Children’s Rights, Deinstitutionalisation and the Development of Foster Care Services across the World

Abstract

In many countries, foster care is an established system for looking after children who cannot live with their birth families. It is accepted as a preferable form of provision when compared to institutional arrangements. Deinstitutionalisation is founded upon theories of child development, most particularly attachment theory, which suggest that children are more likely to flourish in family settings as opposed to institutions. The implementation of a foster care system accords with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the associated recommendations. But is it feasible to apply these rights and recommendations across the world? How transferable is the system of foster care? By making use of the literature, this paper draws attention to some of the challenges and complexities that accompany attempts at implementing this child care strategy in some of the world's regions.

Global out-of-home childcare and world culture

“…This according to Sindi et al (2018) is due to the cultural emphasis on individualism and family privacy. In consequence, foster care placements decreased between 2005 and 2015” (Harlow, 2021: 8). In other words, the rise of individualistic culture leads not only to DI commitments but also to resistance to the internationally promoted DI policy model, which includes development of formal foster care.…”

“…DI policy is fundamentally based on Western ideas about family and childhood, prioritizing the nuclear family and individualism (Brown et al, 2002; Hoffman, 2021). These ideas are often at odds with cultural and social realities elsewhere (Archambault, 2010; Harlow, 2021; Hoffman, 2021). Around the world, traditional extended family and informal kinship care remain important, partly because of the adaptable and flexible nature of these arrangements, which is key in resource-poor societies, where families are likely to face severe social and economic adversity (Brown et al, 2002).…”

Advancing global and transnational approaches to the study of out-of-home childcare

“…We cannot do the whole field justice within the limits of this paper. So here are just a few examples of different strands of beyond-national-borders study of child institutionalization: cross-country comparative studies of care systems (Islam and Fulcher, 2022;James et al, 2021;Kendrick et al, 2011;Milligan et al, 2016;Nicklett and Perron, 2010;Ulybina, 2022aUlybina, , 2022bUlybina, , 2022c; international legal studies analyzing care in the context of international law and policy (Cantwell and Holzscheiter 2007;Van Doore 2022); the global travel of childcare ideas and policy models (Harlow, 2021;Hoffman, 2021;Ulybina, 2020Ulybina, , 2022a. A growing number of studies reveal the geopolitics of out-of-home childcare, and more specifically the hegemony of Western powers and international organizations representing Western ideologies and assumptions about childhood and care (Brown et al, 2002;Harlow 2021;Hoffman 2021;Islam and Fulcher 2022).…”

“…So here are just a few examples of different strands of beyond-national-borders study of child institutionalization: cross-country comparative studies of care systems (Islam and Fulcher, 2022; James et al, 2021; Kendrick et al, 2011; Milligan et al, 2016; Nicklett and Perron, 2010; Ulybina, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c); international legal studies analyzing care in the context of international law and policy (Cantwell and Holzscheiter 2007; Van Doore 2022); the global travel of childcare ideas and policy models (Harlow, 2021; Hoffman, 2021; Ulybina, 2020, 2022a). A growing number of studies reveal the geopolitics of out-of-home childcare, and more specifically the hegemony of Western powers and international organizations representing Western ideologies and assumptions about childhood and care (Brown et al, 2002; Harlow 2021; Hoffman 2021; Islam and Fulcher 2022). Scholars analyze the global political economies of child abandonment and institutionalization, revealing how child institutionalization is part of the global care chain, where ‘orphans’ are manufactured in the global South to meet the demand from the global North (Chege and Ucembe 2020; Cheney 2018; Frimpong-Manso 2021; Guiney and Mostafanezhad 2015; Qian 2014; Van Doore 2022).…”

Deinstitutionalization of children in residential care facilities: Experiences and perceptions of professionals in Ghana

“…Most LMICs lack foster carers or adoptive parents due to cultural prohibitions against caring for unrelated children, lack of education on alternative care options and resistance from those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo (Frimpong‐Manso, 2014; Nayar‐Akhtar, 2018). Researchers (Harlow, 2021; Hoffman, 2021; Islam & Fulcher, 2021) also note that the difficulties associated with developing foster care and adoption in LMICs is because the theories that inform DI processes, for example attachment theory, promote nuclear families' individualistic values (Harlow, 2021). These concepts or theories, critics argue, are often incompatible with collectivist ideas prevalent in LMICs, where child circulation and fosterage in the extended family, involving multiple attachments with different adults, are common.…”