CHILD PROTECTION CASES – ENGAGEMENT, INVOLVEMENT, EMPOWERMENT

• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018
• Citation: (2018) 30 SAcLJ 647
• Author: Carmelia NATHEN BA (National University of Singapore); Director, Child Protective Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development. LEE Yoke Wen MSW (University of Michigan); Manager, Child Protective Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development. LIM Hui Min BA (Oxon), BCL; Director of Legal Aid, Legal Aid Bureau. Rachel GAN LLB (National University of Singapore); Senior Assistant Director of Legal Aid, Legal Aid Bureau.

“It's How You Make Them Feel”

Child protection cases are often associated with child removal and court intervention. However, the reality is that the vast majority of child protection cases are dealt with outside the court process. Even for those cases which end up in court, legal proceedings are but a small part of the whole child protection process, and the removal of a child from his family is a last resort. This article sets out not only the relevant child protection laws and legal processes, but the philosophy and principles behind them, as well as the workings of the entire child protection framework from start to end. This includes the relevant protocols and measures to detect, report, investigate and assess child abuse cases, and the programmes and inter-agency and community collaborations to support the children and families involved in such cases. The article also discusses some ideas to improve the outcome of litigated child protection cases through education and engagement of not just the parties involved, but the legal profession also.

I. Introduction

1 She did not let her child be toilet-trained. The girl wore diapers all the way through pre-school. The teachers were not allowed to change them, even when they were soiled. In primary 2, the girl was still wearing diapers.1

2 During an argument, she took a knife, pointed it at her stomach, forcefully placed her child's hands on the knife and repeatedly told the child to stab her. Whenever the child asked to stay with her grandmother, the mother would threaten to kill herself.2

3 The child said that her father had inserted his finger into her private parts. Medical examination at the hospital revealed that she had a fresh hymenal tear. However, the mother, at an access session with the child, asked her to make a card for her father. The mother also said, in an affidavit, “I have not been even told [sic] how my husband is supposed to have done anything wrong … What is the actual medical evidence? Where is the proof that my husband did anything?”3

4 These were child protection cases that ended up in court, and were contested. It is hard to think of the parents in these cases as loving their children. But the fact that these cases were contested in court meant that the parents were not content to just send their children into the care of other people. They fought to keep their children with them. In their own way, they did love their children.4

5 The challenge for the court process in child protection cases – and for the child protection system as a whole – is how to acknowledge that love, and also allow it to be expressed – but in a way which supports, rather than conflicts with, the child's best interests.

6 The cases quoted above are reported ones. There have only been nine reported cases since the enactment of the Children and Young Persons Act5 (“CYPA”), of which three of the cases involved the same child, namely the BHR series of cases (see Annex A for the details). This is a small handful compared to the hundreds of cases that go to the Youth Court each year, and the thousands more which are reported to the Child Protective Service (“CPS”) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”),6 but which do not get escalated to the Youth Court. In 2016 alone, the Youth Court heard 219 child protection cases, and CPS received 3,035 inquiries on child protection, 873 of which were investigated.7 However, only about 30% of all the cases managed by CPS as at October 2017 would have a court order made in them.8

7 What happens to a child protection case once it gets reported to an agency or authority? How and why do some child protection cases end up in the Youth Court? For the child protection cases which do not end up in the Youth Court, what happens to them? What happens to the cases which end up in the Youth Court? What is the court experience like for the children and the parents, and are the current court processes the best way to support the objectives of child protection? And what are these objectives?

II. Key objectives of and approaches to child protection

A. Who is a “child” or “parent”

8 First, we need to define what a “child” is. Under the CYPA, which is the key piece of legislation for child protection in Singapore, a child is a person below the age of 14 years. A young person means a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16 years. A guardian of a child or young person includes any person who is presently in charge of, or has control over him.9 In this article, the term “parent” will be used to refer to both parents and guardians of a child, and the term “child” will be used to refer to all persons below the age of 16 years, and all general references to the masculine include the feminine and vice versa.

B. What being “safe” means

9 The primary objective of child protection is to keep the child safe from harm to his physical, emotional and psychological well-being.10 Section 4 of the CYPA sets out the circumstances where a child is not safe, and thus in need of care or protection, including where:11

(a) He has no parent.12

(b) He has been abandoned by his parent, who cannot be found despite reasonable enquiries, and there is no other suitable person willing and able to care for him.13

(c) The parent (i) is unable or has neglected to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life for the child, or (ii) has failed to exercise proper supervision and control over the child, and the child is falling into bad company, or is exposed to moral danger, or is beyond control.14

(a) where the child needs to be examined, investigated or treated for the purpose of restoring or preserving his health or development and his parent neglects or refuses to have him so examined, investigated or treated (s 4(e) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”));

(b) he is the victim of an offence committed or believed to have been committed under the CYPA, and the parent or guardian is unable, unlikely or unwilling to protect him from such offence; he is a member of the same household as another child who is a victim of an offence committed under the CYPA or believed to have been committed under the CYPA, and he is in danger of a similar offence being committed against him. His parent must also be unable, unlikely or unwilling to protect him from such an offence (s 4(h) of the CYPA); and

(c) he is destitute or wandering around without any settled place to stay and without any means of subsistence; he is begging, receiving alms, loitering for the purpose of receiving alms, engaged in carrying out illegal lotteries, illegal hawking or other undesirable activities, or using/inhaling any intoxicating substance for the purpose of inducing in himself a state of intoxication (s 4(i) of the CYPA).

(d) He has been, is being or is at risk of being ill-treated by: (i) his parent, or (ii) by someone else (and his parent is unlikely or unwilling to protect him from this ill-treatment or the risk of it, despite knowing about it).15

(e) He behaves in a manner that is, or is likely to be, harmful to himself or to any person, and his parent is unable or unwilling to do what it takes to prevent him from causing harm to himself. If the parent has tried to prevent the child from harming himself and failed, the child is also in need of care or protection.16 Examples of self-harm include injuring oneself by cutting, suicide attempts, risky sexual activity (such as unprotected sex with multiple partners who are strangers), drug-taking and other addiction issues.

(f) He is emotionally injured due to serious and persistent conflict between him and his parent, or between his parents, that seriously disrupts family relationships.17

10 The grounds set out in paras 9(c) and 9(d)(i) above and, in more recent years, para 9(f) above, are the top three to four grounds which CPS relies on when it brings cases to court. A case may be brought to court using more than one ground.

11 Of the nine reported cases referred to earlier, one case proceeded under s 4(c)(i) of the CYPA, viz, failure to provide for the child's necessities.18 This was the case of BGC v Child Protector19 (“BGC”). In this case, the mother had been diagnosed to be suffering from psychotic illness. She had refused to take medication, however, or attend follow-up appointments with the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). She was overly suspicious and, among other things, believed that people had impersonated the court and CPS officers, and conspired to send her to IMH. (IMH's records indicated that it was her siblings who brought her to IMH for treatment.) An IMH report on the mother expressed concern about her ability to provide for the child in view of her mental condition. The child had depressive symptoms, low self-esteem, and had previously cut her arms and wrists with penknives. The court noted that the child was very affected by the mother's

condition and behaviour, to the extent of using vulgarities at a private interview with the judge, when the issue of access to the mother was discussed. The child was adamant about not going back to live with her. The child was very bothered by the mother constantly telling her of her illogical suspicions and conspiracy theories, and having to manage her. The child was worried that she too might end up mentally ill like her mother one day!20 The court therefore found that the child was indeed in need of care or protection under s 4(c)(i) of the CYPA.21 The mother was not able to parent the child appropriately and cater for her social, emotional and psychological needs.

12 Seven of the nine reported cases proceeded under s 4(d) of the CYPA, viz, ill-treatment.22 One of the cases, UR v Child Protector23 has already been mentioned above in the introduction. Three of the other cases that proceeded under this section belong to the BHR series of cases, the...