The infernal triangle of Bermuda of the child protection (385)

The infernal triangle of Bermuda of the child protection (385)



Of necessity, without truly major legislative reforms, and thus without great debate political, social and judicial protection of children's action framework turns in depth, although not necessarily.

Woe to the children at the heart of the infernal triangle of the protection of the child established by ESA (jurisdiction for general advice), PJJ (State responsibility) and the voluntary sector!

We know the terms of the debate, but it is not unnecessary to call them.

Child welfare is concerned about children in danger with mission to mobilize parenting skills to put an end to this situation. She spends EUR 5 billion to about 450,000 children in addition to some 600 million euros of the PMI. It intervenes at the request of the parents - talking about administrative protection - or to respond to an order of the courts for children when it is necessary to appeal to the judicial constraint. A delinquent child is often a child in danger and, contrary to what many believe, ESA has legal authority to take charge of the children who were able to commit crimes. If they are actually enrolled in the crime, it will be rather the PJJ to intervene.

General advice found that approximately 80% heavy measures, such as "investments" are practiced by judicial order. The cost is high and is watching closely is therefore the State through its judges who undertake these expenses even though often originally there is a report of the General Council which advocates as inevitable as.

On the other hand the PJJ, drawing the consequences of singularly inadequate resources despite the big effort 98-2000, received the order of the Department of justice focus on juvenile delinquency and cut the branches that go beyond and are often expensive: exit the financing of measures for young adults from 18-21 years seeking protection for the judges to children on the basis of the Decree of 1975; "" exit the educational measures ordered by the judges of children through educational assistance procedures where it is to "help" of the parents to exercise their responsibilities to avoid children switch in delinquency. The PJJ may only exercise (or finance) of the measures of investigation to help the judge decide.

Without that Act was amended the judge may therefore more that mandate the ASE and the network of associations authorized to support a child in danger. Little by little - implied objective - it loses the possibility of tailor-made and build the appropriate response to the young. Tailor-made going to social industrial manufacture! Inadequate approach to children and parents who just have not supported the prior social standards.

Finally, a strong and apparently powerful associative sector works both for general advice for justice through security clearance issued by the PJJ. These are some 3000 social institutions, of many family placement services services expressed open concern for children who live in their home. Without this power sector public service mission "child protection" would not. The d role this not even market sector is irreplaceable, including for the benefit of delinquent children knowing that the public sector of the PJJ remains very close.

But this colossus with feet of clay: it is almost totally dependent on public funding. He receives no subsidies, but invoice its benefits. And the client (ESA and PJJ) is all the more King that the own funds of associations are almost zero. If the PJJ closes the valve of the financing of social surveys, restricted the use of the investigations of educational guidance (IOE), or refuses to fund the major youth measures assumes the associative sector the financial hole may be widening rapidly. for even if the Department holds back on the day prices or slow to settle its debts, the agios will accumulate and undermine these original social enterprise management.

Woe so young which leaves take in the triangle.

Take - the case is not school - Tunisian boy abandoned by his mother in France a few years ago. An uncle was to deal with him. but this young man is struggling to cope with this responsibility as the young regimbe before that his family made him live and the abandonment of which he is the victim. Uncle part settle in the province and announces that he will not be able to do more. The young force to "shit" on stilts in the places otherwise outside when he fugue is objectively from ESA. Brief, child in danger, he became also formally offender because objectively he commits crimes.

All logically before this young moving too much from other foreign children isolated but simply to its population base, the social ide child request to be relieved of his skills. Yet to see the sadness of this young since 15 days sleeping on the streets, it has to do to a child in danger if I am not wrong!

Mandated to deal with the young offender through a measure of an open environment (probation) the PJJ informed his troops that it cannot make a burden physically or spaces in numbers, but especially the young is not sufficiently offender! Should therefore he kills or violates that it hosts it?

The requested sector is rather reserved. Slightly more than 17 years old, isolated foreign minor but speaking French, will arrive on to regularise his administrative position? Probably need to go well beyond the 18 years for not only the regulate, but ensure its inclusion in France training and psychological support. But beyond pay ders 18 years. The PJJ refuse support, unless the young person is sentenced by a court as criminal. Conclusion that even the young must remain delinquent. ESA will certainly refuse to devote himself to many young people that it hosts for which it has not completed its work at the age of 18. Good sense for the administrative sector is therefore refuse to embark on the adventure. The trap closes on the young.

The logic that develops today, insidiously, is Machiavellian. It leads to abandon the children in danger that justify precisely that it combines forces to help.

Therefore, to get out of this triangle of social exclusion that a link yields. Social assistance to childhood with its mission fitted to the body that knows how to build niche of manoeuvres beyond the injunction policy to save money, and this still frequently! Or even a young who managed to be even a little delinquent or is later tried for acts committed as a minor to the point where judge force the hand to the PJJ, and this can happen. Finally the Salvation can come from the voluntary sector which is the part of fire and has his good works but remains convinced that there can be some things that the two administrations of State or departmental will not be able to do!

In this case, in the case that I have dealt, it is the associative link which has ceded and open requested triangle was to service... to the judge.

How many times it can renew itself? We take care, number of young non-inserted major socially are today left delivered to themselves and now at 17 years of large adolescents are abandoned. These young people are in danger, the company is not protected and professionals get discouraged.


It is time that the policy re-surfaced social policy and creates a dynamic synergy to the different parts of the device. In truth this did st in a pan to surrender but to different pan to co-operate among themselves to build a response to the young person enrols on the duration. Inégrer rather than exclude. It is possible.




PS: To be more complete I often change my triangle into quadrangle with an another pan "handicap-Psychiatry". There you are you would have totally lost totally morale!