Editorial

There is no doubt that many of the children who find themselves in severe difficulties connected with dire family situations, which may range from abuse to acrimonious separation, are not being fully served by the systems and institutions whose role it is to ameliorate their circumstances and provide them with alternatives, so that they may one day come out on the other side scarred but still intact. Two recent reports bring out numerous shortcomings in this regard.

The latest was published by the outgoing Commissioner for Children, Carmen Zammit, who, at the request of a court, appointed a special board to look into a case of abused children who were returned to one of their parents even though a care order had been issued.

The board said many services exist that benefit children. However, it made it clear they are not functioning as well as they should. The report speaks of new services replacing older ones without being adequately resourced, overburdened social workers who lack training and experience, and lack of coordination and continuity between entities involved with children such as schools, the police and social workers.

About the case in question, the board was scathing, describing it as unacceptable that no homes could take in the children because of their problematic behaviour and so they ended up back at their abusive family. The report suggests that families who have utterly failed their children should be stripped of their parental rights, a proposal made before and after by equally influential voices, one of them no less than the Family Minister.

It makes perfect sense: While children have an established right to family life (which may be a foster or adoptive one), it follows that inadequate parents who cannot provide them with a family environment should have no sacrosanct right of possession over them.

Another recent report was drawn up by Parliament's Social Affairs Committee, dealing with the Family Court, in particular the way the court processes affect children.

The interests of the children, it reveals, are hardly being put first. This is often a factor of parents' egoism and delaying tactics. But the children, already traumatised by the experience of having to testify, are being badly let down by the system, too. The report proposes, for example, that a children's advocate be appointed to every child by right instead of at the discretion of the court, that the place where children are interviewed be much more child-friendly and that a mechanism be inscribed in law that would stop children being "used" by their parents.

Is this a society that seeks to protect children at all costs? That cannot be said when children are returned to an abusive family because there is no place for them elsewhere or when children are still allowed to be used as cannon fodder by their separating parents. Neither when so many children are still deprived by poverty or poor education.

Much progress has been made. The expansion of children's services and the very existence of a Family Court attests to that. Children's rights - to an all-round education, to play, to a family - are increasingly recognised and respected. Yet, reports such as these reveal what a long way to go there is before children become truly our first priority and enough resources are channelled towards their welfare.

The new Commissioner for Children, Helen D'Amato, has pledged to strive to make sure children's interests are given priority over everything. How right and timely that commitment is.