Striving to realise the European idea: Judging the news media's accounts of how the Berlin Wall gave impetus to a new order across Europe

The 1990 European Community was taken by surprise, by the urgency of demands from the newly-elected Eastern European governments to become member countries. Those governments were honouring the mass social movement of the streets, the year before, demanding free elections and a liberal economic system associated with “Europe”. The mass movement had actually been accompanied by much activity within institutional politics, in Western Europe, the former “satellite” states, the Soviet Union and the United States, to set up new structures – with German reunification and an expanded EC as the centre-piece. This paper draws on the writer’s doctoral dissertation on mass media in the collapse of the Eastern bloc, focused on the Berlin Wall – documenting both public protests and institutional negotiations. For example the writer as a correspondent in Europe from that time, recounts interventions of the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, at a European summit in Paris nine days after the “Wall”, and separate negotiations with the French President, Francois Mitterrand -- on the reunification, and EU monetary union after 1992. Through such processes, the “European idea” would receive fresh impetus, though the EU which eventuated, came with many altered expectations. It is argued here that as a result of the shock of 1989, a “social” Europe can be seen emerging, as a shared experience of daily life -- especially among people born during the last two decades of European consolidation. The paper draws on the author’s major research, in four parts: (1) Field observation from the strategic vantage point of a news correspondent. This includes a treatment of evidence at the time, of the wishes and intentions of the mass public (including the unexpected drive to join the European Community), and those of governments, (e.g. thoughts of a “Tienanmen Square solution” in East Berlin, versus the non-intervention policies of the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev). (2) A review of coverage of the crisis of 1989 by major news media outlets, treated as a history of the process. (3) As a comparison, and a test of accuracy and analysis; a review of conventional histories of the crisis appearing a decade later.(4) A further review, and test, provided by journalists responsible for the coverage of the time, as reflection on practice – obtained from semi-structured interviews

Reaching for Home: Global Learning on Family Reintegration in Low and Lower-Middle Income Countries

This inter-agency, desk-based research aims to arrive at a clearer understanding of reintegration practices for separated children in low and lower-middle income countries. The research pulls together learning from practitioners and academics working with a range of separated children, such as those torn from their families by emergencies, children who have been trafficked or migrated for work, and children living in institutions or on the streets. Practitioners and researchers who work with these different population groups are for the most part unaware of the approaches and methods used in other areas of child protection, and this research aims to consolidate experience and create opportunities for dialogue and shared learning. The findings are based on an in-depth review of 77 documents, a short online survey involving 31 practitioners and policy makers, and key informant interviews with 19 individuals with expertise in children's reintegration

Emergency Alert: This is NOT a Test! An International Disaster Relief Plan for Protecting Children and Families

There are more than 132,000,000 orphans worldwide. As a result of recent natural disasters in the United States and other countries, the number of orphans has increased. Recent events in the Gulf Coast in the United States, Haiti and Japan showed that thousands of children become separated from their parents or guardians when disasters strike. Family members were scattered during these tragedies. Many children were reunited with their families; but some children were sent to orphanages while others waited in classrooms for their family members to come for them. Many Haitian children were sent to foreign countries far from their homelands to be adopted by strangers who did not share their heritage or their culture. Professor David Smolin asked whether this rush to adopt Haitian children was “a humanitarian act of good will or a neo-colonialist child grab.” This article examines United States laws and international conventions, statutes, and guidelines that emphasize children’s rights and their family members’ rights which should be protected when a natural disaster occurs. It identifies specific children’s and family member’s interests, including pertinent social issues. To avoid unnecessary family separations in the future, the article calls for a universal plan of action that must be vetted, implemented and publicized expeditiously before the next disaster occurs

Spartan Daily, August 21, 2018

Volume 151, Issue 1https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartan_daily_2018/1043/thumbnail.jp

Owning Laura Silsby’s Shame: How the Haitian Child Trafficking Scheme Embodies the Western Disregard for the Integrity of Poor Families

Using the Laura Silsby Haitian adoption case as a window into child placement schemes that affect poor families, this Article proceeds in four parts. Part I tells the story of the Silsby case and shows how the idea of rescuing poor Haitian children became the narrative that ultimately excused Silsby’s decision to move Haitian children who were not orphans across the border to the Dominican Republic. Part II describes the development of intercountry adoption (ICA) as a means of “saving” poor children and explains how the strength of this rescue narrative feeds illicit child trafficking schemes. Part II also explores the international community’s response to ICA and its focus on protecting the birth family’s unity. Part III describes one customary system of child placement in Haiti, timoun or restavèk, and explains how this system, unlike ICA, does not permanently sever the child’s relationship with his or her parents. This part also considers the problems with timoun, including its potential for exploitation. Part IV exposes the current U.S. child welfare system as a system that disrupts traditional forms of child placement in the United States, much like ICA disrupts the customary systems of child placements in other countries. Finally, this Article concludes that ICA markets and U.S. foster care systems too often disserve the interests of children who may be better served by a system that respects their familial and cultural ties. This Article further concludes that the answer is not necessarily to outlaw ICA or dismantle the domestic foster care system, but that by acknowledging and eventually overcoming the fact that both systems suffer from biases that feed illicit schemes or unnecessarily disrupt poor families, both systems can function as they should — by minimizing the disruption of family unity while fostering the best interest of every child who is impacted by the system

Owning Laura Silsby’s Shame: How the Haitian Child Trafficking Scheme Embodies the Western Disregard for the Integrity of Poor Families

Using the Laura Silsby Haitian adoption case as a window into child placement schemes that affect poor families, this Article proceeds in four parts. Part I tells the story of the Silsby case and shows how the idea of rescuing poor Haitian children became the narrative that ultimately excused Silsby’s decision to move Haitian children who were not orphans across the border to the Dominican Republic. Part II describes the development of intercountry adoption (ICA) as a means of “saving” poor children and explains how the strength of this rescue narrative feeds illicit child trafficking schemes. Part II also explores the international community’s response to ICA and its focus on protecting the birth family’s unity. Part III describes one customary system of child placement in Haiti, timoun or restavèk, and explains how this system, unlike ICA, does not permanently sever the child’s relationship with his or her parents. This part also considers the problems with timoun, including its potential for exploitation. Part IV exposes the current U.S. child welfare system as a system that disrupts traditional forms of child placement in the United States, much like ICA disrupts the customary systems of child placements in other countries. Finally, this Article concludes that ICA markets and U.S. foster care systems too often disserve the interests of children who may be better served by a system that respects their familial and cultural ties. This Article further concludes that the answer is not necessarily to outlaw ICA or dismantle the domestic foster care system, but that by acknowledging and eventually overcoming the fact that both systems suffer from biases that feed illicit schemes or unnecessarily disrupt poor families, both systems can function as they should — by minimizing the disruption of family unity while fostering the best interest of every child who is impacted by the system

2007-2008 Legislative Bill Summary

Committee Members:Loni Hancock, ChairmanJean Fuller, Vice ChairGreg AghazarianJulia BrownleyFelipe FuentesRick KeeneJohn LairdLori SaldanaLois Wolk Committee Staff:Lawrence Lingbloom, Chief ConsultantDan Chia, Senior ConsultantElizabeth MacMillan, Senior ConsultantAurora Wallin, Committee Secretar

Moving Forward : Implementing The United Nations Guidelines For The Alternative Care Of Children

The subject of constant and serious concern expressed by the Committee on the Rights of the Child over its two decades of work to monitor and promote the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This concern is not only evident from the Committee’s findings when reviewing individual States’ compliance with the treaty’s provisions, but was also manifested clearly and in global terms when it decided to devote its annual Day of General Discussion to that issue in 2005. The Committee’s preoccupations are based on a variety of factors. These include: • the large number of children coming into alternative care in many countries, too often essentially due to their family’s material poverty, the conditions under which that care is provided, and the low priority that may be afforded to responding appropriately to these children who, lacking the primary protection normally assured by parents, are particularly vulnerable. The reasons for which children find themselves in alternative care are wide-ranging, and addressing these diverse situations – preventively or reactively – similarly requires a panoply of measures to be in place. While the Convention sets out basic State obligations in that regard, it does not provide significant guidance on meeting them. This is why, from the very outset of the initiative in 2004, the Committee gave whole-hearted support to the idea of developing the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children that would gain the approval of the international community at the highest level. The acceptance of the Guidelines by the UN General Assembly in 2009 signalled all governments’ general agreement that the ‘orientations for policy and practice’ they set out are both well-founded and desirable. Since that time, the Committee has been making full use of the principles and objectives established in the Guidelines when examining the reports of States Parties to the Convention and in formulating its observations and recommendations to them. As with all internationally agreed standards and principles, however, the real test lies in determining how they can be made a reality throughout the world for those that they target – in this case, children who are without, or are at risk of losing, parental care. Identifying those measures means, first of all, understanding the implications of the ‘policy orientations’ proposed in the Guidelines, and then devising the most effective and ‘do-able’ ways of meeting their requirements. Importantly, moreover, the Guidelines are by no means addressed to States alone: they are to be taken into account by everyone, at every level, who is involved in some manner with issues and programmes concerning alternative care provision for children. This is where the Moving Forward handbook steps in. As its title suggests, it seeks precisely to assist all concerned to advance along the road to implementation, by explaining the key thrusts of the Guidelines, outlining the kind of policy responses required, and describing ‘promising’ examples of efforts already made to apply them in diverse communities, countries, regions and cultures. I congratulate all the organisations and individuals that have contributed to bringing the Moving Forward project to fruition. This handbook is clearly an important tool for informing and inspiring practitioners, organisations and governments across the globe who are seeking to provide the best possible rights-based solutions and care for their children

Finding a Reasonable Way to Enforce the Reasonable Efforts Requirement in Child Protection Cases

Under federal law, state child protection agencies are required to exert reasonable efforts to reunite abused and neglected children with their parents before seeking to terminate parental rights and free the children for adoption. The scope of this requirement is undefined in federal statutes and in the statutory law of many states. As a result, it has fallen to appellate courts to determine the degree of effort a state agency must exert before the relationship between a parent and a child is severed. This has proven no easy task. By the time a parental termination case has reached an appellate court, the children may have been in the care and protection of the state for a lengthy time and may have developed a bond with foster parents who are hoping to adopt them. This leaves the appellate court with a difficult choice if it finds that the efforts of the state agency have been insufficient or poorly matched to the needs of the family in question. Faced with these circumstances, many appellate courts have simply rubber-stamped the efforts of the state agency without much review, and in effect read the reasonable efforts requirement out of existence. Other appellate courts have done a more exacting examination of whether reasonable efforts were made. When these courts have found deficiencies, the almost inevitable effect has been to delay permanency for the children involved by requiring the agency to go back and make further attempts at reunification. After reviewing appellate decisions of both types, the Article concludes that neither approach is satisfactory. The Article offers three ways to alleviate the thorny problems faced by appellate courts in these difficult cases. First, it contends that in the absence of a federal definition of reasonable efforts, states should develop more precise definitions of their own. Second, it argues that courts make better use of empirical research when evaluating whether a state agency has made reasonable efforts, so as to make a more accurate assessment of whether the state‘s efforts are satisfactory. Finally, it suggests that state courts discontinue the practice of considering reasonable efforts as a condition precedent to termination of parental rights. The Article acknowledges that these approaches singly or in combination will not completely resolve the issues raised by reasonable efforts cases, but asserts they will help ease the problems created by those difficult cases

Finding a Reasonable Way to Enforce the Reasonable Efforts Requirement in Child Protection Cases

Under federal law, state child protection agencies are required to exert reasonable efforts to reunite abused and neglected children with their parents before seeking to terminate parental rights and free the children for adoption. The scope of this requirement is undefined in federal statutes and in the statutory law of many states. As a result, it has fallen to appellate courts to determine the degree of effort a state agency must exert before the relationship between a parent and a child is severed. This has proven no easy task. By the time a parental termination case has reached an appellate court, the children may have been in the care and protection of the state for a lengthy time and may have developed a bond with foster parents who are hoping to adopt them. This leaves the appellate court with a difficult choice if it finds that the efforts of the state agency have been insufficient or poorly matched to the needs of the family in question. Faced with these circumstances, many appellate courts have simply rubber-stamped the efforts of the state agency without much review, and in effect read the reasonable efforts requirement out of existence. Other appellate courts have done a more exacting examination of whether reasonable efforts were made. When these courts have found deficiencies, the almost inevitable effect has been to delay permanency for the children involved by requiring the agency to go back and make further attempts at reunification. After reviewing appellate decisions of both types, the Article concludes that neither approach is satisfactory. The Article offers three ways to alleviate the thorny problems faced by appellate courts in these difficult cases. First, it contends that in the absence of a federal definition of reasonable efforts, states should develop more precise definitions of their own. Second, it argues that courts make better use of empirical research when evaluating whether a state agency has made reasonable efforts, so as to make a more accurate assessment of whether the state‘s efforts are satisfactory. Finally, it suggests that state courts discontinue the practice of considering reasonable efforts as a condition precedent to termination of parental rights. The Article acknowledges that these approaches singly or in combination will not completely resolve the issues raised by reasonable efforts cases, but asserts they will help ease the problems created by those difficult cases