childhood rights in argentina

international journal of children’s rights 22 (2014) 268-285

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/15718182-02202008

PG1636

brill.com/chil

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFCHILDREN’S RIGHTS

Childhood Rights in ArgentinaLessons from the New Regulatory Framework

Valentina ViegoProfessor of Social Policy and Econometrics, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina

[email protected]

Pamela ManciavillanoSocial Worker at Childhood Services, Municipality of Bahía Blanca, Argentina

[email protected]

Abstract

In 2005 the Government of Argentina passed the National Law for the Integrated Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents. The legislation laid the ground-work for a new long awaited regulatory framework for the promotion and protection of children’s rights in Argentina. In this article we assess this regulatory framework and the extent to which it has enhanced the protection of children, particularly in Buenos Aires Province. In reviewing the administrative structure of the regulatory framework, and evidence of public expenditures on child protection and welfare, the working con-ditions of child protection staff, and the volume and nature of interventions directed towards children in the province, we argue that the formulation of child rights legisla-tion has done little to alter longstanding popular perceptions and professional practices related to impoverished children.

Keywords

childhood rights – full protection of children – social work with children – childhood protection services

0002119754.INDD 268 3/24/2014 4:51:31 PM

269Childhood Rights in Argentina Lessons


PG1636

1 Ley Nacional de Protección Integral de los Derechos de las Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes (#13298).

Introduction

In 2005 the Government of Argentina passed the National Law for the Integrated Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents (henceforth referred to in this article as the National Child Rights Law).1 Coming as it did, 15 years after Argentina ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc), the law promulgated a new and long-awaited child rights regulatory framework that signaled a fundamental departure from previous official depic-tions of children either as family dependants or, in the absence of responsible family custody, ‘minors’ requiring supervision by state institutions or other enti-ties designated by the state (Waldfogel, 1998). In acknowledging the necessity of a broad system of support for children’s rights, the new legislation commit-ted the state to undertake substantial qualitative and quantitative measures to ensure adequate material and psycho-social support for all children. Schools, health clinics and the judiciary were regarded as having core mandates to ‘assist, protect, and/or restore the rights of children and adolescents’ (Article 19).

While the national Child Rights Law was undoubtedly a well publicised water-shed in advancing the universality of children’s rights in Argentina, what has been far less evident is the extent to which the provisions of the new law have been translated into effective practices that have contributed to an improvement in the overall welfare of children living in situations of socio-economic margin-alisation. In this article we consider the relative impact of the Child Rights Law on the child welfare system, particularly in the Province of Buenos Aires. The analysis was conducted following interviews with several professional and tech-nical personnel, a review of many newspaper reports, and statistical indicators published by the Dirección Nacional de Análisis de Gasto Público Social (National Bureau of Social Expenditure Analysis). On the basis of our findings, we are com-pelled to question the efficacy and import of child rights legislation as a catalyst for improvements in the livelihoods of Argentina’s poorest children.

1 The ‘Doctrine of Irregular Situations’ and the Lengthy Struggle for Child Rights Legislation in Argentina

Historically, two paradigmatic perspectives have functioned as the basis of child-oriented social policies and interventions in Argentina. The first

0002119754.INDD 269 3/24/2014 4:51:31 PM

270 Viego and Manciavillano


PG1636

2 For a broader discussion on paradigms guiding childhood policies, see Lee (1982) or Jenson (2004).

paradigm constituted a discourse emphasising social control of children either within the context of stable families and communities or through state inter-ventions that targeted children who were considered to be living in ‘irregular situations’ (generally a euphemism for conditions of poverty or household structures differing from perceived norms of affluent and middle class nuclear families). This view of children was well entrenched for decades until the advent of the un crc that represented all children as being entitled to the same rights and protections, regardless of their socio-economic circum-stances. It is this new paradigm that has served as the conceptual basis of Argentina’s recent Child Rights Law. These dual paradigms, one ostensibly succeeding the other, have been significant. Not only have they shaped the discursive framework of past and present legislation pertaining to the treatment of children and adolescents in Argentina, but they continue to foster competing visions despite the relatively recent passage of the Child Rights Law.2

In 1919 the Government of Argentina enacted National Law No. 10903, the country’s first legislation that regulated the treatment of children. Adhering to a conception of the child as an object of protection and control, the law deemed all children to be dependents, subject to adult authority and with no legal safeguards as independent individuals. As stipulated by the legislation, children in Argentina were regarded as living in one of two contrasting social situations – ‘normal’ and ‘irregular’. Normal situations for children were con-sidered as family-centered, with the family functioning as an autonomous social entity capable of ensuring children’s security and wellbeing. Irregular situations were those in which families were seen to be unable to provide for the protection and welfare of their children, thereby rendering them, and by implication society as a whole, as susceptible to multiple risks (Fernandez Hasan, 2007). That family dynamics might differ due to broader socio-cultural factors or to economic forces that left many households languishing in poverty was not considered relevant (Di Iorio, 2010).

In legal terms, while young people living in ‘normal situations’ were regarded as children, those living in ‘irregular situations’ were defined as minors. From this distinction arose the so-called ‘doctrine of irregular situations’ whereby the state had impunity to apprehend children who were living and begging in the streets, and therefore appeared to be neglected or abandoned. Through the authority of the state administered Patronato de Menores (Minor Sponsorship),

0002119754.INDD 270 3/24/2014 4:51:31 PM



PG1636

3 The movement was not focused exclusively on crimes against humanity. The abolition of the Law on Due Obedience and Amnesty Laws in 2003 was considered the initiation of a period of enlargement of rights for disadvantaged or oppressed population groups. These rights were articulated in the Law on Protection Against Family Violence (Law 24,417), the Law on Sexual Health and Responsible Parenthood (Law 25,673), the Immigration Law (Law 25,871), the Law on Prohibition of Child Labor and Protection of Working Adolescents (Law 26.390) and the Law on Mental Health (Law 26,657). The passage of these laws was seen as constitut-ing an effort to achieve a more egalitarian society (CELS, 2013). Critics, however, had argued that this flurry of legislation has had no significant impact on enhancing the wellbeing of impoverished and oppressed sectors of society in Argentina. See Gargarella et al (2006) for a detailed discussion.

these children could then be legally put up for adoption or sent to foster homes, or else be assigned to juvenile institutions managed by private or religious organisations. Over time, the custody of minors became the purview of many state-run juvenile institutions. Throughout the processes of apprehension and placement, children identified as minors were not consulted, nor did they have recourse legally to challenge the way they were treated. Instead, it was gener-ally assumed that they were being rescued for their own benefit and for that of society as a whole. Unfortunately, singular emphasis on the ‘doctrine of irregu-lar situations’ led successive autocratic regimes to typecast many impover-ished minors as young offenders. Paradoxically, therefore, despite official discourse portraying children as dependants incapable of exercising responsi-bility or judgments, the targeting of minors as incipient criminals had the effect of increasingly transforming youth social services into extensions of the criminal justice system (Placido, 2008).

During the 1980s, however, a climate of change developed concerning pub-lic interventions related to children. This coincided with mounting civil resis-tance to the dictatorial Argentinian state and with growing appeals for social justice and respect for human rights (Grugel and Pezzorutti, 2010).3 Following Argentina’s ratification of the un crc in 1990, child rights advocates intensi-fied their criticisms of the ‘doctrine of irregular situations’ as being little more than a justification for discrimination and abuse of children and families living in poverty, and strongly argued for new child rights legislation that would emphasise the imperative of protecting and supporting the fundamental rights of all children in the country regardless of their socio-economic status. Underlying advocacy for a new national Child Rights Law was the hope that such legislation would facilitate the formulation of policy initiatives designed to address the structural antecedents of entrenched poverty that undermined family and community structures, and thus imperiled the welfare of many children (Reynaert et al (2009).

0002119754.INDD 271 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

Political interest in alternative perspectives regarding children and their treatment developed slowly, however. Although support for child rights legisla-tion gained momentum among civil society organisations throughout the 1990s, it took considerable lobbying for the central government finally to pass the current Child Rights Law and thus signal its formal repudiation of the char-acterisation of childhood as being distinguished by two categories: ‘children living in normal circumstances’ and ‘minors living in irregular situations’. Henceforth, in accordance with the new law, all children, regardless of socio-economic status, gender, age or ethnicity would be legally acknowledged as independent citizens having the same civil rights. In all circumstances, both public and private, relations with children must be promoted and maintained on the basis of what Jelin (1998) had articulated as ‘respect and recognition of children as “rights holders” without being subordinated to an arbitrary author-ity whose power is vested in the threat of violence’ (p. 20; our translation). Children who do not attend school and who may instead be working and even living in the streets must not be considered prime facie as delinquent and sub-ject to criminal charges. Instead, interventions are to be guided by the impera-tives of the best interests of children and by receptiveness to their own articulation of their perceived needs and interests. In the event that children or adolescents are charged with criminal offences, interventions should focus primarily on education and rehabilitation rather than on punishment and incarceration (McNeish, 1999).

The passage of Argentina’s Child Rights Law, although a decade and a half after the promulgation of the un crc, nonetheless was a watershed in the gradual progression away from a long-standing discourse that had portrayed children solely as objects of dependence on the unchallenged authority of adults, either within the realm of the family or – as minors – under the tutelage of the state. Henceforth children were to be regarded as subjects with univer-sally recognised rights and were to be treated accordingly. No longer should the notion of ‘minors’ be used as a term to categorise specific groups of disad-vantaged children as living in ‘irregular situations’ from which they had to be extricated. Likewise the state could no longer justify arbitrarily separating children from their families and relegating them to foster homes or juvenile reformatories. Interventions should instead focus on improving social services for children and families, particularly those living in poverty, and ensure that all children are treated with the equal due process (Invernizzi and Milne, 2005).

The relatively new child rights regulatory framework in Argentina as pro-pounded in the Child Rights Law points to an emphasis on social policies as the primary sphere for addressing the best interests of children. Regardless of

0002119754.INDD 272 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

material and financial conditions, families and local communities are deemed to be the most appropriate environments for children’s socialisation and welfare (Articles 6 and 7). A key role of the state should therefore be to ensure adequate measures to protect and strengthen family and community environments, especially through resource allocations for education, health and housing. Actions undertaken to separate children from their families should not be regarded as a matter of course as they were under the old regime of ‘irregular situations’, but rather should be considered as a last resort follow-ing all efforts to strengthen family bonds. Special provisions are nonetheless in place to assist children who are clearly identified as experiencing homeless-ness, neglect or abuse (Articles 37 and 39).

While the state holds the primary responsibility for children’s rights, the notion of co-responsibility is considered a key feature of the new child rights framework (Waldfogel, 1998). Civil society organisations and even private sector enterprises are enjoined to assist in the promotion and protec-tion of children’s rights (Article 32). All those working in the field of childhood welfare – educators, doctors, psychologists, social workers and lawyers – are expected actively to defend and promote the rights of all children. In essence, the rights of children codified in the new law accord not only with the articles of the un crc (Young, 1989; Freeman, 1992), but with the discourse of a growing civic movement in Argentina that has championed the rights of citizens who have long experienced discrimination and oppression – notably women, ethnic minorities and individuals with disabilities or suffering mental illness.

2 The Child Protection System of Buenos Aires Province

While Argentina’s passage of the national Child Rights Law of 2005 represented a significant break from discourse that legitimated the discriminatory treat-ment of disadvantaged children, implementation of the new law has been challenging. In light of Argentina’s federated political system, the state consti-tutes different levels of government having different realms of responsibility. While federal authorities have overall responsibility for national policy formu-lation, each of Argentina’s 24 provinces has jurisdiction over the financing and oversight of child services. In the realm of child rights, therefore, each province is required to pass its own set of legislative measures that converge with the articles of the national Child Rights Law but which nonetheless take into account the fiscal realities that exist within its own jurisdiction. Invariably, therefore, this has generated a veritable potpourri of provincial actions that,

0002119754.INDD 273 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

although loosely adhering to the provisions of national legislation, are far from being uniform or coordinated (‘Acción Niñez’ Program, 2007). Three provinces have not introduced laws guaranteeing the protection of child rights, and while the remaining 21 provinces have enacted child rights legislation, the provisions of these laws vary considerably in terms of their regulatory coverage, the actions to be taken and the measures of enforcement (Bianco and Muñoz, 2010; Fundación Sur, 2009; Szogon, 2010). In addition, as municipal govern-ments within each province are responsible for administering and coordinat-ing most child-oriented programmes and services, the extent to which the provisions of differentiated child rights legislation are invoked are likewise subject to considerable variance. Indeed, in most provinces there is little evi-dence of a fundamental shift in the overall status and treatment of children living in situations of poverty. In order to exemplify the gap between the for-mulation of the national Child Rights Law and actual measures taken to imple-ment its provisions, we have examined the child protection system of Buenos Aires Province and the obstacles that have hindered its effectiveness in safe-guarding and promoting children’s rights.

In 2007 Buenos Aires Province enacted its Child Protection Law. This legis-lation ostensibly set in motion a system of child protection that corresponded with the precepts of the national Child Rights Law. Children’s parents or close adult relatives are formally recognised as the main sources of child protec-tion and therefore the principal individuals to contact and with whom to work in the event of transgressions of children’s rights. In situations where family members have difficulty in caring for children, the next level of protec-tive recourse are community institutions such as schools and health estab-lishments that are often in close contact with children and their families. At the municipal level, Local Child Protection Services (lcps) established by the provincial Ministry of Social Development, are responsible for reinforc-ing the rights of children by responding to local appeals or concerns, and by providing assistance to children and their families. As of late 2012, lcps offices were reputed to be located in 118 out of 134 municipalities in Buenos Aires Province.

lcps personnel are responsible for assisting children and families in obtain-ing birth certificates and other forms of identity, in accessing child and family legal aid, in applying for financial assistance for low-income households and children’s education, and for facilitating family reconnection and reconcilia-tion strategies. They are likewise mandated to attend requests and respond to complaints concerning the treatment of children. lcps personnel can there-fore directly intervene with police assistance in cases of rights violations or threats to the wellbeing of children, and seek ways to prevent or limit the

0002119754.INDD 274 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

separation of children from their families or caregivers in the event that children are charged with criminal behaviour. Each lcps is expected to have on staff a minimum of one social worker, one psychologist, one lawyer and one doctor, all to be selected through a competitive process and to possess essen-tial skills and experience for work with children and families. In addition, a 24-hour telephone service is supposed to be available for reports of child abuse or other forms of child-related distress so that immediate responses can be undertaken, especially at night and during non-working hours.

Essentially there are three levels of protective measures that lcps are authorised to implement in response to evidence of infringement of children’s rights. First, they can require parents or legal guardians to sign a written agree-ment stating that family members will henceforth desist from actions harmful to their children and accede to the oversight of the lcps to ensure compliance with the agreement. Second, in the event that parents or caregivers are not present or do not wish to comply with a stipulated agreement with the lcps, a ‘special protection measure’ can be imposed indicating child protection sur-veillance by either extended family members or by substitute families recruited for such purposes. If parents or guardians are unwilling or fail to abide by this agreement, the lcps has the authority to transfer the children to designated foster homes. Third, if family circumstances are such that children will clearly continue to be at risk within the family despite parental or guard-ian assurances to the contrary, the lcps will refer these cases to the Zonal Child Protection Services (zcps) which are directly responsible to the Sub-secretariat of Childhood and Adolescence within the provincial Ministry of Social Development.

With 27 offices in Buenos Aires Province, the zcps are responsible for moni-toring child protection services in each municipality and for providing referral services in the event that problems arise that local agencies are unable to resolve. For example, in the case of family breakdown or child abuse within a family, the office of the Defensor de niños (Children’s Advocate) within the zcps is required to determine appropriate protective measures that are in the best interests of children. In circumstances where withdrawal from the family is necessary, the most common options are to place children in government-sponsored child service institutions or in the care of foster homes. In addition to monitoring and referrals, the zcps are also responsible for collecting statis-tical information on child rights cases and for evaluating staff performance at all local levels. A further requirement of both the lcps and the zcps is to enter all child protection initiatives in the Registro Unificado de Niñez y Adolescencia (reuna) (the Unified Registry of Childhood and Adolescence). This registry has been established to ensure a full data base of actions undertaken for

0002119754.INDD 275 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

purposes of service evaluations and subsequent planning and modifications in the child protection system of Buenos Aires Province.

Two additional levels of child protection have been established within the provincial Ministry of Social Development – the Consejos Locales de Niñez (Local Councils of Childhood) which have the responsibility of providing tech-nical and legal support for lcps and zcps personnel, and the Observatorio Social de Niñez y Adolescencia (Social Monitor of Childhood and Adolescence), an oversight body created to monitor the administration of all aspects of child rights protection and promotion in the province. In addition, the office of the Defensor de los derechos del niño (Child Rights Ombudsman) has the authority to conduct legal inquiries and initiate prosecutions for infringements of chil-dren’s rights within the system.

3 Implementing Child Rights Protection in Buenos Aires Province: Constraints and Shortfalls

On paper, the establishment of the child rights protection system in Buenos Aires Province is impressive. Unfortunately, however, at the point of implementation, the system suffers serious shortcomings, in large part due to the shortfall of resources and qualified personnel allocated for child protection.

Limited Financial and Material DisbursementsIn 2012 the Dirección de análisis de gasto público y programas sociales published a report, Gasto Publico Social dirigido a la Niñez 1995–2009 (Public Social Expenditure on Chilhood 1995–2009), that provided a breakdown of national and provincial government expenditures on services and programmes desig-nated for children in Argentina during the period 2001–09 (Secretaría de política económica, 2012). Over this nine-year time frame estimated public expenditures for children increased five-fold. However, after accounting for the rise in inflation and cost of living indices, the real increase of expenditures for child services was substantially lower. In addition, when disaggregating the categories of expenditures on children, it appeared that very little had changed in the proportion of funds for different services. Basic education consumed the lion’s share of provincial expenditures on children, averaging 55 per cent of total child-directed expenditures over the nine-year period. Expenditures on child and maternal health care amounted to an estimated 23 per cent of total child-oriented funding nation-wide, and a further 8 per cent was allo-cated for various forms of family assistance payments. In contrast, less than

0002119754.INDD 276 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

4 In 2013, according to the IBP, an adult needed an income of ARS $634 per month to cover food costs. With other goods and services included in the estimate, poverty line for one adult was assessed at ARS $1446 (IBP, 2013).

2 per cent of expenditures earmarked for children and adolescents have been allocated for provincial child protection systems that have been established since the passage of the Child Rights Law. Given that an estimated half of Argentina’s children and adolescents live in conditions of severe impover-ishment, and that the national Child Rights Law was enacted in response to concerns about widespread abuses inflicted on children, the proportion of national funding for child protection measures has remained low and essen-tially unchanged since the legislative framework for child rights came into effect in 2005.

This pattern of proportionately low national expenditures on programms and services for children and adolescents has been replicated in Buenos Aires Province. During the period 2001–09, provincial funding directed to children also increased nominally by 600 per cent, but when accounting for inflation and the cost of living index, budgeted expenditures on children rose in real terms by a more modest 100 per cent over the course of almost a decade. Disaggregated figures reveal that on average 77 per cent of these expenditures over this period were allocated to education, and 14 per cent were disbursed for child and adolescent health care. Far lesser amounts were spent on categories such as health education and nutritional programmes, and on recreation, arts and culture. Expenditures for child protection activities have remained steady at approximately 2 per cent of child-directed social spending in the years after the passage of the national Child Rights Law as well as before. Moreover, while aggregated real expenditures per child (i.e., those that account for cost of living increases) rose between 2001 and 2009 in Buenos Aires Province, the rate of real spending on child protection services between 2005 and 2009 actually declined slightly (Secretaría de política económica, 2012).

Further evidence of the limited resource allocations for child protection in Buenos Aires is reflected in the disbursements for food assistance and for child support directed towards indigent families. Currently the government of Buenos Aires Province spends ars $150 (approximately us $20) per month on food stamps for families living in extreme poverty. This is estimated to cover only about 20 per cent of the basic food needs for a household living below the poverty line (Indice Barrial de Precios [IBP], 2013).4 The national government also administers a child allowance programme of ars $460 (approximately us $60) per month to assist with education and health payments. Eligibility for this allowance, however, precludes the possibility of applying for food stamps.

0002119754.INDD 277 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

As these figures attest, despite the provincial government’s espousal of children’s rights as a social policy priority, this has not been matched by a cor-responding increase in resources for the child protection system of Buenos Aires Province. In large part this is because expenditures for child protection system in the province, and indeed throughout Argentina overall, are expected to be covered from existing provincial resources allocated for child welfare rather than from additional special funds set aside for new child protection infrastructure and personnel. Funding for child protection requires negotia-tion for re-allocation of funds from other child services. A difficulty, however, is that efforts to negotiate a transfer of resources undoubtedly involves resis-tance from those with a vested stake in retaining existing financial disburse-ments and therefore results in meager budgetary allocations for additional child protection measures. This has proven to be burdensome for municipali-ties, since most local governments have received almost no additional finan-cial transfers to cover the physical and human resources required for the new child protection system.

With no new or additional resources available to ensure the effective administration of a complex system that has been established to improve the wellbeing of many of the poorest children and youth in Buenos Aires Province, the system of child rights promotion and protection has so far been poorly implemented. lcps have generally been set up in offices housing other government services and operate with limited material inputs (interviews with lcps personnel). Overcrowding, disorder and the misplacement and potential loss of records and other key documents have hindered the quality of service and staff responsiveness to appeals concerning the plight of missing or abused children. Consequently, zcps have frequently been required to over-ride their formal functions of coordination and supervision by interven-ing at local levels so as to resolve issues that normally would be dealt with by lcps. Lack of adequate resources has likewise seriously constrained commu-nication and coordination between local and zonal offices and curtailed the availability of technical support provided by the Local Councils and the office of the Social Monitor (Olaviaga and Marazzi, 2010). Insufficient space for caseload administration and inadequate safeguarding of information are indicative of the material and resource constraints confronting the system and, more broadly, of the secondary status of children’s rights as a public concern.

Salaries and Conditions of WorkLack of financial resources has likewise created challenges for the staffing of lcps. Many child protection personnel are hired on a temporary contract

0002119754.INDD 278 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

5 The precarious labour situation of the staff of the child protection system is not exclusive of Buenos Aires province. According to a document prepared by the Association of Professional Social Workers and Social Service of Salta, in 2010 only 48 per cent of the professional staff of the Secretariat for Rights Promotion of that province belonged to the permanent staff. In that year 19 per cent of staff left their jobs due to poor working conditions. Source: http://sura rgentina.org.ar/noticias/denuncia-por-falta-de-aplicacion-de-la-ley-26-061-en-salta/.

basis, with their salaries paid from special funding envelopes designated for particular projects, or from social assistance subsidies that are ostensibly designated for other purposes. Their contracts do not allow for collective bar-gaining or for salary increases, nor do they include social benefits that would normally be accorded to them if they were employed as permanent staff. Conditions of hiring are likewise not standardised. Although the lcps staff are supposed to be hired through a competitive process that ensures the engage-ment of the most qualified individuals, there is evidence that staff recruitment often entails either redeployment of municipal workers or unregulated selec-tion on the basis of informal networking (Forum for Children Rights, 2011). Equally reflective of staffing weaknesses is the fact that, contrary to the stipula-tions of Argentina’s new regulatory framework of child protection, none of the lcps located in Buenos Aires Province has a designated physician on its staff. In effect, all lcps are working with at least a 25 per cent deficit of core staff. In addition, at the time of writing, a provincial child rights ombudsman has not been appointed.

The lcps in the town of Bahia Blanca offers an example of the low remu-neration and poor working conditions of child protection personnel through-out the province. lcps social workers in Bahia Blanca are acknowledged as key frontline workers because they have direct contact with children and families in low-income communities. Yet they are paid substantially less than health workers and teachers, and although their salaries rose slightly from 2008 to 2012, these increases did not match the rise in the rate of inflation. Moreover, because of the high numbers of impoverished children and adolescents in the town, they are generally assigned caseloads that are too heavy for them to deal with satisfactorily. As a result, not only has this has had a negative effect on the quality of lcps service for children and families, but it has generated a high staff turnover rate since most child protection staff seek better paid jobs with more satisfactory working conditions.5 Vacant lcps child protection positions frequently take months to fill (in part because of the low salary and stressful working conditions) and this has had the effect of further exacerbat-ing the already heavy caseloads of remaining lcps staff. Ironically, therefore, while ostensibly working under the aegis of recent legislation that enjoins

0002119754.INDD 279 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

6 http://www.hcdiputados-ba.gov.ar/osl/middeadolescencia2013/MIDDEPROVINCIA/La%20Adolescencia%20MIDDE%202013-13nov.pdf.

state institutions to promote and protect the rights of all children, lcps personnel in Bahia Blanca have themselves experienced violations of their own rights as workers (interviews with lcps staff; Asociación Trabajadores del Estado, 2010).

Limited Adherence to the Regulatory FrameworkLow salaries and high staff turnover have had a serious effect on the quality as well as the coverage of the child protection system in Buenos Aires Province. A recent provincial survey indicated that an estimated 3.32 million children were living in the 20 per cent of households having the lowest income levels in the province and that some 2.38 million children aged 18 years and under were living below the poverty line (Permanent Household Survey 2011). The survey also revealed, however, that in 2011, lcps in the province intervened on behalf of just over 2 per cent of the child and adolescent population who were living in poverty. As this evidence suggests, the espoused intent of the Child and Adolescent Protection Law in the province of Buenos Aries has been severely curtailed. Adding to the limited efficacy of child protection services in the province has been the inoperability of the proposed 24-hour telephone hotline service in numerous municipalities (Olaviaga and Marazzi, 2010). Complicating matters is the multiplicity of state and private agencies, from the ministerial level down to local communities, whose mandates to promote, protect and restore children’s rights have created a degree of confusion and ambiguity concerning the division of institutional responsibilities and have therefore in some instances prevented effective responses to child rights violations.

Weak Systems of Data Collection, Analysis, and ReportingAs noted above, the mandate of reuna is to record all interventions that address the rights of children in Argentina. At the time of writing, however, the only information publicly available at reuna related to children for whom the ‘special measure’ of physical separation from family has been implemented. A recent report tabled in the provincial House of Representatives has, how-ever, provided data concerning lcps interventions in response to 1,977 cases of child abuse in Buenos Aires Province during 2010.6 As the report indicates, more than 80 per cent of the interventions resulted in decisions by lcps staff to undertake ‘special protection measures’ that involved separating children from their families. Among these ‘special protection’ cases, approximately

0002119754.INDD 280 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

70 per cent of the children were assigned to institutionalised care, and 30 per cent were placed in foster homes.7

Ideally categorised documentation of child rights cases dealt with at local levels should serve as a key information tool. Unfortunately, however, very little is known about the numbers of children in Buenos Aires Province whose rights have been violated, or who have been threatened with potential violation and there is no clarity concerning interventions other than those that have led to the separation of children from families. The differentiated causes and types of child rights violations to which lcps have responded are not comprehensively recorded, nor are there full detailed descriptions of lines of action that have been taken by the lcps. Available information instead generally consists of simplified open-ended descriptions of cases that make it impossible to iden-tify patterns or indicators that adequately reveal the status and treatment of children in particular localities in specific periods of time. Without such sys-tematic information, it is exceedingly difficult to have a comprehensive under-standing of the extent to which the new child rights legislative framework has generated changes in the overall situations and treatment of children in Buenos Aires.

Complete and accurate documentation and classification of all instances of child rights violations and subsequent interventions and results do not, of course, guarantee children’s safety. As evidence from Canada and Australia has shown, the proliferation of records on child rights cases no doubt strengthens the knowledge base of child protection systems, but does not automatically improve the safety of children (Ainsworth and Hansen, 2006; Barter, 2006). Indeed, the time taken to register full details of all cases can easily lapse into becoming a bureaucratic process having little practical merit and therefore tie up resources that otherwise might be allocated for directly assisting children and families. Nevertheless, in Buenos Aires Province, as elsewhere throughout Argentina, it is clear that while efforts to establish a child rights protection system have undoubtedly been undertaken, the processes and techniques of obtaining case data and evaluating actions that have been taken remain poorly developed.

Conclusion

In Argentina the national Child Rights Law, along with the promulgation of child rights legislation in most provinces, and the corresponding efforts to

7 http://www.hcdiputados-ba.gov.ar/osl/middeadolescencia2013/MIDDEPROVINCIA/La%20Adolescencia%20MIDDE%202013-13nov.pdf.

0002119754.INDD 281 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

establish a new regulatory framework for the protection of children to be administered mainly by provincial governments and local municipalities, represent a fundamental change in official discourse concerning the status and treatment of children in Argentina. Yet in spite of the critical blight of poverty and its effects on many families and children in Argentina, changes in policy discourse do not necessarily penetrate or alter long-standing popular perceptions and professional practices. This has been evident in Argentina where child rights policies formulated in accordance with the national Child Rights Law have encountered two main obstacles. First, the continued practice of apprehending impoverished children and separating them from their family households for extended periods of time has shown that assump-tions concerning the distinction between ‘normal’ children and those desig-nated as troublesome ‘minors’ living in ‘irregular situations’ are still commonplace. A second obstacle lies in the failure of most provincial govern-ments to ensure allocation of the necessary resources for municipal authori-ties effectively to operationalise the new regulatory framework. This has undermined the efficacy of efforts to create a functional, nation-wide, child protection system. Despite the establishment of numerous lcps at municipal levels, poor pay and working conditions have caused stress and high attrition rates among lcps staff, and to interventions that are too often inconsistent and ineffective. Likewise, it is fair to assume that lack of resources have resulted in weak practices of monitoring and evaluation within the child protection sys-tem, making it difficult for zcps to improve coordination and the effectiveness of local child protection interventions. Ironically, therefore, in Argentina as in other countries (e.g., Turner, 2001), the formal acknowledgment of the rights of children as enshrined in law and enhanced by the new regulatory framework has not been matched by effective implementation in large part because of the erosion of the political and civil rights of adult workers.

These obstacles that impede the implementation of an effective regulatory child rights framework reveal the serious limitations of rights-based legislation in Argentina. The passage of laws, most notably the national Child Rights Law, has not been sufficient to overcome long-held perceptions of different ‘catego-ries’ of children who require different forms of social intervention. The focus on differences among individual children and their families has served to dis-tract attention away from the deep structural divisions in society. Consequently, while institutional measures have been taken to establish a regulatory frame-work that adheres to Argentina’s ratification of the un crc and the legislative texts articulating the fundamental precept of the universality of the rights of all children, the necessary resources and professional practices have been slow to follow suit.

0002119754.INDD 282 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

A further observation that can be made relates to the role of government in Argentina. In response to growing civic pressure for greater respect of human rights, governments have enacted child rights legislation as an effective way to reinforce state legitimacy. Child rights laws, in other words, constitute an effec-tive way of augmenting the political capital of governing authorities. Subsequent failure fully to implement the legislation through effective policies and practices may then be attributed to lack of resources and limited capaci-ties at local levels, thus mitigating state responsibility for improvements in children’s overall welfare. The lesson is clear: unless governments at all levels are held to account not only for the formulation of child rights legislation, but for its full implementation, state commitment to children’s rights may remain far less than expected or required.

References

Ainsworth, F. and Hansen, P., Five tumultuous years in Australian child protection: little progress; Child & Family Social Work; 11 (2006): 33–41.

Asociación Trabajadores del Estado (2010). http://foroninezquilmes.blogspot.com .ar/2010/12/situacion-de-la-ninez-en-la-provincia.html.

Association of Professional Social Workers and Social Service of Salta (2010). http://surargentina.org.ar/noticias/denuncia-por-falta-de-aplicacion-de-la-ley-26-061 -en-salta/.

Barter, K. Renegotiating relationships to build community capacity for the health and well being of children: A time for action; in CROCCS 4th International Conference, (2006).

Bianco, C. and Muño, L., Intervenciones en el marco de la Ley 26061. Una mirada desde el Psicoanálisis sobre las prácticas; in II Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Magistrados, Funcionarios, Profesionales y Operadores de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia; (Córdoba, 2010) 12–10 November.

CELS; Derechos Humanos en Argentina. Informe 2013. (Human Rights in Argentina Report 2013) Social and Legal Studies Center Technical Report; available at (accessed 30 November 2013). http://www.cels.org.ar/common/documentos/INTRO.pdf.

Di Iorio, J., Childhood and Institutionalization: Approach of Current Social Issues; Pesquisas e Praticas Psicossociais; 4(2); July (2010).

Fernández Hasan A., Reconsideraciones en torno de los derechos de la niñez y la ado-lescencia; Kairos Revista de Temas Sociales; 11(20) (2007); November. Available at: http://www.revistakairos.org/k20-archivos/FHassan.pdf.

Forum for Children Rights (2011). http://www.hcdiputados-a.gov.ar/osl2011/documentos/documentos_osl/BALANCE%20FINAL%20foro.pdf.

0002119754.INDD 283 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

Freeman, M., Taking children´s rights more seriously; Int J Law, Policy & Family; 6 (1) (1992): 52–71.

Fundación Sur; Realidad de los derechos humanos de la infancia en Argentina; Informe Anual, (2009), November.

Gargarella, R., Domingo, P. and Roux, T. (ed), Courts and social transformations in new democracies. An institutional voice for the poor?; Ashgate (2006).

Grugel, J. and Pezzorutti, E., The Domestic Politics of International Human Rights Law: Implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Ecuador, Chile and Argentina; Human Rights Qua; 34(1) (2012): 178–198.

Invernizzi, A. and Milne, B., Children’s citizenship: an emergent discourse on the rights of the child?; J. Soc. Sci., 9 (2005).

Jelin, E., Pan y afecto: la transformación de las familias; (Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1998).

Jenson, J., Changing the paradigm: Family responsibility or investing in children, Can. J of Sociology; 29 (2) (2004): 169–192.

Indice Barrial de Precios [IBP] (2013): http://www.cippes.org/indice-barrial-de -precios.php.

Lee, J., Three paradigms of childhood; Canadian Rev. of Sociology; 19 (4) (1982): 591–608.

McNeish, D., Promoting Participation for Children and Young People: Some key ques-tions for health and social welfare organisations; J. Social Work Practice, 13 (2) (1999): November.

Olaviaga, S. and Marazzi, V., Inversión pública social en infancia y adolescencia: un análi-sis institucional y presupuestario para el municipio de Morón (Buenos Aires: Fundación CIPPEC-UNICEF, Argentina, 2010).

Permanent Household Survey (2013). http://www.hcdiputados-ba.gov.ar/osl/middead olescencia2013/MIDDEPROVINCIA/La%20Adolescencia%20MIDDE%202013 -13nov.pdf.

Plácido, A.,; Infancia y adolescencia: de objeto de tutela a sujeto de derecho con capaci-dad progresiva para ejercer derechos fundamentales. (1999) Available at: http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/27205/infancia-y-adolescencia-de-objeto-de-tutela-a-sujeto -de-derecho-con-capacidad-progresiva-para-ejercer-derechos-fundamentales.

Reynaert, D., Bouverne, M. and Vandevelde, S., A Review of Children’s Rights Literature since the Adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Childhood; 16 (4) (2009): 518–534.

Szogon, M. C., Implementación de la Ley 26061 de Protección Integral de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes en Mendoza: cambios en las prácticas relacionadas con la privación de libertad; Informe Final de Beca para la formación de Investigadores de la Fac Cs Pol y Soc (UNCu) (2010).

0002119754.INDD 284 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM



PG1636

Turner, B. S., The erosion of citizenship; British J. of Sociology; 52 (2001):189–209.Young, I. M., Polity and group difference: a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship;

Ethics, 99 (1989): 250–274.Waldfogel, J., Rethinking the paradigm for child protection; The Future of Children

Protecting Children from Abuse & Neglect; 8(1) (1998): 101–119.Secretaría de política económica (2012). Gasto Publico Social dirigido a la Niñez 1995–

2009: http://www.gastopubliconinez.gov.ar/datos.html.

0002119754.INDD 285 3/24/2014 4:51:32 PM

childhood rights in argentina

Documents