|
B. State Intervention for the Protection of the Child
On the one hand, the legal framework shields parents from unnecessary external
interference by limiting the number of persons who can make decisions for the child and who can invoke the court’s jurisdiction over the child. On the other, the
law intervenes in grave situations where a parent has clearly failed in his or her
obligations. There were a total of 160 child abuse investigations undertaken by the
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in 2009. 118 contained
evidence of abuse, 39 lacked evidence but required assistance, and three were false
complaints.10
Section 4 of the CYPA provides for situations in which the law considers a child
or young person to be in need of care and protection. One of the circumstances is
when
(d) the child or young person has been, is being or is at risk of being ill-treated—
(i) by his parent or guardian; or
(ii) by any other person, and his parent or guardian, although knowing of
such ill-treatment or risk, has not protected or is unlikely or unwilling
to protect the child or young person from such ill-treatment[.]
Ill-treatment is defined in section 5 of the CYPA. If a child or young person is
determined to be in need of care and protection, the court can, under section 49,
make care orders such as ordering the child to be committed to the care of a fit
person or an approved home or a place of safety. Section 9 of the CYPA empowers
the Director of Social Welfare, officers authorised by the Director, a protector or
police officer to remove a child whom they have reasonable grounds to believe to be
in need of care or protection and place her in a place of safety until she can be brought
before the court to be dealt with under section 49.11 In cases where parents seek
assistance in the supervision of their child who is “beyond parental control”, the court
may make orders under section 50 of the CYPA to deal with the child appropriately,
including sending the child to an approved home.
The state has given increasing attention to the protection of children over the years.
Singapore committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
[UNCRC] in October 1995. It submitted its Initial Report to the Committee on the
Rights of the Child in November 2002, listing the legislative, judicial, administrative
and other measures adopted to give effect to the provisions of the UNCRC.12
Singapore submitted its Second and Third Periodic Report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 2009, covering the period 2003 to 2007 and giving
details on areas of child welfare and protection, legislative enhancements, initiatives
and programmes for children.
Since the 1990s, the Singapore Children’s Society has published a number of
monographs on child abuse and neglect, child-rearing, parenting styles and children’s
well-being in Singapore.13 The Society’s first monograph in 1996 on “Public
Perceptions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Singapore” surveyed the public’s view
of whether various actions of parents were acceptable and sought to find a definition
of child abuse and neglect.14 Research by Fung and Chow in 1998 found
a lack of consensus amongst professionals on what constituted child abuse and
neglect.15 The second monograph by the Singapore Children’s Society on “Professional
and Public Perceptions of Physical Child Abuse and Neglect in Singapore:
An Overview” presented an overview and comparison of professional perceptions
and public perceptions of what constituted acceptable and unacceptable behaviour
in the context of child abuse and maltreatment.16 The third, fourth and fifth monographs
focused on aspects reviewed in the second monograph: professional and
public perceptions of physical child abuse and neglect, emotional maltreatment of
children and child sexual abuse, respectively. The sixth monograph, published in
2006 on “The Parenting Project: Disciplinary Practices, Child Care Arrangements
and Parenting Practices in Singapore” presented a survey of parenting practices in
Singapore.
With increasing awareness that children can suffer harm from a variety of
parental behaviour, the state sought to provide greater protection to children through amendments to the CYPA in 2001:
Amendments to the CYPA enacted in October 2001 [have] enhanced child protection
in Singapore. One key amendment expanded the definition of child abuse to
include emotional/psychological abuse. While difficult to detect, emotional and
psychological abuse can seriously undermine a child’s healthy development.17
It may be said that the law has by this step a decade ago moved towards greater
regulation of the parent and child relationship. Theoretically, the move towards protecting
children against wider types of harm is laudable. The expanded definition,
however, was not accompanied by a requirement that the harm to the child be significant
or serious. This article argues that this may ironically reduce the protection
given to children to be raised by their parents in a private, familial environment free
from unnecessary outside interference by state bodies. On the face of the current
provision, “any” injury to a child’s health or development can constitute ill-treatment.
II. The Search for A Legal Framework of
Optimal Intervention
In the United Kingdom, Baroness Hale of Richmond introduced the common challenge
in all jurisdictions committed to child protection in Re S-B (Children) (Care
Proceedings: Standard of Proof):18
[O]n the one hand, children need to be protected from harm; but on the other hand,
both they and their families need to be protected from the injustice and potential
damage to their whole futures done by removing children from a parent who is
not, in fact, responsible for causing them any harm at all.19
A number of issues underlie this dilemma. The first is in determining who has
perpetrated the alleged harm: if non-accidental injuries are found on a child, what is
the standard of proof required to establish that the parent had indeed caused them?
Another is what constitutes harm or ill-treatment that justifies state intervention?
Further, if some intervention is necessary, what intervention measures are appropriate
for each type of case? |
|
|
10. Ministry of Community Development,Youth and Sports, Child Abuse Investigations 2006-2009. Note
that the Minister for Community Development,Youth and Sports, Mr. Vivian Balakrishnan, has said:
In 2009, there were 169 cases that were investigated by the Child Protection Service. Of that 169
cases, 124 of the allegations were substantiated … Of these 124 cases that were substantiated,
however, only one-third—60 of them—proceeded to a formal care and protection order awarded by
the Court.
Sing., Parliamentary Debates, vol. 87 (10 January 2010).
11. The latest amendments in Bill No. 35 of 2010 repeal the former section 9 and enact the new sections 9
and 9A, giving greater powers for intervention and assessment of the child’s condition.
12. Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, “Obligations under the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child”, online: <http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/IssuesTopics/ChildrenYouth/
ObligationsundertheUNConventionontheRights.aspx.>. This report was presented to the Committee
on the Rights of the Child on 26 September 2003, at the 34th Session of the Committee on the Rights
of the Child.
13. Tong Chee Kiong, John M. Elliott & Patricia M.E.H. Tan, Research Monograph Number 1: Public Perceptions
of Child Abuse and Neglect in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore Children’s Society, December
1996), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/doc/Monograph1.pdf>; John M. Elliott et al.,
Research Monograph No. 2: Professional and Public Perceptions of Physical Child Abuse and Neglect in
Singapore: An Overview (Singapore: Singapore Children’s Society, April 2000), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/images/Professional%20and%20Public%20CAN%20Perceptions.pdf>; Jasmine
S. Chan, Yvonne Chow & John M. Elliott, Research Monograph No. 3: Professional and Public
Perceptions of Physical Child Abuse and Neglect in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore Children’s Society,
April 2000), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/services/images/Monograph3.pdf>; John
M. Elliott, Chua Yee Sian & Joyce I. Thomas, Research Monograph No. 4: Emotional Maltreatment
of Children in Singapore: Professional and Public Perceptions (Singapore: Singapore Children’s
Society, February 2002), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/images/Emotional%20
Maltreatment.pdf>; John M. Elliott, Joyce I. Thomas & Chua Yee Sian, Research Monograph
No. 5: Child Sexual Abuse in Singapore: Professional and Public Perceptions (Singapore:
Singapore Children’s Society, June 2003), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/images/Monograph%205%20Proofread%20Copy.pdf>; Shum-Cheung Hoi Shan, Russell Hawkins& Lim Kim Whee, Research Monograph No. 6: The Parenting Project: Disciplinary Practices,
Child Care Arrangements and Parenting Practices in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore Children’s
Society, October 2006), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/services/images/parenting_
project.pdf>; Shum-Cheung Hoi Shan et al., Research Monograph No. 7: Children’s Social and
Emotional Well-Being in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore Children’s Society, June 2008), online: <http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/services/images/Singapore.pdf>.
14. Tong, Elliott & Tan, ibid.
15. D.S.S. Fung & M.H. Chow, “Doctors’ and Lawyers’ Perspectives of Child Abuse and
Neglect in Singapore” (1998) 39:4 Singapore Medical Journal, online: <http://www.sma.org.sg/
smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html>.
16. Elliott et al., supra note 13.
17. Rehabilitation and Protection Division, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and
Sports, Protecting Children in Singapore (Singapore: Ministry of Community Development,
Youth and Sports, October 2005), online: <http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/portals/0/summary/publication/
Materials_Protect_Children_in_Spore.pdf> at 3.
18. [2010] 1 A.C. 678 [Re S-B].
19. Ibid. at para. 2. |
|
|
|
