While I note and support the government’s intention to protect the safety and well-being of children and young persons, I have several concerns about the Bill.
Effect on Poor Families
Are poor families at greater risk of being broken up under this Bill?
Clause 5 amends S 4 regarding situations when a child is considered in need of care and protection.
The amendment will introduce into S 4(c) a new category of families where the authorities may consider removing the child from his parents. This scenario is where the parent is unable to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life, even though the parent’s failure has not been wilful or unreasonable.
This new scenario is quite different from the existing scenarios of children being taken into care, where the parent is usually blameworthy in some way. An inability to provide one’s family with adequate food or lodging could result simply from reasons like poverty or lack of employment prospects. This amendment potentially puts poor families at risk of being broken up and their children fostered out or institutionalized, simply because they are poor.
To take a child out of his own family to grow up raised by strangers or institutions is a drastic step which would change lives forever.
If the parents are found to have a good relationship with the child, should the government not instead support the family while keeping them intact? If the parents cannot provide adequately due to poor resources, isn’t it the government duty to provide or mobilise resources to assist the family in food, medical aid and lodging?
Voluntary Care Arrangements
Next, Clause 22 introduces a new S 48A about voluntary care arrangements. Such arrangements enable the Director of Social Welfare to have a child placed into a care arrangement so long as the parents consent. There would be no need to seek the approval of the Juvenile Court in such voluntary cases.
I note that there is some concern among welfare workers about the lack of court over-sight in voluntary arrangements. It was pointed out during the public consultation on the Bill that even when people act in good faith, there is a danger of over-reaction resulting in false positives i.e. children assessed to be in need of care and protection when they were not. It was recommended that court over-sight should be an integral part of all such care and protection arrangements, including voluntary arrangements, to give further assurance that the child’s welfare has been thoroughly considered. This appears to be sound recommendation, but is not in the Bill.
It is likely that the sort of parents who would be asked to agree to voluntary care arrangements would be facing other struggles in life and may not have the luxury of legal advice. We should therefore be more vigilant to guard against a situation when parents perceive that they have no choice but to agree to care arrangements suggested by the Director. Why not provide for court oversight even for voluntary arrangements, to make the process more rigorous?
Due Process for Parents at Juvenile Court
Clause 23 amends S 49 on the Juvenile Court’s powers in care and protection. The Court’s powers include power to order that the child be removed from the parents’ care and placed in a foster home or an institution. While protecting the child is our concern, the process must also be fair.
Although the parents have a right to attend the hearing and to be heard under S 49(3), it is not spelt out that they are entitled to see and challenge the report put up by MCYS to the Court. In the recent case of ABV and Another v Child Protector [2009] SGJC 4, the parents appealed to the High Court from a Juvenile Court order placing their child into care. The High Court disapproved of the government practice then of not providing the parents with the case information given to the Court. In answer to my Parliamentary question subsequently, the Minister indicated that MCYS would henceforth provide information or leave it to the Court to direct them.
While I note that the Ministry has heeded the Court’s opinion, why is there no provision in this Bill to ensure that parents are duly informed of the case which MCYS is presenting against them?
On a related point, under S 49, the Court can order a child or young person, or his parent or guardian, to undergo medical and psychological assessments which outcome must be reported to the Court. S 49(7) is being amended to say that a copy of this assessment must now be given to the protector as well, but it is not mentioned that a copy must also be given to the parent or guardian. What is being practiced? If a parent or guardian is not being given a copy, this seems to be high-handed, especially since under the section, the parent is supposed to pay for the assessments!
Under the current S 49, one of the options the Court has in care and protection cases is to require the parents to enter a bond to exercise proper care and guardianship over the child. This Bill introduces a new subsection (11) where if the parents fail to enter the bond in time, they will be guilty of an offence and liable to fine up to $2,000. Will this help or hurt the distressed families?
Homes for Children and Young Persons
Finally, I wish to make a general comment about Homes for children and young persons.
I note that under the existing arrangements, the same institution culd be gazetted for a variety of purposes under the CYPA. For instance, the Singapore Girls Home is a place of safety, an approved home, an approved school, and a place of detention. Is it right for us to put all these different children with different needs in the same institution? The children in need of care and protection have been removed from their parents to be placed in a place of safety – should we not separate them from those who have committed offences?