Citation

Braithwaite V. Int. J. Child Maltreat. 2021; 4(1): 49-72.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s42448-021-00068-8

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

From its inception, child protection policy has been infused with domination, and over the long arc of history has been accompanied by the spread of institutional oppression. A case study of Australian child protection policy and practice illustrates how Iris Marion Young's (1992) five faces of oppression ((a) exploitation, (b) marginalization, (c) cultural imperialism, (d) powerlessness, and (e) violence) have pervaded the child protection system across time. Further, a secondary analysis of data from the Capacity Building Projects (2008-13) shows how oppression silences families, carers, community workers, and government child protection workers. Informal care networks, restorative justice, and responsive regulation enable silenced voices to be heard but remain at the fringes of child protection practice. Their potential will be reached only with a whole-of-child-protection regulatory refit in which open networks of dialogue are prioritized over networks of oppressive control.

Language: en