44
CHAPTER THREE: IN-CARE EXPERIENCES AND
TRANSITIONING OUT OF CARE
45
Attachment theorists support family-based alternative care for attachment and positive self- esteem and to prevent children’s withdrawal and antisocial behaviour (Browne, 2009).
However, family-like facilities with consistent live-in caregivers and fewer children are limited, unlike in Global North Countries (Berridge, Biehal & Henry, 2012). Heathcote (2015) found that children between 7 and 11 years at a family-like facility in the Vaal Triangle in South Africa developed positive relationships and self-regulatory behaviour through the individual attention and responsive interaction from the caregiver and “family activities”. In South Africa, most CYCCs are inherited from the apartheid era and accommodate 60 to over 120 children in large cluster cottages or dormitory style infrastructures, and hardly resemble a family environment (Heathcote, 2015). While even within these structures, CYCCs do attempt to create a family environment, the diversity of children accommodated makes the expectation of continuity of language and culture impractical and compromises reunification and reintegration initiatives (Jamieson, 2014; Malatji & Dube, 2015).
There is empirical evidence that larger facilities have similar risks to the environment from which the youth were removed, such as overcrowding, poor sanitation, increased possibility of illness, and physical and sexual abuse, which compromise overall wellbeing, stability, security and protection (Mocke, 2013; Tanga & Agere, 2010; Dickens, 2016; Heathcote, 2015). Mocke (2013) found child-on-child sex is a frequent occurrence at CYCCs, particularly at times when the caregivers were busy caring for other children or when relief workers were on duty on weekends. Nurcombe-Thorne et al. (2018) found a lack of a sense of belonging and acting out behaviour prevalent amongst children at a large CYCC that accommodated 220 children. The CYCWs who work shifts and care for groups of ten or more children at large CYCCs, do not meet the requirement of consistent caregivers that Bowlby (1969) attested as necessary for attachments and trusting relationships for children’s psychosocial security and development.
Frimpong-Manso (2020), in a study with seven care-leavers over their 12 years at a Children’s Village in Ghana, found that a consistent caregiver influenced outcomes after transitioning out of care, with secure stable employment, a tertiary education, being married, and with five of them having children.
Simkiss (2012) argues that being part of two “families” (biological family and the CYCC) contributes to conflict, but both are necessary for the emotional support, education and future success of the children.
46
The multi-dimensional deficits in families contributed to children’s removal, but they need family contact and expressed frustration when access was restricted, and children felt abandoned and unloved if they were not visited at the CYCC (Mocke, 2013; Agere, 2014).
Although children often expressed mixed feelings about care, their perception of CYCCs is a sense of belonging to a family, which is linked to the previous Children Act’s, (No 74 of 1983) use of the term, “Children’s Home” (Bond, 2017; Malatji & Dube, 2015; Moodley et al., 2020).
Omukunyi (2015) found that some children between 11 and 18 years from three CYCCs in Khayelitsha, Northern and Southern suburbs in the Cape were resistant to returning to their families after they developed a sense of belonging and received good care. They expressed the view that residential care saved them from the risks of neglect, illnesses and pregnancies in the community. This is inconsistent with Sauls and Esau’s (2015) study that found children want to be reunified irrespective of their circumstances. Nevertheless, the youth experience a sense of abandonment when transitioning out of care (Oelofsen, 2015). Interventions and adaptations are required of CYCCs and families to help children overcome their hardships and resistance to reunification and transitioning out of CYCCs (Moodley et al., 2020).
The new term, CYCC, still embraces the “children’s home programme” with emphasis on therapeutic programmes for the reception, care and development of children, which require engagement with the family and child (Transformation of CYCCs, 2009-2014). Parents are motivated to participate in parenting and practical skills, and to remain actively engaged in raising their children (Sauls & Esau, 2015; Karam, 2014). The families unintentionally abdicate their responsibilities when economic and practical strains of long travelling distances from the townships and rural areas from where most children were removed to CYCCs in the suburbs, affect their visits (Van Breda & Dickens, 2016). Potgieter and Hoosain (2018) found that when CYCCs absorbed their parental role, parents felt undermined and became even more distanced, especially when vital information about their children was withheld, and the contact was regulated by rigid and ambiguous control measures. Reunification is an essential part of family preservation and social workers are expected to involve relevant stakeholders, but rarely are the voices of parents/caregivers or youth heard (Potgieter, 2016; Schofield et al., 2011). This is associated with role conflict and power relations that are evident at various levels which is explored further in the discussion that follows.
47
3.3
ROLE CONFLICT AND POWER RELATIONS
Pretorius’ (2011) finding that 4 out of 12 children from four CYCCs in Pretoria associated self- harm, such as slitting themselves with sharp objects, to the lack of control over their environment at the CYCCs, calls for a deeper look at power and control. Tanga and Agere (2018) found that children and youth perceived non-residential social workers with statutory power to influence crucial decisions as to where they stay, their access to family and the community and their future. However, limited contact and non-availability when services were required were perceived by the youth as contributing to ineffective services that slowed their exit from the system.
A deeper and complex institutional and structural challenge exists between residential and non- residential social workers. Although some social workers felt their concentration was rightfully on the holistic development of children and youths in preparing them for reintegration into the community (Bond, 2017; Agere, 2014), others felt stifled by the lack of statutory power to influence the future of children and prevent their long stay at CYCCs. Sauls and Esau (2015) also found that residential and non-residential social workers do not collaborate in planning for the youth’s reunification. Tanga and Agere (2018) found that residential social workers lamented that non-residential social worker failed in their duty to investigate, address the reason/s for children’s removal and failed to reunify children and youth with their families.
Chinyenze (2017) was of the view that action plans should rest with CYCCs since they had more contact with children and their caregivers.
The non-residential social workers are expected to provide individual and family counselling, connection with resources, and skills programmes in parenting and communication (Magagula, 2016). Guidelines for reunification (2012) and the Family Preservation Manuals (2010) amongst other tools are available. Sauls and Esau (2015) found that whilst social workers recognized that parents/caregivers endured inequalities, and the stigma of being incompetent, they adopted individualistic and paternalistic approaches in working with families. Social workers perceived parents as un-cooperative; they did not consult parents to understand the further extension of court orders, which made parents feel belittled and undermined. Sauls and Esau (2015) found premature and failed reunification was associated with social workers who felt pressurized by the emphasis on short term placements and expeditious reunification without access to resources for effective services.
48
This pressure must be balanced against the provisions of the Children’s Act (No. 38 of 2005), which also expects the home circumstances to be stable, safe and secure to prevent the recurrence of the problem.
Berridge et al. (2012) found non-residential social workers, informed by the historical background and complex problems of children and family, may decide against reunification to prevent further deterioration or risk to children. Sometimes, youth transitioning out of CYCCs prolonged care are associated with challenges in service delivery, for example, on account of high caseloads, managerial constraints and limited resources (discussed in Chapter two, section 2.5). The social workers can be disempowered by a lack of knowledge and skills, similar to youth and families. Sloth-Nielsen and Ackermann (2015), for example, found social workers’
lack of awareness of existing services to trace and connect foreign national children in Western Cape CYCCs with their families, contributed to the children’s lack of identity and belonging.
Jamieson (2014) asserted that whilst the High Court ruling entitled foreign nationals’ access to social services, the access to alternative care services is a gap in the Children’s Act, (No 38 of 2005).
The youths’ perceptions of their residential social workers’ interventions ranged from favourable by some children to insufficient time spent on their individualized needs and/or, recovery from past traumas (Tanga & Agere, 2018; Dickens, 2016; Hlungwani, 2017;
Mhongera & Lombard, 2018). Social workers agreed that insufficient therapeutic services are provided to children and that few transformative interventions are conducted with the family (Sauls & Esau, 2015). Potgieter (2016) found by excluding parents in interventions such as play therapy, residential social workers had lost opportunities to restore the parent-child relationship, and thereby influence the children’s futures. Residential social workers also play a significant role in influencing the movement of children into family care or permanent placements by recruiting prospective host, foster and adoptive parents (Tanga & Agere, 2018).
On the other hand, Sauls and Esau (2015) found that families are often nomadic and non- residential social workers lives are placed at great risk in trying to track them down in high- risk communities.
The CYCCs require appropriately trained and skilled staff and sufficient funding for the roll- out of quality services and programmes (Transformation of CYCCs-2009-2014). The limited financial and human resources contributed to some boards of management and staff at CYCCs resistance to implement programmes even if empirical findings supported their therapeutic and
49
psychological benefit for children and youth (Jamieson, 2014; Agere, 2014; Pillay, 2009). The sexual and reproductive health programmes are not fully implemented at CYCCs and romantic relationships are discouraged, and girls who fall pregnant are forced to leave care prematurely and many drop out of school (Mhongera & Lombard, 2018; Takele & Kotecho, 2020).
Although sport and recreational activities are accessed by the youth through CYCCs and have value for their motor, social and intellectual skills and serve to build character, the uncertainty was whether they would be able to continue these activities after they transition out of CYCCs (Malatji & Dube, 2015; Mhongera, 2015).
The frustration of residential social workers is under-qualified and inexperienced CYCWs who are employed by NPO-CYCCs that cannot compete with the state salaries (Agere, 2014;
Nurcombe-Thorne et al., 2018) and insufficient psychological support for children and families (Sauls and Esau, 2015). When psychological support is not rendered immediately in-care to deal with past traumas, their unresolved issues are carried into adulthood ((Mendes, 2009). The residential social workers provide the bulk of the psychological services and psychologists are only consulted when the youth manifest serious behavioural problems. Malattji and Dube (2015), from a qualitative study with adolescent boys at a CYCC in Ekurhuleni, concluded that their cultural backgrounds and contexts were not understood for meaningful engagement with psychologists. Greyvenstein (2010) found CYCWs felt disempowered by their lack of training to meet children’s basic psychological and developmental needs. Social workers and CYCWs have the power to control and/or facilitate children and youths’ participation especially in decision-making about matters that concern their future.
3.4 YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING IN CARE AND IN TRANSITIONING OUT
One of the cornerstones of children’s rights in the Children’s Act (No 38 of 2005). The UNCRC (1989) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990) is children’s participation, and for their voice to be heard on matters concerning them, based on their maturity age and stage of development. Jamieson (2017) explained that whilst the legal framework detailed the commitment to children’s participation in decisions, court processes, daily care, governance and implementation are lacking for children and youth to influence what happens in-care and in the future. International studies, too, revealed that youth were not consulted on major decisions about their lives, including placement changes (Snow, Mendes,
50
O’Donohue, 2014). The National Child Participation Framework (2018) found children’s participation is affected by limitations of skills and resources, lack of understanding of the child participatory process, social and cultural beliefs, and risk management dilemmas in child protection. The youth in Van Wyk et al. (2019) qualitative study perceived stereotyped attitudes of adults as always being right impacted on youth’s participation in decision-making in residential care. Whilst some CYCWs’ and social workers’ cultural belief was that children remain submissive and obedient to decisions made by elders (Van Wyk et al., 2019; Jamieson, 2017), the National Child Participation Framework (2018) argued for a sensitive push of cultural and political boundaries towards a conducive child participation environment.
The practice and outcomes of child participation, including decision-making in the statutory process, are not measured in South Africa (Jamieson, 2017). Although age is often used as the yardstick to determine maturity, Johannisen, (2015) found even children (11 to 17 years) understood that their age and levels of maturity may differ in their decision-making ability. The Children’s Act (No 38 of 2005) lacks clear guidelines to assess a child’s maturity for life- changing decision-making power given to them at a young age, even in care. Whilst younger children’s participation is often over-looked, youth are not given the opportunity to use their perceptions of their maturity and readiness to decide when they should exit residential care, often associated with the lack of alternative placement options. A risk that Bessell (2011) cautioned against is participation as tokenism based on age. Matthias and Zaal (2012) contested that the other extreme is when social workers are unable to exercise control over the choice of placement when children disagree, the same Children’s Act No 38 of 1983 in meeting their best interest can also disadvantage them.
Although local research on children’s participation is limited, empirical evidence reveals that children in residential care are stifled and restricted by insufficient opportunity to express their views and have an influence over their lives (Jamieson, 2017; Nurcombe-Thorne et al., 2018;
Van Wyk et al., 2019). Van Wyk et al. (2019), qualitative study in the Cape Peninsula found that youth at CYCCs felt a lack of control and devalued when they were not consulted, and their views were not taken seriously at multi-disciplinary meetings (family conferences, reviews and panel discussions), which contributed to their lack of agency. Internationally, particularly in Australia and New Zealand family conferencing was found useful as an alternative dispute strategy to observe parent-child interactions and relationships and was perceived by youth as the most effective way for their participation in decision-making and identifying positive networks, but not all were engaged at this level (Agere, 2014; Morris &
51
Stein, 2009; Sauls & Esau, 2015). Johannisen (2015) found a strong link between children’s overall emotional wellness and having their voices heard. When excluded from decision- making processes, they experienced low self-esteem and confidence levels, self-blame and powerlessness, whilst an uncertain future made them temperamental, unhappy and irritable and hindered their overall development (Thorne et al., 2018; Johannisen, 2015). Bijleveld, Dedding and Bunders-Aelen (2015) assert that children deserve an explanation even when decisions are made against their wishes and desires. Tabi (2016) brought to light that children’s participation through the complaints’ procedures can protect them from secondary abuse, victimization and discrimination.
The youth who transition out of CYCCs carry the negative emotions of being denied their right to participate in matters concerning them in care when suddenly they are expected to make major decisions on their own. The consultation with the mandatory children’s forum at CYCCs can determine whether children and youth are meaningfully engaged in decision-making on a daily basis (Jamieson, 2014). When children are involved in decision-making, for example, in the reunification or transition process their commitment increases, which strengthens their parents/caregivers’ confidence (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014; Karam, 2014).
3.4.1 THE TRAUMA OF BEING A “CHILDREN’S HOME CHILD”AND TRANSITIONING OUT OF CARE
Although trauma and trauma-related consequences in residential care are under-researched internationally, trauma does impact on identity and well-being, and the coping strategies of youth who transition out of care (Collin et al., 2011). The children at CYCCs face risks such as sexual exploitation and abuse (Mocke, 2013), racism and neglect (Naidoo, 2019) and disasters, such as outbreaks of fire at two CYCCs in eThekwini, (Annual Report, Durban and District Child Welfare, 2018). Importantly, is the trauma of pre-care experiences, and the stigma and shame of having to be in care that impact negatively on children and youth. This is supported by research nationally (Bond, 2017; Dickens, 2016; Moodley et al., 2020) and internationally (Pryce et al., 2015; Dziro & Rufurwokuda, 2013).
The youth struggle with disclosing their care status when the public opinion is that they are the
“worst children,” deduced from an interpretation of CYCCs as the “last resort” and the least desirable care by policy makers (Steels & Simpson, 2018). Youth do not disclose their care status even after they transition out of care (Moodley et al., 2020; Paul, 2017; Islam, 2016).
52
Their identities are usually bound by labels such as “children’s home child” (Bond, 2017. p, 87), orphans from “that institution” or delinquents (Chinyenze, 2017. p, 12), which is a stigma that continues into their adult years (Chinyenze, 2017). Educators, at times, resisted the enrolment of youth from Boys and Girls Town into their classes believing that their admission into care was associated with behavioural challenges (Dickens, 2016). Thus, it is not surprising that the youth preferred that social workers do not schedule meetings and reviews at school (Agere, 2014). Sebba and Luke (2019) assert that to target services to children and youths’
specific needs is difficult whilst trying to respect their desire and need for non-disclosure.
However, some youth perceived their care status as part of their identity and shared at the risk of being bullied, teased, and treated like criminals in the community (Dickens, 2016). The opposite reaction was pity (Van Wyk et al. (2019). The unique needs of some children and youth in care, such as those with disabilities, HIV and AIDS, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (LGBTQI) are over-looked, and they experience further disadvantage, stigmatization and discrimination, both in-care and when they transition out of care (Van Breda, 2018). Some social workers and CYCWs prevented self-disclosure and concealed the HIV positive status of infected children to avoid further rejection and associated psychological and relational trauma (Mavangira & Raniga, 2015; Dube & Smith, 2016).
However, children knowing their HIV+ status is important as it facilitates children’s adherence to medication, understanding of the death of some parents, and dealing with related anxiety (Dube & Smith, 2016).
When children and youth isolate themselves from others to avoid talking about their families and their in-care residency, qualitative empirical evidence revealed that they are more likely to experience loneliness, depression and mental health problems (Hlungwani, 2017; Sulimani- Aidan & Melkman, 2018). While youth hold importance in belonging to a peer social group, peer violence and bullying are rife, especially in schools. When violence and bullying escalate, within wider power struggles, it is not unusual for children from CYCCs to be blamed (Edmond, 2014; Barter et al., 2004; Bond, 2017; Dickens, 2016).
The construction of positive relationships requires an understanding of the origin and the context of the behaviour (Mavangira & Raniga, 2015). When the youth are labelled as “badly behaved,” or with “conduct disorders,” signs of unresolved grief and trauma are ignored (Pillay, 2009). The consequence of being reactionary is the circular dynamics of more disruptive behaviour and the greater likelihood that placements will break down, which