approach is needed on how to look at children. The one thing that all people under 18 have in common is their lack of choice and options when they are young. Of course, children need to grow, develop, and mature in order to have privileges to do certain thing. Just because we want to do something doesn’t mean we could or should. I would like to fly an airplane but shouldn’t because I do not know how. With rights come responsibilities. Just because someone had a child, if they fail to treat the child kindly and give them what they need, the state has the right to remove the child so the child’s needs can be met. In this respect, this is one of the few examples of how a child’s right is superior to the right of its parent. There are legal, moral, and traditional cultural norms to ensure that children stay in their place and this impacts every single child no matter who they are or what they look like. How a child is treated during those years between birth and 18 varies a lot depending upon what other characteristics they have or castes they belong to. Older models and theories do not explain children’s lives particularly well. It is time for a new model. Thus, I have created the term ‘castification of children’ in an attempt to broaden our perception of the challenges that children face and how the different characteristics or castes to which they belong alter the trajectory of their lives. Our “castification” of children implies that some, like cream, will float to the top while those who are of lesser quality sink to the bottom and not be recipients of our adoration, attention, financing, and support. Their castification status influences how they are seen and treated. It influences how they see themselves and what they think they should, or will, become. All of this occurs under the watchful eye and strategic planning of those at the top caste group who get to make the rules. If there is anything that distinguishes caste it is first, policing of roles expected of people based on what they look like and second, the monitoring of boundaries—the disregard for

304

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

the boundaries of subordinate caste or the passionate construction of them by those in the dominant caste, to keep the hierarchy in place. (Wilkerson 2021:216).

In this application to children, there are strict boundaries for what children can and cannot do. These boundaries and roles are enforced by the police. They are also set in stone by religious leaders, teachers, parents, and other authorities. Children are watched, put into separate institutions with their own kind, and cannot leave them without parental authorization no matter the purpose or how responsible they may be. Some children are put into total institutions, such as orphanages, “therapeutic boot camps for bad kids”, or juvenile detention facilities. Their status as lower caste is then solidified as they are “put away”. More likely, the castification of children is subtle so that their systematic oppression is palpable to those in the upper castes, in this case powerful, influential, adults in authority positions who feel it is good and right to keep children in their subservient position. Caste systems are stable systems that are passively accepted and endorsed by the population as the way things are. Theorists like Wilkerson allege that caste is a more useful and pervasive concept than traditionally assumed as it makes contributions to other forms of stratified oppression of individuals. Berreman (1960) agrees, and compares the Indian caste system to that found in racially segregated parts of the United States and extends the definition of the concept of caste. One component of caste is that a person is born into it, it is an ascribed, not an achieved status. Children, naturally, are born little and not developed which puts them in a special category of being born into the caste of childhood. They have no choice over what they look like, who they are born to, the conditions into which they are born, or the fact that they are unable to do many things. Caste systems are designed to keep people placed in their status categories. Children develop and are able to do more things, some of which may be viewed as a form of competition to parents or other adults. Many children feel frustrated because they are able to do things that they are not officially allowed to do. Berreman finds that caste systems address ascribed statuses of individuals that are inherent in them, like gender, race, or age, and that perception of people in these lower statuses are perpetuated from one generation to another, perceptions that justify an opinion of them as lesser-than others and they are deserving of their lower social placement. In both castes in the United States and India, high castes maintain their superior position by exercising powerful sanctions and the rationalize their status with elaborate philosophical, religious, psychological, or genetic explanations. . . . High caste people gain, by virtue of their caste status alone, deference from others, constant reinforcement of a feeling of superiority, and a permanent scapegoat in the lower classes. (Berreman 1960:122–23). . . Ideally, the high caste person is paternalistic and authoritarian, while the lower caste person responds with deferential, submissive, subservient behavior. (Berreman 1960:124).

Religious ideology plays into the maintenance of castes; in the case of children, parents may believe that they are given authority over children because God has required it. Children are to obey even imperfect parents because they are supposed to because they are children. Disobedience to parents is considered a major sin and

12.8

The Castification of Children

305

displeasing one’s parents can be seen to threaten one’s relationship with God (Berreman 1960; Challies 2016; Elias 2020; Smith 2022; Wright 2011). These disfigured relationships were handed down through the generations. The people whose ancestors had put them atop the hierarchy grew accustomed to the unearned deference from the subjugated group and came to expect it (Wilkerson 2021:51).

Dehumanizing those beneath them became a common response. The rungs and rules of the caste system filter down to every individual about what the expectations are for how they are to behave in accordance to whatever caste they are in. Berreman (1960:127) goes on to state that. It should be evident [when comparing caste in India and age in the United States that] the details are remarkably similar in view of the differences in the cultural context. . . [and] By comparing caste situations, so defined, it should be possible to derive further insight not only to caste in India but into a widespread type of relations between groups—insight which is obscured if we insist upon treating Indian caste as entirely unique.

This observation makes it possible to consider whether, in some ways, childhood is a caste too. In order to create human rights for young people, it would, as the twentieth-century Indian reformer B. R. Ambedkar noted, be necessary for the annihilation of caste in order for equality to exist (Shankar 2018). To survive and thrive, children must adjust themselves to the expectations of the dominant caste. While they may not choose to fully submit, they find that things will go easier for them if they comply and do what has been expected of children for decades. You may say and do whatever is in your best interests, even if you don’t believe them, because to buck the system or power of the person in authority, may simply be worse than going with the flow. In what is termed the “birthright lottery”, a child’s opportunity for a good life is directly associated with to whom and where he or she is born. Some children are given more rights than others merely because of their family lineage. There is always a pecking-order—and children are almost always at the bottom, solidifying their position as a lower caste. Children have figured out that there is a caste system that they are in. They figure it out early in their lives, which is why there is a big driver to quit being perceived as kids as soon as possible. They use the tools that are most available to them—appearance and behavior. They try to act older and adjust their appearance and interests that appeal to adults and give them more cachet. These include appearance indicators such as clothes, make-up, or muscles. Behavioral indicators include hobbies, sports, recreation, peer groups, knowledge, and any area where they can demonstrate competence and success. Growing up fast is the name of the game. Thus, to minimize the impact of child castification, young people learn to grow up fast and do things that adults do, like drink alcohol, smoke, do drugs, be sexually enticing and engaged, partake in computers and social media, talk on the phone incessantly, swear, talk trash about certain groups of people, and become consumers of all kinds of trendy material objects. It should be no surprise, therefore, that young people experience high rates of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape, or that they get in trouble at school or with the police because they are acting in ways deemed inappropriate for people at

306

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

their rung in the castification ladder. It should also be no surprise that when children are plunked in front of televisions and electronic devices to entertain them when parents themselves role model such behaviors or are working so hard doing paid or domestic work that they don’t have time to play or interact with children, that children zone-out and develop their own support and interaction worlds. They end up not having honest and engaged conversations with parents because their parents are not having them with children—or perhaps with each other. Children figure out how to negotiate their placement in the child castification system as best they can until the fateful day when they magically age-out of that low caste into some other placement on the stratification ladder.

12.8.1

Child Castification Indicators

If children’s lives are constricted by statuses that take the form of caste placement, what are those indicators? Unlike intersectionality which focuses on a limited set of characteristics, children’s lives are constructed through the influence of many different indicators over which they have no, or limited, control. All children are in a lower caste than adults, but some children rank higher in the children’s castification system than others, and those ranked high are perceived as more valuable (Zelizer 1985). Thirteen castification indicators include: Ability Abelism organizes most social life” of individuals (Yancy 2023). A child’s aptitude, ability, inability, or disability, influence their social placement. Children with abilities perceived as valuable and desirable are given higher placement than those who have challenges that are thought to be limiting. Children with disabilities have had a long fight to obtain rights and equal treatment compared with children who are thought to be “gifted” (Hirpa 2021; Irmo 2017). Howard Gardner (2006, 2011) observes that there are many different types of abilities or intelligences that children have, but not all abilities are respected or treated equally (Baynton 2011). Age Nobody has any control over their age; different ages evoke differential responses from others. Being young is a natural biological state which has become associated with negativity; admonishes are given to people who act like childish. As children grow closer to age 18, they are given more credibility. Until 18, rights are limited or nonexistent. Appearance While not typically included as a demographic factor, attractiveness of a child influences their life-chances (Boyce 1979); Białecka-Pikul et al. 2019; Pivnick et al. 2022). How attractive we appear to other may impact our lives as much or more than gender and race (Rennels and Langlois 2014), so it is important to better understand the role attractiveness and children’s presentation of self (Goffman 1959). Attractiveness is increasingly important in today’s visual and virtual worlds. Often dismissed as trivial, how children are perceived shapes their identity, their perceived value, and sense of self. Heather Widdows (2018) in her book Perfect Me

12.8

The Castification of Children

307

alleges that being perfect has become a moral and ethical ideal to live for and be judged by. We judge ourselves and others as good or bad, desirable or disgraceful, successes or failures according to how well we adhere to this standard. Teachers have been found to respond more positively to students who are more attractive (Boyce 1979; Kenealy et al. 2001; Schwartz 2014). Even preschool children have been found to have stronger peer preferences for playmates who they see to be attractive (Dion and Berscheid 1974; Langlois and Stephan 1977). The more children present as competent, mature, and gregarious, the more likely it is that their infractions or violations will be overlooked (Dion 1972; Białecka-Pikul et al 2019; Pivnick et al. 2022). Children buffer their marginalized status by attempting to look older and attractive. Girls learn they receive more positive feedback when they appear to be womanly (Patzer 2012; Principe and Langlois 2013; Rennels and Langlois 2014). Males gain more respect when they have more muscular and developed bodies. Body art, tattoos, hair, clothes, and style all are attractiveness indicators. If you’re seen as attractive, you get acclaim, if you don’t you are more easily marginalized. Education Education is the big sorting mechanism for children. Those with superior educations have more opportunities for success than those receiving inadequate educations. This includes how much education a child receives, when it begins and for how long they are in school, quality of education and instruction, expertise of teachers, cost of education, resources, school climate, networking of students, tutoring, coaching, curricular and extracurricular opportunities. Family Background, Social Class, and Parenting Social class matters and is the biggest influencer of children’s lives, as this indicator allows for other indicators to be constructed. Families have reputations that construct public opinions of and opportunities for children without knowing anything about a particular child. Children from families who are wealthy, educated, and well-resourced start off life with different opportunities than those coming from families who struggle financially, socially, psychologically, and who have extensive health challenges. Geographic location of the house and type of home matter, as do material resources, occupations, wealth, income, education, social networks, occupations, legal supports and challenges, recreation, and other factors. As shown in the story of the Prince and the Pauper, the agency of a child is impacted by their social environment; no matter how smart or wonderful a child is, those born into homeless families will have a hard time competing with a peer born to millionaires. Where children start in life typically influences where they end up. While social class is an overwhelmingly important influencer for how children’s lives evolve, how children are parented matters too (Pearson 2016; Westman 2001). Parenting style influences abuse, supports, coping styles, and other factors that serve as protective or traumatic factors, which put children at different levels of the castification system.

308

12

Stratification and Castification of Children

Gender and Sex Sex is a biological characteristic, gender is a socially constructed identification and no longer is one’s sex assumed to be one’s gender. Gender discrimination is embedded into the social structure of most societies and children incorporate gendered views early in life (Bian et al. 2017; Conant 2017). Gender designation impacts how children will be treated and how they view themselves, others, and their life options (Balvin 2017). Male children continue to be programmed to be at the top of the stratification ladder (Amin et al. 2018). Females may have made advances but continue to experience gender gap inequality (Lam 2016). Gender fluidity is more common than many people think (Armstrong 2018), making it more appropriate to talk about people as “they” rather than “he” or “she”. Transgender children experience challenges in a world in which heteronormativity and cisgenderism have been dominant and gender fluidity has not (DiProperzio 2017; Flynn 2001; Grinberg and Stewart 2017; Leguizamonm and Griggs 2018; Yarber et al. 2013). Health The physical and emotional health that children have impacts the trajectory of their lives and future successes (Grunewald 2020). The Harvard Center for the Developing Child, the American Pediatrics Association, Children’s Defense Fund, First Focus on Children, Child Welfare League of America, and other organizations have produced volumes of research reports showing the importance of children’s health. Simply stated, children who are healthy fare much better in life than those who are afflicted with health challenges. Human Rights Understanding Children who grow up in homes, schools, and communities that embed climates of human rights respect have a foundation to build upon that will lead them towards greater happiness and success in life. Children who grow up in homes or communities that fail to embed the ideas embraced in the Articles of the CRC are subjected to more oppressions and challenges. The social context of human rights understanding and embeddedness puts children who grow up with them, and without them, in different levels of social opportunity. Interpersonal Skills Children who develop positive interpersonal skills and problem-solving strategies fare better throughout life than those who don’t (Jones et al. 2015; Kiuru et al. 2020; McCarthy 2021). Learning to get along with others, being supportive of others, having a sense of positivity and possibility have been found to have skills that serve them into adulthood; children who are angry, negative, and aggressive have been found to have more relationship, career, legal, and interpersonal challenges. Race and Ethnicity Historically, we know that in the US stratification system, white people have been at the top of the ladder and have had more health, education, and career opportunities. It has been more challenging for others to attain wealth, prestige, and power—the primary benefits of social class. Race and ethnicity are part of the US’s “enduring caste system” according to Wilkerson (2021), who allege that while the nation’s founding ideas promise liberty and equality for all, a caste system continues in which this enduring hierarchy has persisted for centuries. The Equal Justice Initiative (2023) finds that segregation in the nation never disappeared, but

12.8

The Castification of Children

309

evolved into what we observe today. Data proves significant disparities exist in health, education, income, and opportunity of individuals according to what racial or ethnic group to which they belong (Cole 1999). How, or if, this will change as demographics towards a not-white population evolves will be important to watch. Religion The US was based on the premise to have religious freedom but children may be treated differently depending upon what religion their parents hold (Farmand 2021; Gordon 2020; Radcliffe 2018). In-group religious members may ostracize children who are not of their group, and it doesn’t seem to matter what particular religion we are talking about. Depending on the primacy of a religious orientation in where a child grows up, the child may be treated differently if they are an in-group or out-group member. Sexual Orientation The majority of people in the US are heterosexual according to the US Census Bureau (2020). Sexual orientations take a variety of forms, with acronyms as complicated as LGBTQQIP2SAA (Hulshof-Schmidt 2015; Kinsey 1948). Data finds that 5.6% of people identify as LGBTQ+ with the highest numbers being 1 in 6 people (16%) in Generation Z, compared with 2% in people born before 1965. The Movement Advancement Project acknowledges a generational shift in awareness and acceptance of LGBTQ+ youths. In the castification of children there is a significant difference in how younger people view sexual orientation compared with older persons, who remember times of risk, violence, and arrests because of one’s sexual orientation. Social Support Because of the placement of one’s caste, some children obtain more support and services than those who are more stigmatized. In a study I conducted years ago at a hospital in Flint, Michigan, I found that parents who were articulate and could relate to the doctor received much better infant education and care than parents who had language and presentation challenges—even though they were the ones who would benefit more from enhanced education and support. Children in families or systems where they can obtain support and services have more resources to build upon than do children who are unable to get personal, social, or system supportive services.

12.8.2

Ranking of Castification Indicators

Stratification, intergenerationality, or intersectionality approaches only take some indicators into consideration. The castification model incorporates multiple demographic, social, health, and interpersonal factors. Table 12.1 shows the list of possible castification indicators and how they may interface to determine a child’s position of value to society. These can be subjectively ranked from high, medium, or low to contextualize a child’s caste placement. Imagine that a high score is 5, a medium score is 3, and a low score is 1. There are 13 indicators, meaning that a score of 65 is the highest a child could receive; 39 would be the medium score, and

310 Table 12.2 Child castification criteria

12 Indicator Ability Age Appearance Education Family Background Gender Health Human Rights Interpersonal Race, Ethnicity Religion Sexual Orientation Social Support Total Score

Stratification and Castification of Children Child’s Ranking from high (5) to low (1)

13 would be the low score. Each of the indicators could be ranked; for instance, what is considered attractive by some cultures or community standards may be quite different in another. The value of Table 12.2 is that it allows us to consider how we look at children and subjectively determine their value and importance. The more “high” or “low” rankings a child may be perceived to have, the more those characteristics may influence their current and future lives. For instance, a straight, white, male child from an affluent Christian home who is handsome, healthy, well-educated with good interpersonal skills and a sense of respect for others will have more opportunities than a disabled BIPOC female with physical and mental health challenges, low social and interpersonal skills, who has not received a good education, doesn’t meet traditional standards of beauty, and has minimal support and services. Their current happiness and their future life-options are dramatically influenced not by a singular factor but multiple ones. Each of these indicators can have buffering effects as well as detrimental ones. A total of 60 would indicate high ranking—13 a low ranking. This is a conceptual model that could generate data points and determination of which indicators are the most important in determining a child’s status. This castification model can be tweaked to incorporate other indicators as well as those listed. The purpose of the model is to consider a broad range of factors that may explain why some children may be afforded rights respect and others do not. It attempts to consider factors from both an adult and child’s point of view. Attractiveness and ability are huge factors shaping children’s lives that have been given insufficient attention to their impact; sexual orientation and gender may be perceived quite differently from younger persons than by older ones. Values, beliefs, and biases are built into each of the indicators but where they are positioned may vary depending upon who is doing the labeling.

12.9

12.9

Summary

311

Summary

This chapter has explored children’s social placement on different hierarchical systems. It has examined traditional social stratification, intersectionality, and intergenerationality approaches. While all have merit and contributed to our understanding of children as a minority group, none are comprehensive in their analysis of how children as a collective fare, as well as differential positioning of specific children within that collective. Considering childhood as part of a unique form, castification, allows for expansion of our sociological imagination (Mills 2000). Ai clinical sociological perspective can assist in addressing the institutionalized factors that oppress children and to identify what can be done to implement strategies to help them achieve the highest possible selves.

Chapter 13

Rightsology

A right delayed is a right denied. Martin Luther King, Jr

13.1

Introduction

Human rights constitute a variety of components that pertain to a variety of groups. As a topic, it is not a uniform topic; rather, it is multifaceted and complex. It deserves more scholarly attention both theoretically and methodologically. Developing it into its own specific field of inquiry will help to transform research and pedagogy to help advance it both conceptually and pragmatically. Rightsology is the scientific study of human rights. I am creating the term because it is necessary to develop this branch of knowledge in a more systematic way than has been traditionally used. It deserves a field of study all of its own. The Greek suffix of “ology” denotes a subject of study and refers to “the study of . . .” and includes the work of experts in a particular area of knowledge. It includes the scientific research, theory, and analysis by experts in the field. The terms “human rights” or “child rights” are often misunderstood and misinterpreted. For instance, my students say it is their right to drive a car when they turn age 16, but they are mistaken; it is a privilege to drive a car, one that must be earned as one shows competence and safe regard for others. Vladimir Putin may think he has the right to invade Ukraine; Ukrainians think he has violated their right to be an independent nation. Donald Trump may believe he has the right to remove classified materials to his home; the National Archives believes he does not and the nation’s right to preserve presidential documents trumps his desire to keep them as personal property. The interpretation of what is a right, and whose right is most right, is observed in daily life, including whether a child should receive a vaccine or what they are allowed to read. Rights may seem clear in the abstract but debatable when personal interests and political agendas come into play. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_13

313

314

13 Rightsology

There are many different types of rights, each with their own history and emphasis. Looking at them as separate issues masks the universal underpinnings that they have in common. Creating a distinct area of study that puts human rights as the large umbrella under which all the spokes of the different types of rights exist will help to contextualize its analysis and study. Understanding that there is a larger umbrella of rights under which all people fall allows the field of rightsology to provide benefit to the larger discourse of issues underlying human relations.

13.2

Types of Human Rights

There are many different subcategories of human rights. Children’s human rights (CHR) is only one type of rights within the larger human rights framework. However, in many ways it is the most critical because it focuses on how children learn to be rights-respecting or rights-dismissive. Rights can be broadly divided into individual versus communal rights, but there are variations within both. They overlap because rights inherently are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. The UDHR identifies five categories of human rights: civil, economic, social, cultural, and political. Individual rights are often referred to as civil rights and pertain to life, liberty, personal security, privacy, freedom of movement, ownership of property, freedom of thought, conscience, religious belief and practice, prohibition of slavery, torture, and cruel or degrading punishment. Economic and social rights overlap, referring to the right to an adequate standard of living, choice of employment, protection against unemployment, being paid a fair and just remuneration, safe working conditions, reasonable working hours, the right to form and join unions, as well to the right to social security, and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Cultural rights again overlap, focusing on the self-determination and protection of people in their traditional cultures. The right to political expression, assembly, association, to participate in government, vote, and have a right to be heard overlaps with all of the above. Courts of law are to ensure equal and fair representation before the law, which is to be impartial, presume innocence, and create effective remedies when human rights violations occur. There are hundreds of human rights treaties and documents which exist; a comprehensive list of them can be found at the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Library (2022). In general, the core human rights treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to name a few.

13.2

Types of Human Rights

315

Rights issues can be found in a variety of topics. Just a few others include healthcare, housing, the environment, COVID-19, minorities, race, LGBTQ+, prisoners and criminal justice, labor, immigration, reproductive rights, children and youth, the elderly people, marriage, religion, indigenous peoples, war crimes, bioethics, abilities, development, business rights, social class, human trafficking, and many more. While attending a 5-week residential human rights training, I found a curious interaction occurring between the people at the educational forum. Participants may have been human rights generalists but they came to the field with interests to support a particular aspect of human rights that was sensitive to them personally. For instance, disability advocates, LGBTQ+ advocates, or BIPOC rights were often people who were members of that category who had experienced discrimination or marginalization—they were interested in human rights in general but their focus was on how to support people who were members of that category to which they belonged or worked. Their attention to one specific right was important to the advancement of rights for that group. However, there seemed to be a prioritization of whose rights were the most important, and while all human rights issues and peoples are supposed to be equal, it felt as though some people’s rights were advocated as more in need of attention or defense than others. This attitude is observed in the child-parent rights tension. Both groups have rights; they need not be in conflict with each other. The problem becomes when viewing “my” right as more important than “your” right. Dialogue shuts down as competition arises. Historically, types of rights issues seem to rise up according to issues of the day. Rights have emerged through an evolutionary process. There are “generations” of human rights, the first, Liberté, occurred during the Enlightenment, when civil and political rights became topics of discourse in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, followed by the nineteenth century focus on Égalité, or inclusion of economic, social, and cultural rights. The third generation of rights, Fraternité, emerged in the twentieth century that introduced solidarity rights or nation-state rights around political, economic, social, cultural self-determination and the right to participate in and benefit from the common heritage of mankind (Council of Europe 2020; Reid 2019; US Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights). What we see emerging in the twenty-first century is the beginning of a new phase of our understanding of human rights. This includes the increased attention to rights of children and peoples who have been traditionally marginalized by governments and authorities. As human rights have become dissected into separate types, it is important to come back to the whole to view what they all have in common. While this is abstractly an agreed-upon premise of the field, it is a challenge pragmatically. Creating a field in which scholars can work together to build a comprehensive pedagogy about human rights will make an important contribution to the defense of justice, equality, kindness, and humanity.

316

13.3

13 Rightsology

The Making of an “. . .Ology”

There are certain attributes that all “ologies” have in common, be they psychology, biology, geology, or sociology. These include documentation of their historical development and their overarching frameworks or assumptions. Academic approaches emerge with the development with a set of theories, and methodologies. Data are collected, analyzed, and reported in scientific forums that include professional presentations and academic publications. Through the publications and presentations arise debate and dialogue from interested parties on the validity of certain assumptions, methodologies, theories, and conclusions. Akin to the “great wheel of science” model in science, scholars critically analyze the field in order to strengthen it and develop it. Peer review, analysis, and critique are important; people are not to blather on about bias and personal perspectives. This is what makes science trustworthy; unbiased samples, data, resources, and methodologies are important and scholars must be transparent about where they are coming from as they do their work. Science is built by employing tests and critical analysis of key concepts and assumptions. Professional societies or associations are created to support the scholars and experts who are building the field. There may be some sort of criteria for membership into these associations. Research projects may be funded by some organizations; it is important in any scientific field that the funding does not have an agenda for a particular outcome ahead of time, or that the data will be used in harmful ways. This conveys the importance of human subjects or institutional review boards (IRBs) at universities to review any research before it is conducted. The location of publications is important as well. Professional journals or scholarly reviewed books lend credibility to information; the internet and skewed groups allow anybody to put forth any information they believe to be true, whether it is true or not. This informational danger is important to consider the source and the motivation for what is published and where it is published. From a training protocol, professionals in a field are expected to have obtained a core set of knowledge and information. In the UDHR, CRC, and other main treaties, human rights education is listed as a key component of the treaty. One cannot implement the human rights actions if one does not know what they are. This is a concern in academia; as pointed out in the chapter on how academic disciplines handle children’s human rights, most disciplines do not have a comprehensive required set of human rights trainings or pedagogical instruction. Organizations like Human Rights Educators USA have developed an organization to support human rights educators and experts like Sarita Cargas and Felicia Tibbitts have contributed to literature on how to implement human rights into educational settings, but human rights education (HRE) is not required by any state or professional organization. There could be human rights majors and programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. While there are a handful, they are rare. While Title IX programs are universal in colleges and universities, and while DEI—Diversity, Equity and Inclusion—programs are popping up at institutions and organizations across the nation, human rights education is not. There may be human resources and

13.4

Key Parts of Children’s Human Rightsology

317

omsbudspeople to deal with conflicts and equity issues, but there are no human rights resource officers in organizations. While there may be a little data collected in some places about some violations, there are no comprehensive data-gathering mechanism to address human rights violations in total. This is a distinct weakness in the construction of the field that could be addressed—if human rights were considered to be a priority. In short, the field of human rights has the essential components to be considered an “ology”, rightsology. Like all new ologies, it is not well established yet. It could be as the next run of the twenty-first century commitment to human rights. It could also be the impetus for children’s human rights to be defended in the USA, and make citizens feel proud to join the rest of the world as a children’s human rights defender instead of being the sole hold-out not to do so.

13.4

Key Parts of Children’s Human Rightsology

Rightsology allows for the exploration of how the study of human rights are applied to different groups of people and how they are incorporated into the various academic disciplines. It would allow for a systematic analysis and comparison of similarities and differences in rights across demographic and contextual lines. Are rights always the same for all peoples? How does a rank-ordering occur whereupon some rights are seen as more important than other rights, or the rights for some groups of people or in some situations prioritized? There are ethical, moral, legal, analytical, and pragmatic questions that arise that have complicated the study of human rights. The policy implications of the narratives created around rights in general, and rights for specific groups in particular, have been significant.

In developing a human rights framework, there are several key components that are necessary. One is within the academic fields to study, research, publish, and teach about human rights as this field of study develops. Another is to have institutional commitment within higher education to embed human rights education into all of its courses, structures, and infrastructures. Higher education is the vehicle that teaches

318

13 Rightsology

students how to become professionals. If we want to see a work-force that defends the rights of others, then higher education must step up and take the lead in this essential role. Every institution, from schools, healthcare, criminal justice, social service, to sports and recreation would benefit from the development of a right oriented framework. This would then be implemented through the enforcement of laws, though the creation of routine policies and practices, and demonstrated through the words and actions that we exchange with others. This framework could be developed into all institutions that pertain to children. If embedded, it would empower the next generations to have the skills and knowledge of how to create a rights respecting world that I think we would all like to live in. In the field of human rights, who are the main groups of people for whom we advocate? Do we spend more of our time, effort, and money in support of one group moreso than another? Why? Is there a pecking ourder in which we prioritize, or stratify, which human rights issues are more important than others? It may be hard for us to weigh each right equally. In what ways are we teaching children that some people and some rights are more (or less) important than others? It is human nature to be attuned to issues that pertain directly to ourselves. If we have had our rights violated because of some characteristic that we are, we may have hightened interest and awareness of oppression related to those characteristics. This would be the case regarding gender, race, religion—or age. We may feel bonds with people of “our” group especially if we have experienced discrimination or marginalization. It does not necessarily mean that we don’t care about the other groups—we may care about them deeply. We likely have people from all walks of life and experiences within our family and friend networks and we love them and would do anything for them; their suffering is our suffering as well. There are few things that we are the same about—but age is the one characteristic that all share. We are all born as babies and grow older until our lives end. Through our socialization with children, young people learn to prioritize some people and some rights more than others. Parts of developing a rightsology is to figure out how to truly educate and inspire equity and equality within a social justice frame. We can say that all rights are universal and all people are entitled to them, but children are watching what we say and do as normative standards of behavior.

13.4.1

Interdisciplinary Applications

It is proposed that rights, like academic disciplines, have often been fragmented. In integrated study of all the different types of rights for different groups has not been undertaken and could make a beneficial contribution to our understanding of human rights. Would they have the same theoretical orientations and require the different research methodologies? How could the study of rightsology become embedded into the different academic disciplines or our study of minorities, diversity, inclusion, and equality? This is particularly important for the study of culturally specific,

13.4

Key Parts of Children’s Human Rightsology

319

underserved, and historically marginalized populations of young adults and children. Consider a few of the groups and factors for which various applications could be developed. A systematic analysis of groups for whom the analysis of human rights is critically important: a. Ability of individuals, including physical, cognitive, emotional, and others b. Age of people across the lifespan, from babyhood, childhood, young adulthood, middle adulthood, and older adulthood c. Appearance d. Childcare e. Children separated at the border f. Climate and environment rights g. Communication h. Consumerism i. Criminal justice and law j. Death and dying rights k. Detained and incarcerated people l. Duty-bearers, including governments, businesses, parents, families, and organizations m. Education n. Employment and labor rights o. Ethnicity p. Exposure to toxins in water, food, air, buildings, etc. q. Foster care r. Gangs and bullies s. Gender rights, including male, female, LGBTQ+, and other gender orientations human trafficking t. Healthcare u. Homeless and housing distressed individuals v. Immigrants w. Indigenous populations, including Native Americans, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Pacific Islanders x. Institutional abuse y. Intellectual property z. Media rights and access, including social media aa. Mental health and illness bb. Nationality cc. Participation and civic engagement dd. People’s race and multiracial backgrounds ee. Privacy ff. Protection gg. Provision hh. Recreation, camps, and play ii. Refugees jj. Religion, faith, and spiritual orientations

320

13 Rightsology

kk. Reproductive rights ll. Research mm. Social class nn. Transportation oo. Violence, including child abuse, corporal punishment, domestic violence, torture, war, etc. There are countless more types of rights, and rights violations, that can be discussed. The above list is just a smattering of the different human rights issues and groups that have been marginalized, understudied, and have everyday implications to how people are treated. Exploring similarities, differences, and considering how human rights notions in the abstract get transformed into policies and practices is a worthy, yet understudied area of inquiry that the field of Rightsology could develop.

13.4.2

Scholars

There are more authors and experts than space allows who do high-quality research and scholarship about child rights. There are countless more who have studied children’s development, psychology, education, or other aspects of their lives. While their works are related to the rights of children, they may not be children’s rights scholars per se, so are not included in the list below. There is a large group of scholars who have been key in developing the field. Some are listed here to provide a core starting point for readers to learn more. Priscilla Alderson David Archard Saul Becker William Corsaro David Finkelhor Michael Freeman Allison James Christopher Jenks Gerison Lansdown Ton Leiffard Laura Lundy Audrey Osler James Prout Jens Qvortrup Hugh Starkey Kay Tisdall John Tobin Jonathan Todres Yvonne Vissing Jane Williams

13.4

Key Parts of Children’s Human Rightsology

321

Barbara Bennett Woodhouse Michael Wyness

13.4.3

Child Rights Infrastructures

In order to build a field, there must be scholars, research, organizations, and outlets to share information. While there are many associated ones, here are some that are specifically related to the defense of children’s human rights.

13.4.3.1

Scholarly Publication Resources

The International Journal of Children’s Rights publishes articles specifically about children’s human rights. It explores theory, research, issues, and practices. For instance, Fairhall and Woods (2021) conducted an analysis of Children’s Views on Children’s Rights: A Systematic Literature Review. In it they studied children’s awareness of rights, the value they placed on the importance of rights, impact of having/not having rights fulfilled, realization and respect of rights, equality of rights, how they identified and categorized rights, and factors that may affect children’s views. The Children’s Legal Rights Journal (CLRJ) is a national journal sponsored by Loyola University Chicago School of Law in cooperation with the National Association of Counsel for Children. CLRJ focuses on the broad range of legal issues confronting children, including child welfare, juvenile justice, adoption, mental health, education, and more. Its goal is to provide practitioners in law and related fields with the practical resources they need to be effective advocates for their child clients. The Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights is a peer reviewed international journal featuring interdisciplinary scholarly research relating to children’s rights in a global context. CJCR publishes theoretical, empirical, and policy articles and comments and includes a section devoted to youth authors. Its aim is to provide a forum for exchanging ideas and engaging in debate and dialogue regarding questions and issues pertaining to children’s rights. Other journals that may include articles pertaining to child and youth rights include: The Journal of Early Childhood Research. Early Childhood Education Journal Childhood. Children & Society Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Journal of Child and Family Studies Journal of Child Health Care Children and Youth Services Review Child Development

322

13 Rightsology

Child: Care, Health and Development The Journal of Pediatrics Child Psychiatry & Human Development Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry Child and Adolescent Mental Health Early Childhood Research Quarterly American Journal of Play The Future of Children Children, Youth and Environments Pediatrics Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Current Issues in Education Journal of Adolescence Journal of Youth and Adolescence Youth & Society Youth Justice Journal of Adolescent Research Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice Journal of Research on Adolescence Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health Journal of Special Education Journal of Child Language Journal of Early Intervention JAMA Pediatrics Child Language Teaching and Therapy The International Journal of Children’s Rights Journal of Early Childhood Literacy Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review Paediatrics & Child Health

13.4.3.2

Networks, Resources, and Organizations

American Academy of Pediatrics. Annie E. Casey Foundation Child Fund Alliance Child Trends Child Welfare League of America First Focus Frameworks Institute Human Rights Educators (HRE) USA International Research Network (IRN) Leading for Kids Observatory for the Human Rights of Children, Swansea University Save the Children

13.5

Fundamental Rightsology Assumptions: Static or Changeable?

323

UCLA Center for Healthier Families, Children, and Communities UNICEF World Education Research Association (WERA)

13.5

Fundamental Rightsology Assumptions: Static or Changeable?

Human rights are often considered to be an abstract, philosophical concept. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch lawyer, was the first scholar noted to use the word ‘right’, and felt it was a moral quality inherent in all persons everywhere (Australian Human Rights Commission 2021). How to transform that into pragmatic reality is something scholars have grappled with for many years. John Locke (1689) contributed to the idea that every human being has certain rights that derive from their own nature and not from their government or its laws. The legitimacy of government rests on the respect that it afforded these natural rights. Government and society have an obligation on setting the groundwork for the defense of people’s rights (Perry 2007). Schute and Hurley (1993) examine the operationalization of human rights and finds that while the word conveys a certain image, how it is used in everyday life may be quite different. They draw upon a series of philosophers in an attempt to understand them. One way of viewing universal rights is to include the right to life and security, the right to personal property, some rule of law that is guided by a conception of justice based on the common good, some liberty of conscience, some freedom of association, and the right to emigrate. Rawls (1993) asserts that people have a moral duty and obligation to be just, responsible and cooperative with other members of society. These fundamental behaviors are to be found in every society, without reference to whether that society has adopted a formal human rights statement of not. Mensch (2010) alleges that freedom is the goal rather than the ground of human rights and we must remember that freedom is dependent on others. Achieving the conditions for freedom—human rights—is humanity’s overriding moral obligation. Snehal (2020) summarizes what all rights have in common in this way. 1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living; 2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society; 3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people; 4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society; 5. Since rights are here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society; 6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their development in society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised against social good; 7. Rights are equally available to all the people; 8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time and 9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining public health, security, order and

324

13 Rightsology

morality. Donnelly (2013) too does not argue that human rights are timeless, unchanging, or absolute. Quite the contrary, he shows that any list or conception of human rights—and the idea of human rights itself—is historically specific and contingent but is always compatible with a conception of human rights as universal rights and human dignity. Defining both dignity and human rights can be challenging—the conceptual and operational challenges of the terms lay the groundwork for debate and disagreement. This is where belief, bias, and dialogue all come into play. Bearing the idea that rights are always designed for the greater good, they must be revised over time to address the needs of a changing population in a changing world. For instance, the Second Amendment in the United States is often used as a justification for people age 18 and over to have as many of any kinds of guns that they want. The amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the year 1776 when the redcoats were coming, this amendment perhaps made a lot of sense. The amendment pertained to having a militia or army that could defend the citizens. The nation at that time did not have a military industrial complex, the Pentagon, the National Guard, or an established army, navy, air force, marine, or space force. But in the year 2023, all of those institutions are in place. Would the founding fathers agree with the way the second amendment is being carried out today? Or was it a right that meant one thing at one point in time that is no longer pertaining to protect the social good, given the US is the most gun-plenty country in the world with the most gun deaths, even of children?

13.6

Socialization and Human Rights

If we want to change the course the nation is on, then we need to give young people the skills and supports to recapture the essence of what it means to be a caring, compassionate country. Democracy is at stake. So is our ability to have nurturing, happy relationships and healthy bodies. It matters to our ability to have a job we love and to live in a safe world. There is a hearty literature that exists about the importance of socialization’s role in embedding human rights attitudes and behaviors into the behavior of both individuals and nations (Risse and Sikkink 2016). The most common ways states have attempted to change behavior is either by coercion or persuasion, but conformity to an idea or behavior can also be achieved through acculturation of which socialization is key (Goodman and Jinks 2004). Goodman and Jinks observe that socialization is an essential part of the transmission of a human rights perspective, but the microprocesses of its social influence are often underspecified, under analyzed, or, at best underexplained. The study by which rights ideology are transmitted to children (who later become adults) calls for a greater understanding of the microprocesses by which persuasion works. Persuasion theory suggests that behavior is influenced through processes of social “learning” and other forms of information conveyance. Persuasion “is not simply a process of manipulating exogenous incentives to elicit desired behavior from the other side but

13.6

Socialization and Human Rights

325

rather requires argument and deliberation in an effort to change the minds of others” (2004:247). It allows for the people to internalize norms and rules of appropriate behavior and to redefine their interests and identities accordingly. They become consciously convinced of the truth, validity, or appropriateness of a norm, belief, or practice. Goodman and Jinks found that the most important technique of persuasion is “framing.” This notion has heavily influenced the construction of this book. One of the most useful ways to create a framework, they allege, is through education, especially when dealing with uninformed or nonobservant of communities or individuals. They claim that individual behavior (and community-level behavioral regularities) is in part a function of social structure and the relations between individuals and larger groups. This lays the foundation for the international treaties to emphasize the role of human rights education, and for the important function of organizations like Human Rights Educators HREUSA. Reference groups generate varying degrees of cognitive and social pressures on people to conform. Children are influenced by their larger social environment, which is both learned but is also absorbed from other social means both directly and indirectly. “Rather, the acculturation of children involves both the transmission of information and the inculcation of social values and norms. Social influence is a rich process—one that also includes “normative social influence” whereby actors are impelled to adopt appropriate attitudes and behaviors. . .[both]cognitive and social aspects of normative social influence.’ (Goodman and Jinks 2004:651).

They go on to conclude that while persuasion involves the assessment of the content of the message children receive, acculturation involves assessment of the social relations between children and other groups. “Because the acculturation process does not involve agreeing with the merits of a group’s position, it may result in outward conformity with a social convention without private acceptance or corresponding changes in private practices” (2004:695) This means that people of all ages may behave in conformist ways (like adhering to human rights respecting behavior) without believing in them. This may explain why the current US climate toward anti-democracy attitudes and behavior has become increasingly prevalent. When the culture supported a culture of tolerance towards others—even if the tolerance was feigned—it seemed as though people were democratic and rightsrespecting but when the Trumpian era of meanness and mistruths became commonplace it was easier for people on the margin to morph into saying and doing things that were repugnant to a human rights perspective. They could because they felt supported by another larger group’s ideology. Persuasion thus focuses most effectively when its basis of influence is congruent with values, behaviors, and logic. Data and facts can be a convincing element into swaying people to believe in one direction or the other. Critical thinking is essential for people to actively assess the validity of data, facts, rules, or the way things are being done (Goodman and Jinks 2004). Rensmann (2017) argued that it is important to embrace a contemporary critical theory as an important lens to situate human

326

13 Rightsology

rights in global and local social and material world, as human rights should be recognized as a tool in struggles for freedom and social justice. If we are not careful, there could be an end of both democracy and the end of human rights (Douzinas 2000).

13.6.1

Socialization of Children as Rights-Holders

Socialization is a process that introduces people to social norms and customs. Socialization refers to the developmental processes through which individuals acquire the values, behaviors, and motivations necessary to become competent members of a culture. This process helps individuals function well in society, and, in turn, helps society run smoothly. Individuals acquire language, knowledge, social skills, norms, values, and customs that are necessary for participating in and integrating into a group or community. It is a normative concept that distinguishes between acceptable or unacceptable ways of being in the social world. As a normative as well as broad conceptual category, socialization has entered into lay discourse and is regularly applied to explain and manage practical affairs; it has been influential in education, parenting, and political affairs. Socialization has been advanced to explain a plethora of psychological matters, including race relations, gender roles, moral decision-making, citizenship, self-control, affect management, and self-concept, among others. Socialization is a combination of self-imposed conformity and externally imposed rules, mediated by the expectations of other persons. Family members, teachers, religious leaders, and peers all play roles in a person’s socialization (Giddings 1897; Hoppner 2017; Maccoby 2007; Morawski 2014; Parsons and Bales 1955). Socialization is enacted at both a macro and micro level to transmit norms, customs, beliefs and values. It teaches children what is expected of them when they are in a particular group or situation. Socialization is inherently a form of social control. As a process, it facilitates a cognitive framework and conscience that is aligned with social norms and to prepare them to perform when they are in various roles and situations. Cole (2020) observes that ssocialization involves both social structure and interpersonal relations. It contains key parts of context, content and process, and results. It is a multifaceted process that come at a child from virtually every direction—parents, schools, classmates, teachers, neighbors, faith community, social groups, coaches, television, books, advertisements, social media, and countless more forms. Socialization arrows are sent forward in order to hit their target. Demographic factors such as social class, gender, race, appearance, religion, and culture result in stereotyped ways children will be treated. They are impacted by cultural and value expectations. Opportunities are created or denied for children, depending on their family and social situation. Conformity, independence, risk-taking, hobbies and interests, respect for authority, recreation—everything a child sees and witnesses

13.7

Summary

327

shapes messages, or frameworks, of what they are expected to be, do, and become (Bryson 2002; Kohlberg 1969a, b; Waksler 1991a, b). Families and close friends are primary sources of socialization. Secondary groups like neighbors, classmates, or people they see on a regular basis impact children’s understanding of themselves and others. Organizations do as well, from schools to stores to workplaces. Some children are put into forced socialization situations if they are put into boarding schools, detention centers, or other institutions. None of them can escape the process of anticipatory socialization, given that children are often treated not for who they are or what they are experiencing at the moment, but for what they may experience or become in the future. Social environments as well as interactions both are instrumental in framing what the child views of themselves and their futures (Cole 2020; Harris 1995; Hoppner 2017). They will also learn to be subordinate and that adults are in charge, and they are socially powerless. The only chance they have of changing that fact is to grow up (Bem and Bem 1970; Simmel 1896). There have been different theoretical explanations about human rights. Most academic disciplines have not embedded children or human rights into their curricula and programs. This holds the possibility for the development of a new set of theoretical premises pertaining to children’s human rights within them. Given the critical role that children hold in the creation of society, the development of a new set of theories is very exciting and fruitful not just for the development of the academic disciplines, but for the defense of children, their rights, and their well-being. Theory development components include concepts, constructs, principles, propositions, hypotheses, models, taxonomies and typologies (Carolan 2006; Larkins and McKinney 1980; Zetterberg 1965). Creation of theories that address the changing nature of human rights for young people, identification of best practices for teaching human rights, and the impact of children being rights-holders on various social institutions and society as a whole, are next steps in the development or rightsology. This field could benefit all academic disciplines and be implemented by practitioners.

13.7

Summary

This chapter concludes Part II of this book. It has examined different ways to contextualize children. It explored children as a minority group, as parental property, their placement on the stratification ladder, and whether childhood could accurately be understood as a caste. It concludes by questioning whether the development of a field called rightsology could be fruitful in placing our understanding of children as rights holders within a larger framework of human rights. Contextualizing what all human rights have in common and where they have different parameters will be helpful in developing both academic disciplines and everyday social behavior to become more rights-respecting for children—which ultimately means for everyone. Whatever is learned as a discipline will have ramifications in how students

328

13 Rightsology

learn and how professions and professional behavior emerge. No matter what field someone goes into or receives care from, human rights will continue to be a major issue. Clinical sociologists understand the value of human rights at the macro, meso, and micro levels. They are ready, willing, and able to help organizations to move their services forward for the benefit of not just children, but society as a whole. The pieces to build rightsology are available now. All we have to do is nail them together, as we construct a human rights framework that will support us all.

Part III

Constructing the Walls

We build walls to keep us safe and to keep others out. When we wall off others we cannot access our own humanity or the humanity of others. Alberto Villodo

Chapter 14: The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation Chapter 14: Systems of Child Provision Chapter 15: Systems of Child Protection Chapter 16: Systems of Child Participation Chapter 17: Imaging a Children’s Human Rights Framework to Education

Overview This section of the book explores the 3 Ps of children’s human rights, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It examines how children’s lives are constrained by different things they are provided—or are not provided. It looks at how systems have evolved to protect children from some things but not others. Participating and engaging the world on one’s own terms is a fundamental part of human rights, yet children are often excluded from meaningful social and interpersonal participation. This section concludes by using the institution of education to showcase ways in which embedding the 3Ps could benefit children, and the world in which they live.

Chapter 14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

It must not for a moment be forgotten that the core of any social plan must be the child. President Franklin D. Roosevelt

14.1

Introduction

There are more than 50 articles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Given the number, it is challenging for most people to remember all of them. A shorthand version of them has been created that refers to the content in many of the articles as pertaining to the 3 Ps—provision, protection, and participation. In this chapter they will be explored. Following chapters will each discuss one of the 3Ps in detail.

14.2

What Are the 3Ps?

The specific rights of the child that countries are obligated to implement can be divided into three categories of what Thomas Hammarberg (1990) has called the three Ps. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) also lays the foundation for the support of the 3Ps, as shown in General Comment (GC) No. 14 (2000). Provision, protection, and participation are part of children’s rights to economic, social and cultural rights, as described in international law (Riedel et al. 2014; Schute and Hurley 1993). There are over fifty Articles in the CRC that pertain to different aspects of children’s human rights. The basic one is for children to live and not be subjected to war or conditions that would lead to their morbidity or mortality. In interpreting and applying these rights, the Convention’s main guiding principles are the best interests of the child (article 3), non-discrimination (article 2) and age-appropriate © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_14

331

332

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

participation (Flekkoy and Kaufman 1997; Freeman 2020a; Lundy 2007; White and Wyn 1998, 2017). The others have been referred to as “the 3 Ps” and pertain to issues concerning children’s provision, protection, and participation. Provision refers to ensuring that all children’s basic needs and assistance are met. This includes welfare, a quality education, good mental and physical healthcare, adequate food and nutrition, decent stable housing, legal protections, social services, and a happy home. Protection of children is designed to prevent harm to children whenever possible and to take action against maltreatment, discrimination, oppression, neglect, abuses, war, terrorism, and exploitation. The third P is that of participation. It refers to giving children limited authority over their lives, and includes children’s right to play and to have friends, to have access to information and have their own thoughts, to be given respect for their views, and to actively participate in decisions that impact their lives, supporting the notion of “no decisions about us without us”. Another 3 P model of children’s rights focus on prevention, protection, and promotion. Prevention refers to taking efforts to reduce harm to children, harms that can result from exposure to risks or failure to institute the resources and services necessary for healthy development. Protection focuses on keeping children safe, while promotion highlights the importance of education and public awareness of children’s entitlement to rights. An alternative view is the 4 main pillars of support for the children rights model. These include the pillar of nondiscrimination and equality (Article 2), the best interest of the child (Article 3), survival and development (Article 6), and the pillar of participation and inclusion (Article 12) (European Commission 2021). Harvard University’s Center for Health and Human Rights (2016) identifies four Ps for children’s rights. These are: participation by children in decisions affecting them that is consistent with their evolving capacities; protection of children against discrimination and all forms of neglect and exploitation; prevention of harm to them; and provision of assistance to children for their basic needs. Children’s human rights scholars Byrne and Lundy (2019) observe that while public policies increasingly reference the CRC and involve young people’s input more, there not yet a universally agreed-upon understanding of what a children’s rights-based approach to policymaking should look like. With a view to addressing this gap in the practice and scholarship of children’s rights, they offer a framework for understanding children’s rights-based approaches to policy based on the following six ‘Ps’ of child rights. These include the principles/provisions of the CRC; the process of children’s rights impact assessment; the participation of children and young people; partnership to ensure joined-up working; public budgeting to ensure that the resources are in place for implementation; and publicity to make policies known to children and young people. They note that a human rights-based approach to policy formation, for children and others, requires a focus not just on rightsholders and outcomes but also on the information, resources, and collaboration required to make children’s rights a reality. In sum, a children’s human rights framework presents a significant paradigm shift to the way young people have typically been contextualized in the US. It is

14.3

Defining Provision

333

data-based, human rights based, and empowering as it gives young people a strong foundation on which to build their lives—and the future of society. For purposes in this book, the 3 Ps will be discussed as shorthand terms to provide a quick way of understanding and framing children’s human rights.

14.3

Defining Provision

What does the term “provision” refer to as it pertains to children’s human rights? It refers to providing children fundamental resources, goods, and services to help them survive and thrive, resources necessary for children to develop to their highest capacities and secure their optimal well-being. The term “provisions” is used to include a variety of types of things that children need in order to survive and develop well. Children require many different types of provision, many of which adults don’t consider to be children’s issues but are. Some provision types are obvious; education is first thing that comes to mind for most adults, followed by healthcare. Some provisions are just assumed but not directly regarded as children’s issues. Provisions may be material like a house, food, water, or clothing. Some things children need to be provided are intangible, like love, social support, self-esteem, or opportunity. Other things that children need to have provided are interactive, such as play, participation, agency, or engagement with culture or social groups. Housing, transportation, phones, computers, WIFI, sidewalks, insurance, daycare, libraries, street lights, and sanitation are usually thought to be adult issues, not children’s issues (Kleinberg 2018). Likewise, social problems like crime, substance abuse, community violence, environmental pollution, or climate change aren’t typically regarded as children’s problems—but they are. This is a consideration for re-envisioning what provision means from a children’s human rights context, since children are dependent upon duty-bearers to provide the resources that they need in order to thrive. Many provisions are services provided by institutions, such as education, healthcare, or social services. Parents are typically put at the position of primary duty-bearers to ensure that children are provided all the things they need. In the US, often provisions are regarded to be privileges, not rights. They are seen as the parent’s obligations to deliver, not the community’s responsibility. Administratively, until they turn age 18, there must be an intermediary who is seen as the responsible party to ensure that provisions are given to children. The child provision framework in our nation generally does not see children as the unit for whom provisions are directly provided. This has resulted in children being homeless, hungry, without healthcare, and at the mercy of people or organizations that will step-up to make sure they have the resources and services they need. A children’s human rights framework, as exemplified by the CRC, is built upon the premises that children’s rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and interdependent. All of these provision rights are important for all children and they

334

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

have a right to them merely because they are human beings. All of these rights intersect with other rights.

14.3.1

CRC Provisions

What do CRC Articles state about provision? Article 2 deals with the importance of nondiscrimination and that all children are entitled to rights. Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration in any decision or service provided to children, including public/private social welfare institutions, courts of law, and administrative bodies, and those responsible for children’s care will conform with standards of safety, health, staff, and supervision. Article 5 holds that families and communities will provide the child appropriate direction, care and guidance. Article 6 encompasses all aspects of development, and that a young child’s health and psychosocial well-being are interdependent. Article 7 states that children have the right to be provided with love and care by parents. Article 12 provides children the right to form their views and express them, especially in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them. Articles 13 and 17 discusses children’s right to be provided information and ideas of all types, including media and books. Article 14 refers to their being provided freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while Article 15 recognizes children can be provided to associate and assemble with others. Article 16 provides children privacy. Article 17 provides children the right to access information to promote their social, spiritual, moral, physical, and mental well-being; keeping information from them that they could use to understand what their rights are and to know where to go for help is important. Provision rights refer to the child’s right to be provided with basic social and economic needs such as health care (article 24), economic welfare (article 27) and education (articles 28 and 29). Protection rights are the child’s right to be protected from harmful practices such as abuse and neglect (article 19) and sexual exploitation (article 34). Under article 29, education is to be directed to the development of respect for human rights and under article 42, children (as well as adults) are to be made aware of their Convention rights (Howe and Covell 2010). Article 18 provides children the right to have relationships with both parents, and requires that both parents have responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child. The State is to provide aid to parents and guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and ensure that institutions take good care of children. Working parents are to be provided with good childcare. Thus, the CRC provides for parents as well as children, since providing for parents allows for provisions to be given to children. The nineteenth article states that children should be provided child abuse protection and appropriate support programs, Article 20 addresses care they should be provided if they go into foster care placement, and Article 21 discusses provisions for their adoption. Article 22 examines provisions for refugee children, while the following article supports provisions for children with disabilities.

14.4

Defining Protection

335

Article 23 provides that mentally or physically disabled children shall enjoy a full and decent life with dignity, self-reliance, participation, and appropriate assistance. Article 24 holds that duty-bearers are to provide children “the highest attainable standard of health and to facilitate the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. . .and that no child is deprived of their right of access to healthcare services”. These include prevention of disease and accidents, primary healthcare, nutritious foods, clean air and water, pre/post-natal care for mothers, reproductive healthcare and family planning education. Article 25 supports children receiving treatment from competent physical or mental health providers. Articles 26 and 27 focus on children being provided social security and an adequate standard of living to meet their developmental needs, material (including housing, nutrition and clothing) and support assistance. Article 26 discusses children’s right to be provide social security and social insurance while Article 27 focuses on provision of children’s right to be provided an adequate standard of living for their mental, spiritual, moral, and social development. This includes nutrition, clothing, housing, and other material assistance. Duty-bearers are to provide financial responsibility for children. Articles 28 and 29 provide children their right to education, including vocational, science, technology, arts, culture, human rights education, and higher education. Education rights are the focus of Article 28 and 29. They include compulsory primary education, secondary education that includes general and vocational education, financial assistance for higher education and vocational training. Article 28 supports regular school attendance and efforts to reduce drop-out rates. It notes that when discipline is necessary, schools are to provide it in a manner that protects children’s dignity, is not demeaning, cruel, or a form of torture. Article 29 requires that education be directed to the positive development of child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. It also requires the development of respect for the child’s parents, children’s cultural identities, to be respectful of others who are different from themselves, to learn peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin as well learning respect for the natural environment. Article 30 provides children the right to practice their own religion, culture, and language. Article 31 provides children rights to rest, leisure, play, engage in recreation, arts, and cultural life.

14.4

Defining Protection

Protection of children was one of the driving factors for the creation most of the children’s human rights initiatives around the world. Child protection is designed to safeguard children from harm, and includes measures and structures to prevent and respond to abuse, neglect, exploitation, trafficking, neglect, and violence affecting children at home, on the street, in institutions, and within communities and nations. Protection from physical abuse has been central to all child rights initiatives. Protection from children from the traumas associated with war have been central

336

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

forces spurring child protection rights too. However, less invisible types of harms have been slow to become part of the protection defense family. For example, sexual abuse was not considered to be a major problem until the 1980s; Neither was bullying, emotional abuse, or verbal abuse. Child trafficking has only been considered a problem in recent years. Institutional abuse has long been a problem that still occurs in some places for some children. Corporal punishment is legal and sometimes even encouraged in 19 of the 50 US states. Spanking is considered appropriate discipline in many families and cultures. Child protection should not be confused with the protection of children’s rights. These are different things.

14.4.1

CRC Protections

The CRC and most child rights treaties acknowledge that parents are the main protectors of children and the state is there to support children both in and outside of the home. In reviewing the CRC Articles, we must remember that child rights are seen as universal, indivisible, and interdependent. There are some that speak most directly to the issue of children’s protection, that include: Article 2.2 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members. Article 3.2 States Parties are to ensure children’s rights to protection and care are met and that institutions responsible for the care and protection of children shall conform with standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision, in short, to give the child protection and care necessary for their well-being. Article 9 protects children’s right to be with their family and not to be separated from them. Families are to be afforded the necessary protection and assistance to they can fully assume its responsibilities to care for children. If families are unable to do so, and if children are not protected from violence, abuse, and neglect, then separation from parents may be in the best interests of the child. Article 12 protects the rights of children to form their own views and to express them at courts or in other matters that affect the child. Article 13 protects children’s freedom of expression and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice. Article 14 protects children’s freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 15 protects the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly. Article 16 protects children’s privacy, honor, dignity, and reputation.

14.4

Defining Protection

337

Article 17 protects children’s right to access information from the media and books and to be protected from information injurious to their well-being, bearing in mind Articles 13 and 18. Article 18 protects children’s relationships with their parents, and the right for them to benefit from childcare facilities. Article 19 protects children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. 19.2 calls for the establishment of social programs to support the child and prevent maltreatment, and when it occurs, identify, report, refer, investigate, treat, and follow-up in the courts. Article 19 is considered to be the core provision for addressing and eliminating all forms of violence against or maltreatment of children. Article 20 protects children who are deprived of their family environment and to ensure appropriate and safe placement in case of detainment, institutionalization, foster placement, or adoption. Article 21 protects children in adoption situations. Article 22 protects refugee children and asylum-seekers. Article 23 protects children with mental or physical disabilities. Article 24 protects children’s right to the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. Article 25 protects children who have been put into placements for treatment. Article 26 and 27 protect children’s right to access social security, an adequate standard of living, and protects them from being poor, cold, hungry, malnourished, or homeless. Article 28 and 29 protects children’s right to receive education, to be treated in a respectful way and to respect other peoples and the natural environment. Article 30 protects children’s rights who belong to indigenous or minority groups to enjoy and practice their own cultural traditions and language. Article 31 protects children’s right for rest, leisure, play, recreation, and to participate in cultural and artistic life. Article 32 protects children from economic exploitation and from performing harmful work. Article 33 protects children from substance use. Article 34 protects children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Article 35 protects children from being sold or trafficked. Article 36 shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation. Article 37 protects children from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, prohibits capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and should be arrested only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. If children must be deprived of liberty they should be treated with humanity, respect, and dignity and be separated from adult inmates, and have the right to communicate with family and to be given prompt legal access before a court authority. Article 38 protects children from engaging in armed conflict or war.

338

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

Article 40 protects children’s legal rights when accused of infringing upon the law. This includes having appropriate assistance to present their defense, to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial authority and to have their legal rights respected in court proceedings. Article 40 provides for children who have been accused of, or violated the law, to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which considers the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society. There is also a 5-P child protection model includes prevention, paramountcy, partnership, protection and parental responsibility. This approach concern how to take actions, and include responding to the protection issue, recording the relevant information, and then reporting it (Duffy et al. 2016). Other information on the use of children’s rights to protection can be found in Sandberg’s 2018 article.

14.5

Defining Participation

The children’s human rights framework indicates that children have a right to play, to be a child, to have discretionary time, and to learn how to make decisions. Learning how to be a responsible public member requires learning and practice; becoming a democratic member of society isn’t a light-switch that turns on automatically when they turn 18. Even young children have agency and can accomplish things that adults may not be able to do. The issues pertaining to their participation are diverse and complex, and often embody tension between children and adults. There is less public debate over child provision and protection—it is participation that often puts children and adults into direct conflict with each other because there isn’t a clearly accepted narrative about what appropriate child participation looks like.

14.5.1

CRC Participation

The CRC is clear about the importance of child participation in the following Articles. Article 2 focuses on protection against discrimination or punishment on the basis of the child’s activities, opinions or beliefs, and Article 3 zeros in on how the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration (which implies that children have a voice in letting adults know what their best interests are, in their opinion). Article 12 is central to children’s right to participation, which is supported by Articles 13–17. Article 12 states:

14.5

Defining Participation

339

Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Article 13 addresses children’s right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart ideas; Article 14 focuses on how state parties shall respect children’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 15 recognizes the right of the child to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, Article 16 protects children’s privacy and Article 17 addresses the right for children to have access to information from a diversity of sources, especially those aimed at their social, spiritual, moral, physical, and mental health. Article 24 holds that children have a right to knowledge about their health, family planning, environmental sanitation, prevention of accidents and Articles 28 supports children’s right to education and information that will benefit their lives. Article 29 encourages giving children opportunity to develop their interests and personality. Article 30 protects children’s right to enjoy their own culture, religion, language, and traditions. The thirty-first Article defends the right of children to rest, play, and participate in recreation, arts, and cultural activities. Article 32 recognizes the right of children to be protected from participating in activities or economic pursuits that could exploit them or be harmful to their development, while Article 33 protects them from participating in substance abuse, Article 34 from sexual exploitation, and the thirty-sixth article is designed to protect children from other forms of exploitation. It is important to emphasize that under the Convention, participation does not mean decision-making power or self-determination. It simply means the right to be heard and the views of the child to be given due weight ‘in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’ (article 12). It also is important to emphasize that not only do children have these basic rights but they also have the right to know they have rights (Howe and Covell 2010). Participation rights refer to the child’s right to a voice in matters affecting the child (article 12) and to fundamental freedoms subject to reasonable limits such as freedom of expression (article 13), freedom of thought and religion (article 14), and freedom of association (article 15). The treaty is designed to encourage states to allow children to have a right to participate in both macro and micro forms of engagement that will uplift them and connect them with others who will support them. The treaty is also designed to protect children from participating unwittingly in activities that are not in their best interests, like substance use, sexual abuse, and economic exploitation.

340

14.6

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

Why Are the 3 Ps Important for Children?

The CRC was constructed to ensure that their fundamental rights to provision, protection and participation could be embedded into the structures, infrastructures, policies, practices, and laws of nations. All children have a right to them, no matter where they live or what they look like. The CRC obligates the state to make sure that children’s rights are protected, since they are unable to protect their rights without governmental and administrative implementation and monitoring. If we truly believe that children our national treasure and that our investment in their rights will benefit themselves, their families, and the future of society in the long-run, then the CRC and ensuring the 3 Ps is a logical course of action. As Michael Sullivan (1992) points out, it is the obligation of a society to institute a just social policy that is grounded in human rights.

14.6.1

Why Provision Is an Important Children’s Human Right

Providing for the basic needs of children is one of the most fundamental mandates for any civil society. It is required in international laws and by people of every race, religion, social class, or political persuasion. Children are new in the world and require a variety of here-and-now resources to survive and thrive. In Abraham Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs triangle, access to provisions like housing, food, and care, must come before children can learn, develop positive self-esteem, or participate meaningfully in society (Maslow 1968). Going back to our construction model, unless there is a strong first-floor, nothing can be built upon it. This is the bottom rung of Maslow’s model. A strong foundation is essential for survival, be it for children, a building, or a society. For children, this means having adequate provisions. The importance of giving children a healthy start and strong foundation sets the stage for what happens the rest of their life. The Center for Childhood Development at Harvard University (2010, 2021) studies of how early childhood development has lifelong impacts on virtually every aspect of a person’s life. Their scientific studies show effect provisions like a home, love, healthcare, and education have on brain development, hormones, neurological development, organ development, cognition, relationships, mental health, physical health, social relationships, family, career development, substance use, and social problems. This is another example of how children’s human rights are indivisible and interdependent. The Harvard center concludes that one of the most cost-effective things that a society can do is invest in providing children with secure attachments, material, emotional, cognitive, and social supports during their early years of life. There is simply no benefit in not providing children with what they need. Investments put into children early in their lives lead to less need for interventions

14.6

Why Are the 3 Ps Important for Children?

341

later on; children who are provided enriched early years tend to be healthier, happier, and more successful adults. Conversely, when we skimp on what child needs early in life, as a society we will pay for it by spending far more money, time, effort trying to un-do problems that could have been prevented. Data from the Centers for Disease Control (2021) find that early childhood experiences such as poverty, abuse, hunger, or exposure to violence create long-term physiological, psychological, and social problems. The more adverse experiences a child suffers, the higher the probability of preventable disease, disability, social problems, risky behaviors, and impaired physical, cognitive, neurological, and socio-emotional development. Data conclusively links a variety of chronic diseases, substance abuse, crime, work and relationship problems, as well as premature death to these early ACE exposures (American Academy of Pediatrics 2014; Herzog and Schmahl 2018; Monnat and Chandler 2015). Exposure to social problems, neglect, and traumas can fundamentally alter the lens through which we perceive and lives our lives. It alters us on a physiological and emotional level; studies on epigenetics indicate that we can even have changes on a genetic level due to adverse experiences (Weinhold 2006). If we don’t have the nutrition, sleep, or care we need in order to thrive, stress can saturate our hormones and neurological response and even impact how our brain functions. On an emotional level, adverse experiences alter the way we see ourselves and the world; it influences our options and choices, can create dysfunctional response patterns and shape one’s life narrative and world view (Fisher 2022; Porges 2021; Van der Kolk 2014). Provision rights are essentially survival and development rights. Because children’s human rights are indivisible and interdependent, they all go together and if one right is denied, it impacts the availability of other rights. For instance, Article 24 focuses on children’s right to be healthy and to be able to access healthcare. While there may be an adequate number of healthcare clinics available for children, if they cannot access them because they do not have transportation, insurance, or money to pay for services, or if the services are so high that most children and families are unable to afford them, the state has not fulfilled their obligation to ensure that children can access their right to healthcare. In another example, if children have the right to clean water but as children in Flint, Michigan found when their water was polluted, the state did not fulfill its obligation to protect the children’s rights (Office of the High Commission on Human Rights 2023; 1989). The framework that the CRC provides us around the issue of provision includes a wide variety of considerations. These include what it means for a child to have an adequate home, to be healthy, to access healthcare, to be well-educated, to be safe, and to have input into decisions that impact what they need. Topics like climate change, homelessness, education, transportation, reproductive healthcare, or access to mental health are all important but sometimes denied or regarded as socially contentious issues. If providing all of what children needs was universally agreedupon, the acceptance of children’s human rights wouldn’t be a problem. It is because we don’t agree on children’s rights to provision that this has become a concern.

342

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

In short, early childhood experiences are foundational and a platform through which all other aspects of life are filtered. Providing children with what they need from a rights respecting perspective can have huge payoffs in the long run.

14.6.2

Why Protection Is an Important Children’s Human Right

Child protection spurred the Progressive Movement of twentieth-century US and was a driving factor for the UDHR as children were killed and scarred for life after World War II. The notion that “War is not healthy for children or other living things” was captured in a 1966 poster in reaction to the Vietnam War. Child protection from abuse became globally recognized in the 1960s thanks to work by pediatricians like Kempe, Steele, and Helfer (Myers 2008). The CRC was designed to protect children from violence in the home, school, community, and criminal justice system. Over time, child protection has come to include bullying, poverty, gun violence, extremism, terrorism, and environmental contamination. When children and their rights are protected, children stand a much better chance of growing up and being able to thrive. An efficient protection framework is essential to the children’s well-being because, as vulnerable people, they are exposed to problems of mistreatment, exploitation, discrimination and violence that can be life-altering. There is a principle of the superior interest of children (Humanium 2021a, b). It holds that society and duty-bearers have an obligation to protect children to ensure their immediate well-being as well as their future well-being. All decisions made by duty-bearers must reflect that guarantee. Protection requires that governments establish a protective background that addresses children’s physical, mental, and social well-being. This is where a children’s human rights framework could be especially valuable. Protection is not just an act, it is a cultural framework that children can count on to know that the entire community, including their teachers and parents, will ensure that their protection is a priority. Living in communities that send a clear message to children that they, and their rights, are important—and will be protected—is part of a children’s human rights framework. For children to live with certainty knowing their gender, ability, health, age, or background will not be a basis of maltreatment provides them a sense of security that empowers them as they go into the world. To live in a society where the rules are unclear, differentially appropriated, and uncertainty reigns as children are never sure if or when they will be assaulted is antithetical to children’s human rights. Duty-bearers, whether the state or individual adults, are to be held accountable for the protection of children. In order to ensure the child’s well-being and superior interest, states must establish a protection system for the child. An effective system includes laws, politics, procedures and practices intended to prevent and fight against various problems of mistreatment, violence and discrimination that can damage a child’s well-being. To be effective, States must commit to principal standards of

14.6

Why Are the 3 Ps Important for Children?

343

protection for children and then implement it in legislation. Realizing that there will be different customary practices that encourage discrimination and mistreatment of children, states must provide both education to avoid maltreatment and to institute repercussions for those who violate children’s protection standards.

14.6.3

Why Participation Is an Important Children’s Human Right

The children’s human rights treaty affirms that participation is not just good for children—it is their right as human beings. The entire body of youth participation literature affirms that participation is good for society as well as for children. Youth civic engagement activities and programs are seen as critical for empowering young people to develop their skills and talents; participate in political, economic and social conversations; and become agents of positive change in their communities. Unfortunately, there are limited opportunities for many youth to take part in these civic engagement activities, leaving one of the world’s greatest resources untapped. And, as a result, both youth and society miss out on the potential benefits (Children International 2015). Most young people have more capacity than they are currently allowed to express. Children are trotted out to sing songs, show art, or are showcased for a brief time but are not major speakers, presenters or panelists. In some countries, both developed and developing, young people are on their village councils, were participating in NGO activities, and were actively engaged helping people in their communities. They were making the world a better place today—not getting ready to do so for tomorrow, although undoubtedly the better prepared they are today, the more successful they will be in the future. Practitioners of youth and community work have long held the view that young people who are yet to reach the age of majority are disenfranchised, not treated equally by virtue of their age and thus often on the margins of political and civic decision-making. Most children are marginalized from mainstream society by the social, political, cultural and economic contexts in which they live. It is the powerlessness associated with their marginalization that reflects their lack of access to justice, human rights and the concept of participation embedded in the idea of active citizenship (Corney et al. 2020; Farson 1974; Ferguson 2015). Participation is a way for young people as an oppressed group to have a voice in the larger public arena, and the opportunity to have more control over their lives. When youth are able to participate and be heard by those in power, it can make services provided to them more relevant, accessible, and cost-effective. The leadership opportunities participation and engagement provide can help set them up for future successes (Farthing 2015). On an emotional level, when children are encouraged to participate, they receive messages that what they think, feel, say, and do matters. Mattering is important to people of all ages; we want to know that we matter to our family, to our friends, to

344

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

our community, and to society as a whole. To matter means that we are engaged, that we can use our agency, we have ideas and thoughts that we’d like to voice, and we want to be listened to in a respectful manner. We want to participate in the world around us. We want to make or at least have input into decisions that affect our lives. The benefits for youth participation are significant. Young people have always been involved in shaping society, either individually or in social movements (Wolf 2017). Yet there has often been adult panic over children’s well-being (Mintz 2004, 2020). There are those who fear if children have the right to make decisions over their own lives that they will run amok doing drugs, being sexually active, being both victims and perpetrators of crime, and making bad decisions that put them at risk for harm. Their transformation into engaged people who use their agency has been referred to as “the emergence of a new youth” in the “youthification of society” that results as youth become part of “the new adulthood” in a “risk society” (White and Wyn 1998). While adults may seek to insulate children from risks, the reality is that they already observe them and have feelings about them, so developmentally appropriate transparent conversations with children about how to participate in society and navigate the risks could be beneficial to them (National Association of School Psychologists 2020; Sullivan 1992).

14.7

US Child 3P Systems: Where Is the Human Rights Framework?

It is no surprise to anyone that the systems that are in place to provide for children and protect them are not working particularly well. In the evolution of child-oriented systems, the trajectory has been a movement from a family-only system, to charity care, to government and NGO care delivery programs. Programs developed sporadically in response to an unmet need, like hunger or abuse. The intentions were laudable but the designs were essentially no design; programs were developed in isolation from each other with no overarching systemic planning. Services became silos, independent, scrambling for funding, creating their own policies and practices for isolated segments of a population benefitting from care. Care was erratically delivered. There was no comprehensive supervision, monitoring, accountability systems, or data collection. There largely still is not; evaluations are typically conducted to meet the needs of a particular funder, and most organizations have multiple funding agents. So when I say there was no design, there was not a team of experts who got together and determined how best to address a problem or need systematically and comprehensively. There have been some attempts to link together similar services under an umbrella of care and call it a system, but that is a stretch of the term. In the US delivery of care, not everyone who needed care received it, and the quality of care received could vary dramatically. Child and family needs soon became greater than what the family alone could provide. They required outside help. As the number of people who sought services increased, charitable good-

14.7

US Child 3P Systems: Where Is the Human Rights Framework?

345

intentions to help those in need transformed caregiving of all types into a multimillion-dollar service industry. This did not have to be a bad thing necessarily, as bureaucratic systems have benefits of developing organizational structures, delivery mechanisms, worker qualifications, sustainable funding streams to support their operations, buildings in different locations to provide more opportunities to get services, and client practices. But as a form of big-business, money became a driving force; gaining market-share and the reputation of being the go-to place for care became important, and competition instead of collaboration became the norm. The people who were the impetus for the organization became by-products, alienated, and objectified (Eisenstadt 1964; Olsen 2008; Sjoberg and Miller 1973). This left the people for whom these organizations were created on the margin instead of the center of the bullseye. People in need became commodities, as children once again became objectified as people to be done-to. As objects, clients, or property of organizations, dehumanization occurred in systems that became seen as heartless. Fragmented silo-esque systems meant that people would not be treated in a holistic manner as whole beings. While good care could be obtained by some providers and organizations, there was no universal design to ensure that care for all would be received. Going back to a human rights framework, rights are universal, inalienable, and indivisible. Caregiving systems for children were not. Services were not universally available to all children no matter who or where they were. They were not inalienable or absolute; services seem to be changing, as did qualifications to determine if someone was entitled to receive them. Services have not been indivisible; the bandage approach where people are bounced from one agency to another to get various kinds of care is a pinball strategy that is frustrating and generally ineffective. The service-as-safety-net model may work if there is a tightly woven fabric, as the New Deal or Great Society programs aspired to create. But as the Reagan and subsequent political administrations have demonstrated, it is easy to cut one program after another so that the safety net is filled with holes from which more people fall through than are caught. The image of people hanging on by a thread is more than rhetoric—it is reality for millions of people. For instance, if you “fail” to qualify for unemployment, or “welfare”, or other types of social insurance programs, you do not lose just one service but many. Children and families fare better when they all have access to universal programs like public school or Medicare, to which everyone is entitled. They do best when programs are inalienable, sustainable and not always on the cusp of being cut or eliminated. It is frightening, time-consuming, and annoying to have to keep re-qualifying for care. For instance, “Cameron” has a disability and it is not ever going away and they will always need care, but once a year the family is rung through the ringer providing doctor notes, housing documentation, utility bills, and bank account statements to prove that Cameron is still truly-needy. Without benefits, Cameron could be destitute, homeless, or dead. If care is designed in an indivisible format, children are more likely to be treated as whole people. For instance, if a school can provide not just education but also food, healthcare, clothes, counseling, recreation, computers, and a safe place to stay when they cannot go home, they fare better than schools that provide the bare

346

14

The 3 Ps of Provision, Protection, and Participation

minimum. Pediatricians know the benefits of indivisible care and while they cannot provide 100% of what children need, they ask questions about the child’s housing condition, if they get enough healthy foods to eat, if the parents have stable income and stable relationships, if people are happy, if they are safe, what worries them, and the like. When healthcare providers identify that children need something they try to link them with the services they need. The question is whether those services are available, accessible, and affordable for the children and their families. Often, they are not—because service systems are not designed within a human rights framework.

14.8

Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of what the central 3 Ps are in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and why they are important. Protection concerns for children, highlighted in the Mary Ellen Wilson case of the 1800s, stimulated public interest in doing something systematically to protect children from harm. Neglect was observed in family failure to provide healthcare, food, appropriate clothing, and other care to children. It was regarded initially as a family issue, and over time as charities became called upon to provide more and more services to children did provision become a major societal initiative. Participation of young people has been the right least likely to be acknowledged, even today. Adult-run systems tend to think that they speak on behalf of children and they know what is best for them and that they understand their needs. This is not necessarily the case. The current US child system is fragmented. There is no overarching unit, commission, bureau, or institution that oversees all of the components. This leaves certain government departments, like the Department of Education, Department of Health and Hunan Services, to focus on some aspects of children’s lives—but while they may appreciate the totality of other systematic and demographic factors, they may legislatively have their hands tied with being able to do anything about them. Foster care, child abuse, substance services, mental health, criminal justice—all of these are isolated programs, units, or initiatives at the national, state, and local levels. If there was a way to unite them under a singular umbrella, this would facilitate a more comprehensive, integrated approach to serving children successfully. Without systematic data collection, governance, and accountability, it will be very difficult to provide the documentation necessary to comprehensive implementation of services. Clinical sociologists are expert in knowing how social systems work, they understand inter-organizational and institutional relationships and can be of enormous assistance in developing services that will be more effective and efficient in the pursuit of justice for all. The following chapters will provide more details about how provision, protection, and participation for youth are structured in the US. The effectiveness of how they are currently delivered will also be examined.

Chapter 15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. Frederick Douglas

15.1

Introduction

Sixty years ago, Michael Harrington (1962) described how there were two Americas, one for the wealthy and one for the poor. His points still ring true. Today in one America, children have safe and secure housing, enough nutritious food, highquality education, access to good healthcare, computers and wifi, attentive parents, trained childcare providers, pretty parks and stimulating recreational options located in environmentally safe areas. In the other America, we find children who are hungry, living in poverty, distressed housing situations, who receive poor education, no health insurance, trouble accessing care, limited access to technology, overstretched parents, recipients of education that results in them behind behind-thepack of affluent children. There are few things in the world, and perhaps none, as important as the life of a child. Yet it is surprising how little is done in the United States, and around the world, to ensure that the needs of children are met. There are no national or international policies to ensure the wellbeing of children or even that children have enough to eat, a place to live, access to health care, and access to quality education. (Mignon 2016:1)

What in the world is going on? It’s not like we don’t know. The US has more thinktanks than any country in the world, and there are thousands of reports high-lighting national problems of economic inequality, sexism, racism, education, healthcare, violence, and democratic participation. There have been countless recommendations made by very savvy people about what we could and should do to make this country stronger (McGann 2020). Most reports directly or indirectly address the necessity of improving children’s lives. They point the finger at social systems, not individuals, as duty-bearers who © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_15

347

348

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

are obligated to fulfill their mandate of making the lives of everyday citizens better. Reports by organizations like the Pew Research Center, Carnegie Center, Heritage Foundation, RAND Corporation, Urban Institute, Brookings Institute, AEI, university centers, and others explore how systems can improve their capacity to build better programs that reach more people in a more effective, efficient, and timely manner. Reports like A Nation At Risk told us years ago what to we needed to do to make things better. These reports share the common goal of collecting credible research using good methodologies to make conclusions to inform good social policy and practices. If all this great information has been collected and is available, what’s the hold up of instituting it? This chapter considers overarching system issues that confront children when they seek or receive care. It concludes that there are different types of systems that can be designed that could better be “in the best interests of the child”.

15.2

Provision System Overview

The system of provision in the US is very complicated. There is no central government agency at the national or state levels that coordinates all the services that a child is entitled to from a human rights perspective. Different agencies are responsible for specific services and there is no overarching coordination, monitoring, evaluation, or data system that links them together. For instance, most people assume that the main child organization are schools that provide education. People may consider the healthcare delivery system as well. Typically, that is about all. But we know that children’s lives are influenced by a large number of other organizations and they are utilizers of other services. These may include, but are not limited to transportation, food, housing, wifi, recreation, sidewalks and bicycle lanes, childcare, clubs, sports, social service, and criminal justice institutions. Child friendly communities may link this wide array of systems together, but most communities do not. At a national and state level, there are a series of systems that oversee some aspect of children’s lives, but they stand as independent institutions. Some partner and coordinate with others to some degree, but they have their own funding streams, policies, laws, certifications, qualifications, and buildings. There are institutions to oversee children’s lives, such as housing (HUD—Housing and Urban Development), the Department of Education which has multiple divisions, food (WIC— Women, Infants and Children, and SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), mental health (NIMH—National Institute of Mental Health and SAMHA- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration). There are so many different agencies, each with their own bureaucracy and rules. Thus it must be said that there are organizations to serve children but there is no one-stop-shop where a child can get networked with all the things they need (or are entitled to), no central coordination or data management system. Each has its own application, intake, network of providers, and none of them may be talking to the other. As

15.3

Provision Misunderstandings

349

good as intentions may be, children are getting lost in the shuffle in a system that is not universal, not inalienable, and not indivisible. There are central structural dynamics, organizational processes, and interpersonal relations that are central to how systems are designed to serve children and youth in the USA. In a simplistic version of what is going on, the organizations that are designed to serve young people are not user-friendly. Most of the systems are not located in areas that are easily accessible for young people to get to. They are not located in schools or parks or recreation areas where youth may organically gather. Getting to them may be arduous if one has no transportation. They are complex bureaucracies, even in smaller organizations. There is an administrative hierarchy who makes decisions that are far removed from the realities that children face. Services are fragmented and siloed. To try to get services is like being a pinball, bouncing from one place to another without really going anywhere until a lucky spot is found. That is, if children are allowed to be served at all. Most are not allowed to do so without parental permission. If they do get services, children and youth may find that they have little input into what is provided, how it is provided, and whether they are satisfied with the care they receive. A “beggars can’t be choosers” orientation may be used when children are not perceived to have agency or choice into the decisions that affect them. If the teachers, coaches, or providers are not well trained or sensitive to the issues that children encounter, there is little that children can do about it. As a general rule—realizing that there are some exceptions—systems of care are designed for adult convenience and satisfaction—not children.

15.3

Provision Misunderstandings

A misunderstanding of terminology and what provision agencies are designed to do pose challenges in providing for children. This is particularly the case around the terms of welfare, child welfare, child well-being and at-risk or vulnerable children.

15.3.1

Welfare

When people hear the term “welfare”, stereotyped images likely come to mind. The word has gotten tainted with bias that associates it with individuals who are perceived as being losers, defective in some way, or who are sponging off the government and taxpayers. Of course, corporate welfare is not seen to be a dirty word but money given to support society’s interest. The amount of money given to corporate welfare is far greater than money given to family or child welfare. The dispersing of money to warfare as welfare dwarfs what children or families receive, yet it is individuals who receive ‘welfare’ who generally receive the blame for national debt.

350

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

The term “welfare” has no precise definition. Social welfare today refers to a wide range of activities and services by volunteers, non-profit organizations and governmental agencies that are providing help to needy persons thought to be unable to care for themselves. Services, activities, and resources are targeted to promote the wellbeing of individuals, families and the larger society and reduce the incidence of social problems (Hansan 2019). In this common definition, the notion that people are unable to help themselves and need to be guided to curb social problems is key. The term welfare is not designed to address children’s rights; the welfare system’s goals generally constrain discussion of children’s rights in an impactful way (Federle 2000). The welfare system in the US has evolved substantially over time. Early government interventions focused on protection of abused and neglected children. They were not necessarily focused on the negative impact of abuse and neglect on a child’s development. The Constitution holds that the federal role in child welfare is limited, but over time federal funding and programs emerged, accompanied by rules and regulations. Ideologically, welfare has long been debated, particularly around the rights of state and local governments versus the responsibility of the federal government to ensure safety and care for all children. The Social Security Act of 1935 authorized the first federal grants for child welfare services. The Social Security Act created the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, which was named to AFDC in 1972. The rule-based qualification system often eliminated children’s ability to receive support of their parents were engaged in behaviors that authorities did not approve. These included the Flemming rule, or Louisiana Incident where the state eliminated 23,000 children off the role because their mothers had children out of wedlock. If parents engaged in criminal activity, this too could preclude children from receiving benefits (Murray and Gesiriech 2010). Government programs today commonly associated with welfare are the Child’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That provides low-cost health care to children in households that won’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid. This program covers all benefits for children including dental care, plus special needs assistance like physical, speech and language, and occupational therapy providing a strong safety net for children in low-income homes. TANF, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program that mandates all recipients find a job within 2 years or risk losing their welfare benefits, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and some programs or vouchers from HUD, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) office. Although government spending on the child welfare system totaled US$33 billion in 2018, the most recent year for which an estimate is available, it’s still failing to meet all children’s needs because of overwhelming demand, and is a drop in the bucket compared to what the government gives out in corporate welfare, tax breaks to the rich, and to the military industrial complex (Augsberger and Collins 2022).

15.3

Provision Misunderstandings

15.3.2

351

Child Welfare

It is common to hear leaders talk about children’s welfare, which is assumed to be analogous to children’s well-being. It is not. Child welfare, as it is designed today in the US, is a continuum of services designed to ensure that children are safe and that families have the necessary support to care for their children successfully. Child welfare agencies typically support or coordinate services to prevent child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need help protecting and caring for their children, receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect; assess child and family needs, strengths, and resources, arrange for children to live with kin (i.e., relatives) or with foster families when safety cannot be ensured at home, support the children living with relatives or foster families, including ensuring that their educational needs are addressed, or work with the children, youth, and families to achieve family reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children and youth leaving foster care (Child Welfare.gov 2018). The term child welfare is child-abuse, not provision, focused.

15.3.3

Child Well-Being

Child well-being is associated with having sufficient provisions. The UNICEF (2007) definition of child well-being takes a broad view: “The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children—their health and safety, their material security, their education and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and included in the families and societies in which they are born”. This definition takes an ecological approach to child well-being, encompassing a child’s life as a whole and recognizing that all childhood experiences will contribute to their overall well-being. In a broad sense, well-being describes the determinants of a good life for children, the promoters of growth and development, and factors that enhance a child’s feelings of happiness and satisfaction (Helseth and Haraldstad 2014). The well-being of a child is therefore associated with the kind of provisions a society invests in children. The result is that when we talk about children’s welfare or well-being, we are not necessarily talking about the same thing. What we think the terms mean may be operationalized quite differently once we are talking about specific organizations.

15.3.4

The Vulnerability-Risk Issue

The emphasis on children’s vulnerabilities as a key factor to obtain services eludes their status as rights-holders. This targeted, needs-based, vulnerable, at-risk, deficient framework dilutes any understanding of children as being entitled to rights. It

352

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

also ignores children’s agency and curbs the public’s assumption that they are going to make as valuable contributions to society as children who are not vulnerable or children-in-need-of-services. The more at-risk a child is, the more likely they will be identified as needing help. This means that if children are not identified by adults to fall into the vulnerable or at-risk category, they will not be entitled to services in a needs-based system model. Here is another issue that complicates the delivery of rights-based services to children; their vulnerability status implies that interventions are to be provided to those children who were deemed vulnerable. Yet aren’t all children vulnerable and at-risk of bad things happening to them? Illness, unexpected catastrophe, violence, economic downfall, interpersonal distress are just a few things that put any and every child at-risk, given the “right” situation. Don’t all children need access to good healthcare, to quality education, to food, homes, transportation, wifi, social services, legal supports, criminal justice, recreation, rest, and people who love them? Systems that operate on proving that someone is “truly needy” ignore the needs of every other child. Systems that rely upon adults to identify what’s going on for individual children are doomed to miss the majority of children and fail to address the human rights of all children. I have done a lot of work in the fields of both child abuse and homelessness. In both cases, interventions are seldom given to children or their families unless they cross some arbitrary line of risk. For instance, a child could be reported to child protective services for suspected abuse but until the child is demonstrably hurt (like broken bones or ripped hymens), the grey area of not being in enough danger keeps children from being removed from the home. Parent rights reign supreme and their adultified explanations of children’s injuries put workers in a predicament about when they can legally move forward to protect the child (Vissing 2020). Children have died because systems didn’t identify them to be at enough risk early enough. Similarly, financially struggling families may ask for help but may not be given it because they have incomes that are above the qualification-line, or they own property like cars or a house that they could otherwise sell to get money. By not helping people when they still have resources they can draw upon, it thrusts them into increasingly desperate situations. We have watched families lose their car, then their job, then their house, and end up homeless because the right kind of help wasn’t given to them at the right time (Nilan 2005, 2020; Vissing et al. 2020). This provingone-is-at-risk-“enough” frame increases risk, increases vulnerability, costs lots more to repair, and causes untold long-term suffering. So why do we keep doing something that is clearly designed to fail?

15.4

Targeted Provision Models

A targeted model assumes that there is not enough money to provide services for every child. It also assumes that not every child will need services, so organizations or the government does not have to provide them to everyone. It is a paucity model at

15.4

Targeted Provision Models

353

heart. There isn’t enough to go around so services will only be given to the truly needy. How then does an organization know whether someone is just a little needy or a lot needy? They have to go through extraordinary rigmarole to prove that they are. If they cannot prove the documentation that the organization requires, then services will be denied. Most of US caregiving systems focus on a targeted approach where only certain children receive benefits, or for which children (or their parents) must prove they need certain types of care and then qualify for it. This model is designed to save organizations money, help (only) those people in greatest distress, and make it appear that anyone can get services who needs them. A needs-based approach needs to be unpacked here. Proponents of targeting argue for using various mechanisms to identify and distribute the bulk of benefits to, the poor or to pockets of children. Targeted programs cost less because fewer people are being served (Kidd 2021). Targeted programs remain the norm in most social service provision programs. For instance, a child’s family has to qualify for food stamps, or SNAP; they have to qualify for HUD housing, for free-school lunch, for fuel assistance, and the like. Parents are the unit who is to meet children’s needs – if services are needed, it is the parent who must apply. Children legally cannot, and if they try to organizations legally cannot serve them. This is another dimension of children being seen as parental property. Some parents may be able to provide for many of children’s needs while other parents may not. In a needs-based model there is a disparity between parents who can and those who cannot; children’s receipt of the fundamental necessities is dependent upon their parents’ ability to deliver. If parents can buy services or advocate for their children to get them, children are fortunate. If parents cannot or will not provide fundamental services, then systems may be called upon to assist or children do without. Herein lies an extraordinary challenge— children on their own do not qualify for assistance. Their parents have to qualify. If their parents do not know about help, if they do not apply for it, or if they do not qualify for it, the child does not get the help they need. Children are not entitled to have assistance merely because they exist, as they would within a rights-respecting framework. Children are not regarded as independent entities; they are always the umbrella of their parents or guardians, and in a targeted system, they have to prove they really need the provision (such as food, healthcare, transportation, daycare, housing, etc.). If their parents cannot or will not, children do not have a leg to stand on to obtain services. This is a central problem in targeted, as opposed to universal, systems.

15.4.1

History of Targeted Models Overview

Throughout time and around the world, there have been efforts to help the hungry and the destitute. Historically charities were responsible for providing much of the aid for people in need (Vissing et al. 2020). But need exceeded their capacity. Over time government programs emerged to care for those that were overwhelming the

354

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

charities. There were some universal coverage programs, such as daycare during WWII, but most of the provisions were doled out to those deemed truly needy. But the numbers of needy people increased and government programs found themselves swamped with more requests than they could fulfill. Targeted provision hailed in the 1960s when the frame of social welfare was to reduce dependency on government programs (Gilbert 1982). Programs were selected and focused on people in poverty and they had stringent criteria that needed to be met. In the 20 years that followed, social and demographic changes in the nation pushed a move towards providing more assistance to middle-class people. The War on Poverty, acknowledgment of more female-headed households, racial disparity, and intolerance of the corporate model and emphasis on equality initiated a change in how social programs were perceived and delivered.

15.4.2

Problems with Targeted Models

In targeted programs, the goal is to assist people who need it at the lowest cost to the social system. Families have to prove they were truly needy, so criteria were established to separate the truly needy from the needy or those who would like to have help. Criteria such as “at-risk” or “vulnerability” came into play as well. This separating the sheep from the lambs, or those who the system thought could make it on their own from those who couldn’t, occurred systematically. Targeted systems violate the human rights notion that rights (and their consequences) are indivisible. A systems model indicates that the change in one factor creates changes in others. The single most important reason that families come to the attention of child welfare agencies is that they are poor—poverty and child welfare cases go hand in hand. Foster care in the 1960s as well as today is primarily for children of those living in poverty. Indeed, the child welfare system “is the final social safety net that a family arrives at after falling through all other safety nets” (Pelton 2010, p. 272). Typically, all facets of the child welfare system deal with poverty as an underlying issue (Mignon 2016:38)

There are many problems with a targeted approach to addressing children’s lives, and the situations their parents manage. Subjective criteria for need, risk, and vulnerability were created by administrators who perhaps never experienced need. Criteria to receive aid was fragmented, focusing on things like income, number in the family, or health status. But children’s lives are not pieces; they are a totality of a variety of complex factors that intersect over which they have no control. Add to the getting aid issue, some people who were truly needy were too proud to ask for help, so while they needed help and could qualify for it, they didn’t ask—so they didn’t receive help. Another was that applications had to be filled out and completed “appropriately”, so that if materials were missing or some part of the application was not filled out correctly, people could be denied assistance. The application process meant that people had to be able to read and understand the forms, which was challenging for some people. Applications had to be submitted to a particular

15.5

Universal Model of Provision

355

office—or today a website—for processing. If you didn’t know where to go, then trying to apply was impossible. Targeting has also been found to create social conflict (Kidd 2021). There is competition and resentment between people who are given assistance and those who haven’t but feel they should (Desai 2017). Children in the US are not legally allowed to apply for assistance. A person has to be an adult, age 18 or older, to do so. They have to have a parent or guardian apply for them. There are countless reasons why their parent/guardian may not apply. Including the factors listed above, there are also emotions of embarrassment that they weren’t “good enough” parents to take care of their children, and fear that their children could be removed if the parents were deemed “bad”. There are transportation issues, getting off work to apply issues. There is also the problem that children’s realities are not the same as their caregivers; their parents may be oblivious to the issues that children are dealing with emotionally, physically, socially, or cognitively. The pressure placed on children who have to confess to their parents that they are having problems and need help could put children at-risk of problems with their parents. Children know that sometimes it’s safer to keep their mouth shut. A weakness of targeted programs is their vulnerability to political challenge, particularly when the targeted group is an “outgroup” or perceived as undeserving. (Powell 2019). When different political parties come into the office, they may change the frame they want the nation to take and they have the authority to alter the way programs run. Most targeted programs focus on a micro-level, individualized approach that puts the pressure for provision squarely on the shoulders of parents, teachers, and other persons. Parents are expected to be the sole providers, not the state. The challenge for parents is that many of them are strapped by macro forces over which they have little control, which makes it very difficult for them to be able to provide children with all they need.

15.5

Universal Model of Provision

Unlike targeted programs that specify only certain individuals to receive provisions, universal programs are available to all people, since all humans are entitled to the same rights and privileges from a children’s human rights framework. When everyone in a group is provided the right to access a particular type of provision, the stigma associated with being awarded a provision is reduced (Desai 2017). Healthcare is a good example of the dilemma between a targeted versus universal system of provision. Everyone needs healthcare but not everyone is able to get it in a targeted system. Physicians for a National Health Program (2021) provide a detailed history of the multiple attempts to have universal healthcare in the US, but such efforts remain opposed by lawmakers. One reason pertains to cost; covering everybody costs more than targeting services to those who are assumed to need them the most. There have been means-tests to assess their appropriateness (Besley 1990), but the verdict seems less determined by data and more determined by ideology and agenda-setting.

356

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

The American Bar Association (Gerisch 2018) observes that in the United States, no one, children included, has the right to health care. They observe that our country has a system designed to deny, not support, the right to health, even for our youngest children. The nation does not really have a health care system, only a health insurance system. The Center for Health and Human Rights (2021) recommends that national legislative reforms to bring children’s healthcare into closer conformity with the principles and provisions of the CRC would be an important starting point. Efforts must be made to address the underlying social contexts, such as poverty, discrimination, broader service delivery and the macro and micro ideologies and agendas that drive them (Center for Health and Human Rights 2021). By adopting a children’s human rights framework, it could be possible for the US to improve care of children and no longer be ranking with lesser developed nations.

15.5.1

The Medicare-Medicaid Example

Consider universally-based programs like Medicare, versus programs like Medicaid for which one must qualify and which could be eliminated at any point if one fails to document that they are needy-enough according to subjective criteria. Everyone who turns ate 65 is entitled to Medicare just because they are a certain age; they don’t have to do a thing to qualify other than to document their age. For instance, Medicare and Social Security are is universal programs that all older people in the US get merely because they are of an age where they are deemed to be vulnerable. They don’t have to prove vulnerability or being at-risk of any problem. Because everyone has these insurances, there is no demeaning of any particular group because they all share the same attribute, which in this case is age. Entitlements have a very different impact on people’s self-esteem compared to targeted programs that inherently have defined people to be deficient in some way. It also makes it easier for service providers because the application and qualification procedures endemic to a targeted system are nonexistent. Medicaid is an entirely different story. Medicaid is a targeted program. We have to prove we are poor, sick, unable to work, or there is something “wrong” with us in some way in order to qualify for this type of healthcare insurance. It is hard to qualify for in the first instance. People who are on Medicaid have to keep qualifying, showing paper-work, and annually have to prove that they are still deficient and unable to work. It is a system that is designed to frustrate both clients and administrators; it keeps busy-work rolling like a machine. And once we lose our Medicaid for paperwork or some blip in our lives, trying to get it back is really hard. People who need Medicaid could have it without interruption or requalification year after year. But this would morph towards national health insurance, which is a universal healthcare system used effectively by countries like Canada, Costa Rica, and most of Europe and many other nations around the world. All but 43 countries in the world offer free or universal healthcare (Cronin 2020; Roy 2015; World Health Organization 2014; World Population Review 2021). The US has tried to implement universal

15.6

Targeted Universalism

357

healthcare for decades, but such attempts have always been foiled because of political and economic opposition (Physicians for a National Insurance Program 2021).

15.6

Targeted Universalism

Alternative models are emerging that try to bridge to the chasm between providing services for all children and keeping monetary budgeting in check. The Hass Institute argues for something they call targeted universalism. Targeted universalism is an approach that supports the needs of individuals “while reminding us that we are all part of the same social fabric” (Powell 2019). Targeted universalism means setting universal goals pursued by targeted processes to achieve those goals. Within a targeted universalism framework, universal goals are established for all groups concerned. The strategies developed to achieve those goals are targeted, based upon how different groups are situated within structures, culture, and across geographies to obtain the universal goal. Targeted universalism is goal-oriented, and the processes are directed in service of the explicit, universal goal. Targeted universalism is being touted as a platform to operationalize programs that move all groups toward the universal policy goal while marketing such programs as an inclusive, bridge between the targeted frames and the universalism frames. Its leaders promote give steps that include: (1) Establish a universal goal based upon a broadly shared recognition of a societal problem and collective aspirations; (2) Assess general population performance relative to the universal goal; (3) Identify groups and places that are performing differently with respect to the goal; (4) Assess and understand the structures that support or impede each group or community from achieving the universal goal; and (5) Develop and implement targeted strategies for each group to reach the universal goal. Whether this approach is another tweak or bandage to keep the targeted system intact is a good question. It is not designed to be a children’s human rights focused approach. While encouraging community input, it fails to acknowledge that children traditionally have no voice and there are no stated opportunities for them to have meaningful input. Organized groups and community feedback loops typically leave young people out. While it is too early to tell if a targeted-universalism approach will be beneficial, its lack of orientation towards a human rights frame, especially pertaining to young people, is noticeable. What we do have reason to believe from looking at both international and domestic data is that a children’s human rights frame could yield positive outcomes.

358

15.7

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

Need for Change

The safety net model is a failure-based model. It is designed to only catch a few that are falling. Many people fall through the holes in the web because they haven’t failed “big enough” yet. It is not a prevention-based system. It has been inadequate, or even had parts of failure, because our child service systems are not based in the human rights criteria of universality, inalienability, and indivisibility. The nation has framed how it provides essential goods and services in a compartmentalized, needs-based manner instead of a universalist one. This framework has distinct implications on the well-being of children. Organizations scramble to secure operational funding and market share. Funding is typically targeted to be issue or service-specific. Donors usually give money to pay for a specific thing or service; seldom is money given that organizations can use with great discretion. This reinforces the underpinning that child provisions may be regarded as need-based instead of a universal right. If a child is needy “enough” or “at-risk”, then system assistance may be provided if parents can’t. But all of us, children included, need food, education, healthcare, transportation, daycare, mental health supports, etc. Any of us could be vulnerable or at-risk at certain points in our lives. Having to prove that a child’s suffering is great enough to justify assistance hinges on both the visibility of a child’s crisis and the sensitivity of adults to identify it and then be willing to do something about it. While a scaffolding approach to identifying the most in-need or at-risk children is a cost and capacity-driven form of assigning services, this subjective, criteria-based frame eliminates invisible children, and all children who from a rights-respective would automatically be entitled to provisions. Many organizations operate in ways that may not be inclusive of protecting the rights of all children. This includes governmental organizations, NGOs, philanthropic initiatives and many religiously oriented charitable groups (Twum-Danso Imoh et al. 2023; Wells 2015). The Stanford Innovation Review reviews how wellmeaning and good programs fail to be “good enough”. Programs do some things that children need, but seldom fulfill the gamete of all the intersecting needs they have. So it’s not as if programs are doing nothing; they indeed are doing something of value. The problem is, they aren’t able to enough of all the things that children need in order to have an optimal life. The Stanford Innovation Review notes that solving problems requires more than good intentions and bringing together an impressive set of programs or partners. Success requires leaders not just to join a conversation but to change the conversation. It may also mean changing the system’s mission of systems and how they carry out their goals (Shore 2013). We have allowed our helping systems to become outdated (Levitz 2019). They no longer meet the needs of the population. It is possible to have economic justice and economic prosperity (Wilkens 2020). It is possible to ensure that children are provided-for with the basic essentials they need for healthy development if a children’s human rights framework is adopted. By not realistically looking at the changing population demographics needs and demands, the changing needs of the

15.7

Need for Change

359

workforce, and the impact of a changing world with technological and environmental demands, our helping systems just aren’t as helpful as they could be. We are at a point in time when we can make enlightened decisions about how to better provide for our children. Experts in the field know this. There are a series of theoretical and pragmatic recommendations that have been made that will be explored next. Our choices are clear and major ones are examined next.

15.7.1

Keep Doing What We Are Doing

Reports after report indicate that children in the US are not faring well in comparison to children in other parts of the world. The human rights of children are not being adequately addressed, if one considers what it means to comply with the CRC. The way systems concerning housing, food, healthcare, education, juvenile justice, social services, or youth recreation have evolved take the structure and form they do because of ideological, political, financial, and convenience factors. Systems have been tweaked and morphed into variations over time but they continue to be based on age-old common assumptions of what children are like and who should take care of them. Tweaking has been tried and hasn’t worked to create a better life for children. Systems changes towards a children’s rights framework could include survival rights, developmental rights, provision rights, participation rights, protective rights. If what we are doing isn’t working well for children, and if there might be better ways to accomplish our goals of whatever it is that we are trying to provide, it would be worthwhile to consider organizational change. While administrators, staff, and the public may agree that the way things are provided could be better, they lack the will, or perhaps the ability, to conduct major surgery on the problem. Instead, bandages are applied to stop the bleeding. Minor tweaking here and there occurs; policies, practices, and procedures may change a bit, new publicity materials may be created to re-brand themselves and what they do, but essentially pretty much stays the same. Ideal culture implies that child-serving organizations have a children’s welfare, well-being, and rights focus. Real culture indicates that things are not always as they seem. Many organizations and systems that exist to serve the well-being of children may not be protective of children’s rights. The provision and child advocacy communities have not demonstrated passion or full commitment to protecting children’s rights. It is not that they are opposed to it, rather, it is that they are lukewarm towards it. Leaders may say supportive things about children having rights, for it would seem mean-spirited and politically incorrect for them to overtly oppose children’s rights being protected. In practice, however, they may do little to advance the larger child rights issues forward in policy or practices. Child advocacy is not necessarily fighting for children to have rights. We have been stuck in this cycle for decades. This model could continue to drive how we provide for children, but consider the wisdom of Henry Ford: “if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve got.” (Lydia 2015). We

360

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

can continue to keep the system and revamp bits and pieces of it – this is indeed an alternative available to us. But there are other ways to look at how we engaged in our collective provision mission to serve children and their families. Let’s explore them now.

15.7.2

Systems Redesign Considerations

Revamping individual organizations is a challenging thing to do, as any of us who have tried to do strategic planning to help organizations consider different directions will testify. There are many obstacles to organizational change. There are funding streams to consider, entrenched ways of doing things, and political factions and agendas that must be appeased. There are staff needs, public expectations, client demands, insurance companies, vendors, physical facilities, legal ramifications, and the list goes on and on. These are real considerations to confront when considering social change (Hudson, Hunter and Peckham 2019). But it is clear that we need to develop a more positive system to deal with child welfare and protection (Freymond and Cameron 2006) and move away from a fragmented system to a more positive functional approach would integrate them into a single system.

15.7.2.1

Complex Systems and Social Change

Usually, goods, services, and care for children are analyzed as individual components, but they are a social system of interrelated parts. Similarly, this is true with all organizations. When funders require an evaluation to see if their money was wellspent, the evaluations typically focus just on the dimension or program for which funding was given. Seldom is an evaluation conducted on an entire organization or system. Yet we know that children’s lives require organizational services that are interdependent and indivisible. For instance, a child needs a home, which requires parents to have a job, and that job is dependent upon the employer who relies upon consumers, the local, national, and even international economy in order to pay a worker enough for market-value for rent, which is dependent upon the real estate market, which is influenced by the local economy which is impacted by the national economy, as the real estate market ebbs and flows, and needs state assistance or support from the US Housing and Urban Development Office, or HUD. While the child just wants a home, that possibility is contingent upon a variety of factors neither the child nor their parents have much, or any, control over. All systems are nested within other systems. Each of these systems do things in accordance with their purpose and goals, which will be unique to itself and sometimes in conflict or competition with those of other systems (Wulczyn and Daro 2010). Children are nested within family system, which are nested within a local community, another system, and the community is nested in a state, region, and

15.7

Need for Change

361

national set of intersecting systems. Parents are constrained in what they can provide by their employment and support systems. Education systems are impacted by state laws, taxpayer contributions, accreditation mandates, curricular issues, as well as student’s needs and resources. It is convenient to dissect provisions into smaller parts to understand them, but doing so loses the impact of what all together these systems do to influence the human rights of children. A child rights framework sees rights as interdependent and indivisible. In considering the challenges a children’s human rights framework would pose to systems, for most it would require shifting away from a child as property/object orientation to a child as someone who is entitled to receive provisions and have some input over what they are and how they are delivered (inalienable and universal components of a children’s human rights frame). It may require a shifting of how we think about children and their needs, but also in how individual institutions and collective systems go about addressing them. Change within a single organization, like a community’s housing authority, is usually hard; changing a single system, like the state’s housing system to address homelessness, is even harder. When trying to change a set of inter-connecting, multifaceted systems, such as linking homelessness with available, affordable, accessible housing with poverty, food, healthcare, and jobs is an enormous undertaking. Yet all those systems are interrelated. Moving an entire complex system towards becoming one that prioritizes and embeds children’s human rights is possible, as states which have ratified and implemented the CRC demonstrate. But it is hard to do.

15.7.2.2

Chaos and Complex Systems Theories

A useful way of understanding provision system change, like one towards a children’s human rights framework, is through the consideration of chaos and complex systems. Complex systems theory is an approach to science that investigates how relationships between a system’s parts give rise to collective behaviors, and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment. It originates out of chaos theory and focuses on collective, system-wide behaviors from multiple institutions and integrates contributions from many different fields. It can be understood as an alternative paradigm to reductionism, which attempts to explain systems in terms of their parts and individual interactions between them. From a systems perspective, sometimes good intentions do not result in good outcomes. How systems organize themselves on the surface may seem to make sense, but ultimately don’t work well. Administrators may be left scratching their heads, wondering why. It is normal to look for obvious causality variables; a minute or intervening variable may be skipped over for a variety of reasons. Consider, the multivariate analysis is superior to bivariate analyses, thus a complex systems approach is superior to a reductionist approach in trying to understand why systems succeed or fail. Often, we look at one organization or institution and try to make sense of the impact of is various components, such as

362

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

programs, delivery style, or client demographics. We dissect the organization into smaller and smaller parts so that we can get a grip on what’s going on. But complexity theory would hold refocus its attention on larger dynamics. Complex systems may exhibit nonlinear behavior, meaning that they may respond in different ways to the same input, depending on the context or conditions. This means that something that may work for one client, program, organization, or system may not for another. The deterministic nature of systems does not make them predictable; it makes them chaotic. Even very small changes in a system could create a big difference over a period of time. This is where the notion of the butterfly effect originates; tiny seemingly insignificant actions can over time result in huge reactions (Ghys 2015). On the surface, it would appear that there is randomness in chaotic, complex systems. This is probably why a reductionist approach is typically used. But chaos theory holds that within apparent randomness there are underlying patterns, feedback loops, interconnections, and ways that systems self-organize. If we pay attention to these subtle patterns and feedback loops, we can capitalize on them to promote beneficial social change. It can provide analytical tools and computer models for simulating how systems are likely to react to a given change (Hudson 2000; Hudson and Vissing 2010; McSweeney 2020; Palmer 2009). For example, a complex systems approach could have helped improve our healthcare system and prevent or lessen the impact of a pandemic. Studies indicate that the best way to prevent an outbreak of a virus from spreading is to focus on community rules rather than individual’s behavior. However, rules alone are not enough; one has to look at a multiplicity of factors, some of which may not appear to be significant on the surface but in the end have a huge impact (Kelleher 2020; Maxmen 2021; Nevius 2020).

15.7.2.3

Challenges Changing Complex Systems

There are different analytical frames that we could use to contextualize why recommendations from experts don’t get implemented that could improve the lives of children. Briefly, systems in which serve children are fragmented, just as children’s lives are cut into pieces. Few “whole child” approaches are implemented in services. While there is discussion around the importance of “wrap-around” services, most don’t wrap children into a cocoon of comprehensive services. There are many different provision systems and organizations that service children directly or indirectly. Even within a single system, such as housing or healthcare, there are many different organizations each with their own rules, funding streams, and criteria. Trying to get them all on board to have the same goals and procedures is very challenging. Financial considerations are real; large scale system changes require money. These include staff salary and benefits, buildings and utilities, computer hardware and software, operating costs, not to mention what it costs to get children and families the services or care they need. In order to cover costs, there are federal,

15.7

Need for Change

363

state, and local government contributions; there may be insurance coverages; grants, charitable and philanthropic funding issues to weigh, and there may be out-of-pocket payments from individuals. Trying to have a universal system that provides all services to all people will be very expensive and likely exceed any institution’s ability to do so. Most grants that agencies receive are to fund a particular service, so even if a child needs something else, their funding protocols may not allow for those services to be provided. This has resulted in providing services on an as-needed basis, and pushing children from one agency to another like a pinball. The issue of proving need in order to get provisions is challenging. There exists a continuum of need from those who are “truly needy” to those who are self-sufficient and need no external support. In between lay everyone else and the lines that separate those who are in need from those who could make it without support is fuzzy and often changes quickly. With an unlucky turn of events, “us” could become “them” at any moment when catastrophe comes knocking on our door. Organizations that demand proof-of-need have created guidelines to be met in order to safeguard the distribution of their scarce resources so that they have the greatest impact. The problem is that many people fall through the cracks in this type of system. Efforts to change different aspects of the application or delivery process may occur but aren’t overwhelmingly successful because of the needs-based system design. Ideological and political agendas shape what is provided, how it is provided, and to whom it is provided. From a universalist orientation, everyone could be entitled to provisions like healthcare, education, daycare, etc. But in a stratified model where some people are included while others are excluded, inequality results. Children are generally not entitled to get provisions on their own; they are part of family systems. Some children receive more services than others. The question to be addressed is why. Individuals, not systems, are easier targets to blame for why children don’t receive provisions. These types of reasons include: people are not aware of aid that may be available (for instance, during the COVID stimulus money allocations a large amount of money was supposedly available to keep people from being evicted but the money wasn’t distributed, either because organizations didn’t know about the funds or that families didn’t apply because they didn’t know the funds existed); and people may be oblivious to the actual challenges that struggling people face. Children get services when parents advocate for them or apply and qualify for them, so children are at the mercy of their parent’s ability to do so. Politicians, parents, or children themselves may be blamed for why provisions aren’t accessed (Ryan 1976). An individually focused blame-game isn’t going to solve the issue of why thinktank recommendations don’t get implemented and improve the lives of children. Attitudes stem from larger cultural, systemic, and ideological premises. Attitudes and assumptions shape the type of systems we create to help others. The frames we use shape our decisions about funding, system goals, system designs, and program implementation. A children’s human rights frame would require that their needs be a priority and shift the way things are provided. We have created the mess that children

364

15

US Systems of Child and Youth Provision Services

are in. In the study of the replication of childhood, children are living out what we have formulated we want their direction to be (Prout and James 1997). More positive outcomes are possible if the social order changes (Sullivan 1992; Sullivan 2021a, b) and a systems view is adopted.

15.7.2.4

Thriving Families Initiative

The Children’s Bureau (2020), in partnership with Casey Family Programs, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Prevent Child Abuse America, launched Thriving Families, Safer Children: A National Commitment to Well-Being, a first-of-its-kind, multiyear, national effort to rethink child welfare by creating the conditions for a just, equitable, and humane system and strong, thriving families where children are free from harm. It is based on the notion that child welfare systems must be redesigned into a child and family well-being system. The Thriving Families initiative is selecting jurisdictions move from traditional, reactive systems to systems designed to proactively support child and family well-being and prevent child maltreatment This multiyear commitment will provide resources and support from the four partners and other relevant child- and family-serving federal agencies, jurisdictions, diverse community stakeholders and the public, private, faith-based and philanthropic sectors to create more just, equitable and humane child and family well-being systems. The initiative will be composed of three tiers of action. Tier 1 is to create demonstration sites and provide them resources and technical support to create more integrated systems, followed by the next tier to develop policy and systemic reforms, that will be shared with other communities as model systems.

15.7.2.5

Third Horizon Model

A Third Horizon model (White et al. 2000) allows senior management to visualize what an ambidextrous organization would look like. This is the idea that organizations and government agencies need to execute existing business models while simultaneously creating new capabilities and prioritize innovation products and programs. Horizon 1 ideas provide continuous innovation to an organization’s existing model and core capabilities in the short-term. Horizon 2 ideas extend an organization’s existing model and core capabilities to new clients, customers, markets, or targets. Horizon 3 is the creation of new capabilities and new business to take advantage of or respond to disruptive opportunities or to counter disruption. However, recent evaluations of this approach indicate that it is already outdated (Blank 2019). The trap of new approaches like the Three Horizon model may not recognize that today many disruptions and social changes may occur and that organizations must have a flexible enough design to address them quickly and effectively.

15.8

Summary

15.7.2.6

365

A Children’s Human Rights Framework

While experts agree that children’s provision services need to change, and while certain models are regularly proposed to advance beneficial changes, none of them have as their starting point the fundamental premises inherent in a children’s human rights framework. They may articulate that they do, but in operational sense, they have not done so. In order to achieve an integrated system of child provision, it is necessary to change both attitudes and actions. This includes the way we view children, if we prioritize them, if their best interests drive organizations, and if they achieve what their intentions state. If gatekeepers and programs would develop universal, inalienable, indivisible programs that kept children’s best interests as their goal, this would require different partnerships, modes of interacting, structures, evaluations, and relationships between organizations and with young people themselves. Moving away from children being objects to be done-to but active players with agency who are every bit as important as any adult will take some time, but is an essential component in the redesigning of children’s provision.

15.8

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of US provision systems. The way they have been designed is focusing on targeted programs for children rather than universal ones. Whether we are talking about healthcare, housing, or other types of provisions, in most cases—with the exception of education—our systems are designed to only help a few of the most “truly needy”, “vulnerable”, or “at-risk” children instead of considering that every child is needy, vulnerable, and potentially at-risk. Our provision systems put what children are entitled to have in the hands of parents instead of the state. While this may work fine if parents are benevolent and capable, it doesn’t work for children who are unaccompanied, whose parents are unable to care for them, or unwilling to do so. The positive benefits that result in countries that have embedded a children’s human rights framework occur because of a more universalistic approach to making sure that all children have access to key provisions. While it may be challenging to provide 100% of everything 100% of the children need 100% of the time, movement in that direction would certainly be an improvement for their quality of life, and the quality of our country. A clinical sociological approach can breach obstacles in system design because of its understanding of how complex social systems operate. Clinical sociologists are expert in using research to develop best practices and strategic planning to create just and comprehensive services.

Chapter 16

Systems of US Child Protection

America is failing its children. Future generations will look back at how we treat our kids and be appalled. Devorak (2019)

16.1

Introduction

In many ways, the US had been a leader in protecting children. In recent years, however, our national position and reputation have slipped markedly. This can be seen in our high rates of child abuse, use of corporal punishment, the number of gun violence and mass shooting episodes, the skyrocketing rates of child suicide, police response particularly to BIPOC children, rise of extremism and terrorism, and the nation’s climate turning towards meanness rather than compassion. Rothschild (2017) asks—why is the US holding out on protecting both children and children’s rights? From a children’s human rights framework, it is time to take a serious look at how well the nation is protecting young people, and to consider whether a change in frameworks would be in order. It is also valuable to consider how young people’s dignity, voice and participation can be present in our child protective systems, since these systems have supposedly been designed to be all about, and for, them (Peters 2018). How well are we doing protecting children and their rights? These are two different questions. Not very well on either account, sad to say. What we are doing to protect children is often not designed to protect children’s best interests at all. Many of our alleged protections of children are protections for adults. Parent rights and family rights have often taken predominance over the rights of children (Kosher et al. 2016a, b). The child protective service system in the US is regularly under attack for not being attentive enough to children’s rights. Cases of foster care children being abused are not rare. It can be reasonably argued that as a nation, we are not protecting children Child Help 2022; Child Rights International Network © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_16

367

368

16

Systems of US Child Protection

2016; End Corporal Punishment 2023; Schlossman 2005. If we were, our protection systems would look quite different.

16.2

What Is Child Protection?

Child protection is an inclusive term for a community’s system of ensuring that young people are not exposed to a variety of actions that could put them at risk. It has come to include not just body safety but issues of psychological abuse as well. Some protections address the larger social level, such as protecting children from war, community conflict and violence, crime, or school shootings. Protecting children during natural disasters is another type of social protection, a type of protection that has become increasingly necessary due to the impact of climate change. Typically, child protection systems are designed to address issues of child abuse and neglect at the family or institutional level, with physical abuse and neglect being the primary forms that get addressed. Sexual abuse has gained more attention in recent decades, while emotional and verbal abuse are still less addressed in social systems. There are other things that children need protection from, such as child marriage, child labor, child trafficking, or genital mutilation. Protecting children from abusive or neglectful caregivers at home, in daycare centers, in schools, in institutions, detainment centers, or by the police are also issues that have become major concerns (UNICEF 2020a, b, c, d). It is common to think of protection as a response to violence as being a physical attack, violence is not unidimensional (Rowland 2017; Rutherford et al. 2007). Despite violence being a common phenomenon, there is no clear definition for it. It is often understood differently by different people in different contexts, such as those from different cultures, countries or belief systems (Safer Spaces 2021). The World Health Organization defines it as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.” All forms of violence have been found to be counter to children’s best interests. Main categories of violence include self-inflicted violence, interpersonal violence, and collective violence (Centers for Disease Control 2023, 2021a, b; Newfoundland Labrador 2014; Safer Spaces 2021). But protection means more than addressing just physical violence. There are things that hurt children that may not be perceived as violent, but which will harm their emotional wellbeing or slowly harm their bodies in less visible ways. While ostensibly child protective service organizations are to do these things, reports indicate that our systems don’t do them well. In some states hitting a child is legal, in other states it is not. Child abuse in all of its forms could be preventable, or at least drastically reduced—but only if the nation and adults truly embrace a children’s human rights framework. Child protection systems are formal and informal structures, functions and capacities that have been assembled to prevent and respond to violence, abuse,

16.2

What Is Child Protection?

369

neglect, and exploitation of children (ECLT Foundation 2021). Child protection systems include all actors, including government officials, social workers, teachers, medical professionals, community child protection officers, families, parents, and children themselves. It is comprised of human resources, finance, laws and policies, governance, monitoring and data collection and care management. The protection system includes diversion, detention, probation, education, mental health, employment, and restorative justice approaches. All individuals work together to prevent, report and respond to child protection at varying levels. Child protection systems are complex, multidisciplinary and intersectoral, typically focusing on reaching more children than just one specific child (World Vision 2014). Protecting children is a community function that has many components at the government, judicial, and NGO levels (Child Welfare League of America 2023; Child Care Information Gateway 2023). Young people may be referred to juvenile courts by police, school officials, social service agencies, or others. People like educators or healthcare providers who suspect child abuse are mandated reporters. Sometimes children come into the child protection systems as victims, other times as alleged perpetrators. A multifaceted criminal justice system exists in the US. On one hand, it is supposed to protect children, on the other it is supposed to dole out justice to youth offenders. Juvenile courts are given jurisdiction over matters like delinquency, neglect, adoption, and status offenses which include truancy, running away, curfew or drinking violations (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2021). State legislatures are responsible for defining maltreatment, but child protective service workers and police are those that decide if abuse has occurred. The primary standard is on the nature and degree of the immediate physical harm to the child. Identification of physical signs of harm and risk of future harm are important criteria used in their determination. Parents’ rights and family privacy may be considered as essential factors to be balanced against harm to the child. No matter their story or circumstance, all children have the right to be protected from violence, exploitation and abuse (UNICEF 2021a, b). Most protection systems in the US are fragmented and are not designed to provide universal protection to all children. Those who are regarded as victims or perpetrators to violence are the ones systems are designed to address; the rest fall through the cracks. Public concern over crime, in particular violent crime, committed by children and adolescents, is what most people think about when they think about child protection programs. Just because children are thought to need protections, this should not be confused with the protection of all children’s rights, which is the responsibility of everyone working with children. Similarly, child protection is related to—but distinct from—the organizational protocols, policies and procedures aiming to ensure that every child with whom organizations work, and different from protecting children versus protecting their rights (Save the Children 2023).

370

16.3

16

Systems of US Child Protection

Child Protection Systems in the US

There are many things from which children need protection. However, the child protection systems in the US are largely focused on one issue—child abuse, and it has been narrowly defined to focus on physical or sexual maltreatment. US child protection systems are most likely to intervene in cases where the abuse is most blatant, where there are injuries that can be documented and when there are witnesses who have observed the maltreatment. Neglect is the other major focus, but unless it is extreme, it is likely not to be identified or reported to people in positions of child protection authority. Abuse and neglect are most likely to be identified at the family level. There is no overarching system to protect children from all types of harm. Child welfare systems may address issues of things like food, housing, or unemployment assistance, but these are typically focused at the parent issue. Parameters of the child welfare system include prevention services, out-of-home care, and long-term living alternatives for children who cannot return to their birth parents. Major federal legislation shaping child welfare policy occurs but many reform efforts are initiated at the local level. States vary widely with how they handle cases of child protection and welfare. They do not provide the same services, they do not have the same requirements to receive aid, they do not even collect the same kinds of data in the same way. Child Protective Services (CPS) is a system specifically designed to address child abuse and may remove children into foster care or adoption if their parents do not take adequate care of them (Berrick 2011). CPS may be located in states as a specific agency or in larger departments of social services (DSS), health and human services (HHS) or police departments/criminal justice units. The Department of Homeland Security is to ensure safety from terrorists; the Consumer Protection Agency is to protect people from corporate exploitation. Many such organizations are umbrellas that are to provide protections to everyone, but many do not have specific units that protect children. Conversely, if there were protections in place for children, then adults would be protected as well. The US Bill of Rights does not directly address issues of interpersonal violence, such as could be found afflicting children. Rather, it concerns the government-citizen relationship, not citizen-to-citizen relations. Laws may deal with interpersonal issues at the state level; state laws may vary significantly. In many cases if an adult assaulted another adult it would be considered a crime, but if an adult (particularly a parent) his, uses violence against, or assault their child, it may—or may not—be considered breaking the law. There are other forms of violence, such as collective violence in which selfidentified and organized groups of people use violence against another group or individual to achieve a political, economic or social objective. War, genocide, terrorism, and organized crime are common examples. Johan Galtung (1969) the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies and observes that while we usually think of violence associated with a perpetrator, there are times when violence can be attributed to structures put in place that exert violence (in any

16.3

Child Protection Systems in the US

371

of its forms) on young people. In direct violence, a specific perpetrator can be identified, such as a parent, teacher, police office, other person, or distinguishable group. When we think of violence against children, it is usually in this context. However, this is a limited view of the violence that impacts children. There is also indirect or structural violence. Children as a social group suffer from unequal treatment because of structured oppression. Violence can exist and be inflicted upon children in an indirect way even when there is no specific perpetrator. Violence does not need to be a physical assault to be violence nonetheless. Violence against children is built into structures. It may appear as unequal power relations or unequal access to goods, services, resources, and opportunities. Social, political, religious, and economic systems govern their lives that put them at distinct disadvantage compared to other groups. This is why children’s corporal punishment, spanking, demeaning statements, lack of access to legal representation, or having no structured way to voice concerns that will be taken in a serious manner occurs. Cultural violence may also be a form of structural violence, where children are denied access to people and practices that have been part of their traditions and culture. Children may be harmed as a result of being a part of a social group or engaging in practices that are part of their culture, religion or tradition. The CRC addresses the issue of child maltreatment, abuse and neglect extensively. These include the following Articles. Articles 3, 4 and 19 focus on the state’s obligation to ensure children having their needs addressed by institutions and systems. Article 14 focuses on parent and guardians to provide direction of the child consistent with the child’s evolving capacities—which means that hitting or screaming demeaning words at them is not consistent with their needs. Article 37 forbids cruel punishment while Article 39 holds that if children have suffered abuses then they should receive help to recover from them. Article 20 asserts that if children must be removed from parental care that they should be in safe and supportive places and the state should ensure that their needs are met and their rights protected. Article 32 protects children from doing harmful work, Article 33 protects children from the harms associated with substance abuse, and Articles 34-35 are to protect children from sexual exploitation, trafficking, and pornography. The Articles are designed to protect children from abuses of different types and if they occur, then the treaty requires that institutions do all they can to help children to recover. The systems in place in the US have been created over an evolution of child care and protection polices in the nation. A brief history of them is provided next.

16.3.1 A Brief History of Child Protection Children’s lives have always been filled with violence and exploitation. Prior to the sixteenth century, in most societies, children were offered no protection from harm. No body of law defined children as a special class of people that required protection. Battering, murder, seduction, castration, abandonment, sodomy, rape, prostitution,

372

16

Systems of US Child Protection

abandonment and bullying children weren’t unusual. Infants were not seen to have any intrinsic value, which was why infanticide was a relatively common practice, especially if they were thought to be defective in some way. Adults were given license to say and do pretty much whatever they wanted to a child without fear of penalty. Children were viewed as expendable and replaceable. They were seldom spared the same afflictions that older persons experienced (Encyclopedia.com 2021). Throughout history and around the world, adults inflicted violence upon children without receiving admonishment for it (Finkelstein 2008). Speaking ill to children, hitting, or even killing them, was seen to be an adult’s right, especially since children were considered property of parents. Lloyd de Mause (1995) finds that childhood has typically been a time of oppression, with abuse and murder of infants and children by their caregivers being commonplace. He posits that the parent-child relationships have evolved over time from being abusive and cruel to being nurturing and affectionate. While some parents protect their offspring, children are most likely to be harmed by family or people they know well. Protecting children from harm reflects a relatively recent policy decision. The view that children are vulnerable led to the idea that they need protection and adults have to rescue them from harm (Morrow 2011). This shift from seeing children as the same as adults to being a protected category was a huge policy shift. During the early days of the nation, there were no laws preventing parents from assaulting, selling, or killing their children. It was deemed acceptable for parents or teachers to “beat the devil out of them” (Bentz 2001; Straus 2001). Until the early nineteenth-century in the US, children as young as 7-years-old could be tried in criminal court and, if convicted, sentenced to prison or even to death. Children were engaged in often dangerous factory work. Children under age 7 were presumed to be unable to form criminal intent and were therefore exempt from punishment. The establishment of special courts and incarceration facilities for juveniles was part of Progressive Era reforms, along with kindergarten, child labor laws, mandatory education, school lunches, and vocational education, that were aimed at enhancing optimal child development in the industrial city (Schlossman and Sedlak 1983). Reformers believed that treating children and adolescents as adult criminals was unnecessarily harsh and resulted in their corruption. In the words of one reformer, the main reason for the establishment of the juvenile court was “to prevent children from being treated as criminals” (Van Waters, 1927:217). Organized child protection in the US was influenced by the 1853 creation of New York’s Children’s Aid Society by Charles Loring Brace under a philosophy that children needed nurturing. Neglected or abused children were “placed out” other families who were to provide a more stable, nurturing environment, but these families were often not screened or monitored to ensure that the children were safe and nurtured. The Children’s Aid Society is associated with its orphan trains in which impoverished children were moved from New York City into the countryside. The train continued to run orphans until 1929 (Preibisch 2022). A singular incident shifted the way child protection was viewed in the US. In1874 at Hells Kitchen of New York, a badly beaten and neglected girl known as Mary Ellen became the first legally recognized victim of child abuse in

16.3

Child Protection Systems in the US

373

the United States. Until then children were considered the property of their parents, and neither the government nor private individuals intervened when children were injured, overworked, or neglected. People who found the girl tied to her bed for days sought legal action against the parents to protect the child but found there legally was nothing they could do. Arguing that she was a member of the animal kingdom, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its founder, Henry Bergh, formed a case to rescue Mary Ellen from unfit parents, arguing that if Mary Ellen were a horse or a dog, her mistreatment would be prohibited by statute. A judge agreed that the young girl deserved at least the same protection as an animal Law. This incident led to the establishment of the first organization devoted solely to child protection, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Myers, 2008). At the time of the Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde school shooting, there was the sentiment that maybe these incidents could be the thing that shifted the nation’s pro-gun policies. At the time I am writing this, these heartbreaking deaths of innocent children seems not to be enough to move hearts, minds, and votes of legislators. Child systems have continually revised what is normally the acceptable treatment of children. The 1960s provided another watershed set of events to define child protection, due to the work of John Caffey, who revealed the abusive origins of some childhood injuries and in the seminal article by pediatrician Henry Kempe about the “Battered Child Syndrome”. Federal Children’s Bureau meetings were held in response. By 1967 all states had enacted child abuse laws. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was passed by the federal government in 1974 and reauthorized in 2010a as the nation’s legislation mandating fair, ethical, and legal treatment of children to keep them free from physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuses., and into the 1980s sexual abuse became more recognized (Preibisch 2022). Resources like the Child Information Gateway were created to increase dissemination of information about abuse. Laws requiring mandatory reporting of professionals have been created. Yet in 2012 only 18 states had laws that required that all citizens with knowledge or suspicion of abuse to report it to the proper authorities. People who work with children are to be scrutinized to ensure that they are not abusers, but the background checks typically are not comprehensive enough to prove if someone has an abusive profile. Background checks are state-level, meaning that someone who is a convicted abuser in one state may still be able to work with children in another state if that person has a “clean” record in the second state. Most states have a child protective services division that conducts investigations when there have been reports of actual or suspected abuse. If there are no visible signs of abuse or reports then cases may be closed, putting a child who is potentially in an at-risk situation. Parents and institutions are expected to act in the best interests of children, from a children’s human rights perspective. Statutory agencies are assumed only to have the right to intervene in family life if parents are not doing due-diligence in addressing children’s rights or if they are putting children at risk of significant harm. While neglect is a failure to meet the basic needs of a child, a lowly standard of “good enough parenting” has been deemed acceptable by agencies who

374

16

Systems of US Child Protection

are in positions of children’s oversight. But is good enough parenting good enough for children in the twenty-first century, especially from a children’s human rights perspective (Wearmouth 2012)? Child abuse and neglect is now regarded as a major public health problem; some experts wonder if people must have a license to own a dog or a gun, shouldn’t people prove that they have some degree of competence before they engage in the most important task in life—parenting a child? (Westman 2019). There are also a variety of nongovernmental organizations that exist to prevent child abuse or help children who have been abused. These are not government agencies. For instance, Prevent Child Abuse America is the nation’s oldest organization committed to preventing child abuse and neglect before it happens. Agencies like the Child Welfare League of America, Enough Abuse Campaign, Kempe Foundation for Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention, the National Children’s Advocacy Center, Stop It Now, and UNICEF, as well as professional pediatric, psychological, public health, legal, poverty, housing, all work to reduce abuse. The impact of the way child abuse is handled in the US shows that this fragmented system is not in children’s best interests (Petersen et al. 2014). State laws vary significantly in defining child abuse and neglect, agencies identify abuse differently from each other, and differences in definitions and limited coordination between state agencies result in challenges tracking and analyzing even the most severe cases of abuse. Mandatory reporting laws reveal higher rates of substantiation in states with universal mandated reporting laws; many professional mandated reporters do not report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect because of multiple systemic barriers, and the more rigorous the requirements for substantiating abuse, the lower reported rates of abuse occur. Criminal penalties for child physical and sexual abuse vary substantially across states. Beyond the CAPTA requirement that states preserve the confidentiality of child abuse and neglect records to protect the rights of the child and the child’s parents or legal guardians, state statutes vary with respect to the persons or entities allowed access to central registries of child abuse and neglect and other case records. Lack of rigorous evaluations exist at every point of the child abuse service system. It is useful to remember that the US is not a world leader in child abuse and neglect prevention, especially when it is compared to other developed nations (UN Dispatch 2020; UNICEF 2020a, b, c, d). With respect to how the US compares on children’s rights, the US comes in at 56, behind countries like Hungary, Chile, Poland, South Korea, and 55 others (Humanium 2021a, b). The Centers for Disease Control (2023) refers to child abuse in the US as a public health epidemic. Fortson (2016) in an extensive Centers for Disease Control report on how to prevent child abuse observes that child abuse and neglect in the USA is preventable, with 1 in 7 children are documented as abused, a number seen as the tip of the iceberg. Child abuse and neglect is associated with a variety of preventable negative human, societal, and economic outcomes. Factors putting children at risk are well-identified at the individual, family, and environmental level, but systemic risks are not discussed as major contributing causal factors.

16.3

Child Protection Systems in the US

375

Recommendations about how to reduce abuse continue to point at the family level rather than incorporating larger systemic interventions. The systemic causal issue again is highlighted in a report by the Child Welfare League of America (2023) which found that agencies do the best they can to protect children from imminent abuse and neglect, but child protective services are underfunded through CAPTA legislation which means only the most identified to be at-risk are served. Many children who need help “eludes our will and capacity”, with at least 40% of children substantiated as abused or neglected not receiving services. As for the other types of protections that children need, it is a patchwork of protections, when protections exist at all. The systematic failure to address the wide array of other dangers that loom for children does not get talked about much in any national or comprehensive child protection defense program.

16.3.2

What Exactly Are We Protecting Children From?

Children have the right to be protected from a variety of bad things that could happen to them. The way our child protection system has been developed emphasizes some forms while neglecting others. The emphasis remains on interpersonal violence in its varying forms. There has been an increased attention to bullying, cyber protections, and school violence. For instance, interpersonal violence that is visible and documentable gains attention; violence that is less visible or for whom there is a less apparent victim may not be part of the nation’s child protection system. This results in a child protection approach in which individual perpetrators are the target. If there is a clear perpetrator, like a parent, there is a chance of some intervention if sufficient documentation can be obtained. Organizational maltreatment of children is far less likely to be attacked. When there are multiple perpetrators or perpetrators protected because they are part of an organization that has its own lawyers, chances are slim that children will receive protections. This results in a child protection system that protects children from maltreatment by individuals but not corporations, organizations, or institutions. In short, our child protection system focuses on protecting children from abuse by parents and to a lesser degree, other caregivers. The broader protection system shows a lack of agreement, coordination, policy, and practice of what should be done to protect children from the huge numbers of things for which they need protection.

16.3.3

Who Are We Protecting Children For?

We do not seem to be protecting children for themselves, or sometimes even their parents. We seem to be protecting children from agenda-stakers, be they in politics or corporations. Child protection systems and laws are ostensibly designed to protect children and young people from harm. As pointed out, the major child protection

376

16

Systems of US Child Protection

system focuses on interpersonal violence at the family or caregiver level. The type of protection sought is protection from child abuse, with the dominant type being physical abuse, followed by sexual abuse. The protection system has not gone after big business. They have not voted out politicians who seem anti-child, except when it comes to baby-kissing moments on the election trail. If children were the raison d’etre, child protection systems would certainly look and function differently. Children are frightened at making a report when they do not feel protected. Who would they make the report to? What will happen to them if they did? What would their parents do to them if they found out they had filed a complaint? What if children need protection from an adult who is in a position of authority over them, like an abusive or inappropriate coach, teacher, babysitter, peer, or another adult? In an adutified world, it is the child’s word against the adult’s, or the child’s word against an entire bureaucratic organization. There is seldom a way that a child can counter the more sophisticated excuses rendered by adults. Children may be at terrible risk if they divulge the truth about their maltreatment if systems are not designed to protect them in a comprehensive manner. Child protection systems are designed by adults, administered by, run by adults, and for adult interests— which may, or may not have children’s rights as a priority. This is especially true when we consider how legally children’s rights are seldom the priority. There is a huge difference between protecting children and protecting children’s rights. For instance, Federle (2000) asks—what rights do we afford children in child abuse proceedings? They vary significantly from district-to-district, and may be influenced as much be local norms as by official laws. The child protection system, as typically designed in the US, is an interest-based system— but whose interest? The states? The organization? The parent? Or the child themselves? Children are not seen as active participants in a process that may significantly alter their lives.

16.3.3.1

Access to Lawyers

This issue of legal representation is a crucial one. Seldom do children have lawyers. Children do not have their own bank accounts; if they have one the law states that children under 18 have to be joint with parents, who are the legally responsible entity. Children are not allowed to sign contracts, so they cannot hire lawyers even if they can afford them. Children are not generally awarded a public defender. No parent in their right mind who has been abusive to children would willingly hire an attorney for their children to go after them. Thus, if children have been abused or feel that their rights have not been protected (if they even know what their rights legally are), they do not stand much of a chance to prove them in a convincing way to authorities. The system is designed to provide access of lawyers to parents more than to children, which automatically skews the outcome of any court proceeding. When I was on a state juvenile parole board for a decade, young people who had “done their time” at a youth detention center would come up for review at parole hearings. We had the authority to decide if the children should return home, be sent

16.3

Child Protection Systems in the US

377

to a different facility, or if they should stay in the detention center for further “help”. Coming before the parole board was a stressful situation for the youth. Few young people ever had an attorney. When they were asked if they wanted to go forward with the parole hearing without an attorney or stay incarcerated until they could get one, 99% of them wanted to go forward for the hearing in hopes they could go home. They were read their rights to have an attorney represent them at the hearing, but most didn’t understand the repercussions, how to get one, how to pay for one, especially if staff or parents didn’t encourage it. At the US-Mexico border, many immigrating children do not have the right to have an attorney, even in cases of life and death (Arulanantham 2018). Separated children in some cases might be given an attorney so that there is legal compliance, but lawyers are insufficient numbers and may speak in a language or manner that the children may understand. Children entering the US alone do not have the right to legal counsel. These children may have traveled to the US without a parent or guardian only to be thrust into deportation processes. Immigration courts are categorized as civil, not criminal, so no government provided lawyers are required. Some pro bono attorneys may help but it is estimated that 75-90% of children undergoing deportation do so without an attorney, even though only 12% of unaccompanied minors represented by attorneys were deported compared to over 80% without legal representation (Goldberg 2020). In sum, chances of children ever having an attorney for anything are slim to none.

16.3.3.2

Child Advocates

In some countries there is a child advocate or ombudsman that children can call for support and help. They can request for help as minor as help with homework or things as major as abuse or discrimination. When child ombudsman offices exist in the US, they typically address issues of child abuse. Of the 50 states, only 13 have offices of child advocates. These include Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. The United States Ombudsman Association (2023), defines the public sector ombudsmen as “an independent, impartial public official with authority and responsibility to receive, investigate or informally address complaints about government actions, and, when appropriate, make findings and recommendations, and publish report. I work with two states and their offices tend to be new, under-staffed, under-resourced, and have limits of what they can do. I know of no children in either state who realize that there is a state office of a child advocate. Not knowing one exists, they certainly are not likely to contact them for help. Some states have Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs). These are volunteers who receive some training on how to support children who are in legal proceedings in some way. There is significant variability on them by state and by their own credentials. As volunteers, they receive no pay and are to commit to working with a child for a year. They are to visit the child at least monthly and report back to the court with written observations and concerns. Their recommendations

378

16

Systems of US Child Protection

are then considered by the court. CASAs tend to be good-hearted people who care about children; their skill-level and commitment levels may vary substantially. They do not have the same recommendation support as would a Guardian ad Litem (Child Advocacy Services 2022). Most states have a Guardian ad Litem program. These are lawyers or professionals with extensive training in both law and child well-being issues. As a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), I would meet with children in child custody or abuse cases. They did not understand what a GAL was and whether I was working for mom, dad, or authorities who would order them to do something they may not want to do. I explained that I was not a lawyer but I was appointed to listen to their concerns and to investigate their situation so I could let the judge know what I thought would be in their best interests. This relieved them—they appreciated that someone would listen to what they felt and wanted. GALs tend to be well-trained and write formal reports in legalese and be cross-examined by both defense and prosecution counsels during court proceedings. Some GALs may be court appointed and paid out of a state fund, but many parents are required to pay. Thus, payment for representation remains a consideration of whether a child will receive a GAL or not.

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

Understanding that children need protection from many different things, and realizing that no comprehensive child protection systems exist, taking a moment to pause and consider what a more ideal system would look like is instructive. I examined dozens of organizational structures, flow-charts, and systems designs and observed how convoluted they are, and where the gaps remain. I kept searching for a comprehensive child protection model and found none. So, I decided to create my own vision of what I think a good child protection system for children would look like. Here are my thoughtful consideration in Fig. 16.1. It is developed on a 5-unit model of child protection that incorporates current child protection systems as well as an integrated system of units that have or could design child protection defenses. The key is that they need to be integrated into a comprehensive system in which there are coordinated goals, objectives, implementation strategies, data gathering and sharing mechanisms, and evaluation measures to ensure that the new system works the way it could in ideal sense.

16.4.1

Comprehensive Children’s Human Rights Protection System (CCHRPS)

Building upon the systems analysis in Chap. 15 and including solid research methodologies for formative and outcome evaluation measures, it could be possible to design a system that protected all children. These five units all have multiple

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

Fig. 16.1 Comprehensive Children’s Human Rights Protection System (CCHRPS)

379

Home

Global

Corporaons

Organizaons

Community

components under their umbrella. From a human rights perspective, they are designed to be universal, indivisible, and inalienable. This means every child could benefit from the protections, that the protections are sustainable, and that they overlap in how they impact each other. Because they are indivisible, a change in one may impact the need for a change in another unit. This is why essential collective data collection, sharing, and strategic planning must occur. Goals and objectives may need to be redefined as we learn how a change in one unit impacts the impact on another. As a tangible visual, imagine a single child. Consider how each of the components under each unit of the proposed protection system would impact that child. In undertaking this simple visualization, it becomes clear how all of these protection pieces hook together in the life of a child. Home Protections Accidents Chastisement (Punishment/Discipline) Emotional abuse Foster care Media (social, visual, auditory) Neglect Physical abuse Sexual abuse Verbal abuse Organizational Protections Camps Childcare centers Clubs, civic organizations Residential institutions

380

16

Systems of US Child Protection

Schools Sports Transportation Community Protections Child trafficking Drugs Emergency and humanitarian protections Environmental justice Extremism Gun violence Poverty Corporate Protections Child labor Equipment safety Food and water safety Social media Global Protections Climate change Emergency and humanitarian protections Environmental disasters and “Slow” violence Terrorism and War These are the major units and gross sub-categories in the CCHRPS. They can be further delineated, but these categories provide a framework that identifies areas that all children need defended if they are to be safe.

16.4.1.1

CCHRPS Examples

Briefly, some of the sub-categories are discussed to showcase their relationship to the whole. The idea of this section is to stimulate different ways of thinking about how to defend and integrate the many different types of protections that a single child, and all children, require.

Home Protections The family and the homes in which children live are of utmost importance for their safety, health, and well-being. This is why the CRC places home and family in a place of priority within its child rights treaty. Data shows us that the most likely place for a child to be hurt is at home. Parents are obligated to be children’s rights

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

381

defenders because of their special and unique relationship with the child. The goal for home protections is to use a public health model in which risk and harms are prevented. When children are hurt, whenever possible it is important to educate, rehabilitate, and create situations where the harm will never occur again. If there is a high probability that harm will indeed afflict a child, it is in the best interests of the child for more severe measures to be taken, which could mean removal of the child from the home or termination of parent rights. Accidents Protecting child from accidental injury is part of a parent’s job. Data from the National Safety Council and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control report that injury is the leading cause of death in children; 12,000 children and young adults, ages 1–19 years, die from unintentional injuries each year. Falls are the leading cause of nonfatal injury for children, resulting in 8000 fall-related visits to hospital emergency rooms every day. Each year about 100 children are killed and 254,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents. Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4. The majority of drownings and near-drownings occur in home swimming pools and in open water sites. Each year, about 2000 children ages 14 and under die as a result of a home injury. Unintentional home injury deaths to children are caused primarily by fire and burns, suffocation, drowning, firearms, falls, choking, and poisoning. (Stanford Medicine 2022). About 1100 children died in motor vehicle crashes in 2020; on average, 3 children were killed and an estimated 380 children were injured each day. Two-thirds of children in cars where the drivers were unrestrained were not buckled up either (Centers for Disease Control 2022). Chastisement (Punishment/Discipline) Children do not automatically know what is good, bad, right, wrong, and what will cause them to be harmed. They must learn. It is a parent’s job to provide good instruction to keep their children safe in all situations. This is a big responsibility. Children require discipline, which is defined as an educational strategy designed to help the child to learn why some actions are better than others. Punishment, on the other hand, is punitive. Punishment is a form of vengeance, retaliation for not doing something the way the parent wanted, and it is almost always doled out with anger and parental dysregulation. This is commonly observed around the issue of what constitutes reasonable chastisement. There is a common narrative that indicates that sometimes it is OK to use verbal, emotional, or physical violence to control a child. The concept of reasonable chastisement is used more in the United Kingdom, but its implications are observable throughout US child discipline approaches. To chastise means to scold, whip, or publicly humiliate someone so they will not engage in undesirable actions again. But in many parts of the world it is used and refers to a common law defense that parents or caregivers may use to justify their use of corporal punishment of a

382

16

Systems of US Child Protection

child. According to Spink (1999), parents or those in positions of in loco parentis have historically been allowed to exercise “reasonable chastisement” over children, which could include public stripping of a child to strike them on their bare bottom multiple times with objects like paddles. Over time, the definition of what was reasonable has come into question. Issues influencing its determination included parental intent, parent attitude (such as anger), how often the child was struck, the intensity of the hit, where the child was hit, the duration, manner, execution, and method of it, age of the child, health of the child, and other factors. Parents have a great deal of discretion about how they wish to explain their “chastisement” of the child. But parents cannot rely on the reasonable chastisement law when slapping their kids anymore (Ryan 2015). The position is just because something is legal does not make it right. Take this argument a step further, if I do not like your behavior and decide to use physical aggression to “knock some sense into you”, and I hit an adult, it would be considered assault. Why, therefore, are the standards different if a person is under age 18 is spanked (aka—assaulted)? From a human rights perspective, hitting a child may be considered a violation of the child’s human rights. This is especially true when there is rage, vengeance, retaliation, or vindictive adult reactions, when a child is hit multiple times, and when the child is hit in places on their bodies that are degrading (like on their bare buttocks) or that pose physical endangerment (like on the face, head, spine, or yanking of the child’s arm) (Parsons 2017). When one studies the physiological and psychological effects of corporal punishment on children, it is clear that there is unreasonableness of “reasonable chastisement” (Williamson 2019). A constant tension exists between promoting child welfare and regulating parental behavior (Edwards 2017). Backhanding and slapping a child have been constitutionally legal in many countries, but such actions and corporal punishments are in violation of children’s human rights (Sloth-Nielsen 2020). Increasingly, courts are finding that if the welfare of the child is the key and overriding consideration, then it must be weighed if parental intent, emotion, and actions to inflict pain are in the best interests of the child (Spink 1999). In South Africa, the court found reasonable chastisement to be a form of corporal punishment that is indistinguishable from its Constitution’s legal definition of assault (Miller 2020). In 2017, 52 countries had reformed their laws to prohibit all corporal punishment of children—but in the US it remains legal and regularly used (Global Initiatives to End All Corporal Punishment of Children 2023; Poulsen 2019; Rowland 2017). It is argued that the defense of reasonable chastisement is a violation of children’s rights (Birchall 2020). Spanking, hitting, or assaulting a child is no longer considered merely “family business”. The question of how and where to draw the line between “reasonable” corporal punishment and abuse reflects subjective perspectives that do not take into consideration the rights or best interests of the child (Coleman et al. 2010). A children’s human rights frame would make justification of reasonable chastisement unthinkable, but in the US, which has not yet embraced a children’s human rights frame, parents see physical assaults of varying degrees to be justifiable, necessary, and even good (Straus 2001, 2013).

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

383

Emotional Abuse Also known as psychological abuse or maltreatment, it is a pattern of behavior that impairs a child’s emotional development or sense of self-worth. This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2022a, b). According to government studies, 8% of children experience psychological abuse (US Health and Human Services 2011), but from my own work with children over three decades, that number is a gross underestimate of reality. I am convinced that it is not reported, therefore counted, for a variety of adultified reasons. Foster Care Foster care is a hotly debated topic that centers primarily on the child as property issue. In 2020, 213,964 children under 18 were put into foster care (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2022). One argument is that children are moved out of their biological homes too quickly, the other is that they are not moved out quickly enough and allowed to stay with inadequate parents to the disadvantage, and even danger, of the children (Vissing 2024). The average length of time in foster care is around a yearand-a-half. BIPOC children appear over-represented in the foster care pool. The complaints facing the foster care system are many. There is a shortage of foster care parents; the monitoring of foster care placements could be much better and is attributed to lack of funding for enough social workers. Historically there are allegations that some children were removed without good justification, and even mediocre or poor parents may assert their rights to have the return of their child (or property). While the CRC stands firmly that children should not be separated from their parents, it also supports the removal of children for their safety when it is warranted. This creates a fuzzy line for courts and child protective services to walk. There have been cases in which foster children have gone unaccounted for, and later discovered to be dead. There are concerns of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment for children when they are within foster care placements. Whether due to early life experiences or the failure of the foster care system, challenges face this group of children as they age. Lower rates of high school graduation, higher rates of homelessness, and other social problems are reported (Armstrong-Heimsoth 2021). Concerns over how well the foster care program protects children have not fallen on deaf ears. Redesign components advocated in California is regarded as an improved model to keep children safe within their families by reducing their risk to abuse include the STEPS Program (Strengthening Ties and Empowering Parents), creation of a FAST Program (Family Assessment Support Team), and Integrated Practice Team to develop a family service plan, and a series of other interventions at both the family and community level (California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare 2020).

384

16

Systems of US Child Protection

Media (Social, Visual, Auditory) What children view may impact their mental health and understanding of themselves and the world. Online violence has increased and children’s rights, safety, and access are in greater need of national protection (American Psychological Association 2019). When television and movies first came out, they were largely designed for audiences of all ages. When movies became more explicit with graphic images of sex, violence, and drug use, a movie rating system emerged so parents would know which we rated for General audiences, parental guidance for children over PG-13, R for restricted films and X-rated films especially with pornographic content. Television shows during “prime time”, which meant after-supper hours until around 10 pm, were clean for family viewing. Late night shows were given more latitude to include dicey language or content. Banning of certain words became part of the protocol, so curse words or even using words like “penis” or “vagina” may get a speaker bleeped. Songs on the radio were scrutinized. Magazines may contain advertisements or content that with veiled inappropriate content that was allowed to slip under the radar, but magazines like Playboy or Hustler became famous for pictures that little boys loved stealing from their father’s hidden stash. There was a certain structure around media “back in the day” that became normative practice. Then along came social media. While certain websites could be banned on school computers, home access and access on cell phones were an entirely different story. To counter children’s curiosity for looking at content about sex, violence, substances, or other materials their parents didn’t want them to know about, there are a variety of digital literacy and online safety programs around. The problem is that they can be easily circumvented by clever children. There is little government regulation on the websites, as companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram are allowed to design their own child safety protocols. The Federal Trade Commission lacks explicit and comprehensive authority related to privacy issues and the Federal Communications Commission has had a limited role in overseeing internet privacy. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is the agency to states it leads the national effort to understand, manage, and reduce risk to the nation’s cyber and physical infrastructure by connecting stakeholders in industry and government to each other and to resources, analyses, and tools to help them build their own cyber, communications, and physical security and resilience, in turn “helping to ensure a secure and resilient infrastructure for the American people”. In short, children and parents are on their own when it comes to ensuring protection from the cyber world (Mintz 2019). Neglect Neglect is the failure to meet a child’s basic physical and emotional needs. These needs include housing, food, clothing, education, access to medical care, and having feelings validated and appropriately responded to. Neglect is often clumped with child abuse—“child abuse and neglect”, but they are quite different things with different etiologies and in need of different prevention and treatment modalities. Just

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

385

because a part is neglectful does not automatically mean they are abusive. For instance, parents who are homeless may be labeled as neglectful because they cannot afford housing, but this does not mean that they are abusive. Neglect is the most commonly reported form of child maltreatment, with it being about 75% of all reports (Child Rights 2022; Vissing 1997). Physical Abuse Physical abuse is the most commonly reported form of child abuse. It is typically defined as is the intentional use of physical force that can result in physical injury. Examples include hitting, kicking, shaking, burning, or other shows of force against a child. However, if a child is hurt unintentionally, the child could still experience physical abuse because they were hurt. Parental intent and child outcome are very different things. Sexual Abuse According to Prevent Child Abuse (2022), there are over 65,000 children who are sexually abused each year, or every 9 min child protective services substantiates a claim of child sexual abuse. There are two main types of child sexual abuse: touching and non-touching. Touching includes touching a child’s genitals, making a child touch someone else’s genitals, playing sexual games, and/or putting objects or body parts inside the vulva or vagina, in the mouth, or in the anus of a child for sexual pleasure. Non-touching abuse includes showing pornography to a child, exposing a person’s genitals to a child, prostituting/trafficking a child, photographing a child in sexual poses, encouraging a child to watch or hear sexual acts either in person or on a video, and/or watching a child undress or use the bathroom. In most cases, the perpetrator is someone in the family or someone the child knows well and trusted. Programs like Enough! From Mass Kids is a national model that seeks to prevent sexual abuse. Verbal Abuse Verbal abuse is so common that people largely do not even recognize it as abuse. It includes name-calling, belittling, swearing, insulting, criticism, rejection, threats, scapegoating, blaming, sarcasm, to name a few. Parents usually get away with it because talking trash to the child or bout others in front of them is so common. Parents may rationalize their abuse by saying they were just joking, or the children misinterpreted what they were saying. When I was a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of New Hampshire, our data set indicated that 63% of more than 3000 American parents surveyed reported one or more cases of verbal aggression toward children in their homes. But in comparison, a Child Protective Services study determined that only 6% of all child abuse cases involved “emotional maltreatment” (of which verbal abuse is the most common form) (Vardigan 2011; Vissing et al. 1991).

386

16

Systems of US Child Protection

What this model proves is that in the average household, children are exposed to a variety of potentially life-threatening situations from which they need protection. Focusing just on child abuse is insufficient. In some cases, parents are perpetrators; in other cases, they are neglectful or unaware. A systemic approach to looking at homes and families as a unified unit could launch more effective prevention and intervention services.

Organizational Protections There are countless types and numbers of organizations that interact with children. Most do have children’s bills of rights or children’s protection plans in place. Policies and practices may be designed to protect the organization itself, its administration or staff, or boards of directors. A children’s human rights approach holds that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration in any decision or policy that an organization makes. While children may be an organization’s primary client, that does not mean that their rights are a priority. Moreover, there is no overarching organization that coordinates all of the different organizations under one umbrella to ensure that they are all operating with the same mission, goals, and practices to ensure children are safe. Even within a single type of organization, like sports or camps, there may be wide variation on the way they approach child protection. Just a few examples are given below to illustrate the need for a CCHRPS. There are clearly many more categories and organizations from which a CCHRPS approach would be lifesaving for children. Camps There are thousands of different types of camps for children in the US. It was hard to find an exact count; there are around 16,000 summer camps, but there are other types such as adventure camp;, sports camps; arts, theatre, and culture camps; educational enrichment camps; study abroad camps; academic specialty camps; different types of health camps; camps for children with special needs; science camps; technology camps; rehabilitation boot camps; and the list goes on. The American Camping Association accredits camps and set out standards to ensure quality experiences for children but not all camps are members. Safety measures vary significantly between them. Most camper experiences appear to be positive, but the facts are that some children have died at camp, usually from drowning. Broken bones, scrapes, and other injuries are common. But unreported child sexual abuse is considered to be “an epidemic” that is shushed in most cases (Grewal 2021). Data from all the camps is scattered at best. Childcare Centers Childcare is a necessity for children. Their parents may work, parents may be unable or unwilling to care for them during large hunks of the day, there may be illness in

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

387

the home, or childcare may be desired to enhance children’s sociability and learning opportunities. There is a major shortage of childcare workers and centers in the US. The pay is poor for childcare providers—another reflection of how much we value children. The expertise of many childcare providers may be lacking as a result. Childcare programs and providers are supposed to be licensed, but the reality is that many are not. People may care for children “under the table” . Even if they are licensed, there may not be sufficient numbers of inspectors to monitor them on a regular basis to ensure that they comply with all safety protocols. No national statistics for child fatalities or severe injuries exist. The US does not have federal reporting requirements for child fatalities in child care. State reporting requirements vary widely. Child care licensing agencies in only 38 states require child fatalities in licensed child care settings be reported to the licensing agency (state licensing regulations are posted on the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education in 2012). Twelve states do not require report of children’s deaths in child care centers and 11 states do not require the reporting of children’s deaths in family child care homes. The reporting of injuries is likewise questionable at best (Child Care Aware 2014). What this means is that there is no central monitoring at the state or federal level to ensure the nation’s youngest children are as protected as they deserve to be. Clubs, Civic Organizations Every community will have its own group of clubs, civic organizations, and other community ventures in which children can participate. Some are national ones, like the scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, or faith-based groups (like altar boys/girls), but many are local in nature. Larger groups may have accreditations, certifications, or associations with other groups which have safety protocols. However, most have tended to be reactive rather than proactive. The Boy Scouts and Catholic Church have put into place safety recommendations, but only after the fact when children were molested. These groups can provide tremendous opportunities for learning, networking, and engagement, but they can also be unregulated with minimal oversight, supervision, or monitoring. Supposedly many of the organizations had safety statements but adults violated them; i.e.—the Boy Scouts insisted their policy forbid 1on 1 time between adults and children, yet 94% of the reported cases happened in such context (Hamilton and Timon 2020; Sherman 2019). The variability of organizations, standards, and the lack of reporting and accurate data gathering are things that could easily be addressed, if not easily implemented. Residential Institutions Children in residential facilities require special protections because they are in what Goffman (1959) refers to as “total institutions”. Every aspect of their life, from morning until night, are regulated by adults. These institutions may include orphanages, juvenile detention centers, hospitals, boarding schools, rehabilitation “boot camps”, therapy institutions, and others. The rates of child maltreatment in them are

388

16

Systems of US Child Protection

reported to be huge (Hood 2020). Lack of policies that are firmly implemented, monitored, reported, and revamped to be in accordance with the CRC is essential for the defense of children’s wellbeing and rights. At the Sununu Youth Development Center in New Hampshire, there were hundreds of allegations of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse by 150 staff members; the state is going to have to pay millions to victims (Ramer 2021). Jails have become the new mental health systems, especially for young and impoverished people. Schools There are public schools, private schools, charter schools, online schools, specialty schools, tutoring programs, and other educational forums, and each may have their own child protection regulations. Even public schools in the same state may have different standards. Child protection issues can range from use of corporal punishment as in Florida elementary schools to unlocked doors, as Uvalde students learned the hard way. More detail about schools will provided in a later chapter on education in Part III. Sports Protections of young athletes vary by age and the sport undertaken. Studies on human rights in sports indicate that while more sports organizations are developing child athlete bill of rights, they are doing so because young athletes as a group have suffered emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial exploitation, and other assaults (Vissing and Zajda 2023a, b) In an analysis of the stated child protection protocols, they are not the same. Athletes who have disabilities, who are BIPOC, female, or transgender have not been found to have their access to sports equal to that of other athletes Therefore while sports can be good for bodies and the building of teamwork, there are risks involved in every sport, from cheerleading and ice skating to swimming and football. Transportation Children are dependent upon adults to transport them. This means in cars, taxi cabs, Ubers, subways, school buses, public buses, airplanes, bicycles, or recreational vehicles including jet skis, 4-wheelers, and “extreme” sports vehicles. Their safety standards of the vehicles themselves, use of seat belts, safety in transit stations (like bus depots or airports), the ability of drivers to interact appropriately with children, the age of children that can be transported independently, and other factors are huge concerns. Each may have their own standards, but lack of even a website to talk about the safety factors in all forms of transit puts children and parents in a safety quandary. Children often ride bicycles or walk to school; they need bicycle lanes and sidewalks in order to safely arrive at their destinations. Overpasses across busy

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

389

roads are also important for them to cross the road safely. Crossing guards can be lifesaving personnel to support children during busy locations and hours of the day, like times before and the release of the school day.

16.4.2

Community Protections

The World Economic Forum asserts that the oldest and simplest justification for government is as protector: protecting citizens from violence. The function of government as provider comes next, to ensure that individuals can access goods and services that they cannot provide for themselves. “The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing.” (Slaughter 2017). It is the government’s responsibility to protect and provide; individuals cannot successfully do these essential tasks alone. It appears that on both the provision and protecting score, the US could be much better, especially when it comes to its children. There are scads of things communities would benefit from by defending children. Just a few are addressed below to help whet your imagination about what could be accomplished.

16.4.2.1

Child Trafficking

Child trafficking is the recruitment, coercion, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of children under the age of 18 for the purpose of exploitation. Commonly child trafficking is associated with sex trafficking, but there are many different ways children are trafficked. These include trafficking to exploit them for doing labor; children are also prime candidates for organ harvesting, either for money or without their consent (UNICEF USA 2022). It includes recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a child for or benefiting financially from the commercial acts with children. Child trafficking includes, but is not limited to, work in factories, restaurants, domestic service, agriculture, peddling, meat-packing plants, exotic dancing, and prostitution (Walts 2012). CRC Article 32 Article 34, Article 35, and Article 36 are of particular support to trafficked children. Children are the victims here; adults in what has become a billion-dollar criminal enterprise are the perpetrators from whom children need protection.

16.4.2.2

Drugs

The opiate problem in the US is a child’s problem, even if they never use the drug, not to mention the pharmaceutic, licit, and illicit use. Parents who have substance addiction problems have led to child neglect, abuse, and removal into the foster care system because their parents cannot take adequate care of them. I have a graduate specialist degree in a Specialty Program in Alcohol and Drug Abuse, am a former

390

16

Systems of US Child Protection

substance abuse counselor, and have studied how the nation has addressed substance abuse that has led to the preventable problems we see afflicting children now (Lipari and Van Horn 2017). Our national substance approach has not had its impact on children as a primary interest.

16.4.2.3

Emergency and Humanitarian Protections

As climate change impacts, natural disasters, exposures to toxins, and community violence have increased, communities must have a proactive emergency plan that protects all citizens. Children are extremely vulnerable. They may be in schools, childcare centers, or in other forms of organizational care when crises occur. This means that organizations must have in place a set of procedures that they will use, and have conveyed to staff, children, and parents so that everyone knows what to do and where the children will be. Actions like shooter drills for children are of questionable use; there are many other strategic plans that could have greater influence on child safety in crises (Brunswick et al. 2021).

16.4.2.4

Environmental Justice

Climate change is real and the effects of not addressing it are already apparent in the forms of droughts, floods, fires, tsunamis, and another environmental catastrophe. Despite warnings from scientists for years and pleadings from youth like environmentalist Greta Thunberg, government and corporate actions are alleged but are a far cry from being the aggressive, effective actions needed. Some groups of parents are organizing and supporting climate rights because they affirm they are doing so in order to protect children’s rights to a safe and sustainable future. This can be seen in New York City Climate Families Coalition (Democker 2022) or in Oregon where parents and other adults helped children seek court action for environmental protections against climate change. Chernaik v. Brown was filed on behalf of two youth plaintiffs, Ollie Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana, against the Oregon Governor and the State of Oregon for failing to protect essential natural resources, including the atmosphere, as required under the Public Trust Doctrine (Our Children’s Trust 2019).

16.4.2.5

Extremism

The rise of extremist attitudes and actions across the US is worrisome. Extremists and terrorists are no longer considered to be foreign agents but are domestic, and “home-grown”. The number of hate groups across the country has increased, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (2023). Adults who show up with guns and threaten the lives of teachers, school board members, librarians, healthcare

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

391

providers, and anyone with whom they disagree role-model the acceptability of violence for children (Doxsee et al. 2022; Michels 2022).

16.4.2.6

Gun Violence

The US has more guns in the hands of citizens than any nation in the world, so it should be no surprise that we also have the highest rates of individual and mass shooting incidents. The use of semiautomatic weapons even by young people, reflects the lack of gun control and the pro-gun, pro-violence-as-a-solution-toproblems mentality that have arisen in the nation. Other countries have taken measures to reduce gun violence successfully; the US could do much more to do so, especially if children were a national priority (BBC 2022; Brownstein 2022; Everytown USA 2021; Zolyniak 2022).

16.4.2.7

Poverty

Poverty is considered not just a form of violence, but the worst form of violence, according to Mahatma Gandhi. Children in the US suffer from one of the highest child poverty rates in the developed world. Poverty is a form of structured inequality that breeds violence of a variety of types for children, all of which are preventable from a children’s human rights framework (Children’s Defense Fund 2022; Smeeding and Thévenot 2016). Despite rhetoric of children’s importance, federal policies endorse poverty and its associated outcomes on children, such as its decision to eliminate free lunch for all children during a time when families continue to struggle financially and hunger remains a problem for the 16.7% of children who do not know where their next meal is coming from and the 22 million children who depend upon free lunch for what may be the only meal of their day (Barbeque Lab 2022; Chuck 2022). Child friendly cities (UNICEF 2020e; Wridt et al. 2023) can partner together to develop a comprehensive community plan to prevent many of the problems that children face. They can design systems and strategies to better protect children—but they have to have the will and resources to do so.

16.4.3

Corporate Protections of Children

Businesses and companies are often illusive about their child protection policies and practices. Yet what they provide can directly and indirectly put children at risk of harm. There are too many corporations and businesses to cover here; a few main ones are provided as illustrations for why commercial institutions need to be considered as part of the CCHRPS.

392

16.4.3.1

16

Systems of US Child Protection

Child Labor

The history of child labor in the US is long and sometimes unsavory. Except for the privileged few, most children worked either for their parents or outside employers. Child labor became a federal legislative issue in 1906 with the introduction of the Beveridge proposal for regulation of the types of work in which children might be engaged. It led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), also known as the child labor laws, to ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities. The law was designed to protect the educational opportunities of youth and prohibit their employment in jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety. Working in mines and factories is not allowed; agricultural work may be allowed, especially when it is for a parent. Types of nonfarm work has been left to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. Some types of work. Like newspaper sales/delivery or theatrical employment are exempt from the FLSA child labor requirements (EveryCRSReport.com 2013). Child workers are not without risk; they may face longer than legal hours, questionable work conditions, no pay (as in family care or farming), low pay, exposures to toxins, sexual or other abuses, to name a few. Such violations may never be reported. Children may not know to whom to make reports, they may be fearful to do so, and their employers may not wish to report violations. Child workers, whether domestic, agricultural, or in commercial settings, require a series of protections. Government policies, such as in Iowa, are being loosened to allow children to work more hours and in potentially unsafe situations that could negatively impact their health, education, and social wellbeing (Iyler 2023). Immigrant children are at high risk for exploitation, and work brutal jobs across the US (Dreier 2023). Instead of greater child worker protections, there appear to be fewer safeguards for them.

16.4.3.2

Equipment Safety

Children are regular users of equipment that need to be safe for them. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (2021) is to review safety or products or items that people, including children, may use. Types vary widely and include baby items, such as baby beds, strollers, car seats; and toys and devices used for or by children from infancy through teenager years. The equipment must be designed to be structurally safe and be made of substances that are free from toxins or other dangerous substances. Items that children may regularly come into contact with must also be designed for their safety, such as laundry detergent pods or playground equipment. When children are employed, the equipment they use must be safe and developmentally appropriate. Children may use farm equipment or drive vehicles before age 16. A young friend of mine was hired underage and was told to use a power saw with a foot pedal and when his sneaker shoelace got tangled, he ended up sawing off his fingertips, which ended his anticipated career as a guitarist. Often equipment is

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

393

marketed and stays for sale until and unless a significant number of complaints are made with a consumer protection agency. Rigorous assurance that items that children may use or come into regular contact with are part of a CCHRPS.

16.4.3.3

Food and Water Safety

As children in Flint, Michigan or Jackson, Mississippi learned, their water is not safe to drink and can cause major long-term health problems. Lead, PFAS chemicals, arsenic, and other toxins can be in the water that we give children to drink and bathe. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, access to safe water for all Americans has been a stated U.S. government goal. Yet millions of children continue to face serious water quality problems because of contamination, deteriorating infrastructure, and inadequate treatment at water plants (Felton 2021). Children are often given sugary, high fat and salt content foods that are bad for their development and long-term health. Processed foods are linked to childhood obesity, which is associated with more children having chronic diseases (Lamotte 2022). While the nutrition criteria used by the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) has made some improvements in what 19 companies offer children to consume, “the initiative fails to meaningfully protect them from marketing of unhealthy food and beverages” according to FACTS 2022, a report by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut. Over one-third of food products that companies advertise to kids do not qualify as healthy, including sugary cereals, sweet snacks, and crackers. In addition, companies can advertise directly to children low-calorie drinks sweetened with sugar and/or non-nutritive sweeteners, even though child health experts recommend they should not be served to children. The report finds that CFBAI-participating companies still offer other unhealthy brands and products with marketing that appeals to children under 12 years old, via packaging, websites, in-store displays, and sponsorships. Further, children ages 12–17 do not receive any protection from marketing under current guidelines. CFBAI companies can still advertise brands directly to children, even when the majority of products offered by those brands do not meet CFBAI nutrition criteria. The report provides recommendations for the food and beverage industry to pursue in order to better protect children’s health. The question remains whether all food industries will prioritize children’s health enough to do so (Fleming-Milici and Harris 2022).

16.4.3.4

Social Media and Children’s Digital Protections

The social media industry has been under attack for not taking adequate steps to protect children. It is clear that children are also major consumers of internet and media accessed information, especially as they age. Most companies are smart enough to know that they better have some policy or statement that they are

394

16

Systems of US Child Protection

protecting children when they are online or accessing electronic/digital information. The question whether they go far enough in defending children’s rights to privacy and access to unseemly information is the issue. Facebook has a Child Safety site that is largely a set of procedures that anyone can benefit from to ensure online safety, but they report being active partners in reporting cases where children are being solicited for sex. There are thousands of websites that children may access that are collecting data about them, and sharing it with others. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) imposes certain requirements on operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13 years of age, and on operators of other websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information online from a child under 13 years of age. A federal bill has been submitted to require Facebook, Google, and other online platforms to step-up their child protection policies and practices (Feiner 2022). Despite these efforts, the industry reports it is hard to totally ensure child protection to sites or their data being distributed to others. These are just a few corporate issues that showcase the need for greater child protection, greater data collection, monitoring, and evaluation to determine best practices for the sake of the children. Companies are great at pointing out the wide array of financial, legal, and administrative challenges to do so. But what if children’s human rights were a driving factor in all the decisions they make? They would undoubtedly look and differently.

16.4.4

Global Protections

Children, no matter where they live, are a part of a global community. What happens in one part of the world directly or indirectly affects people in other parts. What companies do, or do not, influences people elsewhere, as does a nation’s laws or ethical positions. Below are just a few examples of why global protections must be considered as part of a comprehensive children’s human rights protection plan.

16.4.4.1

Climate Change

Climate change is a children’s human rights issue. UNICEF (2022a, b) developed the Children’s Climate Risk Index (CCRI), which uses data to generate global evidence on how many children are currently exposed to climate and environmental hazards, shocks and stresses. As a composite index, the CCRI brings together geographical data by analyzing exposure to climate and environmental hazards, shocks and stresses; and child vulnerability. The CCRI helps to understand and measure the likelihood of climate and environmental shocks or stresses leading to the erosion of development progress, the deepening of deprivation and/or humanitarian situations affecting children or vulnerable households and groups.

16.4

Towards a Comprehensive Child Protection System

16.4.4.2

395

Emergency and Humanitarian Protections

Given the increasing presence of environmental disasters, poverty, genocide, violence, and war, a global protection plan would benefit all children. UNICEF, the World Health Organization, Save the Children, the Red Cross, and other organizations, come forward to help during times of crises. Anticipating what crises could occur and preventing them is the first strategy; how to react in a proactive, rather than reactive way when they occur is recommended. Humanitarian responses are essential, but they must be coordinated. My research about well-intended humanitarian efforts indicates that places in crisis may have many donations or volunteers but they are poorly coordinated, resulting in some areas or peoples not being served while others have so much that it goes to waste. Financial donations may be essential but not given to the people or cause intended; allegations of financial corruption from organizational leaders is sorrowfully not rare. Refugees, unaccompanied youth, and asylum seekers who are fleeing adversity long to be protected. Shoving them back onto boats, planes, or vehicles to send them back to where they came from, or pushing them into situations that predispose them to be in harm’s way, are not human rights respecting actions. Children, as we have seen at the US Mexico border, may be used as pawns for larger political agendas. Allowing children to be collateral damage is far from the best interests of any child (Vissing and Leitao 2021). Humanitarian and emergency responses could be designed ahead of time to identify steps and procedures that would be in children’s best interests to reduce physical harm, emotional trauma, and social chaos that limits their access to foundational resources like healthcare, education, and family security.

16.4.4.3

Environmental Disasters and “Slow” Violence

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021) has developed an international team to study the impact of climate change on children’s human rights. Both direct and indirect dangers to children have been identified. A series of environmental catastrophes are occurring throughout the world as a reminder of what happens in one location has implications in others. In a movement known as “slow violence”, children are regularly exposed to toxins in food, air, and water, and exposed to environmental catastrophes and climate change. All of these can kill them—their destruction is slow and less visible, so they have received less attention as forms of violence until recently (Brewster 2020; Davies 2019). These too are forms of children’s rights violations to live in a healthy and sustainable world.

396

16.4.4.4

16

Systems of US Child Protection

Terrorism and War

Terrorism is a new form of war. War affects children in all the ways it affects adults, but also in different ways. Because children are dependent on the care, empathy, and attention of adults who love them, their attachments are disrupted in times of war, due to the loss of parents, preoccupation of parents in protecting and finding subsistence for the family, and emotional unavailability of depressed or distracted parents. Children who are unaccompanied, in orphanages, or substitute care seldom receive the same kind of care and attention that they would receive in their family. War impacts the life trajectory of children; they may experience bodily illness, injury or disability; traumas that linger in them long afterwards, they may be raped, prostituted, or otherwise sexually abused. Their spirits may be crushed; the way they view themselves and others are affected, as are the opportunities for their futures. Children may lose their community and its culture during war, sometimes having it reconstituted in refugee or diaspora situations. Terrorism is designed to make people feel terrified, and experiences of terror and survival paranoia may never depart, even long after the terrifying moment. Tens of thousands become child soldiers, which puts them into dangerous physical, emotional, social, sexual, and financial situations (Santa Barbara 2006a, b). It would seem that humankind would have learned enough about the terrible consequences of war and violence that we would be wise enough not to submit children to them, but from observing current social trends, one must say we obviously have not learned those lessons well enough to protect our babies and the future of the planet.

16.5

Summary

Protecting children is a community responsibility. The data is overwhelming about adverse effects of violence and why children need protections from it. Violence has been found to pose negative physical, cognitive, emotional, and social problems for a child. Anti-violence efforts can reduce youth victimization (CALCASA 2013; Child Trends 2016a, b, d; Cook 2011; Hazeldon Foundation 2016). While antiviolence programs show promising outcomes, the US has not demonstrated a national commitment to prevent violence or to create systematic protections for all children. This is observed in lack of gun control laws, justifications of child maltreatment, prevalence of corporal punishment, insufficient funding and availability of physical and mental health care, and lack of ombudsmen to access when they need help. This is due to ideological, political, religious views and is influenced by economic factors and the agendas of people in leadership positions. Violence is part of our history and replicated in new generations time after time; this legacy of the acceptability of violence is therefore very hard to change (Zolyniak 2022). Children are not being adequately protected—not at home, not in the community, and not in the courts. Admittedly, things are better for children than they have been

16.5

Summary

397

in the past, but it’s not enough. Looking globally at other countries with far less resource, they have been able to protect their children better. The most logical explanation for this is that they are using a different conceptual frame about how they look at children and their rights. The United Nations calls for systematic approach to child protection. Government is the primary duty-bearer to make sure that children’s rights are protected. Since we don’t have a national commitment for that in the US, there is no official duty-bearer. Institutions, organizations, and individuals who feel obligated may assume the role as duty-bearers, but few extend their role to attend comprehensively to children’s rights for protection. Services designed to protect children are fragmented, not tightly coordinated, and there are gaps where children’s protections are inadequately addressed. Over recent years there has been a growing recognition of the limitations of a fragmented approach to child protection, which traditionally focused on specific child protection issues (World Vision 2011). It is clear that there is no agreement about what child protection systems should look like, what they should deliver, and what types of protections they should offer to which children. The line between reasonable chastisement and abuse tends to be ill-defined. Unless we change the national frame about how we view young people, this isn’t going to change. Creation of a CCHRPS would benefit children tremendously. Steps for developing it and implementing it will be described in a future publication. The above information provides a sold starting point for governments, communities, organizations, and individuals to build upon in their construction of a children’s human rights framework. A children’s human rights conceptualization that has been committed to by governments and filters down into organizations, communities, and the individual levels. This is the direction we could fruitfully pursue to truly protect children—all children. We have a blueprint of how to build systems where all of our children are protected, at home, at school, in the community, and in justice proceedings. The problem isn’t the money, according to Einboden (2019). It is the child protection system itself that is problematic. We are using an outdated, reactive system that is badly in need of revision from a children’s human rights perspective. Our failure to be creative, use data to guide us, and frame child protection in a way that truly protected children is a symptom of a broader breakdown in high-quality governance (Thomson 2021). This is what has been proposed in its CCHRPS model. Now it has to be operationalized and implemented, if as a nation we commit to children and their rights to protection being a national priority. Clinical sociologists are equipped with the knowledge and skills to help.

Chapter 17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

Children are our most valuable natural resource. President Herbert Hoover

17.1

Introduction

President Hoover understood that a society depends upon its children. Participation is key to building a strong society. President John Kennedy encouraged us to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” and President George H. W. Bush encouraged both people and organizations to become points of light that help others. A well-functioning society cannot be built without a strong foundation. Children are our foundation. Learning how to participate meaningfully is therefore essential for children, and for society. Being the architect of how we wish to build own life is part of our rights as human beings. A children’s human rights framework holds that children must be healthy, well-educated, and have their basic needs met; they must be kept safe from harm and have their protection rights defended. Children will inevitably engage with the world on their own terms. The children’s rights framework encourages societies and adults to facilitate children’s positive participation through opportunities to learn, do, experience, ask questions, share ideas, listen to others and to be listened to in a respectful way. Learning how to have agency, to express oneself in a meaningful manner, and to participate decision-making is central to becoming an active citizen. There are over 60 million young people between the ages of 10 and 24 in the US today who are actively engaged in shaping their worlds, and ours. “As we think about the development and role of youth in our society, it is worth remembering that young people grow up in communities, not just community and youth development programs. From this perspective, perhaps the most salient question is this: What would our communities and our society look like if the collective vision, leadership, energy and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_17

399

400

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

talents of even a small percentage of all young people were directed toward community transformation?” (Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing 2003). It is important for us to understand the value and process of how children learn to use their agency. Rhetoric and reality collide around the issues of how much children should participate when it comes to supporting children’s rights. Apprehension over the consequences of the CRC is greatest around Article 12, which addresses children’s right to participate in society, as well as the benefits that might result from such a right (Lee 2017). Adult control of children’s participation may dictate the who, what, where, why, and how of how young people are “allowed” to express their agency. The CRC acknowledges that rights are designed to be developmentally appropriate; there are things that children should not participate in because it is not in their best interests (like viewing pornography or belonging to hate-groups). But where the lines are drawn about everyday involvement is where some adults may argue that children should not be entitled to participations that young people think they should.

17.2

Ways To Conceptualize Youth Participation

The word “participation” means different things to different people, depending upon their definition of the term and their perceived objectives of it. The lack of conceptual clarity means that when people are talking about youth participation, they may be looking at different dimensions of it (Participatory Methods 2021). Participation goes by different names, such as “agency” and also “engagement”. Participation is one of the 3Ps that are central components of child rights. It involves young people in decision-making processes on issues that affect or interest them. It refers to ideas of citizenship, personal development, and active involvement in society (Lister 2007). UNICEF defines youth participation as having two forms, active or passive. Active youth participation refers to engaging in actions that impact the processes, institutions and decisions that affect their daily lives. Passive youth participation refers to a more laissez-faire attitude where youth are willing to allow whatever happens to happen; they are not changing, challenging, or controlling the situation (Voices of Youth 2021). Active participation youth are do-ers; passive participation youth are done-to. Principles underpinning active youth participation include empowerment, engagement, and inclusiveness (Youth Affairs Council 2013). Empowerment refers to having greater control over their lives through participation, and inclusiveness ensures that all young people are able to participate. Youth participation includes things like being consulted about their ideas and opinions; the opportunity to research issues that affect their lives; planning or leading community activities or events; taking part in committees or action groups; starting organizations or groups; or having a meaningful role in decision-making bodies that are traditionally run by adults (Youth Affairs Council 2013).

17.2

Ways To Conceptualize Youth Participation

401

Participation of young people is a curious thing; on one hand they are encouraged to carpe diem, or seize the day, while on the other hand they are encouraged to stay in their place. Where that place is, though, is unclear. While research and literature in children’s participatory behaviors have increased, defining children’s participation is not straightforward. Children’s participation is deliberated at every level including its meaning, its importance, benefits, political and social application, and its implications (Fitzgerald 2009). It is practiced in different ways, places and spaces, with its meaning and interpretation varying according to its contexts (Lewis 2009). Child participation is thus an oft misunderstood concept. This may be because child development, as a part of psychology, has focused the bulk of research on child participation associated with play and peer socialization (Corsaro 2005). As social media and online learning have become more prevalent, examining youth participation online has become a more studied topic of investigation (Buckingham 2010). Youth are leaders in social movements, like the #March for Our Lives gun control protests. Their presence is everywhere, even if ignored or discounted. It’s important to remember that youth participation is an approach—not a ‘thing’ or a one-shot project (Holdsworth 2020). A youth rights participation approach supports a framework, a lifestyle, in which young people act, make their own decisions, and advocate for themselves rather than seeing them as passive objects. In its most general sense, participation refers to involvement in many levels of activities which are influenced by demographics, structures, roles, expectations and relationships within society at particular places and points in time. There may be group agency, such as the right of young people as a collective to vote or participating in youth councils, commissions or parliaments. Participation may occur at the individual level at home in decision-making or being asked by a judge which parent the child wants to live with in cases of divorce (Davis and Hill 2006).

17.2.1

Agency

The word for the active involvement of children seizing hammers and nails to build their life is “agency”. Youth agency is defined as the desire and ability of young people to make decisions and create change in their own lives and the world around them. Agency consists of believing in themselves as decision-makers and changeagents, knowledge of how to work effectively with others, and understanding the challenges and opportunities of the world around them and figuring out how to negotiate them. It pertains to a quality which enables a person to initiate intentional action in order to achieve goals. It enables a child to actively construct the experiences as an agent of experience rather than simply someone who undergoes an experience (Bandura 2001; Carpendale and Lewis 2006; Macfarlane and Cartmel 2008; Prout and James 1997). Agency can be viewed along a continuum that includes a child having no agency and unable to make choices; acting but being forced to act against their own will; having limited agency where they have minimal

402

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

choice; to where they have public agency where they can openly demonstrate their capacity and be involved in decision making and activity engagement. Children use their agency to interact with their world from the moment they are born. By having agency, they make decisions over their own lives, do paid and unpaid work, and make valuable contributions to their families and communities. Yet children are generally not allowed to participate in many of decisions that directly impact their lives. This is seen in their inability to vote, engage in legal contracts, or participate in government. Learning participation and how to act responsibly in a society isn’t a switch that gets turned on when someone turns age 18. Children become more responsible and active citizens when they are given opportunities to use their agency and make contributions to the well-being of others. But often, they are excluded from opportunities to do so. The International Youth Foundation’s Global Millennial Viewpoints Survey (2021) found that children want to be involved in their homes, communities and the world. They are not apathetic, lazy, or disinterested in social participation; quite the opposite is true. They care about equality, human rights, civic transparency, and socially responsible values. The survey also found that young people feel ill-equipped to transform their passion into meaningful social action. They want to change the world, but don’t know how. A central part of a social commitment to children’s human rights is helping them find ways to navigate the rapidly changing world around them, to learn to express themselves clearly, how to resolve conflicts peacefully, to help others, to have opportunities to lead and be creative and innovative. By engaging in the world around them, children become architects of their own futures. There is also what is called ‘secret’ agency, which is reflected in children’s resistance to adult control (Robeson et al. 2007). Secret agency is commonly used when children do things that they think adults won’t let them do. If they want to do things and figure they will be denied the right to do it, they may go out of their way to ensure that their parents don’t know about it. They may re-frame activities to be seen as more acceptable to adults. Sometimes children use their agency in frank rebellion and protest; adults may prefer to think of children being “bad” or “brainwashed” by others to explain acts of agency that are counter to their views of traditionally acceptable social norms.

17.2.2

Engagement

Agency manifest is engagement. The terms engagement or civic engagement encompass a wide range of actions, roles, and behaviors that youth can undertake. To be engaged means using their agency to participate meaningfully in their lives, which is as much of a right for children as it is for adults. Children, like adults, select issues that are relevant to them and take actions that may influence tangible outcomes. Children are diverse in how they look, how they think, and how they will negotiate situations they encounter. They will make decisions about voting, offer input into

17.2

Ways To Conceptualize Youth Participation

403

community decisions that affect them, help neighbors, belong to community organizations, participate in social movements, discuss social issues, or read the news. Children, like adults, make decisions about whether they will be an informed and engaged citizen (CIRCLE 2021). Engagement refers to working to make a difference in one’s community. It entails developing knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. Youth’s right to impact the quality of life in a community can be obtained through both political and non-political processes, paid and unpaid forms of political activism, advocacy, social justice, environmentalism, community and national service, and volunteerism (Youth.gov 2006). The four constructs of youth engagement include: civic action (volunteering or helping better the community); commitment or duty (willingness to make positive contributions to society); skills (advancing democracy or political action); and social cohesion (a sense of reciprocity, trust, and bonding with others). Together they are thought to empower youth with the building blocks for becoming democratic citizens.

17.2.3

Volunteerism

Children are often encouraged to volunteer as a way to engage or participate in their community and learn skills that will assist them in their development. Youth.gov (2006) sees it as an entry point into other forms of engagement, including employment. Research findings suggest that volunteering plays an important role in shaping how youth learn to interact with the community as they develop valuable skills, values and empowerment that will promote active citizenship. Most youth see volunteering as a way to help others and express their agency. Organizations like scouting, after-school clubs, sports teams, faith communities, museums, and a variety of others often offer young people the chance to “do good” for others. In the process of volunteering, they gain tools and learn interaction skills that will help them to assume positions of leadership. The services that they provide as young people have merit and value that is to be acknowledged, not diminished merely because they are young or not being paid. Acquiring an appreciation of altruistic behavior provides a launching pad for other acts of loving kindness to others. Volunteerism is shown to increase appreciation of a strong work ethic, voting behavior, leadership skills, and respect for others. Children tend to be quite altruistic to family, friends, neighbors, and community groups. Over a third of high-school students volunteer at organizations regularly and that number has increased over recent years, especially for college-bound youth. Data indicates that young people who are actively involved with altruistic civic activities are more likely to do well in school and less likely to become pregnant, use drugs or get into crime (Child Trends 2021). But there are human rights concerns about children’s volunteerism. One concern is that volunteerism exploits children’s altruism. In being free-labor, young people may be doing the same tasks as older people who are being paid. Children may be

404

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

asked to do jobs that adults don’t want to do. There are concerns that children may not be mentored properly and not learn beneficial skills when volunteering. Another concern reflects gender and social class inequality. Females tend to volunteer and engage in altruistic behavior more than young males, which reflects traditional gender socialization. Girls are often tracked into caregiving activities while boys do outside or physical labor volunteerism. Children whose parents are better educated tend to participate more than children whose parents did not obtain as much education. And then there is the issue of choice. Children, like adults, have a right to decide whether to volunteer or not. Adults choose whether to volunteer or not without stigma, but if youth refuse to volunteer or prefer to spend their time pursuing their own interests they may be negatively stereotyped (Ho and O’Donohoe 2014).

17.3

History’s Mixed Message About Child Agency

Regarding children as powerless or powerful is nothing new. History shows us that some children were seen to be equal to adults, to have power, agency, the ability to make influential decisions that even adults couldn’t make. Some were designated rulers of their countries, such as Tutankhamun: 1341–1323 BCE, who was age 9 when crowned King of Egypt, Henry VI of England who was crowed at 8 months of age, Alfonso XIII of Spain who was crowned king at age 16, Mary Queen of Scots, was only 6 days old when crowed, King Baldwin IV saved Jerusalem from capture at the age of 16, 12-year-old Pharaoh Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator (brother or Cleopatra) had Roman leader Pompey assassinated in an attempt to impress Julius Caesar; 5-year-old Fulin, the Shunzhi Emperor or China’s Qing Dynasty who was 3 when crowed. Other child leaders included Roman emperor Elagabalus, who took power at age 15, Ivan the Terrible of Russia, Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire, Benedict IX (who became pope in 1032 at age 12), Queen Isabella of Spain, Queen Christina of Sweden, Chinese emperor Puyi, King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, and King Simeon Saxecoburggotski of Bulgaria (Andrews 2018; Praderio 2017; White 2015a, b, c). The number of young people who have changed history are countless; all of us change history in some way. Most young people make contributions that get forgotten. We know that in 1212, the Children’s Crusades mobilized thousands of children 8-years-old and older to march across Europe from France and Germany to recapture the Holy Land for Christianity. They were not led by adults, but by boys, Stephen of Cloyes in France and Nicholas from Cologne, both 12 years of age. A petition for better school discipline was presented to the English Parliament in 1669 by a boy believed to be linked with the Levellers, a group associated with ideas of social equality (Ennew 2000a, b). Some have received more notoriety than others. These include Ulysses S. Grant who, as an 11-year-old, was in charge of his father’s fields and explored his rural Ohio countryside on his own, Anne Frank of Germany, children who participated in the Children’s March of the US Civil Rights Movement, the Greensboro sit-ins of

17.3

History’s Mixed Message About Child Agency

405

the 196 s, Joan of Arc, chess master Bobby Fischer, Louis Braille who developed a language for people who were blind, civil rights activists Collette Colvin and Barbara Johns, Chinese youth activists at Tiananmen Square in China, 10-year-old Samantha Reed-Smith of Maine who advocated for nuclear disarmament between the US and Soviet Union, 12-year-old Iqbal Masih, anti-child labor and slavery activists from Pakistan, Nkosi Johnson, a 12-year-old AIDS activist, film-maker and girls education activist Zuriel Oduwole, Mala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the Parkland Florida anti-gun movement highs school activists of the 2000s, or teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg (Blumburg n.d., Fass 2016; Shutterstock 2020). What they all have in common is society’s tendency to undervalue their contributions unless they are recognized as doing something great from an adult perspective. Adults don’t treat child fighters as heroes and prefer to pathologize them as disturbed or traumatized victims. Children may be permitted to make history, but they are excluded from making policy. The CRC provides an approach that regards children subjects of rights with their own perspectives. They are not seen as passive objects of concern or victims but that beings who make important contributions to society (Duhn 2018). Reconsidering how children’s participation was framed throughout history, as well as in contemporary society, makes us face the conundrum about the role of children’s involvement. When considering the directions of children’s human rights participation, it’s useful to look back at what we have allowed them to do in the past, and then how to learn from those past actions on how to move forward and advance opportunities for young people to participate meaningfully in their communities and lives (McMellon and Tisdall 2020). While children have always been participating in their families and communities, studying children’s participation is a relatively novel concept. From an historical point of view, the movement of researchers to study youth participation has been slow in arriving as child participation is seen as somewhat avant garde (James 2017) even though they have been “hidden in plain sight” (Woodhouse 2008). Scholars who study children’s rights are typically supporters of human rights themselves, thus tending to advocate participation (Quennerstedt 2013). Children’s participation has been muted as the promotion of participation has become a “moral crusade” (Nicholson 2023) or a taken-for-granted “mantra” (Tisdall and Punch 2012:251). It remains an underexplored area, in the context of participatory conflict resolution strategies in schools (Zak-doron 2021). This lacuna is troubling, as many schools worldwide currently seek alternative disciplinary policies in light of a growing disappointment in traditional punitive approaches (Kupchik and Catlaw 2015). Whereas some studies have addressed participatory disciplinary methods, including peer mediation (Philipson 2012) restorative practices (Morrison and Vaanderin 2012), and youth courts (Cole and Heilig 2010), research on children’s participation in disciplinary committees of democratic schools remains scarce (Prud’homme 2012).

406

17.4

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

The Child as Citizen Tension

Participating in society is a key aspect of citizenship, but are children considered citizens or not? (Bhabha 2003). As pointed out earlier, there is disagreement about this because children are not legally entitled to the same rights and privileges as older people. While there is a birthright citizenship mandate in the 14th Amendment, meaning any child born in the US is to be considered a US citizen, this has not always been the case. . Children born to slaves were not regarded as citizens because they were of African descent (Blakemore 2015). Refugee children and “anchor babies” citizenship focuses on the state’s authority to give, or deny, children rights. By not providing children citizenship, it ensures the perpetuation of their inequality (Shachar 2003, 2009). Harvard University (2021) created the Children are Citizens Project because there have been common beliefs that children are citizens-in-waiting or future-citizens, rather than citizens here-and-now-at this-moment. In reviewing a middle school social studies textbook, the Center for Civic Education’s We The People: Citizenship and the Constitution (1998) teaches students that one of the most important rights of citizenship is the right to participate in governing our nation and participating in the decision making of our society and lives. While their curriculum provides examples of ways that citizens can participate in society, almost all of them are adult-focused—being a juror, running for office, voting, or serving in the military. Its emphasis on participatory citizenship is on the child “becoming”—not on the child “being”. This trend tends to be the norm. Theories define citizenship as a status enjoyed by a person who is a full member of the community. James (2008:31)( define citizenship as ‘a status that is given members of a community who share those rights, responsibilities, duties and adopt those social practices that are intrinsic to belonging to and being a responsible member of that community and who, in return, share in the resources that are distributed within that community’ If children are not allowed to participate in major social institutions in a meaningful manner, what does this say about their status as full citizens? James (2008) indicate that defining citizenship is far from easy and heavily contested since different social and political interests hold competing views on what constitutes a citizen. Participation and citizenship debates include conversations about inclusion and exclusion, independence, maturity, competence and belonging. The notion of children as citizens is still quite heavily contested. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that children began to be conceived of as citizens; prior to then children were seen as dependent on adults and thus having no political rights. They were, rather, regarded as ‘citizens in waiting’ (Marshall 1950). What does it mean for children to be considered citizens in today’s context? The field of Childhood and Youth Studies tend to define citizenship as an entitlement to recognition, respect and participation that entails belonging to a society, meaningful interactions within it, being heard and taken notice of, engaging, and having obligations and rights (Nakata 2015; Taylor and Smith 2009). Implicit in this definition of citizenship is a sense of togetherness, connectedness and a sharing of common interests. Participation relies upon respect for interdependence between

17.5

The Child Participation Conundrum

407

adults and children (Morrow 2011). The concept of the evolving capacities of the child and the obligation to provide guidance and direction consistent with these evolving capacities has far reaching implications. It recognizes that relationships between parents and adults will change as children grow. Focusing on capacity rather than age as the determinant in the exercise of human rights participation can be quite useful. Yet there remain plenty of adults who question whether children should have equal status to citizenship, participatory behaviors, or use of agency. What is the appropriate balance between protecting children and encouraging them to make their own decisions? These boundaries aren’t clear. Research could help us to better understand the capacities of children to exercise rights for themselves. Use of cross-cultural studies may help us to learn how differently children demonstrate capacity according to the world in which they live. Sorting answers to these issues is important so we can create appropriate policies and frameworks to protect and respect children’s rights and well-being (Lansdown 2005a, b).

17.5

The Child Participation Conundrum

Child participation is one of the most contentious areas of children’s human rights because it is commonly misunderstood (Percy-Smith 2023). Simply, if children have rights, it doesn’t take away or diminish the rights of others. If children wish to participate in decisions over their lives or use their agency, it does not mean that they are going to make poor decisions or do bad things. When children engage their participatory rights, it doesn’t mean that adults who care about them are no longer able to exert influence. I have interviewed many parents and teachers who are concerned that if children know they have rights, then adults will lose their ability to guide, protect, and help them. This is all untrue. Adults are given the right to participate in most any arena they want, but children’s participation in the US has typically been parceled out into specific ways and activities. Adults speak with their own voice in a variety of institutions and formats, but children are not afforded such capabilities (Schapiro 1999). But anyone who knows children knows that they have opinions on most things, opinions they gladly share when given the opportunity to do so. Viewing children as incapable strips away any essence of self-determinism or agency that they may hold. Children do have attitudes; sometimes they parrot those of adults around them, but often they speak their authentic selves. As Woodhouse (2008:1) quotes a 13-year-old foster child, “Ain’t I a person? Ain’t I got rights?” Allowing young people to have a voice is important in today’s world. So is helping them to figure out what they think, why they think it, and how to voice and use it well. If we believe that a child has agency, we may empower them to engage in routine activities and decision-making; if we believe they don’t, then we won’t. Are children viewed as passive objects to be done-to, as opposed to being do-ers? Often, we send children mixed messages about their use of agency. On one hand, we teach children

408

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

to get out there, do something, and seize the world. We tell them to think for themselves and that they have the power to chart their own destiny. They are encouraged to volunteer and do things for others and we provide them with accolades and attention when they do something exceptionally fine. If positive reinforcement doesn’t work, adults employ negative sanctions to motivate action. We admonish them for being lazy and chastise them for not cleaning their rooms or playing video games when they could be doing something “constructive”. Children are pushed to succeed, to be all that they can be. Many children are exposed to an overwhelming smorgasbord of activities from sports to the arts to academic specialties or civic organizations in hopes that they will find something that inspires them to invest themselves. If they don’t, children may be viewed as failures for not applying themselves. On the other hand, we give them a contradictory message that reinforces disempowerment. Adults tell young people to sit down, shut up, not to talk back, do what they are told, don’t speak unless spoken to, not to be uppity or pushy, all because “I said so” or “I’m the Mommy, that’s why” (Smith 2016). Children are discouraged to act without asking for permission, and if they take it upon themselves to do something (especially if results don’t turn out well), they are chastised with statements like “who told you that you could do that?”, “who do you think you are, anyway?” and “who gave you the right to do that?” Ah, that’s the bottom-line issue—do they have the right to act on their own accord or not? Knowing your place, and socially-imposed limitations, is important in order to survive childhood. While they may be encouraged to climb the ladder of success, young people are discouraged from climbing too high too fast. If children are viewed as defective or impaired in some way, adults may wade in to “help” them and limit their participation by keeping them safe. While some children indeed may not be able to help themselves, often they are able to do more than adults may think if given a chance. Promoting young people’s agency is like walking a tightrope with a blindfold on— it’s hard to figure out how to navigate to help children to negotiate the world on their own terms. Youth need to be helped or shown the way so they can do it by themselves later on—but in the process of doing so, they may feel disempowered. Even well-intended, caring adults may send children conflicting messages about their ability. Adults decide when and where young people will participate, and where is off-limits. Adults use children to promote their own agendas. Woollcombe (1998) found that child welfare circles over the past two decades have showcased children to make it appear that children are a priority in their work. They may have youth representatives on councils; hold conferences about children, or quasi-political forums such as children’s parliaments or legislative bodies at the local, state or national level. But children’s participation tends to occur through adult selection rather their own volition. Children may be trotted out to sing a song, show their art, or be given a platform to speak about certain topics, but the depth of their participation may be only surface-level. Often children’s voices will be heard in limited venues where they can be applauded by a select group of adults. Children may be shown as recipients of adult investment rather than for utilizing their own agency in

17.5

The Child Participation Conundrum

409

their own self-directed ways. Children’s “successes” may be showcased by organizations as promotional advertisements or fundraising strategies for the organization. In these cases, the line between supporting their participation or using children in ways that exploit them may be thin indeed. Conversely, pictures of poor or hungry children may be used by organizations to generate donations; whether those children receive the aid is another issue. It is important to realize that visibility does not equal participation (Woollcombe 1998). In some ways, organizations that promote themselves to be attentive to child rights is trendy. Donors or clients may prefer to do business with organizations that promote themselves to be child-rights inclusive. But do they carry forth the full range of what it means to defend children’s human rights? Context matters: income disparity, racial segregation, education level, political polarization, and the work of nonprofits—among many others—make up the “civic ecosystem” in which youth do or do not have the opportunities to participate in civic and democratic life, or to build the knowledge, skills, and understandings necessary to do so. At the same time, research has shown that communities where young people vote, volunteer, help their neighbors, and belong to groups or associations can be more prosperous and resilient places (CIRCLE 2021). At this point, there is little evidence that the views of young people have had any effect on policy making. Thus, the promotion of child rights continues to be the disguised under the promotion of adult actions. This will be the case as long as adults fail to take into consideration their fundamental duties under Articles 12, 13 and 15 of the CRC and invite children to the tables at which policies are decided and evaluated, facilitating debates in which children can take their meaningful and rightful places (Ennew 2000a, b). This may be a harsh criticism of organizations that promote children’s rights. From my interviews with the administrators of many organizations, this does tend to be a valid criticism. On the other hand, even a faux-presentation of children having rights at least brings the issue of children’s rights to the forefront. When children are invisible, their rights issue becomes invisible as well. It could be that tip-toeing children’s involvement as participants in organizations is part of an evolutionary process leading towards full engagement. The notion of scaffolding participation and rights is endemic to the field of children’s human rights.

17.5.1

Children as Decision Makers

The question of whether children should be decision-makers can be a challenging one to reconcile. Children made decisions every minute of every day for their entire lives—to not view them as decision-makers is nonsensical. How to help children to make good decisions is an important skill. The fact is that parents and adults are not always good decision-making role-models. They may drive their automobiles over the speed limit, drink alcohol or do drugs to excess, lose their tempers and say or do mean things, break the law, or fail to do what they promised. Children may make

410

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

poor choices on occasion because they are young and do not yet know the rules of normal social behavior or understand the implications for violating them. Children’s decision-making is typically scaffolded; toddlers may be asked if they prefer macaroni and cheese of pizza for dinner or what book they would like to read before bedtime. As children get older, they are given more opportunities for other kinds of decision-making. The problem is, most government bodies, schools, or organizations do not have ways for children to meaningfully participate or provide input into decisions. Buildings are constructed without child-sized toilets or water fountains; curfew laws are made without understanding that some children have to work and be on the road at those hours and are not doing anything illegal or wrong; social service organizations put up application procedures that make it impossible for children to utilize. The list goes on. What if youth decision-making was integrated into all decision-making bodies and normalized, with child input being regarded as valuable—not just as windowdressing that makes the organization look good without providing real substance to the youth? Normalizing children’s involvement could have a significant impact on attitudes of others. They may also change the outcomes of decisions. Those directions may be more beneficial to young people in the long run, and probably to the rest of society as well. As demographic trends point to an increasingly youthful population, figuring out how to encourage their participation in meaningful ways will become even more important for sustaining a democracy and human rights.

17.6

Participation and Play as Children’s Human Right

Play is explicitly recognized as a human right in Article 31 of the UNCRC, which declares that children have the right to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities that are ability and age-appropriate. They are entitled to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. Adults are to respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activities. But does this happen? Recess in school has been cut or eliminated in some schools to make time for academics; even at home, children may be chastised for “doing nothing” (Entin 2011; Reilly 2017; Tomar 2018). Why hasn’t play been regarded as one of children’s rights and a priority to protect for our young citizens? Our history chapter reminded us worldwide children have often been expected to work. Functionalists like Herbert Spencer regarded play as only useful to burn off excess energy since children were supposed to be working and complying with social rules. The same sentiment exists today as well, where young people who spend time playing games on their computers, tablets, phones or hand-held devices may be criticized by adults who believe they should be engaged in money or career-producing endeavors. Adults may push an agenda that makes play take a back-seat to success, even for toddlers. Play is so

17.6

Participation and Play as Children’s Human Right

411

important to optimal child development that it’s recognized by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights as a right of every child in the world. Experts on play plead for children to spend more time outside in spaces where they can freely manipulate their environment and use their own creativity and ingenuity. Children are less likely to play outdoors and when they do, it’s for shorter periods of time. Studies indicate that children around the world are spending less time outside and this impacts their relationship with each other and with the environment (Gray 2011; Hofferth and Jankuniene 2001). A United Kingdom study found three-quarters of children spend less time outdoors than do inmates in prison (Carrington 2016). A Nature Conservancy (2016) study found 75% of children reported not liking to be outside because of bugs and heat; two-thirds didn’t have access to natural areas. Children who did are twice as likely to prefer spending time outdoors and care about environmental issues. Type of play, then, directly impacts what children know, what they do, and how they think about themselves, the world and each other. While safety is a concern, experts encourage adults to back-off and allow children more freedom to be unsupervised in their interactions and explorations. They find that adults do a disservice to children’s agency by directing every aspect of their lives. They also discourage overscheduling children. Many parents have every waking minute of every day scheduled for children so they have no down-time to relax or reflect (Chudacoff 2008; Frost 2010). Children have a right to decide if or what they want to play. Adults may push their own recreational interests on children in the adultification of children’s play. Consumer trends find that adult play is a huge market (Illuminas 2021; Mintel 2016). Many parents live through their children and encourage them to participate in activities that they, not necessarily the children, are interested in. Children comply with parent directives because of pressure, but also because playing what their parents want them to do gives them time to spend with their parents. Young children may engage in skiing, racing cars, fashion modeling, or horse showing, not because they like it that much, but because they see it as a way to connect with their parents (Eime et al. 2013; Lakman 2015; Voight 2014). In another version of the adultification of play, children learn what older people do have more status than of younger children. Examples of adultification of children’s worlds are everywhere, from candy-cigarettes to toddler cell-phones to easy-bake ovens to video games designed to promote fashion or driving cars. Children are sold sexualized products, from bras for young girls to toy-razors for little boys. Adultification of play and products are examples of children’s value associated with “becoming” or “doing”, as opposed to their “being”. Adult control of children’s play denies them of opportunities to participate in agency-promoting activities that are vital for their development. Parents tend to orchestrate who can be their children’s friends, where they can go and what they can do. Historically, children had more freedom to pursue their lives, relationships and play; today children who are “free range” and not supervised every second of every day may be considered neglected and at-risk, which ups the ante for parental control (Joyce 2015). Parents who try to live out their lives through those of their children isn’t a new concept (Brummelman et al. 2013; Pappas 2013). It’s observable at

412

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

sports events where adults get so riled up at the youthful players, coaches, or parents that they become verbally and physically assaultive. Some child sports programs now require parents to sign a behavior contract before they can attend events because so many parents misbehave (Heinzmann 2016). When children are young, parents control their play and social networks, but as they age children want more control over the way they spend their time and who they spend it with. Play is an expression of freedom in which one does what one wants to do as opposed to what one is obliged to do. Play is self-chosen and self-directed. Players are able to quit when they want (Gray 2018). During play children experience joy and learn skills transferable to other aspects of our lives, like interacting as a team, problem-solving, learning good communication skills and being creative. It helps children increase their creativity, imaginations, dexterity, physical, cognitive, and emotional aptitudes. It gives opportunities to explore our own interests, gain competence and mastery and connect with others. Play contributes to children’s cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being (Sluss and Jarrett 2007; White 2015a, b, c). While playing with others, we learn how to work together, identify mutually shared goals, follow rules, negotiate, solve problems, gain mastery, make decisions and learn self-control and figure out how to resolve differences. Vygotsky (1978) found that the child’s desire to play is so strong that it becomes a motivating force for learning self-control. It helps us to learn restraint and anger-management, which are valuable interpersonal skills. Play helps us to make friendships and treat others as equals. Engaged play helps children emotionally regulate, to be in control of their own fates and not be dependent upon others to orchestrate their lives. Children who feel they have control over their lives tend to experience less stress, anxiety and depression as a result, which are important long-term consequences (Burdette and Whitaker 2005; Chudacoff 2008; Ginsberg 2007; Gray 2011; Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Sternheimer 2010; UNICEF 2013; 2016a, b, c) studied the dynamics of how young children build relationships and finds their processes are quite complex. They replicate many of the adult messages, values and expectations as they socially construct their relationships, which reinforces the need for adults to role model rights-respecting behavior. Play and recreation are essential for children’s well-being and development, yet are often perceived by adults and schools as a waste of non-productive time. Reports emphasize the leisure is important for everyone, and that creativity and sociability are greater when children have opportunities to work and play with others (Beideman 2021; Hadani and Vey 2020). Thus, while children have a right to play, and while play is very good for them, their right to choose the dynamics associated with play appear to have been co-opted by both parents and commercial industries. While lamenting “the good ole days” of play, efforts would be better spent trying to figure out how to protect children’s right to play and participation in this new technological age.

17.7

17.7

Research About Youth Participation

413

Research About Youth Participation

Child and youth participation rights is of pragmatic importance but youth have not been recruited as active participants in policies, practices, or research itself. Young people may not even be allowed to participate in research about youth participation without adult consent. Civic engagement research has traditionally focused on adult participation, not that of children. This stems from the view that children are often valued for what they will become, not for what they are now. They ARE participating in their communities, but their contributions have often been devalued and not studied as a result. As the topic of inequality has grown in recent years, and as the importance of child rights—both for the present and future of children—has become more front-and-center, civic engagement and research on young people’s participation is increasing (Levine 2018; Tisdall 2017). Research conducted at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE 2021) found that youth actively participate when they have opportunities and are asked, but such opportunities are missing in many communities. Places where civic engagement is absent or hard-to-access are called civic deserts. Youth in suburban and urban areas may perceive that no organizations would want them to participate. Young people may not identify places where they could address local issues. These perceptions are twice as common for youth living in rural areas. Rural areas may have fewer places to participate, such as religious congregations, nonprofits, or cultural institutions, and the distance to them may be prohibitive, especially where there are no mass transportation systems available (Levine 2018). Child Trends (Zaff 2002) examined 60 studies of youth and civic engagement and were struck by the dearth of high-quality, rigorous research on civic engagement among youth. The methodologically best studies suggested that young people who are involved in civic engagement programs are likely to be more involved in school, graduate from high school, hold more positive civic attitudes and avoid teen pregnancy and drug use than those who are not. Studies show that teens who take part in civic activities during high school or participate in an extracurricular activity are more likely to engage in these activities in adulthood. Evidence suggests that teens’ participation in civic activities can result in benefits not only for teens but for their parents as well by boosting their civic knowledge and involvement. A national study on civic and political health found that only 7% of 15–25-yearold people in the US participated in ten or more political or civic activities in the past year. When compared to their peers who report no civic engagement activities, young participants were more likely to be African-American, urban, attend church regularly, from a family with parents who volunteer, a student in college or high school, and from college-educated home (Youth.gov 2006). Families who encourage their children’s civic participation are more likely to have children who engage. Research from CIRCLE indicates that opportunities to participate in civic activities are both social and economic. Students who attend well-resourced school are more likely to have greater advantages to engage in community participatory activities

414

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

than are students who are in poor schools and communities, where civic deserts are likely to be more common (Levine 2018). There is a changing view of youth that supports greater rights for children to access employment, education, economic support, and civic life (Mizen 2004). Oswell (2013) encourages us to examine how children use their agency in the family, school, criminal justice, or healthcare. How much do young people participate in which institutions doing what kinds of activity? We don’t really know. We may hear about those who are super-involved or those who have totally disengaged, but there is a large middle group that we know little about. We also don’t know what are the most effective strategies and actions for promoting respect for children’s capacities to exercise their rights while providing appropriate levels of protection (Lansdown 2005a, b). Studies of agency in young females have been less prevalent than studies of young male empowerment, participation and agency (Becker 2020), which reflects gender stereotype bias in which males are more likely to be expected than females to be active in their communities and organizations. Perhaps it is time to rethink the definition of participation from a young person’s point of view. Whereas adults often perceive of participation within organizations, civic groups, volunteerism, or community engagement, children may view their participation differently. Computer geeks, nerds, bullies may be participating in peer and social groups; gangs may as well, as are video gamers. Participatiang at home in the care of their siblings or other family members may be seen as engaging with others and helping them. The virual world has opened up and like adults who have real and meaningful relationships with others that they maybe have never physically met, and never will, children can engage in multiple online participation activities. They are real; they are not pretend or illusory. The issue that researchers have been remiss to focus on the rights of children to be studied about their participation is important. If we are always getting data from adult about the lives of children, we can’t truly know why and how they choose to participate, or why they don’t. Children have a right to participate—or not to.

17.8

Demographic Factors Impacting Youth Participation

Children’s ability to act on their own behalf, or as part of a social group, is impacted by their demographics, the way they are perceived, and the way social institutions are structured to encourage, or discourage, their involvement. We must remember that childhood is a structured form of social exclusion for children (Buckingham 2010). Childhood, as it normally conceived, is actively disempowering for children and excludes them from participation and decision-making in many areas of life. The attempt to exclude them can be observed with adults trying to control their sexuality, the relationships, their social and political involvement. Their exclusion is achieved with active complicity of children themselves as they give up rights (that they often don’t know they could have) to a monolithic form of adult power. But social exclusion is also regarded to be an imprecise term (Arthurson and Jacobs 2003;

17.9

Scaffolded Models of Youth Participation

415

Jones and Smythe 1999). The fuzziness of its definition makes it hard to prove; children may feel excluded but adults, who are more likely to be in the authoritymaking position of legitimizing labels have the power to disagree (White and Wyn 2008). Cultural, gender, racial, and other characteristics impact how children are able to craft their behavior. Within the context of social structures, relationships, and available resources, children experience differential opportunities that influence their degree of participation and use of agency. Participation in social institutions is not equal; it depends largely on who the child is perceived to be and to what degree the child is able to employ her or his agency. Children who have much support and opportunity will experience lives that assume different trajectories than for young people who don’t. Depending on where children live and who they are, there is widespread difference in how we regard children’s competence and agency to care for themselves, make decisions, participate in social practices, or use knives, guns, or engage in behaviors like sexual intimacy (Chen and French 2008; Goncu and Cannella 1996; Mosier and Rogoff 2003). Because the value of children is often seen to lie in their futures when they become adults, it’s easy not to give them opportunities or discount their works of today as not really meaningful. “The condition of childhood is one in which the agent is not yet in a position to speak in her own voice because there is no voice which counts as hers” (Schapiro 1999:729). Farson (1978) argues that young people are the most oppressed, discriminated against group in society—segregated, ignored, and impotent. To remedy this social hypocrisy, he proposes that children, regardless of age, be endowed with full rights of citizenship, given the right to vote, ability to make binding agreements, sign mortgages and obtain credit, and the right of equal pay for equal work. Understanding what we believe—and why we believe it—is useful for us to consider.

17.9

Scaffolded Models of Youth Participation

Models of youth participation have been developed to analyze whether children need to engage in certain behaviors before they can have the right to engage in more authoritative ones (Corney et al. 2020; Morrow 2011). The Hart Ladder of Youth Participation, Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation, the Act for Youth Engagement Model, and a Longitudinal Model of Youth Engagement are mainstream youth participation models. Also are Harry Shier’s (2001) work on participation pathways, Treseder’s (1997) degrees of participation, as well as the work by Wong et al. (2010), which has built on Shier’s work to create a typology of youth participation, and Anderson’s (2017) Pedagogical Participation Model.

416

17.9.1

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

Hart’s Ladder of Youth Participation

One of the most well-known models of youth participation comes from Roger Hart (1997). His Youth Participation Ladder is based on a belief that youth participation is a fundamental right of young people as citizens, and it is an integral part of democracy. His model assumes that the health of a nation can be measured by the way it involves children; democratic participation must be taught at an early age so that it is a natural part of children’s lives as they age and become adult. Hart focuses on the importance of youth as decision-makers in his 8-rung ladder of participation model. The first three steps represent non-participation, where young people have no real understanding of the issues, are manipulated, used as decorations, and are only engaged in a very superficial, token level of involvement. The next five steps lead toward genuine participation, where young people design and manage their own initiatives and share these decisions with adults. This represents a level of empowerment where young people are using their full capacity to engage meaningfully in decision-making about important issues. His ladder deals with the life of children and young people in the public domain, youth groups, schools, community groups, youth councils, etc. all of which are outside of and beyond the family. It could be argued that it is both inspirational and aspirational.

17.9.2

Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

Sherry Arnstein (1971) created the original iteration of child participation. She argued that citizens have different ways that they may participate in a society. Her ladder has eight steps, each representing a different level of participation that explain the extent of citizen participation and how much real power citizens have to determine the process and outcomes. At the bottom of the ladder lay forms of non-participation are used by powerful actors (such as adults) to impose their agendas. Participation as tokenism occurs when youth hear about interventions and say something about them, which power holders denote as ‘input’. Adults can say youth participated, but they were not engaged or use their agency to pursue the participation. As a result, the voices of young people will not have any meaningful impact; if change occurs, it will be because adults directed it, not inspired by the youth themselves. Toward the top of Arnstein’s ladder are rungs that empower citizens to have increased power and to inspire change by those in charge. At these higher levels, youth will have their voices heard and those in charge will have to respond to them in some way. She conceived it as a tool for citizen involvement in decision-making in the era of citizenry involvement surrounding the Vietnam war, Civil rights Movement, and assignation of about 20 years before Hart developed his model. Her model offers “citizen participation is citizen power” critique of the political engagement process during an era of citizens questioning

17.9

Scaffolded Models of Youth Participation

417

their country’s involvement in the Vietnam war, the challenge of the Civil Rights Movement and the assassination Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and John and Robert Kennedy. Arnstein locates her theory around a stated declaration that citizen participation is citizen power and her model helps participants to identify who has power when important decisions are being made and how to share and redistribute power.

17.9.3

The Act for Youth Engagement Model

The Coalition for Youth in Virginia developed a youth engagement model that identifies three levels of organizational participation by young people (ACT for Youth 2021). At the project level, youth can choose to participate in a wide range of activities working with others and community groups. There are more opportunities for engagement at the project level and it proves to be an appropriate entry-level way for adolescents. They list engagements such as mentoring, peer educators, community service, or getting involved in theatre groups. These opportunities allow them to develop skills, learn more about the community and agency, and develop a sense of competency. Guided and supervised by adults, these projects are action-oriented, focused, and may show results quickly. At the next level, youth have more opportunities to use their agency, voice and undertake more expressive forms of participation. They discuss advocacy, consultation, and can give input in ways that may shape what organizations do. At the top level, youth are able to share decisionmaking with adults and assume leadership positions. They are able to be more vocal about what they think and more engaged or powerful in what they can do. They could make decisions about policy, hiring staff, raising and spending money, and develop skills to help advance organizational goals. Youth are able to be fully engaged in a wide array of leadership opportunities. But there are fewer positions available for children than at the project level. This model holds that children must earn their right to assume leadership positions by gaining and demonstrating skills.

17.9.4

Other Models

Many other authors have contributed models about youth participation that are worthy of note. These include Harry Shier’s (2001) work on participation pathways and work by Wong et al. (2010), which built on Shier’s work to create a typology of youth participation. Shire’s model embraced a child rights perspective by asserting that children are to be listened to, supported in expressing their views, have their views considered, and involve them in decision-making processes and sharing power and responsibility. Jules Pretty’s typology is another demonstration of how youth participation process is progressive, moving through discrete stages from tokenism to independent action: Phil Treseder’s (1997) model revisions Hart’s ladder into five Degrees of Participation; he moves away from the ladder metaphor

418

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

to suggest that there may be a linear or hierarchical sequence of steps that it is necessary to follow in order engage in true partnership decision-making. Anderson’s (2017) provides a Pedagogical Participation Model that also contributes to the field. De Backer and Jans (2002) allege that there are three fundamental aspects that comprise a triangle of participation for young people: Challenge, Capacity and Connection. In order for young people to actively participate in society, these three dimensions need to be clear, understood and communicated so that youth can be in a position to fully participate.

17.9.5

Longitudinal Model of Youth Engagement

When we view childhood across a longitudinal span and consider the many dimensions of how children’s lives unfold, it’s clear that some children have more agency and opportunities to engage in participatory actions. Young people’s social participation is far more than a biological transition from childhood to adulthood. It does not follow a linear transition. Some decisions and actions are beyond the capacity of children to make at certain points of time. Making good decisions and learning from mistakes takes time and experience and children naturally need assistance in the process. The issue to be explored here is how to honor the child’s capacity and agency at whatever their age and ability. A 3-year-old will have different capacity and ability than a 13-year-old. A child with special needs or is cognitively challenged will have a different capacity and ability than a child who was blessed with many resources. The focus on agency means that children of whatever age and ability are encouraged to employ as much self-direction as appropriately possible, for it helps them in both the short-term and long-run. The term used for this is evolving capacity, as children use building-blocks of the past to construct today’s realities and tomorrow’s possibilities.

17.9.6

Generational Trend Model

The world of children has changed and they have different expectations for what is attractive and engaging than they did in the past (White and Wyn 2008). Young people have been socialized to have a sense of greater agency, which has resulted in more young people, especially females, going to college and pursuing professional and lucrative positions. Young people may not expect that they will marry or have children at a young age, if at all. More young people are traveling, seeing the world, working, and gaining a broader sense of the world than did their parents and grandparents, and this is true within the United States as well as on a global level (Furlong 2012). What it means to be a child, what it means to be an adult, and how each are “supposed” to act is in global flux. The meanings young people attribute to what’s attractive, education, work, and relationships may not conform to older

17.10

Child Participation in Communities

419

patterns and meanings. Their views will be carried into the future to be part of an ever-changing social and participatory landscape. The issue of social change impacts how we conceptualize children, especially those who are in the 12–17 year –old-category. Many young people have maturelooking bodies, they may have sophisticated ways of interacting, and may be quite accomplished in certain tasks. They could be seen as a threat to adults and the traditional domains of adulthood. It may be perplexing to view them as children, as they appear more adult-like in many ways. “Young people forge their identities through active engagement with the local and global realities they find, and hence make sense of new social realities in ways that are different from the ways of older generations” (White and Wyn 2008:4). Social pathways have also changed; the Youth Research Centre’s Life-Patterns research program (Wyn et al. 2008) found that young people post-1970 saw life unfolding differently than their parents who tended to have the same home and job for the majority of their lives. Today’s young people are more likely to be geographically mobile and professionally fluid as they try on different occupations and lifestyles to find one that is a best-fit. Developing a sense of individuation, personal identity and taking responsibility for charting one’s own destiny is much greater today than it was for previous generations. Young people are more willing to question authority, demand answers, and resent adults controlling their lives. They feel they have rights, and they are using them. Are young people today participating different than those of previous generations? Maybe. Sometimes young people are conceptualized as a cohort or generation and stereotyped to have characteristics similar to others born in the same time period as a way to assess social change (Mannheim 1959). This generational perspective assumes that Baby boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials will behave in predictable ways due to specific social conditions that shaped their lives (Levy 2015; White and Wyn 2008; Schroer 2016). Generation Z, born between 1995 and 2012, is growing up within a highly sophisticated media and technological world, are more digitally savvy than any previous generation, and can access the same information as adults with their fingertips. They are a major purchasing market, have their own political attitudes (especially supporting diversity and wanting government to be more responsible for addressing things like climate change), and are demanding more engaging experiences and social interactions (Fashion Law 2018; Parker 2020; Sandler 2018).

17.10

Child Participation in Communities

Communities are multifaceted and provide many different opportunities for children and youth to use their agency and engage in participatory actions. Joining clubs and groups are major forms of participation for youth. Children voluntarily choose which clubs or groups they want to participate in, and they select what roles they want to play in them. Walker et al. (1999) observes that “the club setting may be one of the few places where young people take on roles based on their willingness and

420

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

interests”. Another area of community participation to be explored in this chapter is the world of work.

17.10.1

Clubs and Organizational Participation

Young people participate through both structured and unstructured forums that may be formal or informal, rigid or flexible. They make decisions about how they wish to spend their time, and their lives. Youth development goes on whether or not adults are a part of it or support what they do (Pittman and Cahill 1992). Clubs and youth group differ in what they offer youth. Typical ones include the Boys and Girls Clubs, 4-H, scouting, faith-based groups, sports clubs, theatre, music, arts, academic, gaming, outdoor adventuring, being docents at libraries or museums, or civic activities. After-school programs are another type of youth participation group and what is offered may vary significantly. Groups that youth could join may also include gangs or issue-specific collectives. Most focus on some unique theme that unites them, but all are similar in that they provide opportunities for bonding, leadership, recreation, fun, and opportunities for children to direct the use of their agency is specific directions. Groups also give children a sense of meaning and that they are cared about (Bartko and Eccles 2003; Berk 1992; Eccles and Barber 1999, Heath 1991, 2001; Hofferth and Jankuniene 2001; Ohio State University 2010; Schinke 1991). Organizations that foster positive social experiences help meet the rights of youth for social relationships, education, and healthy development. It is part of adult obligation to offer opportunities, support, and services that help young people find socially positive and constructive ways to meet their needs and to develop and use a broad array of competencies (Walker et al. 1999). In a review of US youth clubs and organizations conducted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (2002), they find youth organizations are an understudied topic, despite their benefit to children and youth. In 1992 the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development’s A Matter of Time report, they count 20,000 youth organizations nationally, but estimate that number is much higher. Through their review they conclude that community programs have significant potential to help youth acquire personal and social assets like physical, cognitive, socio-emotional development, as well as opportunities to build relationships, self-esteem, interact with others who are both similar and different from themselves, learn about diversity and inclusion, and gain useful practical skills. The lack of research and overarching support for youth organizations implies two things. One, it is another example of children not being regarded as important and two, it demonstrates the need for more research about children’s participation in groups—especially input that come from young people themselves.

17.10

Child Participation in Communities

17.10.2

421

Participation in Work Settings

Children work. They work because they want to—and because many of them have to in order to survive. The forms of work include both paid and unpaid labor through volunteerism and the common but less acknowledge form of being young caregivers. From a rights perspective, it is important to make sure that children’s work is acknowledged and for adults and social systems to let them know that they matter (Weston 2005).

17.10.2.1

Paid Labor

According to the data organization, half (50%) of all youth ages 16–24 are employed, either full or part time. Twenty percent of high school students are employed. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that age discrimination is not appropriate, so this implies that young people should have the same protections and compensations as adults when it comes to work. But look further, and it’s clear that it is legally allowed to discriminate against younger workers. Its website1 states that: Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.

While harassment is not legal, being subject to micro-aggressions on the basis of age evidently is, as seen in their official statement: It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s age. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

Child labor in the US makes a significant contribution to the national economy, yet children’s rights are not as well defended as those of adults (Department of Labor 2021; Doyle and Cicchetti 2017; Maki 2018; Mercer 2013). There are supposed to be legal restrictions on what types of work children may do. Children age 14–15 are not supposed to work when they are in school, and on school days only 3 h per day for a total of 18 h a week. They can work up to 8 h on a non-school day and 40 h during a non-school week. Children who are 14–15 y ears old are supposed to work only from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the school year but can work until 9 p.m. during the summer. There are no limits on the hours you can work if you are 16 or older. 1

https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination

422

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

Children under age 14 cannot take on any non-agricultural jobs unless employed by their parents in a non-hazardous industry. Minors are to be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hours. However, this information is not always the case when it comes to youth employment. First, consider wage disparity. Workers under the age of 20 can be paid a “youth minimum wage” of $4.25 for the first 90 consecutive calendar days; this youth minimum applies to every job the teen holds, not just their first job. If a worker under the age of 20 changes jobs, their new employer may pay them the lower rate for the first 90 days of their new job. States are allowed to set their own minimum wage amounts, but these don’t necessarily apply to younger workers. Now consider type of work loop-holes for children. These are especially apparent in agricultural jobs. An estimated 258,835 youth under 20 work on US farms annually according to the 2012 Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey, but the number is thought to be maybe double that amount (Doyle and Cicchetti 2017). Young people are to be protected from working long hours doing farm labor, working with animals, using or driving mechanical equipment, or being exposed to toxins and chemicals that could be put on the fields. Yet farm families often regard faming as a family business and their children as workers. Using a child-as-parentalproperty view, children may be told to work long hours doing tasks that would otherwise be regarded as dangerous—and for no money because their labor is seen to be part of their family obligation. Federal law holds that workers under 16 are prohibited from hazardous tasks on farms while the law protects workers under 18 in non-farm jobs. Teens from 15 to 17 working on farms are four times more likely to die on the job than teenagers in all other jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Doyle and Cicchetti 2017). Federal child labor laws set a minimum work age of 16 for most occupations The Obama administration dropped proposals to limit farm work by children. In most states, 12-year-old children can legally work long hours in the broiling summer sun picking the fruits and vegetables, but the reality is that many children even younger are doing agricultural work. Age, hour, overtime and minimum wage provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act that protect young workers in other forms of employment don’t apply to young farm workers. Seventeen states have exempted farm work from most or all their child labor laws, including Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. The federal government and 10 states set no maximum on the number of hours per day or week a young person can work on farms. Generally, farm workers under 20 receive a lower federal minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for the first 90 days of employment, although hand-harvesters of all ages are often paid by the number of containers filled. The Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act) was submitted to Congress, and if it was passed it would prohibit children younger than 14 from working for wages in agriculture and raise to age 18 coverage under the Labor Department’s hazardous orders list, which covers 17 dangerous tasks such as operating heavy equipment, climbing a ladder more than 20 feet high and applying hazardous chemicals. Zama Coursen-Neff, director of the Children’s Rights

17.10

Child Participation in Communities

423

Division of Human Rights Watch, observed that it was not given much chance of passage, and “There’s no excuse to take one class of children, the poorest in the United States, and say you’re going to have fewer protections than any other class of children.” (Doyle and Cicchetti 2017).

17.10.2.2

Unpaid Labor

Most children work, and most adults assume that teaching children to do chores and work will instill a work ethic and responsibility. It is a fact that all of us do work for which we don’t get paid. Doing the dishes, taking out the trash, laundry, sweeping, and helping family members all are tasks for which we don’t get paid; if we don’t want to do them, we have to hire or get someone else to do those tasks for us. Often, these do-ers are children. The International Labor Union (2021) notes that human rights convention No. 189 defines domestic work as work necessary to maintain a household and reports that there are 17.2 million children who are domestic laborers globally. How many are in the US is unknown because they are not identified as workers or counted. It notes that household chores undertaken by children in their own homes under reasonable conditions and under the supervision of those close to them are part of family life, and can be something positive. But in situations where the workload is excessive or when children are put in situations that put them at risk, this can be tantamount to child labor. Domestic work by children generally remains gendered, with girls doing childcare, cooking, and cleaning inside the house while boys do chores like cutting grass or outside tasks (Woldehanna et al. 2008). Girls are estimated to do 40% more household chores than boys (Parmar 2016). The number of chores that female children do and the amount of time devoted to them reinforces gender inequality and is a violation of their right to be free from oppression. This pattern of girls being expected to be responsible for more domestic duties starts early and becomes a perpetuated lifelong pattern (Miller 2018). Domestic tasks at home are less likely to be regarded as dangerous, but can still be concerning: children may be expected to carry siblings, help impaired family members move, or carry heavy loads; they may handle dangerous items such as knives, hot pans, or tools; they could be expected to use toxic chemicals for cleaning or yard work; or use machinery such as lawn equipment or saws that they may not be able to handle well. If children don’t do tasks that they are uncomfortable doing, they may be at risk. Reasons for unpaid labor becoming a rights violation include children missing school because they have to care for others or do chores or suffering violence if they don’t do what they are ordered to do by parents (International Labor Organization 2021).

17.10.2.3

Young Carers

Young carers is a term that refers to children who take care of siblings, sick parents, and others in the home with physical, emotional, substance abuse, or other problems.

424

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

They perform many of the same domestic, caring and other duties as adult carers, but often without being paid. They are not given the recognition and support which many adult carers receive (Becker 1967). Children as caregivers are a recognized group in England, yet they are seldom acknowledged as such in the US. This may be, in part, due to England having passed the CRC and committed to defending children’s human rights, while the US has not. Britain has a young Carer’s Act at the governmental level. It is part of their Children’s Act, which was legislated in 1989. There is now a considerable body of research which shows that when children undertake significant care work within the home, and where they and their families lack appropriate health and social care support and adequate income, children can experience a range of negative outcomes. Many miss school or opportunities to be with their friends or go to social events because they have to take care of family members or go with them to appointments (Marsden 1995). These include anxiety, stress, depression, impaired well-being, health and psycho-social development, poor educational attendance and performance, restricted peer networks and friendships and difficulties in making the smooth transition from childhood to adulthood. The pressure put on the young carers is often “too much for them to bear” (Becker 2021; Craintree and Warner 1999). It is unknown how many young carers there are in the US because they are not identified or counted. There is no government data collection or supervisory organization for unpaid youth workers. In the United Kingdom, three million children under age 16 (23% of all children) live in households where at least one family member is hampered in daily activities due to a chronic physical or mental health problem (Aldridge and Becker 1993, 2003). Health Affairs (2023) reports that the only national survey of young carers in the US was conducted in 2004 by the National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) and the NY United Hospital Fund (UHF). That survey found that nationwide there were 1.4 million young caregivers, divided almost equally among children ages 8–11, 12–15, and 16–18 but the number was a gross underestimate since parents had to give consent for their children to be interviewed, parents could listen in, only English-speaking parents were contacted, and parents with substance abuse problems or mental illness were unlikely to consent. This means that there are many children in our communities who are participating in essential caregiving tasks but who are never counted. Their commitments are huge, as are the impacts on their lives. Their right to go to school, to play, and develop their own lives are compromised as a result.

17.11

Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI)

UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative provides a governance framework for building child-friendly cities and communities in which children are active participants. To receive official recognition by UNICEF as a Child Friendly City, a city must enter into a formal partnership with its national UNICEF office, committing to

17.12

Taking a Seat at the Table

425

engage in local governance programming through the CFCI platform. Government officials establish local steering committees with a wide range of local actors, including children and youth themselves. The communities develop and resource an action plan that prioritizes the best interests of children and youth within their local policies and protect the five CFCI goals of safety and inclusion, children’s participation, equitable social services, safe living environments, and play and leisure. Being a Child Friendly City is not an end-goal but rather a transformative process through which local governments and stakeholders’ commit to advancing child rights with children as partners and active participants (Wridt et al. 2023).

17.12

Taking a Seat at the Table

In order to move the dial towards a child rights approach, young people themselves must be invited to take a seat at the table (Lesko 2021). What does have a seat at the table mean? In many households during Thanksgiving or holiday gatherings, it is common for the adults to sit at the main table (the one with the elegant crystal and china) and for young people to sit at “the kids table”. The dishes may be less fancy and the table more informal, but typically there is a lot more fun and interaction that occurs at the kids table than the more serious adult one. There is an unwritten rite of passage when children are allowed to move from the kids table to the adult table. It is at that point that younger people have the opportunity to put forward their ideas to be considered by the whole of the adults, hence power-holders, who assume their traditional places around the table. However, empowering it may be to be invited to eat at the big people’s table, younger people traditionally still find themselves marginalized. They have to earn their stripes, to coin a military phrase referring to gaining respect from those in authority. It is not sufficient to invite youth to take a seat at the adult table. While this may be a step in the direction of empowering children’s participation, if they are not treated as full partners who can provide meaningful input and participate in decisions, then they are still put in positions of being second-rate. Another way of conceptualizing this relationship is the example of who is driving the car. In most cases, the adults are the ones steering the car in the direction they want to go. Adults make the decisions on the route and when there will be breaks. Youth are merely the passengers—they just get to go along for the ride, and have no power to change the speed, course, or breaks—or even what’s on the radio. Allowing children to sit in the front seat and touch the steering wheel will help them to become engaged. As adults and organizations, we must meet young people where they are. This means physically, but also socially and emotionally. Information must be presented in a manner in which young people can access and understand. Younger people, especially those who are new to participation in formal institutions, may not have the skill-sets that seasoned adults have. According to Article 42 of the CRC, “States

426

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike.” There is more attention to incorporating “youth voice” in media and by organizations today. But dissecting this term, youth voice assumes that there is one voice that represents all young people. In reality, there are many youth VOICES (Foley et al. 2012).

17.13

Participation in the Digital World

Children today live in a digital, mobile world; if we want to understand the transformation of children into young adults, we need to understand that they spend much time on mobile platforms for school, for fun, and for social connections. Children, even toddlers, are accessing media in various forms to learn, communicate with others, and to entertained. Good-quality media, including games, movies, television, websites, and educational tools can provide children with enormous learning opportunities and connections with others. Careful scrutiny of children’s online use of platforms like Instagram and Facebook are important to their wellbeing (Finkelhor 2000; Kennedy 2021). A digital native is defined as a youth under age 24 who has 5 years or more experience using the internet (ITU 2013). Over half (53%) of people age 8–12 have their own tablet and two-thirds have their own smart phone (Wallace 2015). According to industry research, 61% of virtual-world visitors are between 3–11, and 22% of people ages 6–9 have their own cellphone (Mejia 2016). Child Trends finds 79% of children ages 3–17 had a computer at home, up from 15% in 1984. Children are growing up able to access information immediately and communicate with others around the world in real time. As a result, they see the world differently than adults (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2021; Huesmann et al. 2003; Morrow 2011; O’Keeffe et al. 2011). As Woodson notes in UNICEF’s Re-imagine the Future report (2015a, b, c, d: 8) “depending on who gets to use it and how the wealth and other benefits are distributed, technology can help reduce inequality or can make it worse.” Livingstone and Blum-Ross (2020) work provokes fascinating children’s rights consideration. Since children rely upon the digital world for play, education, and innovation, what if the digital world was reimagined as if it was strategically designed for the benefit of children and children’s use? Digital platforms, processes, privacy, and protections would look starkly different. This is yet another example where a children’s human rights framework could dramatically improve the lives of young people.

17.13

Participation in the Digital World

17.13.1

427

Youth Digital Rights

Children’s participation in the digital landscape was never addressed in the Constitution or the CRC. Therefore, we have to infer what these documents would say about children’s rights to use them. Dissecting the rights issue, the complexity of their use becomes obvious. The Constitution holds that we have freedom of speech, so one can argue that all human beings would have that right. The CRC Articles 12–17 all could apply as well: Article 12 discussed the right to form one’s own views and express them; Article 13 concerns freedom of expression and to receive and impart information of all kinds; Article 14 on the freedom of thought and conscience; Article 15 recognizes children’s right to freedom of assembly; Article 16 protects children’s privacy, including correspondence; and Article 17 recognizes children have the right to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources. Digital technology has empowered children to access encyclopedias of information in seconds, obtain news in real-time from around the world, connect with family and friends in supportive relationships, to conduct their own research and learn new things, and to grapple with new ideas. All of these would be examples of benefits to the rights of digital access. Cell phones allow youth to ask for help or get rides so they will be safer (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). Technology now allows us to identify cyber bullies, sex traffickers, and those who seek to exploit children because digital track records are created that can be used in court (Finkelhor 2000). On the other hand, digital life has been associated with aggression, cyberbullying, economic exploitation, sex trafficking, perpetuation of extremism, and discriminatory views and actions behavior (Etchells et al. 2016; Heffner 2003; Holder 2017; No Bullying 2016; Simmons 2011; Wiseman 2009; Yarrow 2009). Despite attempts to limit violent video games to young people, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association to protect the rights of the video game industry as a form of speech protection under the First Amendment. Pediatricians and child experts recommend that parents, teachers and caring adults become aware of the nature of social media sites that their children may access since not all of them are healthy environments for children and adolescents (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). The US government’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits web site from collecting information about children younger than age 13 without parental consent. Web sites are to have regulations that prevent people under age 13 from having a profile and accessing computer sites, however, these regulations are often violated and hard to monitor. When even toddlers may be encouraged to use electronic devices by parents and teachers, the role of duty-bearers, such as the state, schools, and adults, becomes essential. The American Academy of Pediatrics (O’Keeffe et al. 2011) the American Academy of Family Physicians (2017), the Child Mind Institute (2021), and the Children’s Hospital Association (2021) have noted that the positive and negative impacts of social medial on children must be weighed. It is neither all good nor all bad for children. There is increasing concern that social media is associated with

428

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

young people’s anxiety and depression, but there are also other intervening variables that must be considered. The position of the field is that one must be careful with the use of social media in young people, and that more research into this correlation is important (Hodge 2017; Vidal et al. 2020). The CRC takes a firm stand that children should be protected from violence, harms, abuse, and exploitation. Article 19 stated that the state shall take all measures necessary to protect children from all forms of physical, mental, sexual violence, abuse, and injury, as well as from neglect, maltreatment, and all forms of exploitation. Article 32 recognizes the right of children to be protected from economic exploitation; Article 33 is to protect children from being exposed to substance abuse or drug trafficking. Article 34 requires states to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, while Article 35 is to prevent abduction, sale, or trafficking of children for any purpose.

17.13.2

Digital Divide

There is a digital divide between digital access between children from wealthy homes and those with economic struggle. This digital divide is apparent especially around demographic characteristics of race (Chakravorti 2021 5 Rigthts Foundation; Stanford Medicine 2022). From a rights perspective, inequality in education and access to fundamental needs—which digital life now is—becomes a form of discrimination that is a clear violation of children’s human rights that needs to be overcome. When children, or anyone of any age, go online, data is collected on us, usually without our realizing it (5rightsfoundation 2022; Livingstone and Blum-Ross 2020). Children have no idea how much data is collected about them. Their school data could be assignments, grades, demographics, days absent, or other information. Children trust schools not to share their educational data, but teachers regularly enter data that gets used and shared. They (and students) take this process for granted without knowing how the data is being shared, and to who (Vissing 2019). Algorithms get created on students in general and track individual students (Vissing et al. 2016). Conditions on ways children’s data are being collected are huge and plentiful. Minimal surveillance undermines students, teachers, and parent’s knowledge about complex legal agreements and opaque arrangements education institutions have with unknown third parties. There needs to be an effective governance regime over protection of children’s data in general, and children’s educational data in particular (Livingstone and Blum-Ross 2020). Organizations make determinations that all children must opt-in. Children don’t get the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out. For instance, if they take an exam like the PSAT, their data is automatically sold to colleges and other organizations for recruitment purposes; most students don’t know that they can opt-out, and how to do it. Parents may put information about their children on sites like Facebook to

17.14

Warnings Against Children’s Exclusion

429

share photographs or information with others, but this is usually done without the child’s consent (Baron 2018). Digital technology is here to stay, and may morph into yet-to-be-determined forms that engage children. The challenges of both empowering children to access beneficial digital communications, as well as protect them from harm, will be areas of children’s human rights risk measures to be crafted in the future (Kierkegaard 2005).

17.14

Warnings Against Children’s Exclusion

If children are not afforded traditional opportunities to express their agency and opinion through voting or government, they will continue to find other ways to do so. Protests and collective actions have been one of the vehicles available to young people. One way or another, young people will find ways to participate and have their voices heard as they fight for social change (Nakata 2015). When mainstream or establishment politics are barred, children will still engage in political activity. Kokch (2016:8) observes that regardless of what country we are speaking of, youth want to build a better nation and a better world. That is why they may take the front wheel and center stage when conflicts and tensions arise. Young people look for opportunities where doors may be open to them, where people may listen to them, value their opinions and ideas, and provide them with ways to use them (Drummond-Mundal and Cave 2007; Pruitt 2017; Twaibu 2015). Their actions may include being conscientious objectors, protestors, social media disseminators, soldiers, negotiators, educators, community-organizers and change-agents. Violent confrontations can occur when dialogue and cooperation are not afforded to them by adults or those in power (Del Felice and Wisler 2007; Helsing et al. 2008; McEvoy-Levy 2018; McEvoy-Levy 2009; O’Kane et al. 2010; Sommers 2006). It is important to provide young people with opportunities for political expression through government channels, otherwise as Giroux and Evans (2015:1) observe, youth can become both a hard and soft target for terrorism. Children are used as shields and weapons, as soldiers, suicide bombers, or trained killers (Townsend et al. 2020); they are given toys that are booby-trapped that will lead to their death and injury to break the spirits of their parents. “In an age of extreme violence . . . and increasing terrorism, it is crucial for those wedded to a democratic future to examine the state of youth globally, especially those marginalized by class, race, religion, ethnicity and gender in order to address those underlying forces that produce the conditions of violence, ideological fundamentalism, militarism and massive political and economic inequalities. This is a crucial project that would also necessitate analyzing . . . exclusion from those governmental processes that might offer a transformation for the better.” Young people are often seen as disposable (Giroux 2001, 2010, 2019; Evans and Giroux 2015) and their participation contributions seen as irrelevant. They are the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which the “plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation” (Bauman 2012:2). He insists that

430

17

Systems of Child Participation in the USA

today’s youth have been “cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent” (Bauman 2004:76). In the US, which has failed to implement protection for children’s human rights, youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged place that was offered to previous generations and are faced with futures that are insecure and uncertain. They are in a weak position in the social order, as they can’t vote, have no political representation, suffer high rates of unemployment, are relegated to the role of consumers rather than producers, and are thus not central to how countries and businesses define their futures. Even young people with college degrees suffer from debt, low wages, growing surveillance by the state, have low standards of living, and resort to despair, depression and find they have no way to impact the political arena, expect through withdrawal or protest. Andrew Myers’ (2012) critique of youthful protest movements concludes that economic, educational and political conditions have created worldwide pessimism in young people that oppresses them and leads towards a cynical distrust of established politics. Their alienation could partially explain the rise of drug abuse and opiate addiction in the United States, as well as the attraction of gangs and terrorist organizations like ISIS. Failure of adults in leadership positions to find ways to incorporate young people’s ideas and energy in productive ways creates a youthful pessimism that the older “generation no longer holds out a hand to the next”. Graeber (2013) argues that the new youth movements threaten both conservatives and liberals alike since they are willing to call for massive reconstruction of existing political and economic systems without a clearly defined destination of where they are headed (Aronowitz 2014). Young people are interested in social transformation, they want to participate, they are being courted by various agenda-seeking groups, and whether their agency is spent in ways that are individually and socially productive or destructive is yet to be realized. The CRC and a children’s human rights framework hold that children have a right to participate and need positive opportunities and supports in order to make a positive contribution to their lives and the world around them. Participation in extremism and violence is opposite to what the CRC is about.

17.15

Summary

This chapter has explored the right of child participation. There is surface-level support for children to have their rights to participation protected. There is appreciation of the benefits that children can receive socially, emotionally, cognitively, and physically through participation. There is an understanding that children are vulnerable and need protections. Some of children’s provision and protection rights are in place. However, few of them as duty-bearers have constructed systems, programs, services, and processes that truly defend children’s rights. Earlier in this book it was discussed how all issues are essentially children’s issues, whether adults think about things like medical procedures, housing, transportation, environment, crime, funding allocations, equity issues, or debate over

17.15

Summary

431

laws as being child-related or not. Children develop opinions about things that directly or indirectly impact their lives and want to have the opportunity to express them and to ask questions about the perspective and decisions that adult-bodies make. They benefit when given access to credible information in ways that they can comprehend. Participation need not be conflictual; youth want to know about and be involved with things that impact their lives. Children’s participation has not been controversial so long as children “keep in their place” or the places that adults create for them. The controversy occurs when children step into areas that are nontraditional realms of child participation, such as access to new technology, media, and websites. It also occurs when children make decisions that are in opposition to the views of their parents or other adults. This can be seen in their choice to get vaccinations when their parents don’t want them to, in their choice to become sexually active against parental wishes, or to participate with certain peers or groups that conflict with their parental demands. As the lines between what is a child and what is an adult continue to be blurred and morph together, one can anticipate future dissention around the appropriateness of certain types of youth engagement. Clinical sociologists and their expertise in participatory action research are superb resources to assist communities and organizations in ways to constructively and productively embed participation of all groups, especially those who have been traditionally marginalized and excluded.

Chapter 18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seek equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world. Eleanor Roosevelt

18.1

Introduction

Education is a fundamental right for all children. Children’s human rights are universal, indivisible, and inalienable. As shown throughout this book, children’s lives are influenced by every social institution that exists. When most people think of what rights children have, they automatically think about their right to education. In this chapter, education was selected to be an exemplary topic to examine from a children’s human rights framework. The idea is that any social institution could be examined in a similar fashion, once the template for what a children’s human rights framework would look like. Even with the detail which will be provided about how schools could embed child rights into them, there are still more issues that could be included. The purpose of this chapter is to start thinking strategically about the rights issues that confront students each day at school and how schools may wish to rethink their operating procedures to better protect children’s fundamental right to receiving a good education in a safe and respectful environment. The purpose of this chapter is to show how any institution could consider ways to embed children’s human rights. From a clinical sociological perspective, there are both macro and micro, structural and infrastructural, as well as institutional and interpersonal ways a children’s human rights framework could be integrated to benefit both young people and society as a whole. Education was selected because © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_18

433

434

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

it is perceived to be the fundamental social institution, outside of the family, that shapes children’s lives. Once this framework is understood, it can become a model that other organizations could use to construct a children’s human rights framework. This chapter integrates the 3 Ps around the central institution of education to illustrate how they pragmatically fit together in a children’s human rights framework. In order to build a national narrative embracing children’s human rights, first the public has to be educated on what human rights are. A section at the end of this chapter will focus on human rights education and how it can be integrated and scaffolded into the nation in a comprehensive manner. If it is, then we can build toward the construction of a human rights framework that will benefit children, and their children’s children, across the lifespan and in multiple social institutions.

18.2

Education and Children’s Human Rights Provision

Education is universally considered a right for children. It is mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 28 and 29 of the CRC place particular emphasis on the importance of education.1 Schools provide much more than just education. Schools provide instruction and skill development, support from adults, social relationships with peers, supervision, transportation, food, physical and mental healthcare, physical fitness, cultural expression, expansion of personal horizons, recreation, creativity, social awareness, and guidelines for how to live collaboratively in a democratic society with others. It is important to have access to a variety of information in order to be an intelligent member of society. Learning how to be a creative thinker and how to critically assess information is fundamental to being a contributing member of society. Education in subjects such as math, science, history, social studies, physical education, literature, or geography are provided to children everywhere. Human rights treaties also require that children learn about their own human rights and the human rights of others. This is deemed essential for learning how to be good citizens (Bajaj 2017; Bajaj 2016; Kid Rights Foundation 2020; UNICEF 2023).

18.3

Who and What Is Education For?

A New York Times expose (2022a, b, c) asked the question—what is school in the US for? The answers included: economic mobility, making citizens, care and protection, parent activism, spending time, learning to read, connecting to nature, gaining merit, and a source of knowledge for everyone. Understanding that

1

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/a) GeneralCommentNo1TheAimsofEducation(article29)(2001).aspx

18.3

Who and What Is Education For?

435

education is not just for children is important in contextualizing what it means for education and schools to be framed from a children’s human rights perspective. Obviously, education is for the benefit of children. They need to be exposed to a wide range of information, theories, concepts, and ideas above and beyond the 3 R’s of reading, writing, and arithmetic. They learn pragmatic skills like how to handle money and how to take care of their bodies. They need to know how to get along with others, how to handle conflict, and engage in problem-solving and creative activities. Technology and knowledge have advanced the areas where children need skill development as well. Curriculum requirements get modified to address changing social trends and student needs. Perhaps most importantly, education could help children to know themselves, identify their interests, strengths, weaknesses, and help them to chart their futures. Schools are also for parents, who can rely from first through twelfth grade that their children will have somewhere to go from Monday to Friday where they will be supervised by other adults in a constructive atmosphere. This frees parents to go to work or have their own lives while the children are in school. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many parents could not go to work when schools were closed and no childcare facilities were available. There was pressure to make sure children could go to school, but the pressure was not just to ensure good education for children—it was also to ensure that adults could get to work (Henderson 2022; North 2022). Schools also offer safe spaces for children to go where they will be warm, with resources for them to access and people to keep an eye on them. Schools operate in loco parentis, where teachers are given the authority to act as parents when children are in their care. Schools have the mandate to protect children’s health and safety, as well as the health and safety of the staff. Teachers are trained to provide expertise in content, curriculum, and pedagogy to students and sometimes this may conflict with what students or parents want. Schools aren’t just for students—they are also for the community. They aren’t just the place where children learn information, they’re also where they learn civic participation, peer relationships, and dating rituals. Schools have been major bonding locations for communities; parents join together and develop friendships and acquaintanceships at school sporting events, theatre and music performances, and open houses. As children go from primary through secondary school, schools have been the glue that held communities together (Trattner 1970). Education is also for business and the economy. The modern education system originated in nineteenth century Prussia and was designed “to teach future factory workers to be punctual, docile and sober” (Schrager 2018). Groups of students were placed into grades according to their age and moved through successive grades as they mastered the curriculum. The approach to education reflected an industrial model and was impersonal, efficient, and standardized. It taught children to follow orders, respect the property of others, and inculcated middle-class values and attitudes to make future workers more susceptible to what the factory needed (McDermott 2001; Mokyr 2010). In sum, how education and schools are structured and what they provide is essential in the implementation of a children’s human rights perspective. Schools

436

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

are led by leaders who may have a vested interest in how to use education to protect their own agendas-agendas that are antithetical to supporting children’s human rights (James 2007; Lewis 2009; Vissing 2022).

18.4

Locations for Delivery of Education

Locations of instruction vary and some are designed to be more child rightsrespecting than others. As a teacher researching teaching, I know it takes a lot of training and skill to be a good and effective teacher (Blazar 2016; Kim et al. 2019; Dewey 1910; Freire 1985; Pezaro 2016). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, locations of education for students are shifting. During COVID lockdown when parents were expected to serve as their children’s teachers, many parents found they did not have the expertise or patience to be good at it. Others thought that they could plug their child online into a computer program that was all teachers did, which is far from the truth. There has been a shift to thinking of teachers as tour guides of information, experts who can point students to where to look for knowledge, rather than the sole dispensers of it. This has unmistakably usurped the teacher from their former role as dispenser of content (Godsey 2015; Levasseur 2012). Even libraries are different, many are doing away with books and rely upon online materials) as librarians have become content-acquisition specialists (Ebbitt 2015). Just because the information is available doesn’t mean that students will contextualize it in higher thought processes. Teachers who are well-trained to provide a comprehensive, critical-thought education for students are perhaps needed now more than ever. The changes that await education institutions are structural, instructional, curricular, technological, and social. But there is a social movement in which parents may think they have the expertise and right to dictate to teachers and schools what should, and should not, be taught. This includes banning books and prohibiting instruction about history, diversity, race, inclusion, mental health, sex education, and a variety of other topics (Kingkade 2021; Kingkade 2022; Schneider 2021). This is a form of pedagogical oppression (Freire 1985). This is a huge challenge for the profession of education and the future of providing children with a good quality education.

18.4.1

Public Schools

Public schools promote democracy by giving all children access to the same curriculum from well-credentialed teachers who test students in the same manner and make the same opportunities available to everyone. The dominant one-size-fitsall approach to education was regarded as a technique that would help build democracy: if all the students were given the same learning environment, the same materials to read and the same tests, then they would all be given the same chance to

18.4

Locations for Delivery of Education

437

succeed. This ostensibly would even the playing field between the different groups of students. Schooling was universal for every child and free of cost. Unlike countries where education is part of the federal budget, the U.S. federal government only contributes 10% to education, making its funding the responsibility of state and local governments (Corsi-Bunker 2017). State-wide data shows that states that spend more per student have better student outcomes (World Population Review 2021; Vissing and Vernick 2021). Schools that have lower funding are often associated with BIPOC students and persist in the transmission of institutionalized racism (Brookings 2022). Unequal funding and resources have resulted in inequality as schools in rich areas and wealthier states are have more resources to produce higher quality education than others because of the disparity in funding. Not every child, evidently, is worth the same amount of investment. Moreover, a lack of federal policy in lieu of states’ rights has resulted in each of the 50 states having its own department of education which controls policies, funding, hiring, student attendance, graduation requirements, and what is taught. States create their own curriculum which local districts can modify. Textbooks, teaching manuals and other materials may be distributed by the state. The use of standardized tests and assessment are also dictated by the state. There is no national curriculum in the U.S. and schools vary widely in how and what information is taught (USDOE 2023). Public education for the empowerment of all children has been a mainstay and lifeline that is now under attack (UNICEF 2021a, b). Instead of investing in all schools so all children can succeed, schools that are not able to do their job well have been blamed for the state and nation’s lack of investment. This blaming-the-victim approach has put public schools under attack by taxpayers who don’t feel it is their obligation to pay for schooling other people’s children, who feel schools aren’t safe or doing enough, and who want greater control over what their children learn and how they learn it (Reschovsky 2017). Public schools have long been the vehicle for promoting good quality education, equity, and social change, but whether they will continue to survive current public assaults is a worthwhile consideration. Public schools were designed to foster equality and democracy, but some are fostering more inequality because the nation has never fully gotten behind public education and ensured that all children are equal (Baker 2009; Flavin 2016). Public schools could continue to be that lifeline to success and democracy IF the narrative is changed to a children’s human rights framework.

18.4.2

Charter Schools

Charter schools are pseudo-private schools within public school settings. They are promoted to provide specialized education to selected students (Education Votes 2017; Rotherham 2015). Competition to get into them may be high. So is controversy about them, since public funds are being used to provide selected students with

438

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

learning opportunities that aren’t made available to all. The American Bar Association has been concerned with ways that some charter schools violate student rights, especially those who have disabilities, are homeless, or are of racially marginalized groups (Schneider 2017). The Network for Public Education (2019) did a state-bystate investigation of charter schools and found the amount of fraud, waste, and deception in charter schools is enormous. While parents are proud if their children get a spot in a charter school because they believe the school will be better than the public school, this totally misses the point—why aren’t all public schools worthy of investment for all children to thrive? Why should taxpayers pay for a handful of students to receive bonus education? Where in this model is justice, equality, and democracy from a children’s human rights perspective?

18.4.3

Private Schools

There have long been private schools but the numbers of them have increased significantly in recent years (Kavanagh and Scafidi 2020). There are dozens of different types, from elite preparatory schools, boarding schools, and schools that focus on religion, ability, age, or interest. Public funds have been diverted to private schools in the form of vouchers and tax credits. There is the significant public debate on whether some children’s rights to education money are violated when taxpayer dollars are given to those who have the discretionary ability or preference to avoid public schooling for their children. There are also concerns about student human rights when it comes to discipline, forced religious instruction, housing, sexual contact, admission criteria, etc. The wide variation of the policies and practices in private schools requires significant research and scrutiny. The efforts to have taxpayers pay for private schools while under-funding public schools is a violation of both children and taxpayer rights.

18.4.4

Homeschools

Homeschooling is a hotly-debated form of instruction in which inequality is structured (CBS 2013; Eggleston 2021). Almost two million, or 3% of students in the US, attend school at home, which is an increase of 62% since 2003. Parents, who are not usually trained in topic or pedagogy, are in charge of deciding what students learn— or don’t. Home-schooling advocates tout the flexibility of how and what students learn. Critics allege that homeschool students are denied social, instructional, and recreational opportunities that are mainstreamed into public education. Homeschooling has significant implications on what and how children learn from a human rights perspective (ACLU 2022; Kinkade 2021; Rainey 2018; Slaby 2021). Attorney Elizabeth Bartholet (2020) discusses in the Harvard Gazette, public

18.4

Locations for Delivery of Education

439

schools have oversight mechanisms to ensure students are safe and learn, but these are missing in homeschools. She states: There’s a shocking lack of regulation . . . that’s a product of the homeschooling lobby, which has fought for several decades now to eliminate any existing restrictive regulation and to oppose any proposed new legislation even in the face of horrific child abuse scandals. For example, in about a dozen states homeschooling parents aren’t even required to register. They can just keep their children at home rather than send them to school. Only about 10 states require that homeschooling parents have any educational qualifications whatsoever. The handful of states that do require qualifications typically demand no more than a high school degree. Some states require that parents submit the curricula they plan to use, but there’s almost no check on what parents teach through home visits or meaningful testing requirements. All this despite the fact that we have laws and constitutional provisions in 50 states that guarantee children the right to education . . . The homeschooling lobby may be even more powerful than the gun lobby today, because at least with the gun lobby we see a lot of pushback. When it comes to homeschooling, the victims are all children so it’s harder to mount a political movement.

One can logically question whether homeschooling is for the child or for the parent. Protection of children’s human rights in all forms of education is a concern to be addressed in future research.

18.4.5

For-Profit Schools

The goal of these schools is clear—they are for the profit of corporations. They are using children as a vehicle for them to make money. This means revenue, not quality education, is the bottom line. The growth of for-profit schools, learning enhancement, coaching, tutoring, for-profit honor societies, and other educational programs are seeking greater market-share of today’s educational environment. They are a major child rights concern for several reasons. They create bifurcation in education, where students are: (a) not learning the same material; (b) not tested or evaluated in the same way; (c) not exposing students to opportunities to interact with others who may be different from themselves; (d) and promote inequality among young people. The privatization of education has the potential of leading towards the destruction of public education, and undercuts many of the foundations of public education leading to greater equality and democracy. The schools cost significant money, often have teachers who are not qualified, there is no monitoring to ensure quality or student success, many engage in false or embellished advertising, and many have been found to be exploitative. When profit, not child rights, drives education, this is a concern to be attentive to, despite their often-glitzy websites and hyped promises of success (Benner 2018; Giroux and Evans 2015; Giroux 2001; National Education Association 2018; Knee 2016; Strauss 2013, 2016; White 2020).

440

18.4.5.1

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Online Programs

Online programs have increased in number and type and are being used by students who have health, behavioral, or other issues that interfere with their attending traditional schools. Online instruction is incorporated into most schools in varying amounts, and online education programs are on the increase. Students with health issues, transportation problems, who are homeless, live in institutional settings, travel extensively or have criminal problems may not be able to attend traditional schools on a regular basis. While most children graduate from school, some may not be able to follow the traditional school format, resulting in their obtaining a GED (General Educational Development), HiSET or other equivalency programs. Many students can graduate from secondary school without ever setting foot into a school building because they have nontraditional instructional options.

18.5

Pressure to Change Schools

The factory approach still frames the way many schools operate. But industrial-age education models are antiquated systems. Educational revisions to address the needs of both students and a changing economy are needed (Rose 2012). A focus on memorization and standardized testing to prove competence misses the boat when teaching critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and personal growth would be better for both students and society (Baker 2013). Moreover, some argue that schools have become more like prisons than centers of intellectual inspiration. Students are watched, tracked, recorded, searched, controlled, handcuffed, arrested, subject to corporal punishment, have their privacy data sold without consent, and have very few rights (Anderson 2016; Hager 2015). It’s necessary for our education systems to change—to be more child rights-respecting for the sake of the students, and for the sake of the changing economy and world (Child Trends 2015a-e; Englander 2003). A fourth Industrial Revolution is underway (Schwab 2017). The first technological innovation was the plow, the second the steam engine, and the third was the computer. Technological revolutions have always impacted curriculum; in the 1950s schools provided home economics courses for girls designed to teach them how to cook and sew while boys were directed into science or woodworking classes. In the 2000s the curriculum shifted to focus on training students in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and for jobs in the service industries. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is a fusion of advances in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, genetic engineering, quantum computing, bigger, faster computer processing, virtual reality, augmented reality, biotechnology, innovative new materials, energy capture, storage and transmission, and other technologies. The boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological worlds are shifting and the changes so profound that from the

18.5

Pressure to Change Schools

441

perspective of human history, “there has never been a time of greater promise or potential peril” (Schwab 2017). The implications of this revolution are changing the way we do things and schools and social systems need to be preparing students to contribute to them (Marr 2018a, b). The immediate access to huge amounts of information and opportunities for innovation even the playing field between younger and older people. Access to knowledge, innovation, and opportunities create more justification for attention to children’s human rights. This revolution has the possibility of increasing inequality between those who have cutting-edge information and those who don’t (Marr 2018a, b). There are other forces demanding that schools change. One is for-profit education, edupreneurs or edubusinesses who were growing for the past decade but who found during the pandemic a new, and lucrative, market of students whose parents were afraid to send them to school, and for schools who were not equipped to meet the sudden demand for online education. Another is the growing homeschool market—while home schooling used to be Ma and Pa teaching the kiddos what they knew about how to read, do math, science, and history, now homeschoolers are working with other homeschool associations or parents. They too have become a market for edubusinesses who can sell parents packaged curricula that the children do at home, and parents supplement their education with field trips and social gatherings with other homeschoolers. In the past few years there has been a parent movement that wants to seize control of what is taught in school, how it is taught, and by whom it is taught. What has become a parent militia, armed with real guns parents are showing up at schools, school board meetings, libraries, and at pointing their rifles and verbal assaults at teachers, principals, librarians, and public servants who are just trying to do a good job supporting public education for the children in communities ( ). No longer is education a profession infused with pedagogical skill and advanced knowledge of the academic disciplines, the pandemic and edubusinesses have given parents the illusion that anyone can be a teacher—all they need is a packet of instructional materials that the student can fill out when they’re not on their phone checking their social media. The bifurcation between “real” education and “surface” education is a significant social concern. Those students coming from homes with money and resource will be able to move to better school districts, pay for private schools and tutors, and get a high-quality education, while middle and lower-class students will receive a barebones educational experience. They may obtain a diploma or GED, but their futures will be markedly different, as John Freidman observes in his New York Times article on the what is school for series, America is often hailed as a land of opportunity, a place where all children, no matter their family background, have the chance to succeed. Data measuring how low-income children tend to fare in adulthood, however, suggest this may be more myth than reality. Less than one in 13 children born into poverty in the United States will go on to hold a high-income job in adulthood; the odds are far longer for Black men born into poverty, at one in 40.

442

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Education historically has been the sea that could lift all boats. “The sad fact is that the learning gaps opened up by Covid are a small fraction of those that already existed before the pandemic” (Friedman 2022). As the nation contemplates what education in the future should look like, what is it for, and who it is for, we need to be clear about the implications of our choice. We are teetering on a precipice, with one option being innovative, creative, education that is of excellent quality for everyone, OR further investment in a classist, racist, gender-biased system that ferments further individual and socially structured inequality.

18.6

Human Being or Becomings Revisited

The industrial model of education viewed children as workers or do-ers, thus schools directed education at what children would become in the future as they took their place in the production lines of society. But times have changed, even if our mind has not. Do schools focus on children as here-and-now human beings, or are they more focused on giving them skills so they can be successful in their adult life, aka with a human becomings emphasis? This age-old question is relevant as one considers how educational systems are designed. The fourth industrial revolution poses the need for schools to be structured to make all children wise, critical thinkers and have a meaningful life today. There is simultaneously pressure for our education system designed to make children compliant, future-oriented, better workers. These arguments hail back to the Greeks; Socrates emphasized the importance of thinking and was concerned with ethics, justice, beauty, equality, reality, and the importance of discourse for intellectual growth. On the other hand, King Agesilaus felt that education should focus on giving students skills they could carry into the world, like being a good soldier, farmer, or businessman and having technological skills (Dickey 2017). Pushing children for success and sacrificing childhood for an adultified life has become a controversial topic and violates the CRC’s article for children’s right to play (Elkind 1988; Levy and Akiva 2019; Ratvich 2018). Children are socialized to start planning their careers early—even children in kindergarten are asked “what do you want to be when you grow up?” That question reinforces that what children are to become is more important than what they are at the present moment. This tension between education for knowledge, wisdom, and critical thinking versus education for work remains present in schools today. Preparing children to go to college or for particular careers is emphasized even for primary school students (Dewey 1900; 1916; 1938). We can see it with the emphasis on STEM education. On the other hand, humanities and liberal arts courses have been in decline. Courses about human rights are almost nonexistent in schools. Information, relationships, and expectations are shifting in the world. Which children will be afforded access to cutting-edge information? “Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge and information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged

18.7

Importance of Early Childhood Education

443

as humility” (Morgan n.d.). How schools are structured will influence which children have the skills to be competitive in the world, and those who cannot.

18.7

Importance of Early Childhood Education

Daycare is often perceived as care to allow parents to go to work, but it is the first formalized opportunity for young children to be educated. What children learn from birth to age three is thought to be foundational to their cognitive abilities for the rest of their lives (Ansari et al. 2019; Morrissey 2020; Rayna and Laevers 2011; WarnerRichter et al. 2016). Preschool is considered early childhood education and central to a child’s later development (Ginsburg 2007). While public school may not begin until children are age six, their early years are full of educational opportunities. Seventy-five percent of young children are in non-parental care, and preschool is a time for education and brain enrichment (Child Trends 2016e). Of the 20 million children under age five in the U.S., seven million are cared for in a center-based program, three million are cared for in home-based care, and four million are cared for by unpaid caregivers who aren’t their parents (Warner-Richter and Lloyd 2020). There’s a common misconception that preschool teachers are inexperienced and poorly educated but the National Survey of Early Care and Education reveals the average provider has 10–15 years of experience. Even so, preschool teachers aren’t paid well and often receive no benefits. This reflects the low status of children in society; because children aren’t seen to have much worth, as their value is oft seen in what they will become rather than what they are now, their caregivers aren’t paid well either. Kindergarten is the new first grade. Children who don’t attend kindergarten are far behind before starting first grade. Between 1977 and 2013, the percentage of children enrolled in full-day kindergarten tripled from 28% to 77%. Programs like Head Start are designed to give economically challenged children familiarity with basic skills so they have a better chance of being successful going into first grade. Research indicates that Head Start programs significantly benefit children (Zero to Three 2015). Data is quite convincing on the value of early childhood education. Children who receive education early in life are smarter when it comes to reading, writing, and arithmetic but benefit in other ways too. They have better cognitive and problem-solving skills, more positive people skills, higher self-esteem, and greater self-confidence. Childhood education includes downtime and unstructured opportunities to play, socialize, fantasize, dream, and be creative (Christikas 2016). Pushing children for success, instead of discovery and play, may not be a good investment. Children with good quality early education go further in school, have better jobs, more stable relationships, less crime, better physical and mental health, and are overall happier than children denied early education (Corsaro 2005; NAEYC 2013; National Education Association 2016; Sylva et al. 2010). From a cost-benefit analysis, high-quality, child-centered, early childhood education pays off handsomely.

444

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Yet early childhood education is not considered necessary or a child’s human right in the US. Rather, it is seen as a privilege—one that only wealthier people can afford. The lack of credentials, licensure, pay, and benefits for childcare workers is another indication of how not honoring children’s human rights impacts the rest of us.

18.8

School Structure and Infrastructure

It is clear that where students are learning must be considered from a rights approach. Physical structures are important to consider as well as infrastructure issues. Physical considerations include the size of rooms, halls, and other facilities, making sure that there is adequate space for movement, learning, and to reducing the spread of disease. Having too many students in small classrooms is not in their best interest; having halls that are so congregated that students are crunched together and are on top of each other isn’t providing space necessary for body safety or to curb contamination of viruses. Physical considerations also pertain to sanitation systems in bathrooms, hand-washing areas, drinking fountains, computer keyboards, and other commonly touched areas. Air filtration systems and access to fresh air are important, as is the quality of water and food that students may ingest. Playgrounds need to have space and safe equipment that meets the developmental and motor needs of children; bus and transportation areas need to be safely constructed. Having enough computers that work well is important to ensure that students can do their work; having libraries that are well-staffed by materials and by trained personnel are also structural issues. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was on my school’s health taskforce and became acutely aware of how complicated it is to keep children safe. Many health and safety issues are structural in nature, like the issues just discussed. Other issues of having enough school personnel to meet children’s needs were often challenges. These included janitorial, nursing, social work-mental health staff, to name a few. Most schools did not have the person-power necessary to adequately meet the needs of students, and they were not given budgets that would allow them to hire more staff, upgrade systems, or make the structural needed changes. These are children’s rights issues too because they pertain how healthy children will be as schools attempt to fulfill their mission to care and educate them. If students are learning at home or in nontraditional locations (including cars and shelters for housing-distressed children), access to materials, computers, wifi, food, and support must be creatively delivered. The pandemic taught us that student needs are greater than just what they can obtain in a classroom but that classroom education from skilled teachers is essential. In sum, there are many different forums for children to be instructed and issues to be considered to ensure that their rights to education as well as health and safety are defended. Much education and instruction is also provided at the community level within civic, recreational, or faith-based groups. From a children’s human rights

18.9

Curriculum Concerns

445

perspective, having oversight of the quality of programs and teachers is very important to ensure equity and justice for all. It is also very hard to do, especially given that much education provided to children is delivered within systems that are not regulated, certified, or monitored. Despite the challenges that public schools face, they have the greatest potential for ensuring the delivery of children’s human rights to all children and being a change-agent for good.

18.9

Curriculum Concerns

One of the important dimensions in children’s right to quality education is how good the curriculum is, as well as how good the teachers are. There’s much discussion about what should be in a school curriculum. There are limited hours in a school day and many pieces of information to be inserted in them. What material should take priority and how that information is to be delivered are major considerations in the development of a school curriculum. Recess in many schools has been eliminated and lunchtimes shortened to make time for subjects. Arts, music, humanities, and physical education have also been cut in many schools. Educators struggle with deciding where to put learning emphasis (Jacobs 2020; Oermann 2019; Pak et al. 2020). Programs such as the Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and standards initiatives have not been found to give children critical-thinking skills or catapult them towards success (Straus 2013, 2001). As a result, these are examples of curriculum revisions away from things that may not work well for students. Curriculum revision from a children’s human rights perspective would consider both content and pedagogy. Data that US students aren’t as competitive as students in other countries in math and science has been a driving force behind curriculum revision (OECD 2015). In a study comparing academic performance of secondary students in 57 countries, 17 countries scored better in science and 24 in math than the U.S. Finland came in top followed by Hong Kong, Canada, Taiwan, Estonia, Japan and Korea (Wilde 2015). Why did Finland do best? The Finnish system provides a comprehensive preschool program for all children that emphasizes “self-reflection” and socializing, not academics; formal schooling doesn’t start until a child is 7 years of age, and the school system uses the same curriculum for all students. There are no classes for gifted students, students have light homework loads, they don’t use standardized testing but regularly use diagnostic tests to see if students need help or interventions. Teachers must have a master’s degree. College and vocational education are free in Finland, like other high-scoring countries which embrace a children’s human rights framework (Wilde 2015). The way schools are structured and the climate that they create assemble a hidden curriculum of bias, beliefs and values; one must be careful that messages of equality, justice, and inclusion exist rather than those that support the status quo and existing social hierarchy of classism, sexism, racism, and ableism (Booher-Jennings 2008; Myles 2004; Feldman 2011). In the past, teachers and schools used their expertise to make those determinations. But in recent times, parents have pushed for greater control over what is

446

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

taught, what is not, and how instruction is to be delivered (Kingkade 2022; Kruse 2021; Richards 2022; Strauss 2021). Adding units such as evolution, history of indigenous peoples, or slavery has become controversial due to public misunderstanding of what has been deemed science or critical race theory (Delgado and Stefancic 2001; George 2021; Sawchuck 2020). Even about changes on how to teach math so it can better meet the needs of all students (Hong 2021a, b). Lay personnel are trying to censor what is taught and are fighting to ban books about history, race, gender, sexual orientation is regarded as an educational gag order that it is important to call out. Control on how science, sex education, and evolution are also hot-button areas of contention, as is the demand for teachers to post daily lesson plans for parents to scrutinize. So far, 25 states have considered legislation and 9 enacted laws to limit how schools can talk about race and gender (Kingkade 2022). This is a clear demonstration of the conflict between what children’s right to education has been and what adults claim to control of children’s minds for their own political, religious, or ideological agendas (Richards 2022).

18.9.1

Book Banning

Book banning is a form of censorship, which is the suppression of ideas and information that certain individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. Parents who are attempting to ban books, especially around sex, gender, race, ‘critical race theory’, the holocaust, and history, have escalated in recent times to become more aggressive and even violent (Alter and Harris 2021; Graham 2021; Harris and Alter 2022; Vissing and Juchniewicz 2022). Censors prejudge materials and want their opinion to become the norm for everyone. Materials may include both fiction and nonfiction books, poems, articles, music, film, and can include removing a book from a library, school booklist, or classroom curriculum (Michels 2022). Censorship of children’s literature is an educational, cultural, and human rights issue. It impacts not just children but parents, teachers, administrators, librarians, editors, authors, and the public as a whole (Hobbs and Roberts 2018; Michel 2022). Access to information is considered a right in both the US Constitution and CRC. Limiting children’s access to information typically takes the following forms: parental control over deciding what children should and should not know; removing materials from libraries, school reading lists, or stores; book banning; or the intentional destruction of books either through stealth measures or public events like book burnings. Whether children should have freedom of information has been challenged in courts. The nation’s high courts have been called upon to provide interpretations of what the Constitution means in such cases and the First Amendment, which gives people (which includes children) the right to receive information as stated by Justice William Brennan in 1965:

18.10

Are All Children Taught Equally?

447

The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

In 1990, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression declared the First Amendment to be “in perilous condition across the nation” based on the results of a comprehensive survey on free expression. The complaints arose from individual parents, school board members, or public interest groups as the Moral Majority. Those who oppose book banning emphasize that the First Amendment does protect students’ rights to receive a wide array of information. The Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982) ruled 5–4 that public schools can bar books that are “pervasively vulgar” or not right for the curriculum, but they cannot remove books simply because someone disapproves of the ideas contained in those books. The Court’s decision has been regarded to be narrow and apply only to the removal of books from school library shelves (Webb 2009). The US Supreme Court considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library and found that “the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom”. The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, which include obscenity, child pornography, libel, and slander. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is almost always reserved for a court of law. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis encouraged that the American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses (Pima Community College 2022).

18.10

Are All Children Taught Equally?

No, they are not. A children’s human rights frame would ensure that all children get equal education and equal opportunities. Data indicates they are not (Jerome and Starsky 2021; Osler 2016; Hill et al. 2010). There are gender, race, ability, social class, geography, and other variables that demonstrate that some children fare well and others do not. Financial investment in schools is critical, as some schools are well resourced while others are lucky to be able to open their doors. Quality of teachers, classroom size, and curriculum matter, but so do adult expectations that influence children in multiple pathways that influence their achievements and educational outcomes. Warmth, communication, engagement in the child’s school and personal life also matter, as does a child’s social class. Access to school counselors, arts and theatre, recreation, physical education, and cutting-edge classes all influence children’s opportunities.

448

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

The uniformity approach where all students get the same information at the same time in the same way doesn’t address the unique needs, abilities and interests of individual students. As pointed out in an earlier chapter, children are stratified in a way that plunks some into a form of a caste system of untouchables. One can argue that every child is entitled to their own IEP, or individualized education plan, since every child has unique talents and challenges. This is one reason why students and parents look at educational options and different types of schools. It is difficult for teachers to meet the needs of every student. As class sizes get larger it’s hard for a single teacher, at preschool or college, to be attentive to subtle cues that students convey that indicate when they’re doing well or need extra assistance. When wellresourced students get put into elite learning communities while other students are left to languish in less-resourced schools, disparities between the haves and havenots increase.

18.10.1

Educational Apartheid

Schools can be regarded as The Big Sort into educational apartheid. Whatever school a child goes to influences who they will become. Rich neighborhoods have more money in their school budgets, which allows them to have finer buildings, more programs, resources and supplies, lower staff-child ratios, and better salaries for employees. This, in turn, attracts better teachers. School climate, teacher support, and student performance are different for schools in poor neighborhoods where there may be more crime, unemployment, and neighborhoods. Wealthier neighborhoods have better schools than impoverished ones; they have more resources, better facilities, and better paid teachers. Even when children attend the same school it doesn’t mean that they’ll receive the same quality of education. Uniformity of curriculum or implementation of a common core doesn’t mean that children receive the same education, or that they’re treated in the same way. Children’s educational experiences are structured by culture, gender, race, class and ethnicity (McNamee 2016). Teachers and peers aren’t immune from bias, and may find some children easier, or harder, to like than others. Schools can become great or awful experiences, depending on the student and their experience. Look at education through the lens of social class. Some students come from upper or middle-class homes where there is stability, enough to eat, where they have their own room, access to a computer, and financial support to purchase things needed for class assignments. At the other end of the continuum are destitute children for whom severe poverty is their reality; they’re hungry, they don’t know where they will sleep on any given night, they have no space they can call their own. Where they are living and who they are living with may fluctuate dramatically, and there’s no money to purchase essentials, much less discretionary or school items. Homeless students’ rights to education have been protected by the McKinney-Vento Act and schools are legally required to take measures to ensure that homeless students can get to school and get support so they can succeed (Duffield 2021;

18.10

Are All Children Taught Equally?

449

School House Connection 2021a, b). From a children’s human rights approach, every child benefit when having a stable home, a bed of their own, food, good hygiene, resources to be able to study and support to succeed in fulfilling their educational role. Economically distressed areas become magnets for people who are struggling. It doesn’t mean the people are lesser human beings—it means only that they have fewer arrows in their quiver. Students from challenged communities may arrive with more structurally-induced preventable personal, family, health, educational and behavioral problems that require more attention, which is harder to provide when there are higher staff-student ratios and fewer resources. This results in a form of neighborhood apartheid; students in wealthy schools tend to do much better than students who live in impoverished neighborhoods. This is why many families choose to live in neighborhoods that have the best schools. People with limited incomes have limited options. Poverty is associated with race, but educational apartheid is not racial apartheid directly—it is class apartheid. Neighborhood apartheid exists year after year, replicating the status-quo (Powell 2021b).

18.10.2

Institutionalized Racism

The data from countless reports across the nation repeat the same message— systemic racism is still apparent in schools and student outcomes Wallace 2016b. This is despite the Supreme Court Brown vs the Board of Education decision in the 1960s prohibiting segregation, or Jonathan Kozol’s book on Savage Inequalities in 1991. Predominately nonwhite schools get $23 billion less funding than their white counterparts (Chatterji 2020). Black students are more likely to receive harsh discipline, poorer education, fewer resources, less support, and for many, school is a pipeline to prison rather than college (Darling-Hammond 1998; Weir 2016). Racism has not abated. It may not look the same as in segregated schools, but the disparity that children of different races and ethnicities experience so blatant that it is sometimes called “the new racism” in schools (Kohli et al. 2017). The school-toprison-pipeline is a disturbing national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Many of these children have learning disabilities or histories of poverty, abuse or neglect, and would benefit from additional educational and counseling services. Instead, they are isolated, punished and pushed out. “Zero-tolerance” policies criminalize minor infractions of school rules, while cops in school lead to students being criminalized for behavior that should be handled inside the school. Students of color are especially vulnerable to push-out trends and the discriminatory application of discipline (ACLU 2022).

450

18.10.3

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Institutionalized Genderism

Gender equity in the US had improved after the women’s movement in the 1970s, but has become stagnant or even stalled (England et al. 2020). Females continue to experience overt and covert forms of discrimination both in and out of the classroom (Cimpian 2018). The gender achievement gap remains consistent despite equality efforts, thus substantiating the continued impact of institutionalized sexism (Reardon et al. 2019). Transgender students have experienced challenges to their rights. According to the American Bar Association, “First, it was school bathrooms and locker rooms. Then, it became an issue of preventing transgender youth access to medical care. Now they’re targeting transgender youth in sports and there’s no sign that it will subside any time soon. Transgender youth are under attack.” (Bittker and George 2021). There are 1.8 million youth age 13–17 who are transgender and countless more who are under age 13. This means they are a significant population entitled to human rights. However, their rights have not been aggressively defended. Nineteen states banned transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity.2 While the International Olympic Committee established a framework encouraging sports federations to include transathletes into their regulations or athlete bills of rights, “a number of sport governing bodies have since imposed severe restrictions on transathlete participation . . . geared instead toward exclusion”.3 In K-12 schools there exist huge differences in how transathletes will be included or excluded from sports; state laws, organizational positions, and school policies may be worlds apart.4 Bills in dozens of states have requested legislation related to LGBTQ+, with some advancing nondiscrimination laws while others target them for unfair and unequal treatment.5 The mental health impacts on trans youth are significant (Torchinsky 2022), as are the physical health implications of their discrimination (Bradford et al. 2013). Team sports are often excluding trans students. Title IX may be rewritten to clarify and reflect trans people’s rights. Instead of receiving support, trans youth parents are being charged with child abuse in Texas (Goodwyn 2022).

18.10.4

Language and Culture

Excelling in school may be harder for students for whom English isn’t their first language or for those children who have recently immigrated. One in three children live in a household where a language other than English is spoken (Child Trends 2

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/sports_participation_bans https://www.si.com/more-sports/2022/07/06/transgender-athletes-bans-policies-ioc-ncaa 4 https://www.transathlete.com/k-12 5 https://freedomforallamericans.org/legislative-tracker/student-athletics/ 3

18.10

Are All Children Taught Equally?

451

2014h). The majority of children in the US today are of color, and that number is only going to increase (PBS 2020). While some children grow up in multi-lingual homes and learn several languages simultaneously, it may be harder for children who live in homes where English isn’t spoken, as may be the case for recent immigrants. It may be more challenging for parents to assist young learners if their ability to read and comprehend materials are in a different language. Research suggests that multilingual children benefit markedly since they gain skills in divergent thinking, perspective taking, symbolic representation, and multi-cultural awareness (Child Trends 2014h). Schools that promote bilingualism in an integrative and respectful way help students to be more successful; failing to provide information to children in their native languages and to help them develop new language skills puts them at an educational disadvantage. If schools aren’t attentive to the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students, they are structuring inequality into their programs. Students who hail from immigrant families have often not had the same education rights as other students. Some have been afraid to pursue certain activities, tests, or applying for college because they feared they would be denied access or they or their parents could be deported or jailed (Perret 2021). The Dreamers Act, DACA, has become a controversial example of the violation of children’s human rights to education (Romero 2020).

18.10.5

Students with Ability Differences

People with disabilities are the largest minority group in the US (Disability Funders Network 2023). Children with “disabilities” or atypical abilities have long received discrimination, harassment, abuses, marginalization, and inadequate education. These have been challenged through the courts to protect student’s rights. Schools are challenged to ensure that the educational needs of every student are met, irrespective of their ability level. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2023), over 6.5 million children receive special education services, or about 13% of students. However, not every child who needs help receives special education services. Schools may not have the resources to serve all who would benefit (Child Trends 2014h). Costs for care de-incentivize schools to code students as having disabilities. This is especially the case when the child needs services that the school district cannot provide and the child must be sent out of district or to a special school or program to obtain the needed help. It could cost over $300,000 a year per student—if a district had three students who needed out-of-district placements, that’s an additional million dollars the school has to find for them. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that individualized education plans, or IEPs, be provided for students who have special needs. Millions of children have learning issues that never get identified, so they don’t get the help they need and they struggle along as best they can. It can be reasonably argued that every child needs an individualize education plan, or IEP. But most institutions are designed to address

452

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

collective, not individual, needs (McNamee 2016). A children’s human rights frame holds that every child is different with their own unique gifts, talents, abilities and challenges (Hertberg-Davis and Callahan 2013). As Gardner (2011) notes, every child has something special to offer and they have the right to have adults and schools help them to develop their strengths and gifts, as well as overcome their challenges.

18.11

Are Schools Social Service Agencies?

Students arrive at school with a variety of learning abilities, physical and mental health conditions, family complexities, interpersonal and behavioral issues that make teaching today’s children more challenging than in the past. If they’re hungry, cold, sick, or upset, these issues flow into the classroom. Therefore, education and well-being are interdependent and indivisible. While instruction may be the manifest function of schools, by default they are also a social service agency. Schools are the only institution that have contact with every child in the community, every day, month after month, year after year. Because students can’t learn well when they have unaddressed problems, schools by default have had to move into providing more than academic content. Schools are the main social community for children. All school personnel are in positions to identify when children are having home problems, being bullied, or when something has changed in their lives. Nurses see children when they’re sick, hungry, tired, have belly or headaches that range in origin from stress to the flu. As class sizes have become larger, it’s harder for teachers to identify the needs of each student and refer them for help, especially when students engage in impression management (Goffman 1959). Many schools don’t have a social worker or psychologist and the average rate is 250 students per school counselor (Vissing and Vernick 2021). School counselors are often inundated with fixing school schedules, organizing college fairs, writing recommendation letters or sending transcripts and may not be available to talk with children about being shunned by classmates, having problems at home, being scared they could be pregnant, or dealing with the suicide of their friend. Young people can be dealing with some very big, emotional, and life-changing situations. Given that children may not have the money or ability to go see a therapist in the community, schools are the only place where they may be able to get the help they need. As one male student asked me—why don’t schools have an office where students could pop in at any point during the day to talk about things that are upsetting to them, or ask for information and resources that could help them? When a youth feels troubled or in crisis, they need help now—not when it’s convenient for a professional to schedule an appointment weeks later (O’Donnell 2014). Children’s mental health has gained more attention during the pandemic, but it has always been an under-addressed issue. Suicide is now the second highest cause of death for young people. Psychopharmacology of children is becoming normative to help them deal with anxiety, depression, ADHD, and other issues. From an entire

18.11

Are Schools Social Service Agencies?

453

system perspective it is important to be more attentive to the prevention, identification, treatment, and recovery of mental health, stress, and traumas that may afflict children (Becker 2021; Benton et al. 2021; Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b; Solloway and Stahl 2021; US News 2021). However, while children’s mental health needs have been recognized to be greater since the pandemic, there is also an effort to prevent them from getting the care they need (Schneider 2021). Just as physical healthcare is a necessity for children, so is mental health. More schools are providing healthcare, clothes-closet exchanges, free-breakfasts, and other supportive services. It may be more cost-effective to consider treating schools like social service agencies and providing them the resources they need to do this task well. This is another example of how children’s human rights provisions are indivisible and interdependent. Schools provide children not just education, but physical health, mental health, social health, civic health, as well as access to transportation, food, computers and wifi, libraries, recreation, career development, and people who care about them. “School infrastructure is a children’s human rights issue—it’s time the US acknowledges that” (Richards 2022).

18.11.1

School Healthcare Provisions and Participations

Schools, as part of state and local government agencies, have a constitutional duty to protect public safety and students. Protecting children from illness has become a public health concern since the pandemic. Schools are a collectivity where children from different homes and neighborhoods congregate in close quarters together. Despite the benefits of this shared experience, this automatically puts them at risk of communicable illnesses. Schools are theoretically obligated to take measures to reduce the risk of exposure and to institute supportive resources not just to prevent but to address illnesses when they occur, but they are not legally required to do so, nor do they have to have a school nurse (Zieff et al. 2020). According to the National Association of School Nurses (NASN), only about 40% of all U.S. schools have a full-time nurse; just 35% have a part-time nurse, and 25% have no nurse at all. As pointed out earlier, most schools do not have school social workers or mental health professionals of any type either. The American Federation of Teachers (2022) points out that in the 1890s, the first school nurses began to identify and remove contagions from schools. Today, the professional school nurse plays a critical role in assessment, intervention and monitoring. They may take temperatures or diagnose illnesses, help treat communicable and chronic diseases in children, manage students having seizures or allergic reactions, counsel, educate, dispense medications, and assist students with psychosocial issues like drug and alcohol use, sexual abuse, violence, family dysfunction, poverty, homelessness, pregnancy, and bullying. Students who have access to registered nurses are more likely to be sent home for care or to professional caregivers in cases of illness or injury. If nurses are

454

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

unavailable, either students do not get care or teachers have to quit teaching to address injured or ill students. Around 6% of students receive prescription medications at school and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 39% of schools nationwide, someone other than a registered school nurse administered students’ medications. The COVID-19 pandemic hit schools hard and many were in lock-down for weeks or months at a time while healthcare providers tried to figure out the nature of the virus and its spread. Schools followed CDC health measures of social distancing and mask wearing in order to protect students, teachers, and families. Schools were following public health advice to protect the children. However, these public health measures were sometimes met with opposition from parents (Khan 2022a). Schools have come under attack as well for providing sex education. Many parents demand an abstinence-only approach, which is simply unrealistic and outof-touch with children’s lives (Vissing 2019a). Healthcare information about, and for, transgender students is also being met with opposition in some schools and communities. While topics may feel uncomfortable for some adults, healthcare providers in schools typically take a position that healthcare is both provision as well as a form of protection for children and their rights.

18.12

Education and Children’s Human Right to Protections

Child protection is part of the function of schools; in general, schools have focused on student physical safety and civil rights. Federal and state laws require schools to be proactive about protecting the civil rights of their students and to foster a positive learning environment free from discriminatory harassment (Dragan 2020). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 define the right of students to be educated in an environment free of discriminatory harassment based on race, national origin, disability, and gender. Schools have an obligation to protect students’ bodies as well as their civil rights. They are to protect children from violence from teachers, coaches, peers, and when they are on school property. It requires that they protect children when they are on school property. It means making sure their physical and mental health is protected. In recent years, concerns about the protection of students on school have ranged from bullying, school shootings, discrimination and harassment, assault, and protecting children from contracting diseases like COVID-19 (Richards 2022; Vissing 2021a).

18.12

Education and Children’s Human Right to Protections

18.12.1

455

How Safe Are Children at School?

The safety of children at school has become a national concern. While no place can provide 100% assurance of the safety of 100% of the people 100% of the time, in general, schools are one of the safest places for children to be. Extensive measures have been put into place to safeguard them. Buildings, policies, procedures, rules, laws, credentialing, certification, assessments, supervision, and monitoring have been constructed to ensure the protection of students and staff. The Centers for Disease Control (2022) have created volumes of recommendations for how to keep children healthy at school, whether it is from viruses, violence, communicable disease, sanitation, or other health problems. The US government6 has many official and associated school safety organizations that address things including school shootings, violence, mental health, bullying, cyber security, disaster and emergency planning, and other safety issues. There are nonprofit and professional association groups, including superintendent and principal organizations, places like the National School Safety Center7 and other school safety organizations8 that work diligently to create standards, resources, and supports for schools to be safe. That said, how safe a school is—and how safe a particular student is within that school—all depends on a variety of structural and interpersonal factors. Data reflects this bifurcation. Some communities have embedded more human rights protections for children, families, and adults than others. There is geographic variation of available resources, economic conditions, racial discrimination, and crime. These factors contaminate or insulate students; what they experience at home and in the community inevitably comes with them into the classroom. Therefore, it is logical that some people will see schools to be very safe and others perceive schools to be unsafe; likewise, within a given school it is likely that some students will have a positive experience while others have a negative one.

18.12.2

Rights-Respecting School and Climates

It must be remembered that schools are part of a larger community, and schools are not insulated from whatever is happening in the larger community. Students come to school experiencing problems that were once thought to be the domain of adults. Poverty, child abuse, homelessness, hunger, substance abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence, mental illness, suicide, crime, jail, legal problems, sexual intimacy, chronic disease, and trauma are common (Child Trends Databank 2018; Hodge 2020; Huesmann et al. 2003; James 2017; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2017; Vissing 2021; Vissing et al. 2019a; Wallace 2016a). Yet most schools are 6

https://www.schoolsafety.gov/ https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=1554 8 https://www.healthsafety.com/articles/school-safety-organizations 7

456

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

inadequately staffed to deal with student’s personal problems. There are programs like the University of Buffalo’s Institute on Trauma and Trauma Informed Care to help schools prevent trauma and better manage its impact on students and staff when it occurs. Rights-respecting schools cannot take for granted that children are immune from these kinds of problems. Putting into place the supports and resources they need is essential, reaffirming the notion that schools are indeed children’s main social service agencies. Schools that have implemented a children’s human rights framework internationally do not have the amount of bullying, harassment, or school shootings that we have in the US (Becker 2015; Lundy 2023). Research on school shootings indicate that most shooters have unmet personal, relationship, or psychological needs (Vogel 2012). There are a variety of practical and policy measures that have been found to reduce the likelihood of school violence (Barrett et al. 2017; Brenner et al. 2018; Campus Safety 2016; Cannon 2016; Englander 2013; Hanna 1988; National School Climate Center 2023; Stop Bullying.Gov 2018; Winn 2017), including having more school counselors and supports for all students (Corrigan et al. 2014; Pescosolido et al. 1999; Vissing and Vernick 2021; Wahl 2002), creating trauma-informed schools (Vissing 2021b), improving inclusion supports, and encouraging, rather than discouraging, children from questioning or negotiating rules (Lareau 2003; O’Brien 2015). Having more police officers or guns on campus has not been found to limit violence (Gavran 2019; Ludwig 2021; Sherman 2019). Schools that implement positive climates and student supports are generally regarded to be some of the safest places for children to congregate (Sheldon 2011).

18.12.3

Discipline

There is no national standard for exactly what constitutes discipline or punishment. Some adult responses to children may be called discipline but may be a form of corporal punishment or child abuse. Children are new in the world and do not automatically know the norms and rules of society and benefit from learning them. This educational training or redirection of behavior is known as discipline. The focus is on instruction to help the child prevent unhelpful behaviors. Punishment, on the other hand, is retribution, vengeance, imposition of a penalty to make a child pay for wrongdoing. There is a big difference between discipline and punishment. Discipline does not use violence; punishment does. Historically, students could be flogged, hit with rulers, paddled, or penalized with different forms of physical violence to gain their compliance. Use of physical methods of control still are used in schools. Public schools may, or may not, prohibit corporal punishment. Private schools do not necessarily have to comply with state or district standards because they are private and have the authority to set their own rules, standards, and procedures. Each state creates their own standards, laws, programs, and guidelines for what is permissible contact with a child. This means that what is defined as abuse may differ from state to state, as may its reporting systems

18.12

Education and Children’s Human Right to Protections

457

or what will happen to alleged perpetrators. Corporal punishment is legal in 19 states, meaning that if a child is hit in school in one of those 19 states it can be considered legal without any penalty to the perpetrator. The federal government has not included corporal punishment in initiatives about improving school discipline so 19 states continue to use it. The same act could be considered abusive and there may be penalties for the person inflicting the harm onto the child; if an adult hit another adult in the same way that adults hit children, it could be regarded as assault and criminal penalties awarded (Gershoff and Font 2016). A children’s human rights framework would eliminate the use of corporal punishment in all schools at all ages. Educators, more than any profession, should have the skills to educate students about proper behavior. Hitting them sends entirely the wrong message about constructive problems-solving and conflict resolution. It is an antiquated way to discipline children, it is not instructive in delivering positive messages for behavioral change, and is a violation of children’s rights to be treated with dignity and respect. The House of Representatives has submitted HB 1234 to end corporal punishment in all schools.9

18.12.4

School Shootings

It is the right of children to go to school and be safe. Parents have a right to know that when they drop their children off to school that they will come home safely. The number of school shootings has risen in recent years (Washington Post 2016a, b). Shootings are associated directly with the availability of guns, and caused by unresolved interpersonal problems, mental health issues, or fights (Lapin 2021). Organizations like Everytown USA10 and the Sandy Hook Promise11 point out that most school shootings could be prevented with better gun control and more supportive services for students. With over 300 police officers standing around at Ross Elementary School in Uvalde for over 90 min while children were being murdered, the nation is being forced to reconsider prevention and action plans for schools. Schools have undertaken a hard rather than a soft approach to dealing with preventing possible shootings. A school-shooting prevention industry has emerged that costs well over $2.7 billion to have armored school doors, campus police officers, metal detectors, and the like. There is no proof that these expenses and measures make students and schools safer. Billions of dollars have been spent in other areas to put in safety measures that resemble a police-state in many schools, with no data to prove that these costs and attempts to harden schools have had a positive impact (Fiddiman 2018). Police-state reactions have been found to target

9

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1234/text?r=3&s=1 https://www.everytown.org/ 11 https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/gun-violence/16-facts-about-gun-violence-and-schoolshootings/ 10

458

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

BIPOC students and those with disabilities at much higher rates. There exists significant concern about the motives behind this growing school-safety advocacy industry; while on the surface they sound helpful, what they do, the costs, and the effectiveness hint that this is another market that uses children to make money for corporations (Chatterjee 2021). Instead of hardware, the increased availability of mental health services has been found to be more effective and cost-affordable. Yet schools are not choosing to invest in mental health services, despite a blatantly obvious increased need for them. The standard recommends one counselor for every 250 students; that may seem ridiculously low given the need and the logical wait-time for a student to ever get a couple of minutes with the school counselor. But it is far worse than that. Arizona has the fewest counselors in the nation with one counselor for every 905 students. Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and California each operate schools with ratios above 600 students per counselor (Barshay 2020). Poorly funded schools, especially in the South and in areas where there are more BIPOC students, have fewer counselors than affluent areas. Over 1.7 million students attend schools with police officers but no counselors; three million have police officers and no school nurses, six million with police but no psychologists, and ten million students go to schools with police but no social workers (Chatterjee 2021). Shooter training drills and lock-down practices, for even children in daycare centers are occurring, and the effectiveness of such programs are highly questionable. Programs like ALICE (age appropriate elementary school training) are used across the country. In assessing data on whether they make children prepared or scared, the mental health distress they create seems greater than any benefit for an unlikely attack (Brunswick et al. 2021; Jonson et al. 2020). What does seem to help create safer schools is addressing student mental health needs proactively and working to create inclusive and supportive school climates (Vissing 2021a, b).

18.12.5

Bullying

Bullying and harassment in all its forms is nothing new but in the last two decades greater measures have been taken to prevent and curb it because we have become “a bully society” (Klein 2013). Research indicates that most children have either been victims of bullying or observed it happening to others. Bullying has three components—the bully, the bullied, and the bystander (Coloroso 2009). Often the bully is a child who was abused at home or who learned bullying types of interpersonal communications were a strategy to get what they wanted (Lisak 2017). Cyberbullying has increased with the rise of computer use and the increased isolation of youth. Girls are more likely to engage in reputational bullying where they disparage and harass other students (No Bullying 2016). Students with disabilities are often bullied (PACER 2018) as are LGBTQ+ students (Stop Bullying 2021, 2022) and the effects quite damaging (Swearer 2015). The effects of bullying can be so significant that bullying is thought to be associated with suicide (Kim and

18.13

Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation

459

Leventhal 2008). Anti-bullying programs like OLWEUS12 or Stomp Out Bullying13 have become commonplace in schools across the nation. Bullying is associated with discriminatory harassment such as saying demeaning things, graphic and written statements, restraining a person, conduct that is physically, sexually, or emotionally threatening, harmful, or humiliating. Destruction of a student’s personal property also falls in this category. The intended victims can be of any gender, ability, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, or appearance. Harassment can occur in school hallways, in class, during recess, in the cafeteria or bathrooms, on the bus, or on school property. If a school is aware of it and is indifferent to it, a civil rights lawsuit can be filed (Dragan 2020).

18.13

Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation

Participating in school is an important foundational skill that is constructive for building life success. It may be uncomfortable for children to join in groups or share their ideas; when opportunities are provided for all children to participate, it is important for everyone. Learning to have a voice that people will listen to is part of assuming that all people are important and things to offer. Promoting rightsrespecting attitudes and behaviors among children creates benefits for children in both the short and long-run, and is foundational in creating a rights-supporting culture (Covell et al. 2009). Evidence shows that children who learn and experience their rights gain basic skills and corresponding social responsibilities. They develop attitudes and values that are necessary for the promotion and protection of the rights of others. Rights respecting education helps children to acquire the behavioral and attitudinal skills necessary for effective participation in a democratic society. Schools are the major social institution that has contact with almost all of the children in a community and are situated to encourage the development of their agency and participation. Current educational pedagogy and practices reflect changes in this direction that can be seen in the types of participation opportunities schools provide. Participation means not just giving children a voice, it means listening to it and taking their views meaningfully into account. Their views should be taken seriously when decisions or actions are taken that affect their lives directly or indirectly, as guaranteed by Article 12 of the CRC. Participation can take place in different forms, appropriate to different circumstances. Children should be supported to take part in decisions that contribute to the lives, shape the school and the communities they live in and wider society. Children’s views will need to be given due weight in light of their age and maturity, but young age or relative immaturity is no reason for 12 13

https://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/olweus_bullying_prevention_program.page https://www.stompoutbullying.org/

460

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

discounting children’s opinions or for giving them less attention in decision-making processes. In Wales, a Pupil Parliament was introduced in a primary school which mirrors the Welsh Government structure, with Cabinet Members taking particular responsibility for different priority areas in the school. This is different from the US student council model. The parliament model is nationwide and celebrates student participation as an important contribution to democracy and public life. In another example of a teaching program called You Said . . . I Did, it puts into practice things like: Recognise that there are different levels of participation, relevant to different circumstances; Include a clear commitment to participation of children in all significant school policies; Adopt National Participation Standards; Develop targets and programmes of action to increase participation, in particular amongst otherwise excluded/marginalised or disadvantaged children and young people; Involve children directly in the design, monitoring and evaluation of teaching and learning; Create choice about learning. Enable pupil voice in the classroom through participative pedagogy; Involve children in the recruitment of staff; Provide feedback to children and staff on the outcomes of children’s involvement, highlighting any changes brought about by their participation; and Ensure that resources (human/ financial) are identified to support participation. The Wales framework is an international model that is quite different from the one used in most places across the US, and provides food for thoughtful consideration.

18.13.1

School Climate and Participation

It is to a school’s benefit, as well as the child’s, to implement a children’s human rights education program in schools (Tisdall 2022). Some schools encourage more student participation than others (Andersson 2017; Arnstein 1969; Becker et al. 2000; Becker and McNeal 1987; Checkoway and Gutierrez 2006; Del Felice et al. 2015; Lansdown 2001; Lansdown et al. 2014; Levy and Akiva 2019; Miretzky 2004; Tisdall et al. 2006). Teachers and communities have higher rates of satisfaction when schools implement a human rights climate and students are taught about being rights holders (Covell and Howe 1999; Hart and Pavlovic 1991; Hastings and Bham 2003; Kokkinos 2007). Montessori and Reggio Emilia schools are renowned for allowing students to have choices, whereas many public schools run like military schools and tightly regimented. Every school develops its own climate and reputation and student involvement is impacted as a result. Participation scaffolding occurs as they grow through middle and high school and gain more leadership opportunities and interests. Schools realize that children want to engage with each other and the world. In attending school, students acquire subject matter, participate in groups, teams, sports, and extra-curricular activities. Most schools try to provide a smorgasbord of interest choices in which students can participate, from sports to academic pursuits, theatre, arts, music, student council, newspapers, radio shows, and a host

18.13

Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation

461

of other school clubs and extra-curricular activities. Schools generally attempt to meet their rights to explore different options. This leads them to both immediate success in school as well as future success in education or employment. Studies with find it’s efficacious to encourage even very young children, like preschoolers, to embrace their sense of agency in constructive ways, as it has both immediate and long-term benefits (Berthelsen and Brownlee 2005). Creating a climate in which children feel supported to participate is crucial to their well-being, and that of society as well. A United Nations report found that citizenship education provide young people with skills, experiences, and dispositions that enable them to participate critically and constructively in peaceful democratic processes associated with the pursuit of social justice. Learning how social relations work provides youth with opportunities to explore situations and reflect on the ethical challenges they face in their daily lives. Equipping young people with the insights and understandings to live harmoniously with others is more important today than ever before. Schools could be re-conceptualized to provide more agency to students and teach them the underpinnings of positive citizenship and democracy—which can be created through participation and partnership in the school’s daily routines (Johnny 2006). But for many students, social exclusion is a regular reality. There may be gender, racial, religious or economic barriers for them to overcome. With many recreational and sports outlets costing money in order to participate, youth may be excluded because they can’t pay to play. There are cliques, in-groups and out-groups, and young people struggle to find a niche where they can belong. Many students experience bullying, harassment, and interpersonal violence at school. While schools can be the training ground for happiness and success for some students, it can also be a tough environment for others in which their rights are violated.

18.13.2

Student’s Legal Rights to Participation

The issue of whether children have rights at school, or what type of rights, has been contentious and resulted in several Supreme Court cases. Public school students possess a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write articles, assemble to form groups and even petition school officials on issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.” (American Bar Association 2019). The First Amendment and the other provisions of the Bill of Rights limit the government from infringing on an individual’s rights. Public school officials are considered state-actors or duty-bearers of the government and must act according to the principles in the Bill of Rights. Private schools, however, aren’t arms of the government so the First Amendment does not provide rights protection for students at private schools. This is behind some of the moves to privatize education. Even within public schools there are regular rights violations of

462

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

students. Some of the main student rights issues are described below, from citations from Rabinovitch-Fox 2021; Sawchuck 2021; Tashman 2017).

18.13.2.1

Freedom of Speech Rights

The First Amendment ensures that students cannot be punished for exercising free speech rights, even if school administrators don’t approve of what they are saying. The scope of that right, and the power of the school to regulate student speech, differs depending on whether the speech is part of a school-sponsored event, is independent student speech during school time, or student speech that takes place off-campus. Students have the right to express themselves on school grounds, but schools may regulate or ban speech they view as disruptive. Some cases have gone to the Supreme Court. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court held that a school improperly limited a junior high school student’s right to free speech when it suspended her for wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. The Court observed, “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners,” which the Court found was unconstitutional. The court declared that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Schools can regulate the use of language conventionally viewed as obscene or offensive in otherwise protected speech. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Supreme Court held that a public high school student who used sexually explicit language in a student-election speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Schools also may prohibit and punish speech viewed as promoting illegal drug use, despite the fact that this limits student expression. In a 2021 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Mahanoy Area School District v B.L. that reaffirmed the importance of free speech rights of young people and students across the country. The court ruled that school authorities must respect students’ rights to express themselves outside of school, including their right to express dissenting or unpopular views. In this case a student used profanity to describe the school after school, off campus, and on social media. The court recognized that schools do not have the same authority to punish students for speech outside of school as they do in school contexts. The court found that schools have an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus because America’s schools are the nurseries of teaching democracy. On the other hand, when the speech is part of a school-sponsored forum, like a school newspaper, the school has greater power to regulate the speech’s content. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court noted that when a school newspaper produced on campus using the school’s resources, a school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. This ruling allows schools the same power that the publisher of any newspaper has to control the

18.13

Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation

463

content of its own publication. Thus, regarding freedom speech rights, the courts have been involved for decades trying to resolve disputes over student rights to have freedom of speech.

18.13.2.2

Consent

Are minors allowed the right to give consent for themselves in issues that pertain to their lives or is consent always an adult decision? This participation question underlies the issue of whether schools are institutions that promote rights or compliance. “As social institutions that are meant to prepare future citizens to function in society, schools are hardly democratic spaces. Instead, schools use their authority to enforce social values through curriculum choices, enrollment decisions and also dress codes” (Rabinovitch-Fox 2021). School boards and teachers find themselves in a predicament as they try to negotiate trying to provide good education, support for student well-being, and keep community reaction at bay over their curriculum, what they teach, how they teach, and what they allow students to do. Schools, as a microcosm of society, have a very slender tightrope to walk, especially when it comes to children’s participation rights. This may be why so many try to avoid controversial issues whenever they can. Stearns (2022) examines how children give Consent in the Childhood Classroom and challenges typical premises of the way students are treated of how they give consent to how they are treated at school. Teachers often lack a conceptual framework for understanding how student “misbehaviors” are not ill-intended but frustrated expressions stemming from social injustices, developmental nuances, and problematic assumptions about the nature of children’s agency. Students receive mixed-messages about under what contexts to challenge adult authority. We are teaching consent all wrong to children, according to Sparks (2019) who finds that learning about consent would reduce sexual abuse and empower students not to blindly follow what someone tells them to do that might be dangerous or wrong. Learning that you have the right to have boundaries and you do not have the right to violate someone else’s boundaries are good for children at every age according to Tatter (2018), who gives guidelines for how to scaffold this type of participation across different age groups.

18.13.2.3

Dress Code Rights

Another way that children participate in expressing their unique identities is in the way students dress and present themselves. The Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker concerned a black armband worn to protest the Vietnam War and found that clothing expression is protected under the First Amendment. But the verdict on whether schools have a right to enforce dress codes is unclear. In lower courts, dress codes intended to limit distractions and promote discipline have been upheld, just as requiring uniforms would be. Dress codes that prohibit gang symbols that may be

464

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

disruptive are allowed, even though the symbols are designed to express ideas. Clothing which bears a political message that the school doesn’t like cannot be prohibited, as it would be an unconstitutional “viewpoint-based” restriction.\ The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that dress codes are often used to target and shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes and punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination by targeting students of color over supposed “gang” symbols or punishing students for wearing natural hairstyles and hair extensions. In the Supreme Court case Karr v. Schmidt, the court ruled that wearing long hair did not merit the protection of the First Amendment. Yet, as Henderson (2021) observes, discrimination of Black students because of their hair is “undeniably racist, unfounded, and illegal”. Dress codes can also infringe on a student’s religious rights by barring rosaries, headscarves and other religious symbols. Schools must make the case that a certain kind of dress is disruptive to school activities, and not use dress codes to punish girls, people of color, transgender and gender non-conforming students and free speech (Tashman 2021). Thirteen-year-old Sofia Trevino in Georgia has challenged her school’s dress code over her ripped jeans, with assertions that dress codes are often sexist, racist, and classist. Studies indicate that Black and Brown girls get written up the most for dress code violations, followed by Black boys, then white girls, then white boys. Complaints that girls should dress in ways that do not entice boys misplaces the rights issue of boys learning to be respectful of females, no matter what they look like or how they dress (DeMitchell et al. 2020; Paz 2021). The current mask-wearing debate surrounding the COVID-19 debate has become a dress code issue. Just as dress codes have never been just about clothing or appearance, masks have become an arena where students, school officials, and parents test the boundaries of freedom and power. While the question of how much control schools may exert over students’ bodies is up for debate, there is a consensus that schools have the authority to do so, not students or their parents. “And it is precisely this consensus about dress codes that offers a route to solve the current debate about masks” (Rabinovitch-Fox 2021). Schools can mandate the wearing of masks to protect children from disease despite governor’s executive order banning such mandates if the mandate was framed as part of the school’s dress code. Treating masks as a fashion item instead of a health measure allowed the school to claim the authority to regulate their use. Schools have long asserted their ability to control students’ bodies and attire, and could use that power to protect the rights of children to stay healthy (Rabinovitch-Fox 2021).

18.13.2.4

Search and Seizure Rights

The fourth Amendment affirms that the government and police cannot search homes or belongings unless they have a warrant or probable cause that someone committed a crime. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that students are not entitled to the same level of protection (Rabinovitch-Fox 2021; Sawchuck 2021; Tashman 2017).

18.13

Education and Children’s Human Right to Participation

465

Almost every school has a policy of taking certain items belonging to students. Searches can be conducted by teachers, administrators, or school resource or police officers, as justified in the case State of New Hampshire Supreme Court v Heitzler (2000). School officials generally only need to have reasonable cause or a suspicion in order to search student’s backpacks, lockers, belongings, or their person, as shown in Wisconsin Supreme Court v Angela D. B (1997). The court has ruled that it is acceptable to require students to take a random drug test, even when there is no evidence that they are using drugs, as decided in Vernonia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls. Drug-sniffing dogs are generally considered legal, even when there is no suspicion of drug use. The National Youth Rights Association (2021) and Kids Law (2021) find there are legal procedures for school searches and seizures of student property, but that most students are unaware of them and rarely challenge violations of their rights. Schools must be able to state specifically what they are looking for and have a good reason for believing they will find it in the place they are looking, but what is considered a good cause isn’t always clear. What the time being looked for, what is being searched, and the person doing the search may vary by school. Courts have determined the legality of searches using three different criteria, including probably cause—which school officials may not need in order to conduct a search; reasonable suspicion; or random searches. Schools may conduct strip searches, as in the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding, when an eighth grader was searched because another student said she might have ibuprofen hidden in her underwear, which violated the school’s policy. Pat-down searches may occur but may violate students by groping them. Schools have violated students’ right to privacy by illegally video recording them without their knowledge while changing in a locker room, as in Brannum v. Overton County School Board. School officials only need reasonable suspicion to search student belongings; in the landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court ruled that school administrators do not need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school. Federal law allows locker and desk searches because they are considered school property and students shouldn’t expect anything they put in there to be kept private.

18.13.2.5

Digital Property Rights

The digital rights of students are often violated in schools (Barnett 2021; Davies et al. 2014; Galtung 2006; Myers 2008). Schools have sometimes demanded to search student’s cellphones, computers, or social media accounts. First and fourth amendment issues are involved here when it comes to student rights. In the case of Boca Raton Community High School, the school had a policy of searching through the text messages, photos, emails, and voicemails of student cell phones that were confiscated during class. Some schools have forced students to give school administrators the passwords to their social media accounts, and in the case

466

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

S.S. v. Minnewaska Area School District (District Court of Minnesota 2012), the school had to pay damages and revise its social media privacy policy. Children’s data is often collected, distributed, and sold without their knowledge or consent. This can be on standardized tests, to state/federal government agencies, or other forms. The issue of children’s human rights issues around the digital world has yet to be fully understood or resolved. The ramifications are huge.

18.13.2.6

Self-Incrimination and Due Process Rights

Students may feel pressured by teachers, administrators, or school police officers and may say things they hope will get them off the hook, whether they were guilty or not. Fifth Amendment issues pertain to “pleading the fifth” of non-incrimination, while the 14th Amendment assures children that they should get the same procedural protections as adult citizens. This is also supported in the CRC Articles.

18.13.2.7

Discipline Rights

The CRC and the eighth Amendment forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. military outlawed corporal punishment in 1862, and all states had ended it as a judge-ordered punishment by the early 1970s, yet corporal punishment is still legal in 19 states, as discussed earlier.

18.13.2.8

Immigrant Rights

Schools cannot discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, national origin. Undocumented children and homeless children cannot be denied their right to a free public education, but some schools continue to create exclusionary policies.

18.13.2.9

Disability Rights

Public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating against students with disabilities, and cannot deny them equal access to academic courses, field trips, extracurricular activities, school technology, and health services. The Americans With Disabilities Act exists to protect people of all ages who have ability challenges. Sometimes, educators and administrators have discriminated by refusing to make necessary medical accommodations, restricting access to educational activities and opportunities, ignoring harassment and bullying, and failing to train staff on compliance with state and federal laws.

18.14

A Children’s Human Rights Framework

18.13.2.10

467

LGBTQ+ Rights

The rights of LGBTQ+ students remain a hot-button issue in many schools. According to the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the Supreme Court has found that discrimination against LGBTQ+ students is illegal. Some schools have support groups and work hard to protect their rights, while others fail to provide appropriate bathrooms and activities for them. Transgender and gender non-conforming students often face hostile environments in which school officials and classmates bully them, refuse to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns, or provide access to appropriate bathroom and locker room facilities. The Southern Poverty Law Center (2021) and other organizations have been clear about the Constitution’s and Title IX’s protection of their rights. LGBTQ+ issues extend into team sports, extra curriculuar activities, use of pronouns, discussions, and even having books in schools on topics that perain to this population of children.

18.13.2.11

Pregnancy Rights

Title IX bars sex discrimination in education, yet pregnant students may find it difficult to complete their work, participate in classes and activities, or suitable accommodations that make it hard for them to graduate and be successful. Childcare and the ability for mothers to nurse their babies proves to be another rights consideration that schools and students must confront.

18.14

A Children’s Human Rights Framework

Architects cannot build a structure without designing a blueprint. It begins with everyone knowing what children’s human rights are. Since it seems that most people do not know the details of what the term means, it is important to engage in a comprehensive national network that embeds human rights education into structures, polices, and practices. In some ways, human rights education is our blueprint for how to construct a children’s human rights framework. So what is it, and how does it help us to construct a national child rights narrative?

18.14.1

Human Rights Education (HRE) as the Key

Human rights education is mandated in virtually all human rights treaties. It is the key to unlocking our minds about what human rights are. It is the key for understanding what could go into a children’s human rights framework. Knowing about

468

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

human rights is key to opening our minds to formulate a different narrative about children. Yet human rights education is not systematically or comprehensively taught in the US. The public misunderstands what human rights are because they have never been taught about what they are or how to use them. In order for children’s human rights to become a dominant framework, there needs to be a grass-roots understanding of what children’s human rights are, why they are a benefit to children, beneficial to families, and beneficial to communities and the nation. You can’t know what you don’t know. You can’t even know that you don’t know until something occurs that enlightens you to realize you don’t know what you thought you knew. I observe people, from the public to the people on media to government leaders, huffing and puffing about human rights while they convey a gross misunderstanding of the term and its implementation. They think they know, and they do not. This is a quite dangerous fact that must be confronted if we are to build a truly rights-respecting community. Most teacher training programs in the US do not include components on human rights, so teachers cannot teach that which they do not know (Cargas 2019; Fernekes 2012; Vissing 2020). Human rights courses are not systematically taught in US schools at any level. There are no courses dedicated to human rights education per se. Sometimes HRE is cast as global education, peace education, or focus on a historic event like the Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Movement or Black Lives Matter. There may be isolated conversations about topics like police shootings, LGBTQ+, environmental rights, or voting. These topics are typically given without students first having an overarching history or understanding of what human rights are, treaties, or their presence in international or national issues. Specific content information and other things besides human rights seem to be a priority in most education programs and schools. While conceptual information is obviously important, no matter what field one studies, they generally rotate back to human rights issues in one form or another. Business, economics, politics, history, social science, biology, geography, anthropology, law—no matter what we study, there are human rights issues to be addressed. As we prepare students for the workforce, they better know what human rights are and how to implement them. If they become parents, it is essential for them to know how to protect and defend their children’s rights. For decades education has skirted this fundamental issue; building a children’s human rights framework means we need to get serious about comprehensively embedding it into education at all levels, from infancy through aging and dying, and at every institution from every type of caregiver. The term “human rights” has become so politicized that some teachers and educational programs have gotten afraid to use it. Some schools attempt to embed HRE as positivity, “be nice to others” or socioemotional (SEL) support programs to accomplish the creation of a rights-respecting school climate. Programs like PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) and others can be purchased by schools and promoted by school counselors. These “golden rule” emphases are found in every religion; however even these programs have come under attack by some conservative groups in recent years (Kingkade 2022). While such programs are

18.15

Case Studies and Examples

469

helpful, they do not provide the conceptual underpinnings essential to students learning about what human rights are, why they are entitled to them, and how to implement them. Reasons for the lack of human rights education include lack of teacher training in the topic (since you can’t teach what you were never taught and don’t know), lack of funding to get teachers trained, not knowing what curriculum and materials exist, not having time to prepare human rights materials or units, not having time in a busy and tightly structured class schedule to offer them, etc. There are also community, parental, and political opposition issues to children learning about human rights— this is born out of fear, lack of adults being able to control children’s behavior, and political resistance. This is where misunderstanding occurs about what human rights are and them could help when there is a community-wide public education and media campaign helping people understand human rights could be helpful. There is a large body of curricular, pedagogy, films, readings, and servicelearning activities available to help children and adults. The organization Human Rights Educators USA has a large body of support and resources for implementing human rights education, as does UNICEF. It would be easy and inexpensive to include HRE from preschool through professional education—if it was a priority.

18.15

Case Studies and Examples

Children’s human rights education can be perceived to be complex for schools to embed, but it doesn’t have to be hard. Using the excuse that one doesn’t know how to embed human rights into education is preposterous because there are many toolkits and materials already available, accessible, and are free. There are many resources, curriculum materials, tool kits, and publications to support its implementation. All that lacks is motivation to find, embed, and use them. This is true at the teacher level, but it is essential at the school administration level because teachers cannot do what administration does not allow them to do. Administration as a dutybearer has an obligation to make sure that all teachers know what human rights education is and how to implement it. “HRE needs to become a standard part of teachers’ professional competence” (Quennerstedt et al. 2018:19). Education is human right in itself that is ssential for children’s development and improving their life chances. Education through rights is the main focus of UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools (RSS) programme. The RSS program addresses respectful social relations, students’ wellbeing, their ability to be heard, and the centrality of adults’ approach, commitment and actions. education for rights. HRE and RSS aim to build a rights capacity that covers a reasonably wide area, and aligns with how the UN describes what education for rights should achieve. It is also important to teach children about rights. Teaching them about the UDHR, CRC, and other treaties helps them to gain an understanding about what children’s human rights are in an abstract, as well as a practical level. Schools can apply to be a RSS and awards are given to those who do an exceptional job embedding human rights in

470

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

schools and increasing student and school capacity to defend rights in all their forms and ways. Research findings demonstrate that capacity building is vitally important but often schools address only a narrower rights capacity rather than a broad based one that includes the big picture of what human rights are and how they are to be implemented (Bajaj 2011; Bron and Thijs 2011; Covell et al. 2010; Jerome et al. 2015; Struthers 2016; Tibbitts 2014). Quality education should also support the development of human rights knowledge and values. The responsibility placed on education to respond to children’s human rights is complex and includes several elements: equal access, knowledge acquisition, value and capacity development, a human rights culture, respect for children as current rights holders, and a rights-respecting school environment (Quennerstedt et al. 2018). Here are some more human rights education examples to learn about.

18.15.1

Scotland Getting It Right14

Scotland is a world leader in defending children’s rights at the local as well as the national level. On March 16, 2022, the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill (‘the Bill’). The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that aims to incorporate the UNCRC into Scots law to the maximum extent of the Scottish Parliament’s powers. This signals a revolution in children’s rights in Scotland and seeks to empower our children and young people to claim their rights and make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. The government’s position is that they want to recognise, respect and promote children’s rights. These include rights to be treated fairly, to be heard and to be as healthy as possible. Their vision is a Scotland where children’s human rights are embedded in all aspects of society. A Scotland where policy, law, and decisionmaking take account of children’s rights and where all children have a voice and are empowered to be human rights defenders. Parents and families, communities, local and national governments, schools, and organisations which work with children and families, all play a critical role in helping children understand and experience their rights. They have authorized the following steps to ensure that children can enjoy their rights: These include: • implementing the UNCRC and incorporating it into Scots law to make it unlawful for public authorities, including the Scottish Government, to act incompatibly with the UNCRC requirements • an action plan to help children and young people experience their rights

14

https://www.gov.scot/policies/human-rights/childrens-rights/

18.15

Case Studies and Examples

471

• using the Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) to ensure that our policies and legislation protect and promote the rights and wellbeing of children and young people • reporting on our progress to the Scottish Parliament and to the United Nations as part of the UK’s responsibilities as a state party to the UNCRC Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) is one of their programs that supports families by making sure children and young people can receive the right help, at the right time, from the right people. The aim is to help them to grow up feeling loved, safe and respected so that they can realise their full potential. It is part of their #KeepThePromise.

18.15.2

Canadas Human Rights Education Approach

Canada has ratified the CRC and taken active steps to set up rights respecting schools (RSS) and to embed human rights education throughout the schools across the country. They report that as educators of children and youth, Canadian teachers should be familiar with the intention and the specific articles of the Convention as part of their professional practice and be prepared to teach these rights through their classroom instruction. They are to guarantee the realization of children’s rights in school and society by evaluating their own assumptions and practices; by advocating for equitable and just policies and practices; and by confronting violations of children’s rights when they witness them. They regard rights-based education as a useful framework for understanding and enacting one’s legal and moral responsibilities to children and youth in our classrooms. Rights-based education provides a framework for learning about and working against structural barriers that contribute to the violation of human rights in local, regional, national, and international contexts. There is a range of approaches to children’s rights education and each one should be thoughtfully and critically considered by teachers. For example, there is an important difference between teaching children about rights as something they will hold as adults, versus something that they do hold as children. And, there is an important difference between teaching children about rights as things that can be violated, and also teaching them that rights can and should be affirmed, respected, and upheld. Democratic pedagogy is central to children’s rights education. Children’s rights education involves both teaching about children’s rights and creating opportunities for children to enact their rights in classrooms, schools, and communities. In this way, children’s rights education is both a curriculum topic and an approach to teaching and learning in schools Adopting a children’s rights approach to education can be challenging and will at times be uncomfortable because it involves acknowledging that children are not citizens-in-waiting, but instead are individuals who hold rights now, including the right to have a voice in participating in decisions that affect them (e.g., what they should learn in school). It also involves enacting critical

472

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

reflexivity and rethinking deeply embedded notions about the roles of teachers and of students in the teaching and learning process. The teach children’s rights education across grade levels (K-12) and whever curriculum provides chances for teaching and experiential opportunities. The aims of children’s rights education reconcile closely with the aims of global education and provide another pathway to teaching with a global perspective. At the same time, it is vital that teachers recognize that it is equally important to integrate children’s rights education in relation to personal, local (rural and urban), and domestic circumstances and contexts. With children as the focus, all curricula should be viewed and implemented through a children’s rights lens (UNICEF Canada 2012a, b).

18.15.3

UNICEF’s Education Toolkit

UNICEF (2022a, b) has developed tool kits that can be used by students all around the world. Their tool kits have evolved over time, and their current one is designed to raise awareness about children’s rights, promote children’s civic engagement and participation, and to promote a commitment to global solidarity, since children are not just the citizens of a community but they are also global citizens. Solidarity is synonymous with brotherhood/sisterhood, or the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They emphasize the transformation of viewing children from pawns into persons. Their educational materials are designed to address children themselves as well as adults and organizations (like schools) who are duty-bearers to provide them with tools to engage their rights. There are 6 umbrella rights of the CRC that shelter the remainder of articles in the treaty. These include nondiscrimination (Article 2), best interests (Article 3.1), implementation (Article 4), guidance by families and communities in line with children’s evolving capacities and to help them exercise their rights (Article 5), life, survival, and development (Article 6) and children’s rights to participation (Article 12). Merely by act act of adults and organizations striving to put into place children’s rights, the process will teach children to also be rights respecting, which will make the outcome of creating rights-respecting relationships and institutions more likely. The UNICEF tool kit is rich wth graphics to showcase what children’s rights are, grids for assessment, examples of how to embed HRE, and resources galore. It also contains guidelines on how schools can apply for the Rights Respecting School Award. I cannot recommend this tool kit highly enough. It’s wonderful and provides a clear blueprint for how a school or other organization can build children’s human rights into every component of their operation.

18.15

Case Studies and Examples

18.15.4

473

Wales Children’s Rights Approach15

The Children’s Commission for Wales put forth a framework on how to embed children’s human rights in the education sector. Highlights of the plan are provided here to showcase what it looks like from a grass-roots perspective. Wales, like Scotland and other nations, have a national children’s commission (which the US does not). It has signed, ratified, and implemented the CRC, and regularly monitor whether the Articles of the treaty are being honored. They and countries like Iceland have a national children’s ombudsman’s office that children can contact when they have questions or need help regarding aspects of their rights (which the US does not). These countries put forth strategic plans, support children’s human rights education, and encourage workers, families, and children themselves to act in partnership to all work to defend children’s rights to an optimal life. In the Wales report, The Right Way to implement children’s rights education, it is written in a simple way that gives policymakers skills so they know how to do it. Their essential principles of a Children’s Rights Approach are to: (a) embed children’s rights in every aspect of the school and community, promoting equality and tackling direct and indirect discrimination; (b) celebrate different identifies of people and feel positive about the difference; (c) encouraging child participation by all children; (d) empowering children’s capabilities and hold accountable the people and organisations that affect their lives; (e) provide children with opportunities and skills to engage with and influence school policies and processes; (f) provide children with accessible information about local and national services around their human rights; (g) to hold accountable school actions, decisions, and adults who are in obligated positions to defend their rights. Wales concluded that investing in children’s human rights has real benefits for educational settings, including enabling more children and young people to participate and take ownership of decision making, ensuring there’s a real focus on the particular needs of children and young people whose voices can be lost or silenced, and creating an educational environment that is accountable to all of its learners.

18.15.5

Save the Children Education Toolkit

Another rich with resources HRE tool kit is provided through Save The Children. It contains details on a human rights pedagogical approach, after which it provides many resources and pragmatic global examples of activities. It builds upon a PANEL human rights based approach, which stands for Participation, Accountability and the rule of law, Non-discrimination, equality and vulnerable groups, Empowerment, and Linkages to the human rights framework. 15 Children’s Commissioner of Wales. The Right Way—Education. https://www.childcomwales. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Right-Way-Education.pdf

474

18.15.6

18

Education: A Children’s Human Rights Framework Example

Other HRE Tools

The human rights educational resources are endless, but here are a few more to inspire readers about the possibility of creating meaningful human rights learning opportunities for students. Equitas in Montreal has created its Play It Fair Toolkit for children to learn about their human rights and how to use them to make their schools and community better. Amnesty International has developed a tool kit for their Write for Rights campaign, which maches at-risk human rights to those provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). As part of the activity, participants are encouraged to write letters to government leaders and learn how to take local action. Erasmus has developed a set of Human Rights Education Toolkits; for instance, one of their recent ones concerns Communicating Human Rights in Diversity and explores what 16 countries have done to volunteer and work through civil society operations to defend people’s human rights. Australia has encouraged that human rights education be in every curriculum, as supported by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). These are just a few of the many examples of tools and resources that one can immediately call upon—if one was committed to embedding a children’s human rights initiative.

18.16

Summary

Education is a lifelong process that begins when a child is an infant. At every stage of human development, there are opportunities to learn about and embed human rights. Imagine what could happen if an entire generation of children were instructed about human rights, theirs and others, and they witnessed them role-modeled by adults in their lives and experienced in every social institution and setting. Imagine their learning the positivity of rights respecting attitudes and actions and the repulsion of violence, discrimination, and inflicting harm upon others. The world could look quite different; in two generations the narratives and norms could be shifted to make this nation the world’s model for how to “do” democracy and social justice. In assessing how schools address children’s rights to provision, protection, and participation, there have been sincere attempts to safeguard them but the nation has a long way to go before a children’s human rights framework is embedded in schools. The way education (or any care for children, for that matter) is structured and designed depends upon the narrative it holds about children. There are many alternatives for how to address children’s needs and rights. An attempt to embed a children’s human rights framework would be a good starting point. It would require systemic and ideological changes in how children are perceived. As pointed out early in this book, historically there have been many different narratives about how to frame children and childhood. The US is relying upon an antiquated model. Just as education needs to be transformed to address the fourth Industrial Revolution changes, we need to be attentive to the home, demographic,

18.16

Summary

475

health, and social needs of children. The argument over whether schools are social service agencies is a ridiculous one—of course they are, from a child’s perspective. Schools are not quite a total-institution (Goffman 1959), but schools are the number one institution that children count on not just to learn material but to be safe, have adult support, peer interactions, food, physical fitness, exposure to art and the humanities, healthcare, learn how to be a team-member, develop self-identity, and consider future life options. Clinical sociologists understand that because schools are of utmost importance to a child’s life, it is important to invest comprehensively in them at both the macro and micro, structural and infrastructural levels. A targeted model where some children receive services and some don’t, and a fragmented approach that cuts children’s lives into segments doesn’t work well. Expecting children to go elsewhere for healthcare, mental health, social services, recreation, fitness, arts/music/theatre cultural exposure, as well as information on math, social studies, language and literature, science, geography, environment, and other issues—especially when they do not have access to transportation, money to pay for services, and aren’t allowed to give their own consent to access them—is ludicrous. Viewing schools and education from a children’s human rights perspective requires that we “take the role of the other” (Mead 1934). This means considering what children need from a child’s perspective, and not just assuming and implementing an adultified approach. Incorporating human rights education is an essential educational component at all age and grade levels—it will be a major influential factor in helping to create kindness, justice, and to build a world in which we would all like to live.

Part IV

Constructing the Roof

Chapter 19: Children and the Constitution Chapter 20: The Children’s Human Rights Movement Chapter 21: How to Talk About Children as Human Rights Holders Chapter 22: Investing in Children Chapter 23: Opportunities and Challenges Chapter 24: Where Is the Top of the Roof?

Overview This final section of the book explores where the children’s human rights movement is headed in the US. It considers the interface between the US Constitution and how laws interpret it and impact children’s lives. Children’s rights as a social movement will be examined. A model of how to use dialogue as we move forward to talk about children and their rights will be provided, and a plea for greater social and financial investment in this population of people who form the foundation for the future. It will conclude with thoughts about the benefits of embedding a national children’s human rights initiative, challenges in doing so, and whether the nation will decide to put a glass ceiling that will only let children go so far, or whether they will lift the roof so that they sky’s the limit for them.

Chapter 19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. US Constitution

19.1

Introduction

The US Constitution’s affirmation that “all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is regarded to be of fundamental importance. But does that statement include children or not? Four sentiments are apparent in the national debate about whether children have human rights. One is that “children already have rights” that are afforded to them in the US Constitution. A competing narrative is that “children are not entitled to rights”. A middle-ground perspective is that “some rights (but not all) are protected for children” while a more callous view holds that “some children have their rights protected while others do not. Parents, teachers, police officers, and other adults have directly told me that they don’t want children to have, or even know that they have rights, because if they did the adults feel they will not be able to control them in a view that adults do not want to lose their positions of authority and superiority. The issue of whether children are entitled to Constitutional, legal, or human rights is not a straight-forward one in the US. This chapter is designed to highlight issues that stimulate the debate on children’s human rights in the US. As a pediatric and community sociologist with extensive experience working with courts, I am not a lawyer and thus cannot provide a high level of legal analysis to the issues. Rather, I am drawing upon my clinical sociological insights to try to contextualize the Constitutional arguments as they pertain to hot-button children’s rights issues. A Constitutionalist or legal approach could fill several books on the topic. While some © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_19

479

480

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

of the main factors in the field of children’s human rights will be discussed to give the reader an overview of the issues, it is recommended that those who want a more in-depth legal or Constitutional analysis explore the scholarly issue further. What this chapter does is explore the major debates that hit the public arena around the issue of children’s human rights from a sociological perspective that considers how whose rights are considered to be more right. The issue of whether children in the US are entitled to human rights protections is a legally and Constitutionally complex one (Archard 2018). Trying to understand the current state of children’s human rights and where the movements are headed have been contextualized earlier in this book by describing historical events, disciplinary and ideological positions, and different frameworks. Advocates of different child rights positions have sought legal actions, used media to sway the public and officials, and inevitably drawn upon Constitutional arguments, rightly or wrongly, to support their positions. While the issue of human rights for children is broadsweeping, there are certain areas where the fight for, or against them, are more pronounced.

19.2

Rights in Different Spheres

How rights are perceived depends upon the level at which one considers them. There is a legal sphere, a public sphere and a private sphere, and people may not regard rights the same way depending upon what sphere is being discussed. The legal sphere consists of laws that have been determined by courts within a judicial process; they are to be followed and if they are violated there could be penalties, jail, or fines. The public sphere is the realm of politics where strangers come together to exchange in ideas and to create collective actions; the collective actions are designed to become norms that people are expected to comply with but are not necessarily legally binding. The private sphere focuses on the home or individual level where people exert choice over what they will do and who can enter their world. Children have been regarded to be part of the family, home, thus the private sphere. The private sphere prioritizes an individual’s responsibility to themselves and their family, and what happens in the private sphere is thought to be independent from that of the greater society. Some children are given lots of agency at home; some are not. What they are allowed to do is determined by their parents and unless some legal lines are crossed, the public has no say in what happens to them. Children, like women, people of color, and people with ability challenges, have often been excluded from participation in the public sphere. The public sphere, according to Habermas (1989) is the cornerstone of democracy. It is where individuals (of the private sphere) interact and exchange ideas with others to articulate the public needs of society and the state. Out of this public sphere grows a public authority that dictates what should be the norms, values, and goals of society. Habermas alleged that a public sphere must be inclusive, focused on common concerns, and allow everyone to participate, regardless of social status. The private

19.2

Rights in Different Spheres

481

sphere is ever-evolving and what happens within it may fluctuate and address the norms or conditions of a given point in time or geographic location (Crossman 2020; Habermas 1989; Turkel 1988). At the legal level, there is no CRC commitment in the United States to support children’s rights. There is no commission for children’s rights as found in countries like Iceland or Scotland. States make their own laws and they may vary significantly from one to another. What treatment and rights a child receives in one state may vary significantly when they cross the state line into another jurisdiction. This has contributed to differential narratives about what kinds of rights children may be entitled to hold.

19.2.1

Individual vs Community: Spheres in Conflict

The US has developed an America-first approach that supports individual freedom. It is common to hear people talk about what they need and what they want as individuals, as compared to what is good for society. Such disagreements are all part of a larger debate over whether individual rights or the rights of the community are more important. It is indicative of classic Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft conflict over what should drive government decisions. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft are categories introduced by German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1957) for two types of human associations: Gemeinschaft is found in small social structures where welfare of the whole has precedence over the individual, whereas in Gesellschaft where human associations are governed by rationality and self-interest. This tension over which is better, the individual or collectivity interests, is played out in children’s lives. Parents may take care of their own children fairly well, some better than others, but caring for other people’s children isn’t done very well. The challenge is to figure out how we can build a sense of collective responsibility for other people’s children—and for other people to care about our own. The tension between individual versus community rights is being played out in the courts, thus becoming part of the legal sphere. An example of the national conundrum of whose right is right is playing out in the streets of the nation over whether children should be vaccinated or wear masks to school (Croucher 2020; Grant 2020; Rosenblatt 2020; Silverman 2020; Wall Street Journal 2020). According to human rights treaties, all children have a right to education and a right for healthcare. The state should take all steps to protect children’s health and prevent illness whenever possible. Government health officials have indicated that it is in the public’s health interest for people to wear a mask and get the coronavirus vaccine (Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b; World Health Organization 2023). Yet groups of parents and politicians have interpreted those rights in such a way that they have the right to decide if their individual children will wear a mask or get a vaccine, and the individual right to do what one wants supersedes the public health interests of the entire community. There is disagreement

482

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

over who “owns” the child and what is in the best interests of the child, the parent, and the community. It is human nature to put self-interests first and not care as much about the interests of the other. But have we become a society that values individual success more than collective well-being? When children become objectified or “owned” by parents, it increases the narrative that “I will do what I want for myself and my child”. This attitude does not work well for the collective when one individual’s choice negatively impacts the health, safety, and lives of others. For instance, at the daycare center where two children in our family attend, some of the providers and parents who bring their children there refuse to get vaccinated or wear masks. They are not protected from the virus and expose babies and preschoolers to it. This has resulted in both our children getting quite sick from being given COVID multiple times, having to stay home for weeks at a time, rendering their parents unable to work, and causing potentially negative health, education, financial, and work outcomes for a young family. It poses the question - whose right is more right? Tension over whose rights are more important reign supreme. Should community rights be prioritized over the rights of individuals? Should parents as a group have more rights than children? Should children have rights even if their parents do not want them to have them? Both parents and children are groups so are groups entitled to greater rights than those of its individual members (Jones 2016)? Individual rights and group rights, suitably formulated, could be complementary rather than conflicting. There is no inherent reason why a high degree of conflict between parents and children needs to exist. Theoretically, what is good for the family unit could include what is good for both the parent and the child; from a rights-respecting approach when both respect each other, the chances for a more harmonious existence could occur.

19.2.2

Hard and Soft Law

Through the steady development of what legal scholars call “hard and soft law” at the national and local levels, the children’s human rights convention has proven to be a powerful tool for child protective advocates over the last 30 years, since its 1989 UN adoption. Hard law is what we normally think of as law: legislatures write it, the executive branch enforces it and courts interpret it and make final, enforceable judgements based on it. Soft law is often expressed in the declarations, statements, guidelines and initiative’s: it is essentially aspirational. Much of its force is in moral suasion and shaming bad behavior by shedding light on it. While it may lack “enforcement teeth,” soft law can be very powerful when it comes to encouraging actions by governments to better protect vulnerable populations. Soft law has incredible norm-creating value as agendas of advocacy organizations and corporate codes of conduct are shaped and bolstered by soft law principals and polices. Perhaps the treaty’s influence is most deeply felt in the area of

19.3

Underpinnings of the Constitution, UDHR, CRC and Child Rights

483

soft law as its very existence prompts norm influencing discussion—from the classroom to the legislature to hopefully the board rooms, multi-nationals and governments.

19.3

Underpinnings of the Constitution, UDHR, CRC and Child Rights

On the surface, who wouldn’t be in support of defending children’s right to have provisions, protections, and to be able to participate meaningfully in their communities? It would not be well-received if people said that it is acceptable for children to go hungry, homeless, abused, and to have no say in what they want to do with their life. The fact that the US refuses to ratify the CRC is perplexing to scholars and policy makers in other developed nations. In my work I am regularly questioned about why the US wouldn’t want to protect the rights of children. Issues of sovereignty, federalism and treaty enforcement are usually cited as explanations, but ideological conflict stemming from current social issues must be considered as well (Vissing 2017a, b). What we believe to be true is influenced by our external environment and personal situation and relationships. It is wise to remember that the US Constitution was born out of time, place, and situational dynamics; so was the UDHR, the Geneva Convention, and the CRC. Roots of the CRC were found in the Declaration of Geneva, which was the first international document to recognize that children are entitled to human rights, and that “mankind owes to the child the best it has to give”. All of these documents share a common base and they support, not contradict, each other. Recent cultural conflict around children wearing masks to school, police treatment of black youth, LGBTQ+, inclusion, providing free lunch to students, welcoming immigrant or refugee children, Critical Race Theory, or whether students should shoulder school-loan debt that will strap them for the rest of their lives are indicative of disagreements over the direction of national child rights debates. Social change is inevitable. Disagreements over its direction are part of a larger debate over whether individual rights or the rights of the collectivity are more important. How the decision over whose rights are seen as the right one will play out in the courtrooms, playgrounds, and living rooms around the country. What does the Constitution say about children’s rights—and how does that compare with what is stated in human rights treaties like the UDHR and CRC? Ultimately, the narrative we accept will shape the future for children and the children’s human rights movement.

484

19.4

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

The US Constitution

Most people in the US have heard of the Constitution, but in my classes, I find that few of my students have read it so I give it to them to critique as an assignment. They are typically surprised that the Constitution does not directly address issues that they thought were addressed and safeguarded in the document. A big surprise is how little civil rights of individuals have been protected, which gives lawmakers great latitude in how they wish to interpret what the founding fathers meant or would think appropriate today. Assuming that some people reading this book have not recently reviewed the entire US Constitution, here it is:

19.4.1

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years, and been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three. When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

19.4

The US Constitution

485

Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for 6 years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. Section. 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different Day. Section. 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3 days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United

486

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either, they shall not be questioned in any other place. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Section. 7. All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. Section. 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the Law of Nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures

19.4

The US Constitution

487

on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings;—And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Section. 9. The migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Section. 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of

488

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Article. II. Section. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows. Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said house shall in like manner chose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of

19.4

The US Constitution

489

them. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Article III. Section. 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;— to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;— between a state and citizens of another State,— between citizens of different States,—between citizens of the same state claiming

490

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Article. IV. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section. 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. No Person held to Service or labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or labor may be due. Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for

19.4

The US Constitution

491

proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Article. VI. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Article. VII. The ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. Amendment I. (ratified December 15, 1791). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II. (ratified December 15, 1791). A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Amendment III. (ratified December 15, 1791). No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV. (ratified December 15, 1791). The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V. (ratified December 15, 1791). No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in

492

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation Amendment VI. (ratified December 15, 1791). In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Amendment VII. (ratified December 15, 1791). In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII. (ratified December 15, 1791). Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX. (ratified December 15, 1791). The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.\ Amendment X. (ratified December 15, 1791). The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment XI (ratified February 7, 1795). The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Amendment XII. (ratified June 15, 1804). The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;— The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever

19.4

The US Constitution

493

the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment Amendment XIII. (ratified December 6, 1865). Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XIV. (ratified July 9, 1868). Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United

494

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Amendment XV (ratified February 3, 1870). Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XVI (ratified February 3, 1913). The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Amendment XVII (ratified April 8, 1913). The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for 6 years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. Amendment XVIII. (ratified January 16, 1919). Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within 7 years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Amendment XIX. (ratified August 18, 1920). The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XX. (ratified January 23, 1933). Section 1. The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on

19.4

The US Constitution

495

the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission. Amendment XXI (ratified December 5, 1933). Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within 7 years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Amendment XXII (ratified February 27, 1951). Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than 2 years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

496

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. Amendment XXIII (ratified March 29, 1961). Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XXIV (ratified January 23, 1964). Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XXV (ratified February 10, 1967). Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within 4 days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration

19.4

The US Constitution

497

that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within 21 days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within 21 days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Amendment XXVI (ratified July 1, 1971). Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment XXVII (ratified May 7, 1992). No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. It is useful to remember that the original Constitution of the United States consisted of 7 articles that described the operating framework for the nation. The first three articles described the separation of powers in the federal government (legislative, executive, and judicial). The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment provides several rights protections: including the right to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. It has become central to the debate over gun control, considering the founding fathers would not have imagined AK-47 type of guns being used by individuals against individuals. The Third Amendment is designed to prevent the government from forcing homeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes, as occurred before the Revolutionary War when laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from conducting unreasonable searches of individuals or seizures of private property. The Fifth Amendment is focused on criminal justice, with serious criminal charges heard by a grand jury, that people can’t be tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy), or have their property taken away without being fairly compensated. Individuals are given the right against self-incrimination and need to receive due process when tried. Amendment six provides additional criminal justice protections with the right to a speedy trial conducted by an impartial jury, to have an attorney, and to be able to call witnesses, the Seventh Amendment calls for the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases, and the eighth amendment barring excessive bails, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. Amendment nine is a generic amendment providing for other rights, while the tenth amendment pronounces that only the federal government has constitutional powers, otherwise states have the power to make decisions. The

498

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Constitution has been amended 27 times. The other 17 amendments address individual civil rights protections, federal authority issues, or government processes. Amendments are deemed necessary since the world is much different today than in 1789, when it was first implemented. Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19 and 26 address particular civil rights issues. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 address issues pertaining to slavery or race. Amendment 19 gave women the right to vote, but it is noteworthy that no women’s Equal Rights Amendment, peoples with disabilities amendment, or children’s human rights amendment have passed Congress. The 26th Amendment gave people age 18 or older the right to vote, which had been age 21. This amendment was added after protests of the Vietnam War that drafted people age 18 and up but denied them the right to vote. This change was influenced by the Supreme Court’s 1970 decision in Oregon v. Mitchell (National Archives ND). Other amendments have been proposed but not supported by enough Congressional leaders to become law. There is no children’s human rights amendment to ensure children’s Constitutional inclusion. Even if the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by Congress, it would not have the same teeth as an amendment to the Constitution. There is no Constitutional entitlement that gives parents more rights than that of children. Protection and defense of children’s interests are entrusted by law to their parents and relatives, but this does not necessarily mean that children have fewer rights than parents. If a parent cannot act responsibly to address the child’s best interests, the state is to step in (Medecines San Frontieres 2021). But these determinations are made by the state or by custom, not chiseled into the Constitution.

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

After reading the Constitution, perhaps you are pausing and asking, “where are children and their rights mentioned in it?”. This is a logical question worth contemplating. One could argue that they were nowhere in it, or one could assert that they are included in the “all men are created equal” sentence. This is why the interpration of the law is so vitally important to determining whether children are rightsholders—or whether anyone else is, for that matter. It is clear that children have rights that are protected in the Constitutions of countries like Scotland, Iceland, and Sweden. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse (1999) reminds us that rights are made real through incorporation into a nation’s constitution and laws. She asserts that the US Constitution is silent on the rights of juveniles. Courts have not been diligent about the incorporation of children’s legal rights, despite the fact that parental rights have received constitutional support since the 1920s in cases such as Meyer v Nebraska. Struck by the difference between the US and South African constitutions, Woodhouse (1999) found a detailed and explicit Bill of Rights for Children

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

499

embedded in South Africa’s new constitution. She observed that the US Constitution was constructed in secret by a couple dozen white, propertied men whereas the South African constitution had input in its construction from every gender, class, and color in the nation. The South African constitution is ten times longer than that of the US, and contains 243 detailed sections outlining relations between the government and the family, and the rights of members within the family. By contrast, the US is silent on these rights, particularly those pertaining to children, age, or women. Laws shaping children and family lives have been written “between the lines”, making them subject to debate and variable social construction. She finds that the South African constitution is written in debt to the sacrifices that young people have made to the construction of the nation, and their essential role in building it forward. The US makes no mention of its obligation or debt to the children who worked the farms, fields, factories, military, and mills founding the nation. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are products of their time and purpose. It established the rules of engagement between citizens (‘the people’) and the government. These are constitutional rights forged in the making of a nation, setting up the social contract between governed and government. They are informed by thencontemporary political-philosophical thought about liberty and the ‘Rights of Man’, but they are about the making of a nation, not the establishment of a universal order towards a ‘better world’. The authors of the Constitution would have had in mind, therefore, free political actors—those who could own property, vote, etc. This did not include children, slaves, or women (Williams 2021). It is arguable whether the Constitution included children in general, or whether certain groups of children were excluded (such as those with disabilities, who were BIPOC, or those who were not born here). Children are not specifically listed as a group who have rights in the Constitution, but they are not omitted either. This leaves them in a grey zone that is to be decided upon by courts of law or negotiated in the public arena (Zorn 2017). In the US, children are not awarded the rights that adults have until they reach age 18. This is because they are not recognized to have full legal capacity because they are still developing physically and mentally and aren’t considered capable of handling rights maturely, so aren’t allowed the right to vote, own property, consent to medical treatment, or sign contracts. They can receive healthcare or have bank accounts, but a parent or guardian has to act on their behalf—the parents have the rights, not the child Law. Rights are denied on the basis of lack of maturity despite information that brain development in people isn’t mature until late 20’s or even 30’s (Giedd 2004; Giedd et al. 1999; Hinton 2017; National Institute of Mental Health 2001; Rapoport 1999; Ritter 2006; Simpson 2008; Tyler 2015). Cornell Law (2022) states that a child is a person, not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term “child” does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children “are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution”. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children born within a marriage or not but excludes children not yet born. Lee (2020) states that children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the same basic

500

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

constitutional rights that adults enjoy, but because of their immaturity have to wait to realize them until they reach the “age of majority”. The Liberty Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children. Children supposedly have rights under the Constitution to equal protections and treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability or religion, and rights to due process in a court of law. Children with disabilities have some protections under the federal Disabilities Education Act, have a limited right to freedom of speech, and can work some jobs regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, but this is separate from the Constitution per se. Older youth can legally be tried as adults in criminal prosecutions (Find Law 2022a, b). Houlgate (1999) suggests that rights be scaffolded according to age and majority of children and proposes a three-part strategy. Primarily, because children are human beings they are entitled to the same rights possessed by adults. Because the law holds them to an age of majority standard, some of the enjoyment of their rights may be postponed until they reach that age. However, if postponement of a right will harm the child’s autonomy and future, denying the right is not justifiable because it might offend an adult. This is an interesting proposition that holds potential for consideration of how children’s human rights in the US could be addressed. White (1979) in a report for the American Bar Association and Office of Juvenile Justice, found that children’s rights were protected in areas of support, employment, and medical care. Issues of divorce and custody emerged as major issues in subsequent years. Main rights issues of late have focused on dimensions of children’s rights to education and healthcare. Neither education nor healthcare are listed as rights in the Constitution (Zorn 2017). While parent-child rights are clarified in the South African constitution, they are unclear, debated, and negotiable areas in the US. Dwyer (2013) alleges that most people today view children and adults in the abstract as equal persons of equivalent moral status, but that historically children have been relegated to lesser status and not even considered to be “persons”, more akin to persons-in-waiting. If children’s and adults’ interests matter equally from a moral perspective, then no one should treat children’s interests to be of lesser importance than those of their parents, even though both may have different interests. He argues that if parents and children are equals in a moral and legal sense, assigning rights that are superior to one group would violate the equality presupposition. There is a common tendency to speak of child rearing as a matter of parental autonomy, but he notes that we treat the parent-child relationship like no other relationship within society. It must be remembered that thousands of children are in alternative care arrangements, who are displaced, homeless, refugees, and surviving without parents or guardians. Unaccompanied children and those who exist independently are as important as housed and parented children. Dwyer lays out the question of whether it is better to treat children simply as persons and apply to them the rules that generally apply to all people generally, or to treat parents and children as separate categories of humans which have different rules. Social laws, rules and norms designed to be in the child’s best interest can be ignored if parents feel they violate

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

501

their own interests. For instance, children’s rights are regularly superseded by those of parents or adults, which can be observed in a variety of ways. A few common ones include exposing children to passive smoke in homes despite a public ban of smoking, spanking or hitting children when using similar violence on other adults would be considered assault, or using hate-speech in front of children or exposing them to discriminatory or extremist views. In cases of suspected abuse, it is very difficult to remove children unless they are in life-threatening situations because parent rights come first. Wearmouth (2012) argues that the “inconvenient truth” is that society can only truly uphold the rights of non-autonomous children if it is prepared to supersede the rights of autonomous adults and redefine parental duties.

19.5.1

Court Rulings Supporting Children’s Rights

The Supreme Court and some lower courts have made decisions that defended the position that children are entitled to rights (National Juvenile Defender Center 2021). The Court has consistently held that children are entitled to many of the same due process rights as adults. With that understood, however, the Court has also consistently held that, from a developmental standpoint, youth are different from adults. This impacts how courts should treat them in a whole host of areas, such as waiver of rights, culpability, and punishment. Vandenhole et al. (2019) and Vandenhole (2020) reminds us that legal interpretations and the creation of laws are always a product of their times. Law itself is not neutral; laws are constructed by human beings are have their own academic backgrounds, own personal experiences, values, and biases. Decisions may be made with respect to precedent, but also in response to pressures and issues of the day. The following case summaries briefly describe the United States Supreme Court’s major jurisprudence in the arena of juvenile justice. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). This decision was the turning point for the rights of juveniles in U.S. Courts. It was the first time that the Supreme Court held that children facing delinquency prosecution have many of the same legal rights as adults in criminal court, including the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notice of the charges, and the right to a full hearing on the merits of the case. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). A juvenile court does not have unlimited parens patriae power. It is not entitled to act with “procedural arbitrariness.” The decision to waive a juvenile to adult court requires first providing the young person with basic due process: a hearing, effective assistance of counsel, and a “statement of reasons” for the decision. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) The Supreme Court held that for adjudications of delinquency, the standard of proof required is the same as for criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt). As Gault confirmed, “civil labels and good intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards in juvenile courts.”

502

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971). The United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment did not guarantee the right to trial by jury in the adjudicative phase of a state juvenile court delinquency proceeding. Were a jury imposed on juvenile trials, there would be little left to distinguish a juvenile delinquency hearing from a criminal trial, Justice Blackmun wrote for the plurality. Also of significance to Blackmun was the fact that the pre-Gault 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report on juvenile delinquency did not recommend that juveniles be provided with jury trials. Finally, the plurality held that because juries are not necessary to ensure adequate fact-finding, as such, they are not vital for due process. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975). Once a juvenile is tried in an adjudicatory hearing, it is a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to subsequently give him a criminal trial for the same act. Gault and its progeny narrowed the differences between the adult criminal process and juvenile process— but McKeiver and others are doctrinal reminders that the due process requirements imposed by the Constitution are not identical for juvenile delinquents and adult criminals. Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). The imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the eighth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the Court consistently limited the death penalty to the very worst of offenders. Citing to the most recent social and neuroscience, he discussed three general characteristics separated children from adults, simultaneously serving to remove juveniles from the category of the very worst of offenders. First, juveniles lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, resulting in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions. Second, juveniles are more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. Third, the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. Thus, they possess far more potential for rehabilitation. Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010). Expanding upon the analysis in and logic of Roper, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to impose the penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on juveniles. The opinion also noted that young people have difficulty participating in their own representation. While “a state need not guarantee the offender eventual release . . . it must provide . . . some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.” The holding in Graham left unanswered what the Court meant by a “realistic opportunity to obtain release.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The Court continued the Roper– Graham line of cases, and held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for homicide crimes, where such a sentence is the only option. Mitigating factors must be taken into account before a juvenile can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011). The Court decided whether age was a factor defining “custody” for Miranda purposes. J.D.B., age 13, was a

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

503

special-education student, suspected of burglary. During school, while J.D.B. was in class, a uniformed police officer brought him from his classroom into a conference room, where he was questioned by the assistant principal, school administrator, and a police investigator. He was never read his Miranda rights, nor were his guardians notified. J.D.B. incriminated himself in the burglaries. Only after J.D.B. incriminated himself in the burglaries was he informed that he was free to leave. Justice Sotomayor wrote the Court’s Opinion, holding that in some circumstances, a child’s age “would have affected how a reasonable person” in the suspect’s position “would perceive his or her freedom to leave.” A child’s age is far “more than a chronological fact,” she continued. Referencing Roper, the Opinion cited to “commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception,” that apply broadly to children as a class. Children “generally are less mature and responsible than adults,” they “often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them,” and they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to . . . outside pressures” than adults. In the specific context of police interrogation, events that “would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a [teen].” The Opinion concluded that age is a factor to be considered in determining whether an individual is “in custody.” Despite such court decisions defending children’s rights, courts have routinely upheld the right of a state, town or school to place restrictions on the Constitutional rights of youth. Schools, which act in loco parentis during school hours; can limit their First Amendment rights pertaining to dress codes, cities can limit their First Amendment rights to assembly as well as curfews that restrict the movement of young people during certain hours. States can enact legislation that criminalizes underage drinking, or sexual contact between people under the age of majority. Their Fourth Amendment rights to privacy need not be protected in schools to search lockers. Local areas can determine age limits by the definition they choose of what constitutes a youth. In most states (37) the age of adult criminal responsibility is18; in eleven states it is 17, and in two states, New York and North Carolina, the age is 16 is when crimes are regarded as committed by an adult. While adults may have the right to bail, children are not, nor are they accorded the right to a trial by jury of their peers. Children have Fifth Amendment rights - to remain silent or to avoid selfincrimination. When interacting with older, powerful authorities, children may be scared and accidentally wave these rights or think if they say what authorities want to hear that they may get off easier. While minors are to have Fifth Amendment rights to due process and representation by an attorney, getting an attorney is almost impossible for many young people in alleged criminal activity (Gilburd 2011). The Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services, held that a state government agency’s failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child’s right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Dailey and Rosenbury 2018). The conclusion one can logically reach is that sometimes, some parts of children’s rights are constitutionally protected, but sometimes they are not. The courts do not operate within a framework that prioritizes children as equal rights-holder.

504

19.5.2

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Children’s Rights to Education in the US

When most Americans think of what children have a right to, education is the number one thing that comes to mind. Schools are the main social institution specifically designed to serve the needs of children. The mandate for public schools to be available to educate all children is part of the US’s contribution to children’s rights. That said, within the field of education and within particular schools there exists great variability on how much of a priority children’s human rights are. It is common to hear the public talk about children’s Constitutional right to education. The fact is that there is not a single mention of education in the U.S. Constitution. Education is not a constitutionally protected right, not for preschoolers, not in K-12 schools, and not for higher education. The establishment of education is one of the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court every time it has been challenged. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez held that education was not a constitutional right; the court acknowledged the “undisputed importance of education” but refused to place education among those rights that were explicitly or implicitly protected by the federal Constitution, meaning that in the US, education is not a right granted to individuals by the Constitution or a right recognized in individuals because they are human (Bowen 2020; Gross 2001). Three other cases, all in the 1980s, affirmed that interpretation (Dorsey 2020). Wong (2018) reports that of the few education rights cases making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, not a single one has managed to secure a majority ruling in favor of an argument that there is an implied right to an education in the Constitution. Concerns that our education system does not provide equal education or respect the human and educational rights of all students is nothing new; concerns about this were made after World War II (Ginzberg and Bray 1953) with concerns about inequality, particularly for Southern black students. The American Civil Liberties Union (2020a, b) states that the Constitution requires that all students be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez held that education was not a constitutional right; the court acknowledged the “undisputed importance of education“but refused to place education among those rights that were explicitly or implicitly protected by the federal Constitution, meaning that in the US, education is not a right granted to individuals by the Constitution or a right recognized in individuals because they are human (Bowen 2020; Gross 2001). The 14th Amendment prohibits any state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws, and states have laws that children are to attend school, so in this regard all students have a right to education. Dorsey (2020) notes that “there is not a single mention of education in the U.S. Constitution. The establishment of education is one of the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

505

Amendment. Education is not a constitutionally protected right. That is an assertion made by the U.S. Supreme Court every time it has been challenged”. Despite the public’s desire for children to receive a high-quality education, state and federal courts have consistently found that children in public schools are entitled to an education that is basic, sufficient, or minimally adequate, and that children are entitled to classrooms that provide adequate light, space, heat and air to permit children to learn, with instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks and adequately trained personnel (Gross 2001). This minimalist approach to education has been challenged over the years by organizations like the National Commission on Excellence in Education, who find that children require more than a basic education to participate effectively in a democracy and contribute to economic stability and social literacy. The report, A Nation At Risk, was constructed by educators in 1998 that pointed out the dangers of the nation’s systematic inequality and asserted that education was a civil right (Gross 2001). But education is not just a civil right—education is also a human right. In the UDHR (1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), Article 22 provides that all people have a right to the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality and its Article 26 affirms not only that everyone has the right to education but that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirms the right to education that has as its objective the full development of the human personality. The Convention Against the Discrimination in Education, adopted in 1960 by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is designed to prevent racial, gender, ability, and other forms of discrimination. The Convention on the Rights of the Child specifies in Article 13 that children have the right to receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, orally, in writing, in print or other media which is part of school’s mandate, while Article 14 reinforces children to have the right to have freedom of thought. Article 23 is designed to protect children with mental or physical disabilities and to ensure they are provided resources for their wellbeing and circumstances and Article 30 protects indigenous and ethnically diverse children. Articles 28 and 29 deal specifically with children’s rights to education. Equality and human rights education issues in US schools are plentiful and concern some of the following. Schools in the US are paid for with local taxes, which results in rich areas having well-funded schools while poor districts get fewer dollars for schools. When taxpayers complain about their taxes going up, it is common to target funding for schools as the primary issue, when in every community there are other reasons for tax increases, such as economic development, health benefits, pensions, recreation, care for residents with disabilities, aid to local government agencies, police and corrections, new fire engines, street repairs, and other expenditures. The funding schema is designed to perpetuate economic and educational inequality, since children living in impoverished areas tend to end up with poorer schools while children in wealthy communities get higher-quality schools with more resources (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2018; Raikes and

506

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Darling-Hammond 2019). The taxpayer funding issue is especially contentious when monies are targeted to charter or private schools that benefit the elites and are not used to “lift all boats” to support the educational opportunities for all children. The American Civil Liberties Union (Tashman 2017) notes that the laws protect the rights of students at school, but many school officials are unaware of students’ legal protections or simply ignore them. Common areas of student violations include freedom of speech, violations against students who have disabilities or are LGBTQ +, as well as dress codes, immigrant student rights, and rights for students who are pregnant. As it pertains to speech rights, the Supreme Court in 1969 listened to a case where a school suspended three students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Students are protected by the First Amendment that protects free speech rights, even if school administrators don’t approve of what students are saying. In 2021 the Supreme Court found that an unhappy cheerleader who used a swear word against the school was able to do so under her First Amendment rights (Totenberg 2021). Inequality is apparent in other dimensions of schools, such as whether students get free breakfast or lunch or receive debts that make them ineligible to attend school functions or even graduate (Nilan 2019), in 19 states where corporal punishment can be used even for minor student infractions, gender-based educational disparities (Cimpian 2018), ability disparities (Tashman 2017), immigrant rights to education (Tashman 2017), and inequities by race in both educational attainment (Norwood 2020; Shores 2020) and discipline (Riddle and Sinclair 2019). An abstinence-based approach to sex education is antiquated and not realistic in protecting students or empowering them to take control of their intimate lives (Tashman 2017; Vissing 2019), and there is virtually no human rights education—especially about children’s rights—provided in schools (Human Rights Educators USA 2020; Vissing 2020). Although children and teens supposedly enjoy the same rights as their elders, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited student rights to free speech and expression in school. The Court has also upheld censorship of school newspapers and suspensions of students for inappropriate language and behavior. Schools have even been allowed to search students’ private property without probable cause. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court found that a school’s responsibility to educate and protect children trumps student privacy, and allows school authorities more leeway than the police would have outside school. The court ruled on that case in 1985, but student rights have been further restricted since then. The courts have allowed school officials to punish students for behavior outside school grounds and in November 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an official opinion advocating the search of students’ personal cell phones and laptops if there’s a reasonable suspicion that the student is violating the law or the rules of the school (Lee 2021). Schools vary with how widely they create a rights-respecting climate and are built around a human rights framework. It must be said that given the resources available, schools and teachers work hard to create positive learning environments for students.

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

507

Despite the rise of school shootings, schools remain one of the safer places for students to be and schools have developed multi-level safety protocols (Everytown USA 2021; Goldstein 2018). Rights-respecting frameworks enhance student desire to learn, better peer relationships, more satisfied teachers, and children learn rightsrespectful skills that they take into their homes and communities (Osler and Solhaug 2018). Gross (2001), in the Catholic University Law Review, provides an analysis in which he asserts that the US has historically ignored not just children’s right to education but also its inattention to the human rights of groups of children, especially those who are children of color, who come from impoverished backgrounds, or who have ability challenges. He notes that in order to truly fulfill education as an entitlement for all children that it would require a fundamental redefinition of US policy, our position on human rights in general and human rights of children, and in our understanding of the purpose of education. He observes that any just society, particularly one with the economic resources of the United States would treat children as an “unprecedented wonder” and be committed to enabling each to realize their potential for living a full human life. All children are entitled to the same rights, yet the US does not spend equally on all children and there is a great disparity in the amount of money spent for some compared to others. Thus, educational funding and resource allocation disparity becomes a blatant measure of how little certain children are valued as human beings. Ensuring an educational system that supports the human rights of all children is within the realm of possibility, if the nation is so committed.

19.5.3

Right to Healthcare

The US Constitution affirms that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and inherent in that promise is healthcare. Yet healthcare in the US is considered a privilege, not a right. There is no specific right to health care for anyone in the U.S. Constitution either. There is no universal healthcare program, except perhaps Medicare for people who meet an age eligibility standard. If age is automatic criteria for people who are older to get healthcare, then why is not the same standard applied to children, whose bodies and brains are developing rapidly during that time? Congress has incrementally established health care rights through legislation, including laws creating Medicare and Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and the Affordable Care Act, but the Constitution does not set forth an explicit right to health care (Swendiman 2010). The right to health care has long been recognized in other nations constitutions. Health care was listed in the Second Bill of Rights drafted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt but his death kept this Second Bill of Rights from being implemented. Eleanor Roosevelt, however, took his work to the United Nations (UN), where it was expanded and included in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)‘s Article 25 concerning the essential right to healthcare. Since the adoption

508

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

of the UDHR, every other industrialized country in the world—and many non-industrialized countries—have implemented universal health care systems, which the US has not. In 1966, years after the passage of the UDHR, the UN proposed another treaty including health care: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural and Rights. Its Article 12 focuses on “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” “Health” in this context is understood as not just the right to be healthy and have health care, but as a right to control one’s own body, including reproduction and states must protect this right by ensuring that everyone within their jurisdiction has access to the underlying determinants of health, such as clean water, sanitation, food, nutrition, and housing, and through a comprehensive system of health care, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all. This treaty was ratified by all countries except three—Palau, Comoros, and the USA. In a 2015 report to the UN, the US refused to identify health as a human right (Gerisch 2018). The CRC takes a firm position that both physical and mental health of children should be a priority for nations. Article 2 of the CRC supports children’s right to nondiscrimination in receiving health-related services, since data confirms that exclusion and discrimination has resulted in maltreatments and disparities of health outcomes. Article 3 states that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child will be a primary concern; this can be an issue in children’s healthcare decisions when the child, provider, and parent have different opinions about what is in the best interests of a particular child. Article 6 focuses on the state’s obligation to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of each child. In Article 12, children are given the right to make decisions and have them respected, in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Children are regularly denied the opportunity to be heard and to express their views freely on matters that affect their health and well-being in all matters affecting him and her, and having those views heard and given due weight. This right is often infringed upon by parents, providers, and laws. Article 12 obligates duty-bearers to provide all children with information about proposed treatments and their effects and outcomes, including in appropriate formats and accessible to children with disabilities. Children of most every age have feelings about their health and opinions about healthcare procedures that need to be respected. This goes along with Articles 13 and 14 that give children the right to freedom of thought and expression including in health decisions. Article 17 addresses the importance of children to access information and material from credible sources that could impact their physical and mental well-being. Article 19 obligates duty-bearers to take actions that protect children’s health and well-being and to prevent their exposure to harm. Article 23 is designed to provide extra protection to children with disabilities, while Article 24 focuses on the state’s obligation to ensure that children attain the highest standard of health possible and to receive treatment and rehabilitation if they do become ill. Article 24 includes prenatal care, primary care of children, as well as public health measures such as nutrition, pollution, and health education for both parents and children. Article 25 refers to protections for children placed in the care of others, and Articles

19.5

Are Children’s Human Rights Protected in the US Constitution?

509

26 and 27 concern providing children with support to have a good standard of living and social security adequate for their physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development. US children receive healthcare insurance only if their parents set it up for them. Children are typically covered on their parent’s employment insurance programs; parents can purchase healthcare insurance for children either through private or state organizations. In some cases, the state may pay for care IF children qualify (which means their parents have to provide that documentation). Often, children go without. The number of uninsured children has been rising, even among babies, which puts them at terrible risk of accessing preventive, developmental, routine, or emergency care (Ollove 2020). Millions of US children have no health insurance at all, a figure that has escalated since the coronavirus pandemic when parents lost jobs, benefits, and discretionary income (Strane 2020). Data shows a huge disparity in the health of people in the US by race and social class. Health equity would require elimination of differentials in access to health services according to race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, comorbidity, or ability. To achieve health equity, governments can use a variety of tools, including civil rights legislation and constitutional jurisprudence. In the United States, 2 such examples are the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. While both have the capacity to reduce health disparities, in practice, neither has achieved its full potential because of how the judicial branch has interpreted and allowed these 2 laws to be enforced. How courts adjudicate health-related cases, especially those in which civil rights or other human rights legislation are at stake, is key to the successful promotion of legislative and jurisprudential approaches to motivating health equity and realizing justice for all (Schweikart 2021). The Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University (2023) notes that children’s right to health is right is ensured from a rights perspective at the individual, familial, and public health levels and includes a wide range of rights detrimental to children’s health such the rights to non-discrimination, access to health-related education and information, and freedom from harmful traditional practices. The realization of a child’s right to health also requires access to underlying conditions for health, such as safe water and adequate sanitation, adequate nutritious food, housing and a healthy environment. While a rights-based approach to health holds that healthcare must be available for every individual to achieve the highest attainable standard of health, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, ability, religion, political belief, or economic or social conditions, children’s health rights differ because children are uniquely vulnerable to violations of their heath rights due to what they term the biological and socially constructed characteristics of childhood. This includes their developing physical and mental capacity, their dependence on adults to meet their health needs, and their changing social roles and influences, especially during the onset of puberty (Alderson et al. 2006; Feierman et al. 2002; Nolan 2010; Worthington 2006). Children’s right to be healthy extends to efforts by the American Public Health Association (2021a, b, c) and the American Academy of Pediatrics

510

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

(2021) to view gun control as in the best interests of the child, as gun deaths for children are a major public health problem.

19.5.4

Other Considerations of Children’s Constitutional Rights

When discussing children’s human rights with lawyers, it is easy to find oneself enmeshed in the weeds. For every argument in one direction, there is another rationale for another. The Constitution and Bill of Rights accord rights to everyone, regardless of age, race, religion, national origin or gender. Yet, young people in our country do not enjoy all the same legal rights that older people do, and restrictions on their rights can vary from state to state, and even town to town. As pointed out early in this book, there are many different definitions about what a child is, and a long and convoluted history about how the social narratives around children have changed across time. Even a discussion about what is considered “the best interests of the child” is hotly debated (Purdy 1992). Some legal scholars find that it is clear that because children are human beings and the Constitution holds that all people are equal that they should have the same general rights as anyone else (Farson 1974). Others argue that it is not obvious that children have the same basic rights that adults have, even if there is a moral ground for them to have them. Questions around about whether children can have the same rights as adults because they are young, immature, and are not given choices to advocate for them or implement them. It becomes even more complicated when parental rights become regarded as superior to those of children; parent rights law has grown in recent years to counter positions that children are entitled to a full range of human rights protections (Aiken and LaFollette 1980; Alston, Parker and Seymour 1992; Archard and Macleod 2002; Eekelaar 1986; Gheaus 2015a, b; Kramer et al. 1998; Zalta 2018). There are significant concerns about legal protections and bias for children with respect to their gender and race. Despite the fact that laws and human rights treaties contain the principle of non-discrimination, it is only in the CRC in which both genders are given true equality in the exercise of their rights (Cohen 1989). It is curious that while the topic of equality seems to be generally accepted, how it is operationalized even in the United Kingdom, which has been an advocate for child rights, sometimes leaves children out. Their Equality Act 2010 was enacted with the aim of simplifying existing equality legislation and included extending age discrimination protection beyond the workplace to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services. Under-18 s, however, were omitted from such provisions, despite lobbying from a number of different groups. This exclusion is significant. Flacks (2014) finds that children can be considered to be a disabled group, and denying them autonomy, capacity, not to participate equitably, and not allowed to make decisions in all matters pertaining to them is a form of discrimination that violates

19.6

Child Protection and the Criminal Justice System

511

laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens observed that cases are often bipolar when discussed—in cases of parents and the government, the role of the child is often a forgotten part of the legal argument (Lesley 2022). It is long overdue to put children as equal and active players in the court, not as second-rate objects to be done-to. Yet, the way the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems deal with children is concerning at best.

19.6

Child Protection and the Criminal Justice System

In order to protect children, the nation relies upon courts, laws, judicial proceedings, and the role of police officers. A question that must be raised is—how attentive are they to the defense of children’s human rights? This question can be argued in different ways. On a positive note, the American Bar Association has a children’s law division and child law centers around the country; there exists CLASP Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Association of Counsel for Children, Southern Poverty Law Center, child defender offices, child advocate offices, child ombudsman offices, pro-bono layers who work with children on their cases, and legal other organizations and law firms that focus on the protection of children’s rights. In short, there are organizations defending children’s rights that exist. In order to use them, someone has to know they exist and how to access them. In some cases, money may need to be involved, which children do not have. In most cases, children’s arguments for the need for legal assistance must be documented and well-developed for court action to be undertaken. Most children are therefore at a distinct disadvantage in being able to utilize resources that may exist that could help them. On a less positive note, there are plenty of obstacles for children when confronting court action. Children may be cast as perpetrators, not victims. First, consider what the CRC says about youth criminal justice protections. Then children as alleged perpetrators will be covered, followed by a brief discussion of police interaction models, and the court determinations.

19.6.1

CRC Article 40

The CRC holds that all children are entitled to legal rights. This is the case if they have been victimized or not. Children are entitled to have their rights defended even if they have been perpetrators. This does not mean giving a child no consequence for their misbehavior or bad judgment; it means that no matter what, children are to be treated with dignity and respect.

512

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

CRC Articles provide support for ensuring children’s care and protecting their human rights when they come into contact with courts and the criminal justice system. These include Articles 3 and 4, which require institutions who have the oversight of children to fulfill their obligations of ensuring the best interests of the child are met—which also includes children accused of crimes. Good care of children is also reaffirmed in Articles 19, 20 and 25 and further specified in Article 37 as it pertains to their imprisonment and deprivation of their liberty. Article 13 points out that children have a right to receive information both orally and in writing on things that impact their lives, which refers to information about causes for their arrest, due process, and legal rights. Parents are to be notified and involved when their children have contact with criminal justice authorities, which is protected by Article 18. Article 40 provides details on how children should be addressed if accused of infringing upon existing penal laws. Here is the detail in Article 40 of the treaty: 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society. 2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that: (a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed; (b) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees: (i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law; (ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence; (iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians; (iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;

19.6

Child Protection and the Criminal Justice System

513

(v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law; (vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used; (vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular: (a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law; (b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.

19.6.2

Children as Perpetrators

The law and courts are designed to protect the public. This includes organizations, businesses, schools, homes, adults, and children. A truth is that one person’s rights end when another person’s rights are violated. It is important to have a judicial system that protects everyone. When the topic of protection is raised in communities, the question of whether children are victims or perpetrators inevitably arises. Youth violence is a public health concern. Is there is more youth violence or are we just focusing on it more (Buckingham 2010)? Research would generally indicate that zero tolerance policies do not reduce crime but have resulted in greater public negative response to young people’s behavior. Arrest rates may have increased, but increased reports do not mean that children’s behavior is criminal. This is seen through a variety of 2018–22 white adult phone calls complaining about African American children who were doing nothing wrong (selling water, cutting grass to earn money, stopping at a gas station to buy a drink, napping in public, etc.) (News One 2018; Underhill 2018). Once a group of people gets stereotyped and labeled, it makes it challenging for others to see them differently, even when people are saintly. The National Institute of Justice (2018) reports that prevalence of offending rises when youth are between 15–19, and declines after that. Certainly, some young

514

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

people break the law, either by naiveté or intent. Some engage in minor infractions while some murder or do horrific actions. The age when people are considered capable of moral reflection of their actions has fluctuated across time and place (Burke et al. 2016). Conflicting conceptions and definitions of childhood have impacted on the way children are treated by the law, as well as how parents and the community respond to their actions. Different scenarios are presented to the public about young people and violent behavior. One is that children are sweet and innocent and don’t mean to act badly. Another is that children are more primitive, with animal-like tendencies and inclined to be sinful and need strong controls to manage their evil tendencies. There is the view that they have free-will and know what they’re doing is wrong and should therefore be treated like adults. Another view focuses on the global and communalistic pressures that predispose children to engage in violence, such as socio-political exclusion, unemployment, weak education, and having no place to constructive channel their interests, needs, and ways to move into productive adulthood. All of these views, as pointed out in the earlier framework history chapter, were created in the past and are being replicated to our current consciousness. We are wise to consider two main questions—is there more youth violence, and if there is, what is the genesis of it? Considering those issues before choosing courses of action may be wise and just. Longitudinal government data suggest a decrease of violent crime in the US since the 1990s (Cooke 2015). The public still perceives young people to be more violent, even though the data indicates otherwise. This is, then, a data problem, but it’s also an adult agenda problem. Sometimes we hear of an isolated problem and then generalize it as if it is a truth for everyone. For instance, the public has bought into racial stereotypes that don’t necessarily correlate with actual data (Toldson 2019). In another example, two Wisconsin 12-year-old-girls stabbed a third to appease a fictional horror figure, Slender Man (Miller 2015). While a bizarre and unusual occurrence, a Google search found the story had been retold in over 766,000 locations, with the result of facilitating a public view that even girls in rural areas could be dangerous and untrustworthy. Scholars are encouraged to look at their biases, research methodologies employed and not rely on BS—or bad stats (Toldson 2019). It is a fact that some young people have engaged in violent behavior, even murder. Cases of children killing younger children, peers, parents, grandparents, or homeless people fill the news waves (Miller 2015; Morgan 2011). There are incidents of children killed by siblings who are angry at them over minor things, stories of bullies who push others into killing themselves, tales about gang members who kill innocent for sport, and children recruited into terrorist organizations who do despicably horrible things to others. Young people, like older persons, can be violent. It’s important to understand the context in which violence occurs. Estimates indicate 30% of high school males in the US regularly carry weapons, such as guns or knives, making it more likely they’ll be used. In the 1990s, black students were most likely to carry weapons but that trend has changed, with white student weapon

19.6

Child Protection and the Criminal Justice System

515

use increasing while weapon-carrying has decreased for both black and Latino students (Child Trends Databank 2016a). Where did this tendency to be violent come from? As mentioned earlier, some assume violence is genetic, hereditary, the outcome of “a bad seed”. Others target peer pressure, dysfunctional families, troubled neighborhoods or social learning where children receive positive reinforcement for being aggressive. A culture that glamorizes violence as a suitable solution for solving problems increases chances for youth violence. Certainly, the research on child abuse indicates that violence begets violence. Adult-role modeling of violent and aggressive behavior increases chances of youth engaging in violence. As extremism and hate groups have increased in the US, and as social media has endorsed discriminatory and violent messages, the cultural shift towards teaching youth that violence is acceptable cannot be missed (Vissing 2021a, b; Vissing et al. 2020). Data is clear that children are more likely to be victims of crime and violence, rather than perpetrators of it. There is also an overwhelming body of evidence concluding that abused children, bullied children, and maltreated children may engage in violent behavior (Coloroso 2004; Rivara and Le Menestrel 2016; Strauss 2014a, b; Swearer 2015). When children learn that violence is a solution for dealing with people whose behavior bugs you, it is no surprise that they will replicate violence into their own lives and against others. Early abuse modifies the way children perceive situations, and the link between violence and brain response is cutting-edge. According to the US Department of Justice (2023), over 60% of children have been directly or indirectly exposed to violence. This exposure as victims or witnesses is associated with long term physical, psychological and social harm. In a comprehensive analysis of crimes against children and youth, the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire (Finkelhor 2000) found: • Children are more likely to be victims of crime, over two times higher than adults. • Crimes against youth are less likely to be reported to the police, 28% of violent crimes against youth were reported to police versus 48% of crimes to adults. • Youth are more likely than adults to face a weapon-toting assailant. • Juveniles are more likely than adults to experience a victimization related injury. • All crimes types for all aged people have been in decline. • The homicide rate for juveniles of all ages may be lower than for adults, but homicide is one of the five leading causes of juvenile mortality. • Juvenile homicide rates are substantially higher for African American and Hispanic American youth and large cities have levels that greatly exceed those of rural areas. • Teenagers and young children face different homicide perils. The homicides of teens (12–17 years) mostly involve male victims and male offenders, many of whom are other youths or young adults, using firearms. The homicides of young children (0–5 years) are committed largely by family members using beatings and

516

• • • • •

• • •

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

suffocation and victimize boys and girls about equally. A large portion of perpetrators are female. Youths have higher rates of sexual assault victimization than adults. Self-report studies suggest at least 20% of adult females and 5 to 10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident. Stereotypical stranger abductions of children are rare. Teenage girls are the group at greatest risk for non-family abduction. Juveniles are substantially more likely than adults to be assaulted. Youth are substantially more likely to be robbed or have property stolen than adults. A majority of violent victimizations to juveniles occur outside of school, while a majority of thefts occur in school. School is the most common location for juvenile property victimizations. The victimization rate for crime in school declined has been in decline. In-school homicides are rare. Most schools have no serious violence in a typical year. There has been little change in school victimization rates. However, fear of victimization in school has increased. Bullying is a problem in many schools and for many youth. Girls are more likely to be targets of reputational bullying while boys are more likely to be physically bullied. All genders may be sexually harassed. Juveniles are more likely than adults to have bicycles, clothing, collections and electronic gear stolen. Few juvenile property crime victimizations get reported to police; reputational victimization is often experienced but seldom reported. Many children witness violence in their homes and domestic violence has a longterm negative impact, even for children who are not direct victims of it.

In sum, children and youth are more likely to be victims of crime than adults. For a variety of reasons, crimes against them aren’t reported or prosecuted. However, when the general public thinks about youth and crime, many are more inclined to think of youth as perpetrators, not victims of crime.

19.7

Brain Development and Juvenile Justice

Instead of resorting to a framework of troubled children as “bad”, “sinners”, or “a bad seed”, studies about how young brains develop have shed light on the fact that juvenile’s brains are quite different than adults, especially due to immature prefrontal cortex development of young brains. Developmentally, the brains of children are not considered to be mature into well into their twenties or even thirties so holding children to the same logic and standards as adults is appropriate. Much scientific research has been conducted indicating young people’s brains process information differently than older people, and this processing issue may influence their behavior. According to the American College of Pediatricians (2021), people’s brains are not fully mature until age 25. Through MRIs and other tests, they conclude that both nature and nurture influence brain development. Environmental

19.7

Brain Development and Juvenile Justice

517

influences impact cellular growth. Tyler (2015), in a review of studies on child brain development and legal culpability posted by the American Bar Association, encourages courts to consider the convergence of adolescent brain science and juvenile culpability. Briefly, the prefrontal cortex controls humans’ ability to take all options into account (juveniles are wired to be impulsive), to think before acting, contemplate risks and weigh consequences, to be empathetic, and deal with issues of peer pressure, of which juveniles are more susceptible. Science also finds two other brain systems that influence how young people perceive and act to situations. One is the socio-emotional system of the limbic midbrain system and the orbital areas of the frontal lobe. They control the emotional state of the brain and influences children’s increased need for rewards, sensation-seeking, their attentiveness to social cues, and their reactive emotional responses to both positive and negative emotions. The other is the cognitive control system of the dorsolateral area of the frontal lobe, which provides a check to the socio-emotional system but takes years to mature. Early adolescence is a time of expansive brain and nerve cell growth, and effected by hormones and neurotransmitters such as dopamine, which is associated with feelings of pleasure. Changes in one’s dopamine levels suggest adolescents require more excitement and stimulation than adults, which is why they attempt riskier behaviors such a drug, sex, gambling, pornography, or even videogames. The amygdala, or emotion center of the brain, is immature in adolescents and not fully connected to the frontal lobe, which makes it harder for them to interpret emotions— both theirs and others. Since the amygdala isn’t well connected to the brain’s judgment center, youth may make decisions based on impulse rather than logic. Gaining capacity for emotional and executive functioning to work well together takes time. The hippocampus, or brain memory control center, is more susceptible to effects of alcohol and drugs which contributes to behavioral and cognitive problems for youth. Also, mirror neurons, which assist in development of empathy and compassion, seems to be adversely affected by extensive cellphone and screen time usage. A fully-functioning cognitive control system increases impulse control, emotional regulation, more foresight and detection of options, better planning and anticipation of outcomes, and greater resistance to stress and peer pressure, all which take time to develop and explain why it is so hard for children to do. Brain science concludes impulsivity and sensation-seeking decline with age, as does susceptibility to peer influence. As children age they develop better problem-solving skills and can delay gratification, which reduces their tendency to make poor choices. Children’s engagement in delinquent behaviors, having contact with police, multiple sexual partners, and being considered wild or out-of-control may be a developmental stage that most will grow out of as they approach age thirty. If their brains aren’t developed, should young people receive differential treatment or get off the hook for being immature? This question is a hard one to answer, especially when it comes to dealing with violent behavior. If youth carry out premeditated plans to

518

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

kill someone, should they still be treated as children? What is the appropriate penalty for them? This question posed lively debate in Danvers, MA, where Philip Chism was convicted of raping and murdering his teacher when he was 14 years old (Boeri 2015). What type of punishment should he have? He did a horrific thing but he was still a child at 14-years-old. His brain was not fully developed. Scholars such as David Fassler at the Vermont College of Medicine and psychiatrist Peter Ash of Emory University find brain research helps explain why youth act in inappropriate ways. They suggest youth can make rational decisions and know the difference between right and wrong, but when confronted with stressful or emotional decisions they’re more likely to act impulsively, on instinct, without fully understanding or anticipating the consequences of their actions. As a member of a state juvenile parole board, I observed that most of the youth who were detained had not engaged in major criminal activities. Many were detained because they had been caught using drugs, stealing, being bullies, and having bad attitudes when it came to interacting with adults. They had been labeled as “bad kids” and put into detainment for months on end. In most cases, there were theoretically other alternatives to help the youth, but the services, resources, or staff were not available. In one case, a youth was detained for months because his family was homeless and camping in a state park, and was caught sleeping in a town park late at night because he went to a school dance and did not have any way to get back to the campground. In another case, a couple had adopted a child from another culture and the child was having cultural and personal adjustment issues; the couple had “gotten more than they had bargained for” when they adopted him and were at their wit’s end not knowing how to help him so when he acted out, they called the police on him. In many cases, parents used physical, verbal, and emotional assaults towards the youth, and when the youth reacted aggressively to defend themselves, the police got called and the youth were cast as the perpetrators. Parents with substance abuse problems, domestic violent relationships, sexual abuse, financial problems, were often the nexus to the youth problem. Youth “criminal” behavior in this context could be perceived as a cry for help. In almost all cases, the parents never received therapy, and when youth had completed their “program” and were paroled, they were sent back to the same family relationships and situation, into communities that had limited resources, and it was easy for the youth to fall into the same behavioral patterns that got them incarcerated in the first place. In some cases, youth returned to the center for committing new “crimes”, but it seemed as though some did so because it was a safer, better place for them than the home situations they were back in. Going back to Howard Becker’s question of “whose side are we on?”, usually the parents and community win out. This is not to excuse the youth’s misbehavior; it is merely to try to understand it and find better, more effective and less costly ways to deal with them to prevent future problems. Violence toward others tends to peak around age 16, and people who haven’t committed a violent crime by age 19 only rarely start doing it later, according to experts. (Scott and Steinberg 2008; Ritter 2006). Making mistakes is part of being a child; when mistakes have negative

19.8

Police Response

519

consequences for other, the acts may take precedence in people’s mind, not the age of a child, especially when a child engaged in behaviors typically associated with adulthood.

19.8

Police Response

A community and its citizens need the police. We call them when we are in trouble, have a car accident, when someone hurts us, steals or injures our property, and to help us when someone is trying to hurt us. I grew up with a “Policeman Bill in your friend” narrative. There are countless police officers who put their lives on the line every day to help, protect, and save us. But as we saw in the Uvalde Texas shooting at Ross Elementary School, there were over 300 police officers and it took 90 min for them to respond, even though the officers had undergone a shooting training only months before. They, like the school police offer at the Parkland, Florida school shooting, did not put “the best interests of the child” or make children a priority. National calls to “defund the police” are occurring because some officers shoot first and then ask questions, use aggressive and violent tactics when nonviolent ones would be more effective, and engage in unnecessary physical and verbal violence, arresting, not paying attention to their due-process rights, shooting allegedly innocent children, handcuffing 6-year-olds, pepper-spraying an emotionally distressed 9-year-old girl, or holding young black children at gunpoint just for riding in a car that was suspected to be stolen (Dewan and Oppel 2015; Hong 2021a, b; Roberts 2019; Romo 2021). This police brutality has become a concern about officers in the community as well as those hired at the school. Even some school resource officers give the sense that they are going to war with a warrior mentality when addressing infractions of preschoolers (Falcone 2020; Thompson 2021a, b). Cases of young children being handcuffed, arrested, hit, pepper-sprayed, and demeaned do nothing to make children trust they will be treated fairly by police (BBC 2020; Kesslen 2020; Lenthang 2021; Madani 2020; NPR 2021; Wainman 2021). The ability of officers to deal in a rights-respecting manner to children who are having mental illness problems has heightened young people’s concerns about police protection (Adams 2021; The Hill 2018; PBS 2017). Nearly two million kids under the age of 18 were arrested in the US last year, most for minor, non-violent offenses, 200,000 of these juveniles were tried as adults, 1 in 3 youth can expect to be arrested by age 23, zero tolerance policies contribute to a school to prison pipeline, and that even minor juvenile offenses committed can result in lifelong consequences due to the way the judicial system handles them (Gilburd 2011). A few years ago, I held a statewide conference in child safety in Massachusetts and a trainer from NAMI worked with police officers and others to teach better responses to children and youth with mental health problems. When youth are emotionally dysregulated, scared, and worried they are being attacked, they may spin out of control. When mental health services aren’t available and young people

520

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

behave in ways that can’t be adequately managed through normal adult-child interactions, calling the police has become a commonly used option. Parents, teachers, and others who love them may call for back-up assistance from the police. But in many cases, instead of calm compassion from specially trained mental health officers, aggressive tactics are employed. The officer may not be well-trained in how to work with young people who are violent, enraged, or scared. A shoot-first police response to perceived threats has become a social problem and reflects the need of officers to know more about how to handle youth who are distressed (Binney 2018). A young woman I know was in a depressive state and cutting herself, and when she was being moved from the emergency room at the hospital to the state mental illness complex, instead of taking her in an ambulance, they handcuffed her and transported her in a police car. Recent news of police brutality towards young people, especially those who are nonwhite or poor, point to the importance of finding better ways to work with youth who are acting in aggressive or threatening ways (Binney 2018; Kimberly 2014).

19.9

Juvenile Justice System

The criminal justice system is designed to identify perpetrators and stop violent behavior, so they’re on the look-out for troubled youth. Criminal justice systems are part of the historical infrastructure of the United States. An elaborate criminal justice system has been designed to address juvenile justice, including the National Institute of Justice,1 Office of Juvenile Justice Prevention,2 Juvenile Law Center,3 Bureau of Justice Statistics4 and review by the Annie E. Casey Foundation5 and US government overview.6 Almost all states now have laws governing their juvenile justice systems (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2001). According to the Juvenile Law Center (2020),7 Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899, states have recognized that children who commit crimes are different from adults; as a class, they are less blameworthy, and they have a greater capacity for change. By the mid-1920s, every state in the country had established a separate system of criminal justice designed to acknowledge those differences called the juvenile justice system.

They note that the juvenile justice system has grown and changed substantially since 1899, moving away from an informal court process behind closed doors to a 1

https://www.nij.gov/Pages/welcome.aspx http://www.ojjdp.gov/ 3 https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview 4 https://bjs.ojp.gov/justice-system 5 https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-juvenile-justice 6 https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice 7 https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview 2

19.9

Juvenile Justice System

521

more formalized system. The system typically focuses on juveniles as perpetrators more than juveniles as victims. Child victims are more likely to have their needs addressed through state offices like Child Protective Services that deal with child abuse and neglect cases. In those cases, perpetrators may or not go to court as mental health, education, or other services are delivered. Probation systems and separate rehabilitation and treatment facilities have been created to provide juvenile “offenders” with supervision, guidance, and education. These systems emerged as a result of juvenile’s lack of due-process and deprivation of their liberty through no transparency and extensive incarceration that came to light in the 1967 Supreme Court decision In re Gault. In Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Constitution requires that youth charged with delinquency in juvenile court have many of the same due process rights guaranteed to adults accused of crimes, including the right to an attorney and the right to confront witnesses against them. Juvenile crime rates were perceived to increase in the early 1990s (perhaps as an increase of court processing) and resulted in a tough-on-crime approach in which states enacted mechanisms to move youth from juvenile to adult criminal court for trial and severe punishment, including death penalties and life without the possibility of parole. Since then, juvenile crime rates have steadily decreased, yet the harsh penalties of the 1990s remain in many state laws. With this shift, key distinctive and rehabilitative approaches of the juvenile justice system have been lost to the more severe consequences attendant to criminal justice system involvement (Juvenile Law Center 2022). Some experts think that young people are not nearly as involved with criminal behavior as stereotyped and find youth behavior often misidentified as troublesome when it’s not (Males 2002). Another view (Epstein 2010) alleges that young people may be criminal, reckless and troubled but it’s because we treat them like children and deny them freedom and responsibility. Epstein argues that young people don’t behave like criminals in cultures that give them rights, and makes a compelling case for competency tests as a gateway to rights. The US is known as one of the most stringent of all developed nations in how it treats young offenders. Based on the premise that children and young adolescents are developmentally different from adults and are therefore more amenable to rehabilitation, they are not criminally responsible for their actions. Children and adolescents brought before the court were assumed to require the court’s intervention and guidance, rather than punishment. They were not to be accused of specific crimes. The reason a juvenile came before the court—be it for committing an offense or because of abuse or neglect by his or her parents or for being uncontrollable—was less important than understanding the child’s life situation and finding appropriate, individualized rehabilitative services (Schlossman 2005). Historians have noted that the establishment of the juvenile court not only diverted youngsters from the criminal court, but also expanded the net of social control over juveniles through the incorporation of status jurisdiction into states’ juvenile codes (Platt 1977; Schlossman 2005).

522

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Young people who might formerly have been processed through the juvenile justice system for status offenses may now be institutionalized in other facilities, such as private mental health and drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Very little is known about the number of youngsters confined to such institutions, the length of their institutionalization, or the conditions of their confinement. Concern over housing juveniles with adult criminals led to other requirements under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults in detention and correctional facilities and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups were mandated. In 1988, the act was amended to require states to address disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles. At the same time the federal agenda and the voices of reformers were calling for deinstitutionalization procedures and more prevention, the states seemed to be moving in the opposite direction. Between 1978 and 1981, lawmakers in nearly half the states enacted some form of tougher legislation with regard to handling serious and chronic juvenile offenders. In a handful of states, provisions included making it easier to prosecute juveniles in adult court by lowering the age of judicial waiver (three states); excluding certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction enacting mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines for juveniles (three states). The impact of these reforms was an increase in the detention rate on any given day by more than 50% between 1977 and 1985.

19.10

Courts

There are big-picture issues and individual experiences that collectively paint a picture of human rights for children in the US criminal justice system that are quite concerning. US law recognizes that children aren’t physically and emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility attached to legal activities like drinking, signing contracts, driving, or marrying, yet may be responsible enough to be put in jail for life without parole (Rovner 2021). The variability of children’s rights by state means that standards may be different depending upon where a child lives (Lee 2021). The history of US juvenile justice is often hailed back to 1899 when the first juvenile court was opened in Cook County, Illinois. By the mid-1920s, every state in the country had established a separate system of criminal justice designed to acknowledge those differences called the juvenile justice system. Originally the juvenile court process was informal, often being little more than a conversation between the youth and the judge, with the youth lacking legal representation. Proceedings were conducted behind closed doors with little public or community awareness of how the juvenile court operated or what happened to the children who appeared before it. Rather than confining children in jails with adults, the early juvenile courts created a probation system and separate rehabilitation and treatment facilities to provide minors with supervision, guidance, and education. The lack of formal

19.10

Courts

523

procedures and due process for youth improved after the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision In re Gault, in which the court determined that the Constitution requires that youth charged with delinquency have many of the same due process rights guaranteed to adults accused of crimes, including the right to an attorney and the right to confront witnesses against them (United States Courts 2020). When juvenile crime rates increased in the late 1980s and early1990s, police became tougher on youth offenders and deprived certain youth human rights protections that included having them placed in adult jails and being tried in adult courts. Many states created punitive punishments and charged youth with death sentences or life in prison without the possibility of parole. By putting children in jail with seasoned adult offenders, children were put at extraordinary risk. While juvenile crime rates have gone down significantly, harsh penalties remain in many states. The juvenile justice system in the US today has improved rehabilitation, restorative justice programs, and educational programs. Juvenile offenders may still be confined in correctional facilities that resemble adult prisons with harsh treatments and when released they may be put on probation or parole. (Juvenile Law Center 2020). The question of how to treat children in the justice system has long been an issue of examination and reexamination by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has consistently held that children are entitled to many of the same due process rights as adults. With that understood, however, the Court has also consistently held that, from a developmental standpoint, youth are different from adults, which greatly impacts how courts should treat them in a whole host of areas, such as waiver of rights, culpability, and punishment (National Juvenile Defender Center 2021). The handling of young people who engage in “criminal” activities is shifting thanks to advances in science. Tyler’s (2015) report encourages the application of neuroscience to determining juvenile culpability, which requires changing our assumptions about children. They are different than adults and their behavior needs to be judged in the context of their developmental capabilities and needs. This means that neuroscience should be considered in forensic evaluations, social histories, pre-sentencing, and interacting with the juveniles. Court decisions have started to take children’s developmental culpability more into consideration, but there are still many changes that could be improved to ensure that children’s human rights are adequately addressed.

19.10.1

Children’s Human Rights and the Court

In The Rights and Wrongs of Children, Freeman (1983) studied children “who do wrong” under the current criminal justice system and the welfare-justice conundrum, and argues that we have “not yet got it right” for children, particularly when it concerns their rights. The treatment of children in disputes with their parents are not represented or given full opportunities to voice their concerns. Once children are accused or convicted of doing wrong, punishments imposed upon them can be greater than those imposed on adults. “Treatment” solutions often of indeterminate

524

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

length occur. The “troubled teen” industry has been found to do more harm than good for youth (Golightley 2020). In many ways, children “are wronged” by the systems that have been designed to protect them. This is largely due to a lack of full commitment to a children’s human rights framework. Children need to be treated differently from adults in welfare and criminal justice systems (Human Rights Watch 2021a, b). We know that violence begets violence; the more children learn that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts, the more violence will be used. We see this manifest when bullied children become bullies, when abused children hurt their lovers or peers, or when we look at recipients of community violence who then become violent against innocent victims. Connolly (2014) reminds us that there is always a trade off in systems in order to make things work. The thing we can’t afford to trade-off is our children. If we go down that road, exactly what part of their life are we willing to trade away? In an attempt to understand how the US criminal justice system has collectively handled the human rights of people under age 18, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) detailed infractions in the US prosecution and incarceration of children in a report, The Situation of Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System in the United States (2018). The report examined the legal framework that allows children to be tried in the adult criminal system in light of the State’s international legal obligations, the current status of children within the criminal system, and the conditions children face during their incarceration in adult facilities. It reports that 200,000 children are tried each year in U.S. adult criminal courts and were held in adult penitentiaries in violation of their right to special protection and to be tried in a specialized juvenile system. States continue to maintain laws and practices that incarcerate children in adult facilities, there are limits to the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and laws that automatically place 16 or 17-year-old children in the adult criminal system. The Commission found that in 26 of the 50 states, children between age is 1–14 are considered eligible for transfer into the adult system and 34 states have “once an adult, always an adult” laws meaning that if a child was considered an adult for an offense committed at age 11, if another offense was committed at age 14 they will automatically be tried as an adult. The report emphasized that treating children as adults in the U.S. is very disconcerting because that the U.S. justice system features what they call a highly punitive response to crime. Despite the In Re Gault Supreme Court decision in 1974, the report found that due process rights of children were regularly violated, with most children lacking access to legal counsel, felt pressured to waive their right to legal representation, experienced long waiting periods prior to the disposition of their cases, and often agreed to plea bargains without being aware of their consequences. Family members of juveniles were often not informed or present (International Justice Center 2018). Thousands of children are held in adult prisons and detention facilities; the IACHR found that their rights were regularly violated in these facilities which do not usually take into account the age or maturity of the children and adapt their conditions. Unnecessary use of force by correctional staff and other inmates existed, and a climate of fear and dehumanization are common, as are a lack of educational,

19.10

Courts

525

recreational, or mental health services. The report indicates that youth are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape in an adult facility as compared to those held in juvenile facilities, are more likely to be abused by correctional staff and to witness or be the target of violence committed by other prisoners, and have a 50% higher chance of being attacked with a weapon. In 2019 children’s justice organizations such as the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Campaign for Youth Justice, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights for Kids, Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Juvenile Justice Network joined forces to appeal to Congress to pass HR 1950 to depart from mandatory minimum sentencing of youth, and HR 1951, which would end life in prison for people who committed crimes when they were younger than age 18. Over 76,000 children are prosecuted in the adult CJ system each year, some of whom are only 10 years old. Such severe punishment is not age-appropriate and disproportionate given brain research showing how their undeveloped prefrontal cortex impact their decision-making skills and the fact that 90% of children in the criminal justice system have suffered multiple adverse child experiences (ACES), and that a disproportionate number of children are people of color (Human Rights Watch 2019). The findings of such reports are antithetical to the nation’s supposed commitment to human rights justice for children. When it comes to the application of the Constitution, Amendments 4–7 pertain to criminal justice issues, particularly around due-process, treatment of alleged offenders, and prosecution issues. While local, police, institutional intervention levels, many allegations exist indicating that children’s Constitutional rights have been violated. Yet decisions supporting children’s rights can be seen in some of the US court decisions, including In Re Gault, Tinker, and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551.

19.10.2

Social Class Bias in the Courts

The assumption is that if someone goes to court they will receive a fair and impartial hearing, and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. These standards do not always seem to operate in some court decisions. There exists a disproportionate representation of ethnic and children of color racial groups, particularly African American and Hispanic youth, in the criminal justice system (International Justice Center 2018). It has been widely alleged that differential treatment of young people by courts is often based upon their economic status and racial distinction. Workers are human and have their own biases that sometimes impinge upon their work (Gelles 2019; Piven and Cloward 1993; Roberts 2019). Racial, gender, social class, and legal status of children may impact how they get treated and the resources they receive. More poor and nonwhite young people (especially males) end up being arrested, incarcerated, put on probation or parole, or shot and killed without clear provocation (Child Trends Databank 2016b; Juvenile Law Center 2020; Puzzanchera 2019;

526

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

Rovner 2021). Children from impoverished homes will likely not have an attorney, while those from affluent homes may. Wealthy children who have parents who have the resources are able to buy attorneys who portray the youth as “good kids” and ultimately receive less penalty. A prime example of this is the Affluenza Boy, Ethan Couch, a 16-year-old who killed four people and injured others while he was driving three times over the legal limit; because he was drunk-driving - he was sentenced not with jail time but probation and rehabilitation because he suffered from growing up so wealthy that he was unaware of how his behavior impacted others (PlushnickMasti 2013; Victor 2018). The disparity between how poor children are treated by the criminal justice system is significant, as is the unequal treatment between children who are white compared with children of color (Watkins 2013; Zhu 2014). The disparity in how justice is carried out for young people is a human rights issue. Young people would benefit from fair and transparent access to justice systems so they can enforce and protect their rights (UNICEF 2009). As victims of violence, many children don’t receive due diligence. In child abuse cases, the more visibly harmed a child is, the more likely action will be taken against the perpetrator. In cases of child murder or major assault and battery, there will be a higher likelihood of court action than in cases where a child is “just” hit or verbally and emotionally abused. Adults are more sophisticated than children and have ways of explaining an injury or occurrence that may tend to put the child’s version in question. Sexual abuse cases are particularly challenging to try if there was no witness and no physical evidence, such as semen or ripped vaginal or anal membranes. Putting children through evidentiary proceedings can be psychologically hard and physically uncomfortable; this is why sexual abuse treatment and prosecution programs like the Barnstadt in Iceland is world-renown for its childcompassionate collection of evidence (Longfield 2019).

19.10.3

JLWOP and Death Sentences

The US is the only nation that sentences people to life without parole for crimes committed before turning age 18. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2015; Woodhouse 2008), each year in the United States children as young as 13 are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any opportunity for release. Approximately 2570 children are sentenced to juvenile life without parole or “JLWOP.” There has been backlash to this and some states have banned JLWOP, but half still allow judges to give children life sentences. Nonwhite children are the largest group of recipients of this penalty. States like Tennessee still sentence young homicide offenders to life without parole or life without the possibility of parole after 51 years. Despite multiple Supreme Court rulings that limit the use of JLWOP, there is no law that bans it on a federal level. Despite global consensus that children cannot be held to the same standards of responsibility as adults, and recognition that children are entitled to special protection and treatment, the US allows children to

19.10

Courts

527

be punished as adults. While the Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that juveniles convicted of murder cannot be subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, 29 states still have such laws. Even though the death penalty for juvenile offenders appears to have been abandoned by nations everywhere in large part due to the provisions of the UNCRC, until 2005 the death penalty was legal in the US for people under age 18.8 In March 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for those who had committed their crimes at under 18 years of age was cruel and unusual punishment and barred by the Constitution. While the UDHR and CRC view the death penalty as a violation of human rights, since 1973, the death penalty has been imposed on 228 children under 18 in the United States. Of these, 21 have been executed and 80 still remain on death row. The Supreme Court is currently set to rule on the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty (ACLU 2018). The U.S. is the only country in the world that condemns children to serve life without parole in prison. Life sentence penalties peaked in the ‘90 s because of a “super-predator” mentality that asserted youth were out to harm innocent people. Black youth as were portrayed by racist leaders as godless, fatherless monsters who could not be rehabilitated. Since 1990, juvenile offenders are known to have been executed in only seven countries: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the USA (Streib 2004).

19.10.4

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice has emerged as a newer practice of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. It is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime, and one based more on a rights-respecting rather than a punitive view of relationships. The philosophy of restorative justice has its roots in the criminal justice system—traditionally when a crime is committed, a typical response is to punish the offender. But that approach doesn’t repair the harm done and does nothing to address underlying problems that may have led to the offense in the first place (Gonzalez 2018). Restorative justice is accomplished through cooperative processes that allow all willing stakeholders to meet and work towards the transformation of a harmful situation into one that heals both the victim and perpetrator. It is a more rightsrespecting approach because it considers that they may not have acted with full understanding of the impact their behavior would have on others. It is instructive to bring them to a higher level of understanding that will hopefully prevent them from

8 The death penalty is forbidden in all states for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2005). See information from the Death Penalty Information Center on execution of children in the US and worldwide at http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-juveniles-us-and-other-countries

528

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

acting in harmful ways in the future. It is designed for them to meet with those whom they harmed and seek mutually agreeable ways to mend the situation (Bernstein 2016a, b). Restorative Justice9 holds that crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing that harm. People affected by the crime should be able to participate in its resolution. The responsibility of the justice system to maintain order and of the community to build peace—which may mean teaching people how to do this through role modeling positive conflict resolution techniques. It focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and reducing future harm through crime prevention. It requires that offenders take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused and seek redress for victims. It has been found to lead to reduced recidivism, greater satisfaction with the outcomes from all stakeholders, and reduced posttraumatic stress and is a way of looking at wrongdoing and punishment through a different lens (Gonzalez 2018). It is also a more rights-respecting way of working with juvenile offenders. The juvenile justice system exists ostensibly to protect children and society. The history of treating children as adults sweeps over to contemporary times, but biological and psychological research indicates that children process information differently and developmentally must be considered to have different motivations and perceptions than adult criminals. Therefore, they are entitled to a different type of response from the criminal justice community that will help them to transform into productive citizens instead of career-criminals. Children who have broken the law have histories and extenuating circumstances that influence their infractions. It is one thing to understand this; it is another to develop systems that takes their human rights into account. The CRC provides a framework to better defend children’s rights when they are accused, arrested, detained, and tried.

19.11

A New Paradigm for Child Law and the Constitution

A paradigm that defends the rights of children in courts and within the Constitution is badly needed. Dailey and Rosenbury (2018) propose a new paradigm for describing, understanding, and shaping children’s relationship to law. They feel the existing legal regime, which they term the “authorities’ framework,” focuses narrowly on state and parental control over children, reducing children’s interests to those of dependency and the attainment of autonomy. Rather, they courage the creation of a “new law of the child” that promotes a broader range of children’s present and future interests. These include children’s interests in relationships with parents and other adults, the exposure to new ideas, freer expressions of identity, greater respect for their personal integrity and privacy, and more opportunities for participation in civic life.

9

http://restorativejustice.org

19.11

A New Paradigm for Child Law and the Constitution

529

They propose a tripartite framework of relationships, responsibilities, and rights that aim to transform how law treats children and their interactions with others. The framework addresses children’s needs for state and parental control in many instances while also moving beyond those concerns to foster children’s interests in the here and now. Children’s lives and the social environments in which they reside at home, school, and the community have changed. There are different normative universes and values the impact their diverse lives. While this paradigm might impose some restrictions on some aspects of adult authority, the benefits it yields are likely to be significant. We believe law should recognize, maintain, and promote a broader range of children’s relationships, including relationships with nonparental adults and with other children. Relatedly, law should advance children’s exposure to new ideas in ways that will spur their curiosity, learning, and exploration of their own identities as they grow. Law should also ensure that children have opportunities to express themselves in school and elsewhere, while at the same time protecting children from intrusions on their bodily integrity and personal privacy. And, finally, law should seek to further children’s participation in civic life as a central component of their engagement in the world. Parental rights should never automatically trump the interests of all others—most importantly, those of children themselves. (Dailey and Rosenbury 2018:51).

This model reframes the narrative held about children and puts it more in line with contemporary thinking about children having agency, the right to have input into decisions that impact their lives, and their right to participate in matters that pertain to them. Children have evolving capacities and thus the delivery of rights may appear different from one stage of development to another, but the essence of their rights are protected nonetheless. It moves the discussion away from children’s maturity; for instance, children who are deemed mature have access to adult rights and responsibilities, while those who are deemed immature remain subject to more paternalistic regulations. This is not equitable and relies upon subjective interpretation by the adults in positions of authority, which makes decisions about them highly variable. Dailey and Rosenbury(2018:60) assert that: . . . focusing exclusively on maturity risks mask[s]the real interests at stake in any given situation. For example, scholars and legal decision-makers struggle to reconcile two wellaccepted cases: Roper v. Simmons, holding that adolescents are not as responsible as adults and, hence, should not be subject to the death penalty, and Bellotti v. Baird, holding that adolescents are often responsible enough to decide whether to terminate apregnancy. By focusing on children’s broader interests—rather than on “maturity” or “responsibility”—our approach illuminates what is really at stake in these cases: in Roper, children’s interests in criminal rehabilitation and bodily integrity, and in Bellotti, children’s interests in sexuality, reproductive agency, expression of identity, and civic engagement. While maturity is not irrelevant to identifying and weighing these interests, it should not be the endpoint of the analysis.

Legal decisions have the power to shape multiple aspects of children’s lives. These authors allege that this new legal model will recognize and promote facets of children’s lives beyond dependency and autonomy and expand and alter the law’s current focus. The model aims to transform existing understandings of children and

530

19

Children, the Constitution, and the Courts

their interactions with each other and with adults by uncovering obscured aspects of children’s lives. In doing so, they hope it will encourage new and more positive, beneficial ways of living for both children and adults.

19.12

Summary

Children have not been specifically identified in the US Constitution to be rightsholders, nor are women and other groups. Legal decisions in courts and routine practices have resulted to institute an interpretation of the Constitution. Therein the interpretation is the contest of whose rights are right are observed. It is noteworthy that other nations have placed into their Constitutions specific information pertaining to the protection of laws for children and youth, but the US has not. Throughout Part III of this book, examples have illustrated the US failure to fully defend children’s rights to provisions, protections, and participation in their lives and those of their communities. The US has one of the highest child abuse rates in the developed world. Criminal justice and educational disparity exist, especially for children of color. Even access to healthcare, which seems to be an obvious right for children, is not universally available and parents may limit their ability to get the care they need. Clinical sociologists work with the legal community as well as the social service, healthcare, and education systems. The courts depend upon community systems to prevent crime and restore justice. Involving clinical sociologists into the full range of criminal justice services would benefit everyone. While public rhetoric exists about children being afforded rights by the Constitution, in practicality and in legal doctrine, this is not true. The Constitution does not directly and specifically protect children. There are segments of it that can be applied to some aspects of some children’s lives, but it is shocking to see how marginal children are when it comes to accessing human rights. States have more power over children’s laws and what is deemed a right or acceptable parental behavior, and there is significant variability among the states. Therefore, “justice for all” does not necessarily include all children.

Chapter 20

The Children’s Human Rights Movements

There is no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children. Nelson Mandela

20.1

Introduction

All around the world, there have been movements in support of children’s human rights. As shown in the earlier chapter on history, there have been points in which the United States had been a leader in both human rights and children’s rights. But today, our international position in both has been sorely compromised. Many nations have Constitutions which embed the defense of children’s rights. Ours does not. Government leaders could decide to do something about this. Defending the youngest members of a society from a clinical sociological perspective is essential if it is to build strong children, strong families, and a strong nation. This chapter will explore what social movements are and some of the children’s rights efforts that have occurred. It will end with a consideration of what narrative we will use to shape what direction the nation will head with respect to children’s human rights.

20.2

A Brief History of Children’s Human Rights Movements

Real social change has typically occurred when the status quo operations have been challenged. This is seen in civil rights, religious rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, labor rights, voting rights, to name a few. It is aflame in the movement to curb climate change, and movements to alleviate economic, racial, and gender injustice. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_20

531

532

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

Throughout history there have been movements to improve the lives of children by affording them rights. This has been apparent in issues of child labor, child abuse, neglect, education, and healthcare. Improving children’s lives was part of the Progressive Movement and Suffragette Movements of the early 1900s. Children were concerns at White House summits on children and in the policies of presidents like F.D. Roosevelt, Hoover, and Johnson. There have been legal programs targeting children in education, healthcare, and juvenile justice. They have been treated as isolated problems instead of seeing them as part of a larger framework in which a narrative portrays children as not entitled to human rights. There is no comprehensive national child rights, well-being, or advocacy initiative.

20.2.1

Declaration on the Rights of the Child

Certain individuals have been recognized historically as having made significant benefits towards a children’s human rights movement. One is Eglantyle Jebb who became the founder of Save The Children. Jebb proposed in 1923 a ‘Children’s Charter: A declaration of the rights of childhood’ for the International Council for Women, but it was watered down to no longer be a bold statement of children’s rights but a list of government responsibilities that made children the recipient of state protection rather than the bearer of rights and responsibilities appropriate to their age. Observing adult leaders diminish rights of children for their own interests upset her greatly and she was a staunch advocate for children to be given rights to which all people deserve. She was forced to negotiate to get the charter passed. The final version of the charter is as follows:

20.2.1.1

The Declaration of the Rights of the Child

By the present Declaration of the Rights of the Child, commonly known as the Declaration of Geneva, men and women of all nations, recognizing that Mankind owes to the Child the best it has to give, declare, and accept it as their duty that, beyond and above all considerations of race, nationality, or creed: I. THE CHILD must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually. II. THE CHILD that is hungry must be fed; the child that is sick must be nursed; the child that is backward must be helped; the delinquent child must be reclaimed; and the orphan and waif must be sheltered and succored. III. THE CHILD must be the first to receive relief in times of distress. IV. THE CHILD must be in a position to earn a livelihood and must be protected against every form of exploitation. V. THE CHILD must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of its fellow-men.

20.2

A Brief History of Children’s Human Rights Movements

533

In 1925 the first General Congress on Child Welfare was held and seven hundred delegates attended this seminal event in Geneva, including representatives of 38 governments and 54 nations. Ultimately, Jebb’s declaration was fundamental to the evolution of what would become the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

20.2.2

American Youth Congress

Eleanor Roosevelt is regarded as a leader in the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and influenced the creation of other children’s human rights initiatives. Roosevelt, who had six children of her own, was dedicated to the issue of human rights for everyone, especially girls and African American children. In the 1930s. the American Youth Congress (AYC) emerged as a youthvoice organization that was composed of youth from all over the country to discuss problems facing young people. Children were not legally considered to be an adult in any way then until the age of 21. This group of young people discussed issues of youth involvement in politics, economic exploitation, war, the draft, and met annually, and met on the lawn of the White House one year and attempted to access the US Congress unsuccessfully (Black 2006). The movement gained notable support from Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a speaker at one of their conferences stating, “I live in real terror when I think we may be losing this generation. We have got to bring these young people into the active life of the community and make them feel that they are necessary”. On July 4, 1936 they introduced the American Youth Bill of Rights, or Declaration of the Rights of American Youth, to Congress. Here it is: The Declaration of the Rights of American Youth IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1936. American Youth Congress

On the Fourth of July 160 years ago our forefathers declared their independence from despotic rule in order to realize their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.—Today our lives are threatened by war; our liberties threatened by reactionary legislation; and our right to happiness remains illusory in a world of insecurity.—Therefore, on this Fourth day of July, 1936. we, the young People of America, in Congress assembled, announce our own declaration—A Declaration of the Rights of American Youth. We declare that our generation is rightfully entitled to a useful, creative, and happy fife, the guarantees of which are: full educational opportunities, steady employment at adequate wages, security in time of need, civil rights, religious freedom, and peace. We have a right to life! Yet we are threatened by wars that are even now being prepared by those who profit by destruction, wars from which we can reap nothing but misery, mutilation and death. We oppose this war and its trappings of militarized

534

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

youth and mounting armaments. We do not want to die! We assert our right to peace and our determination to maintain peace. We have a right to liberty! In song and legend America has been exalted as a land of the free, a haven for the oppressed. Yet on every hand we see this freedom limited or destroyed. Progressive forces are persecuted. Minority nationalities are exposed to arbitrary deportation. The Negro people are subjected to constant abuse, discrimination and lynch laws. Workers who strike for a living wage are met with increasing violence.—These we affirm to be the omens of that modern tyranny, fascism. More brutal, more vicious and reactionary than even that against which our forefathers rebelled in 1776.—We are determined to realize in actuality the ideals of a free America. We demand not only the maintenance but the extension of our elementary rights of free speech, press and assemblage. We oppose company unions and affirm the right of workers to join labor unions of their own choosing in order to advance their economic interests. We consider full academic freedom essential to progress and enlightenment. We strongly oppose fascism, with its accompanying demagogy, as a complete negation of our right to liberty. We have a right to happiness! Our country with its natural resources and mighty industries can more than provide a life of security and comfort for all. But today we are not provided with this security, are not permitted to enjoy its comforts. We want to work, to produce, to build, but millions of us are forced to be idle. We graduate from schools and colleges, equipped for careers and professions, but there are no jobs. You can find us along the highways, or in army-supervised camps, isolated from friends and family. We refuse to be the lost generation.—We urge a system of unemployment and social insurance as an immediate improvement in the condition of unemployed youth and we affirm our right to be employed on all relief projects at equal wages for equal work.—We who are employed express our dissatisfaction with the prevailing low wages, long hours and the intense speed-up which destroys health and stunts our development. We insist upon our right to higher wages and shorter hours. For the youth on the farms, the right to work means the right to security in the possession of their farms, free from the burden of debts. We stand unalterably opposed to any program which destroys crops and livestock while millions remain unfed and undernourished.—While we proclaim the right to work for ourselves, we also proclaim the right of freedom from toil for all children for whom labor can only mean physical and mental harm. We therefore demand the abolition of child labor with full and adequate maintenance for needy children.—Our right to work includes the right of proper preparation for work. Education must be available to everyone without discrimination, poor as well as rich, Negroes as well as white, through free scholarships and government aid to needy students. Our educational system should provide for vocational training at adequate wages, under trade union supervision.—We declare that the workers of hand and brain, the producers of our wealth, the builders of our country are the decisive force with which all true friends of peace, freedom and progress must ally themselves. We recognize that we young people do not constitute a separate social group, but that our problems and aspirations are intimately bound up with those of all the people. We extend our hand in fraternal brotherhood to the youth of other lands who also strive for peace,

20.2

A Brief History of Children’s Human Rights Movements

535

freedom and progress.—We look at this country of ours. We love it dearly; we are its flesh and marrow. We have roamed its roads; we have camped in its mountains and forests; we have smelled its rich earth; we have tended its fields and dug its earthly treasures. We have toiled in it. Because we know it so well, we know that it could be a haven of peace, security and abundance for all. Therefore, we the young people of America, reaffirm our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With confidence we look forward to a better life, a larger liberty and freedom. To those ends we dedicate our lives, our intelligence and our unified strength. American Youth Congress (1936). By 1939 the movement claimed 4,697,915 members in 513 affiliated organizations nationwide. Over 3000 young people marched on Washington for youth rights in 1937. The AYC was the precursor to the establishment of the National Youth Administration (NYA), which was the New Deal’s primary youth relief organization. But the NYA only assisted a fraction of the eight million unemployed youth, with a cost of $50 million. The AYC’s American Youth Act is estimated to have helped all unemployed youth and needy students, but it was regarded as “too expensive” at $3.5 billion and never got out of committee on Capitol Hill. While supported by President Roosevelt, the AYC became controversial because of some of their member’s behaviors and it eventually dissipated (Cohen 1993).

20.2.3

Other Movements

Other social movements were afoot as the United Nations became a leader in promoting child and human rights initiatives. UNICEF, the International Children’s Emergency Fund, was created by the UN General Assembly in 1946 to assist children around the world, and 2 years later the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed which also included provisions for rights of children. In 1959 it passed the Declaration on the Rights of the Child with its emphasis on rights to education, play, healthcare, and supportive environments. Then in 1966 it passed the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that both contained provisions for defending children’s rights. A few years later in 1973 the International Labour Organization adopted Convention 138 which set age 18 as the minimum for undertaking work that could be dangerous or hazardous, and in 1974 the General Assembly called upon states to pass the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, which prohibited attacks or imprisonment of civilian women and children, especially during armed conflict like we currently see in the Ukraine-Russia war. In 1975 it established rules for treatment of juvenile offenders, and in 1989 ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It must be remembered that any social movement consists of a variety of individuals and organizations, and only some get recognized in the halls of history.

536

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

Poland initiated the drafting of the CRC in 1979 International Year of the Child and brought together many different post-cold war countries to work to overcome their differences on a commitment in order to defend the rights of the most precious resource of the world—our children. Attorney Adam Lopatka was the director of the working group that drafted the treaty and inspirit\ion of Janus Korczak, a Polish pediatrician, teacher, and author who reminded the world that children are not people to be but people of today with rights, dignity, conscience, feelings, reason, and opinions. There have been multiple attempts in the US to create a social movement for children. Michael Freeman (2020a) notes that the twentieth century was to become the century of the child. It started out well, as seen in the early twentieth century Progressive Movement actions and in the holding of several White House conferences on children. The rise of children’s issues at the beginning of the twentieth century stalled midway through as the world struggled with war. The Child Welfare League of America was founded in 1921 and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1930. During the 1960s civil rights movements, with protests for equal treatment of racial minorities, women and the elderly, there was a resurgence in creating social structures and policies that better addressed the needs of children and youth. However, children were not a front-and-center component of the Women’s movement, Grey Panthers movement, Black Lives Matter movement, gun control movement, homeless person’s bill of rights, or the new George Floyd bill. Perhaps they were ostensibly to be included, but without specific inclusion of them, children appear to be an afterthought in most US movements. Notably, in 1960 the United Nations passed the Declaration on the Rights of the Child. In 1962 the first child abuse statutes were explored, 1965 realized two Supreme Court decisions that protected children’s rights (Tinker vs Des Moines and In re Gault), Casey Family Programs began in 1966, in 1970 the National Commission on Resources for Youth was founded, 1973 saw the creation of the Children’s Defense Fund and in 1979 Child Trends was founded; in 2007 First Focus was founded. UNESCO announced 1979 was to be the Year of the Child—but as Lindkvist (2019) noted, it was not designed as the Year of Child Rights. Collins (1981) wrote about how the fight for children’s rights was intensifying, leading up to the creation of the CRC in 1989. In the 1990s there were some steps in the US towards solidifying a national commitment toward children’s human rights, but no ratification of the CRC or rights of children. While there has been progress towards child rights in the last quartercentury, the progress has been piecemeal. Children’s human rights movements are underway now, most notably youth involvement by Greta Thunberg and other youth in the climate change and environmental protection movement, or David Hogg and other youth in the gun control and youth safety movement. Youth protests against wars have been visible since the Vietnam war. The lifting up of youth voices have impacted social policies and debates. Current social problems have always led to the creation of social movement, such as the Mary Ellen child abuse case of the early 1900s, some 1960s Supreme Court decisions, the creation of the CRC in 1989, or the 2000s school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, Parkland High School, and in Uvalde, Texas (Reeping

20.4

Directions for Children’s Human Rights in the USA

537

et al. 2021). Children have filed lawsuits to have their rights to a clean, sustainable environment upheld (Our Children’s Trust 2021). But there has been no national legislative position to support a children’s human rights framework to date.

20.3

Public Misinformation Thwarting Child Rights Movement

The United States, under the Reagan administration, was a co-author in the creation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but “Sadly, however, US leadership in developing child rights ended in 1989” and no president or national leadership has stepped up to assume that leadership role for children’s human rights since. Cohen observes that “fear, uncertainty, and misinformation” all play a part in preventing the ratification of the CRC by the US and that “its critics fail to understand” the treaty and misunderstand the structure and function of the United Nations. They mistakenly view it as a governmental body with enforcement powers. “Anti-ratification dissents . . . assert that the Convention interferes with the independence of the parentchild relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth”. Cohen points out that implementation and enforcement are different things. The CRC is designed at the government level, not the individual or family level and there is no punishment for failure to adhere to the standards recommended in the treaty. Rather, reporting on the implementation of it is a blueprint so governments know where to allocate more support in order to achieve the benefits the treaty promotes. As pointed out earlier in this book, at least 19 of the treaty’s 41 substantial articles give special deference to the parent-child relationship, including Articles 5, 7, 9, 14, and 18. In many ways, the CRC is just as much as a parent-rights document as it is one for defending the rights of children. But the narrative around it has been manipulated in such a way to not make that apparent, and to become an “us vs them” wedge between rights of adults and rights of children.

20.4

Directions for Children’s Human Rights in the USA

Is there a movement to advance children’s human rights in the United States, and if so where is it headed? There are reasons to be optimistic that a children’s human rights movement could take hold, reasons why it may continue to lay dormant, and reasons why it could die a painful death. There are questions around whether children’s human rights will be as a national priority and have a metamorphosis where we once again demonstrate this the US commitment to children legally, ideologically, financially, and pragmatically.

538

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

The directions the children’s human rights movement could take are numerous, with several seeming most likely. One is for the US to ratify the CRC and obligate the government to the treaty. It must be remembered that the CRC is a government partner, not one that directly impacts parents, institutions, or systems. However, in states that have committed to the importance of children’s human rights, the narrative about children and their rights has shifted so that parents, schools, and other organizations institute more tangible rights-respecting actions. The CRC Articles recommend that all decisions support the best interests of the child. Advocates for children’s human rights indicate they aren’t just fighting for the children—they are fighting for the heart, soul and future of the nation—and for the US to join the global community as a partner in the defense of children and youth in all aspects of their lives. Another approach is to believe that children have rights that need protecting, but not to officially ratify the CRC and to hold duty-bearers like the family, organizations, and the state responsible to defending attitudes, actions, programs, policies and laws that in fact support the best interests of all children. This would involve changing the national narrative about children not as property but as rights-holders. A national initiative could create federal and state government commissions or bureaus that were in charge or defending children’s rights to provision, protections, and participations. It could move towards better data collection about children’s lives so that systems could more adequately address their needs. This national initiative approach could encourage every institution—including governments, families, businesses, social services, schools, healthcare, recreation, media, technology, law, criminal justice, and others—to consider children’s needs in all their decisions and to put into place the resources, policies, practices, procedures, and laws necessary to do so. Laws could be created that supported children’s rights and thus in effect make children covered by the Constitution. Changing the narrative and ways we treat children could de facto embed the articles of the CRC into everyday life in the US without having to formally ratify the convention at the national level. As a nation we could continue our piece-meal, fragmented approach to protecting children’s human rights and duke it out in courtrooms, boardrooms, and bedrooms. As pointed out in Part II of this book, targeted service programs are the norm whereas universal programs are better designed to defend all children. This model is a politicization, negotiated approach in which whoever has the most pull gets the resources while others get pushed to the bottom. This scarcity model results in different organizations or individuals fighting for “their share”, which history would show us would continue to put children at the back of the bus, and ultimately fails to serve the majority of children who would benefit from the 3 Ps. We could simply decide that children’s rights aren’t a priority and deny or downplay when they rise up as issues, effectively squashing discussion on child rights as a legitimate topic. There are some attempts nationally to create a parental rights movement and national amendment that would give parents authority over children’s lives. We could watch the parental and organizational rights take precedence over children’s rights and firmly establish that children aren’t entitled to

20.4

Directions for Children’s Human Rights in the USA

539

human rights that interfere with state, organizational, or parental interests. This could effectively squash any movement for children’s rights to be advanced. Yet there is another possibility—that young people themselves will figure out how to mobilize and press the courts, institutions and systems to more strongly advocate for them to be provided key provision, protection, and participation rights. This hasn’t systematically happened—yet. Looking into the demographic crystal ball, one can logically predict that it is only a matter of time before youth rise up and take action whether organized or not.

20.4.1

Is There a Children’s Human Rights Movement in the USA?

Yes and no—or maybe. This question can be answered in a variety of ways.

20.4.1.1

Yes

There is an active and energetic human rights movement occurring internationally. There are many different ways that this can be observed. Here are some examples: Yes, internationally within the United Nations at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, at UNICEF, and at many of their agencies, publications, programs, and services. While this may be seated at the international level, we are a global world. What is happening in one part of the world impacts us as well. We are aware that there are global child rights initiatives. Yes, internationally with the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by 192 of the 193 members of the United Nations. Each of the 192 nations have committed to supporting children’s human rights and the articles in the treaty. They have taken upon the obligation to embed the CRC Articles into their institutions, large and small. They have committed to promoting human rights education for the public so that individuals can know what rights are and how to honor them. The CRC requires supervision and monitoring to ensure that state actors do what they have committed to do. Laws, policies, and practices have been set up to make sure that children’s interests and needs are considered in all decisions that are made at the macro and micro levels. Even though we are the only nation not to ratify a children’s human rights treaty, we are aware that others have done so. And other nations are aware that we haven’t. That is not a source of pride—rather, it is a source of national embarrassment for us. Yes, history reveals that there have been many times when children’s rights have been a national priority. There have been many leaders, organizations, legislative actions, and events that drive home the reality that children’s rights have been important at points through our nation’s history. There has been slow, incremental growth towards the day when we have a frank conversation about whether we are

540

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

going to award children rights or not. That progression has often been two steps forward, one step backwards—or vice versa. It may happen, but as Howard Davidson of the American Bar Association observed years ago, it may not happen in his lifetime—or mine (Davidson 2005). But all of these steps forward, even if incrementally slow, matter. Yes, as children’s human rights are a subsection of larger human rights, any human rights organization could be of support to advancing children’s rights. Organizations such as the American Academy for the Advancement of Science Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, Equitas, Human Rights Educators USA, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations all promote human rights work but each have a variety of programs, of which children’s issues are just one. Yes, as Richa Mathur of First Focus shared: “If anything, this moment is an opportunity to tell people that children do not have these rights here but they do in many other countries.” The newly formed United States Child Poverty Action Group, modeled after the aforementioned U.K. organization, has issued a call to the Biden Administration to set a goal to reduce child poverty by half in the next decade. Mathur acknowledged that at the national level, advocates may need to play defense and turn to the municipal and state level to press for bold new initiatives (Rothschild 2017). Yes, there is a strong children’s human rights presence within the networking of scholars, researchers, and policy makers who are working ardently to study children’s human rights from a variety of disciplines. Their work is used to guide best practices at the organizational and advocacy levels. There is the Hope for Children UN Convention on the Rights Policy Center in Cyprus that brings together scholars from around the world to share information on their research, to publish scholarly materials, and to engage in advocacy methods. CRIN, the Children’s Rights International Network, provides regular opportunities for scholars to share their work. The Human Rights Education Review, with Hugh Starkey and Audrey Osler, sponsors webinars on internationally important human rights issues. Yes, through publication networks. There is the preeminent International Journal of Children’s Rights reflect the perspectives of a broad range of disciplines and contribute to a greater understanding of children’s rights and their impact on the concept and development of childhood. The journal deploys the insights and methodologies of all relevant disciplines, including law, legal and political theory, psychology, psychiatry, educational theory, sociology, social administration and social work, health, social anthropology, economics, theology, and history to further children’s rights in all parts of the world. There’s the Children’s Legal Rights Journal out of Loyola University, the Journal on the Rights of the Child, which is out of the Centre for Child Rights (CCR) is the specialized research center of the National Law University Odisha in Cuttack. There are journals such as Children, Childhood, Child Abuse and Neglect, Children and Society, Children and Media, Children and Family Studies, and Pediatrics that focus on children’s rights issues, but perhaps directly or often indirectly, as the articles go. There are essential books from English lawyer Michael Freeman, such as the New Magna Carta for Children and the Handbook of Children’s Rights. In the US works

20.4

Directions for Children’s Human Rights in the USA

541

by law professors Fellmeth and Heldman (2019) examine Child Rights & Remedies: How the US Legal System Affects Children. There are countless more books and articles, many of which are contained in the extensive bibliography at the end of this book. Organizations sponsor conferences on children’s human rights issues and may have conference proceedings or associated publications that they create. Just a few of the children’s human rights organizations include the Alliance for Youth Action, Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions (ASFAR Youth Liberation), Campaign for Youth Justice, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Advocacy Center, Child Welfare League of America, Community Alliance for Ethical Treatment of Youth, Defence for Children International, ECPAT International, Humanium, First Focus, Freechild Institute, Global Youth Action Network, International Bureau for Children’s Rights, Institute for Invincible Youth, Kids Rights, National Youth Rights Association (NYRA), PLAN International, Save the Children, Taking Children Seriously, UNICEF, Voices for America’s Children, WE Charity, World Health Organization, One World Youth Project, World Vision, Youth Action Project, Youth for Human Rights International, or Youth Power. The Committee for the Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the premier organization promoting ratification of the CRC at the presidential, Congress, and state levels.

20.4.1.2

No

It can be argued that there is not a robust movement to support children’s human rights in the USA. No—the CRC has not been ratified by the US, nor has it been submitted to Committee for Review at the Congressional level. There was hope that it could have been under President Obama’s administration, but it didn’t happen. There was thought it could be submitted for review under the Biden administration, but this is unclear. No, there is no major national or government agency that is in charge of ensuring that all children’s rights are addressed, particularly around the issues of provision, protection and participation. There has not been a national commitment by the government to make children a priority. Those who are advocating for a children’s human rights agenda are typically in external organizations; they may be members of marginalized groups; if they are in government positions, they have not had the power to mobilize sufficient action to make children’s rights a top-level issue. No—there is an active national movement to prevent children from having equal rights. A Parental Rights Amendment has been drafted that parents would like Congress to ratify as a Congressional Amendment, HB 36. This amendment has stalled in Washington. But its advocates are working to have states like Florida adopt a parent rights amendment. It is curious because many of the CRC directly protect children’s relationships with their parents and families. Supporting the CRC does not undermine parent rights. However, support of a parental rights amendment would directly undermine children’s rights. Some of the rights protected in CRC Articles

542

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

could be made impossible depending upon how the parental rights legislations are written, interpreted, and passed.

20.4.1.3

Maybe

It can be argued that there is a movement toward embracing a children’s rights movement occurring but it is not well-formalized at this time. There are a variety of professional, scholarly, and organizational groups that work to promote children’s human rights in one way or another. It’s not like they don’t exist. They do. They are fragmented in what part of the human rights message they focus on. Organizations exist in silos. One doesn’t necessarily know what another one does. Unless you’re right in the mix, you don’t even know by name who the other players even are. Building a network of committed individuals and organizations would showcase the groups and efforts that exist. Without it, we may continue to blunder through in the dark without knowing what is around us. But there are children’s advocates aplenty. Many are working diligently now to develop grass-roots supports for children. They are embedding children’s rights into their actions and programs. It is only a matter of time before they coalesce and get organized to push forward a comprehensive, national children’s rights agenda. It is my observation that many people and organizations “pussy foot” around the issue of children’s human rights because they don’t want to step on anyone’s toes— or be stepped on by others. Children, and human rights, are both controversial topics in some camps and putting them together heightens the possibility of a negative response from some groups. The result is that children’s human rights MAY be a driving force and delivered, but in a soft way that is more palpable to the public. The words used to talk about them are constructed to avoid a negative response. As an example of this, the common practice of calming oneself to gain personal insight and control has been reframed from “meditation” into “mindfulness” so as to avoid opposition to the practice that some associate with religion. In another example, instead of talking about “hunger” or “poverty”, which have hot-button negative connotations, conversations shift to focus on “well-being” as the safer word-choice. Individuals and organizations are doing different aspects of children’s human rights, they just don’t frame it as such. This reframing issue skirts the actual issue. In countries that have ratified the CRC, they openly talk about rights and don’t have to hide behind what they are doing. They are proud of being rights-respecting—not scared that someone is going to hurt them because they are. It is my position that if we truly believe that children are important, then we must have courage to stand up for them. This is our opportunity to role model a social commitment to them. It is a way to send a message to young people that we do indeed value them and are there to fight for them to get the best life and futures possible. So maybe there is a skeleton of a children’s human rights movement that exists, that even has some flesh on it. Whether it could be nurtured so it becomes visible and vital is something we will have to wait to see.

20.5

What Exactly Is a Social Movement?

20.5

543

What Exactly Is a Social Movement?

There is no single, standard typology of social movements. Social movements attempt to initiate change in society or some aspect of it. It is possible only if individuals are able to successfully communicate that what currently exists is unjust and needs to be revised (Das 1981; Diani 1992). Turner, Killian and Smelser (1971) define a social movement as a collectivity acting with some continuity to promote or resist a change in the society. They consist of a loosely organized but sustained campaign in support of a social goal, typically either the implementation or the prevention of a change in society’s structure, practices, laws, or values. There is a collective nature to them, in that people come together who share a common outlook or goal. A movement is not merely people who get together spontaneously, since a crowd does not possess organizational and motivational mechanisms or membership. There is a purpose for their gathering. Often, they start as grass-roots initiatives. Over time leaders emerge from the group and groups may become more organized in their quest to promote social change. The desired change may be seen as marginal to the norms of society, but those who are committed to the cause are dedicated to pursuing their goals and values. Those committed to the cause may share belief systems, or “a party line” that defines the “correct” position for those in the movement. Leaders may exert pressure or expectations for people to accept certain positions promoted by the movement, and some members may accept them without thinking through the philosophy, ideology, and implications of their actions. Members may come and go, with a core who are committed to the cause for years. For many, membership in the movement bonds people into a community of like-minded others where they feel supported in other dimensions of their lives. Some movements become organizations, clubs, corporations, or even political parties. Leaders do not possess authority in the sense of legitimatized power, and members are not formally inducted. The informal, noncontractual quality of membership and the absence of formal decision-making procedures place a premium on faith and loyalty on the part of members. Ideal members give their total, unselfish loyalty to the movement. Deeply committed members, accepting without question the decisions and orders conveyed by the leaders, may sacrifice self, family, and friends if required to do so.

20.5.1

Steps in a Social Movement

If an effective children’s human rights movement was to occur, what would be the necessary steps? There has been a thoughtful, but limited, analysis of children’s human rights efforts to data as a social movement (Brunsma et al. 2017; Minow and Weissbourd 1993; Rodgers 2020). Social movements don’t just happen; they require many resources and go through phases. People don’t become suddenly upset with a

544

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

policy and form a social movement with a coherent ideology that is capable of creating social change. Stages of a social movement’s development include emergence, coalescence, bureaucratization, and decline, or social ferment, popular excitement, formalization, and institutionalization (Blumer 1969a, b; De la Porta and Diani 2006; Freeman and Johnson 1999; Hopper 1950; Inglehart 1990; Nash 2015; Tilly 1978; Stammers 1999, 2003; Tsutsui et al. 2012). Howe and Covell (2010) provide a template of analysis for understanding this evolution. They identified three overlapping stages of development as children transitioned from being regarded as objects to subjects in their own right: social laissez-faire, paternalistic protection, and children’s rights. In the social laissez-faire stage, children are regarded as objects, and largely as the property of parents. In the paternalistic protection stage, children are seen as vulnerable and in need of protection. The children’s rights stage lays emphasis on children as rights-bearers, as individuals in their own right with entitlements. When social movements start to emerge, they are not organized; a number of people are unhappy with some policy or social condition who may have tried as individuals to rectify the situation. They may write letters to the editor or complain on social media, but do not engage in collective action. Other individuals and groups also convey widespread discontent as small protests or sporadic media coverage could occur (Hopper 1950; Macionis 2014). This public attention inspires other people who have been upset with a situation to become vocal or join with likeminded others. Often, social unrest passes without any organizing or wide-spread mobilization. For example, people in a community may complain to each other about a general injustice, but they do not come together to act on those complaints and the social movement does not progress to the next level. Stage two, known as coalescence or the popular stage, is characterized by a more clearly defined sense of discontent. It is no longer just a general sense of unease as details about the oppression, who is responsible, and ideas about what should be done about it start to emerge. Discontent becomes a shared experience as it becomes focused and collective. Leadership and strategies for action emerge. No longer is this a group of random upset individuals; they become more organized in this collective action and engage in larger and more organized protests, social media campaigns, requests for donations, and more high-profile events to gain attention to the issue. A movement could die out at this stage or go forward to become more formalized or bureaucratized. In order to exist at this third stage, there are higher levels of organization and coalition-based strategies. They may recruit or hire people with specialized knowledge to run the organization (like a director), or some of its functions (like publicity, marketing, or fundraising). At this phase their political power grows as they seek to access political elites and power-brokers. This is a make-or-break moment in the life of a social movement. Either the movement will generate larger enthusiasm and membership that allows it to grow forward or it will fizzle out because the organizational demands exceed the ability of the existing membership to manage it. Most social movements don’t have long lives; scholars observe that many social movements decline for several reasons such as success, organizational failure,

20.5

What Exactly Is a Social Movement?

545

co-optation, repression, or establishment within mainstream society (Crossley 2002). Failure may occur because different factions within the movement can’t agree on how to proceed. Failure may also result from encapsulation; members may develop an ideology that is internally coherent but virtually unintelligible to outsiders who don’t share all of the core assumptions. As a result, outsiders may not be interested in joining what they feel is a fringe or eccentric group, fail to be recruited, or don’t feel welcome to the insular group when they do attempt to join (Smucker 2012). Success may be hard to identify because it can mean that many of the movement’s core issues become co-opted by mainstream organizations or authorities. While this could mean that goals were achieved, it could also mean that some of the goals were watered-down or compromised in order to become part of a larger organization or political action. Another reason movements decline is due to repression, or when authorities use their power to control or destroy a social movement. This could include ideological manipulation, control of the media to promote a skewed version of the movement, or the use of violence against leaders, their members, or their organization. Repression includes governments passing laws out-lawing specific movement activities or organizations, or justify attacks on them by declaring them somehow dangerous to public order. This type of repression makes it exceedingly difficult for social movements to carry out their activities and recruit new members.

20.5.2

Human Rights Social Movements

Social movements have played critical roles in elevating standards of human rights in law and in leveraging these standards into better local practices. It therefore makes sense that a social movements approach is being used to advance the CRC and children’s human rights. Advances in human rights in the US have largely occurred by social movements who had organized protests and leaders who were able to mobilize public and legislative action. These include the Civil Rights movement, women’s movement, disability rights movement, older person’s rights movement, and the LGBTQ+ movement. There is also a renewed movement to protect the environment. On the surface, one could assume that rights should be given to everyone through the Constitution, but clearly this has not been the case. Children do not have equal rights in the US and are going to have to fight in order to get them. It is ironic that a nation founded by people fighting for their rights now makes it hard for others to get theirs. Just because one group is awarded human rights doesn’t take away human rights of others. The US is alleged to no longer be a world leader in protecting human rights (American Civil Liberties Union 2021; Amnesty International 2021; Bredemeier 2021; Herbertson 2020; Schmitt 2019), with an understanding that how human rights are defined may vary across studies (Lam and Desilver 2019). Canada, Scandinavian countries and New Zealand are seen as international leaders in the US, which did not score in the top 10 (Wazir 2021). China was ranked as the lowest supporter of human rights internationally. The US had resigned from

546

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

the UN human rights council, but has recently been re-engaged in it, showing a shift towards greater concern for human rights than in the past (Blinken 2021). Historically, most international human rights treaties have not been ratified by the US Congress. Not counting regional treaties, such as those for the European Union or African Conventions, the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Library (2022) lists 51 human rights treaties of which the US has signed 24 and ratified only 17. While the Optional Protocols on children’s involvement in armed conflict and elimination of the worst forms of child labor were ratified, the body of the Convention on the Rights of the Child were not ratified (Human Rights Watch 2009; Minnesota Human Rights Library 2022). It is clear that from a historical point of view, social movements have been very effective in promoting human rights for a variety of groups. There have been social movement efforts in the past to elevate children’s human rights in the US, but they have not been overly successful in impacting legislation, practices, or the narrative we hold about children. Human rights concern nationally seem to ebb and flow according to who is in office (Blinken 2021; Bredemeier 2021; Cohen 2008).

20.6

Where Are the Children in the Children’s Rights Movement?

They are there, but they are not well-mobilized, not well-organized, not well-funded, and they are not a cohesive network. Yet. Just because they haven’t been visible in the past doesn’t mean that they won’t be in the future. Like other groups, they are fragmented, siloed, and they don’t have a broad network. But from my conversations with groups and young people around the country, they will. It is only a matter of time. And organization. Effective social movements have been led by members who were directly impacted. While other people were involved, black individuals led the civil rights movement and Black Lives Matters movement; women led the women’s rights and Me-Too movements; non-binary individuals generated the LRBTQ+ movement, senior citizens created the Gray Panthers and elder rights movement, and so on. Child rights organizations resemble adult-led organizations by being silos, where they tend to operate independently without a clear sense of cohesion between and among the different groups. If they can mobilize, their power could be tremendous. Consider the wide array of child and youth-led or advocacy groups that could coalesce: There are many existing groups that could be mobilized to pursue a children’s human rights movement. There are also a series of professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, childcare providers, education organizations, camping associations, social work organizations, to name but a few. All of these groups have their own agendas, missions and goals. The question is, can they

20.7

Applying Social Movement Theory to the Children’s Human Rights Movement

547

overcome their differences to unite over the larger goal of defending the rights of children.

20.7

Applying Social Movement Theory to the Children’s Human Rights Movement

The children’s human rights movement is at a critical juncture. It has achieved the second stage of coalescence, where children’s rights are now seen as a collective problem, not just an individual one. Internationally, the children’s rights movement has become formalized as a part of the United Nations and UNICEF, but it has not been formalized in any part of US bureaucratic organizations. This is noteworthy because evidently protecting children’s rights isn’t enough on its own merits; by tying it to financial reductions or legal protections it is hoped that organizations will take moves to better protect children. Reflecting upon the steps in a human rights movement, the first steps in a children’s human rights movement has been realized for decades, as people around the world have been concerned with children’s lack of food, housing, clothes, and other provisions. People have worried about children being neglected and abused. We have also seen people being troubled because young people’s agency has been curtained and their voices unheard. This led to a variety of action steps and mobilizations that ultimately led to the creation of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty. Thinking about how step 1 of a social movement is addressed in the US, there are plenty of people who are very concerned about the high rates of child abuse, the voluminous rates of preventable child morbidity and mortality, our low rates of educational attainment, the lack of representation of children, the number of hungry, poor, and homeless children. Add in those who children who suffer discrimination because of the gender, sexual orientation, ability, race, nationality, religion, immigrant status, or family composition. The amount of oppression our children suffer from is huge. It has not gone unobserved from those who feel children’s rights need protection. Add in the number of children who are exposed to COVID-19 and the Delta virus and who are getting sick or dying only because adults won’t step up and do the right thing by wearing masks, getting vaccines, and following the Centers for Disease Control’s guidelines. People are upset. They are mobilizing. Step 1 of a social movement has been addressed. In the second step of a social movement, people start go organize. They are blogging or posting on Facebook, writing letters to government officials, appearing on television, and holding organized protests. People are finding that there are other folks who share their discontent. They are putting their heads together and problemsolving. They are trying to figure out what they can do to protect children. Discontent becomes a shared experience as it becomes focused and collective. In my opinion, this is largely where the child’s human rights movement is at this time.

548

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

Organizations like educators and healthcare professionals are starting to take a stand. There is a vocal and visible narrative emerging about what they feel needs to be done to “protect the best interests of the child”. In the third step of a social movement, it will be necessary for discontented groups to organize and formalize. This is where the child rights movement is now. They will need to recruit members who expertise or hire specialists who can help them to get their message out to the public. They will need to work with politicians and legislators who will start to create laws and social policies that protect children’s interests. This is a make-or-break moment in the life of any social movement. Either the movement will generate larger enthusiasm and membership that allows it to grow forward or it will fizzle out because the organizational demands exceed the ability of the existing membership to manage it. If the groups and organizations that currently advocate for children’s human rights can partner and come up with a shared set of goals that they commit to delivering, there is a distinct possibility that the movement will grow forward. If youth get involved and start mobilizing and demanding for change from politicians and institutions, the children’s human rights framework could change outcomes for the better for young people. If these things don’t happen, the movement will die down, just as it has in the past. What would success mean for a children’s human rights movement? It could take a variety of forms. One, the US could ratify the CRC in Congress. This would unite the US with 100% of the rest of the UN members countries as a partner in advancing children’s human rights. Two, there could be a federal Constitutional Children’s Human Rights Amendment. Three, a national Children’s Administration, Bureau, Ombudsman office, or Commission for Children and Youth could be established at the federal level. This unit could go by different names but it would be a one-stop-shop for all services for children. They could also create Offices of the Child Ombudsman or Office of the Child Advocate but have them with specified roles. While 13 states now have an ombudsman, they vary significantly in what they do and often focus on child abuse and justice cases rather than on serving children and promoting comprehensive children’s human rights (Vissing and Knudsen 2024). There is an Administration on Aging, but the only age they focus on is older people. What would a children’s federal agency look like? It could focus on children as rights-holders and coordinate the multiple agencies that target particular parts of children or their lives. There are multiple agencies exist in silos and cut up children’s lives, making it inevitable that children will fall through the cracks and their needs will go unmet. There is talk about wrap-around services but agencies aren’t designed to swaddle the entire child. Most of the agencies are not rights focused. Most unify children and family as a unit when there are many independent and unaccompanied children, and the clumping children always as a family misses their rights as independent beings. Just a few of the child agencies include Administration for

20.7

Applying Social Movement Theory to the Children’s Human Rights Movement

549

Children and Families,1 Department of Education,2 Children’s Bureau,3 Kids.gov,4 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration,5 Department of Housing and Urban Development,6 Health and Human Services Family and Youth Services Bureau,7 Food Services,8 National Institute of Health and National Institute of Mental Health,9 or the Centers for Disease Control.10 Four, if no federal support could be mobilized around children’s rights, the movement could pursue legislation at the state level to support children’s human rights. If states would commit to defending children’s rights, then laws, policies, and procedures at the state level could still protect children, even if there wasn’t federal legislation. Individuals states differentially organize their education, health, environment, social services, transportation, recreation, legal, and other services that impact children. It is entirely possible to develop statewide programs that unite children’s services and defend children’s rights to provision, protection, and participation. Five, if states won’t mobilize around children’s human rights, cities and townships could. This could occur at urban areas like Boston or in small towns across the nation. Cities could pass designations that they are Child Friendly Communities, which is a designation that UNICEF gives communities that qualify. They could create children’s commissions, how youth representatives on the town council, liaisons between the different organizations, youth board members, and other innovative ways. Six, a children’s human rights framework could be adopted by organizations and the public. There may not be a national or even state-wide commitment to children’s human rights. But if professional organizations, such as those in healthcare, social services, education, daycare, or criminal justice, took the plunge and committed to training their employees, setting forth required policies and guidelines, monitoring, and instituting sanctions for violators, this could result in the protection of children’s human rights despite no state or national commitment. Businesses like department stores, restaurant or coffee chains, online or physical in nature, could promote that they are child rights-respecting in what they sell, who they hire, and how they serve young people. In the business world, children are both consumers and producers, and are often victims (Ball 2020). Capitalism drives businesses with profit, not child safety, as their primary goal. Children work in factories, on farms, as caregivers,

1

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/administration-for-children-and-families https://www.ed.gov/ 3 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb 4 http://www.kids.gov/ 5 https://www.samhsa.gov/ 6 https://www.hud.gov/ 7 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb 8 https://www.usa.gov/food-help 9 https://www.nimh.nih.gov/ 10 https://www.cdc.gov/ 2

550

20 The Children’s Human Rights Movements

doing a variety of work for which they may not be paid at all, or paid less than adults for the same job. Exposure to toxins and chemicals is common particularly in children doing agricultural work. Use of machinery, environmental considerations, and influence to workers and climates that may not be in their psychological, physical, or social best interests is commonplace, even in America. A children’s rights framework would encourage business to develop the international Children’s Rights and Business Principles agreement. Developed by UNICEF, the UN Global Compact and Save the Children, it provides a comprehensive set of principles go guide businesses on the actions they can take in the workplace, marketplace and community to respect and support children’s rights. While the business and human rights agenda has evolved significantly in recent years, a child rights perspective has not yet been explicitly addressed by most businesses (Kofoed 2021). Some that fare better include Lego, Ikea, and Sesame Street.

20.8

Piggybacking on the Anti-Trauma Social Movement

What do all forms of human rights violations have in common? They create trauma in children. As pointed out early in this book with the introduction of the ACES, or Adverse Child Experiences model, when children lack provision, protection, and participation, they may suffer forms of trauma. The impact of the trauma they experience may be directly related to the amount and types of their trauma exposures. Medical studies at the Centers for Disease Control, Yale University, and other research institutions are documenting the physical impact of trauma on children. The study of mind-body relationships has evolved and it is clear that there is a symbiotic effect between what happens in the social life of a child, their mental perceptions, and their biological state. Further investigation into these causal relationships are ongoing and are of critical importance to the fields of pediatrics and public health. The study of epigenetics is evolving as well to suggest that social traumas may impact genetic representation in a child’s lifetime, but potentially intergenerationally as well (Berger et al. 2009; Weinhold 2006; Zhao 2013). The idea of intergenerational transmission of trauma is a fascinating topic that will be better understood through clinical studies in the future. The topic of trauma has been well-accepted by the general public; it is being understood as a phenomenon that most people have experienced or can relate to. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network,11 the University of Massachusetts Chan School of Medicine Child Trauma Training Center,12 SUNY Buffalo’s Institute on

11 12

https://www.nctsn.org/ https://www.umassmed.edu/cttc/

20.9

Summary

551

Trauma and Trauma Informed Care,13 the Somatic Experience network14 are just a few of the national organizations working to address the issue of child trauma. Most of the trauma network is based on a children’s human rights grounding, yet they seldom use that term directly—just as the human rights field typically does not talk about rights violations as a form of trauma for children. This is another example of how intellectual and programmatic silos interfere with the advancement of a social movement. If violations of children’s human rights can be conceptualized to be a form of trauma, and if as a society the nation was dedicated to a comprehensive and systematic way to prevent and treat trauma, this would interface with greater support for children’s rights. There is a synergistic relationship between these two social movements that is ripe for development (Degloma 2009; McCammon and Moon 2015; Sandler 2018).

20.9

Summary

There have been many movements in the US and around the world that have actualized rights for young people. There is an active children’s human rights movement occurring right now. It is not well-organized but if it can become formalize and organized it could have a powerful impact. The movement will continue to grow as the demographic characteristics of the population change and unless there is greater economic equity among all people. Children’s human rights could be smoothly integrated as a normal part of living in our nation, or rights can continue to be withheld and protests will erupt. There is a powder-keg sitting there, one that is primed to go off depending on the direction we instigate proactively or reactively. There is a saying that best predictor of the future is the past. If we look at how we are addressing children’s human rights today, then we can see what those plantings are going to yield tomorrow. There is much to criticize about how things are today. Unless there is a concentrated movement to change them, we can anticipate what the future will be like for them and for our nation. It is likely that a fragmented commitment to children’s human rights will continue to be the dominant frame. In this model, things would function basically as they are now—with some organizations and individuals committed to children’s human rights while others are apathetic or oppositional. As clinical sociologists, there are a multitude of ways that the nation could change the narrative and mobilize a children’s human rights initiative in the USA if it wanted to. Clinical sociology provides a perfect set of arrows to hit the bullseye of children’s human rights.

13 https://socialwork.buffalo.edu/social-research/institutes-centers/institute-on-trauma-and-traumainformed-care.html 14 https://sosinternationale.org/

Chapter 21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

We tend to see children in shades of rich or poor, black or white, “them” against “us”. Our own children are our most precious possessions. Other people’s children are armed and dangerous, alien and out of control. No wonder Americans have trouble knowing what to do with children’s claim for rights. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse (1999:3)

21.1

Introduction

How do we talk to, or about, children as rights-holders? Not well, from my observation as a clinical sociologist. Adults in the US seldom address the issue of children as rights-holders. Children are an after-thought, not a primary consideration when it comes to children having rights. This is observed when communities do their city planning, as organizations construct their strategic plans, as schools design their buildings and curriculum, and while parents interact with their children. “You don’t have the right” is a common response when children ask for inclusion. This type of communication is designed to shut down the conversation. There is national tension around the issue of whether and how to afford children human rights. What people choose to disagree about regarding children’s rights is a moving target that changes from time to time and situation to situation. What is a constant is the need to develop better ways for us to learn how to talk with each other so that our genuine concern about children does not get misplaced. Learning to talk respectfully about the issue of children as rights-holders is challenging for many people because we haven’t been taught how to do it well. If we can do it, then it opens up a variety of opportunities and possibilities. This chapter provides some strategies for us to talk about children in order to create a narrative that supports children’s rights in a way that helps us see that a rights-respecting lens doesn’t need to be conflictual, and to view children’s human rights as beneficial for all. It will explore the creation of a human rights narrative that © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_21

553

554

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

could change the way children are framed within our minds, laws, and social institutions.

21.2

Constructing a Narrative of Children as Rights-Holders

The narrative that we hold about children being property, objects, citizens-inwaiting, or human-becomings has allowed us to escape even considering children as rights-holders. It’s not our fault. This is how we have been programmed to think about children. Government leaders, clergy, institutions, media, and everyday rhetoric reinforces the castification of children as separate and not equal members of society. While there have been different narratives of children as rights-holders throughout the history, the one that has surfaced as the dominant frame has been one of children as parental property. We say we love children, but then don’t systematically invest in them. We say equality is important and that all children have a right to be provided for x, y, and z, yet we create structures and process that don’t allow that equal access. It is Orwellian, as we look at the data, that we say that all children are equal yet it would appear that some children are more equal than others (Orwell 1945). Universal healthcare or daycare for children is wanted by parents, but are opposed by lawmakers who define them as “socialist” programs. The public wants benefit programs like Medicare, bus transportation, the US postal service that brings mail to your home, and K-12 public schools. We count on universal public programs to provide us help from the police or fire departments when we need it; we grouse when the subway is late; we want provisions that benefit us when we need them. But where is our commitment to things that don’t benefit us personally in the here-and-now moment? It is helpful to realize that not everyone in the world views children that way. Many people in the US do respect the rights of children and youth, even though many don’t. Children around the world are respected as rights-holders; all the members of the United Nations, which includes all the developed nations and many of those who are considered developing, have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child except for the USA. I have met with members from many of those countries and they cannot understand why the US won’t ratify the treaty. Additionally, they are familiar with data indicating our nation’s children’s high rates of child abuse, deaths, poverty, and exposure to violence and can’t fathom how such an affluent country allows this to happen (Hopkins 2010; O’Neil 2002a). How we view children and their rights is fundamental in determining the narrative we choose. Our beliefs shape our words, actions, and conceptual framework. The narrative shapes the way institutions are formed and the way children are treated. It is cyclical in that it promotes the replication of society. We come to believe things are supposed to be a particularized way; we view traditions and norms to be real and

21.2

Constructing a Narrative of Children as Rights-Holders

555

right because they exist instead of realizing that the way things are is only because we have chosen one narrative and framework instead of another when others ways exist. In short, we have come to see children as objects who are parental property who don’t have rights of their own because that is what we have learned. People in Iceland, Scotland, Wales, or other child rights ratifying nations have a different view because their norms, narratives, and frameworks view children as rights-holders and adults as duty-bearers. From a best-interests of the child approach, it is important that we implement a national initiative in favor of children as rights holders. As Sigurðardóttir (2020) observes, doesn’t everyone really want children to be whole and happy and to have their rights defended? I believe that universally, people see themselves as concerned, compassionate individuals, “nice people”, “good people” who care about children and work hard to make sure they are safe, healthy, and happy. The splintering of US society between those who think that children are human beings entitled to rights and those who view children as property to be controlled is pitting people who all care about children against each other—and against children and the social institutions that serve them. There is a wide consensus that child well-being is important, as is helping at-risk and vulnerable children. Terms of well-being, at-risk, and vulnerability are used to show support for children—but these words are not synonymous with human rights. Some scholars argue that we might be better off using different words, perhaps focusing on “duties” rather than “rights”, or using words like rights-respecting rather than rights-holders, choosing words that are less inflammatory to those who have a distorted view of what the term rights means (Brothers et al. 2021). The words “human rights” and “child rights” seem to trigger a negative emotional response in some people. In fact, the term “human rights” is seen in some circles as a dirty word (Baird 2016), as is the word “activism” (deKrester 2020). Anything associated with international treaties or the United Nation can raise hackles among others (Call 2017). As several teachers told me in interviews, they try to teach human rights but without using that term in order to avoid political backlash. Using terminology like positive behavior strategies or socio-emotional learning helps to teach rightsrespecting behavior to students without having to fear that parents will protest and end up getting the teachers fired. Using terms like global education or peace education soften pedagogical approaches that are ultimately human rights centered, but even these terms can be misconstrued. When the “best interests of the child” are discussed, we find that term too is unclear. The UN created a General Comment No. 14 (2013) (art. 3, para. 1) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration in order to clarify any confusion about what the United Nations intended when they stated that the best interests of the child should be considered1 It could refer to their best interests as persons, or just in the more limited category of children, or in the projected manner as future adults; it could also be a manipulated term that co-opts

1

https://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/crc/docs/GC/CRC_C_GC_14_ENG.pdf_

556

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

the focus and shifts it what adults perceive is in their own best interests. While some adults may argue that children, especially very young one cannot exercise their rights and need someone to do it, using the term child rights reminds adults that they have an obligation to fulfill them. Rights are important if children are to be treated with equality and as autonomous beings; this means believing that any person’s autonomy is as significant as anyone else’s (Freeman 2012; O’Neill 2002b). We have seen in recent times the disassembling of what the concept of rights means and how to apply the concept. This is apparent as adults threaten school boards and teachers for wanting children to wear masks so they don’t spread the coronavirus; flight attendants, clerks and restaurant personnel get punched in the face for telling people to comply with rules to wear masks; parents who refuse to let children receive needed healthcare because they believe in their efficacy; parents who are accused as child abusers because they let their children choose their gender; or adults who have tolerated children being bullied, harassed or assaulted because of their disability, gender, sexual orientation, race, or social class. Adults complain when their taxes go up because they don’t want to pay for schooling for other people’s children. Children in some schools are physically assaulted because corporal punishment is deemed acceptable—to adults. When we talk about human rights treaties, the majority of people in the US are not familiar with the international human rights treaties. It is not just our ignorance alone that complicates the issue. Different value and ideological positions influence why people believe what they do. Biases lead us to perceive situations differently. Human rights treaties allege children are entitled to protections of their rights, and this view is supported with data indicating children are better off when their rights are protected than when they are violated. Despite facts from well-designed research projects that show children thrive when their rights are protected, some people refuse to believe the data. Researchers have studied why people believe in “false media” or “alternative truths” that are clearly not supported from a factual point of view. The roles of bias, belief, social media, status threat, value choices, political agendastaking, and need for power and control are often cited as reasons facilitating the de-prioritization of children’s rights (Chatfield 2019; Dwyer 2019; Gillon 2017; Gillborn 2010; Hemsley 2021; Introne 2021; Mutz 2018; Weir 2020). Justifications for why children do not have the same rights as adults include the vulnerability of children and the need to protect them by limiting their autonomy, perceived inability of children to make certain decisions in a rational and mature manner, and the importance of the role and authority of parents to oversee their upbringing (Lee 2017). Others allege anti-child rights groups misunderstand that the CRC protects parent and well as child rights, and the treaty helps children to gain important abilities, agency, and maturity (Lee 2017; Prout and James 1997). The result is a nation that is at conflict with who it has been and who it will become in the future, when it comes to children and their human rights. The polarization between groups, such as parent’s vs children, Democrats vs Republicans, progressive’s vs conservatives, has escalated in recent years (Carothers and O’Donohue 2019). Heltzel and Laurin (2020) observe that when polarization becomes so vast that entire swaths of the population refuse to consider each other’s

21.3

Conceptualizing Children’s Human Rights

557

views, this thwarts democratic methods for solving societal problems. The children’s human rights movement in the US is at a cut-point; Heltzer and Laurin indicate that the COVID epidemic revolves around polarization fueled by the public’s misperception, manipulation, and misunderstanding of the issues. There could be a national positioning to defend children’s rights to health and education, which may encompass other children’s human rights.

21.3

Conceptualizing Children’s Human Rights

The narrative or framework that we hold about children in general and their rights in particular is a product of social construction that could take different forms. In discussing children’s human rights with politicians, teachers, administrators, parents, and even children themselves, it is clear that they do not understand what it means for children to have human rights. The misunderstanding of what it means for young people to be considered as rights-holders is pervasive and contributes to the lack of consensus and support for them. In an analogy, some view that there are a finite number of rights, like cookies in a jar—if some groups are given rights, it means that there are fewer left for me. But think about human rights as propagating flowers, with exponential growth—the more rights-respecting people’s attitudes and actions are, the more likely it is that more and more people will replicate that behavior and honor rights; rights-respecting attitudes and actions spread and soon the field will be filled with flowers. The cookie jar model of rights is one of scarcity and competition; the flower propagating model is one of abundance. To put this in tangible terms, rights-respecting children and parents create happier relationships and homes; rights-respecting students and teachers create better learning environments and interactions. There is much to be gained from all of us having human rights; there is much to lose when we parse them out so only certain people are entitled to them. The parse approach creates competition and inequality instead of cooperation and equality. The CRC is a framework that emphasizes the best interest of the child as its driving force for how we organize society and interact with children. Is the Convention on the Rights of the Child the only way to conceptualize children’s human rights? No, but it provides a useful blueprint for us to follow in order to construct a rights-respecting society. Archard (2015) argues that the CRC is a codification of children’s rights that defines a recognizable canon of thought about the rights of children. The treaty has become the dominant and compelling instrument for advancing human rights for children (Holzscheiter 2011; Quennerstedt et al. 2018). It reinforces a strategy of universal standards that apply to all children no matter who they are or where they live; it requires governments who commit to children to implement these standards and then to monitor them to make sure they are used properly and have the desired result. Nations that have done so have yielded positive benefits for children and society at large (Kaime 2011).

558

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

Ask anyone what they think about children and childhood today and they will spin a narrative that is rich with details, examples, and assumptions. Ones person’s narrative may be quite different from that of other individuals because we have had different experiences, histories, and cultural expectations about what children are supposed to be like. This makes communication between us challenging, especially when we cling to our narratives as being right and correct. The problem with these narratives is that they may not include children’s perspectives and experiences from their point of view. As long as adults are in charge of deciding the “correct” narrative or framework about children’s lives, the voice and agency of children are muffled. It’s like having men set the narrative about women’s lives, Christians about Muslims, white individuals about black individuals—or vice versa. We all benefit when there is real, authentic, and transparent dialogue about our experiences and needs. Moreover, when children are talked about, they are not talked about as rightsholders. Narratives about children being poor exist, but where is the discourse about poverty being a violation of children’s rights? Well-being discussions are not the same thing as discussions about being right-holders. Children’s bodies and minds are one of the most valued targets of adults. Adults may feel it is their responsibility to shape children’s minds and control their actions. Certainly, it is adult responsibility to care for children and protect them. They are our most cherished parts of ourselves that embody our hopes, dreams, family legacies, and the recipients of our time, social, financial, physical and emotional investments. Their successes become our successes, their failures our own. But there is a boundary issue, a human rights issue, inherent in our relationship with them. One extreme is to treat children like fish in a bowl, allowing them to swim around only in a limited environment that we adults control. Overprotective, we fear that they will die if they are out of the bowl so we go overboard trying to micromanage every possible thing that could go wrong for them or harm them. This, from a parent point of view, is obsessive and exhausting. How parents can allow children to be free to use their agency and rights in a way that will keep them safe is a point that is often challenging to bridge unless we utilize good cross-communication skills.

21.4

Using Child-Rights Conversation

There are other schools of thought that yes, we do what we can to keep children safe but children benefit when allowed to have more control over what they want to do, think, and adventure (Crawford 2021). Learning how to talk with one another about this could be easy, but it’s not. A frank question that benefits us is to assess how we learned our conversation skills. How did we learn our conflict resolution skills? Likely, they may not have been generated from a human rights-respecting form. For instance, I grew up in a Southern Indiana middle-class household and in a community and time in which disparaging people and swearing were the norm. “Cussing somebody out” was a regular way of expressing our disgust with what others said or did. I learned an expected and acceptable pattern of communication that becomes my

21.4

Using Child-Rights Conversation

559

unconscious default in certain situations. Considering how to teach children to regularly use rights-respecting language to deal with anger, frustration, disappointment, or sadness is part of a way to shift a narrative towards greater rights-respecting conversation. Unlike many other parts of the world, we do not teach children that they are entitled to human rights. In fact, we do not teach children much about human rights at all. Students may learn about the Civil Rights movement or the Women’s Rights movement or hear about the post-World War II Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but as Human Rights Educators USA have found, despite a plethora of materials available, there are no courses in human rights that are required at any age level (Cargas 2019; Vissing 2020). The National Council of Social Studies has been encouraged to add a require human rights component, but to date this has not happened. For a decade I have taught undergraduate university students and I ask them what kinds of exposure they had to human rights, and if they had been taught about children being entitled to human rights. Their responses show a consistent pattern. They reported that as a child they had a right to education and healthcare, and the right to drive a car when they turned 16, but most could not come up with more than that. Students reported that they never were given a unit on human rights during their K-12 education, did not know that a children’s human rights treaty existed, and were stunned when they saw the long list of human rights treaties posted on the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Library. While many of the countries around the world have ratified most of the human rights treaties, the US has ratified few. In my class students explore different human rights treaties and their applicability and consistently report that they feel this course was the best they ever had and it should be a requirement for all students. In many of the UK and EU countries, which have ratified the international children’s human rights treaty, I learned through interviews that even children in preschool learn that they are entitled to the rights of provision, protection, and participation. Reports from teachers and parents there indicate that the rightsrespecting framework has been very helpful and they are glad to be guided by it. For instance, teachers reported that schools were calmer, students were more engaged in learning, they were kinder and more thoughtful to each other, and that students generally liked coming to school. Teachers reported that the rightsframework made it easier for them to teach and that they enjoyed their jobs. Parents reported that the rights-respecting frame made children more respectful to them, while it did require that they engage in more rights-respecting role modeling themselves. In a simple human rights parenting observation, while on a train from Oslo to Stockholm a little boy around 3 or 4 years of age was weary of the ride and started running down the aisle and threw himself on the floor, acting-out. His father came running down the aisle after him. Thinking about how this situation would likely play out in the US, I anticipated the father would become verbally and physically aggressive with the child in order to get him to behave. I prepared to hear the child wail. Instead, the father laid down in the aisle too, facing his son. He talked calmly

560

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

with the child, agreeing that the ride was long and he too was tired. He provided soothing compassion to the upset child, problem-solved potential solutions, and within just a few minutes, he and the child got up, hand in hand, smiling, and headed towards the concession stand to buy something to drink and a treat to share. The father had learned good parenting strategies to deal with a dysregulated child. In the process, he role modeled how to become respectfully regulated to not just the child but to everyone sitting on the train. This is how the culture of children’s human rights is shaped. So why aren’t children taught that they have human rights? I have interviewed parents and teachers in the US and find common responses. One, adults fear that if children learn that they have human rights that it somehow takes away their rights. This, of course, is not true. When women were given rights it did not take away those of men; when segregation and black individuals were given more rights, it didn’t take away rights of white individuals; when gay people were given the right to marry it didn’t destroy marriage for heterosexuals; when disabled people were given doorways with electronic openers or bathrooms that were larger to accommodate wheelchairs, typical people benefitted. Yet adults I interviewed reported that if children knew they had rights, then they would drink, smoke, disobey rules, get sexually active, and be hard to control. This is despite the fact that when you learn you have rights, you also learn that others do too, and with rights come responsibilities. It never seemed to occur to them that if children learned more about their rights that they could become MORE rights respecting, not less. Teachers reported that they didn’t teach human rights for three simple reasons. One, they had never learned about them when they were students, so you can’t teach something that you don’t know. Two, the school curriculum was so full of required materials that had to be taught that there was no room to add units on human rights. Three, because they didn’t know about human rights if they did want to include it, they would have to do it on their own time and with their own expense; teachers are not given time to do course development on human rights, nor are they given financial resources to take a class in it or to buy materials. This is unlike many countries around the world in which schools provide resources, trainings, conferences, materials, time off and financial support for them to learn about human rights so they can incorporate it into their schools (Vissing 2020). There is an active international network of human rights educators and programs that could be easily incorporated into the US. England, Scotland, Wales and Canada all create schools that meet standards as Rights Respecting Schools (UNICEF 2020a, b, c, d). UNICEF (2021a, b) has developed a series of Child Friendly Schools that communities can develop. From a children’s human rights frame, teaching students about their rights, and the rights of others, and how to talk to and work with others seems like a logical, natural, and helpful thing to do in creating a kinder world.

21.5

21.5

Common Troubles Talking About Children as Rights-Holders

561

Common Troubles Talking About Children as Rights-Holders

In Norway and Iceland, children have been regarded as rights-holders for the past 34 years and it is the norm for people and organizations there to view them as such. But in the US there is a lack of consensus about whether children should be rightsholders. It’s difficult for some people to come to a consensus about its (a) because there is no national policy supporting children as rights-holders, and (b) because historically there have been conflicting narratives about what children can do and what rights they should hold. The narrative that children are property of parents, that parents have power and children do not, and children must comply with parental authority interferes with how many people conceptualize children’s rights. The Law Library (2021) states that “Critics of children’s rights believe conferring too many rights on children would erode parental authority and the traditional family. Many conservatives believe that children lack the wisdom to make important decisions and require the guidance of responsible adults and approve of a paternalistic approach to children’s welfare rather than one that empowers young people”. The force that some parents impose upon children to adhere to parental dictates causes much interpersonal tension between them that could be eliminated through the use of a rights-respecting framework and use of dialogue and constructive problem-solving instead of authoritarian mandates. The US has developed an America-first approach that supports individual freedom. It is common to hear people talk about what they need, what they want, as compared to what is good for the collective. This classic Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft embraces the tension over which is better, the individual or group interests. People take care of their own children fairly well, some better than others, but caring for other people’s children isn’t done very well. The challenge is to figure out how we can build a sense of collective responsibility for other people’s children—and for other people to care about our own. In a society that values individual success more than collective well-being, we recognize that it is human nature to put self-interests first and not care as much about the interests of the other. As Woodhouse noted in the quote at the beginning of this chapter, we find that our children are more special than others, and worthier of our care and investments. An “us vs them” mentality exists in the nation about gender, race, social class, and now we see it wedging between parents and young people. Pediatric experts Brothers et al. (2021:11) argue that the focus on parental rights is a dangerous illusion that puts children at risk. The words we use and the way we talk about rights puts us into unnecessary conflict. In considering how children are being addressed during the back-to-school fight over whether students should wear masks, they argue: Parents do have the freedom to direct the health care and education of their children, but these rights are not unlimited. As the Supreme Court said in Prince v. Massachusetts, parents are not free “to make martyrs of their children” by putting them in harm’s way. Governments can and do limit parents’ discretion with the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare

562

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

of children. One example is child car seat requirements, which exist in all 50 states. Every state also has a law authorizing the government to intervene when parents abuse or neglect their children. All 50 states also have the power to limit parental discretion to protect other children. For instance, schools and day care facilities are heavily regulated by local, state and federal laws to make sure that they are safe. Children who attend school are required to be immunized in all 50 states. These requirements have been upheld by numerous courts, including the Supreme Court. Schools also prohibit parents from sending children to school when they are sick, and a federal appeals court held that unimmunized children could be excluded from school during “an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease.” Given these legal precedents, it is clear that schools and day care facilities can require masks as a condition of attendance . . . . Amid a global pandemic that has killed more than 4 million people, including over 600,000 Americans, a wide range of public health measures are legally and ethically justified. School mask mandates are among the most helpful and least intrusive ways to protect children. They merely require children to wear a piece of cloth on their faces. As parents, we should not make our children victims of a reckless and wrongheaded understanding of parental prerogatives. We should spend less time thinking about the rights we claim for ourselves and more time thinking about our responsibilities to protect our children.

Much of the tension over child rights concerns parental control over children’s selfdetermination. As children grow towards independence it is natural for them to want to do things that their parents may not want them to. An important part of a parent’s job is to protect children from harm. Trying to balance safety and agency is tricky. Discussions, dialogue, problem-solving, and mutual respect are advocated from a rights-perspective. The challenge is that children are not fish to be kept swimming around in a little bowl; they are more like birds to be set free when they are able to fly. Article 12 of the CRC supports developmentally appropriate use of agency, where children learn how to make good decisions, ask questions, pick good friends, earn money, volunteer, have chores, and participate meaningfully in their community. This is how children learn to be social change-agents, learn skills that help them to pursue careers, pick good partners, and become active citizens in a democracy. Mary Dennett (1931, 1918) created a book explaining sex for her children so they would not be exploited, but her attempts to dialogue and protect them were met with outrage. Dialogue may be instructive for children, but not everyone wants them to know information that they need to know for their own good. One can but wonder what would have happened to the countless children who were molested by pedophile priests if children understood they had agency and could refuse to participate in abusive experiences. Two main areas of concern in the parent-child tension occur. One is around divorce proceedings and the other is parent fear that if children have rights they can hire a lawyer and sue them. While many divorces are amicable, some are very conflictual. It is not unusual for children to become pawns in a game between parents. Young children are generally not given a choice about who they will live with or how they will spend time with each parent. Allegations of abuse or dysfunctional parenting are common in divorce cases, from my observation as a Guardian ad Litem. Likewise, shared parenting time (commonly referred to as visitation) may be dictated by parent schedules and demands. Children may have strong preferences that are downplayed as parents duke it out in court. As children become older and have friends and social or extracurricular activities, spending time with parents may

21.5

Common Troubles Talking About Children as Rights-Holders

563

be less of a priority for them, yet they will have to follow parental and court directives. Some parents are concerned that if children are awarded rights then they can sue their parents by filing what they regard as frivolous or retaliatory lawsuits. The Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment gives parents the right to raise their children so long as there is no abuse or neglect (Lee 2021). But abuse cases are often difficult to prove in court. Juveniles who feel they have been mistreated at home may petition for legal emancipation from parents, but may find that parents are unwilling to cut them loose, putting children unable to get the care they need from either parents or systems. A concern that if children have rights that they could divorce their parents was triggered by a 1992 Florida lawsuit when 11-year-old Gregory Kingsley asked the court to terminate the rights of his biological parents so he could be adopted by his foster parents. This case challenged traditional notions of parental “ownership” of children (Law Library 2021). Cases of children divorcing or suing their parents are rare but may occur. As my first child rights professor, an attorney, observed when children don’t want to be around a parent there’s usually a reason why—happy children don’t lodge complaints of abuse, run away, or want to not be around their parents (Walters 1975). Thus, child allegations of parental impropriety must be taken seriously. Children are not objecting to be done-to but human beings with whom to respectfully interact. A universal truth is that we love our children and we try to do the best for them as best we are able. There are historical, cultural, and normative justifications for parents to see their children as their property and make decisions for them, controlling them to keep them safe, but in doing so sometimes not honoring their human rights (Dwyer 2021). Their biological link has given rise to parents seeing that they have exclusive right to raise, say, and do, whatever they want with “their” child. Parental relationship rights entitle adults to enjoy the opportunity to act as parent to a child, which entails both a right to enter into a parent-child relationship and a right to continue that relationship throughout the child’s life. Parents are in the position to direct that child’s life—with respect to, for example, religious observance, type of education, medical care, or diet, and parents make different choices, some that are undoubtedly more beneficial to children than other choices. Allowing children to have human rights does not harm parent human rights, but in fact supports them. Children who learn to be respected are more likely to respect others; children who understand the importance of human rights are less likely to violate the human rights of others. The conflict areas between parental rights and children’s rights are ultimately reconcilable; the CRC presents not a threat but an opportunity for fresh reexamination and reconciliation between parents and children (Lee 2017). Within a rights-respecting framework, it could be possible that parents and children would learn how to have more positive relationships between them and that many of the contentious issues could be more peacefully and harmoniously resolved. To repeat—the public does not understand what child rights mean, which contributes to opposition to the CRC. Parents perceived threat to their “rights” is perhaps the greatest legal and political barrier to CRC ratification. The CRC highlights the sanctity of the family for the sake of children and is pro-family as well as pro-child. With rights come responsibilities—for the state, for parents, and for

564

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

children themselves. Actions create outcomes, and those actions should be made in the best interests of the child, from a children’s human rights perspective. The CRC states that States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the treaty. When we are talking about shirting to a framework that prioritizes ALL children, not just yours or mime, this is contrary to an individualized-oriented agenda. A children’s human rights frame means that there is a universal entitlement for young people. It does not mean that adult needs or rights are lessened. Nobody is more or less important than another from a rights-perspective. A universal approach holds it is a violation to harm others. Defending provisions, protections, and participations is an expression of empathy and equality that demonstrates that no one is more special than another—even though we naturally will love our own children more than those we do not know. The age-old Golden Rule is universally embraced because we want others to treat us with kindness; generosity and empathy are not one-dimensional. Making a positive difference in our children’s life is the ultimate task of a caring individual or society. This obligation is the responsibility that comes from being free. We must think about how to protect children and do all we can to protect their well-being if we do love them. It is when we agree to make children’s best interest in our decisions a societal guiding principal that we will see the positive outcomes in our children’s lives, and in the life of our nation (Kongrul 2021). Everybody leaves their mark on the world, so it behooves us to ensure that the marks that all children leave as a positive as possible. The CRC is innovative in making it clear that children require certain forms of protection in addition to the “normal” entitlements of human rights law because they are in a vulnerable position, both legally and developmentally. These entitlements include the right to have their opinion taken into consideration when adults make decisions on their behalf (Article 12), to express their views (Article 13) and to join or form associations to represent their own interests (Article 15) (Ennew 2000a, b). The convention is a framework, a guideline, a blue-print that can help nations and families work together to build structures and infrastructures that ensure our youngest members of society are well-cared for and have meaningful lives that they can use for the benefit of the world. The intent of the CRC is to produce a universal set of standards for what all children everywhere need in order to thrive. How then are we to talk about rights in a way that will help us to help children?

21.6

The Value of Discourse

Respectful conversation where we have authentic conversations with others and listen to them helps to build consensus, shift the way that people look at things, and even changes brain patterns. It is possible to change people’s minds about

21.7

Dialogue and Children’s Rights

565

disagreements in such a way that makes it possible to create mental synchroncy for future positive communication exchanges (Hughes 2022; Sievers et al. 2020). It is conceivable that people who are opposed to children being awarded could change their minds if they were exposed to conversations that allowed for honest changes. Research finds that the way communications are handled impacts the outcome—for instance, blow-hards who try to sabatoge members or hog the conversation make it hard for everyone to share their perspectives. However, when dialogues are designed to give everyone an even opportunity to share their views and concerns, then understandings, compassions, and resolutions are more likely to be achieved. The term communication consists of a multitude of forms. The complexity of the term results in people thinking that they are talking to each other but they’re really talking in different ways with varying styles and goals. We can discuss, describe, debate, deliberate, argue, persuade, comply, lecture, compromise, ignore, or deny. There can be discourse, proselytizing, acquiescence, exposition, narration, cooperation, negotiation, accommodation, mediation, arbitration, or collaboration. In some of these communication forms we are listening and trying to engage in a conversation leading towards understanding, in other communication forms we don’t care what someone else things because we are trying to maneuver them into what we view. It is natural for us to have opinions about virtually everything. Our opinions are shaped by our background, experiences, education, access to information, primary and secondary group influences, to name a few. We often try to position ourselves in conversations to show we are correct and to sway others to our way of thinking (Davies and Harré 1990; Edley and Wetherell 1997; Harré and Gillett 1994; Willig 1999) instead of listening. But as Lodewijckx (2020) observes, opinions are pretty meaningless when the goal is to build a strong, well-functioning community. Because we can assume that we will not necessarily agree on things, learning how to reach consensus and gain support for initiatives that are for the good of all requires that we have an opportunity to express what we think and why we feel the way we do. Information is an emotional as well as cognitive experience. The more emotionally committed we are to something, the greater the chance that we will try to push our view upon others, and the less likely it is that we will hear what they have to say. When we are at loggerheads with one another there can be no movement. As we consider how to reframe the narrative about children as human rights-holders in the USA, it is valuable to learn good communication skills.

21.7

Dialogue and Children’s Rights

Not long ago a man asked me about my work and as I attempted to explain my research on children being rights-holders, he became angry at me and started yelling, demeaning the idea that children should have rights. He got personally confrontative, asking “what’s wrong with you?” for thinking that. He didn’t give

566

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

me opportunity to explain what I was learning, he did not ask any questions, he merely launched into a ballistic attack on why I was wrong, why parents knew better, and how children were out of control and needed to be put back in their place. He failed to be respectful to me; he did not listen; he did not try to understand, and in his “rightness” it was clear that he didn’t know what rights were. His communication skills needed much improvement. The CRC is not universally agreed-upon by US politicians or the public, otherwise it would already be ratified and we would have a national commitment to defend children’s human rights. In their disagreement, what is getting lost is the national commitment to defending the rights of children to: (a) be provided things essential to their survival and development; (b) be protected at home, in the community, and by the criminal justice system; and (c) participate meaningfully in decisions that impact their life. There are many things in life over which there is disagreement. When it comes to ensuring that children will survive and thrive, it would be appropriate for common ground to be found. Bartholet (2011) observes that even if people disagree over the fine points of the CRC, we all should consider ratifying it because ratification would make a major difference benefitting children’s lives, directly and indirectly. It would give us unity as a nation to move forward in a genuine commitment to make all children’s lives better. It is clear that we are not communicating well with each other about our care for children; there is an obvious misunderstanding about what human rights are, whether children should be entitled to them, and how they should be implemented everywhere from the national to the family levels. We are not on the same page. So how do we get there, for the children’s sake? Dialogue, education, and informed discussions are necessary conditions for starting how to reimagine children’s rights in the light and pave the way for rethinking the project of children’s rights. Dialogue is an important vehicle to use in changing the framework we hold about children. Through dialogue, we have created a sense of how to talk about others that is more respectful. For instance, dialogue enables us to share our views and experiences around how they came to exist. Without going into detail identifying the plethora of disparaging words that people have used, we know that the way it is socially acceptable to talk about people has changed. This is apparent in characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, mental illness, single parents, divorce, disability, or people’s religion, to name but a few. Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian philosopher and language scholar (Bell and Gardiner 1998), explains how two forces in language complicate our understanding of topics like children’s rights. One concerns dialogue, which allow us to give and take information, share and listen, to hopefully understand different perspectives. The other is monologue, where one person talks with the intention of influencing the other person their position is right. His point is relevant today in the US discourse about children’s rights. For instance, when I was trying to have dialogue with the angry man who disagreed with me, he was focused on monologue and had already made up his mind before I said a word. Bakhtin viewed dialogue as essential for good communication and finds it is characterized by: (a) polyphony, or multiple voices that cannot be reduced to a single perspective; (b) expansion of thought

21.7

Dialogue and Children’s Rights

567

outwards in different directions; (c) and heteroglossic language, or existence of multiple and contesting utterances within a social language. Monologue, on the other hand, closes down other voices besides the one the speaker puts forward (Bell and Gardiner 1998). David Wrangle (2021) simplifies our conversation processes by breaking them into four types—debate, dialogue, discourse, and diatribe. Knowing what they are and how they get used in our conversation about children and rights will help us to develop better communication strategies. What is our goal for a communication? Our goal drives our communication style. If we are in a one-way conversation, we are talking at someone, rather than with someone. If we are in a two-way conversation, participants both listen and talk. In a competitive conversation, people are focused on pushing forward their own perspective; in a cooperative conversation, participants are interested in the perspective of everyone involved. Discussions are merely general information exchanges that don’t lead to a solution, consensus, or even mutual understandings. There is often no focus and people can go down rabbit-holes and end up someplace they never expected because of the variable and uncontrolled nature of the conversation. Discourse is a cooperative, one-way conversation. The goal is to deliver information from the speaker/writer to the listeners/readers. Discourse is a one-way conversation. It is like being lectured to. While it’s great for teaching new information, it doesn’t allow for participants to share thoughts or feelings. Diatribe is a competitive, one-way conversation. The goal is to express emotions, browbeat those that disagree with you, and/or motivate those who share the same perspective. Diatribe‘s goal is for a speaker to emotionally browbeat those that disagree with them. If you agree then you are “right”, if you disagree then you are deemed “wrong”. This shuts down meaningful communication and opportunities for understanding. Debate is a competitive, two-way conversation. The goal is to win an argument or convince someone, such as the other participant or third-party observers. Debate is often fruitless because in a debate, parties with opposing ideas will attempt to convince each other. Debaters aren’t focusing on the content of the conversation— the outcome of winning or losing is what matters. The person with the most convincing argument wins the debate, as the other person resigns. Debate isn’t going to be constructive in talking about children’s human rights because the goal is to convince someone that they are right and you are wrong. This frustrates and alienates people because listening is one-sided. Dialogue is a cooperative, two-way conversation. The goal is for participants to exchange information and build relationships with one another. Dialogue may be the best way forward as we move towards reframing what we think about children and how we treat them. The focus of dialogue is found in the act of conversing, fostering connections, building relationships, and reaching a mutual feeling of understanding (Lodewijckx 2020). As a fellow at the University of Connecticut’s Dodd Center for Human Rights Democracy and Dialogues Initiative, I am convinced that in order to change the narrative about children’s human rights in America that we need to

568

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

engage in dialogue. Dialogue is a different breed of communication than other types; it is an art form of sorts that requires training in order to do it well. There are many wonderful dialogue theorists and organizations around who have developed a thoughtful, scholarly approach to using this communication technique (Brown and Yule 1983; Benwell and Stokoe 2006; Dooley and Levinsohn 2001; Hilhorst 2003; Pansters 1990; Popa et al. 2020; Woodly 2015). Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life Generous Listening and Dialogue (GLAD) Center is designed promote authentic dialogue and generous listening across differences; New Hampshire Listens at the University of New Hampshire works with communities with hot-button issues to help them understand each other as they work together toward solutions. Everyday Democracy in Connecticut uses dialogue to help overcome community and police conflicts; Essential Partners in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Public Engagement Partners in Thomaston, Maine also do excellent dialogue work. It is important to be able to talk with each other about what human rights are and why allowing young people to have them could benefit them and the community. But it is hard to talk with others who have polarized, biased beliefs—especially when they have intentions to prove they are correct and wish to sway others to their side. This is where learning good skills will help us to develop conversations that are constructive, not destructive. In social movements, it is common that oppositional discourse draws upon the conflicts, struggles, and divisions of the broader social, political, and cultural environment, and articulates these elements to make the ideas it expresses both challenging to opponents and familiar to potential supporters (Johnson 2013). Social movements are designed to fire people up so that they believe certain things and will act upon them. Communication competition fills all sides of a social movement. Public discourse represents a vital resource toward helping societies or groups move forward (Woodly 2015).

21.8

Freire Model of Dialogue

Paulo Freire’s (1968, 1985, 1994, 1997, 2001) pedagogy is built on a platform constituted by a dynamic dialectical approach toward the world, a praxical view of knowledge and human beings, and a deep commitment to the liberation of the oppressed. This approach is valuable when discussing issues like human rights. Freire (Giroux 2010) viewed learning, aka education, as simultaneously an act of knowing, a political act, and an artistic event. His work was heavily based in the art of dialogue. The premise of dialogue is that each person has the right to speak. Dialogue cannot be the act of one person attempting to control the conversation or deposit ideas into another. Dialogue cannot become an act of domination but form a challenge to domination. Dialogue is not a hostile or polemical argument but an opportunity for individuals to each speak their own truth.

21.9

How to “Do” a Dialogue

569

Freire felt that education must be democratic and dialogical. The way that teachers and students are to interact, or that others in an educational forum, are to enter into dialogue presupposes equality amongst participants. Each must trust the others; there must be mutual respect and love, care and commitment. Love is an act of courage, not of fear. Love is commitment to others. Dialogue cannot exist without humility and interacting with arrogance is counter to the process. No dialogue can exist without hope; hope is expressed in action and is the matrix of dialogue. Dialogue is enriched when there is an interjection of humor and the opportunity to be silent as one engages in critical thinking. Dialogue, for Freire, is nourished by faith in the ability of others to trust and work together, in hopes that dehumanization can be overcome (Shih 2018). These components are all a part of a human rights framework. They are designed to allow people to come together with openness to explore what others think, and to examine their own presuppositions as people work together to make the community better.

21.9

How to “Do” a Dialogue

The goal of Dialogue is to build a cooperative, two-way conversation in which we share thoughts, experiences, and seek to build relationships with others. Once we understand where others are coming from we can respectfully move conversations forward more productively and constructively. It is designed to help us listen to and understand one another. It does not have to result in a particular outcome; rather, it sets into play an interaction style that people can thoughtfully consider and revisit for further conversations. Dialogue is an excellent form of communication to build bridges between parents and children, and between adults who view human rights differently. Dialogue is an art. While understanding is a fine intention, it is easy to bungle- up communication before one gets to that point. Dialogue is a skill that needs to be learned and doesn’t come automatically for most people—another example of you can’t do what you don’t know. There are many dialogue organizations and trained experts who can be called upon to help people and organizations through this. I was trained in dialogue by the University of Connecticut in a special dialogue fellowship and have found it to be a valuable asset in working with families, organizations, and communities to move forward constructively. I am happy to help you to learn this skill or connect you with those who are experts in dialogue—just because you know what its is doesn’t mean you can do it, any more than you may know what the controls are in a plane but it doesn’t mean we can safely fly one. Here are some fundamental premises of engaging in dialogue. It is helpful to have people who don’t see eye-to-eye on children’s human rights in the group. When we are only with people who affirm our own beliefs, it is easy to think we are right and others are wrong. The dialogue event is to be warm and welcoming to all. The people who come to a dialogue must be willing to come with open ears and an open mind,

570

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

and a willingness to share talking space with others. It is not a time for one person to monopolize the conversation, rather it is an opportunity for everyone to share views, questions, thoughts, and ideas. Dialogue facilitators must be unbiased and well-trained in the art of dialogue and familiar with the topic that the group is going to discuss. There needs to be at least one dialogue coordinator for every 8–10 people. Dialogue works best in small groups. One dialogue facilitator should lead the conversation while the other acts as a scribe to take notes and compile lists of what the group members report. The goals of the dialogue is to create a welcoming, constructive, and respectful conversation among community members of all viewpoints that will increase mutual understanding of values, views, and experiences about extremist views and actions in our community. The group members must agree upon a set of ground rules that the leader and other members develop. Common ground rules are that people are to listen to each other without interrupting; everyone will have an opportunity to share their opinion for a set period of time and not to go over that time so that there is an equal opportunity for all to participate. Interruption is not allowed; when people interrupt it is a message that what the other person is saying isn’t important or incorrect and that what the interrupter is saying is more important and correct. Come up with other rules for the meeting, such as no cell phones will be on, no one will record what is said, that there is respect for one another in our attitude tone of voice even when disagree, no one will walk out of the group until agreed-up breaks, etc. If people violate any of the rules, the group needs to determine ahead of time what will be the reaction to stop the violation so that the group can proceed with their dialogue. Members are encouraged to listen without the intent to respond. When people disagree, they are encouraged to ask questions rather than argue to prove a point. Disagreements should not be personalized—focus on the issue, not the person. People can speak for themselves but not for others or about an entire group. “I” statements rather that “you” statements are encouraged. Members should agree that they all share responsibility for the outcome of the dialogue meeting. As may be apparent, a skilled dialogue facilitator is needed to manage these meetings. People with good intentions but vested interests will not be able to be neutral and move the dialogue forward in a constructive way.

21.10

Dialogue as Key to Capacity Building

Dialogue is a civic engagement strategy that helps to build democracy, and it is hard to make democracy work in complex systems and conflictual communities (Yankelovich 1991). The children’s human rights movement is fraught with ideological and practical challenges for communities to grapple if they are to become more rights-respecting. Complacency is an easy go-to because making change is so hard. In trying to understand how to create constructive social change, the Kettering Institute advocates the building of civic capacity as a community building strategy and way to overcome community conflict. Civic capacity includes the basic elements

21.11

Dialogue and Children’s Human Rights

571

of “social capital” that provide a foundation of fellow-feeling and togetherness, such as a community’s social networks and shared norms of trust and responsibility. But civic capacity is more than just a general sense of community as a “cure-all” for society’s problems. It includes the ability of communities to deal with conflict and make difficult decisions, collective tasks that are the essence of politics. Civic capacity thus also includes the norms, habits, skills, and public spaces within a community that enable collective decision making and acting together to accomplish change (Barker 2011). If citizens have civic capacity, they can deliberate about what needs to be done and act accordingly. As David Mathews writes, “Deliberation is a process of decision-making that is tied to action. While it doesn’t necessarily result in agreement, it can produce a general sense of direction and point to shared or interrelated purposes” (2014). It is in the process of deliberation and action that a community comes to public judgment about what should be done. This is what Boyte and Kari (1996) calls “public work”. Instead of being adversaries, the civic capacity model encourages that people with different positions become co-creators in figuring out a good solution. But this requires communication skills that most of us don’t have—but would be wise to learn. This is why dialogue is such a valuable tool.

21.11

Dialogue and Children’s Human Rights

Let us assume that all adults care about children. We all want them to be safe, happy, healthy, smart, and to live a good life. We have the same goal, do we not? The differences we have in our opinions about how to make those things happen are therefore small in magnitude to the big picture. From a dialogue perspective, both sides will benefit from listening to each other, our experiences, our needs, and our fears. The words we use are important because people are often sloppy with the choices and use inflammatory words and tones that are not necessary. Both sides need to be committed to the constructive use of the dialogue. When people with different opinions are made into adversaries, it is hard to build bridges of partnership. Believers and opponents line up—and both see themselves as right and the other as wrong (Reynaerts et al. 2012). While force may get immediate results, one side is always going to be left angry, upset, and marginalized. Those hurtful feelings aren’t going to go away; chances are that they could fester until the erupt later. Dialogue isn’t necessarily solution focused. The goal of dialogue is to understand each other. Until we can understand where each other is coming from and why we feel as strongly as we do about something, there can be no mutually comfortable resolution. In other words, the strategy that a children’s human rights framework recommends, that of dialogue, is founded in CRC articles of mutual respect and nonviolence.

572

21.12

21

How to Talk With and About Children as Human Rights Holders

Teaching Dialogue to Children

Dialogue as a mode of instruction has existed since the days of John Dewey (1900, 1910, 1916, 1938), who saw schools as laboratories for democratic practices and values. Dewey regarded knowledge as something that is socially collaborative and dynamic: The school itself shall be made a genuine form of active community life, instead of a place set apart in which to learn lessons . . . A society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and with reference to common aims. (Dewey 1900:15)

Dialogic inquiry is an approach to education for people of all ages and contexts that employs collaborative action research to facilitate interaction that improves learning (Haneda 2014). Real educational praxis must be linked to its social context and to the complexity of its environment (Giroux 2010; Shih 2018). Dialogue between different people is a way to promote critical consciousness (Freire 1968, 1985, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2001) and avoid the marginalization of young people (Hopkins 2020). Since we know that children replicate the words, attitudes, and actions they learn from adults, it is important that teachers, parents, and other adults learn dialogue skills so they can teach them to children. Disagreements are inevitable parts of life; it is how we deal with them as individuals and organizations that reflect our deeper commitments and priorities. Children witness and experience racism, sexism, oppression, violence, and discrimination whether we want them to or not. Helping them to understand it empowers them and helps guide them towards a more compassionate, humane understanding about others. The idea of teaching students that other people may have rights that were downtrodden, as Critical Race Theory is perceived to do, is an indication that some groups are opposed to children learning about human rights. While teaching about youth-ageism is different than teaching about racism, there is a similarity in that both discuss how microaggressions and macroaggressions can be the result of complex, subtle, social and systemic dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals. Both racism and ageism are associated with power differentials where each have had to do the bidding of those in power. Ageism and racism are often unintended (and perpetrators may feel horrified when accused of discrimination), but are predicable consequences because of the way the disparaged nature of people get cloaked in other terms or justifications for their treatment. Each are involved with a socially constructed identity of a group of people that marginalize them and embody stereotypes that can be internally incorporated as well as externally imposed upon individuals. Children are particularly susceptible to identity formation during their young years (Crenshaw 1991, 2015; Delgado and Stefancic 2001; George 2021; Sawchuck 2021). As we watch the news about the war in Ukraine, it is hard not to wonder about how millions of children’s lives are being constructed. Not just as they endure the trauma of today, but how they will be building it into their lives tomorrow. Their rights to provision, protection, and participation are violated. How shall adults

21.13

Summary

573

contextualize the war for them? Who will we tell them are the heroes and the demons? How are we explaining it to our in the US? All of these are bricks being laid upon bricks, building that which we yet do not know . . .

21.13

Summary

This chapter has explored issues around why we have trouble talking with each other about children’s human rights. The CRC is a road-map for how to care for children. It may not be a perfect document but it prioritizes children in ways that are useful for us as a nation, organizations, families, and individuals to consider if we are dedicated to building a society that is founded upon “the best interests” of children. When we talk about children, it’s not us and them. It’s just us. Us of yesterday, us of today, and us of tomorrow. We must remember that we are the children of yesterday. Some of us had our rights respected. We were well provided for, wellprotected, and given ample opportunities to participate meaningfully in our homes, schools, and communities. Some of us did not have our rights respected. We are the ones who carry physical and mental scars, who hated school, were unfairly arrested and imprisoned in our homes and institutions. We are the senators, the teachers, the police officers, the prisoners, the people who are successful, the people who are just scraping by, those who think everything is all right and those who know that nothing is all right. We are the ones who have the opportunity to believe in hope and those whose hopes have been shattered and see only misery for tomorrow. We are the ones with loving hearts and kind hands, we are the ones who scream and cry in pain, we are the angry ones who will replicate the violence that they were taught works, or doesn’t, but is the only choice available to be heard. As clinical sociologists, we need to get serious about how we talk about children in our own heads and in our communities. Clinical sociologists understand the value of good communication and can teach others how to work through conflict situations in ways that result in greater respect and positivity for all.

Chapter 22

Investing in Children

Why does America invest so little in its children? Lillian Mongeau in The Atlantic

22.1

Introduction

Investments are a big topic of conversation from the federal budget to our personal finances. Costs and benefits of investing in things for children (and families) is a hot-button national topic. The news is filled with a lot of complaining about how much to invest in children. Sometimes children are viewed as victims, sometimes as perpetrators, sometimes as burdens. There are complaints about whether government should pay for their healthcare (physical, mental, and dental), childcare, parks and recreation, arts and humanities, or welfare. Complaints aplenty exist about how schools take too much of our tax-dollars, how students do not need recess or more than 15 min for lunch or 1 counselor for every 250 students. There are perceptions that teachers have an easy, cushy job, and the faulty conclusions that if only we had more metal detectors and school police officers then schools would be safe. There are many government conversations about how the country doesn’t have enough money to pay for daycare or student loans, but curiously there is enough money to pay for weapons of war and justifications for holding billionaires, trillionaires, and their organizations accountable tax-wise. At the 2022 Children’s Human Rights in the USA conference, attorney and professor Jonathan Todres (2022) told the story about how many dead bodies were floating downstream in the river. The residents were worried. How come there were there so many dead bodies, and why did they keep coming? They asked a scientist to come and figure out why. She watched for a while, and then left. The people were angry—they asked her for help and she left. They figured she had given up, that she didn’t really care. What they did not realize is that she traveled upstream to find out why people keep falling into the river and drowning. She went to the source to figure © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_22

575

576

22

Investing in Children

out the nature of the problem. This would enable her to create a strategy to fix the problem. Sometimes we too are looking at the wrong place to find solutions. We would be more successful if we went to the source of the problem in the first place. As this pertains to children, prevention and public health programs would drastically reduce many problems that children, families, and communities face—if we adequately invested in them.

22.2

Investment, Cost, and Benefit

Children, and the nation, are in the sorry state it is in because the United States is under-investing in its most valuable resource—its children. For the half-century from 1960 to 2010, children’s share of spending grew before it started to drop off when it dropped to 10.6% of the federal budget. At current rates, our national child investment is projected to decline to 6.8% in 2028. At the same time, spending on adults receiving Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—programs that really help individuals to be healthy—will increase to 50%, according to projections (CBS 2018). There is no good reason to believe that parents are going to be able to absorb the costs of raising children; most struggle to get by on a day-to-day basis; over 53% of parents have no savings accounts for their children (Fox 2020). Pragmatically, any accountant will predict that a poor investment is going to yield poor outcomes. Why then are we under-investing in our children? “I think we value our children less than other nations do,” said Arne Duncan, the former U.S. secretary of education (Mongeau 2016: 1). “It’s a loss of human potential. We don’t truly believe there’s tremendous talent in rural America or among black and brown children or among poor children. So we choose to under-invest”. It is time to reconsider our investments of children, according to an Urban League report (Hahn et al. 2020a, b), and that investment needs to be ambitious, according to the Economic Policy Institute (Bivans et al. 2016). Investing in children should not be a political issue, and certainly not a bi-partisan one (Morrissey 2021). From a moral, social justice, equality, or human rights perspective, investing in children is the right thing to do. International embarrassment should be a reason to increase child investments, since the US poverty rate is on par with that of Mexico (Mongeau 2016). Even if these reasons aren’t enough, there are economic and demographic drivers that make investment in children a national essential strategy. A Brookings report focuses on demographic trends that make investing in children vitally important for the nation. It states: Although investment in the nation’s youth is a long-held staple of American politics, it was clearly not an emphasis of the Trump administration, which paid more attention to appeasing its largely older political base. Yet, politics alone is not the issue. There is an important demographic rationale for investing in young people, from infants to teens. It has to do with the unprecedented aging of the nation’s population and the increased reliance of our rapidly growing senior population on a young population whose size will remain relatively stagnant. On top of this, demographic gains among today and tomorrow’s younger populations will be

22.3

Why Investing in Child Rights Is Essential

577

driven by children of color—many of whom continue to grow up in families experiencing high levels of poverty. This means that the pipeline of future workers in our rapidly aging nation is growing modestly at best, and is made up of children among whom racial and ethnic inequality is amplified. For these reasons, the nation’s demography alone makes it imperative that the needs of children and young families are high on the policy priority list. (Frey 2021).

This concern is repeated by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth (Ansel 2017a, b), which focuses on the under-investment of children particularly under age five. Studies by a multitude of different authors shows that “children’s future contributions to the US economy are largely shaped by their early environments”. Nationally the government has invested on average $16,000 for children 6–11 but $10,220 for 3–5-year-olds and only $8820 for children ages 0–2. The US spends 0.2% of its GDP on childcare for children under 2, which is about $200 per family, whereas Norway spends $29,726 on childcare, Iceland spends $24,427, and nations like Chile, Slovenia, and Hungary spend considerably more than us (Miller 2021a, b, c). U.S. ranked 35th among developed economies in pre-primary- or primary-school enrollment for 3–5-year-olds, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international economic association (Mongeau 2016). At the current rate of funding, it is estimated to take 150 years to reach preschool education for 75% of all US 4-year olds. The US government, as well as NGOs, civic, businesses, and philanthropic organizations are wise to make substantial investments in children, as documented by the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania (2015). Nobel prize winning economist, James Heckman (2020) has quantified the life-cycle benefits of early childhood education and care and found it to yield substantial financial and social benefits over the life of a child. Early investments in children have been found to yield such positive long-term benefits that a society is foolish not to invest in children; for every dollar invested in early childhood there is a sixteen-dollar return (First Things First 2022).

22.3

Why Investing in Child Rights Is Essential

Going back to the book’s construction example, as a homeowner I know that my house will need regular repairs. So will my automobile. If we want the house to serve us well, if we want the car to be in good running condition, we have to invest in them. If we do not, the house will crumble around us and the car is going to leave us stranded somewhere when we need it. We may not like spending thousands of dollars for a new furnace or to fix a plumbling problem, but we have to. Paying hundreds of dollars for new tires may annoy us, but our life could depend on our doing so. As adults, we are obliged to defend the things that matter to us. When you invest in something, you expect a return or an outcome of some sort. If you don’t invest in something, or someone, you make a decision that indicates you think the investment isn’t going to yield much that is of consequence to you. Simply,

578

22

Investing in Children

the projected output or product isn’t worth the investment. This, in essence, is a costbenefit model. Children’s human rights frameworks can yield a positive investment for society, as we have seen in the differences between the US, who doesn’t use it, and other developed nations, who do. The cost of investing in children yield benefits like physical and mental health, longer lives, better education, more positive social relationships, greater productivity in the workforce, reduced crime, more community engagement, happier families, and more positive community climates. These are huge benefits that exceed quantification; experts like Heckman have documented the benefits of investment far outweigh the costs.

22.4

Types of Investments

Investments can be of multiple types when it comes to children. Main ones include financial investments, social investments, government investments, family investments, and emotional investments.

22.4.1

Financial Investments

Let’s start with financial investment, since the term “investment” is typically associated with money. These include stocks, bonds, mutual funds, CDs or certificates of deposit, EFTs or exchange-traded funds, annuities, IRAs, real estate, commodities, crypto-currencies, options, index funds, and savings accounts. There are percentage rates that can increase one’s investment; some are gambles with rates that can also go down and force people to lose money from their initial investment. The trick is to try to pick an investment strategy that will yield the greatest, safest rate of return.

22.4.2

Social Investments

Social investments invest in people. It includes policies and programs that are designed to strengthen people’s skills and capacities and support them to participate fully in employment and social life. Key policy areas include education, quality childcare, healthcare, training, job-search assistance and rehabilitation. Established programs that have a good track-record are more likely to be funded; new programs have to prove they have a plan that will yield positive outcomes if invested in. This often leaves a lot of programs out that have potential to help others. For instance, the odds of an organization getting a grant are one in ten, meaning that 90% of applicants will not be funded. When it comes to investing in humans, it gets challenging. For instance, some investments are short-lived with no observable return, like giving people food—it

22.4

Types of Investments

579

helps for a moment but they will be hungry again later. Education is an investment we make in children and sometimes they are able to build upon what they’ve learned or a job that doesn’t. The problem with many types of investments in children is that it is based on their “potential”, and those children who start out ahead thanks to demographic and social class richness are deemed to have more potential than children who start lower on the castification scale. As Woodhouse and countless others have noted, nationally we haven’t invested in certain groups of children because they aren’t perceived to have much value or potential. This is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton 1948). As a community, state or nation, decisions are made about how much to invest in certain programs for children. Big-ticket items include education and healthcare. But often decisions about infrastructure-item funding do not consider children. For instance, housing is seen as the parent’s responsibility; so are transportation, recreation, having a phone, computer, access to wifi, or even access to food. Financial decisions at the macro level are often made with the assumption that housing, food, transportation, or telecommunications in a virtual world are not children’s issues. Yet they are. If a child is hungry, homeless, can’t access information remotely that will help them to succeed in school, or lack transportation to get to school or the doctor, these infrastructure items are children’s issues. What kinds of services, and how adequately they are funded, are decisions best made with children’s needs and accessibility in mind. But often, children are an after-thought, and the lack of sufficient funding reflects that choice.

22.4.3

Government Investments

The US government gets taxpayer money and invests it in a variety of programs. How they choose to disperse it is political and variable. The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt. Almost half of the 2021 discretionary spending was for the US military; over three-quarters of the mandatory spending went for social security and healthcare (National Priorities Project 2021).

22.4.4

Family and Emotional Investments

At a family level, parents make a variety of investments in children at the financial as well a socio-emotional level (Bradley et al. 1997). We invest in a home that is large enough to accommodate everyone; they invest in a vehicle that will carry them all; they invest in things like food, recreation, clothing, and they put time and money into their children’s education. Perhaps we put money into a college savings account when they are babies; maybe we invest in their enrichment programs or in sports camps and coaches who will help them to be a super-star that could get them a

580

22

Investing in Children

college scholarship and one day play on major league ball teams. Sometimes we don’t invest when we should, like when children want something that we decide we don’t have the money for or think it’s not worth it in the long-run. Studies have found that children whose parents are emotionally invested in them have a leg-up in life (Schneider-Hassloff et al. 2018). The more psychologically investment parents are, the more likely the are to be willing to invest in them (Antfolk and Sjound 2018). Parental emotional investment in children can be manifest in other ways. The desire to have children may be so great that potential parents may spend thousands of dollars in order to have a child, either through IVF or other infertility/reproduction treatments, or to adopt a child (Gauthier and de Jong 2021). The amount of attention that a parent may give to their mate, and even the choice of a mate, may be impacted by a parent’s emotional investment in a child (Woodward and Richards 2005). Thus physical health and relationship quality may be be impacted by one’s emotional investment in children. Some parents “give the shirt off their back” to their children and spend money that they don’t have because they are emotionally committed to the child, and may run into significant debt as a result. To them, the cost may be worth it. Parental emotional investment is seen to have big pay-offs. Studies show that children’s cognitive and behavioral growth is benefited by parents who foster a sense of independent in their children. Their emotional investment seems to give children the ability to sustain themselves through future hard times (Hays 2016). In sum, our investments in children are not just financial; they are emotional, social, and relational as well (Bradley et al. 1997; Gauthier and de Jong 2021). Investements have huge implications at the societal level as well. As stated by Sally Holland, Children’s commissioner for Wales, Investing in children’s human rights has real benefits for organizations, including contributing to enabling more children and young people to be better involved in public services which lead to better decision making, ensuring there’s a real focus on the particular needs of children whose voices can be lost or silenced, creating an environment where public services are accountable to all of its service users. (Holland 2020:3).

22.5

The Investing in Children Decision-Tree

In the United States, we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, if not the wealthiest. Yet data from multiple sources shows that our children are among the poorest of three dozen developed nations, and our young children are the poorest of the poor. Hunger and homelessness are not uncommon experiences for our youngest members. Schools are under-funded and children are paying the price. Millions of children still do not have health insurance. How did something like this happen in the land of plenty? Explanations abound. There’s one about the rich getting richer as the poor and middle-classes are struggling to keep their heads above water. There’s the racist explanation in which as the population of children are increasingly children of color,

22.5

The Investing in Children Decision-Tree

581

children’s services get under-funded. There’s the gender explanation where single mothers (since single-heads of household remain primarily female) suffer because they cannot work and care for their children when childcare is unaffordable, unavailable, and inaccessible. There’s the political bifurcation between parties with differing ideologies. There’s the corporatization of American society that penalizes families and mainstream institutions in order for privatization to monopolize allocations. There could be money to support children through greater tax equity and reduction of corporate welfare, but this would require a major shift towards a children’s human rights framework as other nations have done (Foster, Greer and Thorbecke 2010; Reich 2019; Ross and Ross 2022; Shrivastava, A and Patel 2023). What seems to be the biggest driver of the decision’s communities make is money. Budgets drive decisions that are made by adults for adults. The best interests of the child often take a backseat to the best interests of the adults—and adults with the loudest voice and deepest pockets. Everyone is passing the buck, but the bucks don’t filter down to children. We say we want and love children. But all too often, there is a caveat—we may only want certain kinds of children. We may have unstated preferences of who they are, what they should look like, act like, and what they might become. As a society, there is a not-so-subtle decision tree in operation that determines which children we will showcase and invest in, and which ones will be left in the shadows. Leaders weigh the costs and benefits. They consider who is going to get hurt, and as they consider their own vested interests. Politicians have long argued against giving people financial benefits (aka “welfare”) because they will then have no incentive to work; while this logic has been proven incorrect time after time, it reflects a decision-tree approach of “if this, then that”. Communities and individuals decide if they are going to invest in children and conditions that will help them to survive and thrive. A report by the Surgeon General found that community investment in supporting public policies and vital conditions—like affordable housing, quality education, and meaningful work— can create thriving communities for children and families. Mobilizing resources and investments to create high-opportunity neighborhoods is a winning strategy to fix the U.S. health disadvantage, but many communities fail to make these investments, which negatively impacts the life chances for children (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 2021). We can see the decision-tree at the individual as well as institutional level. As an example, in the 1940s when my Aunt Edie was enrolled in an Indiana nursing program, she was caring for a pregnant woman who came to the hospital to deliver her baby. The baby was born with something “wrong” with it. Edie’s supervisor told her to put the baby in a crib in a back room and tell the mother that the baby had died. While it would be hard for the mother, the supervisor decided that the baby either would be disabled or die anyway and cause the mother grief, so it would be easier for her to be told that the baby was stillborn. Edie was told that she could not feed or even hold the baby to comfort it. In the back room of the hospital, the baby was strategically left to die.

582

22

Investing in Children

A different decision-tree outcome can be seen in the first disabled child on Sesame Street. In 1974, Emily Perl Kingsley’s newborn son, Jason, was diagnosed to have Downs Syndrome. When she spoke at my university, she told the story about how people encouraged her to institutionalize him so she could then continue a normal life and pursue her profession as a writer for Sesame Street. She refused. Instead, she researched how to assist children with challenges and poured her heart and soul into helping him survive and thrive. Kingsley has become an ardent advocate for children with ability challenges. If she hadn’t made that decision, the outcome for her son, and for the entire Sesame Street emphasis on inclusion and diversity, would have been much different. We can see the decision-tree of deciding which children society chooses to invest in played out in a variety of situations. The social outlay for supporting children is the best investment we can make in America’s future (Kuttner 2007). But the US has not adequately invested in children (Mongeau 2016), even though the case to do so has never been stronger (Gunn 2018). The Bipartisan Policy Center’s report, Is America Under-investing in Children? examines state and federal expenditure patterns and concludes that the answer is Yes.

22.5.1

Deciding Who’s Important

There is social conflict over deciding how to care for children that has become obvious during the pandemic. There is a group of public health officials and researchers who encourage the public to get a vaccine and wear masks in order not to spread the disease to others. Another group, primarily individuals, hotly refuse to do so, saying that it is their individual right not to do so. They complain that it is uncomfortable to wear masks and that they don’t trust the government’s decisions. Children, in the meantime, are caught in the middle. Teachers, business owners, and others find it hard to make decisions about what to do because there are two polarized factions pulling at them to be on one side or the other. The decision has become politicized, as either you are for us or against us, depending on whatever decision they make over children who have obviously become objectified. This is just one of the many contemporary examples in which the nation finds itself polarized on deciding how to care for children. This decision-making conflict can be understood through the application of the concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, (Tönnies 1957). Gemeinschaft, as you recall, is a social association in which the individuals are inclined towards social community rather than their individual wants and needs. Gesellschaft is in which the individual needs are given more importance than the social association (Manasa 2011). Extrapolating the gemeinschaft and gesellschaft more broadly, this classic tension can be observed in social policies and decision-making about what, and who, should be funded by government programs. Some, like Senator Ron Johnson, believe that children are property of parents and if you have them, they’re yours—not the government’s, to care for. They believe that parents have the right to decide about their children’s

22.6

Common Models of Decision Making

583

healthcare decisions, right to reproductive information, knowledge about the history of the nation as it pertains to slavery or evolution, and that schools and organizations should do what they demand because they have the right to demand it. Others take a communitarian approach and view all children as members of the community who need provision and protection, and that measures that help the whole take care of individuals, whereas policies that focus on individuals do not necessarily take care of the whole. In the debate on who should make decisions about children, each side of the polarized debate often forget the most important piece—the feelings, needs, attitudes, and actions of children themselves. No matter what adults think, young people have agency and are going to act. Ignoring them in the discussion of rights is foolish no matter whose side you are on, because they are going to act anyway. Involving them in conversations about what they think and why, and helping them to engage in rational decision-making strategies is a worthy endeavor if one is committed to children as rights-holders.

22.6

Common Models of Decision Making

The implications of the decisions we have made stare us in the face. As a parent, if we don’t watch our children when they are playing near the road they could get hit by a car; if we let them play with matches they could catch fire; if we abuse them they could have lifelong problems. As a nation, if we don’t give children healthcare, when they get sick they are going to get sicker or even die because they can’t access care. Since children are the highest group of people in our nation most like to be hungry and poverty-stricken, then the fix is to invest money in them and their families. The lack of gun control has resulted in children of all ages being shot or killed; countries that have rigorous gun control measures don’t have this problem. We could go on and on with examples, but the bottom line is that our decision-making approach often fails to consider children. We weigh pros and cons when we make decisions. Often, children’s needs and interests aren’t considered in those decisions. People in authority, whether parents or policy-makers, may not even think about the impact their decisions will have on children. The CRC indicates that whenever decisions are being made, the best interests of the child should be considered. But all too often, children’s lives are not even considered. Money, political interests, tradition doing things “the way they’ve always been”, or out of convenience. Decision-making is often complicated; different models have been created to help people walk through the process. There are some strategic, tactical, and operational decisions that are an integral part of the P-O-L-C (planning-organizing-leadingcontrolling) model. For instance, an organization tries to anticipate where there could be problems and they program in decisions to prevent them; if there is a complaint then there is a strategy for how to address it. There are also nonprogrammed decisions that are unique and require conscious thinking,

584

22

Investing in Children

information gathering, and careful consideration of alternatives. Strategic decisions set the course for an organization; tactical decisions are those that refer to how things will get done, while operational decisions are those people make as a response to daily occurrences (Lumen Learning 2022). A few are briefly described to illustrate how children are often left-out in the cold.

22.6.1

Inaction Model of Decision-Making

To not make a decision is to make a decision. As Yoda is known to say in the Star Wars movie, do or don’t do—there is no try. When children or children’s interests are not considered to be of vital importance, four responses are likely. One is to assume that whatever is being decided has nothing to do with children. For instance, decisions in a community for broadband access may be seen as an adult issue—but in reality, it is a children’s issue as well. Young people cannot do their homework or do remote learning without access to computers and reliable wifi. Housing is a children’s issue; so are bus routes, climate change, and city zoning requirements (Sisson 2019). Another reason children’s interests are subject to inaction is that they don’t rise to the level of priority in the minds of decision-makers. If a town has a limited budget and leaders debate whether to spend it on the new fire truck, a homeless shelter, pensions for city workers, or funding for parks or a youth recreation center, chances are good the pensions will win and the recreation center will not. It’s not that the pensions or fire truck aren’t important; they are. The question of why there isn’t enough to go around to include youth needs is the point. A third reason why inaction for youth may prevail in decisions is limbo-land, where leaders announce that something for youth is important and they’ll get around to it later or find funding for it in the future, but those days never come. A fourth reason for inaction is that there are too many alternatives and leaders feel overwhelmed by them and can’t agree upon a decision. There is another type of decision-making inaction that concerns the absence of children as well. Involving children in the decision-making process of matters that concern them is also a recommendation in the CRC. However, young people may never be asked for their input even though they would be happy to give it. When adults are asked why there was no youth-input, the typical responses are: (1) that they didn’t think youth input was important; (2) the adults felt they could adequately represent the youth’s needs, experiences, and opinions; (3) that youth didn’t care to be involved; and (4) that they couldn’t find any. The result is inaction to have youth input, as well as a failure to consider children’s interests in decision-making processes.

22.6

Common Models of Decision Making

22.6.2

585

Rational Decision-Making

In this commonly used approach, there are eight central steps. One is to determine if there is a problem worthy of deciding about; step 2 is to establish decision-making criteria which is weighed in step 3. Step 4 generates alternatives and in step 5 they are evaluated and chosen in step 6. Step 7 is when a decision gets implemented, and then evaluated (step 8) (Adams 2022). There are many points of intervention here where children’s interests could be involved. One is the selection of the problem itself; does it have anything to do with children or could it? This is where issues are often perceived as non-child issues that have implications on their lives. The decision-making criteria could benefit from youth input, alternatives could be considered from a children’s best interest perspective. Ultimately decisions get made that may, or may not, include a child focus. Where those decisions useful for all people, including children—this is the purpose of evaluation. Going to the broadband access issue, if it was perceived as a children’s human rights issue then decisions could emerge that ensured that all youth had access to it at home, at school, and elsewhere in the community. It could be an empowering decision that lifted all boats and made it possible for all young people to access it. If it was not regarded as a child issue then there may be locations where it wasn’t available, there may be costs to access it that children simply would be unable to pay, and the result would be lack of access, poorer ability to do homework, which could impact their grades, graduation, and chances for future success.

22.6.3

Good-Enough Decision Model

According to this model, individuals knowingly limit their options to what they think is feasible without conducting an exhaustive search for alternatives. It may be quicker and easier for the leaders to take this approach. It may be based on historical precedence, doing the same thing they did in the past because it was adequate enough. They may choose to fund parts of a program but not all of it, or for certain groups of children but not all of them, giving the appearance that they were supportive of services for children but in actuality not investing enough for it to really be transformative. Making decisions that meet the minimum threshold may be acceptable for leaders, but it may fail to address the needs of all children. There is a tendency for programs to focus on “vulnerable” or “at-risk” children. This is a scarcity approach, a mind-set that fails to acknowledge that all children are vulnerable, that all children can be at-risk if certain events, situations, or experiences arise. By focusing only on certain segments of the population, this logically eliminates helping all. Using this model to look at daycare, the reality is that every child whose parents work need access to good daycare. Some parents have more income than others that impact their ability to pay for care. Whether parents are rich or poor

586

22

Investing in Children

is irrelevant to children’s need for good daycare—ALL children have a right to have it. By only funding the most “at-risk”, those who hover above the cut-point are eliminated. Just because a family makes a certain income doesn’t mean that they aren’t in financial distress or that the child could not benefit from the assistance. The right for children to have good daycare is a universal human right. Certainly, there are other models to help explain how decisions about children get made. These are provided as examples to encourage our willingness to think about children when it’s time to make decisions, whether at home, schools, community organizations, or national policies and programs.

22.7

Investing in Children’s Development from a Human Rights Perspective

While throwing money at programs may help, money isn’t the only investment needed in order to shift the narrative into a national initiative supporting children’s human rights. Developmentally, what happens in the early years of a child’s life lays a foundation of for the child’s future development (Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b; Maggi et al. 2010; Urban Child Institute 2021; Young 2007; Zero to Three 2020). Child development experts concur that the time of childhood is a unique period in which not just physiological foundations are laid, it is a time in which identity, personality, self-esteem, mental health, and social successes are created. Social factors influence what directions the child’s life trajectory may travel. If children do not get the nutrition, support, and care they need early in life, they may need help during the rest of their lives to address the impact of those unmet needs (Harvard Center for the Developing Child 2021). Yet our nation has invested more in older children than younger ones (Ansel 2017a, b). A human rights framework affirms that it is every child’s right to have the care that facilitates their highest development. Brain development is of utmost importance especially during birth to age three to five; exposure to toxic stress in the early years have been found by the Centers for Disease Control to have lifelong implications. Good health and positive development for children is contingent upon having secure, loving relationships, stability, appropriate nutrition, housing, education, and support. Receiving them are part of a human rights framework. Exposure to violence, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and oppression are antithetical to both good health and human rights. Poverty, homelessness, educational attainment, criminal justice contact, are not evenly distributed—some identified groups of children are much more likely to experience them than others. For instance, Black and Hispanic children constitute two-thirds of children in poverty (Wilson and Schneider 2018), have higher rates of educational inequality (de Brey et al. 2019), experience the majority of childhood adversity (Slopen et al. 2016), suffer most from COVID-19 health-related problems (Mitropoulos 2021), experience more disciplinary actions and corporal punishments

22.8

An Investment Example: Student Loan Debt

587

(Riddle and Sinclair 2019), and are six times more likely to be shot by police (Camero 2020). Racial disparities and systematic differential treatments are apparent even in preschoolers (Strauss 2020). Even in child welfare systems designed to help, nonwhite children have more negative outcomes (National Council of State Legislatures 2021a, b). Despite efforts to address gender equality, gender discrimination is alive and influencing the way adolescents view themselves and others, with females continuing to be stereotyped in emotional, domestic, and lesser-than their male counterpart positions (Plan International USA 2018). Strides in gender equality made in the last decade have slowed or stalled (England et al. 2020). Like racism, attitudes fostering gender inequality start in childhood and have long-term impacts and may continue to discriminate against females (Save the Children 2020a, b). These reports are representative of the multiplicity of scholarly reports analyzing data showing that some children continue to fare far better than others. The impact of these childhood experiences has lifelong implications. These data reflect the nation’s lack of commitment to ensuring that the human rights of all children are addressed. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

22.8

An Investment Example: Student Loan Debt

President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell, observed that “investment in education pays the richest of all dividends” (Lindy 2021). In CRC Article 29, it holds that children should have the right to develop their interests and talents and it is the obligation of duty-bearers to help them. The CRC also requires that children be given the opportunity to develop lives and jobs that allow them to make contributions to their families and community. Today it is difficult to earn enough money without a college education; moreover, higher education is needed to help young people to develop their skills. Going to college is a social essential in most ways today in the US. The average yearly cost of college is $35,331. The average cost for tuition and fees and a private school is $43,775 and $25,487 for an in-state public school and much higher for students who are out-of-state. The average cost of attending college has more than doubled in the twenty-first century, with an annual growth rate of 6.8%. Considering student loan interest and loss of income, the cost of a bachelor’s degree can exceed $400,000. If students go on for a master’s or doctorate degree, the costs can approach a million dollars (Hanson 2022; Powell 2021a, b). The interest rates and way student loans are organized are nothing short of a well-intended idea that big business took over and created a racket that serves financial institutions but suffocates students. Nations that have ratified the CRC have established free or very low-cost college opportunities, such as Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Iceland. This means that students can

588

22

Investing in Children

graduate from university and then take jobs in their fields and have enough money to live on. Compare this to the US, where student loan debt exceeds $1.75 trillion (Hess 2021). If children are willing to invest their time and energy to learn skills to advance their lives and communities, strapping them with huge loans to do so is ludicrous. Student loan payments are suffocating graduates’ chances to economically survive. The average loan is over $40,000 for undergraduate school and over $70,000 for graduate school, but for many students it could be much higher (Kerr 2021). About 45 million young people are faced with this dilemma; they owe over $1.75 trillion in student loan debt, which is $739 billion more than the total US credit card debt (Kantrowitz 2021). The Center for Law and Social Policy (Bangergee 2021) outlines reasons why it is in society’s best interest to eradicate student loan debt, including student debt has become a preventable national crisis; canceling student debt would be good for the economy, boost GDP by billions of dollars, and millions of new jobs and reduce unemployment. It may take students 20 years or more at high interest rates to pay off the debt, money that they could use to buy homes, afford childcare, eliminate debt, and push money into the economy. It would advance gender and racial equity and have positive intergenerational impacts. They conclude that student loans should be cancelled because society is dependent upon those with higher education, and higher education should be a right for all, not a privilege for some that eliminates access for others. Student loan debt is a real social problem, especially for the millions of middleclass and below students. Education has always been the number one strategy for lifting oneself up economically. Going to college has been a good investment, but as higher education costs have increased while personal incomes have not been able to keep up, most students have to take loans in order to attend school. The further a student goes in school, into graduate school for a masters or doctorate degree, the most loan builds up. There are millions of students who have over a hundred thousand dollars in school loan debt. If a student is lucky enough to graduate and secure a job that pays $100,000 that sounds like a good income. But it is not a livable wage if one has student loans. Assume that the recent graduate has a $3000 a month rent or mortgage, a $300 car payment, and pays typical costs for heat, electric, water, sewage, trash, food, life-home-auto-healthcare insurances, By the time taxes, benefits, and insurances are removed from one’s paycheck, and if one has a $500 a month student loan to repay, this leaves the young person almost nothing to live on. It makes buying a home, consideration of having children, or making other purchases terribly challenging, and could easily thrust them into credit card or other debts. President Biden proposed a $10,000 reduction on student loan debt; while that would be helpful, for former students carrying $100,000 student loan debt, it is a drop in the bucket. Yet even this modest amount of relief is being opposed by many in Congress. Many of the congressional leaders who are opposing student debt relief are the same ones who also opposed Biden’s daycare financial support package (Romm et al. 2022; Student Aid.Gov 2022).

22.9

How Do We Get Others to Care About Children?

589

If we look at student loans as just one example of investment costs and benefits, it is clear that the costs are burdened by young people who want to make contributions to the world, buy a home, raise a family, and contribute to their community. Strapping them with loans that make this virtually impossible is a cost that is too great for society to bear, from a children’s human rights perspective.

22.9

How Do We Get Others to Care About Children?

On the surface, one could assume that children would not be used as pawns by adults to fulfill political agendas. However, this does not seem to be the case. There are two social movements simultaneously occurring, one fighting for children’s needs and the other is about what adults need and want. In the typical power distribution, children are at a disadvantage. Children face overwhelming challenges that are beyond their control. They rely upon adults to help them and defend their rights. Convincing data about this comes from multiple research reports, methodologies, organizations, authors, and countries. But data seems insufficient to sway the belief systems of those convinced that children’s rights should be limited. Some people choose not to believe the data or to pick it apart so they can justify not funding children’s programs. What can be done to get adults to care about children and the collective well-being of society? This is not a new question and one that philosophers have struggled to understand for decades. Legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky (1972) asserted that efforts to mobilize communities were bound to fail if activists did not appeal to community members’ self-interest. By ‘self-interest’, Alinsky was not only referring to material or ‘selfish’ interests, but to any motivation or incentive that compelled individuals to act. In order to move interventions forward, professionals and organizations are needed, but so are community members in grassroots collective action efforts for the benefit of the community (Gram et al. 2019). In The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson (1971) pointed out that when large numbers of participants are required to achieve a shared outcome, such as a national children’s rights frame, the personal impact of a single participant is small relative to the cost of participation so people may decide it’s not worth the effort to get involved. We see organizations limit services or put up stringent qualification criteria to limit the number of people served because they “don’t have enough” money or resources. Parents routinely make decisions that are more for their interests than those of their children. Trying to get individuals or organizations to deny themselves in order to put themselves on the line for children who they will likely never meet is a big ask that many may not feel compelled to fulfill. It is additionally complicated when there are competing narratives about whether children should have rights, or if children have rights that parent rights become compromised. Alinsky observed that if the personal impact of an individual could make a big difference, people are more likely to engage. If people feel that they, or someone they know or care about, would benefit from their actions then they may feel more

590

22

Investing in Children

compelled to take actions. When it comes to children’s rights, adults won’t “get” anything of material value. What they get is a sense of moral correctness and a belief that protecting children’s well-being will pay off for children and society in the long run. This is a stretch for many people, especially those who are inundated with survival in the here-and-now. It is a particularly big stretch for folks who embrace a narrative about children that see them as property, o3bjects, or human becomings rather than human beings who have rights right now. Social incentives also arise from participants’ interactions with other community members (Gram et al. 2019). Social movements, as described by Turner, give people comradery with others with whom they feel they have something in common. The current problem for the children’s human rights movement at this stage is that there is no large network that links interested parties with other like-minded people. There are organizations and individuals who are committed to children’s human rights, but they may operate in silos. There is no over-arching way to link or network them together. Viewing this another way, while children’s lives are nested in a variety of systems, such as the family, school, recreation, faith communities, or civic organizations, the children’s human rights movement is not. The lack of governmental commitment to making children a priority trickles down into every other institution. This is why ratification of the CRC, or at least a national platform that prioritizes children’s provisions, protections, and participations is so important. It is not the ratification of the CRC that is central—it is the nation’s commitment to make children their number one priority that is the issue. It is the bonding together of community members and organizations to fight to protect children as their greatest treasure. There is also the issue of what intrinsic benefits or expressive, symbolic, psychological or moral benefits that are intrinsic to the act of participating that one receives. Those fighting for children’s human rights are doing so largely for moral reasons that are encased in a human rights framework. Those who are fighting instead for parent rights, or are against children’s human rights being prioritized, are committed to other symbolic, psychological, or moral positions. A sense of “rightness” of one’s position makes it very challenging to move those who are opposed to children being awarded human rights. Group-think or benefits from “joining the bandwagon” are other collective action factors worth considering. If youth were able to get mobilized in an effort to fight for their rights, the children’s human rights movement would have a greater chance of being effective. We saw that after the Parkland, Florida school shooting a March for our Lives (2021) protest and demonstration occurred not just in Florida, but nationally and even internationally. Children are not just attending Black Lives Matter and George Floyd protest events, but organizing them (Lee 2020). Greta Thunberg (2020) has inspired an international movement toward climate change. Youth-led social movements are everywhere in the US and around the world, all dealing with some splinter of children’s human rights but none of them dealing with its big picture underpinnings (Nasheed 2019; Tragester 2020).

22.10

Summary

591

On the other hand, it seems as if joining the bandwagon strategy has been used effectively by people who oppose teaching an inclusive view of our nation’s history or CRT but can’t even explain what it is (Payne 2021). It is apparent in the anti-gun control, anti-vaccine, anti-mask endeavors undertaken by some groups. They have fought state legislation, organized national school board protests, and have managed to have a powerful and influential voice (Griffey 2021); But it can’t help but make one wonder—are people who protest proven ways to keep children safe really opposed to the majority of children’s human rights issues or did many of them get swept up into an issue-specific, politicized rhetoric espoused by their network without really thinking through the big-picture and ramifications of their actions? These are underlying issues that impact what we are willing to invest in, and what we are not.

22.10

Summary

The US has under-invested in children of all ages, but especially those in the earliest years of life. Data consistently proves that investing in children from birth to five yields significant long-term benefits. Older children are still underfunded as well. As we compare US standing of children’s well-being, education, and safety compared to those of other developed nations (and less developed ones) who have supported the CRC, the thread that runs through them is an investment in children. From a clinical sociological perspective, it is instructive to observe what individuals and organizations are willing to invest in and what they don’t. From a fiscal perspective, investing in children has a big pay-off. Why then do we not do it? The national narrative about children does not include them as entitled to be rightsholders. If they were, they could be seen as worthier of investment. This is where macro and micro social forces intersect; if we change the narrative maybe we could change the social outcomes children face.

Chapter 23

Opportunities and Challenges

How can you be against children’s rights? Margrét Sigurðardóttir (2020)

23.1

Introduction

When children’s human rights are fully invested in by families, institutions, and nations, children are safer, healthier, happier, more productive, and more respectful people. Cross-cultural data from hundreds of reports prove this to be true. Why then, as Sigurðardóttir asks, are we as a nation not defending children as rights-holders? The preceding chapters have tried to convey both the benefits of a children’s human rights framework and why it has been opposed. From a cost-benefit analysis, investing in children’s rights to provision, protection, and participation should be a no-brainer. But not everyone agrees. The organization Prevent Child Abuse America asserts that we need to change the national narrative about children and families (Merrick 2021), but to one that upholds parent rights first. A children’s human rights framework seeks to take nothing away from parents but to defend the rights of young people. These two things need not be contradictory or in conflict and competition with each other. How can we change the narrative of children so that we could enthusiastically commit to building a children’s human rights framework in the USA? As pointed out earlier, this will require changes in the ways we think about children and in our actions as individuals, organizations, and society. This chapter explores different opportunity models to move a children’s human rights framework forward for our nation. It will also explore some of the issues that will make this initiative challenging.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_23

593

594

23.2

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Opportunities

A children’s human rights framework holds huge benefits for children. In the shortrun a national conversation in this direction will call for substantial discussion, re-thinking of what we are doing, how we are doing it organizationally, and how the nation can achieve a buy-in of a children’s human rights narrative. Strategically, one must anticipate that there will be bumps until the new narrative and framework is smoothly integrated. This will pose a moment for national values-clarification. In the short-run there may be increased financial costs but from a public health and prevention approach, the payoff in the long run saves huge money and lives. It is important to have a long-term vision of this paradigm shift instead of focusing on the short-term inconveniences. The nation, we are at a time where most of us are pleading for life to get better. There is a Chinese symbol that means out of conflict comes opportunity.

In clinical sociology, a conflict theory assumes that tension and conflict between groups may be uncomfortable but necessary for positive social evolution. This has been shown especially in the challenges to racial and gender inequality. Confrontation need not be bad. Conflict can yield positive outcomes towards equality and justice. Child inequality in the US is a major social problem that needs to be addressed. As a nation, what is going on with the conflict surrounding book banning, parent right assertions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic afford us a unique opportunity to rethink our treatment of children and youth. We can use the crisis in what we see happening for children to empower us to do something different and frame children as a national treasure and priority. Devorak (2019) observes that America has gained the international reputation that it doesn’t care about its children and the evidence for that is all around that fact. Freeman (2017) finds that we still live in two different Americas, decades after Michael Harrington made us aware of The Other America. The Biden Administration is taking some steps toward increasing better provisions for children through their Build Back Better initiative and infrastructure support proposals. While this initiative is helpful, it does not directly address the question of whether children should be given help not because they have to prove they need it but because they deserve it because they are human beings (Bipartisan Policy Center 2021; Saletan 2021; Soleander 2021; Vesoulis 2021). There are increasing numbers of reports highlighting what states fare high and low when it comes to different dimensions of children’s rights. For instance, the American Bar Association (Redleaf 2020) has surveyed criminal justice rights for

23.2

Opportunities

595

youth in all 50 states; Human Rights for Kids (2020) reports that California, North Dakota, and Arkansas rank best for children’s judicial protections while the states of Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming are least protective of children’s rights. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (Mayorquin 2022) studied child wellbeing and identified the best and worst states to be a child. They concluded that the ten best states to be a child in were Massachusetts (#1), New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin The bottom 10 states for child well-being. The worst state for overall child well-being is New Mexico, according to the report, ranking last in education, third to last in economic well-being and 39th in health. Other states ranked poor in child wellbeing included Alaska, West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona, Texa, Alabama, Nevada, and Mississipp. CNBC’s annual America’s Top States for Business study (Cohn 2022) paid particular attention to quality of life and studied life, health, inclusion, crime, environmental quality, healthcare, and childcare. They concluded that the worst states to live in and raise a family, starting with the lowest scoring state, are Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, New Mexico, Indiana, Tennessee, and Nevada. At the same time, however, the Parental Rights (2021) are actively seeking legal actions to ensure that parent rights, not child rights, are the priority in states. Florida and Texas are leading the pack with book banning, anti-trans efforts, and other social issues that impact children. These states have many ways in which to embed a children’s human rights narrative and framework. A few of them will be discussed next, including: shifting the narrative; incorporating comprehensive human rights education; ratifying the CRC; adopting the All Children Thrive America model; adopting a child focused public health approach; and a national reorganization of children’s programs.

23.2.1

Change the Narrative

Getting the message out is critically important if any social movement or initiative is going to be successful (Das 1981). The narratives we hold about children have been created over a long time. Even if we don’t believe them we are still influenced by them. The agenda-staking around human rights issues is political and ideological and designed to exert influence over people’s behavior (Feinberg and Willer 2015; Haidt 2012). The narratives that contextualize childhood and children are very influential in how we will perceive them. Whether we are willing to accept a counter narrative—such as that in a children’s human rights framework—will determine if people may choose to act in a rights-respecting way (Citron and Goldberg 2014; Graesser et al. 1991; Green and Brock 2000; Van Laer 2013). Christiano and Neimand (2018) explored the issue of what makes people care about a cause and be willing to initiate change in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. They find that we collectively spend millions of dollars each year on communications that people pay no attention to. People may ignore the importance

596

23 Opportunities and Challenges

that science brings to us, whether we are talking about viruses, effects of violence, impact of poverty, or why investing in early childhood yields big returns. When people working on behalf of social causes have rooted their strategy in science, intentionally or not, they have tended to be more successful. In the last several decades, we’ve seen significant social change: the fight for racial and gender equity, the reduction of smoking and drunk driving deaths, and the passage of marriage equality laws. These are not just a reflection of a naturally changing society but changes designed by thoughtful communicators who used practices supported by behavioral, cognitive, and social science. Through a thoughtfully well-constructed communication campaign, children’s human rights could be added to that list of changes. Throughout this book we have considered the benefits of changing the way we talk about and view children. There is a micro-level, person-to-person activity in which the strategy is to move away from a becomings, children as incompetent objects, or parental property approach to viewing children as competent beings who have agency and need for their rights to be defended. At the interpersonal level, this shift requires that we are careful with the words we choose to use and utilize conversation skills that will allow for a greater exchange of information to improve our understanding, attitudes, and actions. Shifting the narrative can occur at the macro and organizational level by the way services are structured and the types of laws, policies, practices, and procedures that are implemented. This can happen in schools, social service agencies, criminal justice institutions, and healthcare organizations. Once children are viewed as rights-holders with agency instead of people to be done-to, the structures and infrastructures could logically transform. How to do this will be detailed in my upcoming book. Social change becomes complicated because things like children’s human rights have symbolic meanings and associations with things that trigger us emotionally for whatever reason (Billig 1996; Gusfield 1981, 1996). When we are considering how to create social change, heads are moved by hearts; this is both good and bad (Fairclough 1992). It is good in the sense that when we are emotionally connected with an issue or someone’s experience we are more likely to believe it and act on it. When we see a child needlessly suffering, we may be more compelled to help them. It is bad in the sense that we can have an atypical or biased experience that makes us feel a particular way and once we believe it to be true, it is really hard to change one’s mind. For instance, if a young person has acted violently we may think that all children who are similar are bad and not worth investing in. Hearts can also be moved by heads; this is the logic pursued by educators who are optimistically convinced that if people look at enough facts that are well-researched and documented then what we may erroneously believe to be true could be shifted to a more fact-based understanding of reality. When we see the data that US children are at the bottom of multiple measures of child well-being when compared to children around the world, shouldn’t we do more than just shrug? This is where a wellconstructed narrative shift is significant opportunity, but it is also a challenge to do well.

23.2

Opportunities

597

Shifting the narrative must occur at multiple levels simultaneously to have maximum impact. At the individual communication level it occurs between parent-child, teacher-student, peer-peer, adult-adult, and adult-child. At the structural level, it is the way governments, media, organizations, schools, and other institutions set up their policies and practices. Communication is both overt and covert, direct and symbolic. Human rights education will help to ground communications in a rights-respecting way.

23.2.2

Change the Constitution

The country could embed a constitutional amendment protecting children’s human rights. They could insert a one-word revision into the US constitution from “all MEN are created equal” to saying “all PERSONS are created equal”. This simple word replacement would create the foundation for equality among not just people of different ages, but of genders, abilities, races, ethnicities, religions, and other characteristics. States could ratify an amendment in support of children’s human rights. At a more local level, counties or cities could do so as well. This would create a precedent for children to secure provisions, protections, and participations and showcase the state, city, or county as a rights-respecting area. States could have Youth Senates or other administrative operations that children could serve on that would give youth representation voice to leaders in government positions. Cities could have youth liaisons for the town council or have youth representation on all of its boards. Legal decisions that prioritized children’s human rights would be a way for the interpretation of the Constitution to show the nation’s commitment to equality of all people on the basis of age. As pointed out earlier, the Constitution says nothing about children; it is in the court’s decisions and interpretations that the future of children’s rights hover.

23.2.3

National Reorganization of Children’s Programs

The nation has many children’s programs. Most focus on provision and protection; more are developing around children’s rights to participation. There are millions of dollars being spent on various parts of children’s lives, and to address various groups of children. The lack of coordination between them is shocking. As someone with a NIMH post-doctoral degree in children’s issues, I find it very difficult to locate the “right” person within the “right” organization to address even routine child provision, protection, or participation rights issues. If I get bounced around all over creation, I am sure that people with lesser tenacity and knowledge of resources may shrug and give up evening trying to locate help.

598

23 Opportunities and Challenges

In 2001 I published a book on Finding Resources About Children. It took 185 pages to list them, and since then many new ones have emerged. It’s not as if the country doesn’t care about children. We do. But the ways they are organized are siloed, fragmented, and the right hand seldom knows what the left is doing. This could be fixed with the creation of a national reorganization of existing children’s programs that had some central agency in charge. It would help if it was slotted at the major federal level, with state agencies responding to it, and in which local communities fed data of what was going on in their municipalities to the state agencies. The ability to create a more effective and efficient system that children themselves can utilize successfully is within our reach (Schorr 1989). To illustrate the point of the wealth of resources and a paucity of coordination, here is a list of organizations to ogle over. I am sure I have forgotten some, so forgive me as this task was overwhelming. Legislative Branch Agencies National Conference of State Legislatures; National Governor’s Association; THOMAS: Legislative information on the Internet; US House of Representatives; US Senate; US Department of Agriculture; Children Youth And Families; US Department of Education; National Center for Education Statistics; US Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Children and Families; Child Care Bureau; Children’s Bureau; Families and Youth Services Bureau; Head Start Bureau; Research Demonstration and Evaluation; Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Department of Health and Human Services Data Council; Girl Power; Health Care Financing Administration; Heath Resources and Services Administration; National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics; National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; Office of Health Policy; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA); Center for Mental Health Services; Youth Info; Child Welfare Information Gateway; US Department of Housing and Urban Development; US Department of Justice; Bureau of Justice Statistics; US Department of Labor; Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Bureau of Labor Statistics; US Department of Transportation/Statistics; US Environmental Protection Agency; and The White House. All of them collect and distribute information about children. There is little coordination among them about children and youth. A central depository of information and data sets would be extraordinarily helpful—and show what kinds and whether data on children and youth were collected—so that policies and programs could be developed. Child Policy Centers There are more centers dealing with child policy than one can list, but here are some main ones. How well do they coordinate and share data? In my experience, not very well. Some include: American Indian Research and Policy Institute; American Civil Liberties Union; American Youth Policy Forum; Center for Child and Family Policy; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Chapin Hall Center for Child; Child Rights Information Network; Child Trends; Child Welfare Research; Child Welfare League of America; Children’s Defense Fund; Children Now; Coalition for America’s Children; Committee for Economic Development;

23.2

Opportunities

599

Common Cause; First Focus; Future of Children; Idea Central; Information Clearinghouse in Children; Institute for Research on Poverty; National Center for Children in Poverty; National Network for Youth; National Partnership for Women and Families; Research Forum on Children, Families and the New Federation at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University; United Way; Urban Institute; Welfare to Work: McKnight Foundation; Welfare Policy Center of the Hudson Institute, to name a few. Legal Resources Regarding Children American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law; Association for Children for Enforcement of Support; Center for Law and Social Policy; Child Care Law Center; Children’s Law Center; Juvenile Justice Center; Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse; National Association of Counsel for Children; National Center for Youth Law; National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association; Southern Poverty Law Center. Others These are the tip of the iceberg of child organizations and programs. There are hundreds more in childcare, education, healthcare, recreation, social services, safety, transportation, adoption, foster care, parenting, media, camping, religion, housing, race, ethnicity, immigration, gender, sexuality, etc. Consider the numerous organizations which are dedicated to studying and reducing child traumatization. Add in groups that collect statistics, professional organizations, foundations, charities, businesses, economic organizations, civic engagement, service learning, and the numbers are likely in the thousands. Trying to organize all of these into a comprehensive system in which there is a unified narrative supporting children as rights-holders will be an arduous task. All of these groups are making contributions to bettering children’s lives. Yet there is no shared mission, no overarching governance, no shared data collection systems, competitive funding streams, and frankly no accountability or systemic evaluation. Organizations do evaluations to please a funder or some board of directors, but seldom does a community conduct a systems-wide assessment. And almost always, efforts are designed and evaluated from an adultified perspective, when perhaps inviting youth to the table would help create innovative options while training youth to become community leaders. The ironic thing is that there are all of these agencies and yet children who need care and services often can’t access them. They do without, often with huge penalties to themselves. As someone who has worked in the field for 40 years, it is clear that the structure and organization of children’s services in our country isn’t efficient or effective. Changing the narrative and framework with neither be cheap nor easy. But the nation and its children, its future, are paying the price—a price we cannot afford.

23.2.4

Embed Child Participation at All Levels

Children could be representatives and work with government and professional organizations to build the capacities towards children’s access to provisions,

600

23 Opportunities and Challenges

protections, and participations. They have valuable insight to be change-makers for communities, business and organizations (Lesko 2021). Youth can assist organizations and communities by helping conduct a children’s rights assessment, being put in place as a co-children’s rights commissioner, helping to establish a rights framework within the respective organizations or communities, organize and implement a children’s budget, organize a youth or children’s council, establish children’s impact statements, create and manage a child’s coalition, and other ideas. There suggestions have been shown to work from children’s rights efforts in Wales, Scotland, work by Freeman (2012), Couzens (2016) and others. There are countless other ways to embed a children’s human rights framework into our organizations, schools, families, cities, states, and federal government. These are just a starting point for us to begin engaging in whether, or how, to build a sustainable children’s human rights framework in the USA.

23.2.5

Ratify and Implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child

The US could ratify the CRC and then invest in its Articles to ensure the provision, protection, and participation of children. The process in doing so is as follows. The US Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls “the supreme Law of the Land.’‘The treaty would be sent to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with a review of it. A treaty is reviewed to determine whether national laws are consistent with its provisions and to consider the most appropriate means of promoting compliance with the treaty. It is then sent to the Senate, which either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s). It is important to note that the Senate does not ratify treaties, although that is a common assumption. The treaty could first be sent to the president to be signed, as the CRC was by President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, and then submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. This did not happen during the Clinton administration; the CRC was signed by never went forward. If the treaty passes the review and is approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, it will then go back to the President who can ratify it. There are two Optional Protocols to the Convention that are considered independently of the Convention. In 2002, the US ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child—one concerned the involvement of children in armed conflict (child soldiers) and the other pertained to the sale of children, child

23.2

Opportunities

601

prostitution and child pornography, known as the CRC Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, and the CRC Optional Protocol on Children Associated with Armed Forces. The ratification process for the Optional Protocols is the same as the CRC. The federal government did not need to be a party (or ratify) the CRC in order to ratify the Optimal Protocols. Once a treaty like the CRC is signed, a signature constitutes a preliminary endorsement of it, but it does not create a legally binding obligation. Rather, it demonstrates the State’s intention to examine the treaty and consider ratifying it. While signing does not commit a State to ratification, it does oblige the State to refrain from acts that would defeat or undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose. Ratification or accession signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of the Convention. In the case of ratification, the State first signs and then ratifies the treaty. The procedure for accession has only one step—it is not preceded by an act of signature. The CRC could go through review and then be sent to the Senate for confirmation. The US is stuck at this point; the CRC is signed but not ratified. So far, no president has sent the CRC to committee, although it was thought that President Obama might, but didn’t, and it is too soon to tell what President Biden will do. If it was ratified, Article 4 of the CRC states that States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.

23.2.5.1

The Phoenix Zone Alternative

The Phoenix Zone Initiative (2021) alleges that the US can ratify the CRC with or without Senate consent. The note that the US is the only country in the world with strong domestic opposition to ratification and opponents to ratifying the CRC have consistently expressed only one specific argument: the concern that the CRC would usurp the family unit and undermine the rights of parents. However, the CRC text explicitly names the family as the fundamental group of society, and speaks of the family as the natural environment for the growth and well-being of children. Under the CRC, governments must respect that parents bear primary responsibility for providing care and guidance for their children. Since implementation and enforcement of the treaty would fall completely upon US federal and state laws, civically engaged parents would have the opportunity to influence US interpretation of CRC obligations. They propose two scenarios for ratification of the CRC. One is that sixty-seven senators would need to agree to ratification. It may be difficult to get such strong bipartisan support for the CRC given historical opposition. But not all international agreements require Senate consent for ratification. In the second scenario, the President would submit ratification documents on the CRC without Senate consent. This scenario would mean that the President intends to comply with the

602

23 Opportunities and Challenges

obligations of the CRC, even without 67 senators agreeing. With other international agreements on human rights, the US has included clarifying language along with ratification stating that the US will not implement parts of the agreement until domestic law is in place. As long as the obligations of an international agreement are not inconsistent with existing legislation, the President can ratify it without Senate consent (Phoenix Zone Initiative 2021).

23.2.6

The CRC by Another Name and Form

There is a big difference between talking about children’s human rights or talking about the CRC. Highly politicized opposition to ratifying a UN international human rights treaty has torpedoed acceptance of the CRC. When I started this research over a decade ago, Howard Davidson at the American Bar Association reflected that he doubted that he would see CRC ratification in his lifetime. The same might be said for many of us. But that does not mean that a movement towards a children’s human rights framework is dead. It merely may mean transforming it. As a nation and as individuals, we could be taking actions TODAY towards the embeddedness of children’s human rights into our homes, organizations and systems. There is much that we could do. As an example, there has not been a women’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution. With over 50% of the population being female and decades of documentation illuminating women’s discrimination and oppression, it would seem to be of obvious importance to pass the ERA. A constitutional amendment would better protect women in multiple arenas of their lives if there was an official national commitment to protecting women’s rights. But even without its passage, many strides have been made to protect women, their safety, their health, and the work-lives. The same could be true for children’s human rights. While ideally having a constitutional amendment or passage of the CRC would create a governmentallyobligated commitment to protect and defend the rights of children, even if those actions didn’t occur, much could still be done to protect children and their rights. It must be remembered that the CRC ratification is not a law. Its ratification would not be equivalent to a Constitutional Amendment. The CRC is a roadmap, a blueprint, a framework that allows us to be in partnership agreement that we will all work together to build structures that protect children’s human rights. Therefore, it IS possible for the CRC to be ratified by the United States and allow it to join 1oo% of the UN member countries in defending the rights of children. US ratification of the CRC will help children in the US in countless ways. The US ranks 56th out of 196 countries in the world and worse than almost every other wealthy children in the Realization of Child Rights Index (Humanium 2021a, b), which grades countries based on how well children’s rights are defended within the nation. If the US is to be considered a leader in human rights and a defender of children, steps need to be taken to improve the lives of children and the nation’s ranking. The US domestic policies that would be required as part of implementing the CRC would

23.2

Opportunities

603

result in further benefits to children at home, including: the reduction of food insecurity, affecting over 11 million US children; reducing high rates of homelessness among children; improving resources to prevent and treat child mental health issues; ending the prosecution and incarceration of children as adults, including solitary confinement and life sentences without parole. The benefits in all aspects of provision, protection, and participation for US children would be significant if the CRC was ratified (Phoenix Zone Initiative 2021). As a world leader, the US ratification of the CRC would improve its international status and have huge impact on children across the world, especially by working with other organizations to defend child laborers, refugees and immigrants, improve child healthcare and education, and access to safe water, food, and sanitation. If the US were a Party to the CRC, it would have to report periodically to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which makes recommendations and interpretations for each country Party and this reporting requirement would provide an opportunity for the US to showcase new efforts to advance child rights (Phoenix Zone Initiative 2021). Ratifying the CRC would change the national narrative to children as rights-holders and have not just a trickle-down effect but set forth a waterfall of positive rights protections and benefits for our youngest citizens as they seek to become leaders of tomorrow.

23.2.7

The All Children Thrive National Children’s Strategy (ACT America)

A systems model that seeks to redirect the nation’s commitment to children has been introduced by UCLA under the name of All Children Thrive (ACT) (Halfon 2022). ACT America builds upon the foundations of the CRC Articles, particularly around issues of provision (healthcare, nutrition, education, caregiving, a meaningful life), protection (safe communities and families), and participation (forming positive relationships, contributing to communities, career opportunities, and economic stability. It seeks to address issues of provision, protection, participation, inclusion, and equity but does not utilize a rights-focused model. Rather, rights are softpeddled into action steps. ACT provides a set of ways the nation could invest in children and transform its child and family policies. It is comprised of five transformative strategies that are linked together in a way to optimize children’s health, development, and well-being. Individually, each of these approaches are useful but it is the combination of them in a sustainable systems approach that will yield the greatest benefits. Investments in this system are anticipated to result in a more inclusive, equitable society and strong economy that will increase social mobility intergenerationally. This cradle-to-career model is data-driven and evidence-based. It wishes to move beyond simply describing the problems and challenges that children and youth face by creating a new paradigm that focuses on implementing real, adaptive, and customizable solutions,

604

23 Opportunities and Challenges

building on individual and family strengths, and combining the best science with local community resources and support. Its five strategies include accountability, innovation, discovery, data, and finance. Briefly, to describe their strategies: Accountability refers to developing an integrated outcome framework across all units that serve children. It is driven by questions like -What is the goal, what are the methods of achieving the goal, and what are the outcomes? Because in the US, there is no person, agency, or system, and no uniform standards or measures that assure children—and their families—thrive. ACT recommends that: (a) a White House Office of Child & Youth Well-being be formed and made part of the domestic policy council with the charge of advancing policies, programs, improvement, and accountability processes that advance the health, development and well-being of all children; (b) a Children’s Cabinet and Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) becomes organized and reports to the White House Office, with representatives from each of the federal agencies to create cross-agency alignments that advance the health, development and well-being of all children; (c) the establishment of a Children’s Shared Accountability Framework (Children’s-SAFE) at the national, state, and local levels around health, safety, positive contributions, and economic well-being; (d) an independent National Children’s Commissioner that monitors and evaluates the overall ACT components; (e) require each state to provide a Blueprint for Children that provides a strategic plan for how to achieve goal-related outcomes; (f) and to disseminate a Tool Kit for the Well-being of Young People—an impact assessment framework and tools to enable units to assess the impact of programs and policies. Innovation in this model focuses on developing a National Innovation and Learning Network of cities, regions, and states to create new approaches, services, and program interventions to solve problems and support children at a local level. It is working with Cincinnati, Pasadena, Long Beach and other urban and rural places striving to enable all children to live, grow, develop, learn, and play equitably at every age so they can thrive throughout their lifespan. Discovery encourages a new approach to understanding what children need to thrive by advancing knowledge driven by academic and community-based expertise. It proposes to fix underlying problems children face in a transformative way. This is projected to launch social innovation strategies with testable prevention interventions around the issues of child health and well-being. Data is the fourth strategy of ACT, emphasizing the creation of a cradle-to-career data system in every city and county of the US. Good data is necessary to create programs and understand outcomes and this strategy is designed to unify existing data systems and create new ones when necessary to measure the long-term impact of local activities. Many current data systems render children invisible and longitudinal data on causal outcomes to children’s lives are not available. Finance is needed to establish a national success investment strategy for children in the twenty-first century. ACT notes that many well-designed and successful innovations are currently unable to spread and scale due to limited financing options, administrative restrictions, and lack of financial foresight and ingenuity. It plans to leverage a variety of government and other financing strategies to support their

23.2

Opportunities

605

initiative, as well as the creation of a Kids Progress Administration at the Department of Treasury to anchor this long-term human capital investment strategy in the nation’s long-term strategic financial planning, and to develop innovative fiscal tools and child focused investment strategies that can be advanced over several decades.

23.2.8

The Frameworks and Leading for Kids Approach

David Alexander, MD, who founded Leading For Kids, works with the Frameworks Institute to reframe how the nation is thinking about children. The FrameWorks Institute (2021) has identified several key obstacles in shifting the frame that Americans have about children being awarded human rights. The big two are: One, children are not seen as a policy priority. Adults do not view children as policy issues beyond schools and families. Parenting is the entry point for connecting children to a broader range of policies. They found that when people are asked what they think are central to children’s lives, people focus on home and school. Access to resources like housing, transportation, healthcare, social services, or wifi, aren’t viewed as child issues. Two, they found that people misunderstand what children’s well-being requires and the role of government to provide supports to them. The public holds outdated views of children’s needs and lives today and are unfamiliar with how nested, complex systems work. In thinking about what they want the public to think about children, Alexander (2019) states: All children and youth matter, and have the right to reach their full potential. Our society as a whole, not just a child’s family, has a collective responsibility to ensure that all children and youth succeed and prosper. Many children living in America today are not currently thriving and are at risk of not reaching their full potential. This doesn’t have to be the case; with appropriate attention and investment, their health and well-being can be maximized and this next generation of children can thrive and proper. Child advocates need an inclusive strategy in which each and every child and their families have the right to the programs and services they need to thrive. Achieving the goal where all children reach their full potential means making sure these services are available to all, while at the same time, creating systems and policies that provide support recognizing disparities that arise from race, geography, financial status, disability, and other factors so that every child can thrive. The voices of children and youth should be heard and need to be represented at all levels of decision-making around issues that impact them. To successfully implement these changes, local, state, and national governments need structures dedicated to advancing the interests and upholding the rights of all children and youth. They are in the midst of promoting their approach.

606

23.2.9

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Children’s Human Rights Public Health Model

A public health approach to children’s human rights makes sense; issues of provision—like healthcare, food, housing, education, transportation, etc.—are all healthcare issues. Prevention of child abuse, violence, war, bullying, are as well. Building good self-esteem and having a sense that they matter are healthcare issues too. The Centers for Disease Control make their position clear—children’s health is public health. The health of child is nested in a variety of community systems and relationships. This public health model provides an alternative approach to incorporating children’s human rights as a dominant framework. Healthcare professionals have always been sought to prevent illnesses, treat them when they occur, and to help people to rehabilitate from healthcare conditions so they can live as normal and happy a life as possible. Child public health is recognized as a specialty within public health and is defined as: (1) action at policy, organization and local level to improve the overall health of children and young people; (2) action at policy, organization and local level to reduce inequalities in the health of children and young people; and (3) advocating for the rights of children and young people. Cresswell (2004) points out that the evidence linking children’s health with the social and economic conditions is clear, and that reducing social inequalities will result in improved health of children. Poverty, poor housing, inadequate nutrition, low education, unemployment, gun availability, substance abuse, and obesity are all public health issues. Where children live, and how they live, are ecological issues that impact their lives. Children who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, is areas where they are exposed to toxic chemicals, noise pollution, exhaust from mass transportation, have impacted health conditions. Exposing children to violence, war, climate change disruptions that emerge into environmental catastrophes are preventable health factors. Public health as a model has tremendous possibility for impacting a variety of social systems. In short, the narrative around public health has shifted to become one that is synonymous with supporting children’s human rights. Child rights may not be overt in their narrative, but it is in their action. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2023) put forth a policy statement that stated ensuring optimal health for children requires a population-based approach and collaboration between pediatrics and public health. The prevention of major threats to children’s health, including behavioral health issues, chronic diseases, obesity, injury, communicable diseases, and other problems are community impacted conditions that cannot be managed solely in the pediatric office. Integrating clinical practice with public health actions is necessary for disease prevention that involve the child, family, and community. Child health priorities of the American Academy of Pediatrics are designed to engage federal, state, and local public health initiatives to improve the health of children in communities. To treat and alleviate diseases in children is an important task that demands extensive knowledge, skills and training. It forms the basis of our understanding of sick children and their needs, and its quality is a measure of the efforts of society to care for its citizens. With

23.2

Opportunities

607

the health of children, however, a much broader view must be taken, including other aspects of children’s well-being than their diseases and their medical care. To reach the goals set by international organizations and national governments for the populations’ health, policies based on public health ideas and functions must be vigorously pursued. Although these actions are valid for the whole population, there are major reasons why children should be seen as particularly important. Merging the broad aspects of health and public health functions with children’s special needs creates child public health, which aims to place the health of children and adolescents in its full social, economic and political context. It is not a new specialty; rather it is a counterbalance towards the fullness of health. Its activities—in teaching, research and service—should be practical and relevant and include knowledge and experience from many professions and sciences. With such a broad competence, child public health is fit to take on a wide range of child health issues, be it healthy public policy for children and adolescents, support for vulnerable groups, education and training or creating centres of relevance for research and surveillance of children’s and adolescents’ health. (Köhler 1998:3).

23.2.9.1

Focus on Prevention

Prevention of disorders and conditions has been proved to be very cost-effective and trauma and problem reducing (Goddell et al. 2009; World Health Organization 2014). The American Public Health Association (2021a, b, c) reports that every $1 spent on prevention saves $5.60 in health spending; every $1 spent on childhood vaccines saves $16.50 in future health care costs; and 75% of U.S. health spending is on preventable chronic conditions such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes, but only 3 cents of every $1 spent on health care goes toward public health and prevention. Child Abuse America (Gelles and Perlman 2012) report that over a million children are reported as abused or neglected each year, at a cost of over $220 million per day for treatment and associated costs, or over $80 billion per year, a decade ago—a figure that is surely much higher today. The nonpartisan Trust for states that the nation’s investment in public health, prevention and children’s services are “inadequate” with funding that has remained flat or are even below pre-2008 recession levels and is not sufficient to meet children’s short and long-term health needs. For instance, only about half of uninsured children up to age three get recommended vaccinations; in New York City alone, road modifications so children can have safer routs to school would result in a net benefit of $230 million due to injury reduction, and if schools added physical activity programs to the school day it could result in a benefit-to-cost ratio of $33:1. Increasing activity among children would have long-term reduction of chronic diseases and reduce the prevalence and consequences of obesity; the Centers for Disease Control (2021a, b) report that 19.3% of children and adolescents (14.4 million) are obese, including 13.4% of children aged 2–5, 20.3% of 6–11 year olds, with 25.6% of Hispanic children and 24.2% of non-Hispanic black children being obese. Add in the short and long-term consequences of being exposed to adverse child experiences and toxic stress (Centers for Disease Control 2021a, b), and it is clear that brain, cognitive, physical, motor, emotional, neurological, hormonal, and organ development are all adversely

608

23 Opportunities and Challenges

impacted—which could all be drastically reduced with a proportional investment in children, especially during their early years.

23.2.9.2

Pediatricians-as-Partners

Pediatricians are front-line workers who provide assessment and guidance to parents. Pediatricians and healthcare providers provide parenting education and child abuse prevention. They also work with children as they get older to educate and support them to ensure their rights, especially provision and protection, are respected. They are valuable eyes and ears to help identify children at-risk situations. In a review of children’s human rights to healthcare in the US, Ford (2017) views pediatric medicine as a three-way partnership between physicians, children, and parents. He notes that this triangle pits different stakeholders against each other when there is disagreement over what is in the best interests of the child. This is where a children’s human rights framework could help bridge differences. Pediatricians tend to use more dialogue and discourse to explore children’s lives from the children’s point of view and then work with parents to overcome adult agendas and move forward to working together in partnership on what can collectively be defined to be in the best interests of children. There will inevitably be discourse over how much information is given to the child to make an informed decision, what is the maturity of the child to make decisions and will that decision be held in accordance with that of the other stakeholders. “Unlike rights rooted in human rights treaties, the rights founded in American medical ethics do not have clearly defined legal and institutional mechanisms for rights protection”, according to Ford. Standards of care and practice in both the medical and legal fields differ from state to state, with the ultimate determination of competency and autonomy made on an individual basis within the courts. This approach conflicts with the presumed universality inherent in human rights treatise and as a result, though rights language is used in official US medical policy, it lacks the implied consistent support infrastructure of a right to health approach.

23.2.9.3

Public Health and Social Change

Physicians have long been social change agents, including Rudolph Virchow, Thomas Hodgkin, Margaret Sanger, Albert Schweitzer, Florence Nightingale, Henry Kempe, and Salvadore Allende. Healthcare professionals have been in the forefront of identifying disease and finding solutions for their prevention and treatment. The mind-body-ecological intersections are glaringly apparent and physicians have become activists for social justice as a result. Doctors rely upon science and patient care is the focus of their profession. They have led the way to curb diseases like cancer and HIV, discovered antibiotics and sterilization techniques that have saved millions of lives, identified causes of child abuse, taken a stand on climate change, gun violence, and war (Donahoe and Schiff 2014). There is nothing

23.2

Opportunities

609

in the CRC that isn’t a part of good medicine. It is possible to expand public health as child health, and child health to be synonymous with child rights. It is a different narrative than the education model, ratification model, or systems model alternatives. Because of the public’s traditional faith in doctors and the healthcare system, perhaps the healthcare narrative will be more acceptable to the public’s ability to see the value of defending children’s rights. Or, perhaps because of the chaos the COVID-19 pandemic, is faith in a public health system now tainted too?

23.2.10

Build a Children’s Human Right Education Learning-to-Action Initiative

Going back to the mantra, you can’t do what you don’t know, children’s human rights education (CHRE) is a strategy for children to learn that all people (including them) have rights, and for adults to learn how to embed rights-respecting actions into their everyday behavior. It is part of the larger social construction of reality approach that is embedded in clinical sociology. The scaffolded CHRE model starts at the beginning of a child’s life with the assumption that every child should be born welcome. This implies that not all children will be born welcome and there are necessities for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies that could result in physical or emotional abuse of a child, or its neglect. When children are born, every parent deserves to be given the skills to be a good parent throughout the life of the child. Support for children and families is thus ongoing. As shown in Fig. 23.1, measures embedded in the CRC’s Articles of how to be rights-respecting are developed at every point in the child’s life. This

Fig. 23.1 Children’s human rights education framework

610

23 Opportunities and Challenges

means that caregivers at every level, from daycare providers, elementary school teachers, high school teachers, college professors, to organizations that certify professionals all need to know about what children’s rights are and how to protect them. This is no small feat and will take some time to accomplish. As pediatrician Ray Helfer at Michigan State University told me, if we invested now in comprehensive child abuse education and charged all social institutions to be partners in that effort, it would only take one or two generations for child abuse to be eradicated. Similarly, human rights education could begin today and yield positive outcomes, if the nation makes the commitment to prioritize the importance of children and their rights to provision, protection, and participation. Rights-respecting attitudes and actions are learned, observed by children as well as adults, and then replicated. Common vernacular for this is “monkey see, monkey do”, copy-cat, or imitate. Adults model an attitude or action and children logically assume this is the correct thing for them to emulate. This is true whether we are talking about learning rights-respecting behavior or rights-violating ones. A child’s learning is impacted by priority, intensity and duration (Sutherland et al. 1992). This means that the more important children’s rights are observed, how often they are shown as relevant, and if there is a long-term support of rights-respect, the more likely it is that a comprehensive children’s human rights frame will be realized. Education about children’s human rights is important but it needs to be linked with tangible examples in order to move from rhetoric to action. If a nation commits to making children’s human rights a priority, then all institutions, units, and stakeholders must step-up to fulfill their obligations as dutybearers. Having just one unit of society responsible will be insufficient to change the narrative and societal expectations. This is why the ratification of the children’s human rights treaty has been so effective in states that have committed to it. The ratification of the CRC could become a national policy, and thus children become a national priority instead of an afterthought. But the CRC does not necessarily need to be ratified for us to have a national commitment to defending children’s rights and taking steps to ensure their provision, protection, and participation. Even if 100% of all children’s rights are not fully realized, any steps toward benefitting children would be an improvement. Each leaf will be briefly described below

23.2.10.1

Parent Education

Parent education about children’s human rights is placed at the top of the tree because of the important role-modeling they impart to children and the community. When parents show their children that they respect their rights and embody the Articles of the CRC, it gives children a demonstratable model that they can replicate in their interactions and relationships with others. A great deal of emphasis is placed on parents’ human rights education because parents are the primary teachers of children. They control most of young children’s lives and guide them as children grow older. Parent education on children’s human

23.2

Opportunities

611

rights is placed at the top of the tree because of the important role modeling they impart to children and the community. When parents show respect for children’s rights that embody the Articles of the CRC, it gives children a demonstratable model that they can replicate in their interactions and relationships with others. The movement toward children’s human rights begins with the notion that every baby that is born is welcome. This means good prenatal care. and parent education on how to care for not just children’s bodies but their hearts and minds as well. There must be an investment in early childhood, including healthcare, education, and both professional and lay caregivers who are well-trained (Breiner et al. 2016). Center on the Developing Child (2010, 2021); Shonkoff (2014); Shonkoff and Phillips (2000) and other early years studies confirm that the best investments a society can make is in caring for children and their development in the first 5 years of life. Parents do not necessarily know how to parent from a rights-respecting framework. Psychiatrist Jack Westman (2001, 2019) observes that being a parent is one of the few social roles for which one needs no credentials. People need to prove competence to get a license to drive a car, be a nurse or teacher, or even to marry—but nobody needs a license to have a child. Westman proposes the notion that parents should be licensed, or at least demonstrate competence, in order to fulfill this most important job of raising a child. Most parents replicate what they learned or experienced as children. Parents do not necessarily know how to parent from a rights-respecting framework. They simply are not taught how to do so. Parent education classes, when they exist, do not utilize a human rights perspective; they often deal with how to prevent problems or control a child’s misbehavior. Most parents replicate what they learned or experienced as children. While some parents were raised to be rights-respecting, many were not. Some adults think they know how to implement best rights-respecting practices but do not. They may confuse “their rights” with those of their children. As we have observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, some parents are not putting children’s safety as a priority—not their own children or the safety of other people’s children in the community (Hoffman 2021). What children learn at home during their formative years lay a foundation for what they can think and do later, so it is important to work with parents to treat their children in ways that address the best interests of their children particularly in areas of provision, protection and participation. Parent education on children’s human rights consists of a variety of types, over an extended period of time, using different providers and mediums, such as:

Sexual Debut, Intimacy and Childbearing Decision Information Teaching children about sex has historically been a touchy-topic and remains so even today. Children will inevitably become sexually active. Children are sensual beings and benefit from having a positive relationship with their bodies. It is a fact that sooner or later, children will inevitably become sexually active. Protecting them from the physical, emotional, and social dangers associated with sex—especially unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact—is part of a parent’s obligation. This

612

23 Opportunities and Challenges

means making children aware of their reproduction options and how to prevent pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Teaching children about sex and sexual intimacy in high school is too late; good sex education starts when children are very young and is scaffolded in a developmentally appropriate way over time. Instead of an abstinence-only approach or one that gives only a sketchy description of sexual intimacy, using a sexual debut framework is very empowering. It is useful for students of all genders. This educational approach teaches young people to have control over the who, what, where, why, and how’s of sexual exchange. A sexual debut model would reduce rape, abuse, inappropriate touching, sexually transmitted diseases, or accidental pregnancy. It could create a situation where every child could be planned. This information could be provided by K-12 schools to children, by parents, or by OBGYN and other professionals.

Prenatal Parenting Classes Often prenatal classes are focused on the biology of pregnancy and getting a woman through labor and delivery. Classes could also have components on the psychology of parenting, psychology of newborns, care and handling of babies so that parents had a better idea of what to expect and do after the baby is born. This education then stretches out before the baby is born as well as for months afterwards to support parents so they can do a good job parenting as they make the transition into this new relationship. Pregnant parents are often overwhelmed dealing with many different things simultaneously, like getting the baby’s room ready, clothes, diapers, equipment, their body and emotional changes, relationship issues, work, money, and so on. Often in the list of logistics, thinking about how to parent from a child rights perspective may not be a priority until the baby comes. It is always best to be proactive rather than reactive, and to anticipate how to create a good life for the baby and the family and prevent problems. A rights-respecting narrative will help achieve those goals.

Father/Other Partner in Prenatal Involvement Children are not property to be owned. But they have historically been seen as a father’s property and the mother’s responsibility. The narrative has changed about the role of fathers towards their greater involvement, nurturance, and care. The more active and engaged fathers or partners-to-be are in the process of “their” pregnancy, the more likely to be helpful, engaged, and less likely to be abusive or insensitive in the long-term care of their children. This is why many countries are moving towards extensive paid paternity leave. Changing the narrative from fathers feeling like they are “baby-sitting” to being active co-parents is important for children. This may require different forms of parenting education formats, materials, and supports to show men how to be rights-respecting to children instead of the traditional

23.2

Opportunities

613

authoritarian model. There is a big literature on the importance of both partners in the pregnancy and family process, from the early days of conception forward throughout the child’s life.

Couple Support Having a child changes the nature of parental relationships. Having a child requires and egg and sperm, hence a female and male. The biological father and mother may or may not be married; many partners live together, some design more casual relationships, children could be raised by grandparents or extended family members, created by surrogates, IVF, or be adopted by single parents, same-sex parents, or other relationship styles. Whenever a child enters a family there will be relationship, financial, and social adjustments. All parents need support so they can have the resources they need to parent well.

Parent Supports Parents naturally want their children to be safe, happy, and healthy. Not every parent learned good parenting techniques. Parenting can be challenging and stressful. All parents need support in order to be good, rights-respecting parents who are aimed at the best-interests of their child. Knowing who to go to for help, either on the formal or informal levels, are important. Making sure parents have a list of go-to resources or places they can go for information, help or support, and access to interpersonal, online resources, and community organizations is important. We must remember that children learn from what they observe and experience, making parent and adult role modeling of rights-respecting actions and words of utmost importance. This means having the skills to model rights-respecting behavior and words. Parents need information, resources, classes, and support about best practices for dealing with targeted issues, like how to handle children’s misbehavior, handling stress, parentdisagreements, finding good child care providers, dealing with child sexuality, substance use, peers, going out with friends, driving, college or career planning, camps, etc. Sometimes family and friends are close by and are good resources for parents. There are community resources that all parents and children benefit from. Knowing who to go to for help, either on the formal or informal levels, are important. Parent and child needs change as they go from babyhood through young adulthood. At every juncture, parents will be confronted with new challenges that they may not know how best to handle. Having contact with experts who can advise them on best practices as a child transitions into school, peer pressures, sex, social life, exposure to substances, social media, or other things will help parents to make better choices on how to address them for the child’s best interests. Make sure parents have a list of go-to resources or places they can go for information, help or support. This means access to interpersonal, online resources, and community organizations. It also

614

23 Opportunities and Challenges

implies that communities have created an extensive network of a variety of parental supports that are easily available and accessible for all parents of all ages and situations.

Parent Liaisons Parent Visitors, or other para-professionals who are trained to go into the home and provide one-to-one mentoring and information to new parents, are useful for most new parents. They can make recommendations for improvements, and to assess potential neglect or abuse and put into place safeguards to defend children’s rights to provision and protection. Communities and agencies can provide them to create an extensive network parental supports that are easily available, affordable, and accessible for all parents of all ages and situations.

Online or Face-to-Face Classes Innovative and creative ways to provide education and support to parents are important. One project gave parents vouchers to do their laundry free at the laundromat at a certain time when they could receive parenting and childcare information and network with other parents in their community. Other models do similar things at barber shops or beauty parlors. Finding out the best ways to help children and their parents is a community benefit, but also a community responsibility. There are different issues and challenges at every stage that may require new skills for how to address in a rights-respecting way: including newborns and babies, toddlers, preschoolers, primary schoolers, puberty, tweens, adolescents, teens, young adult.

An Example of National Commitment to Baby-Rights The government of Finland decided to embed children’s rights from the moment babies are born. They are to be provided essentials needed for their survival and development. Thus, every child born is welcomed with a gift, known as the baby box. Finland had high infant mortality rates and took national action to combat it. In a creative move, every baby that is born is given its first welcome gift by the government—a box containing winter and summer clothes, sleepwear, books and toys, blankets, a mattress, educational and contraception materials for parents, all that come in a box that can be used as a sleep-space for babies. It has dramatically reduced infant deaths. Its success is not due just to the box—the box is emblematic of the nation’s broader commitment to support children and their families (BBC 2017). Entrepreneurs in the US now sell baby-boxes, capturing the desirability of the Finland boxes, but these are not free, they cost money that parents can purchase, and have not resulted in a lower infant mortality rate in the US because there is no overarching national systemic commitment in other areas of children’s lives. It’s not

23.2

Opportunities

615

the box—it’s the social system and supporting parents to support children and their rights that makes the difference. We must remember that children learn from what they observe and experience, making parent and adult role modeling of rights-respecting actions and words of utmost importance. This means having the skills to model rights-respecting behavior and words. Parents need information, resources, classes, or support about best practices for dealing with targeted issues, such as how to handle children’s misbehavior, handling stress, parent-disagreements, finding good child care providers, dealing with child sexuality, substance use, peers, going out with friends, driving, college or career planning, camps, etc. The above provides a brief overview of a few of the different types of parent education that could be provided by many different individuals or organizations.

23.2.10.2

Caregiver CHRE

Children will be cared for by people other than their parents. These carers could be grandparents, siblings, extended family members or family friends. These individuals may not be paid and may be expected to care for children because they are family. Carers could also be paid and include babysitters in the home or providers in their own homes or in daycare or preschool facilities. Carers could be nannies or au pairs who live in the house with the children and family. It is unlikely that any early childcare providers will have formal instruction in CHRE. However, if a children’s human rights framework was instituted, then all childcare professionals would be required to have training in the care of children. If family and friends were caregivers, and if they had been given CHRE instruction in school, it would increase the safety standards for children. Caregivers for young children vary significantly with their educational background and expertise. In the US, most states require childcare workers to have a high school diploma or equivalent, but some states do not. Many states require providers to complete some training in childcare before starting work, but not all require it. When carers are employed by organizations or centers, they may, or may not, be required to complete a minimum number of training hours annually. Childcare providers may, or may not, be licensed and certified by the state. Childcare providers could have a college degree and professional certifications. Caregivers in every state are “supposed” to be licensed or certified to prove they are competent and qualified to provide good and safe care to children. This does not always happen, and it does automatically ensure that children will receive quality care. Licensing does not guarantee quality but establishes minimum requirements to ensure that programs are monitored for compliance with these requirements. Licensing regulations focus on child-staff ratio, supervision, building safety, measures to limit disease spread, appropriate care of children, but may not focus on child rights per se. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is one professional membership organization promoting high-quality early learning for children birth through age 8, by connecting early childhood practice, policy, and research. NAEYC

616

23 Opportunities and Challenges

has 60,000 members committed to delivering on the promise of high-quality early learning. Most states allow providers like relatives or babysitters to be exempt from licensing laws. The average hourly rate for childcare workers is only ten dollars an hour, or around $22,000 annually. This low wage reflects the low priority we hold for children. The number of childcare centers fell during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not recovered. The low pay, long hours, and heavy physical and emotional stamina needed to be a good caregiver has resulted in many individuals choosing other professions. What exactly goes on when children are in the care of other people is largely undocumented, especially in less format settings (Dexheimer 2018). Most caregivers have not received direct training in children’s human rights, and their training in child care varies significantly. There are few monitoring organizations that provide the assurance that would be beneficial in ensuring all children have their rights defended, but this could happen if communities and organizations were committed to doing so. Childcare in the US is caveat-emptor—let the buyer beware!

23.2.10.3

K-12 CHRE

HRE and CHRE are not required in public or private schools as part of their curriculum or student-school interaction processes. While the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) announces that “Human rights education has a clear and present role within contemporary national social studies education”, it has no authority to mandate the teaching of human rights. Most teachers receive no training on how to teach human rights, and schools avoid the concept directly but may try to soft-peddle human rights indirectly (Alter and Fernekes 2022; Vissing 2021a, b). The NCSS created a position statement in 2014 that HRE was a necessity for social and civic learning from early childhood through advanced education and lifelong learning. Today, as the challenges to human rights and democracy have proliferated across the globe and domestically, we renew and expand that commitment, highlighting the need for education not only about human rights, but through human rights and for human rights. To equip ourselves and our students to meet our responsibilities and to fulfill the promise of human rights, the National Council for the Social Studies calls for a comprehensive commitment and a coordinated plan of action to (1) recognize the importance of human rights education; (2) integrate human rights education into social studies curricula, schoolwide policies, and classroom practices; (3) develop impactful human rights educators; (4) foster youth engagement and voice; and (5) infuse human rights education into local, state, and national policies (NCSS 2023).

In 2016 42 of the US states had referenced human rights in their social studies curriculum standards. It is also referenced in the C3 Framework and in the NCSS National Standards for the Preparation of Social Studies Teachers (NCSS 2023). Its recommendations for effective implementation of human rights education through five guiding tenets: (1) Recognizing the importance of HRE; (2) Integrating human

23.2

Opportunities

617

rights education into social studies curricula, schoolwide policies, and classroom practices; (3) Developing the impactful human rights educator; (4) Fostering youth engagement and voice; and (5) Infusing HRE into local, state, and national policies. NCSS members, educators, teacher education programs, policymakers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to use these recommendations to assist in the development and sustainability of HRE practices and programs within their respective settings. Despite these flowery statements, human rights education has not been seeded into most schools or disciplines beyond social studies in K-12 schools. Even within social studies, human rights in general, and children’s human rights in particular, are seldom direct topics covered in schools. The fact is, HRE could be integrated in every level class and in every topic, if children’s human rights were considered a priority (Vissing et al. 2020, 2021a, b). When children are very young they may learn rights-respect through observation, particularly in how their caregivers treat them and how children are expected to treat each other. Simple “be nice” messages that reinforce kindness, nonviolence, sharing, caring, and the fun that results are positive ways to start teaching children the benefits of human rights. Moving through the HRE model, preschool, primary then secondary schools are major institutions for instructing children’s about how to treat others, and about what human rights are and how to use them. As children age into elementary, middle and then high school, more detailed information on human rights can be provided. These can include learning about treaties, different human rights events throughout history and through the current day. Human rights themes can be incorporated into every class at every level, not just in social studies courses. Math classes can use examples demonstrating financial justice; science can be taught with an eye on environmental rights; literature can explore rights from a variety of ways; leaning how to be good team-members can be incorporated into sport and fitness classes. The are many resources already available for free that teachers can use to create entire courses, units, modules, lessons, assignments, and examples that showcase human rights for children and for others.1, 2, 3 Once children learn the skeleton of what human rights are conceptually, then more and detailed information can be built upon it so by the time they graduate, they will have learned material that will help them to be more rights-respecting in their interpersonal relationships as well as whatever profession they go into.

1

Human Rights Educators USA https://hreusa.org/ Training 4 Excellence http://training4excellence.com/?course=child-rights and http:// training4excellence.com/?course=human-rights-overview 3 Amnesty International https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/education/2016/06/six-free-onlinecourses-to-learn-more-about-human-rights/ 2

618

23.2.10.4

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Higher Education CHRE

There are few human rights programs at either the undergraduate or graduate levels within higher education in the US, although they are starting to slowly emerge. Human rights classes are typically taught in departments such as political science or law. Many universities have started requiring classes to address diversity respect, but they are not necessarily utilizing a human rights framework. Children’s human rights are almost never taught per se, even in child studies programs. There may be components of how people are to treat children, such as in social work, psychology, criminal justice, or health care, but these are often linked to professional ethics and legal standards and not from a child rights respecting framework. This is unlike many of the children’s human rights programs that exist around the world, particularly in the UK and EU. Those international programs are highly refined and have developed a strong framework for teaching students about the pedagogy and practice of children’s human rights. We must remember that the Academy has divided children’s lives into components that different disciplines study and there are no totally integrated child academic programs that exist. The result of this academic fragmentation is turning out students who become professionals who are also fragmented in their view, who go on to work within organizations that focus only on certain parts of children’s lives. Thus, the higher education piece is of utmost importance in my mind to be addressed in a children’s human rights movement. Organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), HRE USA, and University and College Consortium for Human Rights Education (UCCHRE) be brought in as partners to help create a Higher Education Human Rights Education Action Plan.

23.2.10.5

Professional CHRE

All professionals could receive training in human rights if it was deemed a priority. This could reduce the number of professional violations of children, clients, or other staff members. Few organizations require human rights training, much less child rights education. Jobs and employers impact parents and if they have child rights-respecting policies in place for their employees. Parents may be given paid time off for maternity and paternity leaves, childcare, workable schedules, healthcare, benefits, vacation and discretionary time, education support and the like. When young people themselves become workers, the role of employers and career trajectories become important so young people can make contributions that also make them happy and reward them with decent wages. When students graduate from colleges they may be competent in certain skill areas but it is unlikely that they will have a complete view of what human rights are or how to best watch out for protecting them in children. Some organizations require certain proof of educational requirements before staff are hired; others do train at the

23.2

Opportunities

619

organization site (in-person or online). Some rely upon professional certification organizations to accredit individual professionals to prove that they are competent in certain areas. Few of these occur within professional organizations. Occupations tend to be specific within organizations that serve only segments of a child’s life. Some organizations require staff have additional training and provide it to their workers while some do not. In my research, few provide training on children’s human rights policy or practice or include children’s best interests as part of their decision-making and strategic planning. It is recommended that all NGO, nonprofit, faith organizations, businesses, and others provide training to their employees and volunteers on: (a) child rights; (b) issues of provision; (c) issues of protection; and (d) how administrators will manage their organizations and staff to ensure compliance with both legal and treaty compliance to child rights. Some professions require certifications to ensure that people representing that profession meet a standard level of skill. Standards necessary for compliance to certification may be obtained through higher education programs or through other types of programs (to be identified or developed). Working with (a) professional certification systems and (b) specific organizations to ensure they require human rights training for their members would move a children’s human rights framework forward. Businesses have used children are lucrative markets and have not always had their best interests at heart. Holding businesses accountable for children’s human rights violations, whether in labor, manufacturing, commercialization, depiction, and product sales are another important outcome of engaging these industries as partners defending children’s human rights. Professions could create a charter or pledge to support children’s human rights for all workers in that profession. They could require credentials in the training of children’s human rights, courses, knowledge, and skills which show that people certified in that field understand what children’s human rights are and are committed to their implementation. This could be done in professions such as healthcare, education, criminal justice, daycare, recreation, or social services. Organizations could express specific reference to their commitment of a children’s human rights framework or endorsement of the CRC in all significant policy statements and other documents setting out the organization’s commitment to children’s human rights in their philosophy, structure, and practice. Organizations (including education, healthcare, criminal justice, social services, and others) could prioritize protecting children’s rights in their strategic plan, organizational structure, training of employees and volunteers, interaction with children, families, and the community. Organizations can create avenues for young people to participate in schools, organizations, community groups, government, and other groups. Their participation is a key component of a children’s human rights framework. They could benefit from conducting baseline assessments, engaging in both process and outcome evaluations, having staff supervision and monitoring, identifying key performance indicators, developing a best practices human rights model, and regularly reporting of challenges and benefits. Transparency is key in order to move a children’s human rights framework forward.

620

23 Opportunities and Challenges

The profession most likely to be trained in human rights education are pediatricians. Most have acquired parenting education and child abuse assessment tools of what to look for and how to support parents in their child rearing tasks are important contributions to a children’s human rights framework. Pediatricians are front-line workers who help provide rights-respecting information and guidance to parents. They also work with children as they get older to teach them about their rights to be respected, especially when it comes to provision and protection. It is recommended that all NGO, nonprofit, faith organizations, businesses, and others provide training to their employees and volunteers on: (a) child rights; (b) issues of provision; (c) issues of protection; and (d) how administrators will manage their organizations and staff to ensure compliance with both legal and treaty compliance to child rights. Some professions require certifications to ensure that people representing that profession meet a standard level of skill. Standards necessary for compliance to certification may be obtained through higher education programs or through other types of programs (to be identified or developed). Working with (a) professional certification systems and (b) specific organizations to ensure they require human rights training for their members would move a children’s human rights framework forward.

23.2.10.6

Government and Community Leadership CHRE

Government and organizational leaders are in the position of being duty-bearers who show their commitment to children’s human rights. The CRC provides a framework in which government leaders are to showcase how to involve children and to promote their best interests when making decisions. Most don’t do this. We can assume that they don’t know how to do it, so education about what it means to have a children’s human rights framework would be essential. Government and organizational leaders are in the position of being duty-bearers who show their commitment to children’s human rights. The CRC holds government leaders as child rights dutybearers and that all government officials should consider the best interests of the child when making any decision. Most state and local governments have services for children and youth but lack a coordinated children’s ombudsman, commission, agency, or bureau that integrates all of their child-oriented services. Most communities have not committed to being a Child Friendly City (UNICEF 2021a, b) or developed a children’s rights profile. Data on children are not collected because services are not designed to focus on them, but a children’s rights emphasis would empower agencies to collect child data in order to better identify their needs and serve them. We can assume that they don’t know what children’s human rights are, so education about what it means to have a children’s human rights framework would be essential. Training at the community and state level to government leaders, in person or virtually, would be important for everyone from the mayor to police, firefighters, administrative and secretarial staff, road and park workers, recreation programs, etc. If leaders knew what children’s human rights were and the benefits a

23.2

Opportunities

621

child rights framework could yield, they may be more inclined to fund, support, and implement them at the community level.

23.2.10.7

Media CHRE

Media is a huge topic for a CHRE initiative. Media and communication about children shape both young and old minds, as well as books, music, film, and other platforms that send forth messages about the value of children, their rights, and how they are to be treated and treat others. Television, radio, film, social media, and other electronic platforms garner huge audiences. Media representatives are in a powerful position to influence hearts and minds as well as cover news stories. Television news reporters, newspaper journalists, radio DJ’s and broadcasters, pods and blogs architects are all in a pivotal position to promote an alternative narrative about children than the one that is currently provided. While some of these units have instituted some degree of child security and access, children are still objectified, commodified, demeaned, and not afforded authentic agency. Recasting children and youth from a rights-respecting framework would be pivotal in promoting an alternative narrative about children than the one that is currently provided. In building a children’s human rights social movement, having media educated on the plethora of child issues and way to talk about them would be essential in shifting the public’s understanding of its importance. Organizations like Facebook and others could have a much more very stringent children’s human rights policy and what is covered, and how it is covered. Media is a major socializing agent for people in society. At the end of this scaffolded model is the family composition stage, where it is hypothesized that well-adjusted children will grow up to be better-adjusted adults who can build good jobs, healthy relationships and families of their own that are rights-respecting. In these ways, the world can be transformed for the better. The CHRE model identifies individual institutions and organizations that could be mobilized within a comprehensive human rights Learning-to-Action Initiative. While individual units could coordinate the CHRE on their own, in order to build a national initiative, there would need to be a central monitoring and oversight body constructed. This could be at community and state levels, with data fed into a central national body constructed through a national reorganization of children’s programs. If all of these different “leaves” of our CHRE were instituted, it could create a watershed event in shifting the narrative of how children are perceived and treated. If only some segments or leaves were activated to be child rights friendly, it would help strengthen that component. But remembering the human rights are indivisible, and looking at them from an open systems perspective, it is clear that a unified approach would yield far more significant results benefitting children than yet another piecemeal approach. If we have learned nothing else, it is that fragmented approaches may help a little, but by design, they cannot be overwhelmingly successful in being social change agents.

622

23.2.11

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Scaffolding Children’s Human Rights Education and Action

Rights-respecting attitudes and actions are learned, observed by children as well as adults. The learning is impacted by priority, intensity and duration (Sutherland et al. 1992). This means that the more importantly children’s rights are contextualized, how often they are discussed as relevant, and when there is a systematic representation of children having rights in a community, the more likely it is that a comprehensive children’s human rights frame will be realized and accepted. This shifting of a narrative cannot occur overnight, but can be achieved through a systematic approach. Figure 23.2, proposes that if we want to create a children’s human rights framework, it is insufficient to provide education about human rights just to one age group of people at one time, like a class of high school students. In order to create a children’s human rights frame, there needs to be an understanding of what the underpinnings of children’s human rights are, a change in the ideological narrative that is shared about what children are and how they are to be treated, and then a willingness to embed the processes of children’s rights into institutions. In 1–2 generations, a dominant framework embracing the importance of caring for children and meeting their needs could occur. At that point there would likely be demonstrable data outcomes that proved whether indeed a move towards children’s rights did improve children’s health, education, sociability, productivity, and humanity, the way it has in countries which have made a commitment to children’s human rights. Rights-respecting education could be incorporated into every class at every level. The human rights education (HRE) is scaffolded in order to help children acquire skills at their developmentally appropriate ages. For instance, preschoolers could learn skills associated with “being nice” to each other; older students can learn not to be bullies and to embrace positive behaviors and socio-emotional skills. Elementary schoolers could gain a broader appreciation of difference, especially around gender, race, or religion. History classes can incorporate learning about what human rights treaties are and why they were developed. English classes can examine stories from culturally diverse points of view. Math classes can examine data on differences in income by different groups of people; geography and science classes can look at

Primary school embedded CHRE

Parent care lays foundaon

Secondary school CHRE via modules & service learning

Preschooler CHRE thru observaon

Fig. 23.2 Children’s human rights education lifespan approach

Higher educaon CHRE specific course & embedded in all courses

Professional & employee CHRE training

23.3

Challenges

623

climate change and how it impacts different groups. In college, criminal justice, nursing, social work, or education majors can learn about how to better be rightsrespecting in their respective fields. On a lay level, most adults have never received a comprehensive parenting class; they rely upon what they learned when they were children or what they learn from their social networks. Being a parent is one of the toughest but most important jobs a parent can have, yet most of us are initially ill-equipped to do a stellar job at it. Pregnancy classes teach expectant parents on how to birth their baby, but most provide little information on what to do with their children once they arrive to ensure they have rights outlined in children’s human rights documents. Education about children’s human rights is important but it needs to be linked with action steps in order to move from rhetoric to action. In Fig. 23.3 it is shown that movement towards children’s human rights begins with the notion that every baby that is born is welcome. This means good prenatal care and parent education on how to care for not just children’s bodies but their hearts and minds as well. There must be an investment in early childhood, including healthcare, education, and both professional and lay caregivers who are well-trained. The Harvard and other early years studies confirm that one of the best investments a society can make is in caring for children and their development in the first 5 years of life. Moving through the model in Fig. 23.3, primary then secondary schools become the major foci for children’s human rights education, role-modeling, and training. The importance of media and communication about children shapes both young and old minds, as well as books, music, film, and other platforms that send forth messages about the value of children, their rights, and how they are to be treated and treat others. Jobs and employers impact parents and if they have child rights-respecting policies, parents will have time for maternity and paternity leaves, childcare, workable schedules, healthcare, benefits, vacation and discretionary time, education support and the like. When young people themselves become workers, the role of employers and career trajectories become important so young people can make contributions that also make them happy and reward them with decent wages. At the end of the model in 23.3 is the family composition stage, where it is hypothesized that well-adjusted children will grow up to be better-adjusted adults who can build good jobs, healthy relationships and families of their own. In these ways, the world can be transformed for the better.

23.3

Challenges

Despite the advancement of children’s rights there remains an underlying disagreement about whether children have, or should have, rights. Whether adults have the willpower to bring children’s rights from the realm of a slogan into reality is questionable (Cowden 2016). There will be disagreement even between people who are like-minded with their interest in defending children’s human rights. Even some scholars in the field miss the point—they continue to refer to children as future

624

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Fig. 23.3 Scaffolding children’s human rights actions

citizens while they are advocating for them instead of seeing them as having citizenship rights here and now (Joireman 2018). The benefits to acknowledging that children have human rights may seem obvious to the rest of the world and many in the US—but not to everyone. A Time Magazine article, “America refuses to adopt U.N. guidelines that it helped draft more than 20 years ago. Are we still in the dark ages?” poses a relevant question for us to consider (Cohen 2012). It must be acknowledged that some nations have implemented the CRC better than others; some nations may have ratified the treaty to avoid the appearance of being unconcerned about children. There has been criticism of the CRC when it has been ratified by some nations that allow for rights-violations of children, including hunger, poverty, abuse, and exposure to violence. An

23.3

Challenges

625

argument is that if the CRC doesn’t ensure the protection of children’s rights, then why ratify it? This fails to consider that the CRC is a guideline for governments that can lead to the betterment of children’s lives. There are no penalties for noncompliance. Rothschild (2017) observes that children’s human rights will continue to be opposed by certain religious and political factions, not because they object to most of what the CRC stands for, but because it threatens a few of their central views. Some of these contentious issues concern rights of same-sex parents, whether teens can access to reproductive-health services, use of parental use of corporal punishment, educational issues, whether children have a right to decide if they want to get a vaccine or wear a mask to keep themselves safe, or what constitutes children’s mental health. She finds that opponents don’t see a need for such a treaty like the CRC because they believe that children in the U.S. enjoy a good standard of living regardless of ratification of this treaty. Opponents are either unaware of the data showing how precarious American children’s lives are today, or they choose to deny its validity. The Frameworks Institute (L’Hote and Volmert 2019) has identified several key obstacles in shifting the frame that Americans have about children being awarded human rights. The big two are: One, children are not seen as a policy priority. Adults don’t view children as policy issues beyond schools and families. Parenting is the entry point for connecting children to a broader range of policies. They found that when people are asked what they think are central to children’s lives, people focus on home and school. Access to resources like housing, transportation, healthcare, social services, or wifi, aren’t viewed as child issues. Two, they found that people misunderstand what children’s well-being requires and the role of government to provide supports to them. The public holds outdated views of children’s needs and lives today. People are unfamiliar with how nested, complex systems work. We may be out of touch with how best to care for children in today’s world. Our lack of understanding of the complexity of children’s development, and how social systems produce certain outcomes are important things to consider if we are to change the way we view children and their rights. It is clear that we know what children need in order to thrive—food, education, housing, supports, transportation, etc. Insufficient data is not the problem. The problem is the transfer of this knowledge into everyday policies and practices that every child can access every day. The “children are our future” rhetoric doesn’t transfer into tangible practices to support them to achieve the best possible futures and secure the best possible dreams. Other criticisms have been that the CRC is outdated, doesn’t address all the issues that confront societies and that there are loopholes (Kaime 2011; Reynaert et al. 2015). The construction of the CRC was a challenging process that took a decade, from 1978 to 1989, to emerge. There was disagreement on what human rights were, the degree to which cultural, civil, and political rights were to be included, and differences in an East vs West perspective—a point that has become more salient from arguments by the Global South (Quennerstedt et al. 2018; Wells 2015). The specific details contained in the CRC are guidelines; there may be debate over each

626

23 Opportunities and Challenges

one or the need to add others, but the CRC’s strength is that it has created a tool for international consensus over recognizing the idea of children’s rights as a priority (Freeman 2000, 2012; Tobin 2013). The fact that the US hasn’t officially recognized the idea of children having rights is a major concern. So where are some points where the CRC could be updated so that the nation could get behind the prioritization of children’s human rights?

23.3.1

Updating the CRC

The CRC became an official international treaty in 1989 and like all guiding documents written throughout history, such as the Constitution, the CRC could not have anticipated all the changes that would become relevant in children’s lives. Instead of rejecting the CRC because there are some gaps that it did not cover, it is possible to update and revise the children’s human rights treaty to cover newer areas of concern. Vandenhole (2019) has analyzed the CRC in detail and finds that there are areas where the treaty needs to be updated. In Article 45 paragraph C of the CRC, it speaks to the need to deal with new problems or developments which are not covered by the Convention. Social developments and transformations at the family, community, national, and global levels require a periodic need to reinterpret the provisions of the CRC and its Protocols. He finds that the CRC is a living treaty that is designed to accommodate the growing accent on children’s agency and the need to facilitate that agency politically, socially, economically and legally. Its attention to the evolving capacities of the child, their autonomy and agency are important to support. The CRC’s attention to the principles of equality and non-discrimination, respect for diversity and importance of inclusion, are designed to protect all children, with special attention to those who are marginalized or disenfranchised because of their class, gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. The CRC and its Optional Protocols as instruments allow the reevaluation of how a society creates the social and legal spaces for children to claim their place and rights. For instance, social media has changed the lives of children for better and for worse; the internet was around but Facebook didn’t start until 2004, YouTube in 2005, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. With the rise of digital learning, commerce, and social interactions online, young people’s data are being sold and used in ways that neither youth nor their parents know about or give consent to. Young people are targeted by edupreneurs and edu-businesses whose primary goal is making money, not providing high quality education to all children. Economic exploitation in general has become an issue as children are increasingly easy, lucrative targets. Global warming and climate change have been occurring for decades but when teenager Greta Thunberg started her protest outside of Sweden’s Parliament in 2018 she triggered a concern by youth around the globe. Gun control became a social movement by young people in the US after mass shootings, particularly at schools like Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, Columbine

23.3

Challenges

627

High School in Colorado, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Racial inequality became more of a visible issue after the George Floyd murder and the Black Lives Matter movement, while police treatment of children has become a national concern. Sexual abuse was highlighted in the Me-Too movement. Gender fluidity and gender orientations were not much discussed in 1989, but today there is increased awareness of LTBTQ+ individuals and their need for protection and rights. Reproductive rights are becoming more center-stage due to the Supreme Court revocation of women’s access to birth control and reproduction decisions. The right of young people to make their own health decisions has become a national issue due to the coronavirus, especially around getting vaccines and wearing masks. The Brittany Spears custodial issue of 2021 highlights the bigger issue of whether children have property rights (Joireman 2018). Whether the controversial Critical Race Theory is relevant in today’s world where increasing numbers of children are mixed-race, and the move to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day, highlights interest in diversity. Immigration rights, highlighted by the DACA legislation, or treatment of refugee children as seen by their separation from family at the US-Mexico border, has brought our attention to the treatment of children coming to America to build a better life. The voting age has long been a topic of discussion, by communities around the country have lowered the voting age to 16, and organizations like NYRA point out that young people who are employed pay taxes and not being able to vote is a form of taxation without representation. Demographers like Stone (2021) allege that the voting age should be zero, for all human beings should be afforded the same right to register their opinions. The CRC as it currently stands provides a useful framework for identifying key areas where children need to have their rights protected. It is not a perfect document. There are revisions that need to be considered in the movement towards children being awarded human rights. Even a GPS (which like the CRC was also developed in 1989) requires regular updates to meet the times and conditions. Children’s human rights additions to the CRC will certainly involve public debate, government legislation, ideological, political, and pragmatic policy and practical considerations. Perhaps it is time for another new paradigm again for understanding children’s lives (Prout and James 1997). Without restructuring of current political, legal and economic conditions, the lives of children will not fundamentally change (Cowden 2016). Inequality will inevitably increase, with the haves seeing that things are just fine while the have-nots experience even more poverty, misery, famine, and challenges (Verrman 2000). In revising issues to be focused upon more from a children’s human rights framework, consider this partial list of youth rights issues that have not been adequately addressed in the CRC but could be in an updated version (in alphabetic order). There are more and other items that could be included in an updated child rights treaty: Climate and environmental rights Gun control rights Economic exploitation protection rights

628

23 Opportunities and Challenges

Equity and equality rights Health rights Immigration, refugee, and asylum-seeking rights Inclusion and diversity rights LGBTQ+ rights Mental health rights Police protection rights Privacy rights Property rights Reproductive rights Social Media and internet/computer rights Social problems Voting rights Certainly, the original authors of the CRC would see the need for ongoing updates to the treaty. The articles were written the same year the World Wide Web was born, before climate change entered mainstream consciousness, while robots and automation were still the stuff of science fiction. The convention must evolve to protect emerging rights (Kielburger 2021). But who will take the lead in updating it? What processes will be used to decide how the new treaty Articles should be presented? It took many years to develop the CRC, so one can expect it will take some years for it to be revised. It seems possible to construct a meaningful and powerful children’s human rights framework without it being ratified. The big value of the CRC treaty ratification is not just in the provision, protection and participation articles; its main importance is that it becomes a national framework that every unit in society can unite around, and one in which duty-bearers are held responsible for ensuring that children’s rights are protected. If we start with the assumption that adults care about children and want what is best for them, and if we assume that the CRC has value in its emphasis (even if we may disagree over some of its minor points), a challenge is how to revise and update the CRC. How can it be transformed so that it better addresses needs of contemporary society and overcomes some of the obstacles from those who oppose it.

23.3.2

Lack of National Support for International Human Rights Treaties

The fact that the US hasn’t ratified the CRC should come as no surprise; the United States has not endorsed the majority of international human rights treaties (Minnesota Human Rights Library 2022). Domestic adoption of international law, and human rights treaties in particular, often face stiff opposition within the United States (Lee 2017). Ratifying a treaty requires two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of ratification, which has been difficult to obtain. Attorney Jonathan Todres

23.3

Challenges

629

(2006), in his 2006 book on Analyzing the Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, notes that there is a general reluctance in the United States to ratify any international human rights treaties. This hostility to adopting international law is generally described as “American Exceptionalism,” or the belief that the United States is somehow unique and should not be bound to international obligations. Roth (2000) states that on the rare occasions when the US government has ratified a human rights treaty it has done so in a way designed to preclude the treaty from having any domestic effect. While the government has espoused support for human rights, it has consistently chosen its national and economic interests over them (Barnett 2012).

23.3.3

Federalism and Sovereignty

Issues of federalism, sovereignty and states-rights complicate willingness of the nation to endorse a comprehensive children’s rights doctrine. It is argued that the ratification of CRC would limit the US sovereignty. The US law is designed to give states the right to make their own laws, so a national commitment to the CRC is perceived to diminish state power and increase the potential influence of international forces. But no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution, as put forth in the landmark 1957 Supreme Court ruling in Reid v. Covert. ParentalRights.org is a major group campaigning against ratification of child rights and its president, constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, who is a constitutional lawyer, argues that ratification of the CRC threatens parental rights and thus denial of the CRC is in accord with the constitution that gives exclusive authority for the creation of law and policy on issues about families and children to state governments (Galvin 2020). But the Constitution says no such thing; it does not state that parents have greater rights than those of children.

23.3.4 Targeted Systems US caregiving systems are designed to cut a child into pieces where different institutions and organizations are designated to meet their needs. Trying to embed a system that defends the rights of children in all of these systems will be challenging as a result. Despite good intentions for “wrap around services”, organizations continue to exist in silos. A child or family may find themselves completing application materials in many different organizations that have different qualification criteria. Almost always, children are dependent upon adults to make their case for receiving aid. Trying to understand children’s human rights in the USA is like piecing together a patchwork quilt that consists of different fabrics, shapes, and sizes; it is challenging to fit together different laws, cultures, traditions, ideologies, expectations, politics,

630

23 Opportunities and Challenges

economics, emotions and social factors aplenty into an inclusive pattern. This fragmentation fuels debate over the degree to which whether children’s human rights are realized. Targeted systems are designed to keep people out rather than let people in. A solution for this would be implementation of universal programs for key childrelated services, including daycare, physical healthcare, mental healthcare, education, and more. But this does not currently exist, which makes integration of comprehensive rights for all children illusive at best.

23.3.5

Systems Are Not Designed to Deal with Unaccompanied Children

It must be remembered that there are children who do not have parents or guardians who will advocate for their rights. There have always been children who existed without parental oversight, who lived more or less independently and were resilient enough to survive without adult intervention. They can be found during times of war, economic distress, family crisis, or other troubles. The experience of children being forced to make it on their own was so common that throughout US history it was captured by Gertrude Chandler Warner (1924) in her early twentieth century book, The Boxcar Children. Orphaned children took care of themselves and each other, who managed to find shelter, food, and create a lifestyle without adult oversight. Many still do. Today such children would be regarded as homeless, put into foster care, into detainment facilities or other institutions. There are immigrant children, refugees, and asylum seekers who may be traveling into the US without parents or guardians. State intervention may assume control over them. But how well these children’s rights are addressed is variable. Without parents or guardians who can advocate for their children, unaccompanied youth may fall through the cracks. This is an important population of children whose needs and rights may be ignored or downplayed, yet whose rights are as important as any other child’s rights (Vissing and Leitao 2021; Vissing 2021a, b).

23.3.6

Child Maturity Concerns

A common argument against children being awarded rights is that they are too immature to handle them. This point is where the misunderstanding of children as rights-holders becomes most apparent. The CRC is clear that children’s developmental capacities are always considered. A 4-year-old would not be capable of driving a Ford Mustang; marriage for a 10-year-old would not allow the child to grow into their own personhood. Children need to be protected from a variety of harms and it is the parent and state’s responsibility to do so. A 6-year-old may not be

23.3

Challenges

631

developmentally able to understand issues to vote for the president, but a 6-year-old will have opinions that respectfully need to be heard. It is curious that people with dementia or cognitive challenges have rights even though their capacity may be limited. A human rights perspective gives rights to everyone, regardless of their age or ability, merely because they are human. Developmental capacity is always a consideration for participation, their ability to provide for themselves, and their need for protection.

23.3.7

Parental Fears

One of the biggest challenges to children being regarded as rights-holders is the misperceived threat to parents. This is where the child-as-property or object becomes most pronounced as a wedge to them being given rights. If children are given rights, then it is perceived that they could use them to trump parental authority. Misunderstanding of what it means for children to be rights-holder has been misconstrued to mean that children could choose refuse to do chores, they could choose their own religion, that they could go out with whatever friends they wanted to at any hour, that they could view any sort of media whenever they want, that a parent could not discipline them, that children could make their own healthcare decisions, that they could choose to become sexually active or use drugs/alcohol, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s ‘right to be heard’ could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like. Groups like ParentalRights.org fear that giving children rights would prevent parents from instilling morals and values into their children, prevent them from spanking their children or opt them out of sex education, and would empower children to have freedom of thought and expression (Cohen 2012). The group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could make their own decisions of who to live with in cases of divorce, or that children could sue their parents. “Whether these fears are rational is a matter of opinion” (Galvin 2020), since the CRC protects the rights of parents as well as those of children (Cohen 2012). The need to control every aspect of a child’s life, as is common in authoritarian parenting, has been found to erode the internal decision-making capacity of children and erode the closeness and trust between parent and child (Cohen 2012).

23.3.8

LSEDI

It is not unusual to hear people complain about children and to lament that “something should be done to help them”. It is my observation that most people are in support of children being rights-holders, but they get snagged up on some of the fine points of how to implement rights because the skills are unfamiliar. Who is going to

632

23 Opportunities and Challenges

deliver the help that will make change in children’s lives possible? Obstacles for delivering that help usually concerns one of two things. It often focuses on “let someone else do it” (LSEDI). When using a LSEDI approach, we shirk responsibility and rely upon someone else to do the heavy-lifting of helping children. That someone else typically is perceived to be the government or an organization. Reality is constructed by what we say and do—and what we don’t. We are wise to remember that the words we choose to use to describe children and their rights matter. It is easy to want change but end up slipping into old patterns of thinking and doing that are antithetical to that change.

23.4

Summary

This chapter has explored strategies that could become opportunities for embedding children’s human rights into the nation. These include education, healthcare, dialogue, system change, and ratification of the CRC in some form. Obstacles exist to prevent a national initiative defending children as rights-holders. The challenges are born out of control, territoriality, fear, and a misunderstanding of what the treaty says and what it could do. The benefits of a children’s human rights initiative far outweigh the resistant line that the nation has chosen strategically, naively, or by default. There is no good reason why the challenges to implementing an initiative that defends children’s human rights couldn’t be overcome. But there are a couple of bad ones that could be enough to stymie the good intentions of a children’s human rights framework and continue the inequality, disparity, and preventable injustices that millions of children now face. As Benforado observes in his book A Minor Revolution (2023), perhaps what the US needs is a revolution to support children’s rights. In the history of human rights, revolutions have often been the impetus for social change. What is certain is that as a nation we can be proactive or reactive. Proactive role-modeling respect, investing in young people, and inviting them as equal players as we embrace human rights for all would direct the nation and individuals in a much more positive direction than boycotting what is inevitable social change.

Chapter 24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. Anonymous Greek Proverb

24.1

Introduction

In our journey together, we have explored children’s human rights in the United States from a variety of perspectives. We have examined ideology, frameworks, history, the Constitution, the role of governments, parents, teachers, community, social movements, and both US and international children’s human rights efforts. We have discovered moments of enormous courage and enlightenment as people and organizations have fiercely fought for children to be awarded rights—rights that help them to live good lives today and build a strong foundation for them to optimize not just their futures, but the future of our nation. We have also seen times when we have turned a blind eye to the plight children face and regarded them as “a disposable population”, in the words of historian, Henry Giroux (2019). Children grow up in a community context, within nested complex systems that interact in such a way that a change in one impacts the results in all. We rely upon parents to make sure children grow well, but the individualistic model that the nation has built puts a lot of pressure on parents. Many are working multiple jobs, are tired, stressed, with little discretionary time for fun, and limited money to pay for skyrocketing costs of housing, childcare, food, healthcare, and other necessities. Parent struggles inevitably put children in risky situations that are not of their making. A community approach to caring for kids can take the pressure off of parents while simultaneously allowing us all to invest in the well-being of other people’s kids. Children don’t belong just to their parents; they are here making their own mark on the earth. They too require support that is independent from that of the family in © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2_24

633

634

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

order for them to find their way and take their place Children, like adults, rely upon social institutions to function on their behalf. This is where a national commitment to a children’s human rights frame could be enormously helpful to ensure that children become the strong foundational first floor of our society.

24.2

Revisiting the Building Construction Metaphor

This book has explored how a children’s human rights framework could be constructed in the USA. It would need to be built on a foundation that embraced a narrative of children to be rights-holders, like any other group entitled to human rights. The current narrative we have built upon nationally does not regard them as full-fledged rights holders who are entitled to provisions, protections, and participations according to their capacities. History, culture, and academic disciplines have all contributed to building walls that frame children as property or objects. These walls keep them inside as a minority class that hangs at the bottom of the national stratification ladder in a way similar to how social castes are constructed and maintained. What a children’s human rights narrative could do is punch holes into those walls and let the light in. Windows could be inserted into the walls that let the sun and breeze in to freshen the way we see children and their potential. The walls that we have constructed around the way we view children has supported building floors on which they stand. These floors of provision, protection, and participation influence how far children can climb up the stratification stairs. We have found that these floors aren’t strong enough to sustain them or the nation for hundreds of years, like my 1743 house or the pyramids of Egypt have supported generations. Buildings crumble and fall if they are not planned with a well-designed blueprint and carefully constructed with good materials. We have a choice about the design of what we want to build, what materials we will use, if there are windows, whether the rooms are many and small or large, open areas for all to congregate and move around. We can decide how tall the building of children’s lives will be. Some children will be able to climb up to the pinnacle and reach their full potential while others will be kept at the basement level of society. Right now, some children are given elevators that glide them up to penthouse lifestyles while others have to traverse hundreds of rickety steps on stairs with no railings and hope they get to the top. We are the ones who can decide if we want to raise the roof for all children and insert railings, skylights, and balconies for them. When children at the bottom have managed to climb their way to the top on their arduous journey, they may be given accolades and promoted as examples that “anyone can climb to the top of the try hard enough”. The fact is that not every child starts with the same equipment or ability to do the climb. A question that keeps coming to mind is—why do we intentionally make it so hard for children to be healthy, happy, and successful? We are not living in a mythological fantasy tale where children are being tested to show what they are made of by slaying a dragon. Our myth of rugged individualism, of our success is based solely upon what we can

24.2

Revisiting the Building Construction Metaphor

635

accomplish on our own, has permeated a social attitude towards children that is simply unwise and unrealistic (Selwyn 2018). In the study of women’s inequality, there is a notion of a glass ceiling. The ceiling is clear, creating the illusion that there is no boundary. One can see into the heavens and assume that “the sky’s the limit” as they travel up the stratification ladder towards higher statuses. Climbing the ladder is assumed to be a sensible way to gain achievement and success. There are a whole series of narratives about working hard, never giving up, and having patience and perseverance that will enable one to sooner or later one to get to the top to be able to spread one’s wings and fly. But the caveat is, the closer one gets to the top, it becomes clear that there is an invisible barrier that will stop any forward movement. If one tries to go upward and onward, they will get a hard knock to the head that may leave them hanging on the rungs of the ladder, if they do not tumble downward. If one attempts to crash one’s head into the ceiling until it shatters, it is going to be painful and one can get hurt. Like in Trina Paulus’s 1973 book, Hope for the Flowers, we are teaching children to be caterpillars climbing over each other to get to the top, only to find that there may be nothing there worth scrambling toward. Children are taught to play by the rules, do what they are told, accomplish their work on time and well, volunteer, keep out of trouble, and try to get as many awards as possible; this will enable them to fly as high as the sky. Getting ahead is the goal pushed by parents, school, and social media. Being somebody special gets wrapped up into children’s search for identity. Except, most will not break through that glass ceiling that keeps children in their place. Yet if they do not climb that ladder, the socio-emotional challenges to feel worthy are overwhelming and can predispose children to a sorrowful lot in life unless they are resilient or have a rights-defender who will help them. Either way, the desperation felt when they realize they cannot get to the top, or if they do, the illusion masks that the wonderful rewards to be supposedly obtained are not real, has resulted in an epidemic of child and youth suicide. In the construction model, if there is a hard roof the child will clearly see their options to get ahead are limited. They know how far they can go. In the glass ceiling model, a child will be confronted with invisible barriers that surprise them and keep them in their place. Some structures have a low roof, some are skyscrapers with hundreds of floors and windows that open one’s view of the world and its possibilities. It could be that there are skylights in the roof from which one can escape. Perhaps the top of the building isn’t a roof at all, but a sky or roof garden that open out into the universe. Options of how far a child can traverse are not randomly assigned. The US model creates penthouse opportunities for some children, while others are confined to the cellar. They are kept in the dark, unaware of the possibilities that could be theirs, but aren’t.

636

24.3

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Curse of the Child as Property Legacy

Despite common rhetoric that children are not objects or property, typical US adult behavior speaks otherwise. It is normal and natural for people to talk about “my child”. Parents make decisions for their children all the time without asking them what they think or want. When children are asked questions, parents often answer for them before the child even has a chance to open their mouths. The government, laws, and social service organizations have all taken positions that parents are the duty-bearer of children, the people obligated to do-for and carefor their children. The government and the community do not accept the position that they are children’s human rights duty-bearers. They will only step in when there is abundant proof that the parents are putting children in harm’s way. It is thus normal and natural to assume that the US government does not have to do anything for children; they are not supposed to, since their parents are the ones who are designated obligators. This puts tremendous burdens on parents. If they have enough money to pay for housing, food, medical care, transportation, utilities, clothes, recreation, daycare or afterschool care, and other essentials, parents may be able to go it alone. If children have a deep-bench of extended family members and friends who are available and committed to care for them, then things may go well. We benefit when we have access to an extended network of care and support. The child as property image may work to some degree for well-resourced people for a while, until the financial or relationship rug is pulled out from under them and they find that the resources they counted on are no longer available. Most families struggle financially to make ends meet. Almost all parents work, at least part-time with many parents holding down multiple jobs at the same time. They cannot afford housing if they are not employed, if in companies that provide them no health insurance, they have to find ways to pay for it, potentially a thousand dollars each month. Childcare can cost as much as college tuition, and if people have more than one child, childcare quality options may become comprised in lieu of affordability. If parents have student loan debt to repay, there may be little discretionary money left even to pay for necessities. As electric and heating costs are soaring for this winter, due in part to the war in Ukraine, people struggle to keep warm in brutally cold winters and cool in 100-degree heat at other times. In nuclear families, single-head-of-household families, and for children who are unaccompanied, they are pretty much on their own to make ends meet. The reality is, they can’t. They need help from the community and from government services. A corporate executive I know fell on hard times and he went in to apply for financial assistance at his local welfare agency. He qualified to receive the top amount. He responded that while it wasn’t as much as he hoped for, he thought he could make ends meet. As he started to leave, he thanked the welfare officer and said, “Thanks, I’ll see you next week to pick up my next check”. The welfare worked blinked and said, “No sir, I’ll see you next month.” Perplexed, the former executive said the worker must be mistaken. “Next week I’ll be in.” When he was again

24.3

Curse of the Child as Property Legacy

637

corrected, he realized that the amount he was given was not a weekly amount, but a monthly allotment. “Nobody can live on this!” he shouted. At that light-bulb moment, he realized what most struggling people know all too well—that the helping systems may help a little, but far from enough to secure even a bare-bones existence. The government has failed children, but there are those leaders who deny this because they assume that the government isn’t supposed to do anything for children. Hurley (2022) states that "On so many measures of family hardship, young children and their parents in the U.S. suffer more than their counterparts in other high-income nations. Babies are more likely to die and children are more likely to grow up in poverty. The U.S. is the only rich country in the world without national paid family leave. And while other wealthy countries spend an average of $14,000 each year per child on early-childhood care, the U.S. spends a miserly $500. Underlying each of these bleak truths appears to be the same, misguided belief: that government support for parents is at odds with parents being responsible for their kids.. Essentially [this].. long-standing assumption in American society that responsible parents don’t need government support, and that government support turns responsible parents irresponsible. It is the same contradictory logic that has shortchanged families for decades." Families need help if they are going to do a better job caring for their children. This is where the issues of children as citizens, children as parental property, families as gatekeepers, and lack of universal commitments to children contribute to the tension over whether governments are obligated by the Constitution to defend children’s rights. Children depend upon financial investments just as much as adults—perhaps even moreso. Parent, family, and child investments are intertwined, but they are not the same. Children are cursed, in the respect that on their own they are not going to be able to qualify for assistance, the way the systems are rigged. And unless their parents can ante-up the qualification documentation, their goose is cooked too. Compare this narrative with the one held in CRC ratifying nations (especially in Europe and Australia) where government agencies have official agencies and personnel to advocate for children’s rights. People in government need to have jobs and job descriptions where they are paid for thinking about how to help children. This could be in the form of children’s commissions, ombudspeople, child bureaus, offices of children’s human rights, etc. Children’s rights end up being parent’s rights. But the reverse may not necessarily be true. A child as property narrative curses both children and parents. As long as the government and agencies focus on the family first, children will get pushed into the shadows. The outcome would be very different if children were in the forefront and families were pushed into the background—this means that families need support to do their jobs to take care of their children, but decisions on how to address children’s rights to provision, protection, and participation should be a priority.

638

24.4

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Why the US Should Institutionalize a Children’s Human Rights Framework

Defending children’s human rights should not be a polarizing political issue. A rights-by-design approach refers to child rights being a priority, a driving force within all organizations. It calls for a synergistic alignment, place-based initiative in which there is government accountability, legislative action, and organizational implementation. Children should be a priority population, not an appendage to the family or a secondary population to address “if there’s money or if there’s time”. Children’s human rights should be a priority, not an afterthought. Children are stakeholders in the family, community, and the nation’s future. The US could significantly benefit from institutionalizing a children’s human rights framework in its service delivery systems. Children would find their lives improved and empowered if the national narrative of young people was transformed into being respectful of their agency, intellect, and contributions. The values enshrined in the central principles of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights are reflected prominently in the CRC. The US should ratify the CRC because its international leadership on was critical in the creation of the international child rights treaty that the rest of the world has agreed to, and from which the US has reigned. The CRC is a proven effective international instrument to advance the protection of children. It has helped to ensure that they receive the provisions they need in order to survive and experience a good and healthy life. The CRC protects children, preserves and strengthens families, and has improved the lives of children around the globe. The CRC has resulted in reforms in children’s health, education, abuse, neglect, sexual exploitation, child trafficking, civil rights, child disabilities, criminal justice, and racial, gender, and refugee protections. Data indicating the US is no longer a leader in many of these areas means that the nation cannot credibly encourage other nations to embrace human rights norms for children. If the US would advance a children’s human rights framework, then there is the possibility it could regain international respectability and confidence that the nation is committed to the defense of children and their rights.

24.5

Change the Framework

The nation can do something to improve children’s lives today and tomorrow if we change the way we are framing children. When we frame someone, we put them in a box with sides from which they are confined inside. The frame in which we have put children limits our view of what they can do, and it limits their opportunities to be their wonderful, authentic selves. Our current framework puts the power for children’s lives in the hands of adults, particularly parents. Children need parents and adults to help and guide them. Just because a different, more expansive rights-

24.5

Change the Framework

639

respecting framework is selected, it takes nothing away from the need for adults to love, protect, provide, and guide them. There are both historical lessons and current developments to guide us. History has shown us the wide array of ways children and their rights have been viewed across time and place. There have been multiple paradigm shifts, including seeing children as small adults, as animalistic, as sinners who needed to be controlled, as precious gems to be valued, or as blank slates upon whose futures are to be written. The significance of the paradigm shift codified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child is commensurate to the fall of the Berlin Wall, people walking on the moon, or becoming tourists in space (Cowden 2016; Henderson 2019). To replace the maxim of children as property under parental control to one that regards young people to have provision, protection, and participatory rights shifts the way we look at young people and how we treat them. I am not saying that the CRC is the perfect be-all and end-all that will make children’s lives rich in the things that matter. It could stand for some revisions, yet it is a solid blueprint for us social architects to guide us on how to build a stronger society. Any blueprint depends upon us, the builders, to use good construction materials and be attentive to even the little details. If we don’t follow the instructions, and the Big Bad Wolf comes along, it may take only a huff and puff to blow our house down. Changing our national narrative and dominant framework towards one that is more children’s human rights respecting will help shift the social climate to benefit children, and our nation could stand stronger for a long time ahead. The way we have framed our national care for children has resulted in distressing trends that aren’t in children’s best interests, or those of our nation. These are trends that we know as clinical sociologists that we could do something about. Throughout this book, data in report after report show us how children are impacted by swelling rates hunger, homelessness, and all the awful things associated with poverty. National child abuse rates are high, despite decades of child abuse prevention awareness efforts by pediatricians and child advocates. Our children are increasingly being medicated for depression, anxiety, stress, ADHD, and behavior problems. They are exposed to traumas, toxic chemicals, and toxic environments. While public education is sometimes blamed for children not learning as well as many people would prefer, the reality is that schools are under-funded, not given adequate resources, and that children are arriving at school carrying adult-level troubles that teachers could not possibly solve in the classroom. Our children are in trouble. We have a choice about what we are going to do about it. Children are not regarded to be property from a children’s human rights perspective. The CRC holds that from a children’s human rights ratification perspective that the state is the primary duty-bearer. The state thus has the authority to request that institutions and organizations embed and monitor rights-respecting practices. If children are seen by the state as rights-holders, the government is required to fulfill that obligation by providing them services and ensuring their rights to provision, protection, and participation are defended. If the government was the duty-bearer of ensuring children’s rights, then children would become the primary focus of decisions government officials make, instead of an after-thought.

640

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

The CRC does not mandate particular parental action, rather it supports parents in caring for and interacting with their children in positive ways. Supporting the Articles in the CRC are designed to promote better provision, protection, and participation of young people. In the process of doing so, it will lay a foundation of rights-respect that will benefit parents, families, schools, communities as well as individual children. A children’s human rights-respecting framework takes nothing away from parents who are rights-respecting and acting on behalf of protecting their children’s best interests. The government is not called upon to intervene in routine situations unless parents’ default on their obligation to take good care of their children. A children’s rights-respecting framework supports parents by giving them resources and assistance to do their caregiving job better. From a child as property perspective, putting all responsibility for children’s care onto the parents puts extraordinary burdens on them, especially if parents don’t have the income, resources, or support to do so. Research proves that parents appreciate government assistance that takes some of the burdens off of them, in forms such as healthcare, education, social services, daycare, and financial aid (Center for Education Policy 2007; Miller 2021a, b, c; Murphy 2019). Experts in the children’s human rights field consistently affirm that a new narrative and framework are needed in the US, one in which as caring adults we agree to fulfill the promises that we made to protect and defend children, who are our lifeline emotionally, financially, and socially (Benford and Snow 2000; Benford 1997; FrameWorks Institute 2021; Gerhards 1995; Johnson 2013, Snow 2008; Snow et al. 2014). Placing the treatment of children’s rights against the backdrop of social, political, and cultural shifts in The End of American Childhood, Fass (2016) challenges us to reconnect with the beliefs that set the American understanding of childhood apart from the rest of the world. Freer relationships between children and parents transformed the national culture, altered generational relationships, helped create a new science of child development, and promoted a revolution in modern schooling. Fass argues that current conditions and policies have made adolescence socially irrelevant and altered children’s road to maturity, while parental oversight threatens children’s competence and initiative. This framework places children’s rights at the core of planning and service delivery and integrates their rights into every aspect of decision-making, policy, and practice. It means that organizations will prioritize children’s rights in the work they do with children and families to improve children’s lives. This ensures that children are given provisions like a safe home, food, education, and healthcare. A CHRF protects children from physical, emotional, sexual, and social harm. Children are to be given meaningful opportunities to participate in their communities and to influence decisions about their lives. A children’s human rights framework embeds children’s rights into organizational activity at all levels. Adopting this framework means that governments, authorities, and individuals are accountable to children for decisions and for outcomes that affect children’s lives (Holland 2020). A CHRF opens conversations to include children, who have structurally been disempowered, marginalized, and whose voices have typically not been heard. It would give

24.5

Change the Framework

641

children the status as rights holders, and as such, they would have a voice to make claims, claims that must be respected (Federle 2000). In a CHRF, children of all ages learn that they have rights. This is the key to their knowing what rights they have, how to exercise them and knowing that there are adults, organizations, and government agencies who will be there to ensure that they are protected. A CHRF approach means that children are given access to information and resources that enable them to take full advantage of their rights. In the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratifying nations, governments commit to making sure that children know they have rights. But in the US, children don’t know they have rights or have a misunderstood idea of what their rights are. Parents and teachers don’t instruct children about rights because they themselves never learned them (Alter and Ferenekes 2022). A children’s human rights framework holds that education is key. This means human rights education, or HRE, is essential for everyone to know. This includes government representatives, organizational and business leaders, teachers at all levels from preschool through higher education, parents, and children themselves. Learning about what human rights are, why they are important, and how to use them is essential in creating a children’s human rights framework. This is why human rights education is very important in the establishment of a children’s human rights framework. Children up to 18 years of age are considered rights-holders and active participants in realizing what it means to have human rights. As rights holders, they are empowered to make claims and hold duty-bearers to account for upholding children’s rights. A children’s human rights frame encourages children and adults to learn about human rights, both theirs and others, and how to implement them. It holds duty-bearers, who are both individuals and systems in this context, accountable for ensuring that children experience their rights. A fundamental assumption in a child rights frame is that all decisions made by parents, organizations, systems, and governments must take into consideration the best interests of the child. When the best interests of the child are foundational in making decisions, funding allocations, or program designs or actions, this framework facilitates the implementation of other rights-respecting components that will help children. Appreciation that children have agency and will use it to craft their lives is an essential part of understanding a child rights-respecting frame. Providing constructive opportunities for children to employ their agency is recommended to help them to learn how to be wise, caring, and productive members of society. Children are encouraged to learn about political and governance processes and understand how decisions are made so they can become active members of their community and learn the principles of human rights and democracy. Having the right to peace, justice, and freedom is fundamental to this frame. This is a frame supported by research from disciplines like psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and others. A child rights framework also supports parents so they can provide children with a healthy and happy wholesome family life. It advocates for giving parents economic and social support to care for their child well. A child rights-respecting framework honors who children are today as well as helping them to be raised well and become positive, contributing members of society and seeks to help parents in that goal.

642

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Parents, guardians, and all adults are to protect and advocate for the rights of children—theirs and other people’s children as well. Creating a children’s human rights framework puts it in the context of a new social contract. Turn now to consider what a new social contract would look like.

24.6

Creation of a New Social Contract for Children

The CRC changed the international environment and climate about how children are to be treated. It set forth conditions that would benefit children and asked governments and individuals if we would promise to care, protect, and defend our young national treasures. Since its creation and optional protocols, the CRC could benefit from another revision. Paradigm change is a natural progression of societal and scientific evolution (Kuhn 1962). As the world grapples with global climate change or global warming, it is interesting use the climate change analogy to reflect upon all the social, physical, emotional, technological, political, and community environments are undergoing simultaneous climate changes at the same time. We are in the midst of multifaceted social climate changes. This requires we do things differently if we are to survive. We could use this information to mobilize positive systemic and ideological actions that grow us forward instead of destroying us. We have an opportunity to fulfill our moral and political promise to children. If we break our promise to them, we can expect them to break important promises too, since children live what they learn (Giroux 2010; Freeman 2020a; Veerman 1992; White 1979; Whitehurst 2014). Calls for the creation of a new social contract are coming from a variety of different directions. Like arrows, they are targeting what is seen to be the bullseye from which all other actions emanate. A children’s human rights framework is part of this new social contract movement. What would a new social contract for America look like? There are many proposals, a few of which will be explored here. The notion of a social contract is an old concept. The term “social contract” was discussed by Thomas Hobbes and stems from a 1762 book of the same name by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Its premise was that individuals must surrender some of their rights to authorities in exchange for receiving other rights. Over the centuries the notion of a social contract has changed, often assuming an economic and business presence (Freedman and Lind 2013). We often think of a contract as a legally binding written document, but a social contract may be less formal but permeates the ideological presuppositions of a population. Here are some historic examples of social contracts, followed by some newer propositions.

24.6.1

President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal

Perhaps the most familiar notion we have of a social contract emerged out of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Prior to the Great Depression in 1929, the nation

24.6

Creation of a New Social Contract for Children

643

did not have a specified social contract. A laissez-faire economic system without much government regulation resulted in an unequal distribution of income and economic struggle for millions of Americans (Tanden 2020a, b). If workers were injured at work, they bore the cost of that injury; if elderly people weren’t able to work and had no savings they would be left destitute. For individuals who lost their jobs, this could mean hunger, homelessness, and poverty since there were no unemployment benefits. Children were adult responsibility and the government and businesses felt no responsibility to care for them. Roosevelt’s New Deal was a form of social contract in which the power of the state was strengthened and more support was given to individuals and families. It reordered relationships to shift away from individual risk toward institutions that provided shared risk instead. It weakened the power of corporation and set new rules for labor markets with things like the Fair Labor Standards Act, minimum wages, formation of trade unions, and collective bargaining. The New Deal also redefined the relationship between individuals and the federal government and created the Social Security Act, banking, and social programs and public works jobs. These changes had a profound and had continuing positive economic impact, lowered poverty, and increased production (Tanden 2020a, b).

24.6.1.1

Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 Second Bill of Rights State of the Union Address

Despite the benefits gained from the New Deal, FDR realize they didn’t go far enough in creating a thriving society. In his 1944 State of the Union address, he announced that the nation needed a Second Bill of Rights. He felt that the original Bill of Rights was written when the nation was young and its creators didn’t envision the challenges that the nation came to face. Additional rights were needed to protect and preserve the values of our great nation. Here are excerpts from it that lay the foundation for housing to be a right of all Americans.1 Therefore, in order to concentrate all our energies and resources on winning the war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, I recommend that the Congress adopt: 1. A realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test. 2. A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts—which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war. 3. A cost of food law—which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a

1

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html

644

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about 1% of the present annual cost of the war. 4. Early reenactment of. the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. 5. A national service law- which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation. These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would not recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keep down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, to hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits. The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and property of all kinds for war purposes on a basis of just compensation. He continues: As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

24.6

Creation of a New Social Contract for Children

645

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world. Roosevelt died in office the following year before he could instill this bill. His widow, Eleanor Roosevelt, took efforts to advance these ideas in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But there has not emerged a second bill of rights, as he had dreamed.

24.6.2

President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society

Johnson’s Great Society programs were an outgrowth and expansion of President Kennedy’s New Frontier programs. One can debate whether the Great Society initiatives were a set of programs or part of a social contract. The Great Society programs can be regarded as a form of social contract because it called for the elimination of racial injustice and waged a War on Poverty. These initiatives impacted the way education, healthcare, criminal justice, transportation, and social services were perceived and delivered. Johnson’s Great Society expanded on social insurance by creating Medicare and Medicaid. It also created insurance systems for retirement, unemployment, and sickness for the poor and for the old (Tanden 2020a, b).

24.6.3

Did Ronald Reagan Create a New Social Contract?

Reagan’s administration ushered in a very different set of initiatives than those of Roosevelt or Johnson. He cut many domestic programs that people had come to count on, either through reduced funding or elimination (Benenson 1984). These included cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, and education. Instead of promoting universal programs like Medicare, Reagan was opposed to “big government” assistance and felt that individuals had to fend for themselves. His administration focused on targeting programs only for the “truly needy” and strict guidelines were to be followed in order to qualify for assistance. If people did not meet the subjective criteria set, they would not receive aid. This shift that occurred during the same time that fiscal and political conservatism was rising. The public was not rebellling against these cuts to the safety net because the cut implications would not be tangibly observed for at least 20 years. This is precisely what has happened. We are watching people suffering because of the lack of services, and while the framework may be tweaked here and there from time to time, this framework remains dominant in the minds of many people today and influences how many people think children should be assisted.

646

24.7

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Proposed New Social Contract Models

Some of the new social contract models focus on global changes, while others target just the United States. Given the global economy and fluidity of populations, social contracts that have sweeping international implications have emerged.

24.7.1

Global Social Contract Models

The World Bank’s report, “Toward a New Social Contract”, the International Panel on Social Progress, “Rethinking Society for the 21st Century” (Bussolo 2019), Michael Freeman’s New Magna Carta for Children (2020a) and his thoughts on how to build a good future for children (2020b), and Shafik’s (2021a, b) book on What We Owe Each Other showcase the global importance to find new ways of caring for each other. The United Nations (2020) has launched an initiative for a New Social Contract and New Global Deal that will create equal opportunities for all and respect the rights and freedoms of all. In a speech by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on “Tackling the Inequality Pandemic: A New Social Contract for a New Era” on Nelson Mandela Day (July 18), the Secretary-General took aim at the various layers of inequality that are being exposed and exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. He outlined the threat posed to our well-being and our future by historic injustices and current trends, from colonialism and patriarchy to racism and the digital divide, and made concrete recommendations for a more equitable, just and sustainable way forward in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. The UN Office of the High Commissioner (2020, 2021, 2022) understands this is a lofty task and has designed assistance programs on how to operationalize and implement this new social contract. The International Monetary Fund announced support for a new social contract for the twenty-first century. Shafik (2021a, b) focuses on the importance of building a new global social contract. She writes that every day we participate in social contracts that shape every aspect of our lives, informal contracts, norms, values, and laws that require us to cooperate with others. Part of this social contract implies that adults are expected to contribute to the common good in exchange for being looked after when they are young, old, or unable to care for themselves. In recent years, adults have shirked their willingness to contribute to the common good, as seen in refusal to support climate change, engage in actions that could curb the spread of the coronavirus, or support economic and social changes that would reduce oppression and inequality. Old ways of doing things don’t work anymore. A new social contract depends on three pillars—economic security, shared risk, and opportunity. Regarding security, every society can put a floor on income below which no one can fall. This could be achieved through cash transfer programs, tax credits, pensions, and assurance of having access to resources that give people at least a

24.7

Proposed New Social Contract Models

647

minimum level of security for a decent life. With respect to shared risks, identifying struggles that individuals have not as individual but collective or social problems could shift our views about helping others. Regarding investments in opportunities for all will help us to harness everyone’s talents and contributions—not only because it is fair, but because it is good for the economy. People’s talents are often wasted because they aren’t given paths to advance them. As his pertains to children, it is essential to give young people opportunities to participate in their communities early on so they can develop their gifts and talents productively. A new social contract is not about higher taxes, more redistribution, and a bigger welfare state. It is about fundamentally reordering and equalizing how opportunity and security are distributed across society. This would increase productivity and more efficiently share risks around childcare, health, work, and old age that cause so much anxiety. We should tax the things we want less of, like carbon and smoking, and subsidize things we want more of, like education [children] and a greener economy. Giving everyone the opportunity to use their talent and contribute reduces the need for redistribution later. (Shafik 2021a, b:2).

The McKisney Global Institute’s Social Contract for the Twenty-first Century report (2020) focuses on how to build economic prosperity for business, savers, citizens, and consumers. It sees the economy as pivotal in creating a better life for people, businesses, and nations. Its model specifically notes that it does not include noneconomic elements in its social contract. In a Forbes magazine article, the McKisney data is described by Henderson (2021) to promote a new social contract in the world of work that promotes equality, inclusiveness and opportunities for all. It addresses data from the World Economic Forum noting that the fourth industrial revolution of digitalization, and the pandemic, have heightened our awareness of the need for new skills, training, and work schedules and styles. This will promote the creation of a new social contract where there are greater opportunities and equalities for all. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (2021) advocates for the creation of a new eco-social contract. Its contract identifies how to create creating human rights by linking the transformation of individuals, organizations, economic entities with nature. Neither the planet nor people can survive without partnerships that respect one another. As climate change issues have become a major focus for young people, this social contract is in keeping with fostering a children’s human rights frame.

24.7.2

National Social Contract Models

Think tanks, philanthropic organizations, and many reports have proposed different social contract ideas, and some like the ones above focus broadly while some target the US in particular. After the Great Recession of 2008, it was clear to many that a new social contract needed to be created as the old one had left people in bankruptcy, losing their jobs, homes, savings, and thrusting them into abject poverty and challenging lifestyles (Vissing, Hudson and Nilan 2020; Verrman 2000). The proposed social contract

648

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

targeted full employment, adequate compensation, and moving from tax-benefited social programs to universal citizen-based benefits. The New America model proposed that . . . we need to reform our system of social welfare federalism, relieving states of the financial burden of many social safety net programs . . . state governments have difficulty meeting their various financial obligations during recessions, and thus programs that were designed in part to be automatic stabilizers of the economy end up being pro-cyclical drags on state budgets. It does not make sense for states to assume responsibility for core social safety net programs when they do not have the ability to undertake countercyclical spending by running budget deficits and when they rely generally on much more regressive taxes than does the federal government. Thus, for both fairness and effectiveness, it would make sense to fully federalize the financing of core economic security programs. (Swenninger 2010:10).

The New America Foundation advocates for a middle-income social contract. It assumes that many businesses don’t offer workers middle-income salaries, which means that the government will have to take a more active role in ensuring essential services like education, childcare, and healthcare that are affordable, available, and accessible. Increasing the minimum wage to be a true living wage, and expanding educational support from daycare through higher education are a few ways to create a social contract that will work for the average person (Freedman and Lind 2013). The National Chamber of Commerce (2017) created a social contract model, the Opportunity Project. They report that different models exist, one is government regulations and programs, another is the private marketplace to control the economy and opportunities, whereas the Chamber of Commerce advocates for the free enterprise system to be foundational in creating a new social contract model. It calls for a partnership model of workers, businesses and the government to advance a new economic focus to improve the lives of individuals and the community. Changes in our social contract are proposed that recognize fundamental changes in work, technology, demographics of the nation, and changing family styles. They call for a radical overhaul of our social safety net, which includes childcare, unemployment, family leave, physical and mental health services, pensions, insurances, and sick-leave. There must be room for people to find working styles that allow them to flourish, such as location, schedule, benefits, living wages, and opportunities for growth, support, creativity, and innovation. The new social contract needs to utilize fair tax policies, be inclusive, honor diversity, and take efforts to ensure equality and equity while reducing inequality. This will require changes in structures, policies, practices, and investments (Allison-Hope 2020).

24.7.3

State and Local Social Contract Models

Some US states, counties, and communities are moving forward in developing their own child bill of rights or children’s rights legislation or offices. They are doing so because there is no national policy and they feel it is important for local areas to take a stand in support of children and their rights (Walker et al. 1999). California is

24.7

Proposed New Social Contract Models

649

trying to become a national leader by introducing a bill to support children’s provision and protection. I am working with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to submit a bill to create a state-wide child and youth commission. Santa Clara County, California (2020) has created A Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in 2010 as a guiding document to help “our community make children and youth a top priority, even during times of political change and financial upheaval.” Santa Clara documents nine standards community should support. The standards are a shorthand version of what is already in the CRC and include protecting children’s health, family, food, shelter, clothing, transportation, schools, neighborhoods, education, independence, employment opportunities, freedom from abuse and mistreatment, and to have a voice “in all matters that affect them”. There are other groups promoting Bill of Rights, such as a Bill of Rights for Homeless individuals through the National Coalition for the Homeless, and there is a bill of rights for businesses and other organizations. Child USA is working to incentivize gyms and other organizations to implement a Child Athlete Bill of Rights by tying it to insurance (Vagianos 2021). There are, of course, many other social contract models. There is also a social responsibility model that aligns with the social contract approach. Verrman (2000) points out that for any social contract to be effective, it must be grown and embraced at grassroots, community levels. Sullivan (1992) emphasizes that social policies from the top down help showcase an institutional commitment to justice for all.

24.7.4

Social Responsibility Model

This approach originates from a business model popularized by Carroll, who designed a pyramid of corporate responsibility that included economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic components. This was done largely as a response to a social backlash of corporations caring more about profits than people. Since then, the concept has broadened to include ethics, justice, and caring for others. Sandra Bloom (2013, 2017) created a Sanctuary Model which alleges social responsibility means that we are committed to promoting physical, psychological, social, and moral safety of others. She finds these four domains are interdependent. This approach embraces the work of Paolo Freire (1968) who alleged that no one can be authentically human while preventing others from being so. Full humanization for anyone is possible only in a context in which the oppressor/oppressed contradiction has been overcome, people are not dehumanized, and all peoples are treated with respect (Bloom 2017). The calls indeed are great for the creation of a new social contract, but as we see, it can mean different things to different people and different places (Lieberman 2021). At a 2021 inequality conference, Francesca Bastagli, director of the Overseas Development Institute, observed that a social contract will not be the same in all places but they all share the notion that there is a set of relations that includes rights, responsibilities, trust, and cohesion that bind society together. The call for a new,

650

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

long-term social contract comes from recognizing that our present ways of developing policy and executing financing are not working and are exacerbating inequality and all the problems emanating from it. This means changing both the government and business model to hold them accountable to and for what they are accountable for.

24.7.5

Impact of the Pandemic and Social Contract

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered pleas for the creation of a new social contract. The result of the pandemic has shown us that millionaires and billionaires have gotten much wealthier, and now there are trillionaires. At the same time, poverty, death, job loss, housing crises, business foreclosures, physical and health problems, mental illnesses, racial tensions, tensions over immigration, gender disparity, increase of suicides, rise of domestic extremism, meanness, violence, feelings of isolation, helplessness and hopelessness, with widespread anger boiling up in unpredictable places have become unescapable. The pandemic didn’t cause these outcomes, it just allowed what was already in process to flourish (Dibble 2021; Singer et al. 2021; Wallace 2021). As Allison-Hope 2020 points out, the COVID-19 crisis makes one thing abundantly clear: the social contract between government, business, employees, and people is not working as it should. He observes that the social contract the US has been operating under “was not fit for purpose before the COVID-19 pandemic struck, but these and many other shortcomings have now been revealed in the most human, tragic, and devastating ways”. He goes on to say what many of us believe to be true—that there is an absolute urgency with implementing a new social contract, one that will be to the benefit of all people. Many of the current models proposed for a new social contract are springing up because of the inequality, death, disability, and despair that has emerged from the pandemic. Tanden (2020a, b) observes that “what is unique about this crisis is the specific way the virus ties our fates together”. This is true from a contagion perspective where a single carrier can infect countless people, but it is also true socially. “Radical individualism doesn’t work in a pandemic” when it promotes inequality, which is what has happened with the distribution of wealth, disease, and death. Corporate support and responsibility, universal incomes, job guarantees, and economic restructuring are the focus of some new social contract models, while others focus more on social programming.

24.8

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

24.8

651

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

It is entirely possible to bring the US back to its historical position as a world leader of children’s human rights. It is possible to move away from an individualist, property-oriented view of children to one in which we share a collective responsibility to care for all children. This will require two major steps. One is a change in our narrative about children and the other is a change of our social structure. The way we think about things changes the way we do things; conversely, the way we do things impacts the way we think about things. Micro and macro, interpersonal and structural changes must occur simultaneously as both will reinforce and support each other.

24.8.1

Step One: Change The National Narrative About Children

Children are human beings, not human becomings. They are not property or objects to be done-to. They have agency. They engage the world on their own terms. They make decisions. In order to establish a social order that is rights-respecting, it requires that the narrative we have traditionally held about children get updated to meet the needs of the new world in which we live. This will mean we:

24.8.1.1

Change the Language We Use to Talk About Children

This means being attentive to what we call them, how we refer to them, and how we interact with them. Early in the book we explored the wide array of words that we use to talk about children. Refer to this population as young people or children, not “kid” or words meant to be cute. Being a child or childish is not a dirty word. Yet the words we use often convey that message. Words have power, and empowering respect of children begins with the way we refer to them and talk with them.

24.8.1.2

Change Our Criteria of What Constitutes a Child

The UNCRC has a simple definition of a child—it is anyone under age 18. In the US, while 18 is the voting age and the age at which people are considered an adult, the reality is that the definition of who is a child isn’t really all that clear. As shown earlier, there is no clear and universally accepted definition of exactly what is a child, which has led to a subjective determination of children’s rights, obligations and penalties exists that confounds the way children are treated and perceived.

652

24.8.1.3

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Change the Assumptions We Hold About Children

Countries that have ratified the children’s human rights treaty recognize that children are capable, need to be listened to, and treated in a respectful, dignified manner. As children learn they will make mistakes, but these are developmental and not grounds for being demeaned or ridiculed. Yet the US the stereotype of children holds that children are unable of rationale thought and good decision-making. Issues of adult power and control are seen as necessary to keep children safe, but there are ways to do that in respectful ways. Sayings like “children should be seen and not heard”, “sit down and shut up”, “stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about”, or “do as I say” reflect subservient relationships between adults and young people. It is possible to raise wonderful children without being disrespectful to them. Ennew (2000b) observes we are oddly comfortable in our adult role by viewing children as sick, poor, weak, and in need of what only we adults can provide. That is not who the majority of children are; such views mask the presence of children who are resilient, wise, creative, and powerful. She questions whether the cost of seeing children as innocent, incapable creatures may be greater than we have considered. A children’s human rights framework hinges on how adults view and interact with children. Coming to a better understanding how quick children are, how much they participate, and the contributions they deliver would help us to see how resilient and curiously powerful they are in their own being. Children can learn to reflect, analyze and weigh options and consequences. In difficult circumstances, children may devise careful and creative means to take care of themselves, their friends and their families (Ennew 2000b). The shift to seeing children as capable and helping them to grow those skills are part of the new framework.

24.8.1.4

Change Our Understanding of What Children’s Human Rights Are

There is a gross misunderstanding of what human rights are. This is understandable. Human rights education is seldom taught in US schools beyond a cursory description of the 1960s Civil Rights movement or racial and gender current events. Children’s human rights are almost never taught, even though it is an integrated part of the K-12 curriculum in many countries. A children’s human rights framework acknowledges that children are entitled to rights in accordance with fundamental premises in the US Constitution, CRC, and in virtually all religions and statements of morality. There is an overarching assumption that if children have rights then it takes away rights of adults. This simply is not true. When one group has rights, it enhances and protects other people’s rights as well. We have observed this through the fight for racial, gender, religion, and ability rights. Children need discipline and guidance; having rights does not give them free reign to do whatever they like. Everyone at every age has rules we have to obey and norms to follow. When rights-respecting values and

24.8

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

653

behaviors are learned, they increase the possibility of greater rights-respect for and among all.

24.8.1.5

Change Our Priority from Individual to Collective Well-Being

The US has developed an America-first approach that supports individual freedom and applied this “me first” model to family survival and the lives of children. It is common to hear people talk about what they need, what they want, as compared to what is good for the collective. There is classic tension over which is better, the individual or group interests. It is appropriate and understandable to care well for your own children, but moving to a view that also emphasizes that “all children are our children” (Selwyn 2018), that “it takes a village’ (Clinton 1996), and President Kennedy’s notion that “every American is made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. . .A rising tide raises all boats” (Lazare 2017) is part of a child rights frame.

24.8.1.6

Change Ageism into a Minority Group Designation

Our national frame of children and their rights is the result of complicated historical, cultural, religious, political, theoretical, and pragmatic factors. Ageism is recognized at one end of the age spectrum (elders) but ignored at the other (children), when people of both lesser and more advanced ages encounter many of the same types of discriminatory attitudes and actions. Identification of children as a distinct minority group would entitle them to equal treatment measures that have been afforded to other minority groups.

24.8.1.7

Change Our Focus on What Children’s Problems Are

Children do not cause social problems—they are the recipient of them. The notion that we can insulate our children from bad things is naive. No matter how hard we try to protect them, they deal with personal and social problems directly or indirectly. Children are observers of life and know when they don’t have the same type of home or family as other children; they experience oppression or discrimination on the basis of what they look like, what they think, or how they act. They live in families and communities where there is violence, poverty, substance abuse, crime, and illness. Young people know about sex, about terrorism, and gun violence. They experience fear, depression, anxiety, and stress. Even if we protect them in our house, they see the world through social media, film, television, and the news. Protecting children from things that they already experience, see, or hear about is perhaps laudable but not sensible. It would be better to support them by listening to them and helping them to understand and contextualize what is occurring. If we understand how hardships are being perceived and experienced by children, better ways to support

654

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

them could undoubtedly occur. A children’s human rights framework seeks to eliminate social problems in the first order, reduce their severity and prevalence when they do occur, and provide support to those who are impacted by them. It also reframes everyday issues that children confront (having both immediate and longterm life changing impacts) as system-related issues (systems could include family, school, police, government, etc.). Children lack the power to change systems—but adults do. This step, along with previous information provided about getting in touch with our own beliefs and biases, and how to talk about children’s rights with others, is an important step in moving towards the institution of a children’s human rights perspective. Thinking and actions are directly related; how our institutions function directly impacts how we think and what we believe in this ‘which came first—the chicken or the egg?’ phenomenon.

24.8.2

Step 2: Change in Our National Structures Regarding Children

A children’s human rights framework is built upon a sense of community and public health, as discussed in the previous chapter under Opportunities, and highlighted in the different types of social contracts discussed at the beginning of this chapter. There are a variety of structural ways that children’s human rights could be embedded into a national initiative in support of our youngest citizens, on whom the future of our society rests. Children are part of our larger, integrated social system; what happens in one component of that system has direct and indirect implications in the lives of children. This interdependence that children rely upon with both individuals and social systems, has a direct impact on how their lives transform. Collectively, the shared experiences of children determine the trajectory of attitudes, actions, practices, policies, laws, formal and informational structures, and operations of units from the individual through the state and national levels. This is why what happens at micro-level social operations has a direct impact on macro-levels, and vice versa. Government and institutional decision-making designed to be for the good of all children is central to this frame. A child cannot be healthy in every sense of the world unless they live in families which are healthy, which exist in communities that are healthy, and with governments that support the public health of all for the good of all. It means that we have to prioritize the best interests of the child, and the best interests of other children and the community, over our own interests as we come to realize that our collective best interests are related to that of our community’s.

24.8

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

24.8.2.1

655

Institute a New Social Contract

The nation has created many different social contracts in the past. It is time to create a new one now. As shown at the beginning of this chapter, there are many models from which to develop a contact that would be beneficial to children and the nation as a whole. A new social contract based in a human rights respecting framework that also embedded a transformative narrative about children’s needs and capabilities in an equity and justice frame would be helpful. This contract could directly help parents so they were able to be better providers and protectors of young people. It could also facilitate greater positive communication as young people were able to partner in decisions that impact their lives and the life of the communities of which they are part.

24.8.2.2

Change the Way Our Social Systems Function

Our social systems currently are exclusionary, need-based, and reactive rather than proactive. Adults need to have a JEDI focus—of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion of all children. They utilize a targeted approach in which people must prove that they qualify in order to obtain services. If people don’t fill the forms out correctly, don’t have the appropriate documentation, or fail to meet deadlines, they may not qualify for help. People under age 18 are not legally allowed to fill them out so children are dependent upon their parents or guardians to do so. These factors eliminate many children who could benefit from services. A children’s human rights framework is an inclusive, universalist view of entitlement. It is prevention and public-health focused for the good of all. Just as there are entitlement programs for people who are elderly, there could also be entitlement programs for people who are young. This would eliminate access and proof of need for children. All children are vulnerable, all can be at risk of bad things happening to them in certain situations. For instance, universal healthcare insurance for both physical and mental health, universal daycare, like universal education, would significant benefit all children.

24.8.2.3

Hold Duty-Bearers Responsible

Reframing systems as duty-bearers that must always consider the best interests of the child in all decisions could ensure that children’s human rights are implemented, protected and defended. We could hold accountable any system (parents, institution, government, etc.) that fail to defend children’s right to human rights. The benefit of the CRC is that it requires monitoring, accountability, and reporting. The CRC would not have to be ratified for this to occur, but some sort of national supervisory institution would need to be established to ensure it.

656

24.8.2.4

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Change Methods of Data-Gathering and Consider the Missing Data

Chronicles of children’s lives are almost always written by adults. They tell us more about how adults are thinking than how children perceive their lives (Ennew 2000b; Qvortrup 1990; Rakesh 2020). Adults decide what story to tell about children—but for whose benefit? If we dig deeply we would find a history that includes children as political leaders, a history that could lead us to see the contributions of young social change agents from 12-year-olds leading the Christian Crusades in 1212 to the more recent involvement of children in the #March for our Lives or #Me Too movements. Research too is almost always designed, implemented, and analyzed through an adult lens. Participatory research and the work by Scottish children’s rights researchers, Kay Tisdall and John Davis, Northern Ireland researcher Laura Lundy, and Jane Williams, the co-director of the Observatory for the Human Rights of Children in Wales, and Ton Liefaard at the University of Leiden all point out how effective and rich research findings can be when young people are involved in the research process. Experts Audrey Osler and Hugh Starkey are convinced that human rights education can be embedded at every age level, as are the members of Human Rights Educators USA and the Human Rights Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Gathering data on what works will advance the field of human rights for all as best practices are refined and implemented.

Powerful Knowledge Michael Young (2013; Maude 2015) focuses on the importance of powerful knowledge. Powerful knowledge is a term that refers to what knowledge can do or what intellectual power it gives to those who have access to it. Powerful knowledge provides more reliable explanations and new ways of thinking about the world and can provide learners with a language for engaging in political, moral, and other kinds of debates. Data that proves how fragile our children’s lives today are could be powerful tools to guide us to make better decisions and design better systems to assist them. Data is helpful to our understanding why we must reframe the way we are addressing children’s lives and rights. Most adults are out of touch with what children’s lives are like today. We remember our own experiences and emotions and attribute them to our children and assume they are similar, but this may not be true. As social architects, we know how to construct a bridge but getting people to cross over the bridge is where we are going to run into challenges. Educators, scientists, and policy-makers who are guiding us towards this new paradigm have sophisticated skill-sets that we are wise to learn. These nested components of a children’s human rights framework could provide a template for how our nation could move forward. Surely not all of the changes recommended in this book will be realized at once. In a symbiotic fashion, increasing

24.8

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

657

rights-respect in one component of a system could ripple-out and create changes in the other areas (Wallace 1971).

24.8.3

Potential Directions for US Children’s Human Rights

As the nation stands at a fork in the road as it pertains to children as rights-holders, we are confronted with a decision paradigm and an investment strategy that will determine the future of our children, which means the future of the nation. Young people today are different from those in the past; we cannot expect to do things in the same old way and expect outcomes that will be beneficial to them and our changing world (Murphy 2019). Children are confronted with a variety of crises, and can expect more in the future unless we do something much more to protect their rights (Lundy 2022). Wall (2011) asks the penetrating question—does democracy actually represent children? It could - but it will require shifts in the way we frame children and how we frame our institutions and interactions. The CRC acts a bridge between different legal systems, cultural contexts and political agendas. It has raised children above politics and mobilized nations in all regions behind a common endeavor: the realization of the human rights of all children, everywhere and at all times. Children’s rights are future rights, and as such they belong at the very center of the current debate on sustainable development, human rights, equity, peace and justice (Cowden 2016). There is plenty of talk about not wanting our children to carry our national financial debt into their future (Baker 2021), but they are also going to carry into their future our lack of investment in their well-being. Ultimately, children are liable for their parents’ actions (Bauer 2014), so it is important that young people have a voice, ask penetrating questions, and advocate for actions that are in their best interests, individually and collectively (Cowden 2016; Fellmeth and Heldman 2019; Freeman 2000; Lee 2017; Qvortrup 2009; Quennerstedt 2022; Scott and Steinberg 2008; Veerman 2000). It would be laudable if the US joined the rest of the world in the conviction that children are the world’s most valuable resource. Directions that the children’s human rights could take are numerous, but several seem to be most likely. One is for the US to ratify the CRC and obligate parents, institutions, systems, including the government as duty-bearers to address Article recommendations in all decisions to support the best interests of the child. Another is not to officially ratify the CRC but to hold responsible parties like parents, organizations, and the state responsible to defending attitudes, actions, programs, policies and laws that in fact support the best interests of all children. A third is that as a nation, we could continue our piece-meal, fragmented approach to protecting children’s human rights and duke it out in courtrooms, boardrooms, and bedrooms. Or we could watch the parental rights groups take precedence over children’s rights and establish that children aren’t entitled to human rights that interfere with state, organizational, or parental interests. We could watch democracy implode within our lifetime. Yet there is another possibility—that young people themselves will

658

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

figure out how to mobilize and press the courts, institutions and systems to more strongly advocate for them to be provided key provision, protection, and participation rights If systems still aren’t receptive, then Benforado (2023) may be correct— that some sort of revolution (perhaps peaceful or perhaps violent) could ensue. The choices are resting in our hands right now. At this moment in history, it seems unlikely that the US will ratify the CRC any time soon. If the CRC was ratified, it still would not be part of the Bill of Rights or Constitution without an amendment. The US could take actions that support children’s human rights, but ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child would put the nation in the position of an official duty-bearer who is obligated to consider the best interests of the child when making decisions. This means doing so when making laws, deciding funding allocations, developing programs, designing policies, as well as everyday interaction practices at both the institutional and family level. This may be one reason that the nation hasn’t ratified the CRC—without ratifying it, then neither the systems nor families are obligated to protect and defend children’s rights. Ratification of the CRC could be interpreted by some to mean that the US would be judged by international standards—but frankly, it is anyway so this rationale seems rather mute. It seems doubtful that young people will become organized enough to create a national children’s human rights initiative at this time. We saw during the March for our Lives gun control protests and protests in support of climate change legislation thousands of young people taking to the streets and demanding change. To date, those efforts are still in progress. It is clear that youth groups are mobilizing and becoming more assertive in demanding their rights be respected. It is only a matter of time before young people will become a significant social action group. We can proactively work with them, or fail to do so and have a conflictual, reactionary situation that makes it harder for constructive resolutions. It seems most likely to me that we will continue in our fragmented national approach or move slowly towards embedding greater rights protections for young people. Without legal standards, this means that violations of children will continue to occur; institutions and parents can be “let off the hook” and receive no penalties as a result of their noncompliance to addressing children’s human rights. This observation is where I think we are now—but it is not the direction I hope will result. It is wise to note that all trajectories are possible in the future.

24.8.4 Who Are Going to Be Children’s Human Rights Defenders? The United Nations has worked diligently to mobilize nations to become children’s rights defenders. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the body of 18 independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by its States parties. It also monitors implementation of the Optional Protocols to the Convention, on involvement of children in armed conflict

24.8

Directions for Building a US Children’s Human Rights Framework

659

and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (Office of the High Commission of Human Rights 2020). These are the formal international children’s human rights defenders, but every nation that ratified the CRC, are put in the role to be duty-bearers and children’s rights defenders. In a broader sense, every government agency, school, organization, or individual could be a children’s human rights defender too. Marion Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund (2018) observed, “If we don’t stand up for children, we don’t stand up for much.” Cowden (2016) uses an interesting analogy that posits where we are at this point in time with respect to the CRC. Like the fairy Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, the CRC possesses the power to change children’s lives—but in order to do it, it depends upon people believing in its existence, and then being willing to give it a try. It is not enough for people to just believe in the existence of children’s rights, people have to do something to make them happen. Who is going to be a defender of children’s human rights? The CRC holds governments responsible to defend children’s rights. But since our government hasn’t committed to that, who can children count on to defend them? The logical contenders would be organizations that serve children, but many of them may not do so because they find themselves in a conflict-of-interest situation with regard to parents who want to advocate for their rights, or for funders, staff members, or boards of directors who have vested interests that don’t have children’s best interests as their number one priority. It could be lovely to consider parents as children’s best rights protectors and while some are, the reality is that children’s rights may be most often violated within the home. If adults and leaders of our nation don’t proactively protect children’s rights, this leaves the burden on the shoulders of children themselves to defend their rights). There have been moments in time when they have successfully done so, such as in the 1800s newspaper revolt or the 2000s gun-control movements. Legally, there are constraints imposed upon what children can and cannot do. Children’s money, if they have any, is legally tied up with that of their parents and they cannot sign contracts without parental consent. This creates a situation that either: (a) children have to figure out how to fend for themselves as they advocate for their rights; (b) that they network with adults who will be courageous enough to stand beside them and fight for children’s rights; or (c) if traditional avenues are closed, then this forces children into actions that could potentially put them at risk of harm or legal action. While it is important to build a coalition for children to learn how to be rights defenders, they will need training to learn how to do so in a positive fashion. The question is, where would that training come from and how will it be delivered? Being a rights defender is hard in a society where there are conflicting, contentious, frameworks. Changing the narrative and our social structures politically will be hard. Changing the frame in entrenched systems that want to keep on keeping on doing the same old thing, even though it isn’t effective enough, will be challenging. Undoubtedly, there will be those who will try to keep our attention pointed at fragments of things that work to some degree instead of examining they system deficits and then doing something about it. But the hardest thing of all to do is changing the way we look at children.

660

24

Where Will We Build the Top of the Roof?

Lillian Katz (2018:21) sums the importance of adults acting to defend children’s rights in this way: I really believe that each of us must come to care about everyone else’s children. We must come to see that the welfare of our children and grandchildren is intimately linked to the welfare of all other people’s children. After all, when one of our children needs life-changing surgery, someone else’s child will perform it. If one of our children is threatened or harmed by violence, someone else’s child will be responsible for the violent act. The good life for our own children can only be secured if a good life is also secured for all other people’s children. Where are other people’s children right now? Are they having wholesome, caring, and appropriate experiences? The person who will be our president 60 years from now may be in someone’s three-year-old class today. I hope she’s having a good experience! To be concerned about other people’s children is not just a practical matter—it is a moral and ethical one.

As duty-bearers, we have to be willing to climb out on a limb and challenge system failures and those who want keep dysfunctional, outdated attitudes and actions in place (Sullivan 2021a, b). We may be tired, weary, and look for quick-fix answers and let someone else drive the boat. But we must have the courage to demand that children’s human rights are addressed. It will save them, save us, and save our democracy.

24.8.5

Summary

A mural painted on a school wall in India reads “If you are planning for a year, sow rice. If you are planning for a decade, plant trees. If you are planning for a lifetime, educate people” (Moore-Vissing 2021). A children’s human rights framework holds that we must educate ourselves that children are entitled to human rights, like every other group is entitled to them. It is important to remind ourselves of a truth that we have seen over and over across time and place—that when people respect one another’s human rights and lift each other up, we all rise. That when we fail to do so, we all lose. As conflict arises, violence and war ensue, it costs a tremendous amount of money that could be spent for lots of different forms of social benefit as lives are lost. The preventable long-term physical and psychological traumas that children experience will take generations to resolve, if ever. Clinical sociologists are aware of how children’s lives are socially constructed. Social change is inevitable. We are architects of society. There is a national crisis existing around children and the future of the nation. This book has showcased problems that children face and things that we as a society and individuals can do about them. It is rich with ideas that can be used to start the movement towards building a national children’s rights initiative. The future of children, of democracy and social justice for our nation rests in our hands. We cannot build this framework as individuals alone—but we can construct it together as a collectivity of caring adults who are committed to the common goal of making children our national priority. I’m all in. What about you?

References

1,000 Days. 2018. Why 1,000 days. https://thousanddays.org/why-1000-days/ 360 degree Participation. Models of participation. https://360participation.com/models-ofparticipation 5rightsfoundation. 2022. Building the digital world that young people deserve. https:// 5rightsfoundation.com/ Abelson, R. 1986. Beliefs are like possessions. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior 16 (3): 223–250. Abrahamson, R. 2021. Woman gives birth to biracial twins. Today. https://www.today.com/ parents/woman-gives-birth-biracial-twins-t227758 Abramson, B. 2021. Do teens have the right to be vaccinated against their parents will? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/do-us-teens-have-the-right-to-be-vaccinatedagainst-their-parents-will-it-depends-on-where-they-live-166147 Abt, P. 2017, November 22. There’s a third world America that no one notices. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-a-third-world-america-that-no-onenotices/2017/11/21/640c4c1a-c499-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. 2014. The political legacy of American slavery. https://web. stanford.edu/~avidit/slavery.pdf ACLU. 2018. Stop killing kids. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/other/stop-killing-kids-why-its-timeend-indecent-practice-juvenile-death-penalty ———. 2022. The school to prison pipeline. https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/schoolprisonpipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic ACT for Youth. 2021. Youth engagement in organizations. http://actforyouth.net/youth_ development/engagement/organizations.cfm Adams, C. 2018. People mistake biracial twins for friends, not sisters. People. https://people.com/ human-interest/biracial-twin-girls/ ———. 2021. Police violence against children sparks demand for use-of-force laws. NBC. https:// www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/beaten-i-was-adult-police-violence-against-kids-sparkdemand-n1265535 Adams, R. 2022. How to use decision making models for rational decisions. Young and the Invested. https://youngandtheinvested.com/rational-decision-making-model/ Adamson, P. 2013. Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview (Innocenti Report Card no.11.). UNICEF Office of Research. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_ eng.pdf

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2

661

662

References

Adler, P., and P. Adler. 1998. Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. Rutgers University Press. Administration for Children and Families. 2006. Child neglect: A guide for prevention, assessment and intervention. United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www. childwelfare.gov/pubPDF/neglect.pdf#page=11view=Chapter%202%20Definition%20and% 20Scope%20of%20Neglect ———. 2012. Child maltreatment. United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2012 Advisory Board. 2018. 10 leading causes of child death. https://www.advisory.com/en/dailybriefing/2018/12/21/child-death Afana, D. 2018, November 8. Special ed teacher accused of striking student barred from in-person teaching. MLive. https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2018/11/second_ann_ arbor_special_educa.html Agnew, R. 1998. Causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2): 177–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480698002002003. Ahmed, N. 2010. Female feticide in India. Issues Law Med 26 (1): 3–29. Aiken, W., and H. LaFollette, eds. 1980. Whose child? Parental rights, parental authority and state power. Rowman and Littlefield. Ainsley, J., Gutierrez, G., & Soboroff, J. 2021. CBP not testing migrant children at border stations although many test positive for coronavirus after transfer. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews. com/politics/immigration/cbp-not-testing-migrant-children-covid-border-stations-thoughmany-n1262059 Aizer, A. 2008. Neighborhood violence and urban youth. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13773 Akee, R., Simeonova, R., Costello, E., & Copeland, W. 2015. How does household income affect child personality traits and behaviors? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21562.pdf Alaimo, K., and B. Klug, eds. 2002. Children as equals: Exploring the rights of the child. University Press of America. Alanen, L. 2010. Taking children’s rights seriously. Childhood 17 (1): 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0907568209361011. ———. 2016. ‘Intersectionality’ and other challenges to theorizing childhood. Childhood 23 (2): 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216631055. Alanen, L., and B. Mayall. 2001. Conceptualizing child-adult relations. Routledge. Alba, R. 2021. The surge of young Americans from minority white families and its significance for the future. Daedalus 150 (2): 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01855. Albarran, G., and B. Taracena-Ruiz. 2012. The involvement of educators of children at risk of becoming street-kids: An analysis from methodology proposed by clinical sociology. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud 10 (2): 957–970. Albrecht, L. 2022. Childcare costs exceed college tuition. Market Watch. https://www. marketwatch.com/story/child-care-costs-are-outpacing-inflation-the-average-cost-of-daycarefor-infants-now-exceeds-in-state-college-tuition-fees-11644867995 Alderson, P. 2000a. Children as researchers: The effects of participation rights on research methodology. In Research with children: Perspectives and practices, ed. P. Christensen and A. James, 241–257. Falmer Press. ———. 2000b. Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practice. Jessica Kingsley. ———. 2012. Young children’s human rights: A sociological analysis. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 20: 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181812X622187. ———. 2021, March 11. Sociology needs critical realism. Transforming Society. https://www. transformingsociety.co.uk/2021/03/11/sociology-needs-critical-realism/ Alderson, P., and V. Morrow. 2011. The ethics of research with children and young people. Sage.

References

663

Alderson, P., K. Sutcliffe, and K. Curtis. 2006. Children as partners with adults in their medical care. Archives of Disease in Childhood 91 (4): 300–303. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/ eprint/1250/. Alderson, Priscilla. 2008. Children as researchers: Participation rights and research methods. Routledge. Aldridge, J., and S. Becker. 1993, December. Punishing children for caring: The hidden cost of young carers. Children and Society. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1099-0 860.1993.tb00293.x ———. 2003. Children caring for parents with mental illness: Perspectives of young carers, parents and professionals. 1st ed. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89f21. Alexander, D. 2019. It’s time! How we can change the national narrative around kids. Leading for Kids. https://www.leadingforkids.org/blog/2019/8/26/its-time-how-can-we-change-thenational-narrative-around-kids ———. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: Understanding how we understand children and childhood [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Alexander, G. 2013. Ownership and obligations: The human flourishing theory of property. Cornell Law Faculty Publications 653: 4–11. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/653. Alexander, D. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: Understanding how we understand children and childhood [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA, United States. Ali, S. 2017. Tamir Rice shooting. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newlyreleased-interview-footage-reveal-shifting-stories-officers-who-shot-n751401 Alinsky, S. 1972. Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. New York: Vintage Books. Alker, J. 2020. Children’s uninsured rate rises by largest annual jump. Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2020/10/0 8/childrens-uninsured-rate-rises-by-largest-annual-jump-in-more-than-a-decade-2/ Allen, J. 2001. Poverty as a form of violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 4 (2–3): 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v04n02_03. Allen, S., & Daly, K. 2007. Effects of father involvement. FIRA. http://www.fira.ca/cms/ documents/29/Effects_of_Father_Involvement.pdf Allison-Hope, D. 2020. The urgency of a new social contract. BSR. https://www.bsr.org/en/ourinsights/blog-view/the-urgency-of-a-new-social-contract Allport, G. 1979/1954. The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Alston, P., ed. 1994. The best interests of the child: Reconciling culture and human rights. Clarendon Press. Alston, P., S. Parker, and J. Seymour, eds. 1992. Children, rights and the law. Oxford University Press. Alter, A., & Harris, E. 2021. Dr. Seuss books are pulled. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/03/04/books/dr-seuss-books.html Alter, G., and Fernekes. 2022. The human rights imperative in teacher education: Developing compassion, understanding and advocacy. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Alter, C. 2018. The school shooting generation has had enough. Time. http://time.com/longform/ never-again-movement/ America’s Health Ranking. 2020. Analysis of CDC WONDER online database, linked birth/infant death files. United Health Foundation. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/ American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2016. The impact of media violence and children and adolescents. http://www.aacap.org/aacap/medical_students_and_residents/mentor ship_matters/developmentor/the_impact_of_media_violence_on_children_and_adolescents_ opportunities_for_clinical_interventions.aspx ———. 2021. Suicide in children and teens. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/ Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Teen-Suicide-010.aspx

664

References

American Civil Liberties Union. 2020. Human rights. https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights American Academy of Child and Pediatric Psychiatry. 2018a. Families and Youth. https://www. aacap.org/AACAP/Families_Youth/Resource_Libraries ———. 2018b. Physical punishment. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_ for_Families/FFF-Guide/Physical-Punishment-105.aspx ———. 2020. Sexual abuse. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_ Families/FFF-Guide/Child-Sexual-Abuse-009.aspx ———. 2021a. Child suicide. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_ Families/FFF-Guide/Teen-Suicide-010.aspx ———. 2021b. Teen suicide. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_ Families/FFF-Guide/Teen-Suicide-010.aspx American Academy of Family Physicians. 2017. Physicians as advocates. https://www.aafp.org/ advocacy/wins.html American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. 1997. Religious objections to medical care. Pediatrics 99 (2): 279–281. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications. 1995. Children, adolescents, and advertising. Pediatrics 95 (2): 295–297. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Public Education. 1999. Media education. Pediatrics 104 (2): 341–343. ———. 2001a. Children, adolescents, and television. Pediatrics 107 (2): 423–425. ———. 2001b. Media violence. Pediatrics 108 (5): 1222–1226. ———. 2001c. Sexuality, contraception, and the media. Pediatrics 107 (1): 191–194. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2004. Dieting in adolescence. Paediatrics and Child Health 9 (7): 487–503. ———. 2009. Media violence – Council on communications and media. Pediatrics 124: 1495–1503. ———. 2011. Policy statement: Media use by children younger than 2 years. Pediatrics 128: 1040–1045. ———. 2014. Adverse child experiences and lifelong consequences. https://www.aap.org/en-us/ documents/ttb_aces_consequences.pdf ———. 2015. Racism and its impact on children’s health. https://www.aap.org/en-us/Documents/ cocp_racism_child_health.pdf ———. 2016. Gun violence prevention. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federaladvocacy/page/aapfederalgunviolencepreventionrecommendationstowhitehouse.aspx? nfstatus=401nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription= ERROR:+No+local+token ———. 2018. Vaccine studies. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immu nizations/Pages/Vaccine-Studies-Examine-the-Evidence.aspx ———. 2021. Immunizations. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initia tives/immunizations/Pages/Immunizations-home.aspx ———. 2022. Caring for your baby and young child: Birth to age. https://www.healthychildren. org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/What-to-Know-about-Child-Abuse.aspx ———. 2023. Policy statement. https://www.aap.org/en/policy/ American Addiction Centers. 2018. When a parent is in a drug rehab center. https:// americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/parent-in-rehab/ American Anthropological Association. 1999. Anthropology and human rights. https://www. americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1880 American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2021. Human rights council. https://www. aaas.org/programs/science-and-human-rights-coalition American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. 1998. Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534534.pdf American Association of University Women. 2016. The simple truth: The gender pay gap. http:// www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/SimpleTruth_Spring2016.pdf

References

665

American Bar Association. 2009. A short history of child protection. https://www.americanbar.org/ content/dam/aba/publishing/insights_law_society/ChildProtectionHistory.authcheckdam.pdf ———. 2016. Parental rights cases to know. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/ child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/paren tal-rights-cases-to-know/ ———. 2019. Tinker at 50: Student rights move forward? https://www.americanbar.org/news/ abanews/publications/youraba/2019/march-2019/after-half-a-century%2D%2Dtinker-decisionstill-protecting-student-s/ American Civil Liberties Union. 2015. End juvenile life without parole. https://www.aclu.org/endjuvenile-life-without-parole ———. 2020a. Campaigns to undermine sexuality education in public schools. https://www.aclu. org/other/campaigns-undermine-sexuality-education-public-schools ———. 2020b. Your right to equality in education. https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-equalityeducation ———. 2021. Human Rights. https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights ———. n.d.. Tinker v. Des Moines - landmark Supreme Court ruling on behalf of student expression. https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-rulingbehalf-student-expression American College of Pediatrics. 2013. Homosexual parenting: Is it time for change? https://www. acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-isit-time-for-change ———. 2014. The media, children, and adolescents. https://archive.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/ position-statements/parenting-issues/the-media-children-and-adolescents ———. 2016. The teenage brain: Under construction. https://acpeds.org/position-statements/theteenage-brain-under-construction American Fact Finder. 2010. Data on multiple races and ethnicities for 2010: Table QT-P1, age groups and sex. Census Summary File 2. http://factfinder2.census.gov American Federation of Teachers. 2022. Every child needs a school nurse. https://www.aft.org/ childrens-health-safety-and-well-being/childrens-access-care/every-child-needs-school American Gun Facts. 2022. Statistics. https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/ American Historama. 2018. Child labor. http://www.american-historama.org/1866-1881-recon struction-era/child-labor-america.htm American Immigration Council. 2016. Facts about unaccompanied children. http://www. immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/unaccompanied-children-resource-page American Medical Association. 2014. Physicians as agents of social change. AMA Journal of Ethics 16 (9): 671–781. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/issue/physicians-agents-social-change. American Political Science Association. 2021. Human rights section 36. https://www.apsanet.org/ section36 American Presidency Project. 2023. The American presidency project. University of California Santa Barbara. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ American Psychological Association. 2009. Who we are. http://www.apa.org/about/apa/index.aspx ———. 2017. What is it like to grow up as an undocumented youth in America? http://www.apa. org/topics/immigration/undocumented-video.aspx ———. 2019. Digital guidelines. https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/technologyuse-children ———. 2022. Children, youth, families and socioeconomic status. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/ resources/publications/children-families American Public Health Association. 2016. Gun violence. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/ gun-violence ———. 2021a. Funding public health protects our lives and saves money. https://apha.org/newsand-media/multimedia/infographics/funding-public-health-protects-our-lives-and-savesmoney-text-version ———. 2021b. Gun Violence. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence

666

References

———. 2021c. Vaccines. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/vaccines American Sociological Association. 2003. Careers in clinical sociology. https://www.asanet.org/ sites/default/files/savvy/images/employment/docs/pdf/clinsoc_45575v2.pdf ———. 2020. Section on Human Rights. https://www.asanet.org/asa-communities/sections/ sociology-human-rights Amin, A., A. Kågesten, E. Adebayo, and V. Chandra-Mouli. 2018. Addressing gender socialization and masculinity norms among adolescent boys: Policy and programmatic implications. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 62 (3S): S3–S5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.022. Amnesty International 2021. The state of the world’s human rights. https://www.amnestyusa.org/ reports/annual-report-2020/ ———. 2020. Women’s rights are human rights. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/ discrimination/womens-rights/33 Anderson, C. 2010. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries. Psychological Bulletin 136 (2): 151. Anderson, C., and B. Bushman. 2002. The effects of media violence on society. Science 295 (5564): 2377–2379. Anderson, K. 2018a. West Virginia teacher accused of hitting special needs student. https://www. wvnstv.com/local-news/mercer-county/bluefield-elementary-teacher-accused-of-hitting-5-yearold-special-needs-student/1516037114 Anderson, M. 2016. When school feels like prison. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ education/archive/2016/09/when-school-feels-like-prison/499556/ ———. 2018b. Public attitudes toward engagement on social media. Pew Research. https://www. pewresearch.org/internet/2018/07/11/public-attitudes-toward-political-engagement-on-socialmedia/ Anderson, R. 2020. Sports prodigies. Bundoo. https://www.bundoo.com/articles/sports-prodigiestop-athletes-who-started-as-toddlers/ Andersson, E. 2017. The pedagogical political participation model (the 3P-M) for exploring, explaining and affecting young people’s political participation. Journal of Youth Studies 20 (10): 1346–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1333583. Andreoli, V.A., S. Worchel, and R. Folger. 1974. Implied threat to behavioral freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 (6): 765–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037529. Andresen, S., and A. Ben-Arieh. 2016. Can we compare children’s well-being across countries? Lessons from the Children’s Worlds study. In Childhood, youth and migration: Connecting global and local perspectives, ed. C. Hunner-Kreisel and S. Bohne, 15–29. Spring. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-31111-1_2. Andrews, E. 2012. 11 innovations that changed history. History.com. http://www.history.com/ news/history-lists/11-innovations-that-changed-history ———. 2018. 6 child monarchs who changed history. History.com. https://www.history.com/ news/6-child-monarchs-who-changed-history Ang, F., Berghmans, E., Catrijsse, L., Delplace, M., Delens-Ravier, I., Staelens, V., & Vandresse, C. 2006. Participation rights of children. Intersentia. Angel, J.L., and R.J. Angel. 2006. Minority group status and healthful aging: Social structure still matters. American Journal of Public Health 96 (7): 1152–1159. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH. 2006.085530. Annette, J. 2003a. Community, politics and citizenship education. In Education for democratic citizenship: Issues of theory and practice, ed. A. Lockyer, B. Crick, and J. Annette, 139–148. Routledge. ———. 2003b. Education for democratic citizenship: Issues of theory and practice. Ashgate. Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2009. KIDS COUNT indicator brief: Reducing the child poverty rate. http://www.aecf.org/resources/kids-count-indicator-brief-reducing-the-child-poverty-rate/

References

667

———. 2016a. Child and teen death rate. Kids Count Data Center. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/ data/tables/7243-child-and-teen-death-rate?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/869,3 6,868,867,133/any/14285,17513 ———. 2016b. Children who have emotional conditions. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/ tables/6031-children-who-have-one-or-more-emotional-behavioral-or-developmental-condi tions?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1021,18/any/12694,12695 ———. 2016c. Children who have received dental care. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/ tables/6033-children-who-have-received-preventive-dental-care-in-the-past-year#detailed/1/ any/false/1021,18/any/12689,12690 ———. 2016d. Children without health insurance. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/ 8810-children-17-and-below-without-health-insurance?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/ 573,869,36,868,867/any/17657,17658 ———. 2016e. KIDS COUNT data center. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/1/0/char/0 ———. 2016f. The changing child population of the United States. http://www.aecf.org/resources/ the-changing-child-population-of-the-united-states/ ———. 2020, September 9. First-of-its-kind partnership aims to redesign child welfare into child and family well-being systems. https://www.aecf.org/blog/first-of-its-kind-partnership-aims-toredesign-child-welfare-into-child-and ———. 2022. Child welfare and foster care. https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-welfare-and-fostercare-statistics Anonymous. n.d.. Life changes: Similarities between the young and old. https://www.plainlocal. org/userfiles/595/Classes/7735/Life%20Changes%20-%20Similarities%20Between%20Young %20and%20Old.pdf Ansari, A., R.C. Pianta, J.V. Whittaker, V.E. Vitiello, and E.A. Ruzek. 2019. Starting early: The benefits of attending early childhood education programs at age 3. American Educational Research Journal 56 (4): 1495–1523. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218817737. Ansel, B. 2017a. Failing to invest in children is damaging the US economy. Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/failing-to-invest-in-young-kids-is-damagingthe-u-s-economy/ ———. 2017b. Falling behind the rest of the world: Childcare in the US. Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/falling-behind-the-rest-of-the-world-childcare-in-the-united-states/ Ansell, N. 2009. Childhood and the politics of scale: descaling children’s geographies? Progress in Human Geography 33 (2): 190–209. Antfolk, J., and A. Sjound. 2018. High parental investment in childhood is associated with increased mate value in adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences 127: 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.004. Appelbaum, Y.Y. 2018. Americans aren’t practicing democracy anymore. The Atlantic. https:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/losing-the-democratic-habit/568336/ Apple, M.W., and J.A. Beane. 2007. Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education. 2nd ed. Heinemann. Aquinas, T. 1988. Saint Thomas Aquinas: On law, morality and politics (W. Baumgarth & R. Regan, Eds.). Hackett Publishing Company. Archard, D. 2002. Children, multiculturalism, and education. In The Moral and Political Status of Children, ed. D. Archard and C. Macleod, 142–159. Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. Children, family, and the state. Ashgate. ———. 2004. Children: Rights and childhood. Routledge. ———. 2015. Children: Rights and childhood, 3rd revised and enlarged edition. Routledge. ———. 2018. Children’s rights. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/rights-children/. Archard, D., and C. Macleod, eds. 2002. The moral and political status of children: New essays. Oxford University Press. Archibald, R., and D. Feldman. 2003. A new compact for higher education in Virginia. Research Gate.

668

References

Archard, D., and M. Skivenes. 2009. Balancing a child’s best interests and a child’s views. International Journal of Children’s Rights 17 (1): 1–21. Ariès, P. 1962/1979. Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life. Vintage Books. Aristophanes. 2016. Stupidity. Good Reads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51113-youth-agesimmaturity-is-outgrown-ignorance-can-be-educated-and Arkin, D., & Popken, B. 2018. How internet conspiracy theorists turned Parkland students into crisis- actors. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-internet-s-conspiracy-theo rists-turned-parkland-students-crisis-actors-n849921 Armstrong, A. 2019. Bias starts as early as preschool. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/ bias-starts-early-preschool-can-be-unlearned Armstrong-Heimsoth, A., M. Hahn-Floyd, H.J. Williamson, J.M. Kurka, W. Yoo, and S.A. Rodríguez De Jesús. 2021. Former foster system youth: Perspectives on transitional supports and programs. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 48 (2): 287–305. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11414-020-09693-6. PMID: 32095998; PMCID: PMC7518090. Armstrong, K. 2018. Confused about your gender fluidity: It’s more common than you might realize. Brit + Co.. https://www.brit.co/confused-about-gender-fluidity-its-more-common-thanyou-might-realize/. Arneson, R.J., and I. Shapiro. 1996. Democratic autonomy and religious freedom: A critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder. In Political Order, Nomos XXXVIII, ed. I. Shapiro and R. Hardin, 365–411. New York University Press. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225. Aries, P. 1962. Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life. Knopf. Aronowitz, S. 2011. Notes on the occupy movement, Logos, from http://logosjournal.com/2011/ fall_aronowitz/ ———. 2014. The death and life of American labor: Toward a new worker’s movement. Verso. Aronowitz, R., D. Diner, D. Keene, J. Schnittker, and L. Tach. 2015. Cultural reflexivity in health research and practice. American Journal of Public Health 105: S403–S408. https://doi.org/10. 2105/AJPH.2015.302551. Arthurson, K., and K. Jacobs. 2003. Social exclusion and housing, AHURI Final Report No. 51. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. https://www.ahuri.edu. au/research/final-reports/51 Arulanantham, A. 2018. Immigrant children do not have the right to an attorney. ACLU. https:// www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/immigrant-children-do-not-have-right-attorney ASCD. 2021. Whole child initiative. http://www.wholechildeducation.org/about/ Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology (AACS). 2019. https://www.aacsnet.net/ Audacious Epigone. 2018. Physical attractiveness. https://www.unz.com/anepigone/physicalattractiveness-by-age-and-by/ Augsberger, A., & Collins, M. 2022. The US child welfare system is falling short because of persistent child poverty. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/us-child-welfaresystem-is-falling-short-because-of-persistent-child-poverty-180543 Austin, L.M. 2003. Children of childhood: Nostalgia and the romantic legacy. Studies in Romanticism 42 (1): 75–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/25601604. Australian Child Rights. 2020. Child rights videos. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/videos/ what-are-childrens-rights Australian Human Rights Commission. 2021. Human rights theories explained. https:// humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/human-rights-explained-fact-sheet-3-human-rightsphilosophies Austrew, A. 2020. The US ranks lower than 38 countries when it comes to child wellbeing. Care. com. https://www.care.com/c/us-rank-childrens-well-being Auxier, Brooke. 2020. Americans think social media can help build movements but can also be a distraction. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/09/americansthink-social-media-can-help-build-movements-but-can-also-be-a-distraction/

References

669

Aveett, K. 2016. The gender buffet. Gender and Society 30 (2): 189–212. Ayyar, S., Bolt, U., French, E., MacCuish, J., & O’Dea, C. 2021, May 5. Why rich parents have rich children. Vox. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-rich-parents-have-rich-children Azarei, A. 2021. MENSA’s youngest member is a toddler. Good Morning America. https://www. goodmorningamerica.com/living/story/mensas-youngest-american-member-toddler-78839670 Baby Center. 2016. Surprising facts about births in the United States. http://www.babycenter. com/0_surprising-facts-about-birth-in-the-united-states_1372273.bc Baciu, A., Y. Negussie, A. Geller, et al. 2017. Communities in action: Pathways to health equity. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). 2017 Jan 11. 2, The State of Health Disparities in the United States. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK42 5844/ Bade, R., & Ferris, S. 2017. Republicans cut programs. Politico. https://www.politico.com/ story/2017/05/14/republicans-cuts-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314 Baggerman, A., and R. Dekker. 2009. Child of enlightenment. Revolutionary Europe reflected in a boyhood diary, Egodocuments and history series. Leiden: Brill. Baily, T., and W. Baily. 1986. Operational definitions of child emotional maltreatment. Penn State University. https://catalog.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/1943804 Baird, J. 2016. Human rights and compassion aren’t dirty words. Sydney Morning Herald. https:// www.smh.com.au/opinion/human-rights-and-compassion-arent-dirty-words-20161021-gs7j0v. html Bajaj, M. 2011. Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly 33: 481–508. Bajaj, Monisha. 2016. Righting wrongs: A handbook of child rights for teachers. Chennai: Tulika Press. ———, ed. 2017. Human rights education: Theory, research & praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bakalar, N. 2005. Ugly children may get parental short shrift. The New York Times. http://www. nytimes.com/2005/05/03/health/ugly-children-may get-parental-short-shrift.html?_r=0 ———. 2014. Is breast feeding really better? The New York Times. http://well.blogs.nytimes. com/2014/03/04/is-breast-feeding-really-better/?_r=0 Baker, B. 2009. Private schooling in the US. https://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/ Baker_PvtFinance.pdf Baker, D. 2021. Debt and deficits. Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://cepr.net/debtand-deficits-yet-again/ Baker, J. 2013. Industrial age education is a disservice to students. Huffington Post. https://www. huffpost.com/entry/industrial-age-education-_b_2974297 Bakersfield Now. 2018. Teacher arrested for hitting student. https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/ local/district-standard-middle-school-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-hitting-student Baker-Shenk, C. 1985. Characteristics of oppressed and oppressor peoples: Their effect on the interpreting context. In Interpreting: The art of cross-cultural mediation. Proceedings of the RID Convention (pp. 59–71). Ball, J. 2020. Where do children’s rights stand in the business world? Humanium. https://www. humanium.org/en/where-do-childrens-rights-stand-in-the-business-world/ Ballantyne, N., & Dunning, D. 2022. Skeptics say do your own research: It’s not that simple. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/dyor-do-your-own-research. html Balvin, N. 2017. What is gender socialization and why does it matter. UNICEF. https://blogs. unicef.org/evidence-for-action/what-is-gender-socialization-and-why-does-it-matter/. Bandura, A. 2001. Social cognitive theory. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 1–26. Bangergee, A. 2021. 10 reasons to cancel student loan debt. Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2021/01/Ten%20Reasons%20to%20Can cel%20Student%20Loan%20Debt_Jan%202021.pdf. Banks, R. 2012. Is marriage for white people? Plume.

670

References

Banschick, M. 2012. The high failure rate of second and third marriages. https://www. psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-andthird-marriages Barbaro, A., and J. Earp. 2008. Consuming kids: The commercialization of childhood. Media Education Foundation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkei3KTh_vk. Barbeque Lab. 2022, September. Hunger in America. https://thebarbecuelab.com/hunger-inamerica/ Barber, R. 2017. The urgency of addressing the rise of racist hate speech. https://www.facingsouth. org/2017/03/urgency-addressing-rise-racist-hate-speech-k-12-schools Barkan, J. 2012. Hired guns on Astroturf: How to buy and sell school reform. Truthout. https:// truthout.org/articles/hired-guns-on-astroturf-how-to-buy-and-sell-school-reform/ Barker, D. 2011. Research on civic capacity: An analysis of Kettering literature and scholarship. Kettering Foundation. Barker, J. 2020. Racism is a public health issue. Boston Children’s Hospital. https://answers. childrenshospital.org/racism-child-health/. Barkow, J. 1992. The adapted mind. Oxford University Press. Barlett, J., and V. Sacks. 2019. Adverse child experiences are different than child trauma. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/blog/adverse-childhood-experiences-different-than-childtrauma-critical-to-understand-why. Barlow, R. 2013. Gay parents are as good as straight ones. Boston University. https://www.bu. edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/. Barnett, C. 2021. Kierkegaard and the question concerning technology. Reprint ed. Bloomsbury Academic Reprints. Barnett, M. 2012. Is America the moral leader of the world? CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2012/0 7/04/opinion/barnett-human-rights/index.html. Barnett, S. 2004. The universal vs targeted debate: Should we have preschool for all? National Institute for Early Education Research. https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/6.pdf Baron, J. 2018. A brief history of evidence-based policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 678 (1): 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218763128. Barrett, N., et al. 2017. DIisparities in student discipline by race and family income. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans. Barrie, J.M. 1995. Peter Pan and other plays, edited with an introduction by Peter Hollindale. Oxford University Press. Barrocas, A.L., B.L. Hankin, J.F. Young, and J.R. Abela. 2012. Rates of nonsuicidal self-injury in youth: Age, sex, and behavioral methods in a community sample. Pediatrics 130 (1): 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2094. Barshay, J. 2020. Lowest student to counselor ratio since 1986. Hechinger Report. https:// hechingerreport.org/lowest-student-to-school-counselor-ratio-since-1986/ Bartko, W.T., and J.S. Eccles. 2003. Adolescent participation in structured and unstructured activities: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32: 233–241. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1023056425648. Bartholet, E. 2011. Ratification by the United States of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Pros and cons from a child’s rights perspective. The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, The Child as Citizen 633 (80). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002716210382389. ———. 2020. A warning on home schooling. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/ story/2020/05/law-school-professor-says-there-may-be-a-dark-side-of-homeschooling/ Bascom, J. 2016. 9 reasons why the common core is bad for education. TFP Student Action. https:// www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/9-reasons-why-common-core-is-bad-for-educationu Bassuk, E., C. DeCandia, C.A. Beach, and F. Berman. 2014. America’s youngest outcasts: A report card on child homelessness. American Institutes for Research. http://www.air.org/resource/ americas-youngest-outcasts-report-card-child-homelessness.

References

671

Bassuk, E., M. Richard, and A. Tsertsvadze. 2015. The prevalence of mental Illness in homeless children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 54 (2): 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2014.11.008. Bateman, N. 2020. Working parents are key to COVID-19 recovery. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/research/working-parents-are-key-to-covid-19-recovery/. Bates, K.A., and R.S. Swan. 2021. Juvenile delinquency in a diverse society. Sage. Bauer, L. 2020. The COVID-19 crisis has already left too many children hungry in America. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid-19-crisis-hasalready-left-too-many-children-hungry-in-america/. Bauer, S. 2014. Children’s rights are future rights. German Development Institute. https://www. die-gdi.de/en/the-current-column/article/childrens-rights-are-future-rights/. Baum, D. 2014. Letting kids shoot guns is good for them. Time.. http://time.com/3211885/gunschildren-firing-range-uzi/. Bauman, V. 2018, October 10. It pays to be born rich. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-6261249/Children-wealthy-parents-successful-gifted-kids-born-low-income-fami lies.html Bauman, Z. 2004. Wasted lives. Polity Press. ———. 2012. Downward mobility is now a reality. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/2012/may/31/downward-mobility-europe-young-people Baumberg, B., Bell, K., & Gaffney, D. 2010. Benefit system riddled with ‘stigma’. Poverty and social exclusion. https://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-benefits-attitudes/benefit-system-riddled-% E2%80%98stigma%E2%80%99 Baumgarten, B., and P. Ullrich. 2016. Discourse, power, and governmentality: Social Movement Research with and beyond Foucault. In Social theory and social movements, ed. J. Roose and H. Dietz, 13–38. Springer VS. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care. 2018, June 11. Making mistakes while studying actually helps you learn better. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/18061113343 7.htm Baynton, D.C. 2011. ‘These pushful days’: Time and disability in the age of eugenics. Health and History 13 (2): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.5401/healthhist.13.2.0043. Bazelon, E. 2017. Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying and rediscovering the power of character and empathy. Random House. BBC. 1999, November 29. Einstein the greatest. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm ———. 2011. America’s death shame. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-15288865 ———. 2017. Do baby boxes really save lives? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39366596 ———. 2018. America’s gun culture in 10 charts. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-uscanada-41488081 ———. 2020. US body camera shows police berating five year old. https://www.bbc.com/news/ world-us-canada-56558056 ———. 2021. US super rich pay almost no tax. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57383869? piano-modal ———. 2022, May 25. America’s gun culture. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-414 88081 Beatty, B. 2010. Charting childhood. Humanities and Social Sciences Online. https://www.h-net. org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29588 Beauchamp, Z. 2018. One map that puts America’s gun epidemic in perspective. Vox. https://www. vox.com/2014/6/11/5797892/us-world-firearm-ownership-map Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2012. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Beazley, H., S. Bessell, J. Ennew, and R. Waterson. 2009. Editorial: The right to be properly researched: Research with children in a messy, real world. Children’s Geographies 7 (4).

672

References

Beck, B. 2019. Why children’s lives have changed radically in just a few decades. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/01/03/why-childrens-lives-have-changed-radi cally-in-just-a-few-decades. Becker, B., and J. McNeal. 1987. Children as consumers. Wiley. Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. The Free Press. ———. 1967. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 238–247. Becker, K. 2014. See the photos that got Adrian Peterson indicted for child abuse. Independent Journal Review. https://ijr.com/2014/09/177641-see-photos-got-star-rb-adrian-petersonindicted-child-abuse-decide-went-far/ ———. 2015. If you look at this chart of top 10 nations in the world for mass shootings- one thing jumps out. Independent Journal Review. http://ijr.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claimmass- shootings Becker, M. 2021. Children’s mental health. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/browncenterchalkboard/2021/02/24/educators-are-key-in-protecting-student-mental-health-duringthe-covid-19-pandemic/ Becker, S. 2020a. Young carers research, practice and policy: An overview and critical perspective on possible future directions. Adolescent Research Review 5 (1): 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40894-019-00119-9. ———. 2020b. Young carers research, practice and policy: An overview and critical perspective on possible future directions. Adolescent Research Review 5 (1): 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40894-019-00119-9. Becker, S., C. Dearden, and J. Aldridge. 2000. Young carers in the UK: Research, policy and practice. Research, Policy and Planning 8 (2): 13–22. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/75066/ Beeghley, E., and A. Madva. 2020. An Introduction to Implicit Bias. Routledge. Beemgee. 2022. Story vs narrative. https://www.beemgee.com/blog/story-vs-narrative/ Beideman, J. 2021. How residents created a more playful city. Brookings. https://www.brookings. edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/06/10/how-resident-led-advocacy-in-rochester-n-y-is-creating-amore-playful-city/. Beitz, C. 2011. The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press. Bell, M., and M. Gardiner. 1998. Bakhtin and the human sciences: No last words. Sage. Bellows, A. 2018. Teens search for identity. https://psychcentral.com/lib/your-teens-search-foridentity/ Belluck, P. 2020. New findings on 2 new ways children can become seriously ill from the coronavirus. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/health/covid-kids-severeinflammatory-syndrome.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage. ———. 2021. Many children with serious inflammatory syndrome had no COVID symptoms. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/health/covid-children-mis-c.html Bem, S.L., and D.J. Bem. 1970. Case study of a nonconscious ideology: Training the woman to know her place. In Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs, ed. D.J. Bem, 89–99. Brooks/Cole. Ben-Arieh, A., and N. Tarshish. 2016. Child rights and child wellbeing. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Benatar, D. 2008. Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford University Press. Benenson, R. 1984. Social welfare under Reagan. Editorial research reports 1984 (Vol. I). http:// library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1984030900 Benfer, E., D.B. Robinson, S. Butler, L. Edmonds, S. Gilman, K.L. McKay, L. Owens, N. Steinkamp, D. Yentel, and Z. Neumann. 2021a. The COVID-19 eviction crisis. Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/the-covid-19-eviction-crisis-an-estimated30-40-million-people-in-america-are-at-risk/. Benfer, E.A., D. Vlahov, M.Y. Long, E. Walker-Wells, J.L. Pottenger Jr., G. Gonsalves, and D.E. Keene. 2021b. Eviction, health inequity, and the spread of COVID-19: Housing policy as a primary pandemic mitigation strategy. Journal of Urban Health 98 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.

References

673

1007/s11524-020-00502-1. Epub 2021 Jan 7. Erratum in: J Urban Health. 2021 Jan 25;: PMID: 33415697; PMCID: PMC7790520. Benforado, A. 2023. A minor revolution. Crown. Benford, R.D. 1997. An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry 67 (4): 409–430. Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611–639. Bengtson, V. 2019. In memoriam. Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. https://gero.usc.edu/201 9/11/15/in-memoriam-vern-bengtson-professor-of-gerontology-social-work-and-sociology/. Benner, M. 2018. Profit before kids. American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ education-k-12/reports/2018/10/10/459041/profit-before-kids/ Benokraitis, N. 2014. Marriages and families. Pearson. Benson, J. 2014. Four frames for principals. The Whole Child. http://www.wholechildeducation. org/blog/four-frames-for-principals-new-and-experienced. Bentham, J. 1843. Anarchical fallacies. In The works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. J. Bowring, vol. II. William Tait. ———. 1987. Anarchical fallacies; being an examination of the Declaration of Rights issues during the French Revolution. In Nonsense upon stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man, ed. J. Waldron, 69. Methuen. Benton, T.D., R.C. Boyd, and W.F. Njoroge. 2021. Addressing the global crisis of child and adolescent mental health. JAMA Pediatrics 175 (11): 1108–1110. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamapediatrics.2021.2479. Bentz, V. 2001. Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment. Routledge. Benwell, B., and E. Stokoe. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press. Berger, K. 2000. The developing person: Through childhood and adolescence. Worth Publishers. Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1991. The social construction of reality. Penguin Books. Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books. Berger, S., T. Kouzarides, R. Shiekhattar, and A. Shilatifard. 2009. An operational definition of epigenetics. Genes and Development 23: 781–783. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1787609. Berghahn, D. 2013. Far flung families in film: The diasporic family. University of Edinburgh Press. Berk, L.E. 1992. Children’s private speech: An overview of theory and the status of research. In Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation, ed. R.M. Diaz and L.E. Berk, 17–53. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Berkeley Law. 2021. From father’s property to child rights. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/ourfaculty/faculty-sites/mary-ann-mason/books/from-fathers-property-to-childrens-rights-a-his tory-of-child-custody-preview/ Berkowitz, J. 2008. Overview of formative, process and context evaluation measures. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34 (6): 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.008. Berkowitz, L., and E. Harmon-Jones. 2004. Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion 4 (2): 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107. Brems, E., E. Desmet, and W. Vandenhole. 2019. Children’s rights law in the global human rights landscape: Isolation, inspiration, integration. Routledge. Bernier, J. 2022. Child sexual abuse. MASS Kids. https://www.masskids.org/. Bernstein, E. 2016a, January 25). How long does it take to unite a step-family? The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-stepfamily-to-gel-1453754 797 Bernstein, R. 2015. Move over millennials. AdAge. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/movemillennials-gen-z/296577/ Bernstein, R. 2016b. Pros and cons of restorative justice. http://www.asanet.org/news-events/ footnotes/apr-may-2019/whats-new/asa-program-reviewers-and-consultants-new-name-samegreat-resources-sociology-departments

674

References

Bernstein, R. 2021. African American children and childhood. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi. org/10.1093/obo/9780199791231-0158 Bernstein, R.L., and R. Dicker. 1994. Human rights first. Foreign Policy 94: 43–47. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1149129. Berreman, G.D. 1960. Caste in India and the United States. American Journal of Sociology 66 (2): 120–127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2773155. Berrick, J. 2011. Trends and issues in the U.S. child welfare system. In Child protection systems: International trends and orientations, ed. N. Gilbert, N. Parton, and M. Skivenes, 17–35. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0002. Berthelsen, D., and J. Brownlee. 2005. Respecting children’s agency for learning and rights to participation in child care programs. International Journal of Early Childhood 37 (3): 49–60. Besley, T. 1990. Means testing versus universal provision. Economica 56 (225): 119–129. Bester, J., and E. Kodish. 2017. Children are not the property of their parents: The need for a clear statement of ethical obligations and boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics 17 (11): 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1378768. Betancourt, J. 2003. Defining cultural competence: A practical framework for addressing racial/ ethnic disparities in health and healthcare. Public Health Reports. Bethell, T. 2001. Against sociobiology. First Things. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/01/ against-sociobiology Bettelheim, B. 1989. The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Vintage Books. Bhabha, J. 2003. September. The citizenship deficit: On being a citizen child. Development 46: 53– 59. Bhati, B. 2018. 10 similarities between kids and old people. Listovative. https://listovative.com/top10-similarities-between-kids-and-old-people-rtp/. Białecka-Pikul, M., M. Stępień-Nycz, I. Sikorska, et al. 2019. Change and consistency of selfesteem in early and middle adolescence in the context of school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48: 1605–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01041-y. Bian, L., S. Leslie, and A. Cimpian. 2017. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability. Science 355 (6323): 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524. Bianchi, S., M. Milkie, L. Sayer, and J. Robinson. 2000. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social forces 79 (1): 191–228. http://sf.oxfordjournals. org/content/79/1/191.short. Bickmore, K. 2004. Discipline for democracy? School districts’ management of conflict and social exclusion. Theory ánd Research in Social Education 32: 75–97. Billari, F., N. Hiekel, and A. Liefbroer. 2019. The social stratification of choice in the transition to adulthood. European Sociological Review 35 (5): 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz025. Billaud, J. 2020. Afterword: a post-human rights anthropology of human rights? Political and Legal Anthropology Review. https://polarjournal.org/a-post-human-rights-anthropology-of-humanrights/ Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. Binney, J. 2018, April 4. Police mental health training [Conference presentation]. Mental health symposium. Salem State University, Salem, MA Biography. 2016. Children who have changed the world. http://www.biographyonline.net/people/ inspirational/young-people.html Bipartisan Policy Center. 2021. From sea to shining sea: A bold bipartisan plan to rebuild American infrastructure. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/rebuilding-american-infrastruc ture/?utm_medium=search&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=problem-solvers-infra Birchall, D. 2020. Just a slap on the wrist? Parental corporal punishment of children and the defence of reasonable chastisement in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law Journal 50 (1) https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3664479.

References

675

Birk, M. 2021. Diversity is not the solution: Dismantling white supremacy is. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-diversity-is-not-the-solution-dismantlingwhite-supremacy-is-163398 Bittker, B., and J. George. 2021. Upholding the rights of transgender students. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/crsj-featured-articles/trans gender-youth-in-sports/. Bivans, J., E. Garcia, E. Gould, E. Weiss, and V. Wilson. 2016. It’s time for an ambitious national investment in America’s children. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/ its-time-for-an-ambitious-national-investment-in-americas-children/. Bizarrepedia. 2016. Youngest person to commit suicide. https://www.bizarrepedia.com/youngestsuicide Bjorklund, D. 2009. Why youth is not wasted on the young: Immaturity in human development. John Wiley. Black, A. 2006. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc. cfm?docid=erpintrof Blackburn, S. 2001. Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Blake, J. 2020. There’s one epidemic we may not find a vaccine for: Fear of black men. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/fear-black-men-blake/index.html. Blakemore, E. 2015. It doesn’t matter how much time parents spend with their kids. Smithsonian Magazine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/it-doesnt-matter-how-much-time-par ents-spend-their-kids-180954799/?no-ist Blakemore, S.J., S. Burnett, and R.E. Dahl. 2010. The role of puberty in the developing adolescent brain. Human Brain Mapping 31: 926–933. Blank, S. 2019. McKinsey’s 3 horizons model. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/02/ mckinseys-three-horizons-model-defined-innovation-for-years-heres-why-it-no-longer-applies Blau, F. 2012. Gender, inequality, and wages. IDEAS. https://ideas.repec.org/b/oxp/obooks/97801 99665853.htm Blau, P., and O. Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. Wiley. Blazar, D. 2016. Teacher and teaching effects on students' academic performance, attitudes, and behaviors. Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/27112 692 Blinder, R. 2015. Minnesota girl, 6, found dead with jump rope as noose in possible suicide. NY Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minnesota-girl-6-killed-jump-ropearticle-1.2079134 Blinken, A. J. 2021, February 8. U.S. decision to reengage with the UN Human Rights Council. U.S. Department of State. https://www.state.gov/u-s-decision-to-reengage-with-the-un-humanrights-council/ Bloom, B., L.I. Jones, and G. Freeman. 2013. Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National health interview survey, 2012. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 (258) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf. Bloom, L. 2020. Best and worst countries to raise a family. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ laurabegleybloom/2020/07/29/best-worst-countries-raise-family/?sh=97aea3d7becc. ———. 2021. 20 happiest countries in the world. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ laurabegleybloom/2021/03/19/the-20-happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2021/?sh=4b43f933 70a0. Bloom, S. 2013. Creating sanctuary: Creation of Sane societies. Routledge. ———. 2017. The sanctuary model: Through the lens of moral safety. In APA handbook of trauma psychology series, ed. S.N. Gold. Bloomberg, J. 2017. Fear these three types of phish. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ jasonbloomberg/2017/10/14/fear-these-three-types-of-phish-catphishing-enterprise-targets/#3 e5a0e2979f1. Bloomenthal, A. 2022. Property. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ property.asp.

676

References

Blow, C. 2013. These children are our future. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2013/06/15/opinion/blow-these-children-are-our-future.html?searchResultPosition=4 Bluebond-Langner, M.J., B. Belasco, and M.D. Wander. 2010. ‘I want to live, until I don’t want to live anymore’: Involving children with life-threatening and life-shortening illnesses in decision making about care and treatment. Nursing Clinics of North America 45 (3): 329–343. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cnur.2010.03.004. Bluebond-Langner, M., and J. Korbin. 2007. Challenges and opportunities in the anthropology of childhoods: An introduction to “children, childhoods, and childhood studies”. American Anthropologist 109 (2): 241–246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4496638. Blumburg, N. n.d.. 6 teenagers who made history. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. https://www. britannica.com/list/6-teenagers-who-made-history Blumer, H. 1969a. Collective behavior. In Principles of sociology, ed. A.M. Lee, 3rd ed. Barnes and Noble Books. ———. 1969b. Symbolic interactionism. Prentice-Hall. Blustein, J. 1982. Parents and children: The ethics of the family. Oxford University Press. Bochenek, M., and W. Brown. 2001. Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. US Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/hatred-hallways-violence-and-discrimina tion-against-lesbian-gay. Bock, J., S. Gaskins, and D. Lancy. 2008. A four-field anthropology of childhood. Anthropology News 49 (4): 4–6. Boeher, J., & Boeher, Sandy. 2020. Constitutional lawyers publish children’s book on First Amendment. https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-childrens-book/ Boeri, D. 2015. Phillip Chism convicted of murder, rape. WBUR. http://www.wbur.org/2015/12/1 6/philip-chism-murder-conviction. Bogage, J. 2017. Youth sports survey. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/recruiting-insider/wp/2017/09/06/youth-sports-study-declining-participation-rising-costsand-unqualified-coaches/ Bogle, K. 2007. The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass 1 (2): 775–788. Bolman, L., and T. Deal. 2003. Reframing organizations. Wiley. Bologna, C. 2021. How to teach kids that ads are manipulating them. Huffington Post. https:// www.huffpost.com/entry/teach-kids-ads-manipulating_l_601e2e96c5b689330e2f6890 Bond, J. 2021. Just 12 people are behind most vaccine social media hoaxes. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-abil ity-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes Booher-Jennings, J. 2008. Learning to label: Socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum of high-stakestesting. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 (2): 149–160. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01425690701837513. Borden, T. 2021. How much do you need to live comfortably in the US? Business Insider. https:// www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/living-wage-income-to-live-comfortably-in-everyus-state. Borkholder, J. 2022. Why childcare in the US lags behind much of the world. Crosscut. https:// crosscut.com/news/2022/01/why-child-care-us-lags-behind-much-world. Bornstein, M.H., ed. 2002. Handbook of parenting. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bornstein, M.H., P.R. Britto, Y. Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y. Ota, O. Petrovic, and D.L. Putnick. 2012. Child development in developing countries: introduction and methods. Child Development 83 (1): 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01671.x. Bossard, J. 2017. Children are human beings. Childhood Education 93 (3): 242–245. https://doi. org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1325286. Boudinot, D. 2005. Fear and violence in folktales. The Looking Glass: New perspectives on Children’s Literature 9 (3) https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/ojs/index.php/tlg/article/view/31/35.

References

677

Boundless Sociology. 2015. Theoretical perspectives on childhood socialization. https://www. boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/socialization-4/childhoodsocialization-49/theoretical-perspectives-on-childhood-socialization-312-3391/ Bourdieu, P. 1992. Invitation to a reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press. Bowen, J. 2020. What does the constitution say about education? North Carolina State University. https://ced.ncsu.edu/news/2020/09/18/ask-the-expert-what-does-the-constitution-say-abouteducation-nothing-explicitly-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-cant-help-provide-students-with-equaleducational-access-says-assistant-p/. Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment: Attachment and loss. Basic Books. Bowleg, L. 2012. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality. American Journal of Public Health 102: 1267–1273. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 2011. A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press. http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/A-cooperative-specieshuman-reciprocity-and-its-evolution-by-Bowles-and-Gintis.php. Boyce, J. K., & Ash, M. 2016, November 4. Toxic 100 names top air and water polluters. Political Economy Research Institute. https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/765-toxic-100-names-topclimate-polluters Boyce, M. 1979. Physical attractiveness: A source of teacher bias? Australian Journal of Teacher Education 4 (1): 41–44. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=ajte. Boyden, J., and J. Ennew. 1997. Children in Focus: A manual for participatory research with children. Radda Barnen. Boylan, J. 2012. Now we know what Joe Paterno knew. Beacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/ articles/1256931-penn-state-football-scandal-now-we-know-what-joe-paterno-knew. Boyse, K. 2012. Sibling abuse. https://gwcac.va.networkofcare.org/mh/library/article.aspx?id=14 57 Boyte, H., and N. Kari. 1996. Building America: The democratic promise of public work. Temple University Press. Bracken, A. 2020. How to raise a gender-neutral baby. Parents.com. https://www.parents.com/ parenting/should-you-raise-a-gender-neutral-baby/ Bradford, J., S.L. Reisner, J.A. Honnold, and J. Xavier. 2013. Experiences of transgender-related discrimination and implications for health: Results from the Virginia Transgender Health Initiative Study. American Journal of public health 103 (10): 1820–1829. https://doi.org/10. 2105/AJPH.2012.300796. Bradley, R.H., L. Whiteside-Mansell, J.A. Brisby, and B.M. Caldwell. 1997. Parents’ socioemotional investment in children. Journal of Marriage and Family 59 (1): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/353663. Brady, G., P. Lowe, and S. Lauritzen. 2015. Connecting a sociology of childhood perspective with the study of child health, illness, and wellbeing. Sociology of Health and Illness: Special Issue on Children, Health, and Wellbeing Policy Debates and Lived Experiences 27 (2): 173–183. Brady, M. 2000. The 3 Ps of children’s rights. The International Child and Youth Care Network. http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0500-threepees.html Brandt, M., and C. Reyna. 2017. Individual differences in the resistance to social change and acceptance of inequality predict system legitimacy differently depending on the social structure. European Journal of Personality 31 (3): 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2100. Brazelton, T.B. 2006. Touchpoints. Da Capo. Bredemeier, K. 2021, March 30. Human rights trends moving in wrong direction, US report finds. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_human-rights-trends-moving-wrong-direc tion-us-report-finds/6203954.html Brehm, J.W., and S.S. Brehm. 1981. Psychological reactance – A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press. Brehm, J.W., and E.A. Self. 1989. The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology 40: 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545.

678

References

Brehm, J.W. 1972. Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. General Learning Corporation. ———. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press. Breiner, H., M. Ford, and V.L. Gadsden. 2016. Parenting matters: Supporting parents of children ages 0-8. National Academies Press (US). Bremner, R. 1970. Children and youth in America. Harvard University Press. Brenner, A.M., E.V. Beresin, J.H. Coverdale, et al. 2018. Time to teach: Addressing the pressure on faculty time for education. Academic Psychiatry 42: 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-0170851-9. Brennan, J. 2015. Buying babies. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/ markets-for-babies/. Brennan, S. 2002. Children’s choices or children’s interests: Which do their rights protect? In The moral and political status of children: New essays, ed. D. Archard and C. Macleod, 53–69. Oxford University Press. Brennan, S., and R. Noggle. 1997. The moral status of children: Children’s rights, parents’ rights, and family justice. Social Theory and Practice 23: 1–26. Brewster, S. 2020. Slow violence and the youth climate movement. Society for Cultural Anthropology. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/slow-violence-and-the-youth-climate-movement. Bridge, J. 2014. Prioritizing research to reduce youth suicide and suicidal behavior. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 47 (3): S229–S234. Bridgman, A. 1989. Early childhood education and childcare. American Association of School Administrators. Briendel, A. 2018. 30 ways children’s lives have changed in the last 30 years. Best Life. https:// bestlifeonline.com/childhood-changes/ Briere, J., and C. Scott. 2015. Complex trauma in adolescents and adults: Effects and treatment. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 38: 427–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2015.05.004. Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2014. Family values: The ethics of parent-child relationships. Princeton University Press. Brighouse, H. 2002. What rights (if any) do children have? In The moral and political status of children: New essays, ed. D. Archard and C. Macleod, 31–52. Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. How should children be heard? Arizona Law Review, (Fall), 691–711. Bring Change 2 Mind. 2018. Fighting stigma. https://bringchange2mind.org/ Bron, J., and A. Thijs. 2011. Leaving it to the schools: Citizenship, diversity and human rights education. Educational Research 53 (2): 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011. 572361. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1997. The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Brookings Institute – American Enterprise Institute. 2022. Rebalancing: Children first, a report of the AEI-Brookings Working Group on Childhood in the United States. https://www.brookings. edu/research/rebalancingchildren-first/ Brooks, D. 2021, April 29. Give power to the parents. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2021/04/29/opinion/biden-child-care.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype= Homepage Brothers, K. B., Clayton, E. W., & Rothstein, M. A. 2021, September 3. The dangerous legal illusion of ‘parental rights.’ Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/03/noparent-right-unmask-child-509090 Brown, A., Demirhan, A., Peck, J., & Vorpahl, E. 2022a. Many parent groups opposing masks and CRT are actually driven by dark money. https://truthout.org/articles/many-parent-groupsopposing-masks-and-crt-are-actually-driven-by-dark-money/ Brown, A., S. Tapert, E. Granholm, and D.C. Delis. 2000. Neurocognitive functioning of adolescents. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 24: 164–171. Brown, C. 2013. Investing in our children. American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/ article/investing-in-our-children/ ———. 2017. Discrimination in childhood and adolescence. Taylor and Francis.

References

679

———. 2021. Unraveling bias: How prejudice has shaped children for generations and why it’s tie to break the cycle. Ben Bella Books. Brown, S., B. Nobling, J. Teufel, and D. Birc. 2011. Are kids too busy? Early adolescents perceptions of discretionary activities, overscheduling and stress. School Health. 81 (9): 574– 583. Brown, C.L., M. Yilanli, and A.L. Rabbit. 2022. Physical abuse and neglect. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Brown, D. 2018a. Barbaric: America’s cruel history of separating children from their parents. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/05/31/barbaricamericas-cruel-history-of-separating-children-from-their-parents/?utm_term=.064ac321bf31 Brown, G. 2018b. The new global youth movement. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/thenew-global-youth-movement Brown, G., and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis, Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. 2022. The long failed history of gun control legislation. BU Today. https://www.bu.edu/ articles/2022/the-long-failed-history-of-gun-control-legislation/ Brown, N. 2018c, August 13). Teaching white supremacy in the days of the alt-right. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/08/13/ teaching-white-supremacy-in-the-age-of-the-alt-right/ Brown, S., & Fischer, K. 2017, December 29. A dying town. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-dying-town/ Brown, T. 2006. Did the U.S. army distribute smallpox blankets to Indians? University of Michigan Library. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.5240451.0001.009 Browne, A. 2000. The last days of a white world. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ uk/2000/sep/03/race.world Brownstein, R. 2022. The real reason America doesn’t have gun control. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/05/senate-state-bias-filibuster-blocking-gun-control-legis lation/638425/ Bruhn, J.G. 2001. On becoming a clinical sociologist. In Handbook of clinical sociology, ed. H.M. Rebach and J.G. Bruhn. Springer. Brummelman, E., S. Thomaes, M. Slagt, G. Overbeek, B. de Castro, and B. Bushman. 2013, June 19. My child redeems my broken dreams: On parents transferring their unfulfilled ambitions onto their child. PLoS One 8 (6): e65360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065360. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press. Brunsma, D., K. Smith, and B. Gran. 2013. Handbook of the sociology of human rights. Paradigm. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4596/1/44.pdf.pdf. ———. 2017. Movements for human rights. Routledge. Brunswick, D., C. Hodge, and M. Dawson. 2021. Locks, lights, out of sight: How lockdown drills affect America’s children. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/us/school-shootinglockdown-drills/. Bryant, T. 2015. How black beauty has changed. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/black-makeuptrends Bryant-Davis, T., and C. Ocampo. 2005. Racist incident-based trauma. The Counseling Psychologist 33 (4): 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005276465. Bryson, D.R. 2002. Socializing the young: The role of foundations, 1923–1941. Bergin & Garvey. Buchanan, A.E., and D.W. Brock. 1998. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge University Press. Buchar, V., E. Buchar, and C. Goian. 2012. Child protection – A subject of clinical sociology. Social Research Reports 22: 36–43. https://ideas.repec.org/a/lum/rev6rl/v22y2012ip36-43. html. Buckingham, D. 2010a. In search of the child. In Childhood in American society, ed. K. Sternheimer, 65–75. Allyn and Bacon.

680

References

———. 2010b. In search of the child. In Childhood in American society, ed. K. Sternheimer, 65– 75. Allyn and Bacon. Buckley, M. 2020. Why does the past seem better than the present? PsychReg. https://www. psychreg.org/past-seem-better/. Budds, D. 2020. Design in the age of pandemics. Curbed. https://archive.curbed.com/2020/3/1 7/21178962/design-pandemics-coronavirus-quarantine. Bullying Statistics. 2016. Cyberbullying statistics. http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyberbullying-statistics.html Bump, P. 2019. ICE raids in Mississippi. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2019/08/08/ice-raids-mississippi-may-indefinitely-separate-some-children-theirparents/ Bunch, L. 2021. Uninsured rates for children in poverty increased 2018-2020. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/09/uninsured-rates-for-childrenin-poverty-increased-2018-2020.html. Burawoy, M. 2006. Introduction: A public sociology for human rights. In Public sociologies reader, ed. J. Blau and K.I. Smith, 1–18. Rowman & Littlefield. Burch, A. 2018. A mass shooting generation cries out for change. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/columbine-mass-shootings.html Burdette, H.L., and R.C. Whitaker. 2005. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 159 (1): 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.1.46. PMID: 15630057. Bureau of Justice Statistic. 2011. Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents, 2008–2010. United States Department of Justice. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty= pbdetail&iid=2372 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1996. National crime victimization survey. United States Department of Justice. ———. 2000. Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics. United States Department of Justice. ———. 2021. Juvenile justice systems. United States Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/ justice-system#juvenile Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. Volunteering in the United States. United States Department of Justice. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm. Burke, P., A. Bennett, C. Burgess, K. Gray, and E. Southgate. 2016. Capability, belonging and equity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283617924 Burns, M. 1977. I am not a short adult! Getting good at being a kid. Little, Brown and Company. Burton-Hill, C. 2015. The dark side of nursery rhymes. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/culture/ story/20150610-the-dark-side-of-nursery-rhymes. Burtt, S. 1996. In defence of Yoder: Parental authority and the public schools. In NOMOS 38: Political order, ed. I. Shapiro and R. Hardin, 412–437. New York University Press. Bury, C. 2000. Interview with Robert Reich. Frontline. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/clinton/interviews/reich.html. Bushnell, G.A., S.N. Compton, S.B. Dusetzina, B.N. Gaynes, M.A. Brookhart, J.T. Walkup, M.A. Rynn, and T. Stürmer. 2018. Treating pediatric anxiety: Initial use of SSRIs and other antianxiety prescription medications. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 79 (1). https://doi.org/ 10.4088/JCP.16m11415. Bussolo, M. 2019. Do we need a new social contract? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ future-development/2019/04/11/do-we-need-a-new-social-contract/. Butler, C. 2012. Child rights: The movement, international law and opposition. Purdue University Press. Butler, E. 2016. The man hired to have sex with children. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/ magazine-36843769 Butler, R.N. 1969. Age-ism: Another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist 9 (4 Part 1): 243–246.

References

681

Byrne, B., and L. Lundy. 2019. Children’s rights-based childhood policy: A six-P framework. The International Journal of Human Rights 23 (3): 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987. 2018.1558977. Cabrera, N., David Deming, Veronique de Rugy, Lisa A. Gennetian, Ron Haskins, Dayna Bowen Matthew, Richard V. Reeves, Isabel V. Sawhill, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Kosali Simon, Katharine B. Stevens, Michael R. Strain, Ryan Streeter, James Sullivan, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Lauren Bauer. 2022. Rebalancing: Children first. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ research/rebalancing-children-first/ Cahan, E., J. Mechling, B. Sutton-Smith, and S.H. White. 1994. The elusive historical child: Ways of knowing the child of history and psychology. In Children in time and place: Developmental and historical insights, ed. G.H. Elder, J. Modell, and R.D. Parke. Cambridge University Press. Cahn, D., and S. Lloyd. 1996. Family violence from a communication perspective. Sage. CALCASA. 2013. Prevention works. http://www.preventconnect.org/2013/03/prevention-worksupdating-the-foundations-of-sexual-and-domestic-violence-prevention/ Calfas, J. 2017. Donald Trump says he doesn’t want a poor person in his cabinet. Time. https://time. com/4828157/donald-trump-cabinet-iowa-rally-poor-person/ ———. 2021. 40% of US households face financial difficulties. Wall Street Journal. https://www. wsj.com/articles/close-to-40-of-u-s-households-say-they-face-financial-difficulties-as-covid-1 9-pandemic-continues-11634241586 Call, C. 2017. Is the UN friend or foe? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ order-from-chaos/2017/10/03/is-the-un-a-friend-or-foe/. Callan, E. 2002. Autonomy, child-rearing, and good lives. In The moral and political status of children: New essays, ed. D. Archard and C. Macleod, 118–141. Oxford University Press. Calvert, S. 2008. Children as consumers: Advertising and marketing. The Future of Children 18 (1): 205–234. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053125. Cambell, T. 1992, April. The rights of the minor: As a person, as child, as juvenile, as future adult. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 6 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ lawfam/6.1.1. Camero, K. 2020. Black kids 6 times more likely to be shot to death by police than white kids. Miami Herald. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article247407480. html Campbell, K.M., and K. Covell. 2001. Children’s rights education at the university level: An effective means of promoting rights knowledge and rights-based attitudes. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 9 (2): 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718180120494883. Campbell, S. 2013, October. Limits of intersectionality. Socialist Review, 384. http:// socialistreview.org.uk/384/limits-intersectionality Campbell, T., and A.C. Kay. 2014. Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (5): 809–824. https:// doi.org/10.10370/a0037963. Campoamor, D. 2016. 9 reasons why comparing Trump to children is unfair to kids. Romper. https://www.romper.com/p/9-reasons-why-comparing-donald-trump-to-children-is-totallyunfair-to-kids-20457 Campus One. 2015. 6 kids who are changing the world. https://campus.one.org/stories/6-kids-whoare-changing-the-world/ Campus Safety. 2016. Study finds increase in school shootings at colleges in U.S. https://www. campussafetymagazine.com/news/study_finds_increase_in_school_shootings_at_colleges_in_ u-s/ Cannon, A. 2016. Aiming at students. New York Crime Commission. http://www. nycrimecommission/pdfs/CCC-Aiming-At-Students-College-Shootings-Oct2016.pdf. Canzater, S. 2018. Anchor babies and birth tourism. O’Neill Institute, Georgetown Law. https:// oneill.law.georgetown.edu/anchor-babies-birth-tourism-and-most-americans-complete-igno rance-of-immigration-law/.

682

References

Capodilupo, S. 2007. Racial microaggressions in everyday life. The American Psychologist 62 (4): 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271. Capps, K. 2015. Do no kids allowed rules violate federal anti-discrimination laws? Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-10/do-no-kids-allowed-rules-violate-fed eral-anti-discriminationlaws Capriola, P. 2020. Top reasons why kids can’t vote. Strategies for Parents. https:// strategiesforparents.com/top-reasons-why-kids-cant-vote-and-how-to-get-them-ready/ Carcasson, M. 2006. Ending welfare as we know it: President Clinton and the rhetorical transformation of the anti-welfare culture. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9 (4): 655–692. http://www.jstor. org/stable/41940106. Cargas, S. 2019. Human right education: Forging an academic discipline. University of Pennsylvania. Carlson, B. 2009, October 26. Parents beating themselves up over Disney’s ‘Baby Einstein’ recall. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/10/parents-beat-themselves-upover-disney-s-baby-einstein-recall/347761/ Carlson, K. 2014. From trivial to treasured: Children in the enlightenment. The Bildungsroman Project. http://bildungsromanproject.com/childhood-in-the-enlightenment/ Carlsson, U. 2006. Regulation, awareness, empowerment: Young people and harmful media content in the digital age. Nordicom. Carlsson-Paige, N. 2009. Taking back childhood. Plume. Carney, G., and M. Gray. 2015. Unmasking the ‘elderly mystique’: Why it is time to make the personal political in ageing research. Journal of Aging Studies 35: 123–134. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jaging.2015.08.007. Carolan, M. 2006. Explorations in classical sociological theory: Seeing the social world [Book review]. Teaching Sociology 34 (2): 190–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0603400210. Carothers, T., & O’Donohue, A. 2019, September 25. How Americans were driven to extremes. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-09-25/how-ameri cans-were-driven-extremes Carpendale, J., and C. Lewis. 2006. How children develop social understanding. Wiley-Blackwell. Carpenter, D., and R. Nevin. 2009. Environmental causes of violence. Physiology and Behavior 99 (2010): 260–268. Carrington, D. 2016, March 25. Three quarters of UK children spend less time outdoors than prison inmates. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/three-quar ters-of-uk-children-spend-less-time-outdoors-than-prison-inmates-survey Cartledge, P. 1981. The politics of Spartan pederasty. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 27 (207): 17–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44696874. Cary, L.A., A.L. Chasteen, and J. Cadieux. 2013. Does age group identification differentially influence younger and older adults’ intergenerational perceptions? The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 77 (4): 331–346. Caseley, L. 2018, February 13. Learn how our standards of beauty have changed. Little Things. https://www.littlethings.com/beauty-through-the-ages Cash, S., and J. Bridge. 2009. Epidemiology of youth suicide and suicidal behavior. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 21 (5): 613–619. Cassidy, C. 2017. Philosophy with children: A Rights-based approach to deliberative participation. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 25 (2): 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 15718182-02502003. Castel, A.D., M.C. Friedman, S. McGillivray, C.C. Flores, K. Murayama, T. Kerr, and A. Drolet. 2016. I owe you: Age-related similarities and differences in associative memory for gains and losses. Neuropsychology and Cognition 23 (5): 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585. 2015.1130214. Cato Institute. 1991. Loaded guns can be good for kids. http://www.cato.org/publications/ commentary/loaded-guns-can-be-good-kids

References

683

Caudill, K. 2016. Why we need human connections. Odyssey. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/ why-do-we-need-human-connection. CBS. 2013. Pros and cons of homeschooling. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/just-thefacts-the-pros-cons-of-homeschooling/ ———. 2018. Maywood teacher hits student. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/02/ maywood-teacher-arrested-hitting-student/ CEBC California Evidence Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. 2020. Foster care redesign. https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/foster-care-redesign/ Cénat, J.M., and R.D. Dalexis. 2020. The complex trauma spectrum during the COVID-19 pandemic: A threat for children and adolescents’ physical and mental health. Psychiatry Research 293: 113473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113473. Cénat, J.M. 2020. The vulnerability of low-and middle-income countries facing the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Haiti. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 37. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tmaid.2020.101684. Cénat, J.M., R.D. Dalexis, C.K. Kokou-Kpolou, J.N. Mukunzi, and C. Rousseau. 2020. Social inequalities and collateral damages of the COVID-19 pandemic: When basic needs challenge mental health care. International Journal of Public Health 65: 717–718. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00038-020-01426-y. Cénat, J.M., D. Derivois, M. Hébert, L.M. Amédée, and A. Karray. 2018. Multiple traumas and resilience among street children in Haiti: Psychopathology of survival. Child Abuse and Neglect 79: 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.024. Center for American Progress. 2010. Gay and transgender youth homelessness by the numbers. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2010/06/21/7983/on-the-streets/ ———. 2021. Progress 2050. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/ issues/2012/04/pdf/progress_2050_one_pager.pdf Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 2021. Poverty and inequality. https://www.cbpp.org/ research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-economys-effects-on-food-housing-and Center for Civic Education. 1998. We the people. http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/ lesson-plans/456-how-can-citizens-participate Center for Education Policy Research. 2007. Research publications. https://cepr.harvard.edu/ Center for Health and Human Rights. 2021. How is children’s health a human rights issue? Harvard University. https://www.hhrguide.org/2014/03/16/how-is-childrens-health-a-human-rightsissue/ ———. 2023. Policy priorities. Harvard University. https://fxb.harvard.edu/ Center for High Impact Philanthropy. 2015. Investing in kids can yield high returns. University of Pennsylvania. https://www.impact.upenn.edu/investing-in-kids-can-yield-high-returns-qawith-dr-lynn-a-karoly/. Center for Law and Social Policy. 2022. Paving a pathway to prosperity for young adults. https:// www.clasp.org/issues/children-youth-families/ ———. 2020. Early childhood toolkit: ROI. University of Pennsylvania. https://www.impact. upenn.edu/early-childhood-toolkit/why-invest/what-is-the-return-on-investment/. Center for Poverty and Inequality. 2021. What is deep poverty? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/ what-deep-poverty Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2018. Where do our state tax dollars go? https://www.cbpp. org/research/state-budget-and-tax/where-do-our-state-tax-dollars-go Center on Education Policy. 2007. Why we still need public schools: Public education for the common good. https://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=291 Center on the Developing Child. 2010. Foundations of lifelong health are built in early childhood. https://www.developingchild.harvard.edu ———. 2018. Young children develop in an environment of relationships. Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Young-Children-Develop-inan-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf.

684

References

———. 2021. The science of early childhood development. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/ resources/inbrief-science-of-ecd/ Centers for Disease Control. 2023. Child abuse as public health problem. https://www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/index.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022a. Child passenger safety. https://www.cdc.gov/ transportationsafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html ———. 2005. Adverse childhood experience study. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ace/ prevalence.htm ———. 2007. National Survey of Adoptive Parents. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/nsap.htm ———. 2010. National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: An overview of 2010 summary report findings. http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/Health/Sexual%20Violence%20 Prevention/NISVS_Overview_2010SummaryReport.pdf ———. 2012. Cost of child abuse and neglect rival other major public health problems. National Center of Injury Prevention and Control. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ childmaltreatment/economiccost.html. ———. 2013. Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf ———. 2016a. Child Health. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm ———. 2016b. FastStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/default.htm ———. 2016c. Mental Illness surveillance among adults in the United States. http://www.cdc.gov/ mentalhealthsurveillance/fact_sheet.htm ———. 2016d. Youth risk behavior surveillance survey. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/ yrbs/index.htm ———. 2018a. Childhood injury report. https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html ———. 2018b. Obesity in childhood. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html ———. 2018c. Vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm and https://www. cdc.gov/media/matte/2011/04_childvaccination.pdf ———. 2020. While school, whole community, whole child approach. https://www.cdc.gov/ healthyschools/wscc/index.htm ———. 2021a. America's health rankings analysis of CDC WONDER online database, underlying cause of death, multiple cause of death files. United Health Foundation. https://www. americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/teen_suicide/state/ ALL. ———. 2021b. Childhood obesity. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html ———. 2021c. Data and statistics on children’s mental health. ———. 2021d. Intimate partner violence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html ———. 2021e. The CDC-Kaiser ACEs study. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/about. html ———. 2021f. Why child vaccines are important. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/ howvpd.htm ———. 2022b. CDC WONDER, multiple cause of death files, 2017-2019. https://www. americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/child_mortality_a/ state/U.S. ———. 2022c. About Teen Pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm ———. 2022d. Guidance for COVID-19 prevention in schools. https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html ———. n.d.. Data and statistics on children’s mental health. https://www.cdc.gov/ childrensmentalhealth/data.html Centers for Disease Control. 2021a. Essentials for childhood: Creating safe, stable, nurturing environments and relationships for all children. www.cdc.gov/violence-prevention ———. 2021b. Managing chronic illness in children. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/ chronicconditions.htm

References

685

———. 2022. Teen pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm Central Intelligence Agencies. 2014. CIA world fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html Cha, A. 2016. CDC warns that Americans may be overmedicating children. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/cdc-warns-that-ameri cans-may-be-overmedicating-two-to-five-year-olds-with-adhd/ Cha, A.E. 2021, August 13. Child hospitalizations for COVID rise. The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/13/children-hospitalizations-covid-delta/ Chakravorti, B. 2021. How to close the digital divide in the US. Tufts. https://sites.tufts.edu/ibgc/ how-to-close-the-digitaldivide-in-the-u-s/ Challies, T. 2016. 3 reasons why children need to obey their parents. https://www.challies.com/ articles/3-reasons-children-need-to-obey-their-parents/ Chambers, R., J. Taylor, and M. Potenza. 2003. Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence. American Journal of Psychiatry 160: 1041–1052. Chandra, A., Martinez, G.M., Mosher, W.D., Abma, J.C., & Jones, J. 2005. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 national survey of family growth. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf Chang, J., Capote, N., & Effron, L. 2014. Does teaching kids how to shoot make them safer? ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/US/teaching-kids-shoot-guns-make-safer/story?id=23916846 Channing, W. 1835. Human beings cannot be owned. Libertarianism. https://www.libertarianism. org/publications/essays/human-being-cannot-be-justly-owned Chapin, A. 2019. Teenagers like Cyntonia Brown. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/cyntoia-brown-teenager-life-in-prison_us_5c34c622e4b0116c11f0963d Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage. Charon, J.M. 2009. Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Pearson. Chartrand, T.L., A.N. Dalton, and G.J. Fitzsimons. 2007. Nonconscious relationship reactance: When significant others prime opposing goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (5): 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.003. Chatfield, T. 2019. How our brains get overloaded. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/201 90905-how-our-brains-get-overloaded-by-the-21st-century. Chatterjee, P. 2021. The evolving and interdisciplinary nature of the human rights field. Human Rights Pulse. https://www.humanrightspulse.com/careers-blog/the-evolving-and-interdisciplin ary-nature-of-the-human-rights-field-not-just-for-lawyers. Chatterjee, S. 2012, December 9. For child soldiers, every day is a living nightmare. Forbes. https:// www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/09/for-child-soldiers-every-day-is-a-living-night mare/?sh=42eded0727bdchild-soldiers-every-day-is-a-living-nightmare/#40e06a0a603e Chatterji, R. 2020. Fighting systemic racism. American Progress. https://www.americanprogress. org/article/fighting-systemic-racism-k-12-education-helping-allies-move-keyboard-schoolboard/. Chaudhuri, B. 2018. Human rights as an academic discipline: Challenges and opportunities. HURIGHTS OSAKA. https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/pdf/asia-s-ed/v10/13HR%20as%20 an%20Academic%20Discipline,%20Challenges%20and%20Opportunities.pdf. Checkoway, B. and Gutierrez, L. (2006). Youth participation and community change. Journal of Community Practice 14 (1/2): 1–9. The Haworth Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1300/ J125v14n01_01 Chen, X., and D.C. French. 2008. Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093606. Chen, Y., & Thomson, D. 2021. Child poverty increased nationally during covid. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/child-poverty-increased-nationally-during-covid-espe cially-among-latino-and-black-children#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20child%20poverty,mil lion%20more%20than%20in%202019

686

References

Cherlin, A., D.C. Ribar, and S. Yasutake. 2016. Non-marital first births, marriage, and income inequality. American Sociological Review 81 (4): 749–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122416653112. Cherney, I.D., and Y.L. Shing. 2008. Children’s nurturance and self-determination rights: A crosscultural perspective. Journal of Social Issues 64 (4): 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-4560.2008.00591.x. Child Advocacy Services. 2022. CASA. https://childadv.net/casa Child Care Aware. 2014, June. Child fatalities and severe injuries in childcare centers and family child care homes in America. https://www.childcareaware.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ one-pager_-_child_fatalities_and_severe_injuries_-_june_2014.pdf Child Help. 2022. Child abuse statistics. https://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/ Child Labor Public Education Project. 2007. Child labor in US history. University of Iowa. https:// laborcenter.uiowa.edu/special-projects/child-labor-public-education-project/about-child-labor/ child-labor-us-history. Child Mind Institute. 2013. How trauma changes genes and how we can change them back. https:// childmind.org/blog/how-trauma-changes-genes-and-how-we-can-change-them-back/ ———. 2021. Transforming children’s lives. https://childmind.org/ Child Rights International Network. 2016. Minimum ages of criminal responsibility around the world. https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages Child Stats. 2016. Health insurance coverage. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/ care1.asp ———. 2021. America’s children: Key national indicators of wellbeing 2021. https://www. childstats.gov/americaschildren/index3.asp Child Trends Databank. 2009. Children in poverty: Trends, consequences, and policy options. http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2009-11ChildreninPoverty.pdf ———. 2012. Family meals. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=family-meals ———. 2014a. ADHD. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=ADHD ———. 2014b. Adolescents who have ever been raped. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators= adolescents-who-have-ever-been-raped ———. 2014c. Birth control pill use. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=birth-control-pilluse#sthash.EX7hKGa8.dpuf ———. 2014d. Breastfeeding. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=breastfeeding ———. 2014e. Disordered eating: Symptoms of bulimia. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators= disordered-eating-symptoms-of-bulimia ———. 2014f. Immigrant children. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=immigrant-children ———. 2014g. Infant male circumcision. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=infant-malecircumcision ———. 2014h. Learning disabilities. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=learning-disabilities ———. 2014i. Overweight children and youth. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators= overweight-children-and-youth ———. 2014j. Racial and ethnic composition of the child population. http://www.childtrends.org/? indicators=racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-child-population ———. 2015a. Full-day kindergarten. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=full-daykindergarten ———. 2015b. Head start. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=head-start ———. 2015c. High school dropout rates. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=highschooldropout-rates ———. 2015d. Parental education. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=parental-education ———. 2015e. Reading to young children. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=readingtoyoung-children ———. 2016a. Adverse experiences. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=adverse-experiences ———. 2016b. Attitudes towards spanking. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=attitudestoward-spanking

References

687

———. 2016c. Number of children. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=number-of-children ———. 2016d. Teen homicide, suicide, and firearm deaths. http://www.childtrends.org/? indicators=teen-homicide-suicide-and-firearm-deaths ———. 2016e. High school students carrying weapons. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators= high-school-students-carrying-weapons#sthash.BbARz7Tq.dpuf ———. 2018. Children’s exposure to violence. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/childrensexposure-to-violence Child Trends. 2021. A national agenda for children’s mental health. https://www.childtrends.org/ publications/a-nationalagenda-for-childrens-mental-health Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2021. Emotional abuse. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/ can/identifying/emotional-abuse/ ———. 2013. Long term consequences of child abuse and neglect. https://www.childwelfare.gov/ pubpdfs/long_term_consequences.pdf ———. 2016. Intergenerational patterns of child maltreatment: What the evidence shows. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ———. 2019. Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. ———. 2020. How the child welfare system works. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/ cpswork/ ———. 2022a. Child maltreatment: Summary of key findings. https://childwelfare.gov ———. 2022b. Identification of emotional abuse. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/ identifying/emotional-abuse/ ———. 2023. Child abuse and neglect. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/ Child Welfare League of America. 2020a. Child abuse and neglect prevention. https://www.cwla. org/our-work/advocacy/protecting-youth-families/child-abuse-neglect-prevention/ ———. 2020b. Impact of gun violence on children, families and communities. https://www.cwla. org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ ———. 2023. Child maltreatment report. https://www.cwla.org/child-maltreatment-2021-report/ Child Welfare. 2020. Determining the best interests of the child. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau. https://www. childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/best_interest.pdf Child Welfare.gov. 2018. What is child welfare? A guide for educators. https://www.childwelfare. gov/pubPDFs/cw_educators.pdf Children International. 2015. Youth civic engagement activities. https://www.children.org/learnmore/newsroom/2015/aug/youth-civic-engagement-activities Children’s Bureau. 2020. Thriving families, safer children: A national commitment to well-being. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/news/national-partnership-redesign-systems Children’s Defense Fund. 2016. Ending poverty now. http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/ PovertyReport/EndingChildPovertyNow.html?gclid=CjwKEAiA9c-2BRC_va ———. 2021a. Housing and homelessness. https://www.childrensdefense.org/state-of-americaschildren/soac-2021-housing/ ———. 2021b. State of America’s children 2021. https://www.childrensdefense.org/state-ofamericas-children/ ———. 2021c. US gun violence epidemic is killing more children. https://www.childrensdefense. org/policy/resources/soac-2020-gun-violence/ ———. 2022. Violence prevention. https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/policy-priorities/gunviolenceprevention/ Children’s Hospital Association. 2021. Resources. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/resources Children’s Rights. 2022. Child abuse and neglect. https://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/factsheets/child-abuse-and-neglect/ Chmara, T. 2015. Do minors have first amendment rights in schools? Knowledge Quest 44 (1): 8–13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1074031.

688

References

Chong, D. 2014. Debating human rights. Lynne Reinner Press. Chou, V. 2017. Science and genetics are rehabbing the race debate. Harvard University. https:// sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/. Christakis, E. 2016. The importance of being little: What young children really need from grown ups. Penguin. Christakis, D.A., F. Zimmerman, D. DiGiuseppe, and C. McCarty. 2004. Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics 113 (4): 708–713. Christakis, N.A., and J.H. Fowler. 2009. Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little & Brown. Christiansen, J. 2009. Social movements & collective behaviour: Four stages of social movements. Ipswich: EBSCO Publishing Inc. Christensen, P.H. 2004. Children’s participation in ethnographic research: Issues of power and representation. Children and Society 18 (2): 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.823. Christensen, P., and A. James. 2008. Research with children: Perspectives and practices. Falmer. Christensen, P., and A. Prout. 2002. Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood 9 (4): 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009004007. Christiano, A., & Neimand, A. 2018. The science of what makes people care. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_science_of_what_makes_people_ care Chua, A. 2011. Battle hymn of the tiger mother. Penguin. Chuck, E. 2022. Free school lunches for all set to end. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/usnews/free-school-lunches-set-end-creating-perfect-storm-high-inflation-rcna33688. Chudacoff, H. 2008. Children at play: An American history. New York University Press. Chung, A. 2021. US Supreme court hear free speech case. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/ us/us-supreme-court-hear-peeved-cheerleaders-free-speech-case-2021-04-28/. Cillizza, C. 2020. The 11 wildest lines from Trumps utterly childish letter to Schumer. CNN. https:// www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/chuck-schumer-donald-trump-letter-coronavirus/index. html. Cimpian, J. 2018. How our education system undermines gender equality. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/04/23/how-our-education-sys tem-undermines-gender-equity/. CIRCLE. 2014. Civic youth engagement. Tufts University. http://civicyouth.org/youth-engage ment-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/?cat_id=6. ———. 2018. Youth political participation and voting. https://civicyouth.org/ResearchTopics/ research-topics/political-participation-and-voting/ ———. 2021. Youth voting and civic engagement in America. Tufts Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. https://circle.tufts.edu/explore-our-data/youthvoting-and-civic-engagement-america Citron, F., and A. Goldberg. 2014. Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26 (11): 2585–2595. Clancy, L, Gray, R., & Vu, B. 2022. Countries are pessimistic about the next generation’s financial future. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/11/large-shares-inmany-countries-are-pessimistic-about-the-next-generations-financial-future/ Clark, A. 2014. Perceiving as predicting. In Perception and its modalities, ed. D. Stokes, M. Matthen, and S. Biggs, 23–43. Oxford University Press. Clark, H., A.M. Coll-Seck, A. Banerjee, S. Peterson, S.L. Dalglish, S. Ameratunga, D. Balabanova, M.K. Bhan, Z.A. Bhutta, J. Borrazzo, M. Claeson, T. Doherty, F. El-Jardali, A.S. George, A. Gichago, L. Gram, D.B. Hipgrave, A. Kwamie, O. Meng, et al. 2020. A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet commission. The Lancet 395 (10224): 605–658. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1. Clark-Ibanez, M. 2017. Undocumented Latino youth: Navigating their worlds. Lynne Reinner. Clayton, M. 2006. Justice and legitimacy in upbringing. Oxford University Press.

References

689

Clear, T. 2001. Has academic criminal justice come of age? Justice Quarterly 18 (4): 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095071. Clegg, S. 1989. Frameworks of power. Sage. Cleveland Clinic. 2016. Munchausen syndrome. http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_ conditions/hic_An_Overview_of_Factitious_Disorders/hic_Munchausen_Syndrome/hic_ Munchausen_Syndrome_by_Proxy Cline, D. 1999. The pilgrims and Plymouth colony: 1620. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ~mosmd/17cnav.htm Clinton, H. 1996. It takes a village. Simon and Schuster. CNN. 2016a, October 28). Penn State scandal fast facts. CNN Library. http://www.cnn. com/2013/10/28/us/penn-state-scandal-fast-facts/ ———. 2016b, September 3). Mom listens to son’s transplanted heart in man. https://www.cnn. com/videos/us/2016/09/03/pkg-mom-listens-to-sons-transplanted-heart-in-man.kmtv Coady, C. 1992a. Theory, rights and children: A comment on O’Neill and Campbell. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 6 (1): 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/6.1.43. Coady, C.A.J. 1992b. Theory, rights and children: A comment on O’Neill and Campbell. In Children, rights and the law, ed. P. Alston, S. Parker, and J. Seymour, 43–51. Oxford University Press. Coaston, J. 2019. The intersectionality wars. Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/1 8542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination Coates, T. 2015, August 15. There is no post-racial America. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2015/07/post-racial-society-distant-dream/395255/ Cockerham, W. 1996. This Aging Society. Pearson. Coe, J.L., P.T. Davies, and M.L. Sturge-Apple. 2018. Family cohesion and enmeshment moderate associations between maternal relationship instability and children’s externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology 32 (3): 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000346. PMID: 29698005; PMCID: PMC5926812. Cohen, A., and A. Codrington. 2020. The ERA explained. Brennan Center. https://www. brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained. Cohen, C.P. 1989. United Nations: Convention on the rights of the child. International Legal Materials 28 (6): 1448–1476. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20693385. Cohen, R. 1993. American youth congress. https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclope dias-almanacstranscripts-and-maps/american-youth-congress Cohen, R. 2008. Integrating human rights into US policy. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ on-the-record/integratinghuman-rights-in-u-s-foreign-policy-the-history-the-challenges-andthe-criteria-for-an-effective-policy/ Cohen, E., and S. Lloyd. 2014. Disciplinary evolution and the rise of the transdiscipline. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 17: 189–215. http://www. inform.nu/Articles/Vol17/ISJv17p189-215Cohen0702.pdf. Cohen, H. 1980. Equal rights for children. Rowman and Littlefield. Cohen, L. 2012. Why is the US against children’s rights? Time. https://ideas.time.com/2012/01/24/ why-is-the-us-against-childrens-rights/ Cohen, P. 2020. The family: Diversity, inequality, and social change. Norton. Cohen, R. 2008. Integrating human rights into US policy. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ on-the-record/integrating-human-rights-in-u-s-foreign-policy-the-history-the-challenges-andthe-criteria-for-an-effective-policy/. Cohn, D. 2015. Future immigration will change the face of America. Pew Research. https://www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/05/future-immigration-will-change-the-face-of-america-by2065/. Cohn, S. 2022. 10 worst places to live in America. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/14/ these-10-statesare-americas-worst-places-to-live-in-2022.html

690

References

Cohrs, J.C., J. Maes, S. Kielmann, and B. Moschner. 2007. Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: A comparison and integration of psycho-logical perspectives. Political Psychology 28: 441–446. Colby, S.L., & Ortman, J.M. 2014. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060, current population reports. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census. gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf Cole, D. 1999. No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system. https:// www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtuallibrary/abstracts/no-equal-justice-race-and-class-american-criminaljustice-system ———. 2018. What happens when a country bans spanking? NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/ goatsandsoda/2018/10/25/660191806/what-happens-when-a-country-bans-spanking Cole, N. 2017. Applied and clinical sociology. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/appliedand-clinical-sociology-3026291 ———. 2020. Understanding socialization in sociology. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/ socialization-in-sociology-4104466 Cole, H., and J.V. Heilig. 2010. Developing a school-based youth court: One alternative to the school to prison pipeline. The Journal of Law of Education 40: 305. Coles, R. 2000. The moral life of children. Atlantic Monthly Press. Coleman, D.L., K.A. Dodge, and S.K. Campbell. 2010. Where and how to draw the line between reasonable corporal punishment and abuse. Law and Contemporary Problems 73 (2): 107–166. Coleman, J. S., United States, & National Center for Education Statistics. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity [Summary report]. U.S. Dept. of Education. Coleman-Jenson, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M. & Carlson, S. 2011. Household food security in the United States in 2010. US Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/ publications/44906/6893_err125_2_.pdf?v=4257.3 Collins, G. 1981. The debate over rights of children is intensifying. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/1981/07/21/style/debate-over-rights-of-children-is-intensifying.html Collins, J. 2020a. Impact of gun violence on children. Child Welfare League of America. https:// www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ Collins, P.H. 2019. Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press. Collins, R. 2014. A conflict theory of sexual stratification1. Social Problems 19 (1): 3–21. https:// doi.org/10.2307/799936. Collins, R., and M. Makowsky. 2009. The discovery of society. McGraw Hill. Collins, S. 2020b. How geography impacts health of minorities. https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/ features/minority-health-care-location Collin-Vézina, D., D. Brend, and I. Beeman. 2020. When it counts the most: Trauma-informed care and the COVID-19 global pandemic. Developmental Child Welfare 2 (3): 172–179. https://doi. org/10.1177/2516103220942530. Coloroso, B. 2004. The bully, the bullied and the bystander: From preschool to high school—how parents and teachers can help break the cycle. Quill. ———. 2009. The bully, the bullied and the bystander: From preschool to high school—how parents and teachers can help break the cycle (Updated ed.). Morrow. Columbia Law School. 2017, June 8. Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality, more than two decades later. https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshawintersectionality-more-two-decades-later Columbia University Law School. 2016. What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents? http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbtequality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-les bian-parents Columbus, C. 2017. Video games affect the brain. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/healthshots/2017/08/09/542215646/video-games-may-affect-the-brain-differently-depending-onwhat-you-play

References

691

Commission on the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology. 2019. https:// www.sociologycommission.org/ Conant, E. 2017. In their own words: How children are affected by gender issues. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/children-explain-howgender-affects-their-lives/ Conde, A. 2021. Biden infrastructure plan. SmartAsset. https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/ biden-infrastructure-plan Congress.gov. 2021. H.Res.854 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should become a state party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/854?q=%7B%22search %22%3A%5B%22HRes854%22%5D%7D&s=5&r=1 Conley, D., Lancaster, R., Nelson, A., Springer, K., & Bryant, K. 2014. What’s biology got to do with it? Contexts. https://contexts.org/articles/whats-biology-got-to-do-with-it/ Connolly, M. 2014. Toward a typology of child protection systems. British Columbia Association of Social Workers. https://www.bcasw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/A-Review-of-Typolo gies-of-CPS-FINAL.pdf. Conron, K. 2020. LGBT youth population in the US. UCLA School of Law Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Youth-US-Pop-Sep-2020.pdf Consumer Protection Safety Commission. 2021. Children’s products. https://www.cpsc.gov/ Business%2D%2DManufacturing/Business-Education/childrens-products Conversation. 2018. 10 ways schools, parents and communities can prevent school shootings. https://theconversation.com/10-ways-schools-parents-and-communities-can-prevent-schoolshootings-now-91960 Cook, G. 2011. History and the decline of human violence. Scientific American. https://www. scientificamerican.com/article/history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence/ ———. 2013. Why we are wired to connect. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican. com/article/why-we-are-wired-to-connect/ Cook, L. 2015. US Education: Still separate and unequal. U.S. News and World Report. https:// www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal Cook, D. 2020. The moral project of childhood: Motherhood, material life, and early children’s consumer culture. NYU Press. Cooke, C. 2015. Careful with the panic: violent crime and gun crime are both dropping. National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-guncrime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke Cooley, C.H. 1902a. Human nature and the social order. Scribner. ———. 1902b. Social organization. Scribner. Coontz, S. 2016. The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. Basic Books. Cornell Law School. 2022. Children’s rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/children%27s_ rights Cornell, D. 2014. Gun violence and mass shootings: Myths, facts and solutions. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/11/gun-violence-andmass-shootings-myths-facts-and-solutions/ Corney, T., H. Williamson, R. Holdsworth, R. Broadbent, K. Ellis, H. Shier, and T. Cooper. 2020. Approaches to youth participation in youth and community work practice: A critical dialogue. Youth Workers Association & Commonwealth Alliance of Youth Work Associations. https:// pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/approaches-to-youth-participation-inyouth-and-commu nity-work-pra Corrigan, P.W., B.G. Druss, and D.A. Perlick. 2014. The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15 (2): 37– 70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398. Corsaro, W. 2005. Sociology of childhood. Sage. Corsi-Bunker, A. 2017. Guide to the education system of the United States. University of Minnesota. https://isss.umn.edu/publications/USEducation/2.pdf.

692

References

Cottle, M., & Brooks, D. 2022. Is America stuck in a gerontocracy? The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/opinion/gerontocracy-and-generational-power-in-american-poli tics.html?showTranscript=1 Council of Europe. 2020. The evolution of human rights. In P. Brander, E. Keen, V. Juhász, & A. Schneider (Eds.), COMPASS manual for human rights education with young people (pp. 397–402). https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-evolution-of-human-rights Council on Contemporary Families. 2016. Parenting and happiness in 22 countries. https:// contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/ Courtois, C.A. 2004. Complex trauma, complex reactions: Assessment and treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, training 41 (4): 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204. 41.4.412. Couzens, M. 2016. Child participation in local governance. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Couzin-Frankel, J., Vogel, G., & Weiland, M. 2020. School openings across the globe suggest ways to keep the coronavirus at bay despite outbreaks. Science Magazine. https://www.sciencemag. org/news/2020/07/school-openings-across-globe-suggest-ways-keep-coronavirus-bay-despiteoutbreaks Covell, K., R.B. Howe, and J.K. McNeil. 2010. Implementing children’s human rights education in schools. Improving Schools 13 (2): 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210378942. Covell, K., J.K. McNeil, and R.B. Howe. 2009. Reducing teacher burnout by increasing student engagement. School Psychology International 30 (3): 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0143034309106496. Covenant House. 2016. Statistics on children and youth. https://www.covenanthouse.org/ homeless-teen-issues/statistics. Cowden, M. 2016. Children’s rights: From philosophy to public policy. Palgrave. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/9781137492296_10 Cox, J. W., & Rich, S. 2018. School shootings and the campus safety industry. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/school-shootings-and-campus-safetyindustry/ Craig, T. 2022. 90 minutes of terror, a failed police response. Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/28/uvalde-classroom-police-911-failure/ Craintree, H., and L. Warner. 1999. Too much to take on: A report on young carers and bullying. London: The Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Cramer, M. 2020. When are you legally an adult? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/01/18/us/usa-legal-age.html?searchResultPosition=1 Crane, J. 2021. Future leaders or social outcasts? History. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/ feature/future-leaders-or-social-outcasts Crawford, K. 2021. Too much parental involvement. Stanford News. https://news.stanford. edu/2021/03/11/study-reveals-impact-much-parental-involvement/ Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039. ———. 2015, September 24. Why intersectionality can’t wait. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/ Crenshaw, K., Ocen, P. & J. Nanda. 2014. Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced and underprotected. African American Policy Forum and Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies. http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/sites/default/files/uploads/ BlackGirlsMatter_Report.pdf Cresswell, T. 2004. What is child public health? Current Paediatrics 14 (7): 612–618. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957583904001150. Cretella, M., Van Meter, W., & McHugh, P. 2016. Gender ideology harms children. American College of Pediatricians. https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gen der-ideology-harms-children

References

693

CRIN. 2020. Freedom of association. https://archive.crin.org/en/home/rights/convention/articles/ article-15-freedom-association.html Criss, D. 2017. A parent killing a child happens more often than we think. CNN. https://www.cnn. com/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd/index.html Crittenden, P.M. 1992. Children's strategies for coping with adverse home environments: An interpretation using attachment theory. Child Abuse Neglect 16 (3): 329–343. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0145-2134(92)90043-q. Crocetti, E., P. Jahromi, and W. Meeus. 2012. Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 35 (3): 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003. Cronin, J. 2020. Countries with free healthcare. International Insurance Co.. https://www. internationalinsurance.com/health/countries-free-healthcare.php. Cross, G. 1997. Kids’ stuff: Toys and the changing world of American childhood. Harvard University Press. Cross, G., and G. Smits. 2005. Japan, the U.S. and the globalization of children’s consumer culture. Journal of Social History 38 (4): 873–890. Crossley, N. 2002. Making sense of social movements. Open University Press. Crossman, A. 2020, August 27. What’s the difference between private and public spheres in sociology? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/private-and-public-spheres-3026464 Croucher, R. 2020. Wearing a mask will protect human liberties not infringe upon them. Australian Human Rights Commission. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/wearing-maskwill-protect-human-liberties-not-infringe-upon-them Cruft, R., M. Liao, and M. Renzo. 2015. Philosophical foundations of human rights. Oxford University Press. Cuevas, J. 2013. The psychological processes and consequences of fundamentalist indoctrination. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 16 (2): 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1558/eph.v16i2.57. Cunningham, H. 1991. The children of the poor: Representations of childhood since the seventeenth century. Blackwell. ———. 2005. Children and childhood in western society. Routledge. Cunningham, R.M., Walton, M.A., & Carter, P.M. 2018. Major causes of death of children and adolescents in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/ nejmsr1804754 Cunnington, P., and A. Buck. 1965. Children’s costume in England: 1300 to 1900. A & C Black. Currie, J. 2020. What we say and what we do: Why US investments in child health are falling short. Health Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00633 Cutbert, C. 2020. Why my children aren’t the most important people in my life. Medium. https:// medium.com/family-matters-2/why-my-children-arent-the-most-important-people-in-my-lifeb9c59a7d797 Cutuli, J.J., S.M. Ahumada, J.E. Herbers, T.L. Lafavor, A.S. Masten, and C.N. Oberg. 2017. Adversity and children experiencing family homelessness: Implications for health. Journal of Children and Poverty 23 (1): 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2016.1198753. Cyr, A., and N.D. Anderson. 2018. Learning from your mistakes: Does it matter if you’re out in left foot, I mean field? Memory 26 (9): 1281–1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018. 1464189. Dahl, R. 1988. Matilda. Penguin. Dahrendorf, R. 2008. The modern social conflict: The politics of liberty. Transaction Publishers. Dailey, A., and L. Rosenbury. 2018. The new law of the child. Yale Law Journal 127: 1148–1536. Daily Mail Reporter. 2011. The secret world of the child bride. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-2001029/Child-brides-young-5-married-secret-middle-aged-men.html ———. 2013. Boy aged six ‘upset at parent’s divorce’ hanged himself while his parents were showering and his 7-year-old sister finds the body. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-2366257/Six-year-old-boy-hangs-belt-family-refrigerator-parents-showering.html Daily Show [The Daily Show with Trevor Noah]. 2018, March 29. Tucker Carlson’s bad take on teen activists & Trump’s White House purge[Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/quas9q0sK5Q

694

References

Damrosch, L. 2008. Jean Jacques Russeau: Restless genius. Houghton Mifflin Company. Daniels, B. 2003. Poverty and families in the Victorian era. Hidden Lives Revealed. http://www. hiddenlives.org.uk/articles/poverty.html Daniels, M. 2015. Can you guess the average age of homelessness in the United States? First Focus. https://firstfocus.org/blog/can-you-guess-the-average-age-of-homelessness-in-the-united-states Danson, M. 2020. Case for universal social provision. Economic and Social Council. https://www. poverty.ac.uk/editorial/case-universal-social-provision Darling-Hammond, L. 1998. Unequal opportunity. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/ Das, M. 1981. Social movements, social change, and mass communication. International Review of Modern Sociology 11 (1/2): 127–143. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41420783. Davidson, H. 2005. The convention on the rights of the child: A call for US action. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_ home/human_rights_vol32_2005/winter2005/hr_winter05_intro/ ———. 2014. Does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child make a difference? Michigan Law Review 22 (2): 497–530. Davies, B., and R. Harré. 1990. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1): 43–63. Davies, C., J. Coleman, and S. Livingstone, eds. 2014. Digital technologies in the lives of young people. London: Routledge. Davies, T. 2019. Slow violence and toxic geographies: ‘Out of sight’ to whom? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 0 (0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654419841063. Davis, B. 2019. Why you should treat your child like an adult. Fatherly. https://www.fatherly.com/ love-money/why-you-should-treat-your-child-like-an-adult/ Davis, E. & Sojourner, A. 2021. Increasing federal investment in children. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Child-Care-PP-final.pdf Davis, J., & Bauman, K. 2013. School enrollment in the US: 2011, population characteristics. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-571.pdf Davis, J., and M. Hill. 2006. Introduction. In Children, young people and social inclusion: Participation for what? ed. E. Tisdall, M. Kay, J.M. Davis, A. Prout, and M. Hill, 1–22. Policy Press. De Backer, K., and M. Jans. 2002. Youth (-work) and social participation: Elements for a practical theory. Brussels: Flemish Youth Council. de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. 2019. Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2019-038). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces. ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf De Francis, V. 1969. Protecting the child victim of sex crimes committed by adults. American Humane Association. De la Porta, D., and M. Diani. 2006. Social movements: An introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell. De Lemus, S., M. Bukowski, R. Spears, and M. Telga. 2015. Reactance to (or acceptance of) stereotypes: Implicit and explicit responses to group identity threat. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223 (4): 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000225. de Mause, L. 1995. History of childhood. Jason Aronson, Inc. Death Penalty Information Center. 2003. President Carter calls on the US to protect children’s rights. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/president-carter-calls-on-u-s-to-protect-childrensrights-2 ———. 2015. Juveniles and the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juveniles-anddeath-penalty Death, C. 2010. Counter-conducts. A Foucauldian analytics of protest. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 9 (3): 235–251.

References

695

DeCiccio, E. 2021. You better be in the right headspace. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/2 7/olympics-you-betterbe-in-the-right-headspace-or-really-bad-things-are-going-to-happen-shan non-miller-on-simone-biless-exit.html Deflem, M., and S. Chicoine. 2011. The sociological discourse on human rights: Lessons from the sociology of law. Development and Society 40 (1): 101–115. DeGigiorio, J. 2017. What are some valid criticisms of intersectional feminism? Quora. https:// www.quora.com/What-are-some-valid-criticisms-of-intersectional-feminism Degloma, T. 2009. Expanding trauma through space and time: Mapping the rhetorical strategies of trauma carrier groups. Social Psychology Quarterly 72 (2): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 019027250907200203. Degnan, R. 2020. How can we start caring about the collective good? The Observer. https:// cwuobserver.com/15861/opinion/can-we-start-caring-for-the-collective-good/ deKrester, H. 2020. Activism is not a dirty word. Human Rights Law Center. https://www.hrlc.org. au/current-news/activism-is-not-a-dirty-word Del Col, L. n.d. The life of the industrial worker in nineteenth-century England. West Virginia University. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers1.html. Del Felice, C., A. Karako, and A. Wisler. 2015. Peace education evaluation: Learning from experience and exploring prospects. Information Age Publishers. Del Felice, M. C., and A. K. Wisler. 2007. The unexplored power and potential of youth as peacebuilder. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Unexplored-Powerand-Potential-of-Youth-as-Felice-Wisler/7235c75090a98cb2d63fc6394631addec5b0b54c Delaney, A. 2021. Sen. Ron Johnson: It’s not society’s responsibility to care for other people’s children. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ron-johnson-other-peoples-chil dren_n_61f1c3b1e4b04f9a12b83b79 Delaney, A., & Schelle, A. 2015. Who gets food stamps? Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost. com/entry/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938 Delaney, S., Quigley, P., & Shuteriqi, M. 2014. Understanding and applying a systems approach to child protection: A guide for programme staff. Child Frontiers, & Terre des hommes. https:// www.tdh.ch/sites/default/files/tdh_e.pdf Delgado, R., and J. Stefancic. 2001. Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press. Demanet, J., and M. Van Houtte. 2016. Are flunkers social outcasts? A multilevel study of grade retention effects on same-grade friendships. American Educational Research Journal 53 (3): 745–780. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216646867. DeMaria, P. 2020. Ohio’s whole child framework. https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/StudentSupports/Ohios-Whole-Child-Framework deMause, L. 1974. The history of childhood. Psychohistory Press. DeMitchell, T., R. Fossey, N. Fellman, and C. Kiracofe. 2020. Genderized dress codes in K-12 schools: A mixed methods analysis of law & policy. West’s Education Law Reporter 376 (421) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342502996_Genderized_Dress_Codes_in_K-12_ Schools_A_Mixed_Methods_Analysis_of_Law_Policy. Democker, M. 2022, Sept 4). Parent participation in climate justice efforts is on the rise. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/parent-participation-in-climate-justice-efforts-is-on-the-rise/? eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=0f71252f-36fa-4e48-8751-0cec824bed16 DeNavas-Walt, C., B.C. Proctor, and J.C. Smith. 2011. Income, poverty and health in the United States: 2010. US Census Bureau. Dennett, M.W. 1918. The sex side of life: An explanation for young people. Medical Review of Reviews 24: 68–75. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009232425;view=1up; seq=96. ———. 1931. The sex education of children: A book for parents. Vanguard Press. Dennis, W. 1940. The hope child. Appleton. Denny, M. 2005. Taming the wild cloverbud. New Mexico State University. http://aces.nmsu.edu/4 h/documents/taming20the20wild20cloverbud.pdf#page=2&zoom=auto,-73,352

696

References

Denov, M., and A. Buccitelli. 2016. Child soldiers. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Denzin, N. 1970. The Research Act. Aldine Press. DeParle, J. 2021. In the stimulus bill, a policy revolution for children. New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/politics/child-tax-credit-stimulus.html. Department of Education. 2021. Supporting child and students social emotional behavioral and mental health. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/students/supporting-child-student-social-emo tional-behavioral-mental-health.pdf Department of Justice. 2020. Hate crime statistics. https://www.justice.gov/crs/highlights/2020hate-crimes-statistics Dershowitz, A. 2004. Rights from wrongs: A secular theory of the origins of rights. Basic Books. Desai, R. 2017. Rethinking universalism versus targeting debate. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2017/05/31/rethinking-the-universalism-versustargeting-debate/ Desmet, E., Lembrechts, S., & Reynaert, D. 2015. Conclusions towards a field of critical children’s rights studies. In W. Vandenhole, E. Desmet, & D. Reynaert, D (Eds.), International handbook of children’s rights studies (pp. 412–429). Routledge. Desmond, M. 2016. Evicted. Crown. Despart, Z. 2022, July 17. Systemic failures in Uvalde shooting. Texas Tribune. https://www. texastribune.org/2022/07/17/law-enforcement-failure-uvalde-shooting-investigation/ Detrow, S., & Shivaram, D. 2022. Biden touts gun legislation but many say he’s not doing enough. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1110904518/president-biden-touts-gun-safety-legisla tion-but-many-say-hes-not-doing-enough Devorak, P. 2019, August 8. America doesn’t care about its kids: The evidence is all around us. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/america-doesnt-care-about-its-kidsthe-evidence-is-all-around-us/2019/08/08/34d8505c-b9e7-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story. html Dewan, S., & Oppel, R. A. 2015, January 23. In Tamir Rice case, many errors by Cleveland police, then a fatal one. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/in-tamir-riceshooting-in-cleveland-many-errors-by-police-then-a-fatal-one.html Dewey, J. 1900. The school and society. Dover Publications. ———. 1910. How we think. D.C. Heath & Co. ———. 1916. Democracy and education. Echo Library. ———. 1938. Experience and education. Macmillan. Dexheimer, E. 2018, December 6. Bad records. USA Today. https://stories.usatodaynetwork.com/ unwatched/bad-records/ Diangelo, R. 2018. White fragility: Why it’s hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon. Diani, M. 1992. The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review 40 (1): 1–25. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb02943.x. Diaz, J. 2021. Florida principal under investigation for paddling 6-year old student. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/us/student-paddled-florida-central-elementaryschool.html Dibble, N. 2021. Minor students’ rights to confidentiality, self-determination, and informed consent. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/ sspw/pdf/sswpgethicsrights.pdf. Dickens, C. 1921. A Tale of Two Cities. Cosmopolitan Books. ———. 1941. Oliver Twist. Dodd, Mead & Co. Dickey, E. 2017. Education and government in the ancient Greek world. Brewminate. https:// brewminate.com/education-research-and-government-in-the-ancient-greek-world/ Digital Futures Commission. 2021, July 1. Governance of data for children’s learning in UK state schools. [Webinar].

References

697

Dion, K. 1972. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (2): 207–213. Dion, K., and E. Berscheid. 1974. Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children. Sociometry 37 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786463. DiProperzio, L. 2017. Should you raise a gender neutral baby? https://www.parents.com/ parenting/should-you-raise-agender-neutral-baby/ Disability Funders Network. 2023. Disability stats and facts. https://www.disabilityfunders.org/ disability-stats-andfacts Disability Justice. 2022. Abuse and exploitation of persons with disabilities. https://disabilityjustice. org/justice-denied/abuse-and-exploitation/ Disney Wiki. 2022. Herbert from 101 Dalmatians. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Herbert_(101_ Dalmatians) District of Columbia. 2020. Minor consent for vaccinations amendment act Bill 23-0171. https:// lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B23-0171 Dittman, M. 2001. Protecting children from advertising. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting.aspx ———. 2003. Fighting ageism. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ monitor/may03/fighting Do Something. 2022. Teens and STDs. https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-aboutteens-and-stds Dodge, D. 2020. What I spent to adopt a child. New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/02/11/parenting/adoption-costs.html Dogen, S. 2019. You need to make $350,000 a year to live a middle class lifestyle. CNBC. https:// www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/you-need-to-make-350000-a-year-to-live-a-middle-class-lifestyletoday-heres-why.html Donahoe, M., and G. Schiff. 2014. Social justice is a public health issue. Journal of Ethics. https:// journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/call-service-social-justice-public-health-issue/2014-09. Donnelly, J. 2002. Universal human rights in theory and practice. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press. ———. 2013. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1xx5q2 ———. 2016. Science says you should play more violent video games. Vice. https://tonic.vice.com/ en_us/article/53gj5a/science-says-you-should-play-more-violent-video-games Doochin, J. 2010. Making decisions on values not biases. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2010/05/making-decisions-on-values-not-1.html Dooley, R., and S.H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts. SIL International. Dore, K. 2019, February 25. Familial trafficking in the US. Human Trafficking Prevention Series. Dorr, R. 1910. What eight million women want. Small, Maynard and Company. Dorscheidt, J., and J. Doek. 2018. Children’s rights in healthcare. Brill. Dorsey, D. 2020. Education is still not a fundamental right under the US constitution. Kansas Policy Institute. https://kansaspolicy.org/education-is-still-for-now-not-a-fundamental-rightunder-the-u-s-constitution/ Dos Reis, S. 2010. Stigmatizing experiences of parents of children with newly diagnosis of ADHD. Psychiatric Services 5 (8): 811–817. Douzinas, C. 2000. The end of human rights. Hart Publishing. Downshen, S. 2015. Childhood stress. Kids Health. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/stress.html Doxsee, C., S. Jones, and J. Thompson. 2022. Pushed to extremes: Domestic terrorism amid polarization and protest. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/ analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest. Doyle, C., and D. Cicchetti. 2017. From the cradle to the grave: The effect of adverse caregiving environments on attachment and relationships throughout the lifespan. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 24 (2): 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12192.

698

References

Dragan, E. 2020. Public school civil rights liability. http://education-expert.com/2020/01/publicschool-civil-rights-liability-protecting-students-from-discriminatory-harassment-and-abuse/ ———. 2022. Public and private school discrimination lawsuits. https://educationexpert.com/ author/edragan/page/4/ Drago, E. 2015. The effect of technology on face to face communication. Elon University. https:// www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/communications/research/vol6no1/02DragoEJSpring1 5.pdf Drash, W. 2016, December 12. Report find skyrocketing rates of opiate addiction in babies. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/health/heroin-opiates-babies-new-research/ Dreier, H. 2023. Alone and exploited, migrant children work brutal jobs across the US. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploi tation.html Dreier, P. 2011, February 4. Reagan’s real legacy. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/ archive/reagans-real-legacy/ Dreikurs, R., and V. Soltz. 1991. Children the challenge. Plume. Drexler, P. 2012, May 29. Gay parents raising kids: How will they fare? Psychology Today. https:// www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-gender-ourselves/201205/gay-parents-raising-kidshow-will-they-fare Drummond-Mundal, L., and G. Cave. 2007. Young peacebuilders: Exploring youth engagement with conflict and social change. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15423166.2007.620722997322. Dubowitz, H., D. Finkelhor, A. Zolotor, J. Kleven, and N. Davis. 2022. Addressing adverse childhood experiences in primary care: Challenges and considerations. Pediatrics 149 (4). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052641. Ducharme, J. 2018. Stop blaming school shootings on mental illness. Time. http://time.com/516292 7/mass-shootings-mental-health-apa/. Duffield, B. 2021. The realities of life for homeless students. https://www.the74million.org/article/ the-realities-oflife-for-homeless-students-must-be-part-of-remote-learning-strategies-duringcoronavirus-shutdowns/ Duffy, J., J. Caldwell, and M. Collins. 2016. Reflections on the impact of the children (NI) Order 1995. Child Care in Practice 22 (4): 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016. 1228258. Duhn, I. 2018. Governing childhood. In International handbook of early childhood education, Springer international handbooks of education, ed. M. Fleer and B. van Oers. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_2. Duignan, B. 2021. Leave no child behind. In Encyclopedia Britannica.com. https://www.britannica. com/topic/No-Child-Left-Behind-Act Dulin-Keita, A., L. Hannon, J. Fernandez, and W. Cockerham. 2011. The defining moment: Children’s conceptualization of race and experiences with racial discrimination. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (4): 662–682. Duncan, L., G. Taasoobshirazi, A. Vaudreuil, J.S. Kota, and S. Sneha. 2023. An evaluation of impostor phenomenon in data science students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (5): 4115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054115. PMID: 36901122; PMCID: PMC10001774. Durkheim, E. 1979. Childhood: 1911. In Durkheim: Essays on morals and education, ed. W.F. Pickering. Routledge. Duwe, G., and M. Rouque. 2018, February 23. Actually there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwerocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html. Dvorak, P. 2013, January 7. Why toy guns can be good for kids. The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-toy-guns-can-be-good-for-kids/2013/01/07/8ec6b6ec5906-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

References

699

Dwyer, C. 2019, November 15. 7 reasons we fall for fake news. Psychology Today. https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/201911/7-reasons-why-we-fall-fake-news Dwyer, H., and M. Stout. 2012. Nez Perce history and culture. Gareth Steven. Dwyer, J. 2006. Relationship rights of children. Cambridge University Press. Dwyer, J G. 2013. Equality between adults and children: Its meaning, implications, and opposition. Faculty Publications, 1716. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1716 Dwyer, J.G. 1997. Setting standards for parenting: by what right? William and Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. Faculty Publications, 1136. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=2175&context=facpubs ———. 2020. The Oxford handbook of children and the law. Oxford University Press. ———. 2021. Deflating parental rights. Law and Philosophy 40: 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10982-021-09406-w. Dykstra, K., and F. Litwiller. 2021. Are you trying to make them gay?: Culture wars, anxieties about genderplay, and the subsequent impacts on youth. Leisure Sciences 43 (3-4): 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1830902. Ebbitt, K. 2015. Five ways libraries are changing. Global Citizen. https://www.globalcitizen.org/ en/content/five-ways-libraries-are-changing-in-the-digital-ag/ Eberhardt, J. 2019. Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Penguin. Eccles, J.S., and B.L. Barber. 1999. Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research 14 (1): 10– 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003. ECLT Foundation. 2021. Child protection. Retrieved from https://www.eclt.org/ Economist. 2010, March 6. Gendercide: The worldwide war against baby girls. The Economist. ———. 2017. Parents now spend twice as much time with their children as 50 year ago. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-20. ———. 2019. In the Middle Ages there was no such thing as childhood. Economist. https://www. economist.com/specialreport/2019/01/03/in-the-middle-ages-there-was-no-such-thing-aschildhood Edelman, M. 1992. The measure of our success. Boston: Beacon. Edelman, P. 1997, March. The worst thing Bill Clinton has done. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-bill-clinton-has-done/376797/ Edelman, R., and J. Edelman. 2018. The squirrel manifesto. Aladdin. Edley, N., and M. Wetherell. 1997. Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse and Society 8: 203–217. Edmond, C. 2020. These are the countries where children are most satisfied with their lives. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/child-well-being-health-happi ness-unicef-report/ Education Votes. 2017, March 7. 5 reasons why charter schools are bad news for students. http:// educationvotes.nea.org/2017/03/07/5-reasons-charter-schools-bad-news-students/ Edwards, F.R. 2017. Institutional determinants of child protection systems in the United States [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington]. ResearchWorks Archive. https://digital.lib. washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/40303 Eekalaar, J. 1992. The importance of thinking that children have rights. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 6 (1): 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/6.1.221. Eekelaar, J. 1986. The emergence of children’s rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 6: 161–182. Egan, T. 2021. America is getting meaner. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0 6/25/opinion/trump-jan-6-america.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage Eggleston, C. 2021. Homeschooling on the rise. US Census. https://www.census.gov/library/ stories/2021/03/homeschooling-on-the-rise-during-covid-19-pandemic.html Ehrenreich, B., and D. English. 2005. For her own good: Two centuries of expert advice to women. Anchor Books.

700

References

Eime, R.M., J.A. Young, J.T. Harvey, et al. 2013. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 10: 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-98. Einboden, R. 2019. The problem with child protection isn’t the money, it’s the system itself. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-child-protection-isnt-the-moneyits-the-system-itself-127111 Eisenstadt, S. 1964. Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review 29 (1): 235–247. Eisinger, J. 2021. Secret IRS files of how wealthy avoid taxes. Propublica. https://www.propublica. org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiestavoid-income-tax Elder, G., M. Johnson, and R. Crosnoe. 2003. The emergence and development of life course theory. In Handbook of the life course, ed. J. Mortimer and M. Shehanan, 3–19. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_1. Elgar, F.J., Donnelly P.D., Michaelson V., Gariépy, G., Riehm, K.E., Walsh, S.D., & Pickett, W. 2018. Corporal punishment bans and physical fighting in adolescents: An ecological study of 88 countries. BMJ Open, e021616. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/9/e021616 Elias, A. 2020. Obedience to parents. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/obedience-to-parents-limits/ Elkind, D. 1988. The Hurried Child. Addison-Wesley. ———. 1998. All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. De Capo Press. Ellemers, N. 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology 69: 275–298. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719. Ellis, R.R., & Simmons, T. 2014. Co-resident grandparents and their grandchildren: 2012. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/ demo/p20-576.pdf Elster, J. 1989. Solomonic judgements: Studies in the limitations of rationality. Cambridge University Press. Emelonye, U. 2018. Theoretical and normative foundation of child rights. US-China Law Review 15 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6605/2018.01.001. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2021. Critical race theory. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. https://www. britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory Encyclopedia.com. 2021. Child abuse—a history. https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/ encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/child-abuse-history End Corporal Punishment. 2023. FAQ. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/ England, D. 2020. Don’t children have 1st amendment rights? CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/dont-kids-have-1st-amendment-rights.htm England, P., Levine, A., & Mish, E. 2020, March 31. Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 117(13), 6990-6997. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/6990 Englander, E. 2003. Understanding violence. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ———. 2013. Bullying and cyberbullying: What every educator needs to know. Harvard University Press. Engle, J. 2019, April 17. Do you hate it when adults ask you what you want to be when you grow up? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/learning/do-you-hatewhen-adults-ask-you-what-you-want-to-be-when-you-grow-up.html?searchResultPosition=3 Ennew, J. 2000a. How can we define citizenship in childhood? (Working Paper Series, vol. 10, no. 12). Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. ———. 2000b. The history of children’s rights: whose story? Cultural Survival. https://www. culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/history-childrens-rights-whosestory

References

701

Entin, E. 2011. All work and no play: Why children are more anxious and depressed. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/all-work-and-no-play-why-your-kids-aremore-anxiousdepressed/246422/ Epstein, R. 2010. Teen 2.0: Saving our children and families from the torment of adolescence. Quill Driver Books. Equal Justice Initiative. 2018. Segregation in America. https://segregationinamerica.eji.org/report/ ———. 2020. Black children are six times more likely to be shot to death by police. https://eji.org/ news/black-children-are-six-times-more-likely-to-be-shot-to-death-by-police/ ———. 2023. Race and the Jury. https://eji.org/report/race-and-the-jury/ Erikson, E.H. 1980. Identity and the life cycle. Norton. Erikson, Robert, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2002. Intergenerational inequality: A sociological perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/ 089533002760278695. Erman, E. 2016. Human rights and democracy: Discourse theory and global rights institutions. Routledge. Erwin, P. 1993. Friendships and peer relations in children. Wiley. Escobar-Chaves, S.L., S.R. Tortolero, C.M. Markham, B.J. Low, P. Eitel, and P. Thickstun. 2005. Impact of the media on adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Pediatrics 116 (Suppl 1): 303–326. Esptein, G. 2010. Good without God: What a billion nonreligious people do believe. Harper Collins. Etchells, Peter, Suzi Gage, Adam Rutherford, and Marcus Munafò. 2016. Prospective investigation of video game use in children and subsequent conduct disorder and depression using data from the avon longitudinal study of parents and children. PLoS One 11: e0147732. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0147732. Etter, L, Silver, V. & Frier, S. 2017. How Facebook’s political unit enables the dark art of digital propaganda. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-21/inside-thefacebook-team-helping-regimes-that-reach-out-and-crack-down European Commission. 2021. Child rights holders and duty bearers. https://europa.eu/capacity4 dev/sites/default/files/learning/Child-rights/2.8.html Eva, A. 2017. Why we should embrace mistakes in school. Greater Good Magazine. https:// greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_we_should_embrace_mistakes_in_school Evans, E. 2015. 15 super kids who are going to change the world. The Root. http://www.theroot. com/photos/meet_15_superkids_who_are_going_to_change_the_world/ Evans, S. 2014. Are Grimm’s fairy tales too twisted for children? BBC. http://www.bbc.com/ culture/story/20130801-too-grimm-for-children Evans, B., and H. Giroux. 2015. The war on terror is a war on youth. Truthout. https://www.truthout.org/articles/the-war-on-terror-is-a-war-on-youth-paris-and-the-impoverishment-of-thefuture/ Every Town for Gun Safety. 2016a. #NotAnAccident index. http://everytownresearch.org/ notanaccident/ ———. 2016b. Analysis of school shootings. http://everytownresearch.org/reports/analysis-ofschool-shootings/ EveryCRSReport.com. 2013. Child labor in America. University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31501.html Everytown USA. 2021. Keeping our schools safe. https://everytownresearch.org/report/preventinggun-violence-in-american-schools/ Eysenck, H. 1976. Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. Hodder and Stoughton Facebook. 2022. Child safety. https://www.facebook.com/safety/childsafety Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Polity Press. Fairhall, N., and K. Woods. 2021. Children’s views on children’s rights: A systematic literature review. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 29 (4): 835–871. https://doi.org/10. 1163/15718182-29040003.

702

References

Falcone, M. 2020. Ending corporal punishment of preschool children. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/10/13/ending-corporal-punishment-of-pre school-age-children/ Falk, E., L. Hyde, C. Mitchell, et al. 2013. What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science. PNAS 110 (44): 17615–17622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310134110. Fallon, C. 2014. The shocking, twisted stories behind childhood nursery rhymes. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20/nursery-rhymes-real-stories_n_6180428.html Farmand, H. 2021. Children are punished based on their parents’ religion. The Atlantic. https:// www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iranian-children-are-being-punished-based-of-theirparents-religion-and-beliefs/ Farson, R. 1974. Birthrights. Collier Macmillan. ———. 1978. Birthrights. Penguin Books. Farthing, R. 2015. Why youth participation? Some justifications and critiques of youth participation using New Labour’s youth policies as a case study. Youth and Policy 116. https://www. youthandpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/farthing_why_youth_participation.pdf. Fashion Law. 2018. Teens are spending more on food and beauty goods than fashion. http://www. thefashionlaw.com/home/teens-are-spending-more-on-food-beauty-goods-than-fashion Fass, P. 2011. A historical context for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 633 (1): 17–29. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/27895958. ———. 2016. The end of American childhood. Princeton University Press. Fass, P., and M. Mason. 2000. Childhood in America. NYU Press. Feagin, J. 1984. Racial and ethnic relations. Prentice-Hall. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2013. America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.childstats.gov/ americaschildren/tables.asp. Federle, K. 2000. Children’s rights and the need for protection. Family Law Quarterly 34 (3): 421–440. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254141610_Children%27s_Rights_and_ the_Need_for_Protection. Feeding America. 2016a. Backpack program. http://feediingamerica.org ———. 2016b. Hunger and poverty facts. http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/ impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html. ———. 2023. Hunger in America. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america Fegert, J.M., and M. Stötzel. 2016. Child protection: A universal concern and a permanent challenge in the field of child and adolescent mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 10 (18). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-016-0106-7. Feierman, J., D. Lieberman, A. Schissel, R. Diller, J. Kim, and Y. Chu. 2002. Teenagers, health care, and the law: A guide to the law on minors’ rights in New York State. New York Civil Liberties Union. Feinberg, J. 1987. Wrongful life and the counterfactual element in harming. Social Philosophy and Policy 4 (1): 145–170. ———. 1980. A child’s right to an open future. In Whose child? Parental rights, parental authority and state power, ed. W. Aiken and H. LaFollette, 124–153. Littlefield Adams. Feinberg, M., and E. Wehling. 2018. A moral house divided: How idealized family models impact political cognition. PLoS One 13 (4): e0193347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193347. Feinberg, M., and R. Willer. 2015. From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (12): 1665–1681. Feiner, L. 2022. New bill would require Facebook, Google, and others to protect children. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/new-bill-would-require-facebook-google-and-others-to-pro tect-children.html Feldman, R.S. 2011. Developmental psychology: Explore the life development track. China Machine Press.

References

703

Felitti, V.J., R.F. Anda, D. Nordenberg, D.F. Williamson, A.M. Spitz, V. Edwards, M.P. Koss, J.S. Marks, and K. Perma-Nente. 1998. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 14 (4): 245–258. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8. Fellman, G. 1998. Rambo and the Dali Lama. State University of New York (SUNY) Press. Fellmeth, R.C., and J.K. Heldman. 2019. Children’s rights and remedies. Clarity Press. Felton, R. 2021. How safe is our drinking water? Consumer Reports. https://www.consumerreports. org/water-quality/how-safe-is-our-drinking-water-a0101771201/ Ferguson, L. 2015. Not merely rights for children but children’s rights: The theory gap and the assumption of the importance of children’s rights. In The future of children’s rights, ed. M. Freeman. Brill. Ferguson, M. 2019. The curse of being a child genius. Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/ work-and-careers/leaders/the-curse-of-being-a-child-genius-20190522-p51pyu Fernekes, W. 2012. Is the US ready for human rights education? [Presentation]. 5th International Conference on Human Rights Education, Washington, DC. Ferris, M. 2015. Quarter of earth will be African in 2050. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/0 7/30/world-population-quarter-of-earth-will-be-african-in-2050.html Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Few-Demo, A.L. 2014. Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory and Review 6: 169–183. Fiddiman, B. 2018. Smart investments for safer schools. American Progress. https://www. americanprogress.org/article/smart-investments-safer-schools/ Fiedler, K., and J. Schmid. 2001. How language contributes to persistence of stereotypes as well as other, more general, intergroup issues. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes, ed. R. Brown, 261–280. Blackwell. Fields, J. 2001. Normal queers: Straight parents respond to their children’s “coming out”. Symbolic Interaction 24 (2): 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2001.24.2.165. Fieldston, S. 2015. Raising the world: Child welfare in the American century. Harvard University Press. Financial Samurai. 2021. Why households need to earn $300,000 a year to live a middle class lifestyle today. https://www.financialsamurai.com/living-a-middle-class-lifestyle-on-300000year-expensive-city Find Law. 2022a. Healthcare as a right. https://constitution.findlaw.com/ ———. 2022b. What are the legal rights of children? https://www.findlaw.com/family/ emancipation-of-minors/what-are-the-legal-rights-of-children.html Fine, G., and K. Sandstrom. 2010. Researchers and kids. In Childhood in American society, ed. K. Sternheimer. Allyn and Bacon. Finkelhor, D. 2000. Crimes against children. Crimes Against Children Research Center. http:// www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet.html ———. 2008. Childhood victimization. Oxford University Press. Finkelhor, D., L. Jones, and K. Mitchell. 2021. Teaching privacy: A flawed strategy for children’s online safety. Child Abuse and Neglect 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105064. Finkelhorn, D., G. Hotaling, I.A. Lewis, and C. Smith. 1990. Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk-factors. Child Abuse and Neglect 14 (1): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7. Finkelstein, B. 2008. Violence against children. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Th-W/ViolenceAgainst-Children.html First Focus. 2022. Mental health and kids. https://firstfocus.org/resources/fact-sheet/fact-sheetmental-health-kids First Focus Center for Children of Immigrants. 2016. Children of immigrants. https://firstfocus.org/ issues/children-of-immigrants

704

References

First Things First. 2022. Investing in early childhood. https://www.firstthingsfirst.org/earlychildhood-matters/investing-in-early-childhood/ Fischer, K. 2017. Why education matters to your health. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-education-matters-to-your-health/ Fisher, N. 2018. Our addiction to selfies. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/201 8/04/10/our-addiction-to-selfies-means-big-business-for-plastic-surgeons/#246ac3932786 Fisher, R. 2022. Why teens aren’t what they used to be. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/ article/20220124-why-teens-arent-what-they-used-to-be Fisher, R., and Y. Ma. 2014. The price of being beautiful: Negative effects of attractiveness on empathy for children in need. Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2): 436–450. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/676967. Fiske, A., and N. Haslam. 1996. Social cognition in thinking about relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5: 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512349. Fitzgerald, R. 2009. Children having a say: A study on children’s participation in family law decision making [Doctoral dissertation, Southern Cross University]. Flacks, S. 2014. Is childhood a disability? Child and Family Law Quarterly 26 (4): 421–438. Flavin, B. 2016. The ultimate guide to 13 different types of schools in America. Rasmussen University. http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/education/blog/types-of-schools/ Flekkoy, M.G., and N.H. Kaufman. 1997. The participation rights of the child: Rights and responsibilities in family and society. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Fleming-Milici, F., & Harris, J. 2022, April 5. New report reveals industry led initiative fails to protect children from marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages. UCONN Today. https:// today.uconn.edu/2022/04/new-report-reveals-industry-led-initiative-fails-to-protect-kids-frommarketing-of-unhealthy-foods-and-beverages/ Florian, E., M. Baader, T. Betz, and B. Hungerland. 2016. Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies. Routledge. Florida House of Representatives. 2011. HM 557 - Parental Rights Amendment. http://www. myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=45417&SessionIndex=-1& SessionId=66&BillText=&BillNumber=557&BillSponsorIndex=0&BillListIndex=0& BillStatuteText=&BillTypeIndex=5&BillReferredIndex=0&HouseChamber=H& BillSearchIndex=-1 Flynn, T. 2001. “Transforming” the debate: Why we need to include transgender rights in the struggles for sex and sexual orientation equality. Columbia Law Review 101 (2): 392–420. Foley, K.R., M. Blackmore, S. Girdler, M. O'Donnell, R. Glauert, G. Llewellyn, and H. Leonard. 2012. To feel belonged: The voices of children and youth with disabilities on the meaning of wellbeing. Child Indicators Research 5: 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9134-2. Foot, D., and R. Venne. 2005. Awakening to the intergenerational equity debate. Journal of Canadian Studies 39 (1, Winter): 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1353/jcs.2006.0004. Ford, A. 2017, August 18. Do children have the right to contribute to medical decisions? Health and Human Rights Journal. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2017/08/do-children-have-the-right-tocontribute-to-medical-decisions-about-their-own-care-an-analysis-of-policy-and-practice-inthe-united-kingdom-and-united-states/ Ford, E. 1999. Private initiative and public support: The Chicago Juvenile Protective Association: The First 100 years of the Cook County juvenile court. Chicago Bar Association. Forst, R. 2017. A critical theory of human rights—some groundwork. In Critical theory in critical times: Transforming the global political and economic order, ed. P. Deutscher and C. Lafont, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.7312/deut18150-006. Fortson, B. 2016. Preventing child abuse and neglect: A technical package for policy, norm and programmatic activities. Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ pdf/CAN-Prevention-Technical-Package.pdf Fortune, S., and K. Hawton. 2005. Deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents: a research update. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 18 (4): 401–406.

References

705

Forum on Child and Family Statistics. n.d.. America’s children at a glance. Retrieved from childstats.gov Fosco, G.M., M. Lippold, and M. Feinberg. 2014. Interparental boundary problems, parentadolescent hostility, and adolescent-parent hostility: A family process model for adolescent aggression problems. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice 3 (3): 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000025. PMID: 25844271; PMCID: PMC4383181. Foster, J., J. Greer, and E. Thorbecke. 2010. The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later. The Journal of Economic Inequality 8: 491–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888010-9136-1. Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969). ———. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795. Foundation for Children’s Development. 2016. Children in immigrant families. http://fcd-us.org/ node/1232 Fox, K. 2018a. How US gun culture compares with the world. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/201 7/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html Fox, M. 2015. US infant mortality rate still one of highest in the developed world. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-infant-mortality-rate-still-one-highest-devel oped-world-n404871 ———. 2017. Infant mortality rates fall. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healthnews/infant-mortality-rates-fall-15-percent-u-s-n736366 ———. 2018b. Fake news and lies spread faster on social media than truth. NBC. https://www. nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fake-news-lies-spread-faster-social-media-truth-does-n854 896 ———. 2018c. Study find genetic links to violence. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/usdelinquents-genes/study-finds-genetic-link-to-violence-delinquency-idUSN1444872420080 714 ———. 2020. A majority of Americans have no money saved for their children. CNBC. https:// www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/a-majority-of-americans-have-no-money-saved-for-their-children. html Foyster, E., and J. Marten. 2010. A cultural history of childhood and family in the age of Enlightenment. Berg Publishers. FrameWorks Institute. 2021. A model of narrative form for social change. Framework Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/publication/the-features-of-narratives-a-model-of-narra tive-form-for-social-change-efforts/ Francis-Chizororo, M. 2010. Growing up without parents: Socialisation and gender relations in orphaned-child-headed households in Rural Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 36: 711–727. Franklin, B., ed. 1986. The rights of children. Basil Blackwell. Fraser, N. 2000. Rethinking recognition. New Left Review. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii3/ articles/nancy-fraser-rethinking-recognition Fraser, S., V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, and C. Robinson. 2004. Doing research with children and young people. Sage. Freechild Institute. 2018. Discrimination against youth. https://freechild.org/discriminationagainst-youth-voice/ Freedman, J., and M. Lind. 2013. The past and future of America’s social contract. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-past-and-future-of-americas-socialcontract/282511/ Freeman, J. 2017. Tales of two Americas. Penguin. Freeman, J., and V. Johnson. 1999. Waves of protest: Social movements since the sixties. Rowman & Littlefield. Freeman, M. 1997. The moral status of children. Leiden: Brill.

706

References

———. 1998. The sociology of childhood and children’s rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights 6 (4): 433–444. ———. 2000. The future of children’s rights. Children and Society 14 (4): 277–293. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2000.tb00183.x. ———. 2002. Anthropology and the democratisation of human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights 6 (3): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/714003768. ———. 2012. Towards a sociology of children’s rights. In Law and childhood studies: Current legal issues, ed. M. Freeman, 29–38. Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. The future of children’s rights. Brill. ———. 2015. The future of children’s rights. Brill. ———. 2020a. A Magna Carta for children. Cambridge University Press. ———. 2020b. The future of children’s rights. Brill. Freeman, M.D.A. 1983. The rights and the wrongs of children. Francis Pinter. Freire, P. 1968. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury. ———. 1985. The politics of education (D. Macedo, Trans.). Bergin & Garvey. ———. 1993. Pedagogy of the city (D. Macedo, Trans.). The Continuum. (Original work published 1993. ———. 1994. Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed (R. R. Barr, Trans.). The Continuum. (Original work published 1992) ———. 1997. Education for critical consciousness (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). The Continuum. (Original work published 1969. ———. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). The Continuum. (Original work published 1968). ———. 2001. Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage (P. Clarke, Trans.). Rowman & Littlefield. (Original work published 1998) Frenkel, S. 2022. How some parents changed their politics during the pandemic. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/technology/anti-vax-parents-political-party.html Freud, S. 1933. New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. Norton. Frey, W. 2021. The demographic case for investing in America’s children. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/research/the-demographic-case-for-investing-in-americas-children/ Freymond, N., & Cameron, G. 2006. Towards positive systems of child and family welfare: International comparisons of child protection, family service, and community caring systems. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442682726 Frezzo, M. 2015. Sociology and human rights. Wiley. Fridrich, A., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. 2015. The context, process, and outcome evaluation model for organisational health interventions. BioMed Research International, 2015. https://doi.org/ 10.1155/2015/414832 Friedman, J. 2022. School is for social mobility. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2022/09/01/opinion/us-school-social-mobility.html Frisco, M., and K. Williams. 2003. Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues 24 (1): 51–73. Fritz, J.M. 1989. The history of clinical sociology. Sociological Practice 7 (1): 72–95. https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/b603/ea75d6448f2145f624bf9f0c6e654611f782.pdf. ———. 1992. Creating successful communities. In Using Sociology: An Introduction from the Applied and Clinical Perspectives, ed. Roger Straus, 2nd ed. General Hall. ———. 2020a. Clinical sociology. In Clinical Sociology for Southern Africa, ed. T. Uys and J.M. Fritz. Juta. ———. 2020b. International Clinical Sociology. Springer. Fritz, J., & Vissing, Y. 2022, July 22. Child victims of war and the International Criminal Court. [Presentation to international lawyers]. Frost, J. 2010. A History of children’s play and play environments: Toward a contemporary childsaving movement. Routledge.

References

707

Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing. 2003. An emerging model for working with youth. https://fcyo.org/uploads/resources/8141_Papers_no1_v4.qxd.pdf Funnylady419. 2014, November 20. Geriatrics and the city: Old people are like babies. Chicago Now. https://www.chicagonow.com/geriatrics-city/2014/11/old-people-are-like-babies/ Fussell, E., and F. Furstenberg. 2005. The transition to adulthood during the twentieth century: Race, nativity, and gender. In On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy, ed. R.A. Settersten Jr., F.F. Furstenberg Jr., and R.G. Rumbaut, 29–75. The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226748924.003.0002. Gabriele, M. 2019. What you didn’t know about children in the Middle Ages. Forbes. https://www. forbes.com/sites/matthewgabriele/2019/01/06/children-in-the-middle-ages/?sh=3f56f6bd3d78 Gajewski, M. 2020. Covid-19 is making it harder for women and children to access vital healthcare services. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mishagajewski/2020/07/13/covid-19-is-mak ing-it-harder-for-women-and-children-to-access-vital-health-care-services/?sh=4318b22479f8 Galtung, J. 1969. Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 167–191. http://www.jstor.org/stable/422690. ———. 2006. Theoretical challenges of peace building with and for youth. In Troublemakers or peacemakers? Youth and post-accord peace building, 259–280. Galvin, C. 2020. Opposing viewpoints: The U.S. should not ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children’s Legal Rights Journal 39 (2): 198. https://lawecommons. luc.edu/clrj/vol39/iss2/11. Gannon, M. 2016, February 5. Race is a social construct, scientists argue. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ Garbarino, J. 1999. Raising children in a toxic environment. Jossey-Bass. Garbarino, J., and G. Gilliam. 1980. Understanding abusive families. Free Press. Gardiner, R. 2002. The human genome project: The next decade. Archives of Disease in Childhood 86: 389–391. Gardinier, M. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: The important contributions of the United States historically in the creation of children’s human rights: Where are we now? [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Gardner, H. 2006. Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. Basic Books. ———. 2011. Frames of mind. Basic Books. Garfield, L.D., D.S. Brown, B.T. Allaire, R.E. Ross, G.E. Nicol, and R. Raghavan. 2015. Psychotropic drug use among preschool children in the Medicaid program from 36 states. American Journal of Public Health 105 (3): 524–529. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302258. Garrett, K. 2006. Living in America. Robert Wood Johnson. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/ research/2006/08/living-in-america.html Gasser, U., and S. Cortesi. 2016. Children’s human rights and digital technologies. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. PetersonBadali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Gauthier, A.H., and P.W. de Jong. 2021. Costly children: the motivations for parental investment in children in a low fertility context. Genus 77: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00111-5. Gavran, G. 2019. How could creativity in secondary schools be impacted by scenario planning? Melbourne: Institute for Sustainable Industries & Liveable Cities. Victoria University. Gee, G. 2016. Leveraging the social determinants to build a culture of health. https://healthequity. globalpolicysolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/RWJF_SDOH_Final_Report-002.pdf. Geiling, N. 2016. Court rules that children can sue government over climate negligence. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org/youth-climate-lawsuit-can-move-forward-federal-judgesays-5854766c1c76#.wj49tun7i Geist, C. 2010. Gendered views of domestic labor. In Dividing the domestic: Women, men and housework in cross-national perspective, ed. J. Treas and S. Drobnic. Stanford University Press. Gelles, R. 2019. The child protection system. In James Dwyer (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Children and the Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190694395.013.19

708

References

Gelles, R., & Perlman, S. 2012. Estimated annual cost of child abuse and neglect. Prevent Child Abuse America. https://preventchildabuse.org/resources/estimated-annual-cost-of-childabuse-and Gelman, S.A. 2009. Learning from others: children's construction of concepts. Annual review of psychology 60: 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093659-neglect/. Gendron, T., J. Inker, and E. Welleford. 2018. A theory of relational ageism: A discourse analysis of the 2015 White House Conference on Aging. The Gerontologist 58 (2): 242–250. https://doi. org/10.1093/geront/gnw155. Gendron, T. 2015. The language of ageism: Why we need to use words carefully. The Gerontologist 56 (6): 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv066. Gensler, H. 2013. Ethics and the golden rule. Routledge. Gentile, D.A., C. Oberg, N.E. Sherwood, M. Story, D.A. Walsh, and M. Hogan. 2004. Well-child visits in the video age: pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidelines for children’s media use. Pediatrics 114 (5): 1235–1241. George, J. 2021. A lesson on critical race theory. American Bar Association. https://www. americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rightsreimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ Gerhards, J. 1995. Framing dimensions and framing strategies: Contrasting ideal- and real-type frames. Social Science Information 34 (2): 225–248. Gerisch, M. 2018. Healthcare as a human right. American Bar Association. https://www. americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-ofhealthcare-in-the-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/ Gershoff, E. 2002. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 128 (4): 539–579. Gershoff, E.T., and S.A. Font. 2016. Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: Prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Social Policy Report 30(1). https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/ Gershoff, E.T., and A. Grogan-Kaylor. 2016. Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology 30 (4): 453–469. Gerson, M. 2021, November 18. Opinion: The assertion of ‘parental choice’ in schools is headed in disturbing directions. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/1 8/parental-choice-critical-race-theory-schools-gop-control/ Gewirth, A. 1984. The epistemology of human rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 1 (2): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500003836. ———. 1985. Why there are human rights. Social Theory and Practice 11 (2): 235–248. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/23559758#metadata_info_tab_contents. Gheaus, A., and S. Hohl. 2020. Introduction to the special issue on children’s and adolescents’ rights. Moral Philosophy and Politics 7 (2): 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp2020-0031. Gheaus, A. 2015a. Unfinished adults and defective children: On the nature and value of childhood. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 9 (1): 1–21. http://jesp.org/PDF/unfinished-adults-anddefective-children.pdf. ———. 2015b. Unfinished adults and defective children: On the nature and value of childhood. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy 9 (1): 1–21. Gheaus, A., G. Calder, and J. Wispeleare, eds. 2019. Handbook of the philosophy of childhood and children. Routledge. Ghere, R. 2012. NGO leadership and human rights. Lynne Reinner Press. Ghys, É. 2015. The butterfly effect. In The proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, ed. S. Cho. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_6. Gianoutsis, J. 2006. Locke and Rousseau: Early childhood education. The Pulse 4 (1): 1–23. http:// www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37670.

References

709

Gibbons, E. 2014. Climate change, children’s rights and the pursuit of intergenerational climate justice. Health and Human Rights Journal. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2014/07/climatechange-childrens-rights-and-the-pursuit-of-intergenerational-climate-justice/ Gibran, K. 1923. The prophet. Knopf. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press. ———. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press. Giddings, F.H. 1897. The theory of socialization. The Macmillan Company. Giedd, J., and J. Rapoport. 2010. Structural MRI of pediatric brain development: What have we learned and where are we going? Neuron 67 (5): 728. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0896627310006835). Giedd, J.N. 2004. Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1021: 77–85. Giedd, J.N., J. Blumenthal, N.O. Jeffries, F. Castellanos, H. Liu, A. Zijdenbos, and J.L. Rapoport. 1999. Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience 2 (10): 861–863. Gilbert, N. 1982. The plight of universal social services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1 (3): 301–316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3324351. Gilburd, C. 2011. Your family and the law: Do children have the same rights as adults? Davis Miles McGuire Gardner Attorneys. https://www.davismiles.com/your-family-the-law-do-childrenhave-the-same-legal-rights-as-adults/ Gillan, K., and G. Edwards. 2020. Time for change. Social Movement Studies 19 (5–6): 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2020.1806813. Gillard, J. 2018. 2500 years of people complaining about the younger generation. History Hustle. https://historyhustle.com/2500-years-of-people-complaining-about-the-younger-generation/ Gillborn, D. 2010. The white working class, racism, and respectability: Victims, denigrates and interest-convergence. British Journal of Educational Studies 58 (1): 3–25. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/40962569. Gillett-Swan, J., and J. Sargeant. 2018. Assuring children’s human right to freedom of opinion and expression in education. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 20 (1): 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1385852. Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. 1986. House of Lords 1 AC 112. Gilligan, C. 1992. Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls’ development. Harvard University Press. Gillon, S. 2017, August 29. Why are so many white men so angry? The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/29/why-are-so-many-whitemen-so-angry/ Ginsburg, K. 2007. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics 119 (1) http://pediatrics.aappublications. org/content/119/1/182. Ginwright, S., and T. James. 2002. From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development 2002 (96): 27–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/yd.25. PMID: 12630272. Ginzberg, E., & Bray, D. 1953. The uneducated. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10. 7312/ginz94296 Girouard, D., FitzSimons, C., & Rosso, R. 2019. School breakfast scorecard: School year 2017-2018. Food Research & Action Center. https://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/ school-breakfast-scorecard-sy-2017-2018.pdf Giroux, H. 2001. Stealing innocence: Youth, corporate power, and the politics of culture. Palgrave. ———. 2019. Born disposable. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-fascist-politics-treatchildren-as-disposable/

710

References

Giroux, H.A. 2010. Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education 8 (6): 715–721. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie. 2010.8.6.715. Gittins, D. 1997. The child in question. St. Martin’s Press. ———. 1998. Is childhood socially constructed? In The child in question, ed. J. Campling. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26092-8_2. Glaser, B.G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. The Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Co. Gleyzer, R., A. Felthous, and C. Holzer. 2002. Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30: 257–265. Global Center to Protect Education From Attack. 2021. Education under attack. https:// protectingeducation.org/publication/education-under-attack-2020/ Global Initiatives to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. 2023. Facts and stats. https://www. end-violence.org/members/globalinitiative-end-all-corporal-punishment-children Goddell, S. Cohen, J., Neuman, P. 2009. Cost savings and cost effectiveness of clinical preventive care. Robert Wood Johnson. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2009/09/cost-savingsand-cost-effectiveness-of-clinical-preventive-care.html Godsey, M. 2015. The deconstruction of the K-12 teacher. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic. com/education/archive/2015/03/the-deconstruction-of-the-k-12-teacher/388631/ Godwin, S. 2015. Against parental rights. Columbia Human rights Law Review 47 (1). https:// www.academia.edu/19663920/Against_Parental_Rights Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Goldberg, C. 2020. Legal aid for unaccompanied children in the US illegally. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/legal-aid-for-unaccompaniedchildren-in-the-u-s-illegally.aspx Golden, H. 2021. Up to 18 states haven’t prioritized vaccines for the homeless. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/03/us-covid-coronavirus-vaccines-homelessstudy Golden, P. 2017. Youth lack financial literacy skills. https://www.nefe.org/Press-Room/News/USTeens-Lack-Financial-Literacy-Skills Goldfeld, S., M. O’Connor, D. Cloney, S. Gray, G. Redmond, H. Badland, K. Williams, F. Mensah, S. Woolfenden, A. Kvalsvig, and A.T. Kochanoff. 2018. Understanding child disadvantage from a social determinants perspective. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 72: 223–229. Goldhagen, J.L., S. Shenoda, C. Oberg, R. Mercer, A. Kadir, S. Raman, T. Waterston, and N.J. Spencer. 2020. Rights, justice, and equity: A global agenda for child health and wellbeing. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 4 (1): 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(19)303463. Epub 2019 Nov 19. PMID: 31757760. Goldstein, D. 2018. School is the safest place for a child. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2018/05/22/us/safe-school-shootings.html Golightley, S. 2020. Troubling the ‘troubled teen’ industry: Adult reflections on youth experiences of therapeutic boarding schools. Global Studies of Childhood 10 (1): 53–63. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2043610619900514. Goncu, A., and V. Cannella. 1996. The role of teacher assistance in children’s construction of intersubjectivity during conflict resolution. New Directions for Child Development 73: 57–69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ536398 Gonzalez, J. 2018. Restorative justice in schools. Cult of Pedagogy. https://www.cultofpedagogy. com/restorative-justice-overview/ Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Lopez, M. 2015. Is being Hispanic a matter of race, ethnicity or both? Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/15/is-being-hispanic-amatter-of-race-ethnicity-or-both

References

711

Goodale, M. 2006a. Introduction to anthropology and human rights in a new key. American Anthropologist 108: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.1.1. ———. 2006b. Toward a critical anthropology of human rights. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1086/503061. Goodenow, C. 1993. Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence 13 (1): 21–43. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0272431693013001002. Goodman, J., and B. Cook. 2019. Shaming school children: A violation of their fundamental rights. Theory and Research in Education 17 (1): 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878518817377. Goodman, R., and D. Jinks. 2004. How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law Journal 54 (3): 621–703. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040439. Goodwin, D. 1976. Is alcoholism hereditary? Ballantine. Goodwin, M. 2006. The free-market approach to adoption: The value of a baby. Boston College Third World Law Journal. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/twlj/vol26/iss1/5 Goodwyn, A. 2022. Texas governor calls care for trans kids child abuse. NPR. https://www.npr. org/2022/03/01/1083775568/the-battle-around-medical-treatment-for-transgender-kids-intexas-continues Gordon, S. 2018. Benefits of social media. Verywell Family. https://www.verywellfamily.com/ benefits-of-social-media-4067431 ———. 2020. How religious bullying impacts teens. Verywell Family. https://www. verywellfamily.com/religious-bullying-4154162 Gosha, R. 2021. Overcoming widespread false consciousness. Medium. https://ryangosha.medium. com/overcoming-widespread-false-consciousness-d0c425508fc8 Gosseries, A. 2008. On future generations’ future rights*. Journal of Political Philosophy 16: 446– 474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00323.x. Gough, I. 2020. The case for universal basic services. LSE Public. Policy Review 1 (2): 6. https:// doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.12. Goździk-Ormel, Ż. 2008. Have Your Say! Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Coe_youth/Participation/Have_your_ say_en.pdf Graeber, D. 2013. The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement. Speigel and Grau. Graesser, A., J.M. Golding, and D.L. Long. 1991. Narrative representation and comprehension. In Handbook of reading research, ed. R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson, vol. 2, 171–205. Graff, H. 1997. Conflicting paths: Growing up in America. Harvard University Press. Graham, C. 2016. Unhappiness in America. Brookings Institute. http://www.brookings.edu/ research/opinions/2016/05/27-unhappiness-in-america-graham Graham, E. 2021. Who is behind the attacks on educators and public schools? National Education Association. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/who-behind-attackseducators-and-public-schools Gram, L., N. Daruwalla, and D. Osrin. 2019. Understanding participation dilemmas in community mobilisation: Can collective action theory help? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 73 (1): 90–96. https://jech.bmj.com/content/73/1/90. Gramlich, J. 2018. 5 facts about crime in the US. Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s Gran, B. 2013. Children and youth. In Handbook of the sociology of human rights, ed. D. Brunsma, K. Smith, and B. Gran. Paradigm. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4596/1/44. pdf.pdf. ———. 2017. An international framework of children’s rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13 (1): 79–100. ———. 2021. The sociology of children’s rights. Wiley. Grant, B. 2020. Behind the mask – is it really a rights issue? Human Rights Pulse. https://www. humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/behind-the-masks-is-it-really-a-rights-issue

712

References

Grant, R., D. Gracy, G. Goldsmith, A. Shapiro, and I.E. Redlener. 2013. Twenty-five years of child and family homelessness: Where are we now? American Journal of Public Health 103 (Suppl 2): e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301618. Graupmann, V., E. Jonas, E. Meier, S. Hawelka, and M. Aichhorn. 2012. Reactance, the self, and its group: When threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. European Journal of Social Psychology 42 (2): 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.857. Gray, P. 2011. The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play 3 (4): 443–461. ———. 2018. Calling Trump childish shows how we disrespect children. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201801/calling-trump-childishshows-how-we-disrespect-children Grayling, A. 2011. Psychology: How we form beliefs. Nature 474: 446–447. https://doi.org/10. 1038/474446a. Great Britain. 1998. Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools: Final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4385/1/crickreport1998.pdf Green, M., and T.C. Brock. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5): 701–721. Greenblat, A. 2013. When it comes to guns how young is too young? NPR. https://www.npr. org/2013/05/02/180607299/when-it-comes-to-guns-how-young-is-too-young Greene, S., and D. Hogan, eds. 2005. Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods. Sage. Grewal, M. 2021. Sexual abuse of children at camp is an epidemic. Lansing Legal Examiner. https://lansing.legalexaminer.com/legal/sexual-abuse-of-children-at-camp-is-an-epidemic/ Grey Panthers. 2021. Grey Panthers. https://www.graypanthersnyc.org/about_us/maggie-kuhn. html Griffey, E. 2021. Conservative groups are training activists to swarm school board meetings. Spectrum. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/politics/2021/07/21/conserva tive-groups-are-training-activists-to-swarm-school-board-meetingsGriffin, J. 2002. Do children have rights? In The moral and political status of children: New essays, ed. D. Archard and C. Macleod, 19–30. Oxford University Press. Griffis, H. 2017. How we use geography to improve children’s health. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Policy Lab. https://policylab.chop.edu/blog/how-we-use-geography-improvechildren%E2%80%99s-health Griffiths, M. 2005. Video games and health: Video gaming is safe for most players and can be useful in health care. British Medical Journal 331 (7509): 122–123. Grinberg, E., & Stewart, D. 2017. 3 myths that shape the transgender bathroom debate. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroom-law-facts-myths/index.html Groer, M., and J. Clochesy. 2020. Conflicts within the discipline of nursing: Is there a looming paradigm war? Journal of Professional Nursing 36 (1): 53–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. profnurs.2019.06.014. Gromada, A., Rees, G., & Chzhen, Y. 2021. Innocenti report 16. UNICEF. https://www.unicef-irc. org/publications/pdf/Report-Card-16-Worlds-of-Influence-child-wellbeing.pdf Grose, J. 2021. Other peoples’ kids are annoying. New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2021/04/14/parenting/big-kid/kids-discipline.html ———. 2022. The nuclear family is no longer the norm: Good. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2022/03/30/opinion/nuclear-family.html Gross, J. 2001. A human rights perspective on U.S. Education: Only some children matter. Catholic University Law Review 50 (4) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232605001.pdf. Gross, M. 2021. Hotels for adults only. Travel Insider. https://www.insider.com/guides/travel/bestbeach-hotels-for-adults. Grunewald, R. 2020. Child health and future success. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2010/child-health-and-future-success.

References

713

Grusec, J. 1994. Parental cognitions and relationship schemas. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1994 (6): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219946603. Grusky, D.B. 2014. Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. 4th ed. Westview Press. ———. 2011. Theories of stratification and inequality. In The concise encyclopedia of sociology, ed. G. Ritzer and J. Michael Ryan, 622–624. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781405165518. GSLEN. 2022. A guide for transgender and gender nonconforming students. https://www.glsen.org Guarini, D. 2013. 9 ways video games can be good for you. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost. com/entry/video-games-good-for-us_n_4164723 Guber, M. 2015. The Victorian child c. 1837-1901. Representing Childhood. http://www. representingchildhood.pitt.edu/victorian.htm Guessoum, S.B., J. Lachal, R. Radjack, E. Carretier, S. Minassian, L. Benoit, and M.R. Moro. 2020. Adolescent psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Psychiatry Research 291 (113264). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113264. Guggenbühl, A. 1996. The incredible fascination of violence: Dealing with aggression and brutality among children (Julia Hillman, Trans.). Spring Publications. Guggenheim, M. 2005. What’s wrong with children’s rights. Harvard University Press. Gultekin, L.E., B.L. Brush, E. Ginier, A. Cordom, and E.B. Dowdell. 2020. Health risks and outcomes of homelessness in school-age children and youth: A scoping review of the literature. The Journal of School Nursing 36 (1): 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840519875182. Gummow, J. 2013. 10 surprising and counterintuitive facts about child sex trafficking. AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/10-surprising-and-counterintuitive-facts-about-child-sextrafficking Gunel, S. 2022. 6 truths about life. Medium. https://medium.com/personal-growth/6-truths-aboutlife-most-people-ignore-for-too-long-e4b128482fe0 Gunn, D. 2018. The case for investing in children has never been stronger. Pacific Standard. https:// psmag.com/economics/the-case-for-investing-in-children-has-never-been-stronger Gusfield, J. 1981. The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. The University of Chicago Press. ———. 1996. Contested meanings: The construction of alcohol problems. The University of Wisconsin Press. Gutierrez, J., L. Ormita, Le Matammu, and J. Punzalan. 2023. Do academic challenges pose a threat to university student’s mental health? A parallel mediation through healthy & unhealthy coping. North American Journal of Psychology 25: 111–124. Guttmacher Institute. 2014. Teens sexual and reproductive health. http://www.guttmacher.org/ pubs/FB-ATSRH.html ———. 2018. Teen pregnancy. https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/teens/teen-pregnancy Guzman, J. 2020. US ranks 39th in child wellbeing study. The Hill. https://thehill.com/changingamerica/well-being/longevity/483865-us-ranks-39th-in-child-well-being-study/ Haas, E. 2018. Children as property. Transformative Parent. https://www.transformativeparent. com/254/children-as-property/ Habermas, J. 1987. The tasks of a critical theory of society. In Modern German sociology, ed. V. Meja, D. Misgeld, and N. Sehr, 187–212. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.7312/meja92024-010. ———. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiring into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT University Press. (Original work published 1962). Hacker, A. 1991. Why the rich get smarter. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1 991/10/06/books/why-the-rich-get-smarter.html Hadani, H., and J. Vey. 2020. How cities can reimagine public spaces to support children and families. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/scaling-playful-learning-how-citiescan-reimagine-public-spaces-to-support-childrenand-families/

714

References

Hagenaars, P. 2016. Towards a human rights based and oriented psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies 28 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333616657170. Hagenaars, P., M. Plavsic, N. Sveaass, U. Wagner, and T. Wainwright. 2021. Human rights education for psychologists. Routledge. Hager, E. 2015. When school feels like jail. Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject. org/2015/11/11/when-school-feels-like-jail Hagerman, M. 2018. White kids. New York University Press. Hahn, H., Issacs, J., & Lou, C. 2020a. It’s time America reconsider its investment in our children. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/its-time-america-reconsider-its-investmentour-children Hahn, H., Lou, C., Isaacs, J., Lauderback, E., Daly, H., & Steuerle, C. E. 2020b. Kids Share 2020. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/kids-share-2020-report-federalexpenditures-children-through-2019-and-future-projections Haider, A. 2021. Basic facts about child poverty. American Progress. https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2021/01/12/494506/basic-facts-children-poverty/ Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage. Hakimpour, D. 2020. Distributing children as property: The best interest of the children or the best interest of the parents? Children’s Legal Rights Journal 37: 128. Available at: https:// lawecommons.luc.edu/clrj/vol37/iss1/4. Hales, L., and A. Coleman-Jenson. 2022, Feb. Food insecurity for households with children rose. USDA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/february/food-insecurity-forhouseholdswith-children-rose-in-2020-disrupting-decade-long-decline/ Halfon, N. 2022. National children’s strategy. UCLA Medical School. Hall, G. 1904. Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. 1 & 2). Appleton & Co. Hamilton, M., & Timon, C. 2020. Scouting abuse. Child USA. https://childusa.org/wp-content/ uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Victims-of-Abuse-in-Scouting-Part-1-1.pdf Hamlin, J.K., K. Wynn, and P. Bloom. 2010a. Three-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental Science 13 (6): 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-7687.2010.00951.x. ———. 2010b. Three-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental Science 13 (6): 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00951.x. Hammarberg, T. 1990. The UN convention on the rights of the child—and how to make it work. Human Rights Quarterly 12 (1): 97–105. Hanawalt, B. 1993. Growing up in medieval London: The experience of childhood in history. Oxford University Press. Handel, G., Cahill, S., & Elkin, F. 2007. Children and society. Roxbury. Haneda, Mari. 2014. Dialogic inquiry. In The encyclopedia of action research, ed. D. Coghlan and M. Brydon-Miller, 256–259. Sage. Hanna, J. 1988. Disruptive school behavior: Race, class and structure. Holmes & Meier Hanna-Attisha, M., L. O’Connell, G. Reyes, and L. Reynolds. 2021. The American promise. Academic Pediatrics 21: S94–S96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.07.002. Hannan, S. 2018. Why childhood is bad for children? Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (S1): 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12256. Hansan, J. 2019. What is social welfare history? Social Welfare Library. https://socialwelfare. library.vcu.edu/recollections/social-welfare-history/ Hansen, U. 2019. Whole child and equity are just bandaids without a learner centered approach. Edsurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-07-27-whole-child-and-equity-are-just-bandaids-without-a-learner-centered-approach Hanson, H. 2017. This Wisconsin bill would allow toddlers hunt with guns. Huffington Post. https:// www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-toddlers-hunting-guns_n_59fe10e3e4b0baea26320a48 Hanson, K. 2012. Schools of thought in children’s rights. In Children’s rights from below: Crossbultural perspectives, ed. M. Liebel, 63–79. Palgrave Macmillan.

References

715

Hanson, K., and O. Nieuwenhuys. 2013. Reconceptualizing children’s rights in international development: Living rights, social justice, translations. Cambridge University Press. Hanson, M. 2022. Average cost of college. Education Data. https://educationdata.org/average-costof-college Hardman, C. 1973. Can there be an anthropology of childhood? Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 4(2), 85–99. (Reprinted in 2001 in Childhood 8(4), 501–517). Hardy, J., S. Sdepanian, A. Stowell, et al. 2019. Potential for chemistry in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary teaching activities in higher education. Journal of Chemical Education 3.4.21: 1–32. Harmon, J. 2020. Research designs and conceptual frameworks. University of South Australia. https://lo.unisa.edu.au/pluginfile.php/1205749/mod_book/chapter/122322/Research%20para digms%20and%20conceptual%20frameworks.pdf. Harré, R., and G. Gillett. 1994. The discursive mind. Sage. Harris, E., & Alter, A. 2022. Book ban efforts spread across the US. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/books/book-ban-us-schools.html Harris, J.R. 1995. Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review 102: 458–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458. Harris, K. 2018. Don’t put your hands in your pocket. Daily Express. https://www.express.co.uk/ news/royal/1038129/meghan-markle-royal-tour-hands-pockets-new-zealand Harris, T. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: Children’s human rights and the right to science [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Hart, H.L.A. 1973. Bentham on legal rights. In Oxford essays in jurisprudence, 2nd series, ed. A.W. Simpson, 171–201. Clarendon Press. Hart, R. 1992a. Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF Innocenti Essays No. 4. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/100-childrens-participation-from-tokenism-tocitizenship.html ———. 1997. Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. Routledge. Hart, R. A. 1992b. Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF International Child Development Centre. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/100-childrens-participa tion-from-tokenism-to-citizenship.html Hart, S.N. 1991. From property to person status: Historical perspective on children’s rights. American Psychologist 46 (1): 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.1.53. Hart, S., and Z. Pavlovic. 1991. Children’s rights in education: An historical perspective. Social Psychology Review 20 (3): 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1991.12085558. Hartmann, M. 2019. Familial sex trafficking: A crime against children. https://theexodusroad.com/ familial-sex-trafficking-a-crime-against-children/ Harvard Center for the Developing Child. 2021. Three principles for improving outcomes for children and families. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/three-early-childhooddevelopment-principles-improve-child-family-outcomes/ Harvard Medical School. 2020. Juvenile justice. https://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/juvenilejustice/ Harvard University. 2016. How is children’s health a human rights issue? https://www.hhrguide. org/2014/03/16/how-is-childrens-health-a-human-rights-issue/ ———. 2021. Children are Citizens project. https://pz.harvard.edu/projects/children-are-citizens Hass, R. 2020. One America, two nations. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/ article/one-america-two-nations Hassan, C. 2021. ‘Your child will wait for another child to die.’ Amid Covid-19 surge, Dallas County has no pediatric ICU beds left, county judge says. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/0 8/13/us/dallas-county-no-pediatric-icu-beds-left/index.html Hastings, R.P., and M.S. Bham. 2003. The relationship between student behavior patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International 24 (1): 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0143034303024001905.

716

References

Hawes, J. 1999. Child rights movement. Twayne Press. Hawes, J., and N. Hiner. 1991. Children in historical and comparative perspective: An international handbook and research guide. Greenwood. Hay, D., & Nye, R. 1992. The spirit of the child. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/The-Spirit-of-the-Child-Hay-Nye/31aebbc0eda0b23b9c64d2f60a866e14a7070fe8 Hays, P.A. 2016. 3rd ed. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14801-000 Hayden, P., ed. 2001. The philosophy of human rights. Paragon House. Hazeldon Foundation. 2016. Violence prevention works. http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/ public/index.page Healey, J., A. Stepnick, and E. O’Brien. 2018. Race, ethnicity, gender, & class: The sociology of group conflict and change. Sage. Health Affairs. 2023. Children’s health. https://www.healthaffairs.org/action/doSearch?AllField= children Health Resources and Services Administration, & Maternal and Child Health Bureau. 2011. Child health USA 2011. United States Department of Health and Human Services. ———. 2014. Child health USA 2014. United States Department of Health and Human Services. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/population-characteristics/rural-urban-children.html. Healthy Children. 2021. Cosmetic surgery in teens. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/agesstages/gradeschool/puberty/Pages/Cosmetic-Surgery-in-Teens-Information-for-Parents.aspx Heard, A. 1997. Human rights: Chimeras in sheep’s clothing. Simon Fraser University. https:// www.sfu.ca/~aheard/intro.html Heatherington, E.M., and J. Kelly. 2003. For better or worse. Norton. Heckhausen, J., C. Wrosch, and R. Schulz. 2010. A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review 117 (1): 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017668. Heckman, J. 2011. The American family in black & white: A post-racial strategy for improving skills to promote equality. Daedalus 140 (2): 70–89. ———. 2020. Quantifying the life-cycle benefits of a prototypical early childhood program. https:// heckmanequation.org/ Hefferman, L. 2021. 50 things you can do when you turn 18. https://grownandflown.com/50-thingsdo-when-you-turn-18/ Heffner, C. 2003. The psychological effects of media violence on children. AllPsych. http:// allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia/ ———. 2003b. The psychological effects of media violence on children. AllPsych. http://allpsych. com/journal/violentmedia/ Heinzmann, G. 2016. Parental violence in youth sports. Rutgers University Sports Research Council. http://youthsports.rutgers.edu/program-areas/2-uncategorised/45-parental-violencein-youth-sports-facts-myths-andvideotape Heisler, M. 2016. To create change we need a new view of reality. ItsMyLifeInc.com. https://www. itsmylifeinc.com/2016/10/to-create-change-sometimes-we-need-a-new-view-of-reality/ Heitler, S. 2014. Verbal abuse of children. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ us/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201403/verbal-abuse-children-what-can-you-do-about-it ———. 2016. Can you spot 10 signs of a childish adult? Psychology Today. https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201603/can-you-spot-10-signs-childishadult Helfer, R. 1972. Helping the battered child and his family. Lippincott. ———. 1978. Childhood comes first: A crash course in childhood for parents. (n.p.) ———. 1988. The battered child. University of Chicago Press. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. 2016. World happiness report 2016, Update (Vol. I). Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/ Helseth, S., and K. Haraldstad. 2014. Child well-being. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and wellbeing research, ed. A.C. Michalos. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_339.

References

717

Helsing, D., et al. 2008. Putting the “development” in professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’ immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review 78 (3): 437–465. Fall 2008. Heltzel, G., and K. Laurin. 2020. Polarization in America: Two possible futures. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34: 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.008. Helwig, C., and E. Turiel. 2016a. Psychology of children’s rights. Taylor and Francis. ———. 2016b. The psychology of children’s rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Hemez, P. 2021. Number of children living only with their mothers. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-theirmothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years.html Hemphill, C. 2010. What happened to childhood? The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/ roomfordebate/2010/12/12/stress-and-the-high-school-student/what-happened-to-childhood Hemsley, J. 2021. When fake news turn into conspiracy theories. Syracuse University. https:// ischool.syr.edu/when-fake-news-turns-into-conspiracy-theories-the-viral-factor-in-todaysmedia-landscape-and-what-we-can-do-to-stop-it/ Henderson, C., S. Evans-Lacko, and G. Thornicroft. 2013. Mental illness stigma, help seeking, and public health programs. American Journal of Public Health 103 (5): 777–780. Henderson, I. 2019. Space tourism. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/socialsciences/space-tourism Henderson, R. 2021. The world of work needs a new social contract. Forbes. https://www.forbes. com/sites/rebeccahenderson/2021/06/30/the-new-world-of-work-needs-a-new-social-contract Henderson, T. 2022. Parents struggle to work without childcare. Pew. https://www.pewtrusts.org/ en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/02/24/parents-still-struggle-to-work-withoutchild-care Hendrick, H. 1997. Children, Childhood and English Society, 1880–1990 (New Studies in Economic and Social History). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139171175. Hendricksen, E. 2016. Should kids take psychiatric medication? Scientific American. https://www. scientificamerican.com/article/should-kids-take-psychiatric-medication/ Henning, K. 2021. The rage of innocence: How America criminalizes black youth. Pantheon. Henry, R., P. Perrin, and E. Smith. 2019. The underpinnings of ageism: Multiple mediational model of epistemological style, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and ageist attitudes. Journal of Aging Research 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3672725. Herbertson, K. 2020. To restore global leadership, U.S. government should protect human rights defenders. Earth Rights International. https://earthrights.org/blog/to-restore-global-leadershipus-government-should-protect-human-rights-defenders/ Herman-Giddens, M., J. Steffes, D. Harris, E. Slora, M. Hussey, S. Dowshen, and E. Reiter. 2012. Secondary sexual characteristics in boys. Pediatrics 130 (5). Hernandez, J. 2021. Hate crime reach highest level in more than a decade. NPR. https://www.npr. org/2021/08/31/1032932257/hate-crimes-reach-the-highest-level-in-more-than-a-decade Herrela, C. 2018. Senator Marco Rubio tells students he does not agree with the March For Our Lives. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rubio-march-for-our-livs_n_5ab6f2a2e4b00 8c9e5f7e6ca Hertberg-Davis, H., and C. Callahan. 2013. Fundamentals of gifted education. Routledge. Herzog, J.I., and C. Schmahl. 2018. Adverse childhood experiences and the consequences on neurobiological, psychosocial, and somatic conditions across the lifespan. Frontiers in Psychiatry 9 (420). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00420. Hess, A. 2021. America has 1.73 trillion in student debt. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/0 9/america-has-1point73-trillion-in-student-debtborrowers-from-these-states-owe-the-most.html

718

References

Hestres, L., Rochman, A., Volmert, A., & Busso, D. 2021a. How are children’s issues portrayed in the news? A media content analysis. Frameworks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute. org/publication/how-are-childrens-issues-portrayed-in-the-news/ Hestres, L., Rochman, A., Volmert, A., & Busso, D. 2021b. How are advocates talking about children’s issues? An analysis of field communications. Frameworks Institute. https://www. frameworksinstitute.org/publication/how-are-advocates-talking-about-childrens-issues-an-anal ysis-of-field-communications/ Heuscher, J. 1974. A psychiatric study of myths and fairy tales. Charles C. Thomas. Heywood, C. 2001. A history of childhood. Polity Press. Higgens, D., and M. McCabe. 2003. Maltreatment and family dysfunction in childhood and the subsequent adjustment of children and adults. Journal of Family Violence 18 (2): 107. Hilhorst, D. 2003. Discourse formation in social movements. Wageningen University. Hill, D., S. Macrine, and D. Gabbard. 2010. Capitalist education: Globaisation and the politics of inenquality. Routledge. Hill Collins, P. 2008. Black feminist thought. Routledge. Hill Collins, P., and S. Bilge. 2016. Intersectionality. Polity Press. Hill, M., A. Lockyer, and F. Stone. 2006. Youth justice and child protection. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hindman, H.D. 2002. Child labor: An American history. Rutledge. Hiner, N.R., and J.M. Hawes, eds. 1985. Growing up in America: Children in historical perspective. University of Illinois Press. Hinrichs, A. 2022. The photographer who fought to end child labor. Getty. https://www.getty.edu/ news/the-photographer-who-fought-toend-child-labor/ Hinton P. 2017. Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in ‘biased’ person perception. Palgrave Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201 786 Hirpa, D. 2021. Exclusion of children with disabilities from early childhood education: Including approaches of social exclusion. Cogent. Education 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X. 2021.1952824. Hirsh-Pasek, K. 2021. Education reform. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/educationplus-development/2021/01/04/covid-19-sparks-an-overdue-discussion-on-education-reforman-optimistic-vision/ History.com. 2018. Larry Nassar sentenced to prison for sexual assault. https://www.history.com/ this-day-in-history/larry-nassar-usa-gymnastics-doctor-sentenced-prison-sexual-assault ———. 2020. Child labor. https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/child-labor ———. 2021a.) Civil rights movement. https://www.history.com/topics/civil-rights-movement/ civil-rights-movement-timeline ———. 2021b.) Women’s suffrage. https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/the-fight-forwomens-suffrage Ho, E., A. Clarke, and I. Dougherty. 2015. Youth-led social change: Topics, engagement types, organizational types, strategies, and impacts. Futures 67: 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. futures.2015.01.006. Ho, M., and S. O’Donohoe. 2014. Volunteer stereotypes, stigma and relational identity projects. European Journal of Marketing 48 (5/6): 854–877. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0637. Hobbs, W., and M. Roberts. 2018. How sudden censorship can increase access to information. American Political Science Review 112 (3): 621–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055418000084. Hochschild, A. 1989. The second shift. Viking. Hodge, B. 2020. Social media and the rise of mental health issues. Medium. https://medium.com/ @bonniehodge_14191/social-media-the-rise-of-mental-health-issues-responsible-use-714 b5ec94ffc Hodge, S. 2017. The genie is out of the bottle: The need for digital governance. LinkedIn. https:// www.linkedin.com/pulse/genie-out-bottle-the-need-digital-governance-stephanie-jill-hodge/

References

719

Hodgson, D. 1995. Participation of children and young people in social work. UNICEF. Hoffer, E. 1951. The True Believer. Harper Hofferth, S.L. 1987. Implications of family trends for children: A research perspective. Educational Leadership 44 (5): 78–84. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ350657. Hofferth, S., and Z. Jankuniene. 2001, April. Life after school. Educational Leadership 58 (7): 19– 23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626289 Hoffman, J. 2016, May 18. As attention grows, number of transgender children is elusive. The New York Times.. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/science/transgender-children.html?_ r=0. ———. 2021. Defiant teens find ways to get vaccines. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2021/06/26/health/covid-vaccine-teens-consent.html Hoffman, M.L. 1975. Altruistic behavior and the parent-child relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (5): 937–943. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076825. Hofri-Winogrado, A. 2012. Parents, children, and property in late 18th century Chancery. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32 (4): 741–769. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqs019. Hogan, D. 2005. Researching ‘the child’ in developmental psychology. In Researching children’s experiences: Approaches and methods, ed. S. Greene and D. Hogan, 22–42. Sage. Hogenboom, M. 2016. Polyamorous relationships may be the future of love. BBC News Magazine. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160623-polyamorous-relationships-may-be-the-future-oflove Holcolme, M. 2021. Schools opening without masking is a formula for disaster. CNN. https://www. cnn.com/2021/08/10/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html Holder, S. 2017. How the psychology of bullying explains Trumps tweets. Politico. https://www. politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/03/how-the-psychology-of-cyberbullying-explainstrumps-tweets-215333 Holdsworth, R. 2020. Student voice, agency and participation: Understanding and practices. Professional voice. Australian Education Union 13 (12): 21–30. Holland, S. 2020. The right way. Children’s Commission for Wales. Hollinshead, K. 2007. ‘Worldmaking’ and the transformation of place and culture: The enlargement of Meethan’s analysis of tourism and global change. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08045098-8.50016-7. Holloway, S., and G. Valentine. 2000. Children’s geographies. Routledge. Holman, D., and A. Walker. 2021. Understanding unequal ageing: Towards a synthesis of intersectionality and life course analyses. European Journal of Ageing 18: 239–255. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10433-020-00582-7. Holt, J. 1995. How children fail and how children learn. DeCapo Press. Holt, J.C. 1975. Escape from childhood: The needs and rights of children. Penguin. Holzer, H. 2021. Is another progressive era coming? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ opinions/is-another-progressive-era-coming/ Holzscheiter, A. 2011. Power of discourse or discourse of the powerful? The reconstruction of global childhood norms in the drafting of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Journal of Language and Politics 10 (1): 1–28. Holzscheiter, A., J. Josefsson, and B. Sandin. 2019. Child rights governance: An introduction. Childhood 26 (3): 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219854518. Hom, S., C. Peter, and S. Russel. 2016. The right to be who you are: Competing tensions among protection, survival and participation related to youth sexuality and gender. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. PetersonBadali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Hong, J. 2021a. The debate behind California math change. Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/ education/k-12-education/2021/11/california-math/ Hong, N. 2021b, January 31). Rochester officers suspended after pepper-spraying of 9-year-old girl. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/nyregion/rochester-police-pepperspray-child.html

720

References

Honigmann, J. 1976. Anthropology of childhood. Reviews in Anthropology 3 (2): 213–218. Hood, R. 2020. Child abuse in residential facilities. https://www.mcgowanhood.com/2020/09/02/ child-abuse-in-residential-treatment-facilities-the-signs/ Hood, S., P. Kelley, and B. Mayall. 1996. Children as research subjects: A risky enterprise. Children and Society 10 (2): 117–112. Hooks, B. 2014. Ain’t I a woman? Routledge. Hooyman, N., K. Kawamoto, and A.S. Kiyak. 2014. Aging matters. Pearson. Hopkins, N. 2020. Dewey, dialogic pedagogy and teacher education in England. In The contemporary relevance of John Dewey’s theories on teaching and learning, ed. J. Avila, A.G. Rud, L. Waks, and E. Ring. Routledge. Hopkins, P. 2010. Young people, place and identity. Routledge. Hopman, M. 2017. (Why) should children have rights: A philosophical perspective. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking stock after 25 years. Brill. https://doi.org/10. 1163/9789004295056_016 Hopper, R.D. 1950. The revolutionary process: A frame of reference for the study of revolutionary movements. Social Forces 28 (3): 270–280. Hoppner, G. 2017, September. Rethinking socialization research through the lens of new materialism. Frontiers in Sociology 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00013. Horowitz, J. 2020. Trends in income and wealth inequality. Pew Research. https://www. pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ Houlgate, L. 1999. Three concepts of children’s constitutional rights. Journal of Constitutional Law 2 (1): 77–95. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context= jcl. Howard, J. 2020. US ranks lower than 38 other countries when it comes to children’s wellbeing. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/health/children-health-rankings-unicef-who-lancetreport/index.html Howe, R., and K. Covell. 2010. Miseducating children about their rights. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 5: 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910370724. Howell, J., and J.A. Shepperd. 2012. Behavioral obligation and information avoidance. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 45 (2): 258–263. HREUSA. 2021. Resources and publications. https://hreusa.org/ Hsieh, S. 2017. 14 disturbing stats about racial inequality in American schools. Billmoyers.com. http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/24/14-disturbing-stats-about-racial-inequality-in-american-pub lic-schools/ Huber, C. 2021. Texas deputy attorney general calls Simone Biles a selfish, childish, national embarrassment. Spectrum local news. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/ news/2021/07/28/in-tweet%2D%2Dtexas-deputy-attorney-general-calls-simone-biles%2D%2 Dselfish%2D%2Dchildish-national-embarrassmentHudson, Christopher, and Yvonne Vissing. 2010. The geography of adult homelessness in the US: Validation of state and county estimates. Health & Place 16: 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. healthplace.2010.04.008. Hudson, B., D. Hunter, and S. Peckham. 2019. Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: Can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice 2 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 1080/25741292.2018.1540378. Hudson, C. 2000. At the edge of chaos. Journal of Social Work Education 36 (2): 215–230. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2000.10779003. Hudson, C.G. 2021. Research Handbook of Mental Health Policy. Edward Elgar Pub. ———. 2010. Complex systems and human behavior. Oxford University Press. Huesmann, L., J. Moise-Titus, C. Podolski, and L. Eron. 2003. Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood. Developmental Psychology. American Psychological Association, Inc 39 (2): 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201.

References

721

Huffington Post 2019. Children under 1 year should not watch screens. https://www.huffpost.com/ entry/un-world-health-org-screen-time_n_5cc0a599e4b0764d31dbfb7f Huffington, A. 2011. Third world America: How our politicians are abandoning the middle class and betraying the American Dream. Crown. Hughes, V. 2022. How to change minds? A study makes the case for talking it out. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/science/group-consensus-persuasion-brain-alignment. html Hull, S. 2019. The growing list of kid-free travel zones and destinations. https://thepointsguy.com/ guide/kid-freetravel-zones-and-destinations/ Hulshof-Schmidt, M. 2015. What’s in an acronym? https://hulshofschmidt.wordpress.com/2012/0 7/11/whats-in-an-acronym-parsing-the-lgbtqqip2saa-community/ Human Rights Campaign. 2016a. Growing up LGBTQ in America. http://www.hrc.org/youthreport/view-and-share-statistics ———. 2016b. Transgender children and youth. http://www.hrc.org/explore/topic/transgenderchildren-youth Human Rights for Kids. 2020. 2020 State and national report. https://humanrightsforkids.org/ national-state-ratings-report/ Human Rights Watch. 2009. US ratification of international human rights treaties. https://www. hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights-treaties ———. 2014. US child workers in danger on tobacco farms. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/0 5/14/us-child-workers-danger-tobacco-farms ———. 2016. “Like walking through a hailstorm”: Discrimination against LGBT youth in US schools. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/07/walking-through-hailstorm/discriminationagainst-lgbt-youth-us-schools ———. 2018. Refugees and migrants. https://www.hrw.org/topic/migrants ———. 2019. Need to treat children different from adults in the federal criminal justice system. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/10/need-treat-children-differently-adultsfederal-criminaljustice-system# ———. 2020. World Report 2020. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/ united-states# ———. 2021a. COVID-19 sparked human rights crises. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/04/ covid-19-pandemic-sparked-year-rights-crises ———. 2021b. Need to treat children differently from adults in the federal criminal justice system. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/10/need-treat-children-differently-adults-federal-criminaljustice-system Human Security Report Project. 2016. The decline in global violence: Reality or myth. http://www. hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_Press_Release.pdf Humanium. 2020. The beginnings of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www. humanium.org/en/convention/beginnings/ ———. 2021a. Child protection. https://www.humanium.org/en/protection/ ———. 2021b. Ranking of world countries with respect to rights of the child. https://www. humanium.org/en/rcri-world-ranking-by-countries/ Humphries, J. 2013. Childhood and child labour in the British industrial revolution. The Economic History Review 66 (2): 395–418. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42921562. Hund, W., & Mills, C. 2016. Comparing black people to monkeys. The Conversation. https:// theconversation.com/comparing-black-people-to-monkeys-has-a-long-dark-simianhistory-55102 Hunt, L. 2007. Inventing human rights. W.W. Norton & Company. Huntington, C., and E.S. Scott. 2015. Children’s health in a legal framework. The Future of Children 25 (1): 177–197. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/5. Hurd, N.M., M.A. Zimmerman, and T.M. Reischl. 2011. Role model behavior and youth violence: A study of positive and negative effects. The Journal of Early Adolescence 31 (2): 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610363160.

722

References

Hurley, K. 2022. The US leaves parents on their own for a reason. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/06/us-paid-parental-leave-child-welfare-tax-credit/6612 76/ Hurry, J. 2000. Deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents. International Review of Psychiatry 12 (1). Husak, D. 1984. Why there are no human rights. Social Theory and Practice 10 (2): 125–141. ———. 1985. The motivation for human rights. Social Theory and Practice 11 (2): 249–255. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract19851129. Huston, P. 2006. Individual rights, collective good and the duty of care. Canadian Journal of Public Health 97 (2): 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405320. Hutchby, I., and J. Moran-Ellis. 1998. Children and social competence: Arenas of action. Falmer Press. Hynes, P., M. Lamb, D. Short, and M. Waites. 2012. Sociology and human rights. Routledge. ———. 2010. Sociology and human rights: Confrontations, evasions and new engagements. The International Journal of Human Rights 14 (6): 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987. 2010.512125. Ife, J. 2012. Human rights and social work. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press. Illick, J. 2012. African American childhood. In Global history of childhood, ed. Heidi Morrison. Routledge. Illick, J.E. 2002. American childhoods. University of Pennsylvania Press. Illuminas. 2021. Consumer attitudes & behaviours: Marketing to the inner child. https://www. illuminas.com/4442/\ Img, D. 2004. Building a social movement for America’s children (Working paper #04-09). University of Memphis Hooks Institute. https://www.memphis.edu/benhooks/creative-works/ pdfs/dougpaper2.pdf Imoh, A.T.D. 2023. Adults in charge: The limits of formal child participatory processes for societal transformation. In The politics of children’s rights and representation. Studies in childhood and youth, ed. B. Sandin, J. Josefsson, K. Hanson, and S. Balagopalan. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04480-9_3. Impact Program. 2016. Transgender youth. http://www.impactprogram.org/lgbtq-youth/transgen der-101/?gclid=CPmVy6f6ic0CFcNahgoduHkF4Q#sthash.eMxtEdAo.dpuf Infante, D.A., T.A. Chandler, and J.E. Rudd. 1989. Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs 56 (2): 163–177. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03637758909390257. Inglehart, R. 1990. Values, ideology, and cognitive mobilization in new social movements. In Challenging the political order: New social and political movements in western democracies, ed. R.J. Dalton and M. Keuchler, 43–66. Oxford University Press. Ingraham, C. 2014. Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-anational-embarrassment/ Ingram, K. 2020. Family violence, sibling, and peer aggression during adolescence: Associations with behavioral health outcomes. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/Fpsyt. 2020.00026. Insel, T. 2014. Are children over medicated? National Institute of Mental Health. https://www. nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-insel/blog/2014/are-children-overmedicated Institute for Research on Poverty. 2022. How poverty is measured. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/ resources/how-is-poverty-measured/ Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2022. Reproductive rights. https://statusofwomendata.org/ explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/ Institute of Medicine (US) & National Research Council (US) Committee on the Science of Adolescence. 2011. Adolescents and the risks that affect them. In The science of adolescent risk-taking: Workshop report. National Academies Press (US).

References

723

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 2014. Role of prevention and promotion in human rights. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/role-prevention-promotion-and-protectionhuman-rights International Federalism of Social Workers. 2019. The role of social work in social protection systems: The universal right to social protection. https://www.ifsw.org/the-role-of-social-workin-social-protection-systems-the-universal-right-to-social-protection/ International Justice Resource Center. 2018. Children’s rights violated in US criminal justice system. https://ijrcenter.org/2018/10/10/childrens-rights-violated-in-u-s-criminal-justice-sys tem-iachr-reports/ International Labor Organization. 2022. What does NEET mean? https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/%2D%2D-dgreports/%2D%2D-dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_343153. pdf International Youth Foundation. 2021. Youth agency. https://iyfglobal.org/youth-agency Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2020. Rights and obligations of parents. https://iep.utm.edu/ parentri Introne, J. 2021. How our belief systems make us more susceptible to misinformation. Syracuse University. https://ischool.syr.edu/how-our-belief-systems-make-us-more-susceptible-tomisinformation/ Invernizzi, A., and J. Williams. 2011a. The human rights of children: From visions to implementation. Routledge. ———, eds. 2011b. The human rights of children: From visions to implementation. Ashgate. Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs. 2020. Children’s lives: Comparing long ago to today. https:// iowaculture.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/childrens-lives-com paring-long-ago-to-today IRIS. 2020. Which country has the best paternity leave? https://fmpglobal.com/blog/paternityleave-all-over-the-world/ Irmo, M. 2017. Psychosocial Aspects of Disability. Springer. Ishay, M. 2008. The history of human rights. University of California Press. Islam, M.M. 2019. Social determinants of health and related inequalities: Confusion and implications. Frontiers in Public Health 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00011. Issacs, J. 2007. Cost-effective investments in children. First Focus. https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/06/Cost-Effective-Investments-in-Children.pdf ITU. 2013. Measuring the information society. http://bit.ly/1ev2Q5J Iversen, T.N., L. Larsen, and P.E. Solem. 2009. A conceptual analysis of ageism. Nordic Psychology 61 (3): 4. Iyler, K. 2023. Iowa governor signs law to loosen child labor laws. CNN. https://www.cnn. com/2023/05/26/politics/iowa-child-laborlaw-kim-reynolds/index.html Jabeen, T. 2013. A history of contemporary child protection in the Global South. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan 50 (2). https://www.tehqeeqat.org/english/articleDetails/3916 Jackman, R. 2020. Healing your lost inner child. Wisdom Press. Jackson, J. 2021. Rhode Island students take up fight for civics education, citing Jan 6 ignorance. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/rhode-island-students-may-take-fight-civics-educa tion-scotus-cite-jan-6-ignorance-1643222 Jacobs, H. 2020. Building the future now. Learning Personalized. https://www. learningpersonalized.com/building-the-future-now-deciding-what-to-cut-what-to-keep-andwhat-to-create/ Jacobs, R. 2012. Campaign for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. [Presentation slides]. https://slideplayer.com/slide/6622308/ Jacoby T. 1986. The Reagan turnaround on human rights. Foreign Affairs. https://www. foreignaffairs.com/unitedstates/reagan-turnaround-human-rights James, A. 2007. Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.200 7.109.2.261

724

References

James, A. 2008. Key concepts in childhood studies. Sage. James, D. 2015. How Bourdieu bites back: Recognising misrecognition in education and educational research. Cambridge Journal of Education 45 (1): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305764X.2014.987644. James, K. 2017. Preventing alcohol and drug problems in your community. https://adf.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Preventing-AOD-problems.pdf James, Y. 2022. A critique of children’s mental health research. In Research handbook of policy, ed. Christopher Hudson. Edward Elgar, Pub. James, A., C. Jenks, and A. Prout. 1998. Theorizing childhood. Polity Press. Janik, R., & Hankes, K. 2021. The year in hate and extremism. Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/02/01/year-hate-2020 Jarman, M. 2020. Feral children. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. https://www.britannica.com/ topic/feral-children Jarvis, P., L. Swiniarski, and W. Holland. 2017. Early years pioneers in context. Abington Press. Jean-Klein, I., and A. Riles. 2005. Introducing discipline: Anthropology and human rights administrations. Political and Legal Anthropology Review 28 (2): 173–202. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/24497693. Jenks, C. 1996. Childhood. Routledge. ———. 2004a. A sociological approach to childhood development. In Blackwell handbook of childhood social development, ed. P. Smith and K. Hart. Blackwell Publishing. ———. 2004b. Constructing childhood sociologically. In An introduction to childhood studies, ed. M.J. Kehily, 77–95. Open University Press. Jensen, A.R. 1974. Ethnicity and scholastic achievement. Psychological Reports 34: 659–668. Jerome, L., and H. Starsky. 2021. Children's rights education in diverse classrooms: Pedagogy, principles and practice. Bloomsbury. Jerome, L., L. Emerson, L. Lundy, and K. Orr. 2015. Teaching and learning about child rights: A study of implementation in 26 countries. Queens University Belfast/UNICEF. https://www. unicef.org/media/63086/file/UNICEF-Teaching-and-learning-about-child-rights.pdf Jerreat, J. 2013. The map that shows where America came from: American ethnicity map. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408591/American-ethnicity-map-shows-melt ing-pot-ethnicities-make-USA-today.html Joanna Santa, B. 2006. Impact of war on children and imperative to end war. Croatian Medical Journal 47 (6): 891–894. Joel, D., Z. Berman, and I. Tavor. 2015. Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (50): 15468–15473. Johamesson, L. 1995. Ellen Key, Mamah Bouton Borthwick and Frank Lloyd Wright: Notes on the historiography of non-existing history. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 3 (2): 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.1995.9959681. Johnny, L. 2006. Reconceptualizing childhood: Children’s rights and youth participation in schools. International Education Journal 7 (1): 17–25. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ84 7201.pdf. Johns, M.M., V.P. Poteat, S.S. Horn, and J. Kosciw. 2019. Strengthening our schools to promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and research priorities from The State of LGBTQ Youth Health and Wellbeing Symposium. LGBT health 6 (4): 146–155. https:// doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109. Johnson, D. 2018a. American babies are less likely to survive. Time. http://time.com/5090112/ infant-mortality-rate-usa/ Johnson, H. 2013. Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective. Rowman and Littlefield. Johnson, K. 2003. The struggle for civil rights: The need for, and impediments to, political coalitions among and within minority groups. Louisiana Law Review 63 (3) https:// digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol63/iss3/7.

References

725

Johnson, K., H. Holder, K. Ogilvie, D. Collins, D. Ogilvie, B. Saylor, M. Courser, B. Miller, R. Moore, and B. Saltz. 2007. A community prevention intervention to reduce youth from inhaling and ingesting harmful legal products. Journal of Drug Education 37 (3): 227–247. Johnson, L. 2021. A two-year old from California is the youngest American to become a member of Mensa. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/us/two-year-old-is-youngest-american-mensamember-trnd/index.html Johnson, M. 2018b. Adults marvel at the youth led gun control movement. The Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/22/adults-marvel-youth-led-gun-control-move ment-boston-teens-say-about-time/mI5z03FvbmDl16fCqULpRL/story.html Johnson, M.A. 2004. Hull house. In The encyclopedia of Chicago, ed. J.R. Grossman, A.D. Keating, and J.L. Reiff, 402. The University of Chicago Press. Johnson, P. 2009. Why are today’s adults treated like children? The Telegraph. http://www. telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/6898604/Why-are-todays-adults-treatedlike-children.html Johnson, T.R. 2015, August 21. We used to count black Americans as 3/5 of a person. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-usedto-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/ Joi, P. 2022. Social media is linked to vaccine hesitancy. GAVI. https://www.gavi.org/ vaccineswork/misinformation-social-media-linked-vaccine-hesitancy-says-study Joireman, S. 2018. Protecting future rights for future citizens: Children’s property rights in fragile environments. Oxford Development Studies 46 (4): 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818. 2017.1416073. Jonas, B., Qiuping, G., & Albertorio-Diaz, J.R. 2013. Psychotropic medication use among adolescents: United States 2005-2010. Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ products/databriefs/db135.htm Jonas, E., V. Graupmann, D. Niesta Kayser, M. Zanna, E. Traut-Mattausch, and D. Frey. 2009. Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (5): 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.005. Jones, A.E., and P.G. Smyth. 1999. Social exclusion: A new framework for social policy analysis? Just Policy 17: 11–21. Jones, D., M. Greenberg, and M. Crowley. 2015. Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health 105: 2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630. Jones, F. 2000. Youth volunteering on the rise. Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75001-x/2000001/4888-eng.pdf Jones, Lawrence. 2012. Drive for parental rights picks up over 110 co-signers. The Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/drive-for-parental-rights-amendment-picks-up-over-110co-signers-39990 Jones, P. 2016. Group rights. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/rights-group/ Jonson, C., M. Moon, and B. Gialopsos. 2020. Are students scared or prepared? Psychological impacts of a multi-option active assailant protocol compared to other crisis/emergency preparedness practices. Victims and Offenders 15 (5): 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886. 2020.1753871. Jordan, C. 2020. No children allowed? Alpa Mom. https://alphamom.com/parenting/baby/nochildren-allowed/ Joseph, S., F. Becker, and S. Becker. 2012. Manual for measures of caring activities and outcomes for children and young people. 2nd ed. Carers Trust. Joyce, A. 2015. What exactly is this whole free-range kid thing? The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2015/05/26/what-exactly-is-this-whole-freerange-kid-thing/

726

References

Joynes, C., & Plunkett, R. 2018, July 22. Issues to consider in designing a child protection system. K4D Helpdesk Report. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/398_issues_to_consider_ in_designing_a_child_protecting_system.pdf/ Jozuka, E. 2018. The man who married a hologram. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/28/ health/rise-of-digisexuals-intl/index.html Jung, C. 1970. Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice. Vintage Books. Jung, C.G. 1980. The Archetypes and the collective unconscious. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Juvenile Law Center. 2020. Youth justice system. https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview Kahan, D. 2017. Misinformation and identity-protective cognition (Research paper no. 587). Yale Law School. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3046603 Kahan, D.M. 2013. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8 (4): 407–424. Kaime, T. 2011. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: A cultural legitimacy critique. Europa Law Publishing. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2010. Generation M2 – Media in the lives of 8 – 18 year olds. http:// kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8010.pdf Kallio, K. 2007. Performative bodies, tactical agents and political selves: Rethinking the political geographies of childhood. Space and Polity 11 (2). Kalpana, M. 2018. Authoritarian parenting. Mom Junction. https://www.momjunction.com/ articles/what-is-authoritarian-parenting_00379619/#gref Kamentz, A. 2021, October 19. Families struggle to find childcare. NPR. https://www.npr. org/2021/10/19/1047019536/families-are-struggling-to-find-the-child-care-they-desperatelyneed Kane, M. 2012. Fighting against aging stereotypes. Pocket. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/ fighting-against-aging-stereotypes?utm_source=pocket-newtab Kant, I. 1991. Perpetual peace. In Kant: Political writings, ed. H. Reiss, 2nd ed., 125. Cambridge University Press. Kantrowitz, M. 2021. Student loan debt statistics. Student Loan Hero. https://studentloanhero.com/ student-loan-debt-statistics/ Kaplan, S. 2021. A systems approach to social disintegration. National Affairs. https://www. nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-systems-approach-to-social-disintegration Karch, A. 2013. Early start: Preschool politics in the United States. University of Michigan Press. Karni, A., & Broadwater, L. 2022. A timeline of failed events to address gun violence. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/gun-control-timeline.html Kaščák, O. 2009. Children in culture. Academia. http://www.academia.edu/38141853/Children_ in_culture_children_s_culture Kasparov, G., & Halvorssen, T. 2017, February 13. Why the rise of authoritarianism is a global catastrophe. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/ wp/2017/02/13/why-the-rise-of-authoritarianism-is-a-global-catastrophe/ Katz, B., & Tilchin, R. 2017. Investing in the next generation. Brookings Institute. https://www. brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/investing-in-the-next-generation-a-bottom-upapproach-to-creating-better-outcomes-for-children-and-youth.pdf Katz, C. 2008. Childhood as spectacle: relays of anxiety and the reconfiguration of the child. Cultural Geographies 15 (1): 5–17. Katz, L. 2018. The art of leadership: Developing people. Exchange Press. Kaufman, J., J.L. Montalvo-Ortiz, H.M. Holbrook, K. O’Loughlin, C. Orr, C.L. Kearney, B. Yang, T. Wang, H. Zhao, R.R. Althoff, H. Garavan, J. Gelernter, and J.J. Hudziak. 2018. Adverse childhood experiences, epigenetic measures, and obesity in youth. The Journal of Pediatrics 202: 150–156.e3. Kaur, G. 2018. US has a long history of separating families. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/0 6/24/us/us-long-history-of-separating-families-trnd/index.html

References

727

Kavanagh, D., & Scafidi, B. 2020. One sector is flourishing during the pandemic: K-12 private schools. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/527623-one-sector-is-flourishing-dur ing-the-pandemic-k-12-private-schools Kay, P., and W. Kempton. 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist 86 (1): 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050. Keating, D. 2016. The evolving capabilities of the child. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Keely, M. 2020. Parents selling their own children. WJACTV. https://wjactv.com/news/local/ officials-parents-selling-own-children-into-human-trafficking Kelleher, S. 2020. Community efforts curbed typhus epidemic. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/news/community-efforts-curbed-typhus-epi demic-warsaw-ghetto Kelley, B. 2018. Hidden demographics of youth sports. ESPN. http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/ id/9469252/hidden-demographics-youth-sports-espn-magazine Kempe, C.H., F.N. Silverman, B.F. Steele, W. Droegemueller, and H.K. Silver. 2013. The batteredchild syndrome. In C. Henry Kempe: A 50 year legacy to the field of child abuse and neglect, ed. R.D. Krugman and J.E. Korbin, 23–38. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-007-4084-6_5. Kemper, S. 1994. Elderspeak: Speech accommodations to older adults. Aging and Cognition 1: 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0928991940825144. Kendall-Tackett, K. 2005. The hidden feelings of motherhood. Pharmasoft Publishing. Keneally, M. 2016. 4 years after Sandy Hook Obama has made little progress on gun law. ABC. https://abc7.com/news/4-years-after-sandy-hook-obama-has-made-little-progress-on-gunlaws/1655565/ Kenealy, P., N. Frude, and W. Shaw. 2001. Influences of children’s physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. The Journal of Social Psychology 128 (3): 373–383. http://www. communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/influences_of_childrens_physical_attrac tiveness_on_teacher_expectations.pdf. Kennedy, J. 2021. Expecting and getting more from children’s media. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/06/03/expecting-and-getting-more-fromchildrens-media/ Kerr, E. 2021. See 10 years of student loan debt. US News and World Report. https://www.usnews. com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-how-student-loan-borrowing-hasrisen-in-10-years Kertschler, T. 2021. How much does the US spend on early education compared to other nations? WRAL News. https://www.wral.com/fact-check-how-much-does-u-s-spend-on-early-educa tion-compared-to-other-nations/20054849/ Kesslen, B. 2020. Video shows police officer arresting 6 year old girl. NBC. https://www.nbcnews. com/news/us-news/video-shows-police-officer-arresting-6-year-old-girl-school-n1142356 Kettler, S. 2015. Black history unsung hero: Colette Colvin. https://www.biography.com/news/ black-history-unsung-heroes-claudette-colvin Khan, N. 2022a. COVID-19 and childhood inequality. Routledge. ———. 2022b. COVID and childhood inequality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781003250937. Khazan, O. 2021. The new question haunting adoption. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/ Kibler, T. 2020. Unpacking the history of American and International child rights. HeinOnline. https://home.heinonline.org/blog/2020/08/unpacking-the-history-of-american-and-interna tional-child-rights/ Kid Rights Foundation. 2020. The kids rights index 2020 report. https://files.kidsrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/25092805/200519-The-KidsRights-Index-report-2020.pdf

728

References

Kidd, S. 2021. Universal provision is more effective than poverty targeting. iD4D. https://ideas4 development.org/en/social-protection-universal-provision-is-more-effective-than-povertytargeting Kidder, C. 2007. Orphan trains and their precious cargo: The life’s work of Rev. H. D. Clarke. Heritage Books. Kidder, R. 2003. How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. Harper. Kids Are Heroes. 2016. Celebrating our child heroes. http://www.kidsareheroes.org/ Kielburger, C. 2021. We need to update children’s rights. WE Charity. https://www.we.org/en-US/ we-stories/opinion/craig-kielburger-update-united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-thechild Kierkegaard, S. 2005. Fear and trembling (A. Hannay, Trans.). Penguin Books. Kilpatrick, D., R. Acierno, B. Saunders, H. Resnick, C. Best, and P. Schnurr. 1998. National survey of adolescents. Medical University of South Carolina, National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. Kim, S., M. Raza, and E. Seidman. 2019. Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education 14 (1): 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214. Kim, Y.S., and B. Leventhal. 2008. Bullying and suicide: A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 20: 133–154. Kimball, G. 2017. Ageism in youth studies. Cambridge Press. Kimbal, G. 2019. Ageism in Youth Studies. Cambridge Press. Kimberly, M. 2014. Racism and law enforcement in the US: Police target black children. Global Research. https://www.globalresearch.ca/racism-and-law-enforcement-in-the-u-s-police-targetblack-children/5384314 Kimball, M.A. 2017. The golden age of technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 47 (3): 330–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616641927. Kimmel, M., and M. Messner. 2010. Men’s lives. Allyn & Bacon. King, B., M. Cornwall, and E. Dahlin. 2005. Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: Social movements and the logic of legislative process. Social Forces 83: 1211–1234. King, M. 2007. Concepts of childhood: What we know and where we might go. Renaissance Quarterly 60 (2): 371. ———. 2014. Family and childhood. Oxford Bibliographies. http://www.oxfordbibliographies. com/view/document/obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0001.xml King, M., and C. Piper. 1995. How the law thinks about children. Ashgate. King, W. 1995. Stolen Childhood: Save you in 19th century America. Indiana University Press. Kingkade, T. 2021. Critical race theory invades school boards. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/ news/usnews/critical-race-theory-invades-school-boards-help-conservative-groups-n1270794 ———. 2022. They fought critical race theory. Now they’re focusing on ‘curriculum transparency. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/critical-race-theory-curriculum-transparencyrcna12809 Kinkade, T. 2021. Critical race theory invades school boards. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/ news/us-news/critical-race-theory-invades-school-boards-help-conservative-groups-n1270794 Kinsey, A. 1948. Sexual behavior in the human male. W. B. Saunders Co. ———. 1953. Sexual behavior in the human female. Indiana University Press. Kinsley, M. 2014. Ronald Reagan was a complete policy failure. Vanity Fair. https://www. vanityfair.com/news/2015/01/ronald-reagan-policy-political-failure Kirby, P., C. Lanyon, K. Cronin, and Sinclair., R. 2003. Building a culture of participation: Involving children and young people in policy, service planning, delivery and evaluation. National Children’s Bureau. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/17522/1/Handbook%20-%20Building%20a %20Culture%20of%20Participation.pdf. Kite, L., and L. Kite. 2021. More than a body. Harvest Publishers.

References

729

Kiuru, N., M.T. Wang, K. Salmela-Aro, L. Kannas, T. Ahonen, and R. Hirvonen. 2020. Associations between adolescents’ interpersonal relationships, school well-being, and academic achievement during educational transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49: 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01184-y. Kivunja, C. 2018. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. Journal of Higher Education 7 (6) https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf. Klein, J. 2013. The bully society. New York University Press. Klein, N. 2009. Shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Routledge. Klein, R. 2016. In a lot of ways, schools are safer than ever. Huffington Post. http://www. huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-safety2015_us_5728cf31e4b016f37893a4fb ———. 2018. More cops in school mean more black kids in criminal justice system. https://www. huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-to-prison-pipeline_us_5a8ee0afe4b077f5bfec2cf3 Kleinberg, E. 2018. Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown. Kleinig, J. 1976. Mill, children, and rights. Educational Philosophy and Theory 8 (1): 1–16. Klimczuk, Andrzej, Cecilia Bjursell, Ann-Kristin Boström, Ayşe Canatan, Paulo de Salles Oliveira, Andreas Hoff, Giovanni Lamura, Kurt Lüscher, Mariano Sanchez, Marta Renzi, Gražina Rapolienė, Sarmitė Mikulionienė, Ágnes Neményi, Sema Oğlak, Gil Viry, Eric D. Widmer, Enikő Veress, Ana Vujović, Ajda Svetelšek, Nedim Gavranovic, Olga Vasylivna Ivashchenko, Valentina Shipovskaya, Qing Lin, and Xiying Wang. 2017, November 16. Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy: A multilingual compendium - Edition 2017. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125097 Kluger, J. 2010. Who’s white, who’s black and who knows? Time. http://healthland.time. com/2010/12/10/whos-white-whos-black-who-knows/ Knee, J. 2016. Why for-profit education fails. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/2016/11/why-for-profit-education-fails/501140/ Knorr, C. 2018. Five ways social media can be good for teens. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2018/03/19/5-ways-social-media-can-be-good-forteens/ Koerner, L. 1999. Linnaeus: Nature and nation. Harvard University Press. Kofoed, J. 2021. Adopt the children’s rights and business principles. United Nations Global Compact. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/take-action/action/child-rights Kohlberg, L. 1969a. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Handbook of socialization theory and research, ed. D.A. Goslin, 347–481. Rand McNally. ———. 1969b. States in the development of moral thought and action. Rinehart and Winston. Köhler, L. 1998. Child public health: A new basis for child health workers. European Journal of Public Health 8 (3): 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/8.3.253. Kohli, R., M. Pizarro, and A. Nevárez. 2017. The “new racism” of K–12 schools: Centering critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education 41 (1): 182–202. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0091732X16686949. Kokch, Z. 2016. Participation of youth and their role in armed conflict across Islamic countries. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/8203191/Participation_Of_Youth_And_Their_Role_In_ Armed_Conflict_Across_Islamic_Countries Kokkinos, C.M. 2007. Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 (Pt 1): 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 000709905X90344. Kolbert, E. 2017. Why facts don’t change our minds. The New Yorker Magazine. https://www. newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds Komios, J. 2015. America’s inequality begins in the womb. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/ economy/making-sense/america-inequality-begins-womb Kongrul, D. 2021. Hinyana I. Wisdom Productions. https://wp.mangalashribhuti.org/order/F5QWQQ0WB/live

730

References

Konner, M. 2010. Evolution of childhood: Relationships, emotion, mind. Havard University Press. Konstantoni, K., and A. Emejulu. 2017. When intersectionality met childhood studies: The dilemmas of a travelling concept. Children’s Geographies 15 (1): 6–22. Koops, W., and M. Zuckerman. 2012. Beyond the century of the child: Cultural history and developmental psychology. University of Pennsylvania Press. Kopelman, L.M. 1997a. The best-interests standard as threshold, ideal, and standard of reasonableness. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22: 271–289. ———. 1997b. Children and bioethics: Uses and abuses of the best-interests standard. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22: 213–217. Korczak, J. 2009. Janusz Korczak: The Child’s Right to Respect - Lectures on today’s challenges. Council of Europe. https://book.coe.int/en/human-rights-and-democracy/4248-pdf-januszkorczak-the-child-s-right-to-respectlectures-on-today-s-challenges.html ———. 2017. A Child’s Rights to Respect (S. Gasper Bye, Trans.). Instytut Książk. (Original work published 1928). Kortenkamp, K., & Ehrle, J. 2002. The well-being of children involved with the child welfare system: A national overview. New Federalism: National Survey of America’s Families, B, B-43. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59916/310413-The-Well-Being-of-Chil dren-Involved-with-the-Child-Welfare-System.PDF Kosher, H., A. Ben-Arieh, and Y. Hendelsman. 2016a. Social work and children’s rights: A theoretical and ethical view. In Children’s rights and social work, 19–27. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43920-4_3. ———. 2016b. The history of children’s rights. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31943920-4_2. Kostlelnik, M., Schroeder, D., Durden, T., Warner, M., Purcell, S., Krumbach, E., & DeFrain, J. 2010, May. Helping children resolve conflict: Conflict mediation model. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Kotter-Grühn, D., and T. Hess. 2012. The impact of age stereotypes on self-perceptions of aging across the adult lifespan. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 67 (5): 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr153. Kovess-Masfety, V., K. Keyes, A. Hamilton, G. Hanson, A. Bitfoi, D. Golitz, C. Koç, R. Kuijpers, S. Lesinskiene, Z. Mihova, R. Otten, C. Fermanian, and O. Pez. 2016. Is time spent playing video games associated with mental health, cognitive and social skills in young children? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 51: 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-0161179-6. Kozol, J. 1991. Savage inequalities. Harper Perennia. ———. 2000. Ordinary resurrections: Children in the years of hope. Crown. Kraft, P. 2015. Children’s geographies. Oxford Bibliographies. http://www.oxfordbibliographies. com/view/document/obo-9780199791231/obo Kraft, P., J. Horton, and E. Tucker. 2012. Critical geographies of childhood and youth: Contemporary policy and practice. Policy Press. Kramer, M.H. 1998. Rights without trimmings. In A debate over rights: philosophical enquiries, ed. M.H. Kramer, N. Simmonds, and H. Steiner, 7–111. Clarendon Press. Kramer, M.H., N.E. Simmonds, and H. Steiner. 1998. A debate over rights: Philosophical enquiries. Clarendon Press. Krcmar, M., and S. Curtis. 2003. Mental models: Understanding the impact of fantasy violence on children's moral reasoning. Journal of Communication 53 (3): 460–478. Krechevsky, M., Mardell, B., & Reese, J. 2015. Children are citizens book. Harvard School of Education. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/resources/children-are-citizens-book-2015 Kristof, N. 2021. Turning child care into a new cold war. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/06/05/opinion/sunday/child-care-pre-K-republicans.html Krupa, M. 2018. Changing face of America. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/ changing-face-of-america-trnd/index.html

References

731

Kruse, M. 2021. The parental revolution is bigger than critical race theory. Politico. https://www. politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/09/the-parental-revolution-we-all-saw-coming-but-stillmissed-520450 Kuhn, R. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kuo, A.A., P. Thomas, L. Chilton, and L. Mascola. 2018. Pediatricians and public health: Optimizing the health and well-being of the nation’s children. Pediatrics 141 (2). https://doi. org/10.1542/peds.2017-3848. Kupchik, A., and T.J. Catlaw. 2015. Discipline and participation: The long-term effects of suspension and school security on the political and civic engagement of youth. Youth & Society 47 (1): 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14544675. Kuttner, R. 2007. All our children. American Prospect. https://prospect.org/special-report/childrenintroduction/ L’Hote, E., & Volmert, A. 2021. Why aren’t kids a policy priority? Frameworks Institute. https:// www.frameworksinstitute.org/publication/why-arent-kids-a-policy-priority-the-culturalmindsets-and-attitudes-that-keep-kids-off-the-public-agenda/ Lachman, P. 2021. Where to make a difference: Research and the social determinants in pediatrics and child health in the COVID-19 era. Pediatric Research 89: 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41390-020-01253-0. Ladd, R. 2016. Philosophical perspectives on child rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Lakman, J. 2015. Is it wrong to let children do extreme sports? The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/is-it-wrong-to-let-children-do-extreme-sports.html Lalljee, J. 2022. Babies show more brain activity when their parents get $300 a month from Biden stimulus packages. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/families-money-betterbrain-function-babies-child-tax-credit-ubi-2022-1 Lam, B. 2016. The socialization of women. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/0 8/the-socialization-of-women/495200/ Lam, O., & Desilver, D. 2019, March 20. Countries have different priorities when they review each other’s human rights records. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2019/03/20/countries-have-different-priorities-when-they-review-each-others-humanrights-records/ Lamanna, M., and A. Riedmann. 2014. Marriages, families, and relationships: Making choices in a diverse society. Cengage Learning. Lambert, T. 2021. History of children. Local Histories. https://localhistories.org/a-history-ofchildren/ Lambie, I. 2013. The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review 33 (3): 448–459. Lamotte, S. 2022. Ultraprocessed foods cause cancer and early death. CNN. https://www.cnn. com/2022/09/01/health/ultraprocessed-foods-cancer-early-death-wellness/index.html Lancy, D. 2014. The anthropology of childhood: Cherubs, chattel, changelings. Cambridge University Press. Landman, T. 2005. The political science of human rights. British Journal of Political Science 35 (3): 549–572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4092244. ———. 2008. Empirical political science and human rights. Essex Human Rights Review 5 (1): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020388053. Langlois, S. 2020. Collective competence: Moving from individual to collaborative expertise. Perspectives on Medical Education 9 (2): 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00575-3. Langlois, J., and C. Stephan. 1977. The effects of physical attractiveness and ethnicity on children’s behavioral attributions and peer preferences. Child Development 48 (4): 1694–1698. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/1128538. Lango, A.H., K. Estrada, G. Lettre, S.I. Berndt, M. Weedon, F. Rivadeneira, C.J. Willer, A.U. Jackson, S. Vedantam, S. Raychaudhuri, T. Ferreira, A.R. Wood, J.R. Weyant,

732

References

A.V. Segrè, E.K. Seliotes, E. Wheeler, N. Soranzo, J.H. Park, J. Yang, et al. 2010. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature 467: 832–838. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09410. Lansdown, G. 2001. Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. UNICEF. ———. 2005a Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them (Working Paper 36). The Hague, The Netherlands, Bernard van Leer Foundation ———. 2005b. Evolving capacities of the child. UNICEF. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/ pdf/evolving-eng.pdf ———. 2014. 25 years of UNCRC: Lessons learned in children’s participation. Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights. Lansdown, G., S. Jimerson, and R. Shahroozi. 2014. Children’s rights and school psychology: Children’s right to participation. Journal of School Psychology. 52 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jsp.2013.12.006. Lantos, J. 2017. To whom do children belong? The American Journal of Bioethics 17 (11): 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1388032. Lapin, T. 2021. School shootings. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/schoolshootings-are-happening-more-frequently-and-fights-are-often-to-blame/ Lapointe, L. 2005. Feral children. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 13: VII–IX. Lareau, A. 2003. Unequal childhoods. University of California Press. Larkins, A.G., and C.W. McKinney. 1980. Four types of theory: Implications for research in social education. Theory and Research in Social Education 8 (1): 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00933104.1980.10506072. Lather, P. 2006. Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19 (1): 35–57. Laurie, T., and R. Khan. 2017. The concept of minority for the study of culture. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 31 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2016. 1264110. Law Library. 2021. Children’s rights v. parents rights: You don’t own me, do you? https://law. jrank.org/pages/9016/Parent-Child-CHILDREN-S-RIGHTS-v-PARENTS-RIGHTS-YOUDON-T-OWN-ME-DO-YOU.html Law, R. 2021. Ageist attacks against President Biden reinforce outdated stereotypes and hurt younger people too. Time. https://time.com/5952608/biden-age/ Lazare, D. 2017. A rising tide lifts all boats. History News Network. https://historynewsnetwork. org/article/73227 LD Online. 2018. Adolescent literacy and technology. http://www.ldonline.org/article/35792 League of Legends. 2015. Is the word ‘kids’ offensive? http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/ board/showthread.php?t=3359728 LeBaron, M. 2003. Culture and conflict. Beyond Intractability. https://www.beyondintractability. org/essay/culture_conflict LeBlanc, L.J. 1995. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: United Nations lawmaking on human rights. University of Nebraska Press. Lee, A. 2020a. An 8- year-old-boy organized a Black Lives Matter protest. CNN. https://www.cnn. com/2020/07/01/us/8-year-old-black-lives-matter-protest-missouri-trnd/index.html Lee, C. 2021. Do children and teenagers have constitutional rights? How Things Work. https:// people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm Lee, H. 2013. Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/ magazine-22751415 Lee, J. 2020b. The human right to education: Definition, research and annotated bibliography. Emory International Law Review 34 (3) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol34/ iss3/2.

References

733

Lee, J.C.-K. 2020. Children’s spirituality, life and values education: Cultural, spiritual and educational perspectives. International Journal of Children's Spirituality 25 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1364436X.2020.1790774%20. Lee, N. 2001. Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Open University Press. Lee, S.J. 2017. A child’s voice vs a parents control: Resolving a tension between the convention on the rights of the child and US law. Columbia Law Review 117 (3) https://columbialawreview. org/content/a-childs-voice-vs-a-parents-control-resolving-a-tension-between-the-conventionon-the-rights-of-the-child-and-u-s-law/. LegiScan. 2020. VA SB245. https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB245/2020 Legiscan. 2021. Parent Rights WY HJ0003. https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/HJ0003/2012 Leguizamonm M., & Griggs, B. 2018. More US teens are rejecting boy or girl gender identities. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/health/teens-gender-nonconforming-study-trnd/index. html Legum, J. 2014. Major new study finds that kids raised by same sex couples are healthier and happier. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org/major-new-study-finds-kids-raised-by-samesex-couples-are-healthier-and-happier-9cb8fc434c71#.b5266fx9d Lehnerer, M. 2008. Accredited programs: Models for training the next generation of social change agents. Journal of Applied Social Science 2: 85–94. Leighton, D., and C. Kluckhohn. 1948. Children of the people: The Navajo individual. Harvard University Press. Lemert, E. 1951. Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. ———. 1967. Human deviance, social problems and social control. Prentice-Hall. Lenski, G. 1970. Human societies. A macrolevel introduction to sociology. New York: McGrawHill. ———. 2005. Ecological-evolutionary theory: Principles and applications. Paradigm Publishers. Lenski, G., and P. Nolan. 1970. Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology. Oxford University Press. Lenthang, M. 2021. 5 year old boy handcuffed by police. ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/US/yearboy-allegedly-detained-handcuffed-threatened-maryland-police/story?id=76721492 Lenzer, G. 1999. Children’s studies and human rights of children. Whittier Law Review 21: 107–117. http://www.brooklyn.edu/web/aca_centers_children/020901_BOOKS_ ChildrenAsEquals.pdf. Leo, Y., E. Fleury, J.I. Alvarez-Hamelin, C. Sarraute, and M. Karsai. 2016. Socioeconomic correlations and stratification in social-communication networks. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 125. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0598. Leonhardt, D. 2021. 18 revelations from a trove of Trump tax records. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/trump-taxes-takeaways.html Leshem, S., and V. Trafford. 2007. Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44 (1): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703290601081407. Lesko, W. 2021. Leading thinkers rely on young minds. Youth Infusion Strategies. https:// youthinfusion.org/2021/08/03/leading-thinkers-rely-on-young-minds/ ———. 2022, June 22–24. Minors matter! Movement towards intergenerational collaboration [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA, United States. Lesley, B. 2022. Keynote Address at Children’s Human Rights in the USA Conference. June. Salem State University. Lev, S., S. Wurm, and L. Ayalon. 2018. Origins of ageism at the individual level. In Contemporary perspectives on ageism, ed. L. Ayalon and C. Tesch-Römer, 33–50. Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-73820-8_4. Levasseur, A. 2012. Does our current education system support innovation? https://www.kqed.org/ mindshift/22821/does-our-current-education-system-support-innovation

734

References

Levenson, E. 2018. Larry Nassar sentenced. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/larrynassar-sentencing/index.html Levenson, M. 2022. Paddling makes a comeback in Missouri schools. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/us/corporal-punishment-schools.html Levin, D. 2009. So sexy so soon. Ballentine Books. ———. 2013. Beyond remote-controlled childhood: Teaching children in the media age. National Association for the Education of Young Children. Levin, R. 2007. Ethnographic studies of childhood: A historical overview. American Anthropologist 109 (2): 247–260. https://www.usu.edu/anthro/childhoodconference/Reading%20Material/ Gaskins_Ethnographic%20Studies%20of%20Childhood_Historical%20Overvies_001.pdf. Levine, P. 2018. What does civic engagement have to do with youth inequality? WT Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/youth-civic-engagement-inequality Lévi-Strauss, C. 1949. L'efficacité symbolique. Revue de l'histoire des religions 135 (1): 5–27. https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhr_0035-1423_1949_num_135_1_5632. Levitz, E. 2019. 3 policy failures that are killing the American dream. New York Magazine. https:// nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/these-3-policy-failures-are-killing-the-american-dream.html Levy, B., and T. Akiva. 2019, March 13. Motivating political participation among youth: An analysis of factors related to adolescents political engagement. Political Psychology. https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12578 Lewallen, T., H. Hunt, W. Potts-Datema, S. Zaza, and W. Giles. 2015. The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. The Journal of School Health 85 (11): 729–739. https://doi. org/10.1111/josh.12310. Lewis, A. 2009. Silence in the context of child voice. Children & Society. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00200.x ———. 2020. More children susceptible long-haulers with lingering covid symptoms. NJ Spotlight News. https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/03/living-with-covid-more-children-susceptiblelong-haulers-long-covid-lingering-symptoms/ Lewis, R., P. Martin, and B. Guzman. 2022. Covid-19 and vulnerable populations. Journal of Community Psychology 50 (6): 2537–2541. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ jcop.22880. L’Hote, E., and A. Volmert. 2019. Why aren’t kids a policy priority? Frameworks Institute. https:// www.frameworksinstitute.org ———. 2021. Why aren’t kids a policy priority? The cultural mindsets and attitudes that keep kids off the public agenda. FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/publication/ why-arent-kids-a-policy-priority-the-cultural-mindsets-and-attitudes-that-keep-kids-off-the-pub lic-agenda/ Liao, S.M. 2015. The right to be loved. Oxford University Press. Library of Congress. 2021. Voting rights for African Americans. https://www.loc.gov/classroommaterials/elections/right-to-vote/voting-rights-for-african-americans/ Liebel, M., ed. 2012. Children’s rights from below: Cross-cultural perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. Lieberman, A. 2020. COVID-19 is not an excuse for human rights violations. Devex. https://www. devex.com/news/covid-19-is-not-an-excuse-for-human-rights-violations-un-human-rightschief-says-98192 ———. 2021. Calls for a new social contract continue but what does that mean? Devex. https:// www.devex.com/news/calls-for-a-new-social-contract-continue-but-what-does-thatmean-98929 Liefaard, T., & Sloth-Nielsen, J. 2017. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking stock after 25 years and looking ahead. Brill. Lieffard, T., and J. Doek, eds. 2015. Litigating the rights of the child: The UN convention on the rights of the child in domestic and international jurisprudence. Springer.

References

735

Lightweaver, C. 2014. Children of LGBT parents speak out for the let love define family series. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/lgbt-children-parents_n_631 5654.html ———. 2016. Children of LGBT parents speak out for the let love define family series. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/lgbt-children-parents_n_6315654.html Lindenmeyer, K. 1997. A right to childhood: The U.S. Children’s Bureau and child welfare. University of Illinois Press. ———. 2020. Children’s Bureau. Social Welfare Project. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/ programs/child-welfarechild-labor/childrens-bureau/ Lindkvist, L. 2019. 1979: A year of the child, but not of children’s human rights. Diplomatica 1 (2): 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1163/25891774-00102004. Lindsay, D. 2015. Being a teenager is the worst time of your life and here’s why. Metro News. http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/11/being-a-teenager-is-the-worst-time-of-your-life-and-heres-why5290970/ Lindskoog, C. 2018. Mistreating refugee is sadly all too American. The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/06/20/mistreating-refugee-chil dren-is-sadly-all-too-american/ Lindy, D. 2021. Student loans: the origins of a racket. Public Seminar. https://publicseminar.org/ essays/student-loans-the-origins-of-a-racket Link, B.G., and J.C. Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363. Linn, S. 2004. Consuming kids: The hostile takeover of childhood. The New Press. Lino, M. 2017. Cost of raising a child. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/ media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child Liorente, D. 2018. How prevalent is mental illness in mass shootings? Fox News. http://www. foxnews.com/us/2018/03/03/how-prevalent-is-mental-illness-in-mass-shootings.html Lipari, R., & Van Horn, S. 2017 Children living with parents who has substance use. SAMHSA. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_3223/ShortReport-3223.html Lisak, R. 2017. Why kids become bullies. Yale Medicine. https://www.yalemedicine.org/stories/ understanding-bullying/ Lister, R. 2007. Why citizenship: Where, when and how children? Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 8 (2): 693–718. https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1165. Little, B. 2018. How boarding schools tried to kill the Indian through assimilation. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/how-boarding-schools-tried-to-kill-the-indian-throughassimilation ———. 2021. The US funded universal childcare during WWII – and then it stopped. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/universal-childcare-world-war-ii Little, D. 2020. False consciousness. http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/iess%20false% 20consciousness%20V2.htm Livingston, G. 2014. Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-todaylive-in-a-traditional-family/. Livingston, S. 2019. Among 41 countries, only the US lacks paid parental leave. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/ ———. 2021. Children’s digital rights. Digital Futures Commission. https:// digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Governance-of-data-for-chil dren-learning-Final.pdf Livingstone, S., and A. Blum-Ross. 2020. Parenting for a digital future: How parents’ hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. Locke, J. 1689. Two treatises of government. Awnsham Churchill. ———. 1690. Two treatises of government. Awnsham Churchill. ———. 1994. Two treatises of government (D. Berman, Ed.). Everyman. Locke, T. 2004. Critical discourse analysis. Continuum.

736

References

Lodewijckx, I. 2020. What’s the difference between dialogue, debate and deliberation? Citizen Lab. https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/civic-engagement/whats-the-difference-between-dialoguedebate-and-deliberation/ London, R., & Ramstetter, C. 2022. What rights do children have? None. The Hill. https://thehill. com/opinion/congress-blog/3520146-what-rights-do-us-children-have-none/ Long, H. 2021a. Biden’s infrastructure plan. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost. com/us-policy/2021/03/23/biden-republicans-infrastructure-reform/ ———. 2021b. Childcare workers are quitting. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost. com/business/2021/09/19/childcare-workers-quit/ Longfield, A. 2019. Youth court system is in chaos. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ society/2019/nov/03/youth-court-system-in-chaos-says-childrens-commissioner Lopez, G. 2018. March for our lives. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/26/171 60646/march-for-our-lives-crowd-size-count Lopez, W. 2013. 6 year old boy commits suicide. The Argus Observer. http://www.argusobserver. com/news/year-old-boy-s-death-ruled-suicide/article_996c8218-eb12-11e2-a7ad-0019bb2963 f4.html Louisiana State Legislature. 2021. https://legis.la.gov/legis Loury, G. 1998. An American tragedy: The legacy of slavery. Brookings. https://www.brookings. edu/articles/an-american-tragedy-the-legacy-of-slavery-lingers-in-our-cities-ghettos/ Louv, R. 2019. What is the nature-deficit disorder? https://richardlouv.com/blog/what-is-naturedeficit-disorder/ Low, E. 2016. Teens spending more on make-up. Investor’s Business Daily. https://www.investors. com/news/teens-spending-even-more-on-makeup-heres-how-investors-can-benefit Lowrey, A. 2018. How America treats its children. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ archive/2018/06/how-america-treats-children/563306/ Lucy At Home. 2018. 7 ways you should treat children like adults. https://lucyathome.co.uk/ parenting/treating-children-like-adults/ Ludwig, M. 2021. More than two-thirds of students want police out of schools. Truthout. https:// truthout.org/articles/more-than-two-thirds-of-students-want-police-out-of-schools/ Luescher, K., and K. Pillemer. 1998. Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent–child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (2): 413–425. https:// doi.org/10.2307/353858. Lukacs, G. 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics (R. Livingstone, Trans). MIT Press. (Original work published 1923). Lulich, J. 2018. Consider these 4 property owner responsibilities. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/jordanlulich/2018/06/14/consider-these-four-property-owner-responsibilities-before-pur chasing/?sh=6f4b365357d1 Lumen Learning. 2022. Decision making process. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ principlesmanagement/chapter/11-2-understanding-decision-making/ Lundberg, O. 2020. Next steps in the development of the social determinants of health approach: The need for a new narrative. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 48 (5): 473–479. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1403494819894789. Lundy, L., and B. Byrne. 2017. The four general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In Children’s rights law in the global human rights landscape: Isolation, inspiration, integration, ed. E. Brems, E. Desmet, and W. Vandenhole. Routledge. Lundy, L. 2007. ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33: 927–942. ———. 2022. Protecting children’s rights in crises. Current History 121 (838): 310–315. https:// doi.org/10.1525/curh.2022.121.838.310. ———. 2023. Center for Inclusive Education. Queens University. https://research.qut.edu.au/c4ie/ people/laura-lundy/ Lundy, L., and L. McEvoy. 2011. Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)formed views. Childhood 19 (1): 129–144.

References

737

Lundy, L., K. Orr, and H. Shier. 2016. Children’s education rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M. Ruck. Routledge. Lupton, D. 2012. Animals as children, children as animals. Simply Sociology. https:// simplysociology.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/animals-as-children-children-as-animals/ Lydia. 2015. If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got. Hidden Gem. https://hiddengemprofiles.com/2015/12/if-you-always-do-what-youve-alwaysdone-youll-always-get-what-youve-always-got-henry-ford/ Lynd, R., and M. Lynd. 1959. Middletown. Harcourt Brace Javanovich. Maccoby, E.E. 2007. Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In Handbook of socialization: Theory and research, ed. J. Grusec and P.D. Hastings, 13–41. Guildford Press. MacCormick, N. 1982. Legal right and social democracy. Clarendon Press. Macfarlane, K., and J. Cartmel. 2008. Playgrounds of learning: Valuing competence and agency in birth to three-year-olds. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 33 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 183693910803300207. Macionis, J. 2014. Social problems. Boston: Pearson. Macmillan, A. 2018. Flu death toll of children. Time. http://time.com/5113281/flu-death-tollchildren-2018/ Madani, D. 2020. Video shows police arresting an 8 year old and trying to put him in handcuffs. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-posted-online-8-year-old-s-arrest-after2018-n1236304 Maggi, S., L. Irwin, A. Siddiqi, and C. Hertzman. 2010. The social determinants of early child development. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health 46 (1): 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1440-1754.2010.01817.x. Magnuson, K. 2013, August. Reducing the effects of poverty through early childhood interventions. Fast Focus No. 17-2013. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF17-2013.pdf Mahy, E. 2021. Charities facing a perfect storm as demand rises. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/ news/business-59266981 Mailard, K. 2010. Rethinking children as property: The transitive family. Cardozo Law Review 32: 101. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1578116. Maisel, E. 2017. What you can expect from an authoritarian. Psychology Today. https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rethinking-mental-health/201711/what-you-can-expectauthoritarian Maki, R. 2018. American 12-tyear-olds can’t buy cigarettes. Why can they work in tobacco fields? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/profile/reid-maki Males, M. 2002. Framing youth: 10 myths about the next generation. Common Courage Press. Manasa, D. 2011. Difference between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. http://www. differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-gemeinschaftand-gesellschaft/ Mann, S. 2019. Empowered parenting. Xlibris US. Mann, S.P., Y. Donders, C. Mitchell, V.J. Bradley, M.F. Chou, M. Mann, G. Church, and H. Porsdam. 2018. Advocating for science progress as a human right. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (43): 10820–10823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1816320115. Mannheim, K. 1959. Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. Harcourt Brace. Manstead, A. 2018. The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 57 (2): 267–291. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/bjso.12251. March for Our Lives. 2021. The movement. https://marchforourlives.com/ Marenin, O., and J. Worrall. 1998. Criminal justice: Portrait of a discipline in process. Journal of Criminal Justice 26 (6): 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00025-7. Marger, M. 1985. Race and ethnic relations: American and global perspectives. Wadsworth.

738

References

Markel, H. 2009, December 14. Case shined first light on abuse of children. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/health/15abus.html Marketing Charts. 2017. How are teens spending money? https://www.marketingcharts.com/ demographics-and-audiences-80708 Maron, D. 2015. Early puberty cause and effects. Scientific American. https://www. scientificamerican.com/article/early-puberty-causes-and-effects/ Marr, B. 2018a. 8 things every school must do to prepare for the 4th industrial revolution. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/05/22/8-things-every-school-must-do-to-pre pare-for-the-4th-industrial-revolution/?sh=2479b58b670c ———. 2018b. Why everyone must get ready for the 4th industrial revolution. https://bernardmarr. com/why-everyone-must-get-ready-for-4th-industrial-revolution/ Marsden, R. 1995. Young carers and education. London: Borough of Enfield Education Department. Marshall, L. 2014. NFL was right to suspend Adrian Peterson for child abuse. US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/11/19/nfl-was-right-to-suspendadrian-peterson-for-child-abuse Marshall, T. 1950. Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press. Marston, C., R. Hinton, S. Kean, S. Baral, A. Ahuja, A. Costello, and A. Portela. 2016. Community participation for transformative action on women’s, children’s and adolescents' health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 94: 376–382. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.168492. Marten, J. 2009. Children and youth in a new nation. New York University Press. Martineau, W. 2012. Misrecognition and cross-cultural understanding. Ethnicities 12 (2). https:// doi.org/10.1177/1468796811431294. Marx, K., and F. Engels. 1948. The Communist Manifesto. Wiley. Mascaro, L., and A. Kahlil. 2021. COVID tax benefit nears lapse. AP News. https://apnews.com/ article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-health-business-poverty-208e9810a65197621b98cc51 efd336eb Mashford-Scott, A., and A. Church. 2011. Promoting children’s agency in early childhood education. Novitas ROYAL 5 (1): 15–38. http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/mashford-scott_ church.pdf. Maslow, A. 1968. Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand Company. Mason. E. 2020. What was pederasty? History Extra. https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancientgreece/pederasty-homosexuality-ancient-greece-boys-sparta-girls-plato-sappho-consent/ Massie, V. 2016. Latino and Hispanic identities aren’t the same. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/ 8/28/12658908/latino-hispanic-race-ethnicity-explained Match, K. 2018. Strange beauty trends from history. Ranker. https://www.ranker.com/list/crazywomens-beauty-standards-from-history/machk Matchar, E. 2017. Finnish baby box is becoming popular around the world. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/finnish-baby-box-is-becoming-popular-aroundworld-180962723/ Mather, M., & Lee, A. 2020. Children are at the forefront of US racial and ethnic change. Population Research Bureau. https://www.prb.org/resources/children-are-at-the-forefront-of-us-racial-and-ethnic-change/ Mathews, D. 2000. Can public life be regenerated? In Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector, ed. P. Flynn and V.A. Hodgkinson. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. ———. 2014. A 35-year experiment in public deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation 10(1). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.184 Matory, J.L. 2015. Stigma and culture. University of Chicago Press. Matthews, D. 2016. If our goal was to eliminate poverty, we failed. Vox. https://www.vox.com/201 6/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform ———. 2018. Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings: It’s about guns. Vox. https://www. vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-massshootings

References

739

Mattsson, T. 2019. Children’s constitutional rights in Nordic countries. Brill. Maude, A. 2015. What is powerful knowledge? Geographical Education 28: 18–24. https://www. agta.asn.au/files/Geographical%20Education/2015/Geographical%20Education%20Vol%202 8,%202015%20-%20Alaric%20Maude.pdf. Maurice, A., Rosso, R., FitzSimons, C., & Furtado, K. 2019. Community eligibility: The key to hunger-free schools. Food Research and Action Center. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/ community-eligibility-key-to-hunger-free-schools-sy-20None8-2019.pdf Maxmen, A. 2021. How the world failed to curb COVID. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/ d41586-021-01284-5 Mayall, B. 2000. The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights 8: 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718180020494640. ———. 2001. The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 8: 243–259. ———. 2002. Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Open University Press. ———. 2015. The sociology of childhood and children’s rights. In Routledge international handbook of children’s rights studies, ed. W. Vandenhole, E. Desmet, and D. Reynaert, 77–93. Routledge. Mayorquin, O. 2022. Study ranks best and worst states for child wellbeing. USA Today. https:// www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/08/09/states-ranked-best-worst-child-wellbeing/10277086002/ Mays, V.M., G.W. Albee, and S.F. Schneider, eds. 1989. Primary prevention of AIDS: Psychological approaches. Sage Publications. Maz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications. McBride, K. 2012. Shaming children is emotionally abusive. Psychology Today. https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-legacy-distorted-love/201209/shaming-children-isemotionallyabusive McCammon, H., and M. Moon. 2015. Social movement coalitions. In The Oxford handbook of social movements, ed. D. Della Porta and M. Diani, 325–339. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.38. McCann, J. 2013. No time for family. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23631 93/No-time-family-You-Parents-children-spend-hour-day-modern-demands.html McCarthy, C. 2021. Skills children need to succeed in life. Harvard University. https://www.health. harvard.edu/blog/skills-children-need-to-succeed-in-lifeand-getting-youngstersstarted-202110252624 McDermott, J. 2001. The rise and fall of the factory system. Semantic Scholar 55: 1–45. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-rise-and-fall-of-the-factory-system%3A-firms%2C-andMcdermott/550436c9b08e5de05631aee41d043492784cc286?p2df. McDermott, M., & Jones, D. 2022. Gun control reform. The Conversation. https://theconversation. com/gun-reform-finally-passed-congress-after-almost-three-decades-of-failure-what-changed-1 85942 McDonald, C., and K. Martinez. 2019. Victim narratives of sibling emotional abuse. Child Welfare 97 (2): 1–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48623641. Mcelreavy, C. 2020. History of the academy and the disciplines. Interdisciplinary Studies. https:// press.rebus.community/idsconnect/chapter/the-history-of-the-academy-and-the-disciplines/ McEvoy-Levy, S. 2009. In Children and youth on the frontlines, ed. B.K. Barber. Berghahn. ———. 2018. Peace and resistance in youth cultures. Palgrave. McGann, J. 2020. Global go to think tank index report. Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=think_tanks McGee, C. 2003. Childhood experiences of domestic violence. Athenaeum Press. McGirt, E. 2020. America is a third world country now. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2020/09/30/ america-is-a-third-world-country-now/

740

References

McGough, L.S. 1995. Children: V child custody. In Encyclopedia of bioethics, ed. W.T. Reich, 371–378. Simon and Schuster Macmillan. McKean, A. 2012. Youth gun test: OL reviews best guns for kids. Outdoor Life. www.outdoorlife. com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/2012/11/youth-gun-test-ol-reviews-best-new-guns-kids McKechnie, J., and S. Hobbs. 1998. Child labour. Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0907568299006001007. McKeever, V. 2021. Children in the Netherlands are among the world’s happiest. Here’s what the parents do differently. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/26/heres-what-lessons-can-belearned-from-parenting-in-the-netherlands.html McKisney Global Institute. 2020. The social contract in the 21st century. https://www.mckinsey. com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-social-contract-in-the-21st-century McLeod, S. 2013. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Simply Psychology. https://www. simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html ———. 2018. Zone of proximal development. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology. org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html McLeod, L., and H. Powell. 2009. Should the under-16s be allowed to have their own bank accounts? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jan/25/currentaccountschildren McMellon, C., and K. Tisdall. 2020. Children and young people’s participation rights: Looking backwards and moving forward. International Journal of Children’s Rights 28 (1): 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02801002. McNally, R. 1981, March 11–14. Nearly a century later – the child savers [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, United States. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtuallibrary/abstracts/nearly-century-later-child-savers-child-advo cates-and-juvenile McNamee, K. 2016. A survey of preservice teachers’ attitudes on integrating students with disabilities in inclusive education classrooms. Honors Undergraduate Theses. 72. https://stars. library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/72 McQuaid, J. 2021. Applying a human rights lens to the work of Biden. Health and Human Rights Journal. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2021/03/applying-a-human-rights-lens-to-the-work-ofthe-biden-task-force-on-separatedfamilies/ McSweeney, K. 2020. Complex systems theory: how science solves social problems. Now. https:// now.northropgrumman.com/complex-systems-theory-how-science-solves-social-problems/ Mead, G. 1934. Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press. Mead, M. 1928. Coming of age in Samoa: A study of adolescence and sex in primitive societies. Pelican. Medecines San Frontieres. 2021. Children. Humanitarian Law. https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/ content/article/3/children/ Media Smarts. 2019. Marketing to children. http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/mediaissues/marketing-consumerism/how-marketers-target-kids Mejia, R. 2016. How technology changes the way kids communicate. Parenting. http://www. parenting.com/article/how-technology-chages-the-way-kids-communicate Melanie. 2022. The Good Guys Lyrics. (n.d.). Lyrics.com. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/32350939/Melanie/The+Good+Guys Melchiorre, A. 2004. At what age? ... Are school children employed, married and taken to court? UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001427/142738e.pdf Mendenhall, R. 2012. Competency based learning. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost. com/dr-robert-mendenhall/competency-based-learning-_b_1855374.html Mensch, J. 2010. A theory of human rights. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ theory-of-human-rights/ Mental Health America. 2016. Suicide statistics. www.mentalhealthamerica.net/suicide ———. 2018. Self-injury. https://www.mhanational.org/conditions/self-injury-cutting-self-harmor-self-mutilation

References

741

Mercer, M. 2013. Children as young as 10 can do farm work. State Line. http://www. marshamercer.com/2013/08/statelinecom-aug-30-2013-children-work.html Meredith, J. 2018. 15 eye opening facts about youth sports. USA Football. https://blogs.usafootball. com/blog/1168/15-eye-opening-facts-about-youth-sports Merrick, M. 2021. Shifting the narrative. Prevent Child Abuse America. https://preventchildabuse. org/latest-activity/shifting-the-narrative-to-child-family-well-being/ Merton, R. 1948. The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review 8: 193–210. https://doi.org/10. 2307/4609267. Mertus, J., and J. Helsing. 2006. Human rights and conflict: Exploring the links between rights, law, and peacebuilding. US Institute of Peace Press. Mervosh, S. 2021, August 30. Florida withholds money from school districts over mask mandates. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/us/florida-schools-mask-mandates. html Messer, E. 1993. Anthropology and human rights. Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 221–249. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155847. MET. 2013. The importance of the Cyrus Cylinder. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/ listings/2013/cyrus-cylinder Metha, J. 2020. Make schools more human. The New York times. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/12/23/opinion/covid-schools-vaccine.html?searchResultPosition=1 Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2000. Heilbrunn timeline of art history. https://www.metmuseum. org/toah/ Metz, S. 2015. Romanticism and the child: Inventing innocence. http://web.utk.edu/~gerard/ romanticpolitics/childhood.html Mexico. 2018. Pride in being Mexican. https://www.mexico.mx/en/articles/pride-mexican Michael, J., & Goldstein, M. 1997. Reviving the White House conference on children. Child Welfare League of America. https://www.cwla.org/reviving-the-white-house-conference-onchildren/ Michels, S. 2022. Extremism in America: A surge in violence. Retro Report. https://ww8w. retroreport.org/video/extremism-in-america-a-surge-in-violence/ Mignon, S. 2016. Child welfare in the US. Springer. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/ 978-0-8261-2647-4/chapter/ch01 Migration Policy Institute. 2016. Frequently asked questions. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states Milanovich, B. 2005. Worlds apart: Measuring international and global inequality. Princeton University Press. Miller, G. 2008. Women’s suffrage, political responsiveness, and child survival in American history. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (3): 1287–1327. https://doi.org/10.1162/ qjec.2008.123.3.1287. Miller, A. 1997. The drama of the gifted child: The search for the true self. BasicBooks. Miller, C. 2017a. Why Americans resist childcare. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/201 9/08/15/upshot/why-americans-resist-child-care.html Miller, H. 2018. Doctors skewer Rick Santorum. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52?ncid= APPLENEWS00001 Miller, J. 2017b. Gun violence and mental illness: Myths and evidence-based facts. American Mental Health Counselors Association. http://www.amhca.org/blogs/joel-miller/2017/10/03/ gun-violence-and-mental-illnessmyths-and-evidence-based-facts ———. 2021a. How other nations pay for childcare: The US is an outlier. New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/upshot/child-care-biden.html ———. 2021b. Which of these 4 family policies deserves top priority? New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/upshot/of-four-family-policies-in-democrats-bill-which-ismost-important.html

742

References

———. 2021c. Texas deputy AG apologizes for calling Simone Biles a national embarrassment. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/07/29/texas-deputy-ag-aaron-reitz-apologizes-forinsulting-simone-biles/ Miller, K. 2015. Most girls start dieting by age 8. Refinery 29. https://www.refinery29.com/enus/2015/01/81288/children-dieting-body-image Miller, R. 2020. Teaching black history in culturally responsible ways. Edutopia. https://www. edutopia.org/article/teaching-black-history-culturally-responsive-ways Miller, S. 2014. 7 myths about raising interfaith kids. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost. com/susan-katz-miller/7-myths-about-raising-interfaith-kids_b_4177648.html Mills, C. 2003. The child’s right to an open future? Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (4): 499–509. Mills, C. W. 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford. Mills, C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press. ———. 2000. The sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press. Minow, M., and R. Weissbourd. 1993. Social movements for children. Daedalus 122 (1): 1–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027148. Mintel. 2016. Not just child’s play. https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/leisure/not-just-childsplay-two-in-three-us-toyshoppers-agree-toys-and-games-are-for-adults-too Mintz, S. 2004. Huck’s raft: A history of American childhood. Belknap Press. ———. 2018. Childhood and transatlantic slavery in children and youth in history, Item #57. Center for History and New Media. http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/items/show/57 ———. 2019. Should parents monitor teens social media activity? Ethics Sage. https://www. ethicssage.com/2019/02/should-parents-monitor-teens-social-media-activities.html ———. 2020, October. Children’s history matters. The American Historical Review 125 (4): 1286– 1292. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhaa382. Miretzky, D. 2004. The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record 106: 814–851. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00359.x Miron, A.M., and J.W. Brehm. 2006. Reactance theory – 40 years later. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie 37: 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.9. Mitchell, M. 2010. Raising freedom’s child. New York University Press. Mitropoulos, A. 2021. Children of color disproportionately impacted by severe COVID-19 related illness. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/children-color-disproportionatelyimpacted-covid-19-data-reveals/story?id=76063845 Mizen, P. 2004. The changing state of youth. Palgrave. Mnookin, Robert H. 1979. Foster care – in whose best interests? In Having children: Philosophical and legal reflections on parenthood, ed. O. O’Neill and W. Ruddick, 179–213. Oxford University Press. Modell, J., F.F. Furstenberg, and T. Hershberg. 1976. Social change and transitions to adulthood in historical perspective. Journal of Family History 1 (1): 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 036319907600100103. Mohamadi, A. 2017. Teens and steroids: A dangerous combination. FDA reports. https://www.fda. gov/consumers/consumer-updates/teens-and-steroids-dangerous-combo Mokyr, J. 2010. The contribution of economic history to the study of innovation and technological change: 1750–1914. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation 1: 11–50. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-7218(10)01002-6. Molla, R. 2014. Reasons why American women won’t breastfeed. The Wall Street Journal. https:// blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/04/14/5-reasons-american-women-wont-breastfeed/ Molloy, M. 2016. The planet’s history of violence. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html Mondal, P. 2016a. 6 basic characteristics of minority groups. Youth Article Library. http://www. yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/6-basic-characteristics-of-minority-groups/31419/ ———. 2016b. Social stratification. Youth Article Library. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/ sociology/social-stratification-meaning-types-and-characteristics-sociology-2446-words/6199/

References

743

Mongeau, L. 2016. Why does American invest so little in its children? The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-does-america-invest-so-little-in-its-children/4 90790/ Monnat, S.M., and R.F. Chandler. 2015. Long term physical health consequences of adverse childhood experiences. The Sociological quarterly 56 (4): 723–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/ tsq.12107. Montana State Legislature. 2011. Parent rights. Retrieved from http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/ LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SJ&P_BILL_NO=9&P_ BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_ CD=&P_LST_NM1=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ= Montgomery, H. 2009. An introduction to childhood: Anthropological perspectives on children’s lives. Wiley-Blackwell. ———. 2013. Different cultures different childhoods. Open Learn. http://www.open.edu/ openlearn/history-the-arts/history/different-cultures-different- childhoods ———. 2016. Anthropology of children’s rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Montgomery, J. 1988. Children as property? The Modern Law Review 51 (3): 323–342. http://www. jstor.org/stable/1095991. Moody, Z. 2014. Transnational treaties on children’s rights: Norm building and circulation in the 20th century. Paedagogica Historica 50 (1): 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2013. 872682. Moody, Z., and F. Darbellay. 2019. Studying childhood, children, and their rights: The challenge of interdisciplinarity. Childhood 26 (1): 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568218798016. Moore, S.E., R.E. Norman, S. Suetani, H.J. Thomas, P.D. Sly, and J.G. Scott. 2017. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry 7 (1): 60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60. PMID: 28401049; PMCID: PMC5371173. Moore-Malinos, J. 2007. It’s hard being a kid. BEM Press. Moore-Vissing, Q. 2021. Observations from a school in India. Personal communication. Moran, A. 2022, Sept 13. US inflation comes in worse than expected as food and shelter costs surge. Epoch Times. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-inflation-comes-in-worse-thanexpected-asfood-shelter-costs-surge_4726956.html Moran, L. 2018. John Kerry tears into Trump with ‘8-year-old Boy’ and ‘teenage girl’ taunts. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kerry-donald-trump-insecure_us_ 5b9ca5b8e4b046313fbb58de Morawski, J. 2014. Socialization. In Encyclopedia of critical psychology, ed. T. Teo, 1820–1826. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_295. More, H. 2021. Types of rights. The Fact Factor. https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/legal_concepts/ jurisprudence/kinds-of-rights/17467/ Morgan, D. 2011. Muslim discrimination cases disproportionately high in the US. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/muslim-discrimination-cas_n_842076.html Morgan, R. n.d.. Information is power. BrainyQuote. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/robin_ morgan_271953 Morin, A. 2020. Facts about corporal punishment. Verywell Family. https://www.verywellfamily. com/facts-about-corporal-punishment-1094806 ———. 2021, June 8. Biden administration: Over 3900 children separated under Trump zerotolerance policy. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/08/dhstask-force-children-separated-trump-zero-tolerance-policy/7594577002/ Morrie, W. 2019. Is being a minority just a matter of numbers? The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2019/01/23/magazine/is-being-a-minority-really-just-a-matter-of-numbers.html Morris, L. 2011. Asylum, welfare and the cosmopolitanism ideal: A sociology of rights. International Journal of Refugee Rights 23 (2): 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eer008.

744

References

Morris, K., B. Featherstone, and S. White. 2014. Re-imagining child protection: Towards human social work with families. The Policy Press. Morris, L. 2010. Rights: Sociological perspectives. Routledge. Morrison, B., and D. Vaandering. 2012. Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline. Journal of School Violence 11: 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2011.653322. Morrissey, T. 2020. Need for affordable high quality early childhood care. Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/addressing-the-need-for-affordable-high-qual ity-early-childhood-care-and-education-for-all-in-the-united-states/ ———. 2021. Stop politicizing investments in our children. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/ education/554746-stop-politicizing-investments-in-our-children Morrow, V. 1999. We are people too: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on children’s rights and decision-making in England. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 7: 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718189920494318. ———. 2011. Understanding children and childhood, Centre for Children and Young People: Background Briefing Series, no. 1. Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&con text=ccyp_pubs Morrow, V., and K. Pells. 2016. Sociological approaches of children’s rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. PetersonBadali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Mortimer, C. 2015. World minimum marriage age. Independent News UK. http://www. independent.co.uk/news-19/the-lowest-age-you-can-legally-get-married-around-theworld-10415517 Morton, M., Dworsky, A., Samuels, G. 2017. One in 10 young adults experience homelessness. Chapin Hall. https://www.chapinhall.org/research/one-in-10-young-adults-experience-home lessness-during-one-year/ Morton, S. 2014. The stigmatization of poverty in America. Indiana University Bloomington. https://spea.indiana.edu/doc/undergraduate/ugrd_thesis2014_pnmgmt_morton.pdf Mosier, C., and B. Rogoff. 2003. Privileged treatment of toddlers: Cultural aspects of individual choice and responsibility. Developmental Psychology 39: 1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0012-1649.39.6.1047. Mostafavi, B. 2019. Half of US children with mental health disorders are not treated. Michigan Medicine. https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/half-of-us-children-mental-health-disordersare-not-treated Mott Poll Report. 2017. Mom shaming. C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital. https://mottpoll.org/sites/ default/files/documents/061917_criticizingmoms.pdf?utm_source=MOST+MOTHERS +FEEL+JUDGED+2&utm_campaign=THANKSGIVING&utm_medium=email Mouritsen, F., and J. Qvortrup. 2006. Childhood and children’s culture. University Press of Southern Denmark. Mousin, C. 2019. Rights disappear when US policy engages children as weapons of deterrence. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics 21 (1): E58–E66. https://doi.org/10.1001/ amajethics.2019.58. Moyer, M. 2015. It’s fine for children to play with pretend guns. Slate. http://www.slate.com/ articles/life/the_kids/2015/07/should_you_let_your_kids_play_with_toy_guns_yes_but_keep_ them_away_from.html ———. 2021. American parents are way too focused on their kids. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/american-parents-are-way-too-focused-their-kids-selfesteem/619483/ ———. 2022. School kids are falling victim to disinformation and conspiracy fantasies. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schoolkids-are-falling-victim-to-disinfor mation-and-conspiracy-fantasies/

References

745

Moylan, C., T. Herrenkohl, C. Sousa, E. Tajima, R. Herrenkohl, and M. Russo. 2010. The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of family Violence 25 (1): 53–63. Mozes, A. 2021.1 in 3 children lack health insurance. US News. https://www.usnews.com/news/ health-news/articles/2021-12-07/1-in-3-u-s-children-lack-adequate-health-insurance Mukherjee, S. R. 2012. Linking science and human rights. SciDev. https://www.scidev.net/global/ features/linking-science-and-human-rights-facts-and-figures/ Mulley, C. 2019. The woman who saved the children. Simon & Schuster. Mullins, M. 1997. Born into slavery: The American slave child experience (Paper 1539626128). The William and Mary Scholar Works. https://doi.org/10.21220/s2-w1w7-8b19 Mullins, R. 2017. Children’s rights and parents’ rights. Jurisprudence 8 (3): 701–710. https://doi. org/10.1080/20403313.2017.1380902. Mundell, E. 2017. Rise in childhood chronic disease. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ Healthday/story?id=4507708&page=1 Murdoch, C. 2012. Please don’t make children the center of the universe. Jezebel. https://jezebel. com/please-please-please-do-not-make-your-kid-the-center-5923842 Murphy, R. 2019. How being a kid is different now. Insider. https://www.insider.com/how-beingkid-is-different-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago ———. 2022. School meals are essential for student health and learning. Food Action and Research Center. https://frac.org/ Murray, J. 2017. Young children are human beings. International Journal of Early Years Education 25 (4): 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1388554. Murray, K., & Gesiriech, S. 2010. A brief legislative history of the child welfare system. Mass Legal Services. https://www.masslegalservices.org/content/brief-legislative-history-child-welfaresystem Murray, L.K., A. Nguyen, and J.A. Cohen. 2014. Child sexual abuse. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 23 (2): 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014. 01.003. Murray, S.D., J. Hurley, and S.R. Ahmed. 2015. Supporting the whole child through coordinated policies, processes, and practices. The Journal of School Health 85 (11): 795–801. https://doi. org/10.1111/josh.12306. Musick, K., and A. Meier. 2010. Are both parents always better than one? Parental conflict and young adult well-being. Social Sciences Research 39 (5): 814–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ssresearch.2010.03.002. Mutz, D. 2018. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (19): E4330–E4339. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1718155115. Myers, A.R. 2012. Dissent, protest, and revolution: the new Europe in crisis’. Student Pulse 4 (03) from http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/624/4/dissent-protest-and-revolution-the-neweurope-in-crisis Myers, J. 2008. A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly 42 (3): 449– 463. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25740668 Myles, B. 2004. The hidden curriculum. Autism Asperger Publishing. Nadar, R. 1997. Corporate America’s exploitation of children. Touch The Future. https://ttfuture. org/files/2/members/int_nader.pdf Nadasen, P. 2017. Extreme poverty returns to America. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/12/21/extreme-poverty-returns-to-amer ica/?utm_term=.211abcbc2ebd Naffine, N. 1992. Children in the children’s court: Can there be rights without a remedy? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 6 (1): 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/6. 1.76. Nakamura, D., & Wagner, J. 2019. Trump mocks 16 year old Greta Thunberg. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mocks-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-a-day-

746

References

after-she-is-named-times-person-of-the-year/2019/12/12/fc66f406-1cda-11ea-8d58-5ac3600 967a1_story.html Nakata, S. 2015. Childhood citizenship, governance and policy: The politics of becoming adult. Routledge. Nandhavanam. 2016. The old are in a second childhood. https://icaremylife.com/the-old-are-in-asecond-childhood/ Nasaw, D. 1985. Children of the city: At work and at play. Anchor Press. Nash, K. 2015. Is it social movements that construct human rights? In The Oxford handbook of social movements, ed. D. Della Porta and M. Diani, 743–752. Oxford University Press. Nash, P., T. Taylor, and B. Levy. 2020. The Intersectionality of Ageism. Innovation in Aging 4 (Suppl 1): 846–847. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3105. Nasheed, J. 2019. Youth activist movements. Teen Vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ youth-activist-movements-2010s-brief-history-timeline-decade-of-change National Academies of Science. 2019. A roadmap to reducing child poverty. https://static1. squarespace.com/static/5783bb3f46c3c42c527e1a41/t/5cc2124a9b747a23e77e11ee/1556222 538364/Top+Takeaways+of+NASEM+Child+Poverty+Study.pdf National Archives. n.d.-a. The Bill of Rights: What does it say? https://www.archives.gov/foundingdocs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say ———. n.d.-b. US Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript ———. n.d.-c. What was it like to be a child slave in America? http://www.nationalarchives.gov. uk/documents/education/childhood-slavery-contextual-essay.pdf National Association for the Education of Young Children. 2016. A call for excellence in early childhood education. https://www.naeyc.org/policy/excellence ———. 2023. Importance of early childhood education. https://www.naeyc.org/ National Association of Criminal Lawyers. 2021. Race and juvenile justice. https://www.nacdl.org/ Content/Race-and-Juvenile-Justice National Association of School Psychologists. 2020. Policy priorities. https://www.nasponline.org/ National Center for Children in Poverty. 2016. Immigrant children in the United States are growing in number and economic hardship. http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_1.html ———. 2018. Poverty by the numbers. http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. 2021. Community health and economic prosperity: Engaging businesses as stewards and stakeholders—A report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Education Statistics. 2023. School report card. https://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Victims of Crime. 2022. Child sexual abuse. https://victimsofcrime.org/childsexual-abuse-statistics/ National Center on Family Homelessness. 2016. Child homelessness. http://www.air.org/center/ national-center-family-homelessness National Chamber of Commerce. 2017. Improving government. https://www.uschamber.com/ improvinggovernment National Child Traumatic Stress Network. 2016. Understanding child traumatic stress. http://www. nctsn.org/resources/audiences/parents-caregivers/understanding-child-traumatic-stress ———. 2018. Understanding child traumatic stress. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/ resources/audiences/parents-caregivers/understanding-child-traumatic-stress National Coalition for the Homeless. 2009. Homeless families with children. http:// nationalhomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/families_children-Fact-Sheet.pdf National Commission on Pay Equity. 2016. New wage gap research. http://www.pay-equity.org/ National Council for the Social Studies. 2015. Human rights education: A necessity for effective social and civics learning. Social Education 79 (3): 161–164. https://www.socialstudies.org/ system/files/publications/articles/se_7903161.pdf. ———. 2021. Curriculum Standards. https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/national-curricu lum-standards-social-studies-introduction

References

747

———. 2022. Human rights education. https://www.socialstudies.org/position-statements/humanrights-education National Council of State Legislatures. 2011. Adolescent development and competency. https:// www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/jjguidebook-adolescent.pdf ———. 2021a. Disproportionality and race equity in child welfare. https://www.ncsl.org/research/ human-services/disproportionality-and-race-equity-in-child-welfare.aspx ———. 2021b. Office of child ombudsman. https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/ childrens-ombudsman-offices.aspx National Council on Aging. 2022. Facts on elder abuse. https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-factson-elder-abuse National Council on Child Abuse and family Violence. 2016. Child abuse and domestic violence. http://www.nccafv.org/ National Education Association. 2016. Research on early childhood education. http://www.nea. org/home/18226.htm ———. 2018. The case against privatizing schools. http://www.nea.org/home/29420.htm National Farm Workers Ministry. 2018. Children in the fields. http://nfwm.org/resources/childrenin-the-fields/ National Geographic. 2018a. Slavery in America. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/interactive/ slavery-united-states/ ———. 2018b. The race issue. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/issue/april-2018 ———. 2021. Pandemic myths are all over social media and they’re dangerous for kids. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/family/article/pandemic-myths-are-danger ous-for-kids National Institute of Drug Abuse. 2018. High school and youth trends. https://www.drugabuse.gov/ publications/drugfacts/monitoring-future-survey-high-school-youth-trends ———. 2015. Nationwide trends. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwidetrends National Institute of Justice. 2018. From juvenile delinquency to young adult offending. https:// www.nij.gov/topics/crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx National Institute of Mental Health. 2001. Teenage brain: A work in progress. http://www.nimh. nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml ———. 2016. Treatment of children with mental illness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/ publications/treatment-of-children-with-mental-illness-fact-sheet/index.shtml ———. 2022. The teen brain. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7things-to-know National Juvenile Defender Center. 2021. United States Supreme Court juvenile justice jurisprudence. https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/united-states-supreme-court-juvenile-justicejurisprudence/ National Physicians Alliance. 2014. Myths vs. fact: Research on gun violence. http://npalliance.org/ wp-content/uploads/NPA-Myths-Facts-Gun-Violence-Research-June-2014.pdf National Priorities Project. 2021. Federal spending 101. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budgetbasics/federal-budget-101/spending/ National Public Radio. 2009. Before Rosa Parks there was Claudette Colvin. https://www.npr. org/2009/03/15/101719889/before-rosa-parks-there-was-claudette-colvin ———. 2011. Less than human. https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-theirvictims-as-less-than-human National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9747 National School Climate Center. 2023. How to improve school climates. https://schoolclimate.org/ National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. 2010. Children and young people disclosing sexual abuse: An introduction to the research. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/ research/briefings/children_disclosing_sexual_abuse_pdf_wdf75964.pdf

748

References

National Youth Rights Association. 2018. 10 reasons to lower the voting age. http://www. youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/top-ten-reasons-to-lower-the-voting-age/ ———. 2021. Taking action. https://www.youthrights.org/ Natour, A. 2021. Why we need to understand extreme poverty. https://bracupgi.org/why-we-needto-understand-extreme-poverty-as-multidimensional/ Nature Conservancy. 2016. Kids these days: Why is America’s youth staying indoors? http://www. nature.org/newsfeatures/kids-in-nature/kids-in-nature-poll.xml Navarro, Renee. 2021. Unconscious bias. University of California San Francisco. https://diversity. ucsf.edu/resources/unconscious-bias Nawsaw, D. 1985. Children of the city. Oxford University Press. NBC. 2015. 11-year-old Tanishq Abraham graduates from California college. NBC. https://www. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/11-year-old-tanishq-abraham-graduates-california-college-n362 706 NCSS: National Council for Social Studies. 2023. Human rights. https://www.socialstudies.org/ search-results?search=human+rights&sort_by=search_api_relevance&sort_order=DESC NECN. 2014. Hotel trend: No kids allowed. https://www.necn.com/news/local/_necn__hotel_ trend__no_kids_allowed_necn/1958982/ Neem, J.N. 2017. Democracy’s schools: The rise of public education in America. Johns Hopkins University Press. Nelson, D., ed. 2004. Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. MIT Press. Nelson, L. 2015. Ted Cruz wants to close the Department of Education. Vox. https://www.vox. com/2015/4/7/8356979/rand-paul-education-department Nelson, T. 2016. Handbook of rejudice and discrimination. Psychology Press. Network for Public Education. 2019. Asleep at the wheel: Fraud and waste in US charter schools. https://networkforpubliceducation.org/stillasleepatthewheel/ Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. 2021. Nevada Youth Legislature. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/ Division/Research/NYL/ Nevius, J. 2020. New York’s built environment was shaped by pandemics. Curbed. https://ny. curbed.com/2020/3/19/21186665/coronavirus-new-york-public-housing-outbreak-history New York Times 2022a. 1619 Project. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2019/08/19/magazine/history-slavery-smithsonian.html New York Times Editorial Board. 2021. The kids are not alright. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/08/21/opinion/covid-education-schools.html New York Times. 2022b. Book banning and censorship. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/12/ opinion/letters/book-bans-censorship.html ———. 2022c, Sept 1). What is school for? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/01/ opinion/schools-education-america.html Newcombe, T. 2019. Rebuilding history: How 21st-century tech can save medieval Notre Dame. Popular Mechanics. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a271650 76/rebuilding-notre-dame/ Newell, M., H.H. Larrazolo, and K.T. Chan. 2020. Accountability for child rights by school psychology. In International handbook on child Rights and school psychology, ed. B. Nastasi, S. Hart, and S. Naser. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37119-7_9. Newell, J. 2007. Causes of stigma and discrimination associated with tuberculosis in Nepal: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health 7: 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-211. Newfoundland Labrador. 2014. Nine types of violence. Violence Prevention Initiative. https://www. gov.nl.ca/vpi/ Newman, A. 2021. New York is pushing homeless people off the streets. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/nyregion/homeless-camps-relocate.html?action=click& module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Newman, M. 2017. More youth getting tattoos. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation-now/2017/09/20/young-people-tattoos-and-piercings-report/686360001/

References

749

Newman, S. 2016. Children in the Middle Ages. The Finer Times. http://www.thefinertimes.com/ Middle-Ages/children-in-the-middle-ages.html News One. 2018. Frazzled white woman calls police on black children. News One. https://newsone. com/3832081/white-woman-calls-police-black-children-riot/ Newsboys Indulge in a Strike. 1886, March 30. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1 886/03/30/archives/newsboys-indulge-in-a-strike.html Ng, D. 2018. These are the leftover men in China. CNA. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ cnainsider/leftover-men-china-get-married-gender-imbalance-one-child-policy-10485358 Nicholson, H.J. 2023. Crusade campaigns’. In Women and the crusades, Online ed. Oxford: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806721.003.0003. Nieuwenhuys, O. 2008. The ethics of children’s rights. Childhood 15 (1): 4–11. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0907568207086941. Nilan, D. 2019. Unpaid school lunch fees: The tip of the iceberg. Medium. https://dianehearus. medium.com/unpaid-school-lunch-fees-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-558f0ec10580 ———. 2020. Dismazed and Driven: My look at family homelessness in America. Hear US. Nilan, D.D. 2005. Crossing the line: taking steps to end homelessness. Booklocker.com No Bullying. 2016. Cyber bullying girls: Are they more common? https://nobullying.com/is-cyberbullying-more-common-with-girls/ No Kid Hungry. 2016. Child hunger in America. https://www.nokidhungry.org/problem/hungerfacts Nolan, A. 2010. The child’s right to health and the courts. In Global health and human rights: Legal and philosophical perspectives, ed. J. Harrington and M. Stuttaford. Routledge. ———. 2013. Economic and social rights, budgets and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. International Journal of Children’s Rights 21 (2). Nolen, S. 2022. What pregnancy and childbirth do to the bodies of young girls. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/health/young-girls-pregnancy-childbirth.html Nordell, J. 2021. The end of bias: The science and practice of overcoming unconscious bias. Metropolitan Books. Norozi, S., and T. Moen. 2016. Childhood as a social construction. Journal of Educational and Social Research 6 (2): 75–80. http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/viewFile/91 51/8837. North, A. 2022. What is school for? Vox. https://www.vox.com/22914503/school-closings-covidclosures-pandemic-child-care North, M., and S.T. Fiske. 2012. An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin 138 (5): 982–997. Northrup, D.T., C.L. Tschanz, V.G. Olynyk, K.L.S. Makaroff, J. Szabo, and H.A. Biasio. 2004. Nursing: Whose discipline is it anyway? Nursing Science Quarterly 17 (1): 55–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894318403260471. Northwestern University. 2022. Fake news, big lies. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2022/ fake-news-big-lies.html Norwood, K. 2020. Racial inequality in public schools. American Bar Association. https://www. americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/tyl/topics/access-to-education/racial_ inequality_public_schools/ Novotney, A. 2015. Are preschoolers being overmedicated? American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/07-08/preschoolers Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basil Blackwell. NPR. 2021. Police pepper spray 9 year old girl. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/02/963115545/ rochester-police-officers-who-pepper-sprayed-girl-are-suspended Nussbaum, J., M.J. Pitts, F.N. Huber, J.L.R. Krieger, and J.E. Ohs. 2005. Ageism and ageist language across the life span: Intimate relationships and non-intimate interactions. Journal of Social Issues 61 (2): 287–305. Nyborg, V., and J. Curry. 2010. The impact of perceived racism: Psychological symptoms among African American boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 32 (2): 14–21.

750

References

Oakley, A. 1998. Gender, methodology, and people’s ways of knowing; Some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology 32 (4): 707–731. http://www. jstor.org/stable/42857875. Oberg, C., H.R. Hodges, S. Gander, R. Nathawad, and D. Cutts. 2022. The impact of COVID-19 on children’s lives in the United States: Amplified inequities and a just path to recovery. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 52 (7): 101181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cppeds.2022.101181. Epub 2022 Mar 16. PMID: 35400596; PMCID: PMC8923900. O’Brien, J. 2015. Victims partly to blame for sex abuse. Syracuse.com. https://www.syracuse.com/ news/index.ssf/2015/09/victims_partly_to_blame_in_priest_sex-abuse_cases_syracuse_ bishop_testified.html O’Conner, A. 2014. What scares you more giving your teenager your car keys or your credit card? Credit Donkey. https://www.creditdonkey.com/teenagers.html O’Donnell, P. 2014. Social service agencies are moving into 8 more of Cleveland’s schools. Cleveland.com. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/08/social_service_agencies_ are_mo.html O’Keeffe, G.S., K. Clarke-Pearson, and Council on Communications and Media. 2011. Impact of social media on children, adolescents and families. Pediatrics 127 (4): 800–804. https://doi.org/ 10.1542/peds.2011-0054. O’neil, J. 2002a. Another problem with poverty. New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2002/10/29/health/vital-signs-safety-another-problem-with-poverty.html O’Neill, O. 2002b. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606250 O’Neill, O., and W. Ruddick, eds. 1979. Having children: Philosophical and legal reflections on parenthood. Oxford University Press. O’Neill, O. 1988. Children’s rights and children’s lives. Ethics 98 (3): 445–463. https://www.jstor. org/stable/2380960. O’Reilly, A. 2010. Twenty-first-century motherhood: Experience, identity, policy, agency. Columbia University Press. ———. 2019. Matricentric feminism. NY: Routledge. Ochieng, A. 2017, March 29. Muslim school children are bullied by fellow students and teachers. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/03/29/515451746/muslimschoolchildren-bullied-by-fellow-students-and-teachers OECD. 2009. Comparative child wellbeing across the OECD. In The organisation for economic cooperation and development: Doing better for children. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/43 570328.pdf ———. 2015. Health at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 1787/health_glance-2015-en. Oermann, M. 2019. Curriculum revision: Making informed decisions. Nurse Educator 44 (1). https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000630. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2015a. Law enforcement and juvenile crime. United States Department of Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR.asp ———. 2015b. OJJDP statistical briefing book. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_ Display.asp?ID=qa05200 ———. 2016. Statistical briefing book. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp Office of the High Commission of Human Rights. 2020. The right to adequate housing: Fact sheet #21. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/fs21_rev_1_housing_en.pdf Office of the High Commission on Human Rights. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child ———. 2023. Children and youth. https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/children-and-youth Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2021. Impact of climate change on child rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/climate-change/impact-climate-change-rights-child Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Youth. 2016a. #Youthstats: Entrepreneurship and financial inclusion. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/entrepreneurship-financial-inclusion/

References

751

———. 2016b. #Youthstats: Globalization and migration. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/ globalization-migration/ ———. 2016c. #Youthstats: Intergenerational relations. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/ intergenerational-relations/ ———. 2016d. #Youthstats: Public and civic participation. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/ political-participation/ Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth. n.d.. #YouthStats: Education. http://www.un. org/youthenvoy/youth-statistics-education Office of the Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Women’s Health, & Office of the Surgeon General. 2011. The importance of breastfeeding. The surgeon general’s call to action to support breastfeeding. O’Kane, E. 2010. Learning from Northern Ireland? The uses and abuses of the Irish ‘model’. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 12 (2): 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-856X.2009.00399.x. Oklahoma State Legislature. 2011. Parent rights amendment. http://www.oklegislature.gov/ BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SCR1&Session=1900 Olafsen, M., A.B. Rukooko, P.O. Iversen, and B. Andreassen. 2018. Examination of the roles and capacities of duty bearers responsible for protecting the human rights to adequate food, nutritional health and wellbeing. BMC International Health and Human Rights 18. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12914-018-0156-4. Ollove, M. 2020. The youngest children are falling out of health insurance. The PEW Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/02/19/theyoungest-children-are-falling-out-of-health-insurance Olsen, J. 2008. The ups and downs of bureaucratic organizations. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060106.101806. Olson, K. 2013. Are kids racist? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ developing-minds/201304/are-kids-racist Olson, M. 1971. The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press. Olson, R. 2016. Teen suicide: is there an epidemic? https://www.suicideinfo.ca/wpcontent/ uploads/2016/08/iE6.pdf O'Manique, J. 1990. Universal and inalienable human rights: A search for foundations. Human Rights Quarterly 12 (4): 465–485. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. Child wellbeing. https://www.oecd.org/social/family/child-well-being/ Orme, N. 2003. Medieval children. Yale University Press. Ortaliza, J., & Cox, C. 2021. COVID-19 continues to be a major cause of death in the US. https:// www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-continues-to-be-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-theu-s-in-august-2021/ Ortiz, I., & Cummins, M. 2011. Global inequality: Beyond the bottom billion. UNICEF. http:// www.childimpact.unicef-irc.org/documents/view/id/120/lang/en Orwell, G. 1945. Animal farm: A fairy story. Secker & Warburg. ———. 1946. Animal farm. New American Library. Oskamp, S., ed. 2000. Reducing prejudice and discrimination. Psychology Press. Osler, A. 2016. Human rights and schooling: An ethical framework for teaching social justice. Teachers College Press. Osler, A., and T. Solhaug. 2018. Children’s human rights and diversity in schools: Framing and measuring. Research in Comparative and International Education 13 (2): 276–298. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745499918777289. Osler, A., and H. Starkey. 2005. Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Open University Press. ———. 2015. Education for cosmopolitan citizenship: A framework for language learning. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 (2): 30–39. ———. 2017. Teacher education and human rights. Routledge.

752

References

Oswell, D. 2013. The agency of children: From family to global human rights. Cambridge University Press. O’Toole, S. 2000. The effects of parental verbal abuse (Publication No. 9994797) [Dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Our Children’s Trust. 2019. Chernaik v Brown. https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/oregon ———. 2021. Youth climate lawsuit. https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us Outland, R. 2021. Why black and brown youth fear and distrust police: An exploration of youth killed by police in the US (2016/2017), implications for counselors and service providers. Open Journal of Social Sciences 9: 222–240. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.94017. Ovide, S. 2020. How social media has changed civil rights protests. The New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/technology/social-media-protests.html Oxfam. 2023. Richest more wealth than rest of world together. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressreleases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center. 2018. Students with disabilities and bullying: Top five things for parents, educators, and students to know. http://www.pacer.org/bullying/ resources/students-with-disabilities/ Pachter, L. 2009. Racism and child health: a review of the literature and future directions. Journal of Development and Behavioral Pediatrics 30 (3): 255–263. Pachter, L.M., and C.G. Coll. 2009. Racism and child health: A review of the literature and future directions. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 30 (3): 255–263. https://doi. org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181a7ed5a. PMID: 19525720; PMCID: PMC2794434. Pachter, L.M., L.A. Szalacha, B.A. Bernstein, and C.G. Coll. 2010a. Perceptions of racism in children and youth (PRaCY): Properties of a self-report instrument for research on children’s health and development. Ethnicity and Health 15 (1): 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13557850903383196. ———. 2010b. Perceived racism and discrimination in children and youths: an exploratory study. Health and Social Work 35 (1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/35.1.61. Paden, W. 2003. Interpreting the sacred: Ways of viewing religion. Beacon Press. Paine, T. 1791. Rights of man. https://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. 2020. The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828 Palaiologou, I., and T. Male. 2019. Leadership in early childhood education: The case for pedagogical praxis. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20 (1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1463949118819100. Palmer, E. 2021. Boy, 11, becomes graduate. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/laurentsimons-11-second-youngest-graduate-ever-plans-make-humans-immortal-1607168 Palmer, J. 2002. Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present day. Routledge. Palmer, T.N. 2009. Edward Norton Lorenz: 23 May 1917 - 16 April 2008. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 55: 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbm.2009.0004. Palmore, E. 2015. Ageism comes of age. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 70: 873–875. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv079. Panko, B. 2017. Racism harms children’s health. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www. smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/racism-harms-childrens-health-180963167/ Pansters, W. 1990. Social movement and discourse. Bulletin of Latin American Research 9 (1): 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3338217. Panter-Brick, C. 1998. Biosocial perspectives on children. Cambridge University Press. Pappa, S., V. Ntella, T. Giannakas, V.G. Giannakoulis, E. Papoutsi, and P. Katsaounou. 2020. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 88: 901–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.026. Pappas, S. 2012a. Early neglect alters kids brains. Live Science. http://www.livescience.com/21 778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

References

753

———. 2012b. Why gay parents may be the best parents. Live Science. http://www.livescience. com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html ———. 2013. It’s true: Some parents want to live through their children. Live Science. http:// www.livescience.com/37559-parents-living-vicariously-through-children.html Pardeck, J. 2001. Children’s rights and school violence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 10 (1-2): 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2001.9747896. Parent Rights. 2021. Protecting parental rights at the state level. https://parentalrights.org/states/ ParentalRights.org. 2019a. Changing the culture. https://parentalrights.org/changing-the-culture/ ———. 2019b. Parental rights to be addressed in state legislatures. https://parentalrights.org/ parental-rights-to-be-addressed-in-state-legislatures/ ———. 2019c. We’re going around Congress. https://parentalrights.org/were-going-aroundcongress/ ———. 2020. Virginia bill to ban faith based counseling. https://parentalrights.org/va-bill-to-bancounselling-coming/ ———. 2021a. DC council would discard the constitution and end parents rights. https:// parentalrights.org/dc-council-would-discard-constitution-end-parents-rights/ ———. 2021b. Is CAPTA reform good or bad? https://parentalrights.org/coming-capta-reformgood-or-bad/ ———. 2021c. It’s time to push for reform. https://parentalrights.org/its-time-to-push-for-reform/ ———. 2021d. Lee attempts common consent. https://parentalrights.org/breaking-dc-update-leeattempts-common-consent/ ———. 2021e. Minnesota to end all private education. https://parentalrights.org/minnesota-toend-all-private-education/ ———. 2021f. Updates. https://parentalrights.org/tag/updates/ Pariser, E. 2012. The Filter Bubble. Penguin. Park, A. 1983. Reagan’s double standard on human rights. Harvard Crimson. https://www. thecrimson.com/article/1983/4/4/reagans-double-standard-on-human-rights/ ———. 2007. Baby Einsteins: Not so smart after all. Time. http://content.time.com/time/health/ article/0,8599,1650352,00.html Parker, K. 2020. On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-ofadulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/ Parker, S. 1994. The best interests of the child – Principles and problems. In The best interests of the child, ed. P. Alston. Clarendon Press. Parmar, T. 2016, Oct 7. Girls spend 40% more time on household labor than boys. Time Magazine. https://time.com/4522527/girls-household-labor-chores-boys-children-unicef/ Parramore, L. 2017. America is regressing into a developing nation for most people. Ineteconomics. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-regressing-into-a-developingnation-for-most-people Parrott, S. 2022. Government policies helped drive poverty rate to a new low. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/in-pandemics-secondyeargovernment-policies-helped-drive-child-poverty-rate-to-a Parrott, S., Marr, C., Sherman, A., & Solomon, J. 2021. Building an equitable recovery requires investing in children. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/ poverty-and-inequality/building-an-equitable-recovery-requires-investing-in-children Parsons, S. 2017. This is how much teenagers spend on makeup. Cosmetics Business. https://www. cosmeticsbusiness.com/news/article_page/This_is_how_much_teenagers_spend_on_makeup_ a_year__and_it_trumps_their_mothers/136905 Parsons, T., and R.F. Bales. 1955. Family, socialization and interaction process. Free Press. Participatory Methods. 2021. Levels of participation. https://www.participatorymethods.org/ method/levels-participation

754

References

Passel, J.S., Livingston, G., & Cohn, D. 2012. Explaining why minority births now outnumber white births. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-whyminority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/ Patel, P. 2017. Forced sterilization of women as discrimination. Public Health Rev 38. https://doi. org/10.1186/s40985-017-0060-9. Patterson, M. 2021. Toward a critical children’s museology. Museum and Society 19 (3): 330–350. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v19i3.3393. Patton, E., & Livingston, G. 2016. Why is the teen birth rate falling? Pew Research Center. http:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling Patton, S. 2012, May 6. The PHD now comes with food stamps. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-ph-d-now-comes-with-food-stamps/ Patzer, G. 2012. The physical attractiveness phenomena. Springer Publishing. Paulus, T. 1973. Hope for the flowers. Paulist Press. Payne, B., R.A. Triplett, and G.E. Higgins. 2011. The relationship between self-control, witnessing domestic violence, and subsequent violence. Deviant Behavior 32 (9): 769–789. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01639625.2010.538317. Payne, D. 2021. Critical race theory turns school boards in GOP proving grounds. Politico. https:// www.politico.com/news/2021/09/08/critical-race-theory-school-boards-510381 Payne, B.K., and J.W. Hannay. 2021. Implicit bias reflects systemic racism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25 (11): 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.08.001. Epub 2021 Aug 20. PMID: 34426051. Paz, I. 2021, September 24. ‘Sexist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘classist’: Georgia 8th grader challenges school dress code. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/04/us/politics/mask-dress-codeprotest.html PBS. 2017. When children are exposed to police violence. PBS. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/25/ 534332881/when-children-are-exposed-to-police-violence ———. 2020. Children of color projected to be majority of US youth this year. https://www.pbs. org/newshour/nation/children-of-color-projected-to-be-majority-of-u-s-youth-this-year PD Collaborative. 2021. Children are citizens. http://www.pdcollaborative.org/initiatives/projects/ children-are-citizens/ Pearce, L.D., G.M. Hayward, L. Chassin, and P.J. Curran. 2018. The increasing diversity and complexity of family structures for adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 28 (3): 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12391. Pearson, H. 2016. The life project. Soft Skull. Peck, E. 2020. An unprecedented 14 million children are going hungry due to COVID-19. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/14-million-children-goinghungrycoronavirus_n_5f07777cc5b6480493cd5e87 Peck, H.T., and F.M. Colby, eds. 1906. The new international encyclopaedia. Dodd, Mead and Company. Peel, M. 2020. The rise of modern disciplines and disciplinarily. Sage Publications. https://us. sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/109628_book_item_109628.pdf Peiser, J. 2020, August 10. ‘You’re going to jail’: Body-cam video shows an 8-year-old Florida boy arrested at school. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/11/ video-florida-boy-arrested/ Peled, E. 1998. The experience of living with violence for preadolescent witnesses of woman abuse. Youth and Society 29: 395–430. Pelton, L. 2010. Introduction: Race, class and the child welfare system. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 33 (3): 270–276. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25790781. Percy-Smith, B. 2023. A handbook of children and young people’s participation: Conversations for transformational change. Taylor and Francis. Perez, C. 2021. Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Harry Abrams Press.

References

755

Pérez-Expósito, L. 2015. Scope and quality of student participation in school: Towards an analytical framework for adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 20 (3): 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1009920. Perret, G. 2021. How we defended human rights 2021. Immigrant Justice. https://immigrantjustice. org/staff/blog/how-we-defended-human-rights-2021 Perrin, J.M., L.E. Anderson, and J. Van Cleave. 2014. The rise in chronic conditions among infants, children, and youth can be met with continued health system innovations. Health Affairs 33 (12): 2099–2105. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0832. Perry, M.J. 2007. Toward a theory of human rights: Religion, law, courts. Cambridge University Press. Pescosolido, B., J. Monahan, B.G. Link, A. Stueve, and S. Kikuzawa. 1999. The public’s view of the competence, dangerousness, and need for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems. American Journal of Public Health 89 (9): 1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.89.9.1339. Peters, J.K. 2018. Seeking dignity, voice and story for children in our child protective systems. International Journal of Children’s Rights 26 (1): 5–15. Petersen, A.C., Joseph, J., & Feit, M. 2014. Child abuse and neglect policy. In Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, New directions in child abuse and neglect research. National Academies Press. Peterson, C.C. 2003. Lifespan human development. In International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region, ed. J.P. Keeves, R. Watanabee, R. Maclean, P. Renshaw, C. Power, R. Baker, S. Gopinathan, H. Kam, Y. Cheong Cheng, and A.C. Tuijnman, 379–393. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3368-7_27. Peterson-Withorn, C. 2021. American billionaires have gotten 12 trillion richer during the pandemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaireshave-gotten-12-trillion-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=192ddb7af557 Petit, M. 2011. Why child abuse is so acute in the US. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-1 5193530 Petridis, A. 2018. Joe Jackson: One of the most monstrous fathers in pop. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/27/joe-jackson-one-of-the-most-monstrous-fathersin-pop Petticrew, M. 2003. Book reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00351/full Pettinger, T. 2014. Young people who changed the world. Oxford. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2009. Teens and sexting. Pew Research Center. http://www. pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx Pew Research Center. 2012. The global religious landscape. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/1 8/global-religious-landscape-exec/ ———. 2015a. The American family today. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/1 7/1-the-american-family-today/ ———. 2015b. Interfaith marriage is common in the US. http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2015/06/02/interfaith-marriage/ ———. 2015c. The American middle class. Pew Research Reports. http://www.pewsocialtrends. org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ Pezaro, C. 2016. The role of a teacher. Science of Learning. https://npjscilearncommunity.nature. com/posts/13089-the-role-of-a-teacher-and-the-purpose-of-education PFLAG. 2022. Glossary. https://pflag.org/glossary Philipson, J.M. 2012. The kids are not all right: Mandating peer mediation as a proactive antibullying measure in schools. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-KIDS-ARE-NOTALL-RIGHT%3A-MANDATING-PEER-AS-A-INphilipson/af5a230877ff4fa8547e523 9d6c95530ded3bba3 Phillips, K. 2018. GOP lawmaker seems to suggest students calling for gun control are not students at all. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/21/ gop-lawmaker-suggests-student-protesters-advocating-for-gun-control-are-not-students-at-all/

756

References

Philo, C. 2000. The corner-stones of my world: Editorial introduction to special issue on spaces of childhood. Childhood 7 (3): 243–256. Phoenix Zone Initiative. 2021. Why the US must ratify the UNCRC. https://www. phoenixzonesinitiative.org/resource/why-the-us-must-ratify-the-un-crc/ Physicians for a National Health Program. 2021. A brief history of universal healthcare efforts in the US. https://pnhp.org/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us/ Piaget, J. 1954. The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books. Pichon, S., B. de Gelder, and J. Grèzes. 2009. Two different faces of threat: Comparing the neural systems for recognizing fear and anger in dynamic body expressions. NeuroImage 47 (4): 1873–1883. Picker, M. (Director), Sun, C. (Producer, Writer), & Fordham, M. (Narrator). 2002. Mickey mouse monopoly [Film]. Media Education Foundation. Pickett, K., Y. Vafai, M. Mathai, and N. Small. 2022. The social determinants of child health and inequalities in child health. Paediatrics and Child Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2021. 12.003. Pierce, C., and G. Allen. 1975. Childism. Psychiatric Annals 5 (7): 15–24. https://doi.org/10.3928/ 0048-5713-19750701-04. Pilcher, J., C. Pole, and J. Williams. 2005. Young people in transition. Becoming citizens. Palgrave. Pima Community College. 2022. History of banned books. https://libguides.pima.edu/ bannedbooks/history Piper, K. 2020. Young people have a stake in our future. Let them vote. Vox. https://www.vox.com/ future-perfect/2019/9/10/20835327/voting-age-youth-rights-kids-vote Piskorski, M. 2013. Social failures and social solutions: Evidence from OkCupid. Princeton University Press. https://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/Piskorski-SIEPR.pdf Pittman, K., and M. Cahill. 1992. Pushing the boundaries of education: The implications of a youth development approach to education policies, structures and collabnrations. Vol. 51. School K-12. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcek12/51 Piven, F.F., and R.A. Cloward. 1993. Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Pivnick, L.K., R.A. Gordon, and R. Crosnoe. 2022. The developmental significance of looks from middle childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence 32 (3): 1125–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12644. Epub 2021 Jul 15. PMID: 34263986; PMCID: PMC9126025. Plan International USA. 2018. The state of gender equality for US adolescents. https://www. planusa.org/docs/state-of-gender-equality-summary-2018.pdf Platt, A. 1969. The rise of the child-saving movement: A study in social policy and correction reform. Annals of the American Academy 381: 21–38. ———. 1977. The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Phoenix Books. Plattner, D. 1984. Protection of children in international humanitarian law. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/ 57jmat.htm Plushnick-Masti, R. 2013. Affluenza isn’t a recognized diagnosis, experts say after brat spared from jail in drunk driving case. National Post. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/affluenza-defenceuse-to-protect-teen-driver-who-killed-four-was-never-meant-to-be-used-in-court-expert-says/ Podkul, C., and C. Liu. 2022. Human traffickers force victims into cyberscamming. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/human-traffickers-force-victims-into-cyberscamming Pollock, E. 2007. USA Today: Immaturity a growing problem among youth. The Temple News. http://temple-news.com/news/usa-today-immaturity-a-growing-problem-among-youth/ Popa, E.O., V. Blok, and R. Wesselink. 2020. Discussion structures as tools for public deliberation. Public Understanding of Science 29 (1): 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519880675. Popenoe, D. 1993. American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and Family 55 (3): 527–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/353333. Popper, K. 1976. Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography. Routledge.

References

757

Population Reference Bureau. 2015. World population data sheet 2014. http://www.prb.org/ publications/datasheets/2014/2014-world-population-data-sheet/data-sheet.aspx Porges. 2021. Polyvagal Theory: A biobehavioral journey to sociality. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology 7 (Aug.): 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100069. Positive Behavior Intervention and Strategies. 2018. Benefits of the PBIS Program. https://www. pbis.org/school Postman, N. 1985. Amusing ourselves to death. Penguin Books USA. ———. 1994. The disappearance of childhood. Vintage Books. Potter, C. 2021. The GOP doesn’t love children, it loves power. Public Seminar. https://clairepotter. substack.com/p/the-gop-doesnt-love-children-it-loves-905 Potter, J. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric, and social construction. Sage. Poulsen, A. 2019. Corporal punishment of children in the home in Australia: A review of the research reveals the need for data and knowledge. Children Australia 44 (3): 110–120. https:// doi.org/10.1017/cha.2019.17. Powell, J. 2019. Targeted universalism. Hass Institute. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/ files/targeted_universalism_primer.pdf Powell, F. 2021a. What you need to know about college tuition. US News. https://www.usnews. com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-col lege-tuition-costs Powell, L. 2021b. We are here. Human Rights Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/weare-here-lgbtqadult-population-in-united-states-reaches-at-least-20-million-according-tohuman-rights-campaign-foundationreport Praderio, C. 2017. Youngest monarchs in history. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider. com/youngest-monarchs-in-history-2017-2#russian-tsar-ivan-the-terrible-got-his-nicknamefor-a-reason-2 Preibisch, R. 2022. A history of child welfare in the US. MUsings: The Graduate Journal. https:// blogs.millersville.edu/musings/a-history-of-child-welfare-in-the-united-states/ Premo, B. 2008. How Latin America's history of childhood came of age. Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth 1 (1): 63–76. Present Age. 1936. On innocence and sin. The Online Waldorf Library. https://www. waldorflibrary.org/articles/720-on-innocence-and-sin-in-childhood Presidential Task Force on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in Children and Adolescents. 2008. Children and trauma. https://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/children-trauma-update Pretty, J.N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23 (8): 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F. Prevent Child Abuse America. 2022. About child sexual abuse. https://www.preventchildabusenc. org/resource-hub/about-child-sexual-abuse/ Price, D. 2003. Borrowing inequality: Race, class and student loans. Lynne Reinner Press. Principe, C., and J. Langlois. 2013. Children and adults use attractiveness as a social cue in real people and avatars. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 115 (3): 590–597. Pritchard, K. 1989. Political science and the teaching of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly 11 (3): 459–475. https://doi.org/10.2307/762103. Pritzker, B. 2000. A native American Encyclopedia: History, culture, and people. Oxford University Press. Prout, A. 2011. Taking a step away from modernity: Reconsidering the new sociology of childhood. Global Studies of Childhood 1 (1): 4–14. Prout, A., and A. James. 1990. A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. In Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, ed. A. James and A. Prout, 7–33. Routledge-Falmer. Prud’homme, M.A. 2012. Students doing conflict resolution? A case study in a free school. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 11 (1): 22–33. Pruitt, L. 2017. Youth, politics, and participation in a changing world. Journal of Sociology 53 (2): 507–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317705733.

758

References

———. 2022. What republicans know about the white working class. Politico. https://www. politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/24/democrats-white-working-class-00041807 Puhl, R.M., and C.A. Heuer. 2010. Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health 100 (6): 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009. 159491. Puka, B. 2022. The Golden Rule. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee. https://iep. utm.edu/goldrule/ Pulliam, C., & Reeves, R. 2021. New child tax credit could slash poverty. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/03/11/new-child-tax-credit-could-slash-poverty-now-andboost-social-mobility-later/ Purdy, L.M. 1992. In their best interest? The case against equal rights for children. Cornell University Press. Putnam, R. 2020. The upswing: How American came together a century ago and how we can do it again. Simon and Schuster. Puzzanchera, C. 2019. Juvenile arrests. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/juvenile-arrests-201 9 Quennerstedt, A. 2013. Children’s rights research moving into the future – Challenges on the way forward. International Journal of Children’s Rights 21: 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 15718182-02102006. ———. 2022. Children’s and young people’s human rights education in school: Cardinal complications and a middle ground. Journal of Human Rights 21 (4): 383–398. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14754835.2021.2014795. Quennerstedt, A., C. Robinson, and J. I’Anson. 2018. The UNCRC: The voice of global consensus on children’s rights? Nordic Journal of Human Rights 36 (1): 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 18918131.2018.1453589. Qui, L., & Bank, J. 2018. Checking facts and falsehoods about gun violence and mental illness. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/fact-check-parkland-gunviolence-mental-illness.html Quigley, L. 2007. The intersection between domestic violence and the child welfare system. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 13 (3): 867. http://scholarship.law.wm. edu/wmjowl/vol13/iss3/9. Qvortrup, J. 1990. A voice for children in statistical and social accounting: A plea for children’s right to be heard. In Construction and reconstructing childhood, ed. A. James and A. Prout, 85–106. Falmer Press. ———. 1991. Childhood as a social phenomenon: An introduction to a series of national reports, Eurosocial reports no.36. European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research. ———. 2009. Are children human beings or human becomings? A critical assessment of outcome thinking. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali 117 (3/4): 631–653. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41625246. Qvortrup, J., W. Corsaro, and M. Honig. 2009. The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Palgrave. Rabiner, S. 2012. Why can’t minors file lawsuits? FindLaw. http://blogs.findlaw.com/ injured/2012/04/why-cant-minors-file-lawsuits.html Rabinovitch-Fox, E. 2021. Schools enforce dress codes all the time so why not masks? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/30/schools-enforce-dress-codes-alltime-so-why-not-masks/ Radcliffe, S. 2018. When a parent’s beliefs about medicine becomes child abuse. Healthline. https:// www.healthline.com/health-news/parents-beliefs-about-medicine-child-abuse Raikes, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. 2019. Why our education funding systems are derailing the American dream. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-oureducation-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream

References

759

Rainey, S. 2018. Learning about evolution is a right and shouldn’t be censored in schools. North Texas Daily. https://www.ntdaily.com/learning-about-evolution-is-a-right-and-shouldnt-be-cen sored-in-schools Rakesh, R. 2020. Questioning how we think about children. Cultural Survival. https://www. culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/introduction-questioning-how-wethink-about-children Ramer, H. 2021, March 1. Hundreds claim decades of abuse by 150 NH youth detention center staffers. WMUR. https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-youth-development-centerabuse-lawsuit-march-1-2021/35681051 ———. 2022. Latest lawsuit against New Hampshire youth detention center also targets other facilities. WMUR. https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-youth-center-lawsuit-61 622/40308796 Ramey, G. 2016. Kids shouldn’t be treated like little adults. Dayton Daily News. https://www. daytondailynews.com/lifestyles/kids-shouldn-treated-like-little-adults/ShT2ktMDUo4 67OfEyOYd2H/ Ramsey, R. 2022. Texas officials bully kids. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune. org/2022/03/11/texas-transgender-politics/ Rapaport, L. 2018. US infant mortality high even for full-term babies. Reuters. https://www.reuters. com/article/us-health-infants-mortality/u-s-infant-mortality-high-even-for-full-term-babiesidUSKBN1GX2ST Raphael, J. 2020. Parents as pimps: Survivor accounts of trafficking in children in the United States. Dignity: A Journal of Sexual Exploitation and Violence 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.23860/dignity. 2019.04.04.07. Rapoport, J.L. 1999. Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature neuroscience 2 (10): 861–863. Rare Historical Photos. n.d.. “4 children for sale,” 1948. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/4children-sale-1948/ Rasmussen, K. 2004. Places for children: Children’s places. Childhood 11 (2): 155–173. Rastegar, K. 2017. Why you should treat your children like adults. Baby Chick. https://www.babychick.com/why-you-should-treat-your-children-like-adults/ Ratcliff, D. 2007. “The spirit of children past”: A century of children’s spirituality research. Christian Education Journal 4 (2): 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989130700400203. Raths, L.E., M. Harmin, and S.B. Simon. 1978. Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom. 2nd ed. Charles Merrill. https://louisraths.wordpress.com/values-clarification-2/. Ratner, P. 2013. The psychology of oppression. In The encyclopedia of critical psychology, ed. T. Teo. Springer. http://www.sonic.net/~cr2/psych%20of%20oppression.htm. Ratvich, D. 2018. Children need time to play. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/10/11/mercedesschneider-childrenneed-time-to-play/ Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. ———. 1999a. A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Oxford University Press. ———. 1999b. The law of peoples: With “the idea of public reason revisited”. Harvard University Press. Rayna, S., and F. Laevers. 2011. Understanding children from 0 to 3 years of age and its implications for education. What’s new on the babies’ side? Origins and evolutions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (2): 161–172. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1350293X.2011.574404. Raz, J. 1984. Legal rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4 (1): 1–21. Reardon, S., E. Fahle, D. Kalogrides, A. Podolsky, and R. Zárate. 2019. Gender achievement gap in US schools. American Education Research Journal 56 (6): 2474–2508. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831219843824. Rebach, H., and J. Bruhn. 2001. Handbook of clinical sociology. Springer. Recovery Center 2018. Drug use in high school. The Recovery Village. https://www. therecoveryvillage.com/teen-addiction/high-school-drug-use/#gref

760

References

Redden, E. 2014. International enrollments increase. Inside Higher Ed. https://www. insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/16/annual-open-doors-report-finds-increases-internationalstudents-study-abroad Redleaf, D. 2020. Where is it safe and legal to give children reasonable independence? American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/ articles/2020/where-is-it-safe-and-legal-to-give-children-reasonable-independence/ Redmond, G. 2008. Children’s perspectives on economic adversity: A review of the literature. UNICEF. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/idp_2008_01.pdf Reeder, C. 2011. Life for slave children in 1861. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/life-for-slave-children-in-1861/2011/05/17/AGqrq6UH_ story.html Reed-Sandoval, A. 2020. Why I shut down an argument in my philosophy for children class. Psyche. https://psyche.co/ideas/why-i-shut-down-an-argument-in-my-philosophy-for-childrenclass Reeping, P.M., A.N. Gobaud, C.C. Branas, and S. Rajan. 2021. K-12 school shootings: Implications for policy, prevention, and child well-being. Pediatric Clinics of North America 68 (2): 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2020.12.005. Rees, G. & Main, G. (Eds.). 2015 Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 15 countries: An initial report on the Children’s Worlds survey, 2013-14. Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB). Regis College. 2020. Children’s healthcare in America. https://online.regiscollege.edu/blog/ picture-childrens-health-america/ Rehman, M. 2017. Getting rich from the skin whitening trade. Business of Fashion. https://www. americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2020/where-is-it-safeand-legal-to-give-children-reasonable-independence/ Reich, K., P.L. Culross, and R.E. Behrman. 2002. Children, youth, and gun violence: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children 12 (2): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602735. Reich, R. 2019. How corporate welfare hurts you. American Prospect. https://prospect.org/ economy/corporate-welfare-hurts Reid, L. 2019. The generations of human rights. University of Alabama Institute for Human Rights. https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2019/01/14/the-generations-of-human-rights/ Reif, L. 2016. Independent children’s rights institutions. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Reilly, K. 2013. Sesame Street reaches out to 2.7 million American children with an incarcerated parent. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/21/sesame-streetreaches-out-to-2-7-million-american-children-with-an-incarcerated-parent/. ———. 2016. Here are the times Donald Trump has insulted Mexico. Time. http://time.com/4473 972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/ ———. 2017. Is recess important for kids? Time. http://time.com/4982061/recess-benefitsresearch-debate/ ———. 2018. Florida shooting survivors are being targeted by conspiracy theories. Time. http:// time.com/5169321/florida-shooting-conspiracy-theories-david-hogg/ Rennels, J.L., and J.H. Langlois. 2014. Children’s attractiveness, gender, and race biases: A comparison of their strength and generality. Child Development 85 (4): 1401–1418. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12226. Rensmann, L. 2017. Critical theory of human rights. In The Palgrave handbook of critical theory: Political philosophy and public purpose, ed. M. Thompson, 631–653. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55801-5_29. Renshaw, E. 1977. Welfare reform: The case for a universal system of child-support transfer payments. Policy Analysis 3 (4): 583–586. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42783238. Reschovsky, A. 2017. Future of US public school revenue. Lincoln Institute. https://www. lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/future-us-public-school-revenue-policy-brief_0.pdf

References

761

Resmovitz, J. 2014. American schools are still racist. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost. com/2014/03/21/schools-discrimination_n_5002954.html Resnick, B. 2017. The scientific case that America is becoming a more prejudiced place. Vox. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/31/15714002/america-becoming-moreprejudiced-psychology Reynaert, D., M. Bouverne-De Bie, and S. Vandevelde. 2010. Children, rights and social work: Rethinking children’s rights education. Social Work and Society 8 (1) https://ejournals.bib.uniwuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/23/63. Reynaert, D., E. Desmet, and S. Lembrechts. 2015. Introduction: A critical approach to children’s rights. In Routledge international handbook of children’s rights studies, ed. W. Vandenhole, E. Desmet, and D. Reynaert, 1–23. Routledge. Reynaerts, D., M. Bouverne-De Bie, and S. Vandevelde. 2012. Between ‘believers’ and ‘opponents’: Critical discussions on children’s rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights 20 (1): 155–168. Reynolds, P., O. Nieuwenhuys, and K. Hanson. 2006. Refractions of children’s rights in development practice: A view from anthropology. Childhood 13 (3): 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0907568206067476. Rhodes, A. 2013. Exploiting children one at a time. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost. com/anai-rhoads/exploiting-children-one-c_b_3386101.html Richards, D. 2022. School infrastructure is a children’s human rights issue. The Hill. https://thehill.? com/blogs/congress-blog/education/589492-school-infrastructure-is-a-childrens-human-rightsissue-its Richey, W. 2013. Parents who withheld care are guilty of homicide. The Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0703/Parents-who-withheld-care-are-guilty-ofhomicide-Wisconsin-justices-say Richtel, M. 2022. It’s life or death: The mental health crisis among US teens. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/health/mental-health-crisis-teens.html Riddle, T., and S. Sinclair. 2019. Racial disparities in school-based disciplinary actions are associated with county-level rates of racial bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (17): 8255–8260. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808307116. Riedel, E., G. Giacca, and C. Golay. 2014. Economic, social, and cultural rights in international law: Contemporary issues and challenges. Oxford University Press. Riess, R. 2021. School mask debate grows heated. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/us/ tennessee-covid-mask-mandate-school-board-protest/index.html Ringrose, J. 2018. Adventure, intimacy, identity and knowledge: How social media is shaping and transforming youth sexuality. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/38078965/Adventure_ Intimacy_Identity_and_Knowledge_How_Social_Media_are_shaping_and_transforming_ Youth_Sexuality?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest Risse, T., and K. Sikkink. 2016. The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In Domestic politics and norm diffusion in international relations: Ideas do not float freely, ed. T. Risse. Cambridge University Press. Ritter, M. 2006. Experts link teen brains’ immaturity, juvenile crime. ABC News. https://abcnews. go.com/Technology/story?id=3943187 Ritzer, G. 1975. Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. The American Sociologist 10 (3): 156–167. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27702185. ———. 1991. Frontiers of social theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Rivara, F., and S. Le Menestrel, eds. 2016. Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390414/ Riveria, F., and S. LeMenstrel. 2016. Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

762

References

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Sep 14. PMID: 27748087. Rivas-Drake, D., et al. 2014. Ethnic and racial identity in the 21st century study group ethnic and racial identity in adolescence: Implications for psychosocial, academic, and health outcomes. Child Development 85 (1): 40–57. Roberts, N. 2019, April 11. Unconstitutional ‘stop and frisk’ is alive and well in DC as Innocent 10 year old is cuffed and arrested. NewsOne. https://newsone.com/3850686/dc-police-stopand-frisk/ Robertson, E. 2017. Intersectional what? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ sep/30/intersectional-feminism-jargon Robeson, E., S. Bell, and N. Klocker. 2007. Conceptualizing agency in the lives and actions of rural young people. In Global perspectives on rural childhood & youth, ed. R. Panelli, S. Punch, and E. Robeson. Routledge. Robinson, C., L. Phillips, and A. Quennerstedt. 2020. Human rights education: Developing a theoretical understanding of teachers’ responsibilities. Educational Review 72 (2): 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1495182. Robinson, M.B. 2001. Wither criminal justice? An argument for a reformed discipline. Critical Criminology 10: 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013193509105. Robles-Ramamurthy, B., and C. Watson. 2019. Examining racial disparities in juvenile justice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 50 (3) http://jaapl.org/content/ early/2019/02/13/JAAPL.003828-19.abstract. Rodgers, D. 2020. Children and social movements. Routledge. Rodham, H. 1973. Children under the law. Harvard Educational Review 43 (4): 487–514. https:// doi.org/10.17763/haer.43.4.e14676283875773k. Roediger, D. 2020. Historical foundations of race. Smithsonian National Musuem of African American History & Culture. https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/historicalfoundations-race Rolhoff, P. 2015. [Presentation at Salem State University]. https://www.wuqukawoq.org/ Romero, L. 2020. DACA and its fate at the Supreme Court. American Bar Association. https:// www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/immigration/ activism-leads-the-law-follows/ Romm, T., Stein, J., & Douglas, D. 2022. Republicans are readying lawsuits to block Biden’s student debt relief plan. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/0 9/01/republicans-sue-biden-student-debt/ Romo, V. 2021, January 8. No charges for officers who held black children at gunpoint. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/955165485/no-charges-for-colorado-officers-who-held-blackchildren-at-gunpoint Roose, R., and M. De Bie. 2008. Children’s rights: A challenge for social work. International Social Work 51 (1): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872807083914. Rose, J. 2012. How to break free of our 19th century factory education system. The Atlantic. https:// www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/how-to-break-free-of-our-19th-century-fac tory-model-education-system/256881/ Rosemond, J. 2016. Stop treating kids like tiny adults. Reno Gazette Journal. https://www.rgj.com/ story/life/2016/02/23/living-children-stop-treating-kids-like-tiny-adults/80808172/ ———. 2017. Why your kids should not be the most important. LaCrosse Tribune. https:// lacrossetribune.com/lifestyles/relationships-and-special-occasions/john-rosemond-your-kidsshould-not-be-the-most-important/article_e61f4a20-c15e-53c6-ba51-e86af16ab957.html Rosenberg, M. 2000. Raising children compassionately. Center for Nonviolent Communication. https://www.cnvc.org/Raising-Children-Compassionately Rosenblatt, R. 2020. No, there isn’t a constitutional right not to wear masks. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/20/no-there-isnt-constitutional-right-notwear-masks/ Rosenfeld, A., N. Wise, and R. Coles. 2001. The over-scheduled child. St. Martin’s Griffin.

References

763

Rosenheim, M.K., F.E. Zimring, and D.S. Tanenhaus. 2002. A Century of Juvenile Justice. University of Chicago Press. Rosenthal, R., and L. Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt. Rosenthal, A., and N. Wise. 2001. The over-scheduled child: Avoiding the hyper-parenting trap. St. Martin’s Griffin. Ross, H. 2015. Everyday bias. Post-hypnotic Press. Ross, J., and K. Ross 2022. Child tax credit improvements must come before corporate tax breaks. American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-tax-credit-improvementsmust-come-before-corporate-tax-breaks/ Roth, K. 2000. The charade of US ratification. The Chicago Journal of International Law 1 (2). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol1/iss2/14/. Roth, M. 1998. Freud: Conflict and culture. Vintage. Rotheram-Borus, M.J., K. Hoagwood, N. Counts, and M.A. McCabe. 2018. Investing in children to promote America’s prosperity. National Academy of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.31478/ 201803d. Rotherham, A. 2015. The charter movement. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews. com/opinion/articles/2015/06/19/whats-working-and-whats-not-with-charter-schools Rothschild, A. 2017. Is US holding out on children’s rights? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic. com/education/archive/2017/05/holding-out-on-childrens-rights/524652/ Rousseau, J. 1968. The social contract (M. Cranston, Trans.). Penguin. ———. 1979. Emile, or on education. Basic Books. Rovner, J. 2021, May 24. Juvenile life without parole: An overview. The Sentencing Project. https:// www.sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/ Rowland, A. 2017. Physical punishment of children: Time to end the defence of reasonable chastisement in the UK, USA and Australia. International Journal of Children's Rights 25 (1): 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02501007. Roy, A. 2015. 10 countries with universal healthcare. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think-tank-10-countries-with-universal-health-careare-economically-freer-than-the-u-s/?sh=28970a4b137e Rstevens. 2001. Children of recent immigrants face many challenges. Princeton News. https:// www.princeton.edu/news/2001/08/20/children-recent-immigrants-face-many-challenges Rubenstein, L., and M. Younis. 2008. Scientists and human rights. Science 322 (5906): 1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166691. Rubin, N., and R. Flores. 2020. The Cambridge handbook of psychology and human rights. Cambridge University Press. Ruch, D.A., K.M. Heck, A.H. Sheftall, C.A. Fontanella, J. Stevens, M. Zhu, L.M. Horowitz, J.V. Campo, and J.A. Bridge. 2021. Characteristics and precipitating circumstances of suicide among children aged 5 to 11 years in the United States, 2013-2017. JAMA Network Open 4 (7): e2115683. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15683. Ruck, M.D., M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman, eds. 2016. Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives. Routledge. Rudolph, C., and H. Zacher. 2017. Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement 3 (2): 13–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw019. Ruger, J. 2015. The elusive right to healthcare under US law. New England Journal of Medicine 372: 2558–2563. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhle1412262. Rura, N. 2021. 61% of US households with children face serious financial problems. Harvard University School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/poll-61of-u-s-households-with-children-report-facing-serious-financial-problems-during-the-coronavi rus-outbreak/ Rutherford, A., A.B. Zwi, N.J. Grove, and A. Butchart. 2007. Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 (8): 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005. 043711.

764

References

Rutkow, L., and J.T. Lozman. 2006. Suffer the children? A call for United States ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Harvard Human Rights Journal. 19 (Spring): 159–190. Ryan, K.W. 2011. The new wave of childhood studies: Breaking the grip of bio-social dualism? Childhood 19 (4): 439–452. Ryan, N. 2015. Parents can’t rely on reasonable chastisement when slapping their kids anymore. The Journal. https://www.thejournal.ie/ban-on-slapping-ireland-2496262-Dec2015/ Ryan, W. 1976. Blaming the Victim. Vintage. Sabatello, M. 2015. Children with disabilities: A critical appraisal. In M. Freeman (Ed.), The future of children’s rights. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004271777_016 Safer Spaces. 2021. What is violence? https://www.saferspaces.org.za/understand/entry/what-isviolence Safka, M. 1971. The nickel song. [Song]. On The good book [Album]. Buddha Records. Saletan, W. 2021. Americans are fine with a broad definition of infrastructure. Slate. https://slate. com/news-and-politics/2021/05/americans-infrastructure-want-child-care-too.html Saltzman, A. 2015. Got kids? Find another place to live. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ got-kids-find-anotherplace-to-live-1.3233761 Samudio, M. 2021. Unpopular kids. Your Teen. https://yourteenmag.com/social-life/teenagersfriends/teenager-feels-unpopular Sandberg, K. 2018. Children’s right to protection under the CRC. In Human rights in child protection, ed. A. Falch-Eriksen and E. Backe-Hansen. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-94800-3_2. Sandel, M. 1982. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press. ———. 2013. What money can’t buy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sanders-Phillips, K. 2009. Racial discrimination: A continuum of violence exposure for children’s health and development. Ethnicity and Health 15 (1): 33–46. Sandler, L. 2018. Trauma can make a social movement. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost. com/entry/opinion-sandler-trauma-feminism-intersectionality_n_5ac574b7e4b056a8f5981895 Sandstrom, A. 2016. Most states allow religious exemptions from child abuse laws. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/12/most-states-allow-religious-exemptionsfrom-child-abuse-and-neglect-laws/ Saner, E. 2021. Let them be kids. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/ aug/16/let-them-be-kids-is-free-range-parenting-the-key-to-healthier-happier-children Santa Barbara, J. 2006a. Impact of war on children. Croatian Medical Journal 47 (6): 891–894. ———. 2006b. Impact of war on children and imperative to end war. Croatian Medical Journal 47 (6): 891–894. Santelli, J.T., L. Kantor, S. Grilo, I. Speizer, L. Lindberg, J. Heitel, A. Schalet, M. Lyon, McGovern Mason-Jones, C. Heck, J. Rogers, and M. Ott. 2017. Abstinence only until marriage: An updated review of US policies and programs and their impact. Journal of Adolescent Health 61 (3): 273–280. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30260-4/fulltext. Santhaman, L. 2015. Number of multiracial Americans signals shifting social norms. PBS. https:// www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/americans-will-identify-multiracial-coming-years Santora, M. 2016. Many children lack essential healthcare. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2016/11/21/nyregion/many-insured-children-lack-essential-health-care-studyfinds.html Sara. 2016. We need to talk about childism. Happiness is Here. http://happinessishereblog.com/201 6/08/we-need-to-talk-about-childism/ Sarnoff, C. 2011. Selling children in America. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ conchita-s-sarnoff/selling-children-in-ameri_b_399974.html Saunders, B.E., and Z.W. Adams. 2014. Epidemiology of traumatic experiences in childhood. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America 23 (2): 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chc.2013.12.003. Save the Children 2013. Definition of child protection. https://Savethechildren.org

References

765

———. 2023. Definition of child protection. https://Savethechildren.org ———. 2007. Getting it right for children: A practitioner’s’ guide to child rights programming. https://inee.org/eie-glossary/duty-bearers ———. 2016. One girl under 15 married every 7 seconds. http://www.savethechildren.org/site/ apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=8rKLIXMGIpI4E&b=9357115&ct=14926603¬oc=1 ———. 2020a. Gender inequality starts in childhood. https://www.savethechildren.org/us/charitystories/how-gender-discrimination-impacts-boys-and-girls ———. 2020b. Global childhood report: Hardest places to be a child. https://www. savethechildren.org/content/dam/usa/reports/advocacy/global-childhood-report-2020.pdf Sawchuck, S. 2020. There’s no constitutional right to civics education. Education Week. https:// www.edweek.org/leadership/theres-no-constitutional-right-to-civics-education-a-federaljudge-reluctantlyconcludes/2020/10 ———. 2021. What is critical race theory? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/ what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05 Sax, L. 2017. Collapse of parenting: How we hurt our kids when we treat them like grown-ups. Basic Books. Scarr, A., and C. Weinberg. 1986. The early childhood enterprise: Care and education of the young. American Psychologist 41: 1140. Scarre, G., ed. 1989. Children, parents, and politics. Cambridge University Press. Schapiro, T. 1999. What is a child? Ethics 109 (4): 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1086/233943. ———. 2003. Childhood and personhood. Arizona Law Review 45: 575–594. Scheff, T.H. 1966. Becoming mentally ill. Aldine. Schickedanz, A., P. Szilagyi, and B. Dreyer. 2021. Child poverty and health in the United States. Academic Pediatrics 21 (8): 581–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.09.003. Schildkrout, E. 1978. Age and gender in Hausa society: Socio-economic roles of children in urban Kano. In Sex and age as principles of social differentiation, ed. J. La Fontaine, 109–137. Academic Press. Schlessinger, L. 2000. Children should be our top priority. Deseret News. https://www.deseret. com/2000/6/17/19512951/children-should-be-our-top-priority Schlosser, E. 1994. Reefer madness. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1 994/08/reefer-madness/303476 Schlossman, S. 2005. Transforming Juvenile Justice. Northern Illinois University Press. Schlossman, S., and M. Sedlak. 1983. The Chicago area project revisited*. Crime & Delinquency 29 (3): 398–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112878302900305. Schmidt, J. 2010. Industrial violence and the legal origins of child labor. Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, A. 2019, December 10. President Trump’s alarming human rights agenda at home and abroad. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/presidenttrumps-alarming-human-rights-agenda-home-abroad/ Schneiberg, E. 2021, February 10. These are states trying to stop trans kids from playing sports. Human Rights Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/news/these-are-the-states-trying-to-stop-transkids-from-playing-sports Schneider, J. 2017. What rights do students have in charter school? American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2017/whatrights-do-students-have-in-the-charter-school-era/ ———. 2021. Parents claim they have a right to control their kids curriculum. They don’t. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/parents-rights-protestskids/2021/10/21/5cf4920a-31d4-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html Schneider, L., and A. Silverman. 2010. Global sociology. McGraw-Hill. Schneider-Hassloff, H., A. Zwonitzer, A. Kynster, C. Mayer, R. Ziegenhain, and M. Kiefer. 2018. Emotional availability modulates electrophysiological correlates of executive functions in preschool children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2016.00299. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00299/full

766

References

Schoeman, F. 1980. Rights of children, rights of parents, and the moral basis of the family. Ethics 91 (1): 6–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380367. Scholz, I. 2014. Charter for the future – Impulses for sustainability policy in Germany. German Development Institute. https://www.die-gdi.de/en/the-current-column/article/charter-for-thefuture-impulses-for-sustainability-policy-in-germany School House Connection. 2021a. Research on child and youth homelessness. https:// schoolhouseconnection.org/jan-jul-2021-research-on-child-and-youth-homelessness/ ———. 2021b. State laws on minor consent for routine medical care. https:// schoolhouseconnection.org/state-laws-on-minor-consent-for-routine-medical-care/ Schor, J. 2004. Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new consumer culture. Scribner. ———. 2006. When childhood gets commercialized can children be protected? In Regulation, awareness, empowerment. Young people and harmful media content in the digital age, ed. U. Carlsson. Nordicom. Schorr, L. 1989. Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Anchor. Schrag, F. 1980. Children: Their rights and needs. In Whose child? Parental rights, parental authority and state power, ed. W. Aiken and H. LaFollette, 237–253. Rowman and Littlefield. Schrager, A. 2018. The modern education system was designed to teach future factory workers to be punctual, docile and sober. Quartz. https://qz.com/1314814/universal-education-was-firstpromoted-by-industrialists-who-wanted-docile-factory-workers/ Schroeder, E. 2018. The crucial juncture of early education reform. https://commons.trincoll.edu/ edreform/2018/05/the-crucial-juncture-of-early-education-reform/ Schulte, B. 2015. Making time for kids. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ local/making-time-for-kids-study-says-quality-trumps-quantity/2015/03/28/10813192-d378-11 e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html Schultz, D., A. Grodack, and C.E. Izard. 2010. State and trait anger, fear, and social information processing. In International handbook of anger, ed. M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, and C. Spielberger. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89676-2_18. Schur, E.M. 1971. Labeling deviant behavior: Its sociological implications. Harper and Row. ———. 1980. The politics of deviance: Stigma contests and the uses of power. Prentice Hal. Schute, S., and S. Hurley. 1993. On human rights. Basic Books. Schwab, K. 2017. The 4th industrial revolution. Penguin. Schwartz, P. 2014. When teachers favor attractive kids. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/ opinion/schwartz-attractiveness-teens/ Schwarzenberg, S., and M. Georgieff. 2018. Advocacy for improving nutrition in the first 1000 days to support childhood development. Pediatrics 141 (2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds. 2017-3716. Schweikart, S. 2021. How to apply 14th amendment to promote health equity in US. AMA J Ethics 23 (3): E235–E239. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.235. Schwenninger, S. 2010. The American social contract. New America. https://www.newamerica. org/economic-growth/policy-papers/the-american-social-contract/ Science Daily. 2016a. Why American infant mortality rates are so high. ScienceDaily. https://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013103132.htm ———. 2016b, Sept 7. Emotionally invested parents give children a leg up in life. Science Daily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160907113354.htm ———. 2018. Children as young as seven suffer effects of discrimination, study shows. http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181022162138.htm Scott, E., and L. Steinberg. 2008. Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children: Juvenile Justice 18 (2): 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0011. Sealander, J. 2003. The failed century of the child: Governing America’s young in the twentieth century, 42. Cambridge University Press. Segal, L., et al. 2017. Promoting human rights through science. Science 358 (6359): 34–37. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1083.

References

767

Seidman, E. 2014, May 5. 20 reasons you should respect my child with special needs. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-seidman/20-reasons-you-should-respect-my-childwith-special-needs_b_4903798.html Selby, D. 2020. Black men are still killed for crimes they didn’t commit. https://innocenceproject. org/emmett-till-birthday-pervis-payne-innocent-black-men-slavery-racism/ Selin, J. 2021. Who has the power to say kids do or don’t have to wear masks? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/who-has-the-power-to-say-kids-do-or-dont-have-to-wear-masksin-school-the-governor-or-the-school-district-its-not-clear-166128 Selwyn, D. 2018. All children are our children. Peter Lang Press. Sember, B. 2015, May 24. Why a good divorce is better than a bad marriage for kids. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-a-good-divorce-is-better-than-a-bad-marriage-forkids_b_6925236 Senior, J. 2014. All joy and no fun: The paradox of modern parenthood. Harper-Collins. Sennett, R. 2016. The culture of the new capitalism. Yale University Press. Sethia, T. 2013. The living Gandhi: Lessons for our times. Penguin. Sewell, W.H., and R.M. Hauser. 1975. Education, occupation, and earnings: Achievement in the early career. Academic Press. Shachar, A. 2003. Children of a lesser state: Sustaining global inequality through citizenship laws. In Child, family, and state, ed. S. Macedo and I.M. Young. New York University Press. ———. 2009. The birthright lottery: Citizenship and global inequality. Harvard University Press. Shafer, H., P. Cooney, and B. Stevenson. 2022, Sept 14. Child poverty in the US was stagnant, then something changed. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2022/9/14/23352022/child-povertycovid-taxcredit Shaefer, L., & Edin, K. 2014. The rise of extreme poverty in the United States. Stanford University. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/pathways/summer_2014/ Pathways_Summer_2014_ShaeferEdin.pdf Shaffer, H. 2002. Is computer addiction a psychiatric disorder? Psychiatric Times. http://www. psychiatrictimes.com/addiction/computer-addiction-unique-psychiatric-disorder Shafik, M. 2021a. We need a new social contract for the 21st century. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/04/what-we-owe-each-other-book-minoucheshafik.htm ———. 2021b. What we owe each other: A new social contract. Bodley Head. Shah, A. 2010. Children as consumers. Global Issues. http://www.globalissues.org/article/237/ children-as-consumers Shalal, A. 2021. Biden budget price tag policy. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidenbudget-put-price-tag-policy-priorities-earn-likely-republican-rebuke-2021-05-28/ SAMSHA. 2023. Can minors/children receive SSI and is the money given to their legal guardian? https://soarworks.samhsa.gov/faq/can-minorschildren-receive-ssi-and-is-the-money-given-tothe-legal-guardian Shankar, S. 2018. Does America have a caste system? The Conversation. https://theconversation. com/does-america-have-a-caste-system-89118 Sharfstein, D. 2011. The invisible line: Three American families and the secret journey from black to white. Penguin Press. Shashikant, U. 2015. Why parents should let children manage money. Economic Times. https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/plan/why-parents-should-let-children-manage-moneychoose-jobs-ontheir-own/articleshow/47562828.cms?from=mdr Shashkevich, A. 2018. Well-meaning statements can spread stereotypes unintentionally. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/10/well-meaning-statements-can-spread-stereotypesunintentionally/ Sheehy, G. 1996. New passages. Ballantine Books. Sheffey, A. 2021. 5 of the biggest for-profit colleges that were accused of defrauding their students. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/for-profit-colleges-alleged-fraud-studentloans-debt-cancelation-education-2021-3

768

References

Sheikh, K., and P. Belluck. 2022. What we know about long COVID so far. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/well/long-covid-symptoms-treatment.html Sheldon, R. 2011. Schools are still the safest places for kids. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. http://www.cjcj.org/news/5368 Shell, A. 2017. Why families stretch their budgets. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/ money/2017/09/05/why-families-stretch-their-budgets-high-priced-youth-sports/571945001/ Shelman, E.A. 2005. The Mary Ellen Wilson child abuse case and the beginning of children’s rights in 19th century America. McFarland & Co. Sheridan, D.C., S. Grusing, R. Marshall, A. Lin, A.R. Hughes, R.G. Hendrickson, and B.Z. Horowitz. 2022. Changes in suicidal ingestion among preadolescent children from 2000 to 2020. JAMA Pediatr 176 (6): 604–606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.0069. Sherman, C. 2019. Hundreds of kids across the country were abused. Vice. https://www.vice.com/ en/article/mbma98/hundreds-of-kids-across-the-country-were-abused-at-boys-and-girls-clubsof-america-reportreveals Shermer, M. 2011. The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies. Times Books. Sherwin, G. 2014. Treating school kids different based on sex. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/treating-school-kids-differently-based-sex-discrimination Sherzer, J. 1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist 89: 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1987.89.2.02a00010. Shi, J. 2017. The evolvement of family intergenerational relationship in transition: Mechanism, logic, and tension. The Journal of Chinese Sociology 4: 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-0170068-z. Shier, H. 2001. Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society 15: 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617. Shih, Y. 2018. Rethinking Paulo Freire’s dialogic pedagogy and its implications for teachers’ teaching. Journal of Education and Learning 7 (4): 230–235. Shin, S., S. Lee, S. Jeon, and T. Wills. 2015. Childhood emotional abuse, negative emotion-driven impulsivity, and alcohol use in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect 50: 94–103. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.010. Shonkoff, J., and D. Phillips. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press. Shonkoff, J.P. 2014. A healthy start before and after birth: Applying the biology of adversity to build the capabilities of caregivers. In Improving the odds for America’s children: Future directions in policy and practice, ed. K. McCartney, H. Yoshikawa, and L.B. Forcier, 28–39. Harvard Education Press. Shore, B. 2013. When good is not good enough. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Fall). https:// ssir.org/articles/entry/when_good_is_not_good_enough Shores, K. 2020. Categorical inequalities between black and white students are common. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/02/21/categoricalinequalities-between-black-and-white-students-are-common-in-us-schools-but-they-dont-haveto-be/ Shrider, E. Kollar, M., Chen, F., & Semega, J. 2021. Income and poverty in the US 2020. US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html Shrivastava, A, and U. Patel. 2023. Research reinforces providing cash to families in poverty reduces risk of welfare. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/ income-security/research-reinforces-providing-cash-to-familiesin-poverty-reduces-risk-of Shute, S., and S. Hurley, eds. 1994. On human rights. Basic Books. Shutterstock. 2020. Young people who changed history. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/youngpeople-who-changed-history Sides, J. 2020. Surprisingly few voters think Trump cares about people like me. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/26/surprisingly-few-voters-think-trumpcares-about-people-like-me/

References

769

Sievers, B., C. Welker, U. Hasson, A.M. Kleinbaum, and T. Wheatley. 2020, July 12. How consensus-building conversation changes our minds and aligns our brains. https://doi.org/10. 31234/osf.io/562z7 Sigurðardóttir, M. 2020. How can you be against children’s rights? Societies Without Borders 14 (1). https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/swb/vol14/iss1/3. Silva, S. 2016. Nova Scotia mother says 6 year old daughter attempted suicide. Global News. http:// globalnews.ca/news/2719314/nova-scotia-mother-says-6-year-old-daughter-attempted-suicideafter-being-bullied/ Silver, K. 2018. Adolescence now lasts from 10 to 24. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42 732442 Silverman, D. 2020. Wearing a mask is not an impingement of human rights, it is an exercise of them. https://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2020/06/25/wearing-a-mask-is-not-an-impingementof-human-rights-it-is-an-exercise-of-them/ Silverman, W.K., and S.P. Hinshaw. 2008. The second special issue on evidence-based psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents: A ten-year update. Journal for Clinical Child Adolescent Psychology 37 (1). Silverstein, J. 2017. Times President Trump has publicly insulted poor people. New York Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/times-president-trump-publicly-insultedpoor-people-article-1.3268336 Sim, M. 2017. Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare. Think By Numbers. https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporatevssocial-welfare/ Simba, M. 2014, October 3. The three-fifth’s clause of the US Constitution (1787). Black Past. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/events-african-american-history/threefifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787/ Simmel, G. 1896. Superiority and subordination as subject matter of sociology. The American Journal of Sociology 2: 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1086/210600. Simmons, R. 2011. Odd girl out. Mariner Books. Simpson, G., and M. Yinger. 2013. Racial and cultural minorities. Springer. Simpson, R. 2008. Young adult development project. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http:// hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html Šimundić, A.M. 2013. Bias in research. Biochemia Medica 23 (1): 12–15. Singer, N., Kates, J., & Tolbert, J. 2021. COVID-19 and parental consent. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccination-and-parental-consent/ Singh, K. 2015. Cosmetic surgery in teenagers: To do or not to do. Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery 8 (1): 57–59. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.155091. Singh, P. 2021. Child tax credit payments are one of the best forms of government spending, economist says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/15/child-tax-credit-payments-one-ofthe-best-forms-of-government-spending-economist.html Sirin, S., L. Sirin, J. Cressen, T. Gupta, S. Ahmed, and A. Novoa. 2015. Discrimination related stress effects on the development of internalizing symptoms among Latino adolescents. Child Development 86 (3): 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12343. Sisson, J. 2019. 10 challenges that will define cities. https://archive.curbed.com/2019/1/2/181653 92/2019-cities-housing-transit-traffic-big-tech ———. 2020. Homeless people are among the most vulnerable to the coronavirus. Yale University. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/homeless-people-are-among-the-most-vulnerableto-the-coronavirus-yale-psychiatrys-lo-is-making-sure-they-still-receive-care-amid-thepandemic/ Sjoberg, G., and P.J. Miller. 1973. Social research on bureaucracy: Limitations and opportunities. Social Problems 21 (1): 129–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/799982. Sjoberg, G., E. Gill, and N. Williams. 2001. A sociology of human rights. Social problems 48 (1): 11–47. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2001.48.1.11. Skenary, L. 2010. Free range parentings. Jossey-Bass.

770

References

Skidmore, M., G. Anderson, and M. Eiswerth. 2012. The child adoption marketplace. Public Finance Review 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142114547412. Skinner, B.F. 1938. The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century Co. Sklar, R. 2018. Harry Potter inspired the Parkland generation. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/201 8/03/26/opinions/parkland-march-harry-potter-generation-opinion-sklar/index.html Slaby, M. 2021. Critical race theory. Indianapolis Star. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/ education/2021/06/23/critical-race-theory-todd-rokita-releases-parents-bill-rights/5323523001/ Slaughter, A. 2017. 3 responsibilities every government has towards its citizens. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/government-responsibility-to-citizens-annemarie-slaughter/ Slopen, N., J. Shonkoff, M. Albert, H. Yoshikawa, A. Jacobs, R. Stoltz, and D. Williams. 2016. Racial disparities in child adversity in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50 (1): 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.06.013. Sloth-Nielsen, J. 1995. Ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child: Some implications for South African law. South African Journal on Human Rights 11 (3): 401– 420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.1995.11827573. ———. 2020. Sideswipes and backhanders: Abolition of the reasonable chastisement defence in South Africa. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 34 (2): 191–203. https://doi. org/10.1093/lawfam/ebaa005. Slovak, K. 2002. Gun violence and children: Factors related to exposure and trauma. Health and Social Work 27 (2): 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/27.2.104. Slye, R.C. 1994. Human rights in theory and practice: A review of on human rights. Fordham International Law Journal 18 (4) https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti cle=1444&context=ilj. Sluss, D., and O. Jarrett. 2007. Investigating play in the 21st century. University Press of America. Smeeding, T., and C. Thévenot. 2016. Addressing child poverty: How does the United States compare with other nations? Academic Pediatrics 16: S67–S75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap. 2016.01.011. Smith, B. 2012. The case against spanking. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa. org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx Smith, D. 2016. Because I’m the Mommy, that’s why. Extraordinary Mommy. http://www. extraordinarymommy.com/because-im-the-mommy-thats-why/ Smith, D.L. 2011. Less than human: Why we demean, enslave and exterminate others. St. Martin’s Press. Smith, E. 2013. Social connections make a better brain. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ health/archive/2013/10/social-connection-makes-a-better-brain/280934/ Smith, K.M. 2014. The government of childhood. Discourse, power and subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, S. 2022. Authority over children. Open Bible. https://www.openbible.info/topics/authority_ over_your_children Smith, T. 2021. All you need to know about child poverty. First Focus. https://firstfocus.org/blog/allyou-need-to-know-about-child-poverty-in-one-simple-chart Smoller, J. 2013. 5 major mental illnesses share genetic roots. National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/archive/news/2013/five-major-mental-disorders-share-genetic-roots Smucker, J. 2012. Encapsulation. Jonathan Smucker.org. https://jonathansmucker.org/2012/06/20/ encapsulation/ Snape, E., and T. Redman. 2003. Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age discrimination. Human Resource Management Journal 13 (1): 78–89. Snehal. 2020. Theories of human rights. Legal Raj. https://legalraj.com/articles-details/theories-ofhuman-rights Snell, M. 2019. Role and importance of children in the Middle Ages. https://www.thoughtco.com/ medieval-child-introduction-1789121

References

771

Snow, D.A. 2008. Elaborating the discursive contexts of framing. Discursive fields and spaces. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 30 (3–2). Snow, D.A., P.B. Owens, and A.E. Tan. 2014. Libraries, social movements, and cultural change: Toward an alternative conceptualization of culture. Social Currents 1 (1): 35–43. Soboroff, J. 2020. Separated: Inside an American tragedy. Custom House. Social Science Libre Text. 2020. Evaluating and comparing lifespan theories. https://socialsci. libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_Lifespan_Development_(Lumen)/05%3 A_Module_2_Developmental_Theories/5.13%3A_Comparing_and_Evaluating_Lifespan_ Theories Soleander, A. 2021. From cutting child poverty to praising middle class, republicans meet Biden’s easy applause li nes with sile nce. Forbes. https ://www .forbes .com/s ites/ andrewsolender/2021/04/28/from-cutting-child-poverty-to-praising-middle-class-republicansmeet-bidens-easy-applause-lines-with-silence/?sh=1fdc62f70ab9 Solloway, M. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: Trauma’s impact on children’s minds and bodies [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA, United States. Solloway, M., and R. Stahl. 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic and the globalization of trauma: A case for health care as a human right. In Globalisation, Ideology and Human Rights, ed. J. Zajda and Y. Vissing. Springer. Solmi, M., M. Fornaro, E.G. Ostinelli, C. Zangani, G. Croatto, F. Monaco, D. Krinitski, P. Fusaroli, and C.U. Correll. 2020. Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/ hyperactivity medications and mood stabilisers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: A large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects. World Psychiatry 19 (2): 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20765. Soloman, A. 2022. The mystifying rise of child suicide. New Yorker Magazine. https://www. newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/11/the-mystifying-rise-of-child-suicide Solomon, P.L., M.M. Cavanaugh, and R.J. Gelles. 2005. Family violence among adults with severe mental illness: A neglected area of research. Trauma, Violence and Abuse 6 (1): 40–54. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/26636654. Sommers, M. 2006. Youth and conflict. Child Rights International Network. https://www.crin.org/ en/docs/edu_youth_conflict.pdf Sommerville, C. 1982. The rise and fall of childhood. Vintage. Sooney, P. 2007. What happened in 1989? LikeTotally80s. http://www.liketotally80s.com/2007/0 8/80s-capsules-1989/ Sørenson, A. 1986. Theory and methodology in social stratification. In The sociology of structure and action, ed. U. Himmelstrad. New York: Sage. Sorokin, P. 1959a. Social and cultural mobility. The Free Press. Sorokin, P.A. 1959b. Social and cultural mobility. Collier-Macmillan. Sosa, L.V., and R. Nuckolls. 2018. School social workers: A call to action in support of human rights. International Journal of School Social Work 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.4148/2161-4148. 1038. Souter, E. 2016. 11 Nursery rhymes that children should never hear. Cafe Mom. http://thestir. cafemom.com/being_a_mom/151699/11_beloved_nursery_rhymes_that South Dakota State Legislature. 2021. Parent rights. https://sdlegislature.gov/ Southern Poverty Law Center. 2016. Alex Jones. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremistfiles/individual/alex-jones ———. 2021. Anti-LGBTQ. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antilgbtq ———. 2023. Hate map. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map Sparks, S. 2019. We’re teaching consent all wrong. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-learning/were-teaching-consent-all-wrong/2019/01

772

References

Sparks, T. 2021. Spain’s progressive paternity leave leads Europe. Barcelona Metropolitan. https:// www.barcelona-metropolitan.com/living/family/spain-progressive-paid-paternity-leave-leadseurope/ Spear, L. 2013. Adolescent neurodevelopment. Journal of Adolescent Health 52 (2): 7–13. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.006. Spear, L.P. 2000. Neurobehavioral changes in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 111–114. Spector, C. 2020. School systems make criminals out of black youth. Stanford News. https://news. stanford.edu/2020/06/18/school-systems-make-criminals-black-youth/ Spink, P. 1999. What is reasonable chastisement? Law Society of Scotland. https://www.lawscot. org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-44-issue-06/what-is-reasonable-chastisement/ Spink, P., & Spink, S. 1999. Reasonable chastisement. Law Society of Scotland. https://www. lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-44-issue-06/what-is-reasonable-chastisement/ Spock, B. 1946. The common sense book of baby and child care. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce. Sprang, G., and J. Cole. 2018. Familial sex trafficking of minors: Trafficking conditions, clinical presentation, and system involvement. Journal of Family Violence 33 (3): 185–195. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-018-9950-y. Spyrou, S. 2017. Time to decenter childhood. Childhood 24 (4): 433–437. Staerklé, C., A. Clémence, and D. Spini. 2015. Asocial psychology of human rights rooted in asymmetric intergroup relations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 21: 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000088. Stainton, K. 2015. The word kids. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/ the-word-kids_n_7329494.html Stainton, L. 2022. While some tire of COVID-19, cases and deaths in children rise. NJ Spotlight News. https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/01/covid-19-coronavirus-omicron-variant-njchild-cases-deaths/ Stainton-Rogers, W., and R. Stainton-Rogers. 1992. Stories of childhood. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Stalford, H., and L. Lundy. 2020. The field of children’s rights: Taking stock, travelling forward. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 28 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 15718182-02801010. Staltzman, A. 2015. Got kids? Find another place to live. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ got-kids-find-another-place-to-live-1.3233761 Stammers, N. 1999. Social movements and the social construction of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly 21 (4): 980–1008. http://www.jstor.org/stable/762754. ———. 2003. Social movements, human rights, and the challenge to power. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 97: 299–301. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/25659873. Stanca, L. 2016. The geography of parenthood and well-being: Do children make us happy, where, and why? In World happiness report 2016, ed. J. Helliwell, R. Layard, and J. Sachs, vol. I. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/. Stancati, M., and N. Bisserbe. 2020. Despite the coronavirus surge, European schools stay open. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-coronavirus-surge-europeanschools-stay-open-11605349800. Stanford Medicine. 2022. Accident statistics. https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default? id=accident-statistics-90-P02853 Stanovich, K. 2021. The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. MIT Press. Starr, T. J. 2010. 7 year old boy commits suicide. News One. http://newsone.com/2017321/7-yearold-boy-commits-suicide/ Startz, D. 2016. Schools, black children and corporal punishment. Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/01/14/schools-black-children-and-corpo ral-punishment/

References

773

State of Rhode Island Office of the Child Advocate. n.d. Child advocacy in Rhode Island: A guide to the Rhode Island family court and child welfare system. http://www.childadvocate.ri.gov/ documents/Child%20Advocate%20Handbook.pdf Statham, J. 1997. Day care for children in need: Universal provision or a targeted service? Early Child Development and Care 136 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443971360101. Statistica. 2017. Proportion of selected age groups of world population in 2017. https://www. statista.com/statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/ ———. 2018. What American teens spend money on. https://www.statista.com/statistics/286937/ us-teen-spending-share-by-category/ ———. 2020. Child abuse in the US. https://www.statista.com/topics/5910/child-abuse-in-theunited-states/ Stearns, C. 2022. Consent in the classroom. Routledge. Stearns, P.N. 2008. Challenges in the history of childhood. Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth 1 (1): 35–42. ———. 2011. Childhood in world history. 2nd ed. Routledge. ———. 2016. Childhood in world history. 3rd ed. Routledge. Stebbins, S., & Frohlich, T. 2015. Countries spending the most on health care. USA Today. http:// www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/14/24-7-wall-st-countries-spend-mosthealth-care/75771044/ Stein, J. 2005. Natural law, natural philosophy, natural rights. Reason and Respect 2 (1) https:// docs.rwu.edu/rr/vol1/iss2/1. Steinberg, S., and J. Kincheloe, eds. 1997. Kinderculture: The corporate construction of childhood. Westview. Steindl, C., and E. Jonas. 2012. What reasons might the other one have? Perspective taking to reduce psychological reactance in individualists and collectivists. Psychology 3 (12A): 1153–1160. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.312A170. Steindl, C., E. Jonas, S. Sittenthaler, E. Traut-Mattausch, and J. Greenberg. 2015. Understanding psychological reactance: New Developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 223 (4): 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222. Steiner, H. 1994. An essay on rights. Blackwell. Steinour, H. 2018. Cost of raising a child has soared. Market Watch. https://www.marketwatch. com/story/these-5-charts-show-how-expensive-it-is-to-raise-children-today-2018-03-29 Stellmacher, J., G. Sommer, and E. Brähler. 2005. The cognitive representation of human rights: Knowledge, importance, and commitment. Peace and Conflict 11: 267–292. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15327949pac1103_4. Stenner, P. 2011. Subjective dimensions of human rights: What do ordinary people understand by “human rights”? International Journal of Human Rights 15: 1215–1233. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13642987.2010.511997. Stepfamily Foundation. 2016. Stepfamily statistics. http://www.stepfamily.org/stepfamily-statistics. html Stephens, S. 1995. Children and the politics of culture. Princeton University Press. Stern, A. 2020. Forced sterilization policies in US targeted at minorities and those with disabilities. The Conversation. https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minori ties-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st Stern, M. 2014. Is religion good for children? Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_ science/science/2014/07/is_religion_good_for_children_secular_children_can_distinguish_ between_magic.html Sternheimer, K. 2010. Childhood in American society. Allyn and Bacon. Sterns, P. 2016. History of human rights. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge.

774

References

Stevenson, E.G.J., and C.M. Worthman. 2014. Child well-being: Anthropological perspectives. In Handbook of child well-being, ed. A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, and J. Korbin. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-8_20%20. Steyer, J. 2015. Kids must be our nation’s top priority. Common Sense. https://www. commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/blog/kids-must-be-our-nations-top-priority Stillman, J. 2018. A 70-Year study of 70,000 children says this is the secret to raising successful kids. Inc. https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/scientists-followed-thousands-of-kids-for-70years-this-is-biggest-takeaway-for-parents.html Stirler, G. 2013. Children’s lives in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Chivalry Sports, Inc. http:// stores.renstore.com/history-and-biography/childrens-lives-in-the-middle-ages-and-the-renais sance#.Vsi9C0D6Ug7 Stockard, S. 2021. Republican lawmakers threaten to dissolve the health department over child vaccines. Tennessee Lookout. https://tennesseelookout.com/2021/06/17/republican-Law makers-threaten-to-dissolve-health-department-over-chil Stoltz, D.S. 2021. Becoming a dominant misinterpreted source: The case of Ferdinand de Saussure in cultural sociology. Journal of Classical Sociology 21 (1): 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468795X19896056. Stone, L. 2021. The minimum voting age should be zero. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/09/01/opinion/politics/kids-right-to-vote.html Stop Bullying. 2021. LGBTQ youth. https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/lgbtq ———. 2022. Bullying. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/facts Story, M., and S. French. 2004. Food advertising and marketing directed at children and adolescents in the US. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 1 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-1-3. Strane, D. 2020. Millions of children have lost healthcare: What’s our plan? Health Affairs. https:// www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200729.620204/full/ Straus, M. 2013. The primordial violence: Spanking children, psychological development, violence, and crime. Routledge. Straus, M.A. 2001. Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. Transaction Publishers. Straus, M.A., E.M. Douglas, and R.A. Medeiros. 2014. The primordial violence: Spanking children, psychological development, violence, and crime. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Straus, M., R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz. 2006. Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Routledge. Strauss, V. 2013. The failures of for-profit K-12 schools. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/04/the-failures-of-for-profit-k-12schools/ ———. 2014a. 19 states still allow corporal punishment in schools. The Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/18/19-states-still-allow-corporalpunishment-in-school/ ———. 2014b. 6 reasons to reject common core. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/02/6-reasons-to-reject-common-core-k-3standards-and-6-axioms-to-guide-policy/?utm_term=.62b421817983 ———. 2016, July 14. Why the movement to privatize public education is a very bad idea. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/07/14/whythe-movement-to-privatize-public-education-is-a-very-bad-idea/ ———. 2020. New federal data shows Black preschoolers still disciplined at far higher rates than whites. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/11/26/newfederal-data-shows-black-preschoolers-still-disciplined-far-higher-rates-than-whites/ ———. 2021. Why parent rights in schools is untenable. Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/28/parental-rights-in-schools-untenable/ Streib, V. 2004. The juvenile death penalty today. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-juveniles-us-and-other-countries

References

775

Stringer, H. 2017. Justice for teens. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ monitor/2017/10/justice-teens Stroh, D. 2015. Systems thinking for social change. Chelsea Green Publishing. Struthers, A. 2016. Human rights: A topic too controversial for mainstream education? Human Rights Law Review 16 (1): 131–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv040. Student Aid.Gov. 2022. The Biden-Harris administration’s student debt relief plan explained. https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement/ Student Voice. 2018. Student voice. https://www.studentvoiceindex.org/ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2021. Child trauma. https://www. samhsa.gov/child-trauma/understanding-child-trauma Sullivan, A. 2021a. Let it rip. https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/let-it-rip-f9c ———. 2021b. Out on a limb: Selected writing. Simon and Schuster. Sullivan, M. 1987. Sociology and social welfare. 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780429468537. ———. 1992. The politics of social policy. Hempsted: Harvester. ———. 1992. The politics of social policy. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Sumida, M. 2004. Places of belonging for children and the clinical sociology of education. Journal of Educational Sociology 74: 93–109. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/eds1951/74/0/74_0_ 93/_article. Summers, J. 2021. Baby 11 month old snowboarder. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ femail/article-10220951/Baby-11-months-takes-internet-storm-masters-snowboarding.html Suskind, D., & Denworth, L. 2022. US kids are falling behind global competition. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-kids-are-falling-behind-global-com petition-but-brain-science-shows-how-to-catch-up/ Sutherland, E.H., D.R. Cressey, and D.F. Luckenbill. 1992. Principles of criminology. Lippincott. Swearer, S. 2015. Understanding the psychology of bullying. American Psychologist, May–June, 344–353. Sweeny, K. 2010. Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology 14 (4): 340–353. Swendiman, K. 2010. Healthcare: Constitutional rights and pegislative Powers. Congressional Research Services. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40846.pdf Swenninger, S. 2010. The American social contract. https://www.newamerica.org/economicgrowth/policypapers/the-american-social-contract/ Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, L. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 2010. Early childhood matters. Routledge. Szulc, A. & Cohn, C. 2012. Anthropology and childhood in South America: Perspectives from Brazil and Argentina. AnthropoChildren. https://popups.uliege.be/2034-8517/index.php? id=427 Tajfel, H., and J.C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 33 (47): 74. Takis, Fotopoulos. 2005. From (Mis)education to Paideia. International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1085566032000074931. Tanden, N. 2020a. A new contract for the 21st century. American Progress. https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/ext/2020/06/23/486740/new-social-contract-21st-century/ ———. 2020b. A new social contract for the 21st century. Democracy Journal. https:// democracyjournal.org/magazine/a-new-social-contract-for-the-21st-century/ Tankersley, J. 2021. Biden proposes $6 trillion plan. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. com/2021/05/27/business/economy/biden-plan.html Tankiwala, S. 2014. The harmful effects of prejudice and discrimination. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Taptalga, A. 2020. Why were American children sold for $2 after WWII? History of Yesterday. https://historyofyesterday.com/why-were-american-children-sold-for-2-after-wwii-f68640e3 8d1

776

References

Tashman, B. 2017. Student rights at school. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/ blog/juvenilejustice/student-rights-school-six-things-you-need-know Tatter, G. 2018. Consent at every age. Harvard University. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/1 8/12/consent-every-age Taub, S. 2003. Learning to decide: Involving children in their health care decisions. Virtual Mentor 5 (8): 255–256. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2003.5.8.pfor3-0308. Taxslayer. 2021. Taxes for teens. https://www.taxslayer.com/blog/teen-filing-first-tax-return/ Taylor, B. 2019. Intersectionality: What it is and why it is important. Womankind. https://www. womankind.org.uk/intersectionality-101-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-important/ Taylor, N., and A. Smith. 2009. Children as citizens? International voices. University of Otago Press. Teach Thought. 2017. The 10 youngest college students of all time. http://www.teachthought.com/ uncategorized/the-10-youngest-college-students-of-all-time/ TEDx Talks. 2015, March 30. Beyond the gender binary Margaret Nichols - TedxJerseyCity [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MUIYlaWVUk Teicher, M.H., and G.D. Vitaliano. 2011. Witnessing violence toward siblings: an understudied but potent form of early adversity. PLoS One 6 (12): e28852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0028852. Telegraph Men. 2016. Tall men earn more and are more attractive. The Telegraph. http://www. telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11615756/Tall-men-earn-more-are-more-attractive-and-havehealthier-hearts.html Telford and Wrekin Council. 2020. Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). https:// www.telfordsend.org.uk/download/downloads/id/1259/tandw_send_provision_ matrix_2021.pdf Temin, P. 2017. The vanishing middle class. MIT Press. Teplin, L.A., G.M. McClelland, K.M. Abram, and D.A. Weiner. 2005. Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness: Comparison with the National Crime Victimization Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 62 (8): 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.8.911. PMID: 16061769; PMCID: PMC1389236. Thagard, P. 2018. How fear leads to anger. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ us/blog/hot-thought/201811/how-fear-leads-anger Thakrar, A., A. Forrest, M. Malenfort, and C. Forrest. 2018. Child mortality in the US and in 19 OECD comparator nations: A 50 year analysis. Health Affairs 37 (1): 140–149. https://doi.org/ 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0767. The Adoption History Project. n.d. Timeline of adoption history. University of Oregon. https:// pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/timeline.html. The Economist. 2010. Gendercide: The worldwide war on baby girls. http://www.economist.com/ node/15636231 The Hill. 2018. Police need more mental health training. https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/201 8/02/police-need-mental-health-training/ The National Child Traumatic Stress Network Complex Trauma. 2020. Complex trauma. https:// www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-types/complex-trauma The United Nations. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series 1577: 3. http://www. ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx. Thomas, G.M. 2021. A legacy of silence: the intersections of medical sociology and disability studies. Med Humanity 48 (1). https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2021-012198. Thomas, C. 2020. Inclusive schools build inclusive societies. Brookings. https://www.brookings. edu/blog/education-plus-development/2020/07/02/inclusive-schools-build-inclusive-societies/ Thomson, D., and R. Ryberg. 2022. Lessons learned from a historic decline in child poverty. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/lessons-from-a-historic-decline-inchildpoverty Thomas, N. 2000. Children, family and state. Macmillan.

References

777

Thomas, N.A., K.C. Hanson, and B.B. Gran. 2011. An independent voice for children’s rights in Europe? The role of independent children’s rights institutions in the EU. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (3): 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181811X584550. Thomas, W.I. 1928. The child in America. Knopf. Thomas, W.I., and D.S. Thomas. 1928. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. Knopf. Thompson, D. 2009. Is nursing viable as an academic discipline? Nurse Education Today 29 (7): 694–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.03.007. ———. 2021a. Why America’s institutions are failing. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ideas/archive/2020/06/why-americas-institutions-are-failing/613078/ ———. 2022. Why American teens are so sad. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ newsletters/archive/2022/04/american-teens-sadness-depression-anxiety/629524/ Thompson, R. 2021b. Race, equity and bias in early childhood. Zero to Three. https://www. zerotothree.org/resources/4196-race-equity-bias-and-early-childhood-examining-the-research Thomson, D. 2021. Federal relief efforts protected millions of children from poverty. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/blog/federal-relief-efforts-protected-millions-of-children-frompoverty Thorne v. Deas, 4 Johns. 84 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1809. Thorne, B. 2007. Crafting the interdisciplinary field of childhood studies. Childhood 14 (2): 147–152. Thorne, S. 2018. In search of our collective voice. Nursing Inquiry 25 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ nin.12266. Thorpe, T. 2013. The ideal vs the real America. TamaraThrope.com. https://tamarathorpe.com/theideal-vs-the-real-america-how-to-close-the-cultural-divide/ Thunberg, G. 2020. No one is too small to make a difference. Penguin. Tiano, S. 2021. Federal watchdogs find abuse at for-profit youth residential programs. Imprint News. https://imprintnews.org/top-stories/federal-watchdogs-find-widespread-abuse-at-youthresidential-programs/60071?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery Tibbitts, F. 2014. Human rights education here and now: U.S. practices and international processes. Journal of International Social Studies. 4 (2). Tik Root. 2021. The baby brokers: Inside America’s murky private adoption industry. Time. https:// time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/ Tilly, C. 1978. From mobilization to revolution. Addison Wesley. Time to Change. 2018. Violence and mental health. https://www.time-to-change.org.uk/mediacentre/responsible-reporting/violence-mental-health-problems Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1969. Tisdall, E.K.M., and S. Punch. 2012. Not so “new”? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies 10: 249–264. Tisdall, K., J. Davis, M. Hill, and A. Prout. 2006. Children, young people and social inclusion: Participation for what? Policy Press. Tisdall, K. 2017. Applying human rights to children’s participation in research. In Seen and heard: Exploring participation, engagement and voice for children with disabilities, ed. M. Twomey and C. Carroll. Peter Lang Publishing Group. ———. 2022, June 22–24. Learning from Scotland: The journey to incorporating the UNCRC. [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Tisdall, K., J. Davis, and M. Gallagher. 2008. Researching with children and young people. Sage. Tobin, J. 2013. Justifying children’s rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 21 (3): 395–441. ———. 2016. Fixed concepts but changing perceptions: Understanding the relationship between children and parents in the CRC. In Handbook of Children’s Rights: Global and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge.

778

References

Todres, J. 2006. Analyzing the opposition to U.S. ratification of the U.N. convention on the rights of the child. In The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: An analysis of treaty provisions and implications of U.S. ratification, ed. J. Todres, M. Wojcik, and C.R. Revaz. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9781571053633.i-376.13. ———. 2016. Children’s rights and women’s rights: Interrelated and interdependent. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. PetersonBadali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. ———. 2022, June 22–24. Keynote: Making children‘s rights widely known [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Todres, J., and A. Diaz. 2017. Adolescents’ right to participate: Opportunities and challenges for health care professionals. Annals of Global Health 83 (5–6): 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aogh.2017.10.019. Toldson, I. 2019. No bs (bad stats). Brill. Tomar, D. 2018. Death of recess in America. The Best Schools. https://thebestschools.org/ magazine/death-of-recess/ Tönnies, F. 1957. Community & society (gemeinschaft und gesellschaft). Michigan State University Press. Torchinsky, R. 2022. An unrelenting assault on trans youth is taking its mental toll. NPR. https:// www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082975946/anti-trans-bills-texas Totenberg, N. 2021. Supreme court rules cheerleader’s f-bombs are protected by the first amendment. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-Cheerleaders-fbombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment Townsend, D., L.K. Taylor, C.E. Merrilees, et al. 2020. Youth in Northern Ireland: Linking violence exposure, emotional insecurity, and the political macrosystem. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 85 (4): 7–123. Tragester, C. 2020. 6 youth led political movements to inspire you. Commonsense Media. https:// www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/6-youth-led-political-movements-to-inspire-you-to-vote Trattner, W.I. 1970. Crusade for the children. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Crusade-forthe-children-Trattner/508ec2114cddae13e0331d4bc1500f2c477bdfca Trembly, M. 2020. Primary substance abuse prevention programs for youth: A systematic review. Pediatrics 146 (3). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2747. Trent, M., D.G. Dooley, and J. Dougé. 2019. The Impact of Racism on Child and Adolescent Health. Pediatrics 144 (2): e20191765. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1765. Treseder, P. 1997. Empowering children and young people training manual: Promoting involvement in decision-making. Save the Children. Triyaspodo, K., N. Daulima, and I. Wardani. 2019. History of violence performed by family on people with mental illness. Enfermeria Clinica 29 (2): 346–359. https://www.elsevier.es/esrevista-enfermeria-clinica-35-pdf-S1130862119301421. Truman, J., Langton, L, & Planty, M. 2013. Criminal victimization, 2012. Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf Trust for America’s Health. 2018. The value of prevention. https://www.tfah.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/02/The-Value-of-Prevention.pdf Tsutsui, K., C. Whitlinger, and L. Alwyn. 2012. International human rights law and social movements: States’ resistance and civil society’s insistence. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8 (1): 367–396. Tucker, L. 2000. Fingers to the bone: United States failure to protect child farmworkers. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/reports/frmwrk006.pdf Tucker, C.J., D. Finkelhor, A.M. Shattuck, and H. Turner. 2013. Prevalence and correlates of sibling victimization types. Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (4): 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2013.01.006. Epub 2013 Feb 18. PMID: 23428164. Turgay, A., and R. Ansari. 2006. Major depression with ADHD: In children and adolescents. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 3 (4): 20–32.

References

779

Turkel, G. 1988. The public/private distinction: Approaches to the critique of legal ideology. Law and Society Review 22 (4): 801–823. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053710. Turmel, A. 2008. A historical sociology of childhood: Developmental thinking, categorization and graphic visualization. Cambridge University Press. Turner, B. 1993. Outline of a theory of human rights. Sociology 27 (3): 489–512. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0038038593027003009. Turner, C. 2022. When colleges defraud students, should the government go after executives? NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1062679587/for-profit-colleges-student-loan-borrowers-fraud Turner, J. 1985. Sociology: The science of human organization. Nelson-Hall. Turner, R., Killian, L., & Smelser, N. 1971. Social movement. In Britannica.com encyclopedia. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-movement Turner, S.M., & Matthews, G.B. (Eds.). 1998. The philosopher’s child. University of Rochester. Tuttle, C. 2022. Children of the Industrial Revolution. Oxford Bibliographies. https://www. oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-01 97.xml Tutton, M. 2017. 40 million slaves in the world. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/world/ global-slavery-estimates-ilo/index.html Twaibu, W. 2015. Children, youth and armed conflict. World Report News. http://www. worldreportnews.com/africa/children-youth-and-armed-conflict-how-youth-participation-inarmed-conflict-has-prevented-peace-in-africa-as-shown-by-a-case-study-in-northern-uganda Twenge, J., and H. Park. 2019. A decline of adult activities in adolescents. Child Development 90 (2): 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12930. Twigg, M. 2017. Where plastic is fantastic. Business of Fashion. https://www.businessoffashion. com/articles/global-currents/where-plastic-is-fantastic-the-worlds-cosmetic-surgery-capitals Twose, G., and C. Cohrs. 2015. Psychology and human rights. Peace and conflict. Journal of Peace Psychology 21 (2): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000087. Twum-Danso, I.A., M. Bourdillon, and S. Meichsner. 2019. Global childhoods beyond the NorthSouth divide. Springer. Tyler, M. 2015. Understanding the adolescent brain and legal culpability. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_ practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/august-2015/understanding-the-adolescent-brainand-legal-culpability/ Uchitel, J., E. Alden, Z. Bhutta, J. Goldhagen, A. Pradhan, N. Shanti Raman, N. Spencer, D. Wertlieb, J. Wettach, S. Woolfenden, and M. Mikati. 2019. The rights of children for optimal development and nurturing care. Pediatrics 144 (6): e20190487. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds. 2019-0487. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Child Maltreatment 2010. Government Printing Office. UN Dispatch. 2020. How every country ranks on child safety. https://www.undispatch.com/here-ishow-every-country-ranks-on-child-safety/ UN Women. 2016. Child protection systems. Virtual Knowledge Centre to End Violence against Women and Girls. https://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/1727-child-protection-systems.html Underhill, M. 2018. Police calls for living while black. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ post-nation/wp/2018/07/20/pothe-criminalization-of-blackness-and-what-we-can-do-aboutit/? utm_term=.9ec64499126e UNESCO 2015a. Out of school children data release 2015. http://goo.gl/nsrZ54 ———. 2012. World atlas gender equality in education 2012. http://goo.gl/PXCxnK ———. 2015b. Education for all 2000-2015: Achieves and challenges. https://en.unesco.org/gemreport/report/2015/education-all-2000-2015-achievements-and-challenges ———. 2020. Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/ educationresponse ———. n.d.. Promote quality physical education policy. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/ MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/pes_infographic.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-16,476

780

References

Ungar, M. 2014. Working with children and youth with complex needs. Routledge. UNICEF 2020a. Worlds of influence. https://www.unicef.org/reports/worlds-influence-whatshapes-child-well-being-rich-countries-2020 ———. 2020b. Child friendly communities handbook. https://www.unicef.org/eap/reports/childfriendly-cities-and-communitieshandbook UNICEF USA. 2022. Child trafficking. https://www.unicefusa.org/child-trafficking-us UNICEF. 2006a. Neglect and stigmatization can result in exclusion for children with disabilities. https://www.unicef.org/sowc06/profiles/disabilities.php ———. 2006b. Respecting children: A handbook on growing up without violence. https://www. unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/Respecting%20Children.pdf ———. 2007. Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf ———. 2009. Secretary General’s guidance note on the common approach to justice for children. http://uni.cf/1fxMIXu ———. 2012a. Children are full human beings in their own right. https://sites.unicef.org/cwc/cwc_ 58611.html ———. 2012b. The state of the world’s children: Children in an urban world. https://www.unicef. org/sowc2012/ ———. 2013. Sustainable development starts and ends with safe, healthy and well-educated children. https://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Sustainable_Development_post_2015.pdf ———. 2014. A statistical snapshot of violence against adolescent girls. http://uni.cf/12DhdEo ———. 2015a. Child brides. http://www.unicef.org/media/media_68114.html ———. 2015b. Definition of child. http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30229.html ———. 2015c. Reimagine the future: Innovation for every child. http://www.unicef.org/ publications/files/SOWC_2015_Summary_and_Tables.pdf ———. 2015d. The state of the world’s children 2015: Reimagine the future. https://www.unicef. org/wcaro/english/SOWC_2015_Executive_20Summary_20web.pdf ———. 2016a. Behind closed doors. https://www.unicef.org/media/files/BehindClosedDoors.pdf ———. 2016b. Female genital mutilation/cutting: A global concern. https://data.unicef.org/ resources/female-genital-mutilationcutting-global-concern/ ———. 2016c. Leisure time activities. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/leisure-time-activities/ ———. 2018a. Female genital mutilation. https://www.unicef.org/protection/57929_58002.html ———. 2018b. Restorative justice. https://www.unicef.org/tdad/index_56370.html ———. 2020a. Worlds of influence. https://www.unicef.org/reports/worlds-influence-what-shapeschild-wellbeing-rich-countries-2020 ———. 2020b. Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020. https://www. unicef.org/media/70731/file/Global-status-report-on-preventing-violence-againstchildren-2020.pdf ———. 2020c. History of child rights. https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/historychild-rights ———. 2020d. Rights respecting schools. https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/ ———. 2021a. Child friendly cities. https://childfriendlycities.org/ ———. 2021b. Education under attack. https://www.unicef.org/education-under-attack ———. 2022a. The climate crisis is a child rights crisis. https://www.unicef.org/reports/climatecrisis-child-rights-crisis ———. 2022b. Child protection. https://www.unicef.org/child-protection ———. 2023. Education: Every child has a right to learn. https://www.unicef.org/education United for Human Rights. n.d.. What are human rights? [Video]. https://www.humanrights.com/ what-are-human-rights/ United Nations Development Program. 2013. Enhancing youth political participation through the electoral cycle. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Democratic%20Governance/ Electoral%20Systems%20and%20Processes/ENG_UN-Youth_Guide-LR.pdf

References

781

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2017. Handbook on children recruited and exploited by terrorist and violent extremist groups. https://www.unodc.org United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. 1966. International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ CESCR.aspx United Nations Office of Drug and Crime. 2015. Report of the secretary-general: State of crime and criminal justice worldwide. https://goo.gl/rC4e0q United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2016. Flint: Not just about water but human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx? NewsID=19917&LangID=E ———. 2019. The global climate crisis is a child rights crisis. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Call/NGOs/WorldVisionInputs2.pdf ———. 2020. The impact of climate change on the rights of the child. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/RightsChild.aspx ———. 2022. Homelessness and human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/housing/pages/ homelessnessandhumanrights.aspx United Nations Office of the High Commissioner. 2021. Operationalizing the new social contract. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SDGS/Pages/Workshop-Operationalizing-New-Social-Con tract.aspx United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2019. The global climate crisis is a child rights crisis. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/ Call/NGOs/WorldVisionInputs2.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2000. United Nations convention against transnational organized crime and the protocols thereto. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/ index.html#Fulltext ———. 2014. World drug report: 2014. http://bit.ly/1sILm15 ———. 2017. Handbook on children recruited and exploited by terrorist and violent extremist groups. https://www.unodc.org United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 2021. A new eco-social contract. www. unrisd.org United Nations. 1948. Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/ universal-declaration-of-human-rights ———. 2003. Youth health report. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/ch04.pdf ———. 2014a. #Youth stats: Public and political participation. Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth. https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/political-participation/ ———. 2014b. World day against child labor. http://www.un.org/en/events/childlabourday/ background.shtml ———. 2015. Youth statistics on education. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/youth-statisticseducation ———. 2016. Substance abuse. http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/substance-abuse/ ———. 2018. 2018 Day of General Discussion; protecting and empowering children as rights defenders. https://www.ohchr.org/en/events/days-general-discussion-dgd/2018/2018-day-gen eral-discussion-protecting-andempowering ———. 2020. A new social contract for a new world. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ a-new-social-contract-for-a-new-era/ ———. 2021. United Nations charter, full text. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/fulltext ———. 2022. Sustainable goals: End poverty. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ poverty/ ———. n.d.-a #Youthstats: Information and communication technology. http://www.un.org/ youthenvoy/information-communication-technology/ ———. n.d.-b. Fact sheet on youth: Juvenile justice. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/ documents/wyr11/FactSheetonYouthandJuvenileJustice.pdf

782

References

United States Census Bureau. 2010a. Age and sex composition: 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/ cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf ———. 2010b. Population briefs. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf ———. 2011. Age and sex composition: 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010 br-03.pdf ———. 2012. Nearly 1 in 5 people have a disability in the U.S., Census Bureau reports. https:// www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html ———. 2014. Annual estimates of the resident population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. http://www.census.gov/popest/ data/national/asrh/2013/index.html ———. 2020. 2020 Census LGBTQ. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/2020census-lgbtq.html United States Courts. 2020. Facts and case summary: In re Gault. https://www.uscourts.gov/ educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-re-gault United States Department of Education. 2013. Curriculum and content standards. http://www.ed. gov/international/usnei/edlite-index.html ———. 2023. Structure of the U.S. education system: Curriculum and content standards. http:// www.ed.gov/international/usnei/edlite-index.html United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2018. The changing face of America’s adolescents. https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-stats/changing-face-of-americas-adoles cents/index.html United States Department of Justice. 2007. Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf ———. 2011. National crime victimization survey 2010. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ cv10.pdf ———. 2016a. Combating religious discrimination and protection religions freedom. https:// www.justice.gov/crt/combating-religious-discrimination-and-protecting-religious-freedom-20 ———. 2016b. Sexual abuse. https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics? AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 United States Ombudsman Association. 2023. What we do. https://www.usombudsman.org/ University of Iowa. 2015. Child labor. https://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_ labor/about/what_is_child_labor.html University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Library. 2022. Human rights library. http://hrlibrary. umn.edu/ University of Washington School of Social Work. 2018. Facts about mental illness and violence. http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php Uno, K.S. 1999. Passages to modernity: Motherhood, childhood, and social reform in early Twentieth Century Japan. University Press of Hawaii. Uprichard, E. 2008. Children as ‘being and becomings’: Children, childhood and temporality. Children and Society 22: 303–313. Upshaw, M.B., C.R. Kaiser, and J.A. Sommerville. 2015. Parents’ empathic perspective taking and altruistic behavior predicts infants’ arousal to others’ emotions. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00360. PMID: 25883577; PMCID: PMC4382976. Urban Child Institute. 2021. Why 0-3? The environment of a child’s earliest years can have effects that last a lifetime. http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/why-0-3 US Chamber of Commerce. 2017. The opportunity project: A new social contract for a changing world. www.uschamberfoundation.org US Council of Mayors. 2020. Make housing ore affordable. https://www.usmayors.org/2020vision/make-housing-more-affordable-and-address-homelessness US Department of Agriculture. 2020. Ergot: the psychoactive fungus that changed history. https:// www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/ethnobotany/Mind_and_Spirit/ergot.shtml US Department of Justice. 2006. Human rights as a catalyst for juvenile justice reform. https:// www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/human-rights-catalyst-juvenile-justice-reform

References

783

———. 2016. Youth exposed to violence. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/children-exposedviolence ———. 2023. Children exposed to violence. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/programs/childrenexposedviolence US Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights. 2021. A brief history of human rights. https://usidhr. org/a-brief-history-of-human-rights-documents-throughout-time/ US News. 2021. Webinar managing children’s mental health: a pediatric hospital imperative. https://www.usnews.com/news/live-events/webinar-managing-childrens-mental-health-a-pedi atric-hospital-imperative USA Today. 2011, February 3. Across the USA: news from every state - Idaho. https://usatoday30. usatoday.com/printedition/news/20110203/states03_st.art.htm Vaddadi, K.S., C. Gilleard, and H. Fryer. 2002. Abuse of carers by relatives with severe mental illness. International Journal of Society Psychiatry 48 (2): 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002076402128783208. Vagianos, A. 2021. Olympics child athlete bill of rights. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost. com/entry/olympicschild-athlete-bill-of-rights-sex-abuse_n_60f9d8a0e4b09f2b238be598 Valentine, D. 2009. Visualizing a critical mixed race theory. Stance 2 (1). Valentine, K., C. Smyth, and J. Newland. 2019. Good enough parenting: Negotiating standards and stigma. International Journal of Drug Policy 68: 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo. 2018.07.009. Valverde, M. 2018. What you need to know about the census citizenship question. PolitiFact. http:// www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/mar/28/what-you-need-know-about-census-citi zenship-questi/ van Amersfoort, H. 1978. ‘Minority’ as a sociological concept. Ethnic and Racial Studies 1 (2): 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1978.9993230. Van Dam, A. 2018. It’s better to be born rich than gifted. Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/ van der Kolk, B.A. 2014. The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking. Van der Veer, R., and J. Valsiner. 1991. Understanding Vygotsky. Basil Blackwell. Van Eeden-Moorefield, B., and D.H. Demo. 2007. Family diversity. In Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology, ed. G. Ritzer. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518. wbeosf012. Van Krieken, R. 1999. The ‘Stolen Generations’ and cultural genocide: The forced removal of Australian Indigenous children from their families and its implications for the sociology of childhood. Childhood 6 (3): 297–311. Van Laer, T. 2013. The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research 40 (5): 797–817. Van Waters, M. 1927. Parents on probation. New York: New Republic Company. Vance, J. 2020. Hillbilly Elegy. Harper Press. Vandenhole, W. 2020. Decolonising children’s rights: of vernacularisation and interdisciplinarity. In Childhood and children’s rights between research and activism, ed. R. Budde and U. Markowska-Manista. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29180-8_ 12. Vandenhole, W., Desmet, E., Reynaert, D., & Lembrechts, S. (Eds.). 2015. Routledge international handbook of children’s rights studies. Routledge. Vandenhole, W., G. Türkelli, and S. Lembrechts. 2019. Children’s rights: A commentary on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its protocols. Edward Elgar Press. https://doi.org/10. 4337/9781786433138. Vandita. 2016. 7 famous brands that use child slaves to make your chocolate. ANONHQ. http:// anonhq.com/7-famous-brands-that-use-child-slaves-to-make-your-chocolate/

784

References

Vanity Fair. 1991. The crucifixion of Matthew Shepard. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1999/13/ matthew-shepard-199903 Vardigan, B. 2011. Yelling at children. Consumer Healthday. https://consumer.healthday.com/ encyclopedia/children-s-health-10/child-development-news-124/yelling-at-children-verbalabuse-648565.html Vasconcellos, C., 2018. Children in the slave trade. Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/items/show/141 Vashishtha, U.C. 2016. Development of education as a discipline: an analytical study. [Doctoral thesis]. University of Lucknow. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/70652 Vaughan, T., and G. Sjoberg. 1986. Human rights theory and the classical sociological tradition. In Sociological theory in transition, ed. M. Wardell and B.S. Turner, 127–141. Allen and Unwin. Vaughn, E. 2015. Human rights vs legal rights. https://nfb.org//sites/default/files/images/nfb/ publications/bm/bm15/bm1506/bm150609.htm Vavreck, L., M. Tester, and J. Sides. 2018. Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. Veerman, P. 1992. The rights of the child and the changing image of childhood. In International studies in human rights, vol. 18. Brill. ———. 2015. The aging of the UN convention on the rights of the child. In M. Freeman (Ed.), The future of children’s rights. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004271777_004 Velez, G. 2016. Children’s human rights: Psychological assumptions in comments on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and a phenomenological critique. Psychology and Society 8 (2): 95–118. Verrman, P. 2000. Implementing children’s rights on a local level: Narrowing the gap between Geneva and the grassroots. International Journal of Child Rights: 373. Vesoulis, A. 2021. Are childcare and paid family leave infrastructure? Time. https://time.com/604 7152/american-families-plan-congress/ Victor, D. 2018. Ethan Couch ‘affluenza teen’, who killed 4 while drunk driving is freed. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/us/ethan-couch-affluenza-jail.html Vidal, C., T. Lhaksampa, L. Miller, and R. Platt. 2020. Social media use and depression in adolescents: A scoping review. International Review of Psychiatry 32 (3): 235–253. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2020.1720623. PMID: 32065542; PMCID: PMC7392374. Viljoen, F. 2020. International human rights law: A short history. UN Chronicle. https://www.un. org/en/chronicle/article/international-human-rights-law-short-history Villarosa, R. 2018. Why America’s black mothers and babies are in a life and death crisis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-deathmaternal-mortality.html Villarreal Sosa, L., and R. Raylinn. 2018. School social workers: A call to action in support of human rights. New Prairie Press. https://newprairiepress.org/ijssw/vol3/iss1/1/ Virginia General Assembly. 2020. HB 580: Child abuse and neglect: gender identity or sexual orientation. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=201&typ=bil&val=hb580 Vissing, Y. 1997. Out of sight, out of mind: Homeless children and families in small town America. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. ———. 2001. Homelessness is a problem in rural areas. In The homeless: Opposing viewpoints, ed. J. Hurley. Greenhaven Press. ———. 2002. Women without children; nurturing lives. Rutgers University Press. ———. 2020. Children’s human rights as a buffer to extremism: A clinical sociology framework. In Clinical sociology research and practice, ed. Jan Marie Fritz. Springer. ———. 2021. A critique of children’s mental health research. In Mental health research, ed. C.G. Hudson. Elgar Pub. ———. 1996a. Comparative analysis of human rights education curriculum K-12. [Manuscript submitted for publication to World Studies in Education, Fall 2016]. ———. 1996b. Out of sight, out of mind: Homeless children in small town America. University of Kentucky Press. ———. 1998. Heroic students in cultural diversity in education. Sage.

References

785

———. 2000. Homelessness in middle school students. In Educating homeless students: Promising practices, ed. J. Strong and E. Reed-Victor. Sage. ———. 2007a. Researching homeless children. In Research issues in the study of children, ed. A. Best. Sage. ———. 2007b. Rhetoric of concern: Child poverty and homelessness in the USA. In Histoires d’enfant, histoires d’enfance/Stories for children, histories of childhood, ed. R. Findlay and S. Salbayre. GRAAT - Groupe de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de Tours. ———. 2012a. Protecting children also protects colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov. 2. http://chronicle.com/article/Protecting-Children-Also/135526/ ———. 2012b. Homeless children and youth: An examination of legal obstacles and directions. Vol 13, No. 2. 13 J.L. Soc’y __ (2012) Wayne State University Journal of Law in Society. http:// www.yvonnevissing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/WSU-Jrnl-of-Law-Society-13.2.pdf ———. 2016a. Changing the culture of human rights through education. In Human rights education and social justice, ed. J. Zajda and S. Ozdowski, 55–72. Springer Academic Publishers. ———. 2016b. Rights education: An exploratory analysis of what students know about their rights. Education and Society 32 (1): 61–74. ———. 2017a. Complexity in the determination of child abuse: A statistical and rights based approach. Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 32 (1). ———. 2017b. Sexual debut education: Cultivating a healthy human rights approach to young people’s sexual experiences. In Sociological studies of children and youth, ed. P.N. Claster and S.L. Blair. Emerald Press. ———. 2017c. The convention on the rights of the child and the USA: 25 years later. In The United Nations Convention on the rights of the child: Taking stock after 25 years and looking ahead, ed. Ton Liefaard and Julia Sloth-Nielsen. Leiden: Brill| Nijhoff. ———. 2018. Why the US should ratify the Convention on Children’s Rights. Public Seminar. http://www.publicseminar.org/2018/06/why-the-u-s-should-ratify-the-convention-on-chil drens-rights/. ———. 2019a. Human rights education in higher education. World Studies in Education 20 (2): 23–59. ———. 2019b. Barriers in implementation of child human rights education. World Studies in Education. ———. 2020. Looking into the crystal ball: Psycho-social consequences of the pandemic. Medium. https://medium.com/@yvissing/looking-into-the-crystal-ball-f54e3cd7cea6 ———. 2021a. Unaccompanied children at the United States-Mexico border. In The rights of unaccompanied minors: Perspectives and case studies, ed. Y. Vissing and S. Leitao. Springer. ———. 2021b, June 29). The epigenetics of child abuse [Presentation]. Neonatology and Pediatrics Conference (virtual). ———. 2024. Child welfare in America. ABC-CLIO Press. Vissing, Y. 2021/2. Relationship between social structure and willingness to embed human rights education. In Discourses of globalisation, ideology, education and policy reforms, eds. Zajda, J., and Majhanovich, S. Book 26. The globalisation, comparative education and policy research series, 36 volumes, The Netherlands: Springer. ———. 2021b. How extremist ideology is built, nurtured, and transforms societies. In Globalisation, ideology and human rights, ed. Zajda and Vissing. Springer. ———. 2022. A critique of children’s mental health research. In Research handbook of mental health policy, ed. Christopher Hudson. Edward Elgar, Pub. Vissing, Yvonne. 2019. Human rights education in higher education. World Studies in Education. 20 (2): 23–59. Vissing, Y.M. 1997. Out of sight, out of mind: Homeless children in small town America. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Vissing, Y., S. Burris, and Q. Moore-Vissing. 2016. What Google teaches us about the child rights movement. Societies Without Borders 11 (1): 15. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/swb/ vol11/iss1/15

786

References

Vissing, Y., and S. Leitao. 2021. The rights of unaccompanied minors: Perspectives and case studies. Springer. Vissing, Yvonne, Gu Joann, Andrea Jones, and Sue Gabriel. 2017. Preserving dignity in the face of hunger: A study of food pantry utilization. Humanity and Society. Fall. Vissing, Y.M., and W. Baily. 1996. Parent-to-child verbal aggression. In Communication and family violence, ed. Dudley Cahn and Sally Lloyd. Sage Publications. Vissing, Y., and E. Knudsen. 2024. Role of ombuds persons and human rights. Forthcoming. Vissing, Y.M., M.A. Straus, R.J. Gelles, and J.W. Harrop. 1991. Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse Neglect 15 (3): 223–238. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0145-2134(91)90067-N. Vissing, Y., and J. Vernick. 2021. Does your state encourage listening to troubled students or hitting them? School counselors vs corporal punishment. Medium. https://yvissing.medium.com/doesyour-state-encouragelistening-to-troubled-students-or-hitting-them-school-counselors-vs-70 9f9d904180 Vissing, Y., and J. Zajda. 2023a. Globalisation, human rights, sports, and culture. Vol. 38. Springer. ———. 2023b. Globalisation, human rights, sports, and culture. Vol. 37. Springer. Vissing, Y., Melissa Juschwiettz, and Laura Thompson. 2019. Deciding whether to become a pistol packin’ teacher? Medium. https://yvissing.medium.com/deciding-whether-to-become-a-pistolpackin-teacher-93827f30d030 Vissing, Y., and M. Juchniewicz. 2022. Children’s book banning. In Globalisation, values education and teaching democracy, ed. Joseph Zajda. Springer Publishers. Vissing, Y., and W. Baily. 1985. Parent to child verbal aggression. In Family violence from a communication perspective, ed. D. Cahn and S. Lloyd. Sage. ———. 1996. Parent to child verbal aggression. In Family violence from a communication perspective, ed. D. Cahn and S. Lloyd, 85–107. Sage. Vissing, Y., C. Hudson, and D. Nilan. 2020, January. Changing the paradigm of homelessness. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Changing-the-Paradigm-of-Homelessness/VissingNilan-Hudson/p/book/9781138362987 Vogel, S. 2012, December 14. Sandy Hook Elementary shooting leaves 28 dead. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shootingleaves-students-staff-dead/2012/12/14/24334570-461e-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html Voices of Youth. 2021. What we do. https://www.voicesofyouth.org/ Voight, K. 2014. The 11 most dangerous sports your child can play. Nerd Wallet. https://www. nerdwallet.com/blog/health/medical-costs/most-dangerous-sports-for-children/ Volkow, N. 2014. America’s addiction to opioids. National Institute on Drug Abuse. https:// archives.drugabuse.gov/testimonies/2014/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescriptiondrug-abuse Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wabwile, M. 2016. The evolving capacities of the child. In Handbook of children’s rights: Global and multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. M.D. Ruck, M. Peterson-Badali, and M. Freeman. Routledge. Waddell, B. 2021. $15 hourly wage isn’t livable anywhere in the US. US News. https://www. usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-08-06/report-15-hourly-wage-isnt-livable-any where-in-the-us Wade, A., & Smart, C. 2002. Facing family change: Children’s circumstances, strategies and resources. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/ files/1842630849.pdf Wagley, C., and M. Harris. 1958. Minorities in the new world. Columbia University Press. Wagner, J.T. 2021. Child rights in the United States: Dilemmas and questions. In Young children in the world and their rights, ed. A. Višnjić-Jevtić, A.R. Sadownik, and I. Engdahl. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68241-5_3.

References

787

Wagner, B. 2009. Suicidal behavior in children and adolescents. Yale University. Wagstaff, M., and A. Parker. 2020. Youth, “waithood,” and social change: Sport, mentoring, and empowerment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Sport for Development. Retrieved from https:// jsfd.org/. Wahl, O. 2002. Newspaper coverage of mental illness: is it changing? Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills 6: 9–31. Wainman, L. 2021. Video shows police offices handcuffing and screaming at 5 year old. WUSA 9. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/body-camera-police-footage-5-yearold-boy/65-48579fa7-8422-48b4-8f6f-f5361721879a Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. 2000. Violence is a learned behavior, say researchers at Wake Forest University. ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2000/11/001106061128.htm. Waksler, F.C. 1991a. Beyond socialization. In Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings, ed. F.C. Waksler. Falmer Press. ———. 1991b. Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings. Falmer. Wald, M. 1979. Children’s rights: A framework for analysis. University of California at Davis Law Review 12 (2): 255–282. Waldock, T., ed. 2020. A question of commitment: The status of children in Canada. 2nd ed. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. muse.jhu.edu/book/74092. Waldron, J. 1989. Rights in conflict. Ethics 99 (3): 503–519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2380863. Walker, A. 2021. A long, dark shadow: Minor-attracted people and the pursuit of their dignity. University of California Press. Walker, N.E., C.M. Brooks, and L.S. Wrightsman. 1999. Children’s rights in the United States: In search of a national policy. Sage. Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. 2020. The COVID-civil rights mask culture war. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-civil-rights-mask-department-of-educationoffice-for-civil-rights-culture-war-schools-11630363253 Wall, J. 2008. Human rights in light of childhood. International Journal of Children’s Rights 16: 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181808X312122. ———. 2011. Can democracy represent children? Childhood 19 (1): 86–100. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0907568211406756. Wallace, A. 2022. Child care workers are vanishing and its hurting the economy. CNN. https:// www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/economy/child-care-labor-force-declines/index.html Wallace, B. 2016a. Who gets the money when a child works? Hometown to Hollywood. http:// hollywoodparentsguide.com/who-gets-the-money-when-a-child-actor-works/ Wallace, H. 2021. Tennessee parents upset over law allowing kids to get vaccinated without parental consent. Fox News. https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-parents-upset-over-lawallowing-kids-to-get-vaccinated-without-parental-consent-mature-minor-doctrine-covid-19coronavirus-vaccine Wallace, K. 2015. Teens spend a mind-boggling 9 hours a day on social media. CNN. http://www. cnn.com/2015/11/03/health/teens-tweens-media-screen-use-report/ ———. 2016b. Racial bias may start as early as preschool. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/2 8/health/racial-bias-preschool/index.html ———. 2017. Is fake news fooling kids? Yes. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/health/fakenews-kids-common-sense-media Wallace, W. 1971. The Logic of Science in Sociology. Aldine. Wallace, W. 1971. The logic of science in sociology: The great wheel of science. Routledge. Wallerstein, J. 1985. The overburdened child. Social Work 30 (2): 116–121. Walsh, C. 2007. Importance of early childhood education. Harvard Gazette. http://news.harvard. edu/gazette/story/2007/12/the-importance-of-early-education/ Walt, S. 2011. The myth of American exceptionalism. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy. com/2011/10/11/the-myth-of-american-exceptionalism/ Walters, D. 1975. Physical and sexual abuse of children. Indiana University Press.

788

References

Walters, D.R., and V. Streib. 1976. Emerging human and legal rights of children. Behavioral Disorders 2 (1): 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874297600200111. Walts, K. 2012. Introduction to child trafficking in the US. America Bar Association. https://www. americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/ 2012/introductionchild-trafficking-us/ Wang, L. 2013. Protecting children’s rights. Chemical and Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/ articles/91/i9/Protecting-Childrens-Rights.html Wang, W. 2012. The rise of intermarriage. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends. org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/ Wang, W., & Taylor, P. 2011a. For millennials, parenthood trumps marriage. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumpsmarriage/ ———. 2011b. Millennials attitudes about marriage. Pew Research Center. http://www. pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/iii-millennials-attitudes-about-marriage/ Wangel, D. 2016. 4 types of conversations. DavidWAngel.com. https://davidwangel.com/theopportune-conflict/2016/12/28/the-four-types-of-conversations-debate-dialogue-discourse-anddiatribe Warner, G. 1924. The box-car children. Rand-McNally. Warner, J., Boesch, D., & Ellmann, N. 2018. The women’s leadership gap. American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/womens-leadership-gap-2/ Warner, L. 1941. Social life of a modern community. Yale University Press. Warner-Richter, M., and C. Lloyd. 2020. Considerations for building post-COVID early care and education systems that serve children with disabilities. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610691 Warner-Richter, Mallory, Claire Lowe, Kathryn Tout, Dale Epstein, and Weilin Li. 2016. Improving quality for child care centers in Greater Philadelphia: An evaluation of success by 6. ERIC. Publication #2016-07B. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579961 Washington Post Editorial Board. 2016a. Child gun deaths are not accidents. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/child-gun-deaths-are-not-accidents/2016/04/29/63 a4d7ac-0d6f-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html ———. 2016b. The gun lobby maddeningly prevents development of safer childproof weapons. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gun-lobby-maddeninglypreventsdevelopment-of-safer-childproof-weapons/2016/01/14/ac60e132-b975-11e5-99f3-184 bc379b12d_story.html?tid=a_inl Waterston, T., and J. Goldhagen. 2007. Why children’s rights are central to international child health. Archives of Disease in Childhood 92: 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006. 098228. Watkins, B. 2013. The 8 principles of Black male empowerment. Your Black World. https://www. yourblackworld.net/2013/12/uncategorized/dr-boyce-rich-white-kids-have-affluenza-poorblack-kids-go-to-prison/ Watson, J. 2005. Darwin: The indelible stamp. Running Press. Watson, R. n.d.. Hall, G. Stanley. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-304 5000493.html Waxman, O. 2020, August 18. 5 myths about the 15th amendment and women’s suffrage, debunked. Time Magazine. https://time.com/5879346/19th-amendment-facts-myths/ Wayne State University Center on Citizenship. 2021. Definitions of citizenship. http://www.clas. wayne.edu/Citizenship/Definition-of-Citizenship Wazir, Z. 2021, June 16. Countries seen to care about human rights. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/the-10-countries-that-care-the-mostabout-human-rights-according-to-perception Wearden, A., I. Peters, K. Berry, C. Barrowclough, and T. Liversidge. 2008. Adult attachment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and others. Personality and Individual Differences 44 (5): 1246–1257.

References

789

Wearmouth, E.M. 2012. Children’s rights and parental duties: An inconvenient truth? Archives of Disease in Childhood 97: A171–A172. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2012-301885.403. Weaver, C.M., J.G. Borkowski, and T.L. Whitman. 2008. Violence breeds violence: Childhood exposure and adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Community Psychology 36 (1): 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20219. Webb, S. 2009. Book banning. First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/ firstamendment/article/986/book-banning Weber, C., & Federico, F. 2007. Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00579.x Weber, L. 2018. More than half of American babies are at risk of malnourishment. Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malnutrition-children-1000-days_us_5a7138bce4b0 be822ba16d1e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 Weber, M. 1949. Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences. Free Press. ———. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Vol. 1. University of California Press. Weinhold, B. 2006. Epigenetics: The science of change. Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (3): A160–A167. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.114-a160. Weinreb, L., R. Goldberg, E. Bassuk, and J. Perloff. 1998. Determinants of health and service use patterns in homeless and low-income housed children. Pediatrics 102 (3): 554–562. https://doi. org/10.1542/peds.102.3.554. Weintraub, P. 2020. Why are American kids treated as a different species from adults. Aeon. https:// aeon.co/essays/why-are-american-kids-treated-as-a-different-species-from-adults Weir, K. 2016. Inequality at school. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ monitor/2016/11/cover-inequality-school ———. 2020. Why we fall for fake news. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa. org/news/apa/2020/fake-news Weisberg, J. 2010. Blame the childish, ignorant America public. Slate. https://slate.com/news-andpolitics/2010/02/blame-the-childish-ignorant-american-public-not-politicians-for-our-politicaland-economic-crisis.html Wellman, J.A., and A.L. Geers. 2009. Rebel without a (conscious) cause: Priming a nonconscious goal for psychological reactance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 31 (1): 9–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/01973530802659711. Wells, K. 2015. Childhood in a global perspective. Polity Press. Wells, S. 2004. The journey of man: A genetic odyssey. Random House. Welter, B. 1966. The cult of true womanhood: 1820-1860. American Quarterly 18 (2): 151–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2711179. Weng, S. 2020. Who is middle class? Harvard Political Review. https://harvardpolitics.com/whois-the-middle-class/ Wenger, J., & Zaber, M. 2021. Most Americans consider themselves middle class. Rand. https:// www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most-americans-consider-themselves-middle-class-but.html Wessells, M. 2015. Bottom-up approaches to strengthening child protection systems: Placing children, families, and communities at the center. Child Abuse and Neglect 43: 8–21. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.006. Westman, J. 2001. Licensing parents: Can we prevent child abuse and neglect? Da Capo Press. ———. 2019. Dealing with child abuse and neglect as public health problems. Springer. Weston, B. 2005. Child labor and human rights: Making children matter. Lynne Reinner Press. Weston, B. H. 2020. Human rights. In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ human-rights WeVoice. 2018. The not so nuclear family. https://www.wevorce.com/blog/not-so-nuclear-familymodern-trends-affecting-americans/ Wheeler, L. 2018. What are the legal ages for buying guns? The Hill. http://thehill.com/homenews/ politics-101/375154-what-are-the-current-age-restrictions-on-guns

790

References

White, C. 2015. Romanticism. University of Houston Clear Lake. http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/SH/ Whitec/terms/R/Romanticism.htm White, D., M. Baghai, and S. Coley. 2000. The alchemy of growth. Perseus Books. White, F. 2015. Five child monarchs who changed history. History Answers. https://www. historyanswers.co.uk/kings-queens/five-child-monarchs-who-changed-history/ White, N. 2020. What is financial child abuse? Tough Nickel. https://toughnickel.com/personalfinance/What-is-Financial-Child-Abuse White, R. 2015. The power of play. Assoc. of Children’s Museums. http://www.childrensmuseums. org/images/MCMResearchSummary.pdf White, D., and J. Wyn. 2008. Youth and society. Oxford University Press. White, R., and J. Wyn. 1998. Youth agency and social context. Journal of Sociology 34 (3): 314– 327. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339803400307. ———. 2017. Youth and society. Oxford University Press. White, W. 1979. Standards relating to the rights of minors. American Bar Association. https:// www.ojp.gov Whitehurst, G. 2014. Testimony to house committee. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ research/whitehursttestimony-on-early-childhood-education-to-the-house-committee-on-educa tion-and-the-workforce/ Whiteleather, M. 2022. Bill could require posting lesson plans. Education Week. https://www. edweek.org/policy-politics/bill-could-require-posting-a-years-worth-of-lesson-plans-teachersarent-happy/2022/02 Whiting, J. 1966. Field guide to a comparative history of socialization. Wiley. Widdows, H. 2018. Perfect me. Princeton University Press. Widom, C. 2015. Intergenerational transmission of child abuse and neglect: Real or detection bias? Science 347 (6229): 1480–1485. Wiehe, V. 1990. Sibling abuse. Lexington Books. Wikipedia. 2022, Aug 22). Slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery Wilcox, B. 2004. Report of the APA task force on advertising and children. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/advertising-children.pdf. Wilcox, W. 2015. Religion is good for families and children. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/15/the-latest-social-science-is-wrong-reli gion-is-good-for-families-and-kids/?utm_term=.5214759f0c03 Wilde, M. 2015. Global Grade: How do US students compare? http://www.greatschools.org/gk/ articles/u-s-students-compare/ Wilkens, B. 2020. Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Defender. https:// childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rich-getting-richer-poor-getting-poorer-new-data/ Wilkerson, I. 2021. Caste: The origins of our discontents. Random House. Williams Institute. 2016. Estimates of transgender populations in states with legislation impacting transgender people. UCLA School of Law. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/ uploads/Estimates-of-Transgender-Populations.pdf ———. 2021. Estimates of transgender populations in states with legislation impacting transgender people. UCLA School of Law. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/ Estimates-of-Transgender-Populations.pdf Williams, D. 1999. Race, socio-economic status and health: The added effects of racism and discrimination. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 896: 173–188. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08114.x. Williams, E., and M. Robinson. 2004. Ideology and criminal justice: Suggestions for a pedagogical model. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 15 (2): 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10511250400086031. Williams, J. 2007. Incorporating children's rights: The divergence in law and policy. Legal Studies 27 (2): 261–287. ———. 2014. England and Wales. In Litigating the rights of the child, ed. T. Liefaard and J. Doek. Springer.

References

791

———. 2022. Personal communication. Williams, R. 2021. Economic disparities drive long-lasting challenges for American children. Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. https://spia.princeton.edu/news/ economic-disparities-drive-long-lasting-challenges-american-children-currie-testifies. Williamson, K. 2019. The unreasonableness of ‘reasonable chastisement’ [LLM dissertation]. University of Pretoria. https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/72859 Willig, C. 1999. Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological interventions. Open University Press. Wills, M. 2021. Bringing up baby straight. Jstore Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/bringing-up-babystraight/ Wilmer, F. 2015. Human rights in international politics. Lynne Reinner Press. Wilner, M., & Chambers, F. 2020. Childish and disturbing: Trumps attacks. McClatchy. https:// www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article243822887.html Wilson, A. 1980. The infancy of the history of childhood: An appraisal of Philippe Aries. History and Theory 19: 132–153. Wilson, E. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press. Wilson, J., and R. Herrnstein. 1985. Crime and human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime. New York: Free Press. Wilson, V., & Schneider, J. 2018. The rise in child poverty reveals that racial inequality is more than a failed war on poverty. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/therise-in-child-poverty-reveals-racial-inequality-more-than-a-failed-war-on-poverty/ Wiltz, T. 2018. Undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities and states. Stateline. https://stateline.org/2018/01/03/aging-undocumented-and-uninsured-immigrants-challenge-cit ies-and-states/ Winkler, E. 2017. Children are not colorblind: How children learn about race. PACE 3 (3): 1–8. https://inclusions.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Children-are-Not-Colorblind.pdf. Winn, Z. 2017. US school shooting statistics. Campus Safety. https://www.campussafetymagazine. com/safety/u-s-school-shooting-statistics-us/ Wirth, L. 1931. Clinical sociology. American Sociological Review 37: 49–66. ———. 1945a. Human ecology. American Journal of Sociology 50 (6): 483–488. ———. 1945b. The problem of minority groups. In The science of man in the world crisis, ed. R. Linton. Columbia University Press. Wiseman, R. 2009. Queen bees and wannabees. Harmony Press. Woldehanna, T., N. Jones, and B. Tefera. 2008. The invisibility of children’s paid and unpaid work: Implications for national poverty reduction policy. Childhood 15 (2): 177–201. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0907568207088421. Wolf, M. 2017. 10 youth movements that changed history. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mattwolf/10-youth-movements-that-c_b_4958409.html Wolf, N. 1990. The beauty myth. Vintage Wolfensberger, D. 2021. Congress reverts to childish antics with no adult supervision. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/564955-congress-reverts-to-childish-anticswith-no-adult-supervision-in Wollebæk, D., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Enjolras, B. 2019. Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2056305119829859 Wolynn, M. 2017. It didn’t start with you. Penguin. Wong, N.T., M.A. Zimmerman, and E.A. Parker. 2010. A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology 46 (1–2): 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0. Wong, A. 2015, June 26. Where girls are missing out on high-school sports. The Atlantic. https:// www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/girls-high-school-sports-inequality/396782/ ———. 2018. Students suing for a constitutional right to education. The Atlantic. https://www. theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/lawsuit-constitutional-right-education/576901/

792

References

Wong, B. 2017a. Second marriages are more likely to end in divorce. Huffington Post. https:// www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/second-marriages-are-more-likely-to-end-in-divorce-hereswhy_us_58b88e38e4b0b99894162a07 Wong, L. 2017b. 21, 18 or 14: A look at the legal age for smoking around the world. The Straits Times. http://www.straitstimes.com/world/21-18-or-14-a-look-at-the-legal-age-for-smokingaround-the-world Woo, E. 2005. Urie Bronfenbrenner, 88; Co-founder of Head Start urged closer family ties. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/27/local/me-bronfen27 Wood, P. 2018. New study reveals lack of access as root cause for mental health crisis in America. National Council for Mental Wellbeing. https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/press-releases/ new-study-reveals-lack-of-access-as-root-cause-for-mental-health-crisis-in-america/ Woodham, C. 2015. Why kids are hitting puberty earlier than ever. U.S. News & World Report. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/17/why-kids-are-hit ting-puberty-earlier-than-ever Woodhouse, B. 1992. Who owns the child? William and Mary Law Review 33 (4): 996–1120. ———. 1999. Incorporating emerging human rights into constitution. Penn Law School Repository. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&arti cle=1447&context=jcl ———. 2008. Hidden in plain sight: The tragedy of children’s rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate. Princeton University Press. Woodiwiss, A. 2009. Taking the sociology of human rights seriously. In Interpreting human rights: Social science perspectives, ed. R. Morgan and B.S. Turner, 104–120. Routledge. Woodly, D. 2015. The Politics of common sense: How social movements use public discourse to change politics and win acceptance. Oxford University Press. Woods, L. 2018. Become more trauma informed. UConn Today. https://today.uconn.edu/2018/04/ become-childhood-trauma-informed/# Woodward, K., and M.H. Richards. 2005. The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans. Behavioral Ecology 16: 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ arh121. Woolcock, G., B. Brendan Gleeson, and B. Randolph. 2010. Urban research and child-friendly cities: A new Australian outline. Children’s Geographies 8 (2): 177–192. Woollcombe, D. 1998. Children’s conferences and councils. In Stepping forward: Children and young people’s participation in the development process, ed. V. Johnson, E. Ivan-Smith, G. Gordon, P. Pridmore, and P. Scott, 236–240. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Wootson, C. 2018. Fox News’s Laura Ingraham says immigrant child detention centers are ‘essentially summer camps’. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/06/19/fox-news-laura-ingraham-says-immigrant-child-deten tion-centers-are-essentially-summer-camps/ Wordsworth, D., McPeak, M., & Feeny, T. 2005. Understanding children’s experience of poverty: An introduction to the DEV Framework. Christian Children’s Fund. https://resourcecentre. savethechildren.net/node/11807/pdf/Wordsworth-McPeak-Feeny-2005-Understanding-Chil drens-Experience-of-Poverty.pdf World Atlas. 2022. Countries where child corporal punishment is illegal. https://www.worldatlas. com/articles/countries-where-child-corporal-punishment-is-illegal.html World Health Organization. 2001. Mental disorders. http://www.who.int/whr/2001/media_centre/ press_release/en/ ———. 2014. The case for investing in public health. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0009/278073/Case-Investing-Public-Health.pdf ———. 2015a. Fact sheet on adolescent health: 2015. http://goo.gl/kjKbBT ———. 2015b. Fact Sheet on youth violence: 2015. http://goo.gl/Fgxt7s ———. 2015c. HIV and young people who inject drugs. http://goo.gl/fqfNbC ———. 2016a. Adolescent health risks and solutions. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/ fs345/en/

References

793

———. 2016b. Female genital mutilation. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ ———. 2016c. School health and youth health promotion: Facts. http://goo.gl/91jDz3 ———. 2023. Advice for the public: Coronavirus. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/ novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public World Policy Analysis Center. 2016. What is the minimum age of marriage for girls with parental consent? http://www.worldpolicycenter.org/policies/what-is-the-minimum-age-of-marriagefor-girls-with-parental-consent World Population Review. 2021. Countries with universal healthcare. https:// worldpopulationreview.com/countryrankings/countries-with-universal-healthcare World Vision. 2011. A systems approach to child protection. https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/ files/Systems_Approach_to_Child_Protection.pdf ———. 2014. The killer gap: A global index of health inequality for children. http://www. worldvision.org/sites/default/files/The%20Killer%20Gap%20report%20FINAL.pdf Worsfold, V.L. 1974. A philosophical justification for children’s rights. Harvard Educational Review 44 (1): 142–157. Worthington, R. 2006. Standards of healthcare and respecting children’s rights. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4). Wrangle, D. 2021. 4 types of communication. Medium. https://davidwangel.com/the-opportuneconflict/2016/12/28/the-four-types-of-conversations-debate-dialogue-discourse-and-diatribe Wridt, P., Goldberg, D., Vissing, Y., Rudelius-Palmer, K., Wagner, M., & Zhang, A. 2022. Benefits of the child friendly cities initiative. Wridt, P., D. Goldberg, Y. Vissing, K. Rudelius-Palmer, M. Wegner, and A. Zhang. 2023. Benefits of the child friendly communities initiative. In Sociological research and urban children and youth, ed. Loretta Bass. Emerald Press. Wridt, P., D. Goldberg, Y. Vissing, K. Rudelius-Palmer, M. Wegner. 2023. Benefits of the child friendly cities initiative. In Handbook of children and youth studies, ed. J. Wyn and H. Cahill. 2015. Springer. Wright, C. 2019. History of education. https://www.leaderinme.org/blog/history-of-education-theunited-states-in-a-nutshell/ Wright, D. 2011. Why do children have to obey their parents? https://answersingenesis.org/ answers/biblical-authority-devotional/why-do-children-have-to-obey-their-parents/ Wright, G. 2022a. The pandemic divide: How COVID-19 increased inequality in America. Duke University Press. Wright, J. 2022b, June 22–24). Keynote: Reimagining children’s rights in the United States context. [Conference session]. Center for Childhood and Youth Studies 2022 Children’s Rights Conference, Salem State University, Salem, MA. Wright, K., K. Carr, and B. Aiken. 2019. The whitewashing of social work history. Advances in Social Work. 2/2/3. https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/advancesinsocialwork/article/view/23 946 Wringe, C. 1981. Children’s rights. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wulczyn, F., & Daro, D. 2010. Adapting a systems approach to child protection. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). https://www.socialserviceworkforce.org/system/files/resource/ files/Adapting_A_Systems_Approach_to_Child_Protection.pdf Wyn, J., G. Smith, H. Stokes, D. Tyler, and D. Woodman. 2008. Generations and social change: Negotiating adulthood in the 21st century: Report on the life-patterns research program. http:// hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/125031 Wyness, M. 2011. Childhood and society. Palgrave Macmillan. Xu, X., and G. Wilson. 2006. On conflict of human rights. University of New Hampshire Law Review 5 (1) http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol5/iss1/4. Yancy, G. 2023. Ableism enables all forms of inequality and hampers all liberation efforts. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/ableism-enables-all-forms-of-inequity-and-hampers-allliberation-efforts/

794

References

Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse University Press. Yanklowitz, S., 2014. It’s hard to be a kid today. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ its-hard-to-be-a-kid-today_b_5018406 Yarber, W., B. Sayad, and B. Strong. 2013. Human sexuality: Diversity in contemporary America. McGraw Hill. Yarrow, A. 2009. Children’s policy and history. First Focus. https://firstfocus.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/06/Childrens-Policy-History.pdf Yellowitz, I. 2017. Child labor. History.com. http://www.history.com/topics/child-labor Yeung, K.T., and J.L. Martin. 2003. The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces 81 (3): 843–879. Yim, S. 2009. Social outcast at 2? The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/themombeat/200 9/08/social_outcast_at_2_toddlers_a.html YMCA of the USA. 2021. Youth and Government program. https://www.ymca.org/what-we-do/ youth-development/education-leadership/government York, A. 2017. 7-Step Facebook marketing strategy to dominate 2017. Sprout Social. https:// sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-marketing-strategy/ Young, I. 2004. Five faces of oppression. In Oppression, privilege, and resistance, ed. L. Heldke and P. O’Connor. McGraw Hill. Young, M. 2007. Early child development: From measurement to action. The World Bank. https:// documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/536021468340243580/pdf/409250PAPER0Ea101OFFI CIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf#page=59 ———. 2013. On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education 1 (3): 229–250. https:// doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017. Young, T.R. 1981. The sociology of human rights. Humanity and Society 5 (4): 353–369. Young-Bruehl, E. 2018. Childism: Confronting prejudice against children. Yale University Press. Youth Affairs Council. 2013. Resources for youth. https://www.yacvic.org.au/ Youth Suicide Prevention Program. 2016. LGBTQ facts. http://www.yspp.org/about_suicide/gay_ lesbian_FAQs.htm Youth.gov. 2006. Civic engagement. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/civic-engagement-andvolunteering ———. 2022. LGBTQ+. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/lgbt Yurcaba, J. 2022. Percentage of LGBTQ adults doubled. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/ out-news/percentage-lgbtq-adults-us-doubled-decade-gallup-finds-rcna16556 Yurchyk, B. 2008. The United States’ compliance decisions with regards to the U.N. convention on the rights of the child and the two optional protocols: Reflections on the theories of international law. [Senior thesis]. Ohio State University. https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/32208 Zaff, G. 2002. Civic engagement and youth. https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/03/Child_Trends-2002_10_01_RB_CivicEngagement.pdf Zajda, J., and S. Ozdowski. 2017. Globalisation, human rights education and reforms. Springer. Zak-doron, I. 2021. On participation rights and their limits in schools with high-level student participation: The case of participatory disciplinary committees in democratic (free) schools. European Educational Research Association. https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/confer ence/26/contribution/50303/ Zalta, E. 2018. Child rights. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/ archinfo.cgi?entry=rights-children. Zanna, M.P., and J. Cooper. 1974. Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 (5): 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036651. Zavallos, Z. 2023. Intersectionality in academia and research. https://othersociologist.com/ Zeanah, C.H., and K.L. Humphreys. 2018. Child Abuse and Neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 57 (9): 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac. 2018.06.007.

References

795

Zelizer, V. 1985. Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Basic Books. Zelizer, V. 1994. Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Basic Books. Zero to Three. 2015. Early head start works. https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/477-earlyhead-start-works ———. 2020. Early development and child wellbeing. https://www.zerotothree.org/early Zetterberg, H. 1965. On theory and verification in sociology. 3rd ed. Bedminster Press. Zevallos, Z. 2014. What is clinical sociology? Sociology at Work. http://www.sociologyatwork. org/what-is-clinical-sociology/#targetText=Clinical%20sociology%20is%20an%20applied, well%20as%20two%20case%20studies Zezima, K. 2006. When soldiers go to war, flat daddies hold their place at home. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30daddy.html Zhan, J., J. Ren, P. Sun, J. Fan, C. Liu, and J. Luo. 2018. The neural basis of fear promotes anger and sadness counteracts anger. Neural Plasticity 1: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/ 3479059. Zhao, R. 2013. Child abuse leaves epigenetic marks. National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/child-abuse-leaves-epigenetic-marks Zhou, M. 1997. Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 63–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952544. Zhu, A. 2014, March 18. ‘Affluenza’ case highlights socioeconomic and racial disparities in juvenile justice system. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. https://jjie.org/2014/03/18/ affluenza-case-highlights-socioeconomic-racial-disparities-in-justice Zieff, G., Z.Y. Kerr, J.B. Moore, and L. Stoner. 2020. Universal healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy debate. Medicina 56 (11): 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580. Zipes, J. 1994. Fairy tale as myth, myth as fairy tale. University Press of Kentucky. Zolkos, M. 2005. How to recapture human rights within the political: Validating the discourse theory approach. Human Rights and Human Welfare 6: 43–52. https://www.du.edu/korbel/ hrhw/volumes/2006/zolkos-2006.pdf. Zolyniak, A. 2022. A callous disregard for child victims of gun violence is American exceptionalism run amok. Council of Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/callous-disregard-childvictims-gun-violence-american-exceptionalism-run-amok?utm_source=religionbulletin Zorn, E. 2017. If basic education is a right, why not healthcare? Chicago Tribune. https://www. chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-health-care-fundamental-right-education-zornperspec-0317-jm-20170316-column.html Zornado, J. 2001. Inventing the child: Culture, ideology, and the story of childhood. Routledge. Zumer, B. 2018. Baltimore teacher hits student. Fox News. https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/ video-shows-student-hitting-teacher-at-baltimore-high-school

Index

A Absolute deprivation, 130 Adolescence, 24, 163, 194, 195, 208, 322, 517, 640 Adoption, 89, 94, 156, 192, 201, 230, 251, 252, 321, 334, 337, 351, 369, 370, 482, 488, 491, 507, 599, 628 Adultification, 20, 275, 280–283, 411 Adverse child experiences (ACEs), 44, 139, 142–143, 150, 525, 550, 607 Affordable Care Act (ACA), 138, 139, 507 Ageism, 186, 275–277, 280, 283, 285, 291, 572, 653 All Children Thrive (ACT America), 595, 603–605 Amendments, 27, 47, 53, 105, 172, 188, 189, 193, 199, 204, 324, 406, 427, 446, 447, 454, 461–466, 486, 490–500, 502–504, 506, 509, 525, 538, 541, 548, 563, 597, 602, 658 Anthropology, 214, 216–218, 223–224, 468, 540, 641 Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology (AACS), 7

B Baby box, 614 Belief, 7, 12, 18, 21, 39, 40, 42–51, 55, 58, 72, 81, 84, 89, 92, 183, 187, 213, 222, 243, 250, 256, 260, 276, 283, 290, 291, 310, 314, 325, 326, 336, 338, 368, 406, 416, 445, 497, 509, 543, 554, 556, 568, 569, 589, 590, 629, 640, 654

Best interest of the child, 101, 107–109, 332, 512, 557 Bias, implicit bias, 45, 46, 274 Biden, J., 161, 191, 276, 540, 541, 588, 594, 601 Biology, 13, 217, 219–221, 316, 468, 612 Bio-social, 218–221 BIPOC, 138, 143, 151, 172, 173, 265, 289, 295, 310, 315, 367, 383, 388, 437, 457, 458, 499 Brain development, 31–32, 123, 134, 161, 340, 499, 516–519, 586 Build Back Better Act, 161 Bullying, 121, 140, 155, 156, 163, 169–170, 220, 282, 336, 342, 372, 375, 427, 453–456, 458–459, 461, 466, 516, 606 Bush, G., 202, 399

C Caregiver, 34, 37, 69, 75, 107, 110, 123, 158, 159, 166, 169, 235, 245, 249, 258, 264, 266, 267, 278, 279, 355, 368, 372, 375, 376, 381, 421, 424, 443, 453, 468, 549, 610, 611, 615–617, 623 Carter, J., 200, 202 Caste, 13, 287, 290, 296, 300–306, 308, 309, 327, 448, 634 Castification, 287–311, 554, 579 Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), 263, 268, 403, 408, 409, 413, 555 Centers for Disease Control, 44, 51, 140, 174, 261, 341, 374, 381, 454, 455, 547, 549, 550, 586, 598, 606

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Y. Vissing, Children's Human Rights in the USA, Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30848-2

797

798 Chaos theory, 361, 362 Chastisement, 379, 381–382, 397 Child abuse, 42, 44, 116, 117, 129, 140–142, 150, 158, 163–169, 190, 199, 205, 320, 334, 346, 351, 352, 364, 367–370, 372–374, 376, 377, 384–386, 439, 450, 455, 456, 503, 515, 521, 526, 530, 532, 536, 540, 547, 548, 554, 593, 606–608, 610, 620, 639 Child as property, 57, 246, 254, 265–266, 268, 361, 383, 631, 636–637, 640 Child care, 34, 53, 93, 160, 201, 204, 227, 369, 371, 387, 598, 599, 613, 615, 616 Child, definition, 17 Childhood, viii, ix, xii, 4, 5, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34–37, 42, 51, 53, 67–72, 74–78, 85, 88, 106, 117, 123, 129, 136–138, 140–142, 154, 161, 163, 165, 181–186, 188–190, 207–212, 215, 217, 221–225, 228, 231, 232, 234–237, 239, 255, 259, 271–273, 275, 280–282, 287, 291–293, 296, 299, 301, 304, 305, 319, 321, 322, 327, 340–342, 351, 364, 372, 373, 393, 406, 408, 414, 415, 418, 422, 424, 442–444, 463, 474, 509, 514, 516, 532, 540, 558, 577, 586, 587, 595, 596, 607, 611, 615, 616, 623, 640 Childism, 283–285 Children’s Defense Fund, 116, 129, 130, 251, 308, 391, 536, 541, 598, 659 Children’s Human Rights Education (CHRE), 126, 460, 469, 473, 609, 615–623 Chronological classifications, 25 Citizen, citizenship, vii, 4, 16, 27, 28, 32, 34, 64, 66, 68, 73, 110, 171, 177, 194–198, 202, 206, 220, 226, 237, 271, 274, 285, 289, 317, 324, 326, 343, 348, 373, 389–391, 399, 400, 402, 403, 406–407, 410, 415–417, 434, 461, 463, 466, 472, 484, 485, 488–490, 492–494, 496, 497, 499, 504, 519, 528, 546, 562, 571, 603, 606, 623, 624, 637, 645, 647, 654 Clinical sociology, xi, 5–8, 16, 39, 59, 114, 236, 551, 594, 609 Clinton, B., 201, 292, 600 Colvin, C., 185, 405 Commission for the Accreditation of Programs in Applied and Clinical Sociology (CAPACS), 7 Conflict theory, 231–234, 259, 263–265, 594 Consent, 26, 84, 94, 126, 143, 173, 176, 177, 266, 278, 284, 302, 303, 389, 413, 424,

Index 427, 429, 440, 463, 466, 475, 485, 487, 489–491, 499, 600–602, 626, 659 Constitution, 5, 9, 21, 27, 61, 63, 65, 81, 83, 125, 172, 193, 203, 227, 231, 243, 255, 258, 350, 382, 406, 427, 446, 447, 467, 479–531, 538, 545, 597, 600, 602, 626, 629, 633, 637, 638, 652, 658 Construction, viii, xi, 11–14, 17, 24, 26, 36, 39, 64, 71, 77, 111, 188, 203, 224, 227, 235, 250, 264, 275, 304, 317, 325, 340, 397, 434, 499, 557, 577, 609, 625, 634–635 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), vii–ix, xi, 3, 4, 12, 13, 20, 22–23, 25, 37, 40, 44, 52, 54, 58, 59, 61, 66, 79–81, 86–111, 113, 117, 119, 123, 126, 127, 135, 144, 145, 186, 200–205, 220, 226, 227, 229, 237, 240, 244, 248, 254–263, 266, 268, 285, 308, 314, 316, 331–342, 346, 356, 359, 361, 371, 380, 383, 388, 389, 400, 405, 409, 424, 425, 427, 428, 430, 434, 442, 446, 459, 466, 469–473, 481, 483, 498, 505, 508, 510–513, 527, 528, 533, 535–539, 541, 542, 545–548, 554, 556, 557, 562–564, 566, 571, 573, 583, 584, 587, 590, 591, 595, 600–603, 609–611, 619, 620, 624–632, 637–642, 649, 652, 655, 657–659 Coolidge, C., 193 Corporal punishment, 44, 57, 73, 126, 127, 143, 166, 170–171, 220, 268, 320, 336, 367, 371, 381, 382, 388, 396, 440, 456, 457, 466, 506, 556, 586, 625 COVID-19 pandemic, 4, 55, 138, 139, 160, 210, 435, 436, 444, 454, 594, 609, 616, 646, 650 CRC, see Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

D Dark ages, 69, 71, 72, 624 Daycare, 53, 68, 161, 166, 173, 196, 260, 273, 279, 281, 333, 353, 354, 358, 363, 368, 443, 458, 482, 549, 554, 575, 585, 586, 588, 610, 615, 619, 630, 636, 640, 648, 655 Debate, 23, 30, 39, 55, 56, 64, 68, 71, 74, 77, 87, 108, 138, 176, 181, 183, 186, 189, 207, 211, 219, 220, 248, 300, 316, 321, 324, 338, 406, 409, 430, 438, 464, 479–481, 483, 486, 497, 499, 518, 536, 565, 567, 583, 584, 625, 627, 630, 645, 656, 657

Index Decision-making, viii, 6, 8, 29–31, 35, 37, 57, 227, 248, 266, 278, 326, 339, 343, 399–402, 406, 407, 409, 410, 414, 416–418, 460, 470, 473, 525, 543, 571, 580, 582–586, 605, 619, 631, 640, 652, 654 Definitions, 17, 18, 23, 25, 29, 37, 41, 64, 108, 132, 151, 156, 209, 216, 224, 272, 301, 304, 350, 351, 368, 374, 382, 400, 406, 414, 415, 503, 510, 514, 651 DEIJ, 237 Demography, 577 Dependency, 232, 278, 281, 354, 528, 529 Dialogue, ix, xi, 5, 40, 257, 262, 315, 316, 321, 429, 558, 561, 562, 565–573, 608, 632 Diatribe, 567 Digital rights, 427–428 Disability, viii, 25, 32, 33, 66, 85, 86, 89, 119, 127, 136, 168–172, 194, 198, 204, 220, 236, 252, 255, 271, 289, 302, 306, 314, 315, 334, 337, 341, 345, 388, 396, 438, 449, 451, 454, 458, 466, 488, 493, 498–500, 505, 506, 508, 511, 545, 556, 566, 605, 626, 638, 650 Discipline, academic, 214, 218, 222, 223, 238, 239 Discipline, punishments, 72, 228, 259, 456, 486 Discourse, 5, 41, 55, 64, 77, 221, 223, 226, 236, 268, 314, 315, 326, 442, 558, 564–568, 608 Discrimination, viii, 9, 25, 47–49, 59, 78, 82, 84, 86, 89, 109, 127, 132, 151, 153, 155, 156, 203, 211, 219, 233, 255, 256, 271–275, 283–285, 291, 296, 297, 302, 308, 314, 315, 332, 336, 338, 342, 343, 356, 377, 421, 428, 450, 451, 454, 455, 464, 467, 473, 474, 505, 508, 510, 534, 547, 572, 587, 602, 653 Diversity, 77, 93, 148, 151, 156–163, 182, 236, 316, 318, 339, 419, 420, 427, 436, 474, 582, 618, 626–628, 648, 655 Dress code, 463–464, 503, 506 Due process, 199, 466, 492, 493, 497, 500–503, 512, 519, 521, 523–525 Duty-bearers, 22, 58, 59, 71, 87, 106–108, 145, 188, 241, 247, 319, 333, 335, 342, 347, 397, 427, 430, 461, 469, 472, 508, 538, 555, 587, 610, 620, 628, 636, 639, 641, 655, 657–660

E Economy, 68, 123, 139, 159, 205, 360, 421, 435, 440, 577, 588, 603, 643, 644, 646–648

799 Education, vii, 4, 7, 8, 22, 33, 36, 42, 50–52, 54, 56, 64, 68–72, 76, 79, 80, 82, 85, 95–98, 101, 106, 108, 109, 118, 119, 121–123, 125, 127, 129, 132–134, 138, 140, 142, 149, 153, 154, 159, 161, 162, 164, 175, 181, 183, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193–196, 198–200, 202–205, 208, 212, 214, 221, 224, 226, 232, 234, 236, 237, 241, 246, 248, 251, 254, 255, 257, 259, 262, 265, 266, 288–293, 295, 297, 300, 307–310, 319–323, 325, 326, 332–335, 337, 339–341, 343, 345–348, 351, 352, 358, 359, 361, 363, 365, 369, 372, 384, 387, 388, 395, 404–406, 409, 414, 418, 420, 426, 428, 433–449, 451–475, 481, 482, 500, 504–509, 513, 514, 521, 522, 532, 534, 535, 546, 549, 555, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 568, 569, 572, 576–579, 581, 586–588, 591, 598, 599, 603, 606–623, 625, 626, 630–632, 638–641, 644, 645, 647–649, 655 Educational apartheid, 448–449 Edupreneurs, edu-businesses, 626 Eisenhower, D., 197–198 Emotional abuse, 58, 166–168, 336, 379, 383, 609 Engagement, 221, 230, 298, 319, 333, 339, 343, 387, 400, 402–403, 409, 413–419, 431, 447, 472, 499, 517, 529, 568, 570, 578, 599, 616, 617 Enlightenment, 71–74, 181, 211, 315, 534, 633 Exclusion, 185, 287, 293, 406, 414, 429–430, 450, 461, 508, 510, 514

F False consciousness, 47–51, 272 Family, ix, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52–54, 56–58, 63, 64, 67–71, 73, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83–86, 88–91, 93–96, 99, 106, 110, 113, 114, 117, 120, 122, 123, 127, 131–135, 137, 139–141, 144, 148, 151, 155–164, 167–169, 172, 176, 182–186, 189–192, 194–197, 199, 201–205, 207–209, 212, 215, 216, 225, 227–233, 236, 238, 243, 244, 246–249, 251, 252, 254–257, 261, 263–266, 268, 278–280, 287, 288, 292–295, 298, 300, 302, 305, 307, 309, 310, 319, 321–323, 326, 327, 334–337, 339–341, 343–346, 349–354, 360, 362–364, 367–370, 372–376, 380, 382–387, 390–392, 395, 396, 402, 403, 405, 413, 414, 416, 422–424, 427, 434, 441, 449, 451–455, 468, 470–473, 480, 482, 499, 515, 518,

800 524, 531, 534, 536–538, 540, 541, 543, 547–549, 558, 561, 563, 564, 566, 569, 573, 577–581, 583, 586, 587, 589, 590, 593, 598–601, 603–606, 609, 612–615, 619, 621, 623, 625–627, 629, 630, 633, 636–638, 640, 641, 643, 644, 648, 649, 652–654, 658 Federalism, 483, 629, 648 Feminist, 233, 295 Finland, 123–125, 131, 445, 587, 614 First Focus, 117, 129, 132, 293, 308, 322, 536, 540, 541, 599 Ford, G., 199 For-profit education, 441 4th industrial revolution, 434, 436, 640 Frame, framework, vii, ix, xi, 3–6, 8, 9, 12–14, 17, 18, 20, 22–24, 28, 37–42, 45, 50–59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 77, 78, 87, 90, 94, 96, 106–111, 114, 116, 117, 119, 123, 125, 126, 138, 143, 145, 147, 148, 151, 153, 162–164, 166, 171, 172, 177, 186, 196, 205, 206, 208–211, 213, 217, 221, 222, 228, 231, 234–236, 239, 241, 248, 254, 259, 262, 264, 266, 268, 273–277, 280, 281, 295, 297, 299, 314, 316, 322, 325–327, 332, 333, 338, 341, 342, 344–346, 351–359, 361–363, 365, 367, 368, 380, 382, 391, 397, 399, 401, 407, 424, 426, 430, 433–475, 480, 497, 503, 506, 507, 514, 516, 524, 528, 529, 532, 537, 542, 548–551, 554, 555, 557–561, 563, 564, 566, 569, 571, 578, 581, 586, 589, 590, 593–595, 599–602, 604–606, 608, 610–612, 615, 616, 618–622, 625, 627, 628, 632–634, 638–642, 645, 647, 651–660 Freedom of speech, 81, 272, 427, 461–463, 491, 500, 506

G Gault, 143, 199, 501, 502, 521, 523–525, 536 Gender, viii, 4, 13, 21–23, 33, 42, 46, 49, 53, 68, 79, 119, 121, 129, 148, 153–156, 167, 170, 171, 182, 186, 188, 199, 209, 219, 220, 233, 234, 236, 243, 255, 256, 272, 273, 282, 285, 288–290, 292, 295–298, 300, 304, 306, 308, 310, 319, 326, 342, 404, 414, 415, 423, 429, 446–448, 450, 454, 459, 461, 464, 467, 499, 500, 505, 509, 510, 516, 525, 531, 547, 556, 561, 566, 581, 587, 588, 594,

Index 596, 597, 599, 612, 622, 626, 627, 638, 650, 652 Geography, 139–140, 213, 216, 217, 224, 225, 357, 434, 447, 468, 475, 605, 622 Global North, 184, 222, 234 Global South, 77–78, 184, 223, 625 Government, vii, ix, xi, 8, 21, 42, 46, 48, 51–54, 56, 65, 66, 79, 81, 84, 87, 105–107, 110, 113, 118–120, 122, 125, 126, 131–133, 135, 136, 154, 158, 161, 165, 172, 175, 183, 189–192, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 208, 211, 212, 215, 226, 227, 243, 245, 255, 256, 258, 264–267, 287, 303, 314, 315, 319, 323, 342, 344, 346, 348–350, 352–354, 363, 364, 369, 373, 374, 377, 383, 384, 389, 390, 393, 397, 402, 410, 419, 422, 424, 425, 427, 429, 437, 446, 453, 455, 457, 460–462, 464, 466, 468, 470, 474, 481–483, 487, 488, 490–492, 496–499, 503, 505, 509, 511, 514, 520, 531–534, 537, 538, 541, 545, 547, 554, 557, 561, 562, 575, 577–579, 582, 597, 599–601, 604, 605, 607, 614, 619–621, 625, 627, 629, 632, 633, 636–641, 643–645, 648, 650, 654, 655, 657, 659 Great Society, 198, 199, 345, 645 Greek, 65, 68–69, 215, 241, 313, 442 Group think, 290, 300, 590

H Harding, W., 193 Health, healthcare, ix, x, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 21, 33, 34, 42, 44, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 64, 66, 79, 80, 85, 87, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 100, 106, 108, 113, 116, 118–123, 127, 129, 132, 134–142, 145, 150, 153, 156, 158–161, 163, 169, 173–177, 186, 190–201, 203–205, 211, 219, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 236, 238, 243, 248, 250, 251, 254, 255, 258, 261, 262, 265, 266, 268, 274, 279, 280, 284, 285, 289, 290, 293, 295, 307–310, 315, 319, 321, 322, 332–337, 339–342, 345–348, 350–356, 358, 359, 361–363, 365, 368–370, 380, 382, 383, 386, 387, 390, 392, 393, 395, 413, 414, 416, 424, 434, 435, 440, 444, 449, 450, 453–455, 464, 466, 474, 475, 481, 482, 499, 500, 505, 507–510, 530, 532, 534, 535, 538, 540, 541, 548, 549, 554, 556, 557, 559, 561, 578–583, 586, 596, 598, 599, 602–609, 611, 618, 619, 622, 623,

Index 625, 627, 628, 630–633, 636, 638, 640, 644, 645, 647–650, 655 Hell’s kitchen, 165, 189 Higher education, xi, 37, 85, 97, 126, 159, 213, 215, 217, 226, 237, 240, 292, 294, 335, 504, 587, 588, 618–620, 641, 648 History, 5, 23, 26, 37, 43, 52–54, 61, 64–79, 86–88, 133, 147, 148, 152, 160, 165–166, 176, 182, 184–188, 190, 197, 199, 201, 202, 206–211, 213–217, 222–223, 227, 245–248, 255, 258, 285, 290, 292, 300, 314, 353–355, 371–375, 392, 396, 404–405, 410, 434, 436, 441, 446, 449, 468, 510, 514, 522, 523, 528, 531–540, 554, 558, 583, 591, 617, 622, 626, 630, 633, 634, 639, 656, 658 Homelessness, housing distress, 132, 134 Homeschools, 438–439, 441 Homicide, 119, 137, 166, 502, 515, 516, 526 Housing, 7 Human becomings, 20–22, 258, 268, 442, 554, 590, 651 Human beings, vii, 3, 20–23, 37, 54, 62, 65, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 86, 87, 89, 106, 108, 158, 182, 186, 194, 215, 222, 237, 248, 249, 258, 268, 291, 323, 334, 343, 399, 427, 442–443, 449, 499–501, 507, 510, 555, 563, 568, 590, 594, 627, 651 Human rights, vii–xii, 3–10, 12, 14–17, 20–23, 32, 34–40, 42, 45, 51, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61–69, 71–73, 77–82, 85–88, 95, 98, 100, 101, 106–111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 123–126, 132, 136, 138, 143–145, 147, 148, 153, 154, 159, 162, 164, 166, 171, 172, 175, 177, 181–183, 185–190, 193, 196–206, 208, 210, 211, 213–218, 220–241, 243, 244, 248, 250, 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264, 267, 268, 271, 273–275, 280, 289, 294, 296–302, 305, 308, 310, 313–327, 331–335, 338, 340–346, 348, 352, 354–359, 361, 363, 365, 367, 368, 373, 374, 378–389, 391, 394, 395, 397, 399, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409–412, 423, 424, 426, 428–430, 433–475, 479–483, 498–513, 522–528, 530–551, 553, 555–560, 563, 564, 566–573, 575, 576, 578, 580, 581, 585–587, 589–591, 593–597, 600, 602, 605–634, 636–642, 647, 651–660 Human rights education (HRE), 215, 217, 237, 240, 316, 322, 325, 335, 434, 467–474, 505, 506, 539, 540, 595, 597, 610, 616–618, 620, 622, 641, 652

801 Humanitarian, 28, 80, 95, 100, 194, 380, 390, 394, 395 Hunger, 69, 131, 132, 134–135, 145, 196, 199, 341, 344, 391, 455, 542, 580, 586, 624, 639, 643

I Inclusion, 34, 109, 214, 315, 316, 318, 332, 406, 420, 425, 436, 445, 456, 483, 498, 536, 553, 582, 603, 626, 628, 655 Industrial Revolution, 74–76, 79, 183, 186, 188, 440, 442, 474, 647 Inequality, viii, 8, 9, 19, 21, 22, 53, 66, 67, 79, 118, 121, 122, 132, 138, 150, 153, 198, 199, 201, 210, 219, 223, 230, 232, 239, 263, 264, 285, 289, 295, 300, 301, 308, 347, 363, 391, 404, 406, 413, 423, 426, 428, 429, 437–439, 441, 442, 449, 451, 504–506, 557, 577, 586, 587, 594, 606, 627, 632, 635, 646, 648–650 Insurance, 51, 96, 118, 135, 138–139, 174, 201, 204, 205, 245, 257, 279, 280, 333, 335, 341, 345, 347, 350, 356, 360, 363, 509, 534, 580, 588, 636, 645, 648, 649, 655 Intergenerationality, 6, 297–300, 302, 303, 309, 311 Intersectionality, 6, 233–234, 287, 295–297, 300, 302, 303, 306, 309, 311 Investment, 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 24, 59, 119, 123, 161, 183, 198, 199, 204, 205, 247, 252, 281, 292, 293, 340, 408, 437, 438, 442, 443, 447, 558, 561, 576–582, 586–589, 591, 603–605, 607, 608, 611, 623, 647, 648, 657

J Jebb, E., 79, 192, 532, 533 JLWOP, 127, 526–527 Johnson, L., 645 Juvenile court, 127, 199, 369, 372, 501, 502, 520–522, 524 Juvenile justice, 8, 31, 89, 126, 127, 129, 142–144, 321, 322, 359, 500, 501, 511, 516–523, 525, 528, 532, 599

K K-12, 126, 204, 281, 450, 472, 504, 554, 559, 612, 616–617, 652 Kennedy, J., 399, 426

802 Kids Rights Foundation, 123–124 Korczak, J., 79, 220, 536

L Labeling, 6, 36, 235, 264, 310 Labeling theory, 234–235, 259, 262–263 Labor, 29, 34, 53, 75, 76, 78, 79, 126, 127, 157, 183, 186–193, 195, 196, 199, 226, 246, 249, 315, 319, 368, 372, 380, 389, 392, 404, 405, 421–423, 490, 500, 507, 531, 532, 534, 546, 598, 612, 619, 643 Law, vii, 8, 23, 28, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 76, 80–83, 85, 86, 89–96, 99–102, 110, 125, 127, 129, 141, 142, 144, 165, 176, 182, 192, 196, 198, 203, 205, 209, 214, 216, 217, 227, 230, 240, 249, 250, 255, 258, 265, 266, 276, 292, 302, 314, 319, 321, 323, 331, 334, 338, 339, 370, 371, 373, 376, 378, 381, 382, 390, 392, 409, 419, 421, 422, 447, 465–468, 470, 473, 482–493, 495–502, 506, 507, 510–514, 520–523, 525, 526, 528–530, 538, 540, 541, 545, 561–564, 588, 599, 600, 602, 618, 628, 629, 643, 644 Leading for Kids, 117, 322, 605 League of Nations, 66, 79, 192, 193 Let someone else do it (LSEDI), 631–632 LGBTQ+, 6, 56, 66, 155, 170, 271, 289, 309, 315, 319, 450, 458, 467, 468, 483, 506, 531, 545, 628 Lifespan, 35–37, 319, 434, 604, 622

M Macroageisms, 276–277 Marriage, 6–8, 28, 70, 83, 84, 126, 127, 156, 157, 175, 211, 294, 315, 368, 499, 560, 596, 630 Maturity, 29–32, 35, 92, 248, 339, 406, 459, 499, 502, 508, 524, 529, 556, 608, 630–631, 640 Media, 8, 18, 21, 37, 42, 45, 48, 49, 54, 57, 84, 92, 93, 126, 170, 207, 209, 220, 229, 235, 275, 277, 282, 299, 309, 319, 334, 336, 337, 379, 384, 393, 419, 426, 431, 468, 469, 480, 505, 538, 540, 544, 545, 554, 556, 597, 599, 621, 623, 631 Medicaid, 51, 139, 199, 350, 356, 507, 576, 645 Medicare, 199, 345, 356, 507, 554, 576, 645 Mental health, ix, 15, 31, 46, 52, 93, 96, 115–117, 120, 131, 134, 136, 138, 140, 141, 150, 159, 164, 170–175, 213,

Index 219–221, 267, 284, 310, 314, 319, 321, 322, 335, 339–341, 346, 348, 358, 369, 384, 388, 396, 424, 436, 443, 450, 452–455, 457, 458, 475, 499, 508, 519–522, 525, 549, 578, 586, 598, 603, 625, 628, 648, 655 Methodology, 7, 44, 55, 114, 115, 119, 132, 213, 216, 217, 223, 226, 230, 234, 239, 316, 318, 348, 378, 514, 540, 589 Microageisms, 276–277 Middle ages, see Dark ages Minority, 9, 20, 56, 93, 98, 144, 151, 184, 202, 271–275, 285, 287, 311, 315, 318, 327, 337, 522, 534, 536, 634, 653 Misrecognition, 276–277 Morbidity, 29, 120, 215, 224, 331, 547 Mortality, 29, 69, 75, 96, 119–122, 137, 150, 159, 189, 192, 194, 215, 224, 331, 515, 547, 614 Multidisciplinary, 7

N Narrative, 5, 9, 18, 24, 39–42, 48, 50, 51, 54, 56, 63, 67, 72, 77, 117, 126, 151, 153, 155, 166, 178, 183, 184, 186, 213, 240, 250, 252, 254, 257, 261–264, 266, 268, 272, 275–277, 280, 282, 289, 294, 317, 338, 341, 381, 434, 437, 467, 468, 474, 479, 481–483, 510, 519, 529, 531, 532, 537, 538, 546, 548, 551, 553–559, 561, 565, 567, 586, 589–591, 593–597, 599, 603, 606, 609, 610, 612, 621, 622, 634, 635, 637–640, 651–655, 659 Natural rights, 63, 65–67, 323 Negative rights, 64 Neglect, 6, 75, 91, 94, 100, 109, 117, 141, 142, 164, 165, 168, 169, 189, 196, 199, 203, 223, 250, 256, 332, 334–337, 341, 346, 350, 351, 368–371, 373–375, 379, 383–385, 389, 428, 449, 521, 532, 540, 562, 563, 609, 614, 638 New Deal, 196, 197, 345, 535, 642–645 Nixon, R., 199 Nomads, 67–68

O Obama, B., 152, 202, 204, 422, 541, 601 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 119, 121–123, 131, 577

Index P Paradigm, 45, 62, 77, 133, 229, 234, 238, 332, 361, 528–530, 594, 603, 627, 639, 642, 656, 657 Parental rights, 56, 160, 182, 248, 249, 252, 254, 260, 498, 510, 529, 538, 541, 542, 561, 563, 595, 629, 657 Participation, xi, 32, 34, 56, 63, 95, 101, 109, 140, 161, 190, 206, 209, 220, 300, 319, 331–333, 335, 338–340, 343–344, 346, 347, 359, 367, 399–431, 435, 450, 453–454, 459–467, 472, 473, 480, 493, 512, 528–530, 538, 541, 564, 589, 590, 597, 599–600, 603, 611, 619, 628, 631, 634 Pediatrics, ix, 129, 134, 135, 137, 138, 153, 165, 166, 220–221, 238, 285, 308, 322, 341, 374, 427, 479, 536, 540, 546, 550, 561, 606, 608 Philosophy, 39, 65, 73, 201, 217, 221–222, 372, 527, 543, 619 Phoenix Zone, 601–602 Physical abuse, 165–167, 171, 335, 368, 376, 379, 385, 388 Physical attributes, 278 Plato, 68, 69, 76 Play, viii, 18, 21, 30, 32–34, 42, 50, 53, 64, 68–71, 73, 76, 98, 109, 148, 162, 163, 172, 185, 190, 195, 198, 207, 208, 211, 217, 245, 254, 256, 257, 278, 281, 282, 291, 293, 299, 301, 304, 306, 313, 319, 322, 326, 332, 333, 335, 337–339, 354, 401, 403, 410–412, 419, 424–426, 442, 443, 453, 461, 470, 474, 483, 535, 537, 540, 559, 569, 580, 583, 604, 635 Police, 14, 42, 52, 143, 164, 165, 171–173, 209, 232, 235, 258, 264, 267, 272, 275, 285, 302, 304, 305, 367–371, 456–458, 464–466, 468, 479, 483, 503, 505, 506, 511, 515–520, 523, 525, 554, 568, 573, 575, 587, 620, 627, 628, 654 Policy centers, ix, xi, 540, 582, 594, 598, 599 Political, political science, vii, viii, 4, 9, 27, 34–35, 37, 59, 62–65, 74, 81, 82, 86–89, 108, 130, 132, 133, 144, 149, 152, 161, 181, 185, 187, 189, 190, 199–201, 203, 204, 208–210, 214–217, 221, 223, 226–227, 237, 248, 284, 291, 299, 313–315, 326, 340, 343, 345, 355, 357, 359, 360, 363, 370, 371, 395, 396, 401, 403, 406, 409, 413, 414, 416, 419, 429, 430, 439, 446, 447, 464, 469, 499, 509, 535, 540, 543–545, 555, 556, 563, 568,

803 576, 579, 581, 583, 589, 595, 607, 618, 625, 627, 638, 640–642, 644, 645, 649, 653, 656, 657 Positive rights, 64, 603 Poverty, 4, 5, 54, 75, 119–122, 129–135, 142, 145, 149, 150, 153, 159, 189, 196, 197, 199, 201, 204, 205, 220, 238, 284, 290, 293, 341, 342, 347, 354, 356, 361, 374, 380, 390, 391, 395, 441, 448, 449, 453, 455, 467, 511, 525, 540, 542, 554, 558, 576, 577, 586, 596, 599, 606, 624, 627, 639, 643, 647, 650, 653 Pregnancy, 29, 120, 142, 154, 159, 163, 173, 175, 200, 233, 295, 413, 453, 467, 529, 609, 612, 613, 623 Prejudice, 45, 46, 58, 156, 271, 273–275, 283, 291, 302, 490, 572 Prevention, 8, 42, 94, 96, 109, 117, 136, 138, 140–142, 165, 171–174, 199, 245, 332, 335, 338, 339, 370, 373, 374, 381, 384, 386, 453, 454, 457, 522, 528, 543, 581, 594, 598, 604, 606–608, 639, 655 Prisons, 26, 372, 411, 440, 449, 519, 523–527 Privacy, 70, 83, 93, 101, 173, 195, 203, 248, 249, 251, 265, 284, 314, 319, 334, 336, 339, 369, 384, 394, 426, 427, 440, 465, 466, 503, 506, 513, 528, 529, 628 Progressive era, 186, 189, 190, 372 Protection, viii, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 25, 28, 42, 65, 70, 77–80, 82–86, 88–90, 92–96, 100, 106–110, 119, 123, 124, 127, 129, 137, 143, 165, 166, 168, 181, 182, 186–191, 193–196, 198, 199, 201–203, 205, 206, 220, 222, 225, 227, 229, 236, 249–251, 255, 266, 267, 271, 273, 281, 314, 319, 332, 334–338, 340, 342–343, 346, 350, 360, 367–397, 399, 414, 421, 423, 426–428, 430, 439, 447, 454–459, 461, 464, 466, 467, 480, 483, 493, 497–500, 504, 506, 508–516, 519, 523, 524, 526, 530, 532, 535, 536, 538, 541, 544, 547, 549, 556, 564, 583, 590, 595, 597–599, 603, 608, 611, 614, 619, 620, 625, 627, 628, 631, 634, 638, 639, 644, 649, 658 Provision, 28, 51, 80, 89, 91, 93, 96, 98–100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 109, 115, 116, 119, 144, 158, 182, 190, 195, 200, 203, 204, 220, 229, 255, 257, 258, 266, 319, 332–335, 337, 338, 340–342, 346, 348–363, 365, 389, 410, 422, 426, 430, 434, 439, 453–454, 461, 483, 494, 510, 512, 522, 527, 530, 535, 538, 541, 547, 554, 564, 583, 590, 594, 597, 599, 600,

804

Index

603, 606, 608, 611, 614, 619, 620, 626, 628, 634, 638–640, 649 Provision, protection, and participation (3 P), 8, 9, 108, 114, 147, 156, 190, 266, 331–333, 340–344, 346, 434, 474, 538, 539, 549, 550, 559, 572, 593, 600, 603, 610, 634, 637, 639, 640, 658 Psychology, 214, 216, 217, 221, 228, 229, 316, 320–322, 401, 540, 612, 618, 641 Puberty, 25, 26, 29, 70, 509, 614 Public health, 30, 56, 58, 91–93, 129, 130, 135, 137, 138, 153, 158, 171, 175, 194, 196, 220, 238–239, 261, 323, 374, 381, 453, 454, 481, 508–510, 513, 550, 562, 582, 594, 595, 599, 606–609, 654, 655 Punishment, 82, 86, 89, 99, 100, 144, 170, 181, 190, 211, 259, 314, 336–338, 371, 372, 379, 381–382, 456, 466, 485, 490, 492, 493, 497, 501, 502, 518, 521, 523, 525, 527, 528, 537

Rights defenders, 8, 136, 165, 200–202, 244, 267, 317, 380, 470, 635, 658–660 Rights holders, 5, 8, 18, 36, 37, 58, 59, 67, 87, 106–109, 111, 114, 145, 178, 182, 211, 244, 255, 263, 266, 268, 326–327, 332, 351, 460, 470, 498, 503, 530, 538, 548, 553–573, 583, 591, 593, 596, 599, 603, 630–632, 634, 639, 641, 657 Risk, 6, 14, 31, 75, 96, 109, 119, 122, 129, 133–135, 137, 138, 141, 142, 154, 155, 159, 163, 169, 175, 176, 202, 229, 251, 266, 279, 282, 295, 309, 332, 344, 348, 350, 352, 354, 368, 369, 373, 374, 376, 381, 383, 384, 388, 391, 392, 394, 423, 429, 453, 505, 509, 516, 517, 523, 529, 561, 605, 643, 646, 647, 655, 659 Roman, 68–69, 182, 404 Roosevelt, F., 196, 331, 532, 642–645 Roosevelt, T. (Teddy), 190, 191

R Race, racism, 13, 21–23, 25, 33, 42, 46, 47, 49, 56, 78–80, 82, 83, 88, 89, 119, 127, 129, 140, 147, 148, 151–153, 156, 170, 182–184, 186, 188, 189, 193, 196, 209, 233, 234, 236, 243, 255, 256, 271–273, 276, 283–285, 288–292, 295–298, 300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 315, 319, 326, 340, 347, 428, 429, 436, 437, 445–449, 454, 459, 466, 483, 494, 498, 500, 504, 506, 509, 510, 532, 547, 556, 561, 566, 572, 587, 597, 599, 605, 622, 626, 627, 644, 646 Reagan, R., 201, 203, 331, 537, 587, 645 Relative deprivation, 130 Renaissance, 71–73, 211 Reproduction theory, 235 Research, vii–ix, 5–8, 12, 24, 31, 40, 44–47, 54, 55, 57, 73, 114–117, 122, 129, 130, 132, 135, 141, 144, 149, 150, 152, 160, 161, 164, 169, 177, 196, 209, 213, 215–219, 224, 226, 228–230, 236, 239, 257, 274, 275, 294, 298, 308, 313, 316, 318, 320–323, 348, 378, 385, 395, 400, 401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 413–414, 419, 420, 424, 426–428, 438, 439, 443, 451, 456, 458, 470, 513–516, 518, 520, 525, 528, 540, 550, 551, 556, 565, 572, 589, 598, 599, 602, 607, 615, 619, 640, 641, 647, 656 Restorative justice, 238, 369, 523, 527–528

S Scaffolding, 37, 177, 358, 409, 460, 622–624 School, 7 School board, 4 School loan debt, 483, 588 School safety, 172, 455, 458 School shootings, 52, 172–173, 210, 267, 368, 373, 454–458, 507, 519, 536, 590 Scotland, 27, 35, 63, 125, 192, 470–471, 473, 481, 498, 555, 560, 600 Search and seizure, 464–465 Sexual abuse, 94, 99, 140, 154, 163, 165, 167, 305, 336, 337, 339, 368, 373, 374, 376, 379, 385, 386, 388, 453, 463, 516, 518, 525, 526, 627 Sexual debut, 154, 611–612 6 P, 109, 326 Social capital, 185, 571 Social change, 7, 39, 41, 148, 157, 233, 236, 237, 360–362, 364, 419, 429, 437, 483, 531, 543, 544, 570, 596, 608–609, 621, 646, 656 Social class, 15, 22, 75, 79, 137, 138, 140, 147–151, 153, 158, 182, 209, 233, 236, 288, 290, 295, 297, 298, 301, 307, 308, 315, 320, 326, 340, 404, 447, 448, 509, 525–526, 556, 561, 579 Social constructionism, 36, 231, 235–236 Social contract, 499, 642–650, 654, 655 Socialization, 21, 49–51, 224, 231, 285, 294, 301, 324–327, 351, 401, 404

Index Social media, 55, 56, 115, 162, 169, 170, 208, 220, 234, 262, 267, 282, 305, 319, 326, 380, 384, 393–394, 401, 427–429, 441, 462, 465, 466, 515, 544, 556, 613, 621, 626, 628, 635, 653 Social movement, 186, 275, 344, 401, 403, 436, 531, 535, 536, 543–551, 568, 589, 590, 595, 621, 626, 633 Social responsibility, 459, 649–650 Social work, social services, vii, 7, 8, 49, 51, 85, 108, 140, 161, 164, 212, 213, 234, 238–239, 258, 265, 332, 333, 348, 352, 353, 359, 369, 370, 410, 425, 452–454, 456, 475, 503, 538, 540, 546, 549, 596, 599, 605, 618, 619, 623, 625, 636, 640, 645 Sociobiology, 219–220 Sociology, ix, 7, 216, 217, 221, 228, 230–236, 240, 285, 316, 540, 641 South Africa, 290, 300, 382, 499 Sovereignty, 82, 483, 629 Spheres, 45, 50, 62–64, 223, 480–483 Stereotyping, 262, 271, 273, 276, 283 Stratification, 6, 68, 246, 287–311, 327, 634, 635 Structural-functionalism, 231 Student loan debt, 587–589, 636 Suffragette, 188–190, 233, 265, 532 Suicide, 4, 120, 141, 142, 150, 170, 244, 367, 429, 452, 455, 458, 635, 650 Sweden, 124, 192, 404, 498, 587, 626 Symbolic interaction, 234–235 Systems, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31, 32, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 51, 58, 63, 69, 72, 74, 78, 81, 87, 94, 102, 113, 115, 127, 132, 135, 138, 141–145, 153, 161, 177, 181, 205, 210–212, 215, 227, 228, 232, 233, 237, 238, 246, 249, 260, 264–266, 275–277, 283, 284, 287, 288, 290–292, 295, 296, 300–302, 304–309, 311, 342, 344–365, 367–397, 399–431, 435, 440–442, 444, 445, 448, 449, 452, 456, 504, 507, 508, 511–517, 519–528, 534, 538, 539, 541, 543, 563, 566, 570, 587, 589, 590, 598, 599, 602–606, 609, 615, 619–621, 625, 629, 630, 632, 633, 637, 638, 641, 643, 645, 648, 654–660

T Taft, H., 191–192 Targeted systems, 51, 353, 354, 356, 357, 629–630

805 Trafficking, 34, 99, 167, 202, 248, 251, 253, 315, 319, 335, 336, 368, 371, 380, 385, 389, 427, 428, 638 Trauma, 4, 31, 124, 140–143, 153, 166, 219, 228, 395, 455, 456, 550, 551, 572, 607 Truman, H., 197–198 Trump, D., 170, 204, 205, 284, 292, 313, 576

U UDHR, see Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Unaccompanied youth, 133, 163, 236, 395, 630 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, see Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) United Nations, vii, 35, 54, 66, 81–83, 85–89, 95, 98, 102–106, 108, 148, 186, 197, 199, 202, 225, 397, 411, 461, 470, 471, 505, 507, 535–537, 539, 540, 547, 554, 555, 647, 658 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 21, 27, 87, 117–120, 122, 129, 197, 323, 351, 374, 389, 394, 395, 400, 412, 424, 426, 469, 472, 526, 535, 539, 541, 547, 549, 550 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 61–63, 66, 79, 81–89, 111, 132, 197, 198, 203, 255, 314, 316, 342, 434, 469, 474, 483, 505, 507, 508, 527, 533, 535, 559, 645 Universal systems, 355, 363

V Values, 7, 21, 24, 39, 40, 45, 63, 67, 68, 72, 73, 89, 98, 129, 149, 151, 168, 183, 187, 188, 221, 222, 231, 235, 248, 249, 256, 257, 265, 276, 281, 288, 290–292, 294, 306, 309, 310, 321, 325, 326, 358, 372, 387, 400, 402, 403, 411, 412, 415, 429, 435, 443, 445, 447, 459, 463, 470, 480, 482, 486, 492, 501, 529, 542, 543, 556, 561, 564–565, 570, 572, 576, 579, 590, 609, 621, 623, 628, 631, 638, 643, 646, 652 Verbal abuse, 143, 167, 168, 336, 368, 379, 385–386 Victorian era, 75–76 Violence, viii, 4, 25, 34, 44–45, 53, 54, 66, 93, 126, 142, 145, 150, 158, 159, 163–173, 207, 209, 229, 235, 259, 267, 275, 282, 283, 300, 309, 320, 322, 333, 335–337,

806 341, 342, 347, 352, 367–372, 375, 376, 380, 381, 384, 389–391, 395, 396, 423, 428–430, 453–456, 461, 474, 501, 513–516, 518, 519, 524–526, 534, 545, 554, 572, 573, 586, 596, 606, 608, 624, 650, 653, 660 Volunteerism, 403–404, 414, 421 Vulnerability, 51, 189, 220, 351, 352, 354–356, 394, 555, 556 Vulnerable, 13

W Wales, vii, viii, xi, 35, 125, 460, 473, 555, 560, 580, 600, 656 War on poverty, 199, 354, 645 Welfare, 21, 44, 54, 85, 89, 99, 108, 117, 129, 131, 132, 142, 159, 161, 171, 183, 189, 192, 196–199, 201, 238, 252, 308, 321, 322, 332, 334, 345, 349–351, 354, 359, 360, 364, 370, 374, 375, 382, 383, 408, 481, 484, 486, 524, 533, 536, 541, 561, 581, 587, 598, 599, 631, 636, 647, 648, 660 Wellbeing, 14, 127, 150, 368, 388, 469, 471, 505 White House Conference on Children, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198, 200

Index Wilson, W., 64, 80 Work, viii–xii, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 27, 33–35, 39, 41, 43, 51, 53, 58, 62–66, 68, 71, 72, 74–76, 79, 84, 87, 98, 110, 113, 116, 117, 127, 131, 135, 148, 150, 158, 160–162, 165, 172, 175, 183, 187, 188, 192, 196, 199, 200, 207–209, 215, 217, 221, 223–225, 227, 228, 232–235, 240, 243, 245–247, 253, 265, 272, 279–282, 285, 287, 290, 291, 293, 295, 300, 303, 306, 313, 315, 316, 320, 324, 337, 341–343, 345, 351, 352, 355, 356, 361, 362, 365, 369, 371–374, 377, 378, 383, 386, 389, 392, 401–403, 408–410, 412, 415, 417, 418, 420–424, 426, 435, 442–445, 455, 461, 467, 470, 473–475, 482, 483, 490, 500, 506, 507, 511, 517, 520, 524, 525, 527, 534–536, 540, 542, 548–550, 555, 560, 564, 565, 568–571, 573, 581, 585, 599, 600, 602, 605, 608, 611, 612, 615, 618, 620, 625, 635, 636, 640, 643, 646–650, 656, 658, 659

Y Young carers, 423–424