The Elements of Child-protection

by Sigmund Engel

Every social institution which originates on a broad basis and meets a wide general need exhibits a natural tendency towards a unified organisation and towards centralisation. We see this tendency at work in the history of child-protection. Another tendency of evolution is an enlargement in the sphere of activity of the State, in the direction of the satisfaction of all the important vital needs of the community by organised communal effort, operating through the machinery of the central government.

The national acceptance of responsibility for poor-relief may take the form of the State being satisfied with the centralised and thorough governmental regulation of the relief of destitution, the administrative details being left in the hands of the local authorities and of the community at large. Of course this is no more than a half-measure, and yet in certain circumstances it may be an advantageous division of labour. For, when we consider the respective rôles of the local authority and of the community at large in the work of child-protection, we must not forget that both are engaged in work delegated to them by the State, and for which the State is really responsible. Moreover, the relief of destitution, and that part of the work of child-protection analogous to the relief of destitution, are intimately associated with the problems of household-right and of domicile; because many central governments admit responsibility for the destitute only in the case of their own citizens, whilst in many countries a right to relief in case of destitution at the hands of the local authority is acquired by residence merely. Thus the problems of child-protection are interconnected with the legal problems of local administrative activity; and it may happen that the local authorities undertake certain departments of child-protection merely because these questions of domicile form part of their circle of interests.

A Unified System of Laws for Child-Protection.—Can the State institute a unified system of laws for child-protection, one comprising the entire legal material of child-protection? In former times such provision as there was for child-protection existed only in a dispersed form, as part of laws with other primary objects; not until later, when the question of child-protection had become one of considerable importance, did laws come into being dealing specifically with this subject. Provision for the enforcement in certain cases of a coercive reformatory education was originally a mere supplementary provision of the criminal law or of certain borough by-laws; but to-day, in many countries, special laws dealing with coercive reformatory education have been passed by the central government. The earliest special laws on the subject of child-protection dealt with the care of foundlings and illegitimate children, this being the first subdivision of our subject to attain specific importance.

The tendency of evolution is to codify, in a unified system of laws, all the legal material bearing upon any particular question. But a unified system of laws dealing with the subject of child-protection is not at present attainable. For child-protection is subject to change, almost from day to day and from hour to hour. If the legislator wished to keep pace with its development, he would have to alter and patch his system of laws year by year; but if this were done, the unified character of the legal system would soon become illusory, and numerous legal technical difficulties would inevitably arise. The question of child-protection finds a place in every department of law. There are many legal regulations regarding children which, owing in part to the technique of legislation, and in part to other causes, are, for practical reasons, best embodied in other laws. For example, laws relating to guardianship and to the care of illegitimate children cannot well be dealt with apart from the general laws bearing on family relationships.

A Centralised Authority for Child-Protection.—Is a centralised authority for child-protection possible? That is, is it possible to group under a unitary control all the agencies dealing with the protection of children? This idea certainly represents the tendency of evolution. As regards the care of foundlings and of illegitimate children, the tendency of evolution is in the direction of family care, all the families with which such children are placed being under the supervision of a single central authority, which deals with them all in accordance with identical principles. Still more clearly does this tendency manifest itself in the foundation of children’s courts, and in the endeavour to extend the powers of these to embrace all the legal relationships of children. In further exemplification of this tendency may be mentioned the development of infants’ milk depôts and of schools for mothers—a development which has by no means reached its climax. Unquestionably, in the domain of child-protection, institutions which originally appeared very different in character become unified. Thus, infants’ milk depôts, schools for mothers, schools for midwives, legal advice in children’s cases, &c., are now all being administered in connection with foundling hospitals.

The claims of the other departments of national and social life must not, however, be left out of account. Thus, whether certain questions should be referred to the law-courts, or to the local administrative authorities, to lawyers or doctors, to architects or schoolmasters; whether a local administrative authority should have the right to deal with one or two technical questions only, such as arise in a particular administrative area as to legal and executive powers, or with a number of such questions; whether certain duties should be undertaken only by specialised institutions, or by institutions which also subserve other functions—such questions as these involve a reference to other considerations in addition to those directly connected with child-protection.

Private and Official Activities.—To-day much of the work of the relief of destitution and of child-protection is undertaken by voluntary organisations, founded and administered by private individuals who are engaged also in other activities. These private persons work gratuitously, but often discharge their duties better than professional salaried and permanently appointed officials. Their work is better individualised, it is less bureaucratic, and has more heart in it. These advantages are the fruit of good-will and altruistic feeling. Nevertheless the rôle of voluntary societies becomes continually less extensive. The tendency of evolution is to bring into operation more and more the principle of the division of labour, so that questions needing expert knowledge are dealt with by professional experts, persons permanently appointed for such work, paid accordingly, and really in possession of the specialised skill which is needed. The relief of destitution, and child-protection are, as is well known, both questions for experts; and it becomes more and more necessary that their administration should be in the hands of well-paid professional workers. Lawyers, although in the domain of child-protection they are laymen merely, play a decisive part to-day in this domain, as they do in most branches of administrative activity. They are placed at the head of the expert administrators, and have, if not the first word, what is perhaps even worse, the last word, in the majority of technical questions. It is necessary to enter an energetic protest against this predominance of lawyers. It is absolutely essential that not only the salaried professional workers, but also all those who take part in the work of child-protection in honorary offices or as occasional voluntary helpers, should receive an appropriate training for their work. Quite recently has originated the idea of Schools of Public Welfare—Schools and a Curriculum for Child-Protection. We must carefully distinguish from such schools for professional workers, courses of lectures whose purpose merely is to acquaint wider circles with the aims and methods of child-protection, or to initiate novices into such work.

The Medical Profession.—The most important task of child-protection is the protection of children’s health. The persons who should undertake the management of this department are those who possess the requisite expert knowledge in matters of health—that is to say, medical practitioners and specialists in the diseases of children. In most branches of child-protection, medical practitioners now play an important part. It rests with them to determine whether there does or does not exist a contra-indication to marriage. They have to render assistance before and during childbirth, they are the most important instruments for the protection of infants and for the care of foundlings and illegitimate children, and as consultants and administrators they exercise important activities in the domain of child-labour. Their part in other subdivisions of child-protection will be discussed in detail in a later chapter of this work. The importance of the work of medical practitioners continually increases. The tendency in almost all departments of child-protection is to arrange for a preliminary examination of the children by the doctor. Among the various reasons for such an examination, we may mention that in the case of uncontrollable children and juvenile criminals the doctor can make a thorough examination of the child’s physical and mental condition, and upon this examination he will base a decision, whether the child should be placed in family or institutional care, in a reformatory school, or in some other specialised institution—as, for example, a home for mentally abnormal children; further, it is the doctor’s duty to examine all children, before they begin to work for a living, as to their physical fitness, and upon the results of this examination to base an opinion whether the child is fit to earn its living at all, and if so, whether the trade selected by the relatives is a suitable one. The tendency is, further, that the doctor should give an opinion regarding the method of protection suited for the particular child. Quite recently, indeed, the desire has been widely and strongly expressed that all children should be subjected to continuous and appropriate medical control. The institution of school physicians, supplemented in recent days by medical control of the domestic environment of the school children, shows clearly that such medical supervision of all children is likely in time to become universal. In addition, we owe a great deal to the doctors in connection with the literature of child-protection. The ablest and most important works in this specialty are by physicians. In several handbooks of hygiene, most of the problems of child-protection receive attention, although the matter is not always treated very systematically. The enormous influence which medical science has exercised and continues to exercise upon the development of the individual branches of child-protection will become apparent in the Special Part of this work.

Women.—To what extent can women play a part as executive instruments of child-protection? Women are better fitted than men to supervise the bodily care of children. Women can more readily gain the confidence of those who need support and protection—above all, the confidence of other women (especially of lonely and forsaken women) and of children. They are better judges than men of defects in housekeeping and how to remedy them. Many things are confided to women which are kept hidden from men; and women can remedy many concealed defects where men could do no good. Such duties as these are commonly performed by women more conscientiously than by men, &c.

The following arguments have been put forward against the employment of women: (a) Women ought not to be exposed to the dangers and inconveniences inseparable from visiting the houses of the poor and other places subject to inspection; (b) Women are gossiping, soft-hearted, and credulous, so that they are unable to exercise authority, and are inclined to pay undue attention to exaggerated and quite irrelevant statements; (c) They interfere too much in the management of the households of the foster-parents, &c.