ࡱ> ~9 tbjbj%YlJJJJJJJ^84^&t@:z"U&W&W&W&W&W&W&$J( j*P{&J{&JJ& JJU&U&%hJJU&4 $L^V %U&&0&%*F*U&^^JJJJC. Henry Kempe Lecture 16th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN) York (UK), 3-6 September 2006-07-31 Professionals Responsibility to Protect Childrens Rights supported by the CRC Jaap E.Doek Chairperson UN Committee On the Rights of the Child 1. The UN Convention Every professional working with or for children should know the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (also known as the CRC) and not only by name. But I think that is at least for now mainly wishful thinking of the chairperson of the CRC Committee. So before discussing the responsibility of professionals in the light of the CRC a very short expose on the main features of this international human rights treaty: - the CRC is the most comprehensive international human rights treaty (1) because it encompasses both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights tailored to the special position of children; - it has been almost universally ratified; 192 States out of 194 States of the world have committed to the implementation of the rights of the child as enshrined in the CRC. The remaining two, the USA and Somalia have signed the CRC which means that they will refrain from actions which may impede the future implementation; - the ratification of the CRC means that the government of the ratifying State takes upon itself the obligation to progressively implement the rights of the child and to ensure that these rights are respected not only by public authorities and civil servants but by every citizen; - in order to ensure respect for and implementation of the rights of the child the State should provide the necessary legal remedies in case of a violation of these rights. This should be done via the possibility to file a complaint with committees or similar bodies established for dealing with complaints e.g. for children placed in institutions and to initiate a civil law suit or a prosecution under the criminal law. In addition States establish national institutions such as a National Human Rights Institute and/or a Child Ombudsperson or Commissioner for an independent monitoring of the implementation of the rights of the child (2); - the CRC is a very rich document and should affect the attitude and practice of professionals working for or with children in many different settings such as the family, the school, child care and protection services and juvenile justice. The core provision of the CRC, the so-called General Principles are: . the right not to be discriminated, a rule of particular importance for children belonging to minorities and children otherwise in especially difficult circumstances (art. 2 CRC). . the rule that in all actions the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration (art. 3). . the right to life, survival and development (art. 6). The failure to fully respect and implement this right will negatively affect the enjoyment of all other rights. .the right of the child capable of expressing her or his views to express these views should be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child (art. 12. This right implies that the child has the right to participate not only in decision-making processes affecting the individual child (art. 12(2) CRC), but also in the development and implementation of laws, policies and programmes affecting children. It should be noted that the CRC does not set a minimum age, meaning that this right should be respected and implemented also for very young children (3). Much more can be said about the content of the CRC and its provisions for the protection but also for the empowerment of children (4). I have to and will limit myself to some of the protection provisions when discussing the responsibility of professionals in that regard. Before doing that and in order to avoid misunderstandings: the protection of the rights of the child is not the responsibility of professionals. Everybody has a responsibility of professionals. Everybody has a responsibility in respecting, promoting and protecting childrens rights and the government should be in the drivers seat in that respect. If this responsibility is not taken seriously professionals alone cannot make a lasting difference. 2. Professional Responsibility and Protection of Childrens Rights In line with the CRC Committees practice I want to define professionals as persons who carry out their professional activities directly with or explicitly for children. This definition encompasses a group with a wide variety of disciplines (teachers, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, (ortho)pedagogues, law enforcement, judges, prosecutors etc.) working in quite different settings (school, family, community, institutions, courts). It is impossible to do justice to all this variety and this occasion justifies a limitation to professionals working in the field of Child Abuse and Neglect. But in discussing the responsibility of professionals under the CRC, I like to make a distinction between what can be called the collective responsibility and the individual level. It also allows me to put the responsibility in the wider context of the CRC. a. Collective Responsibility In discussing collective responsibility it is in my opinion helpful to distinguish between what I would call the responsibility at the (national) society level and the responsibility at the level of professional cooperation. At the society level the primary responsibility for the protection of the rights of children lies with the government that ratified the CRC. This means inter alia that governments have to take measures to establish, via legislation and policies, a system that provides for an effective prevention and intervention to protect the child from all forms of abuse and neglect (see art. 19 CRC) and from all forms of exploitation, from the recruitment and involvement in armed conflicts and from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (art. 32-38 CRC) (5). When a government fails to meet its obligation under the CRC for the protection of children members of parliament are the first to take action and put pressure on the government. But I would aegue that other parts of the civil society should also undertake measures to challenge the governments performance and produce concrete proposals for a better protection of children. IN that regard the experiences show that in almost every country child rights advocacy groups do take action by raising awareness, involving the media, and by lobbying parliaments and other relevant bodies for improvement of the protection of children. But these actions should not only be undertaken by specific advocacy groups. Associations of professionals, using their collective experiences and knowledge, should also play an active role in this regard. They do have a collective responsibility to identify the structural shortcomings of existing child protection systems. This means that professional associations should adopt and implement a policy by which they actively promote an effective protection of childrens rights. It goes without saying that this should result in different activities not only depending on the capacity of the association, but also on the problems a country is facing. In some countries the priority may be to give attention to the various problems related to trafficking of children, to commercial sexual exploitation and/or child labour and to the impact of armed conflicts/internal displacement. In other countries the collective responsibility may be translated in action to improve prevention of and intervention in cases of child abuse and neglect in the family. Whatever the actions will be it is, given the experiences so far, very likely that it requires systematic and ongoing efforts, including where appropriate the mobilisation of members of the association, because it is often necessary to pursue measures which address the root-causes of the problems. This is all fine and well but can be more concrete? Let me give you two examples: one rather easy and another much more difficult. First: All associations of professionals working for and with children should become actively involved in the monitoring of the implementation of childrens rights in their respective countries (6). This can be done e.g. by taking part in the reporting on this implementation to the CRC Committee. This means concrete effects to get their experiences and views incorporated in the report of their government and/or in alternative (complimentary) reports submitted by (often) a coalition of NGOs. This input which should include indications of the possible solutions for the problems identified is of crucial importance of the CRC Committee. It compliments the often rather descriptive report of the government with information about the problems professionals are facing in their daily practice. The result of all this is that the recommendations of the CRC Committee (in a document called the Concluding Observations) can become more useful because they can address in often very specific terms the problems identified with suggestions for further action. But at the same time it is crucial that the professional associations (and their membership) read these recommendations very carefully and identify those that are of immediate relevance for their work. They should use these recommendations to inform their own policies and practices and undertake actions in order to contribute to their implementation. Equally important is that the professional associations use them in their contacts and negotiations with the government e.g. in order to strengthen the legislative framework relevant for their work or to increase the financial and human resources enabling their members to deal with their case-load in a manner that is in full compliance with the CRC Committee. In addition I like to refer to the General Comments of the CRC Committee e.g. on Adolescent Health and Development, HIV/AIDS and the rights of the child (2003), Implementing child rights in early childhood (2005) and on The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (2006) (7). These documents provide the States Parties governments, but also professionals, lay-persons, parents and children on how the CRC should be interpreted and implemented. For instance professionals working in the field of HIV/AIDS who want to comply with childrens rights, must read the General Comment on this topic. In order to strengthen the protection provided by the CRC the General Assembly of the UN adopted two Optional Protocols, one on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSA) and on the Involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC). They require that very specific measures, both at national and international level, to protect children from commercial sexual exploitation and related crimes such as trafficking and sale of children and from being recruited for and/or involved in armed conflicts. More than 100 governments have ratified these protocols and are therefore committed to undertake the measures required. In terms of their accountability: they have to report to the CRC Committee on their efforts to implement the Protocols. When the members (some of them or all) of your professional association are involved in these areas the association should, when necessary, push the government to submit its report on the implementation of the OP to the CRC Committee. This will allow for a public debate of the countrys performance (progress, shortcomings) before the Committee that will then issue recommendations for further actions. These recommendations should be carefully read and where possible followed-up with concrete actions by the association (and their membership). If you live in a country that has not (yet) ratified the OPs, the relevant professional associations should lobby for ratification as soon as possible. Second: In this report to the special Session of the General Assembly (which resulted in an international Plan of Action called: A World Fit for Children) of the UN Kofi Anan stated among other things that poverty is the major obstacle for the implementation of the rights of the child. And this is also true for our efforts to protect children from abuse and neglect. The relationship between CAN and poverty has been questioned and challenged. A long standing argument by many in the field is that the relationship between poverty and CAN is, to a large extent, a function of labelling and reporting patterns that are biased against the poor, who are more visible because of their greater involvement in the welfare and social service systems. In a comprehensive examination in the USA of child protective services (CPS) and non-CPS data services Drake and Zuravin concluded that labelling and reporting bias arguments are not tenable and that the higher rate of child maltreatment (CAN) among the poor is a reality that thus far has simply been ignored by policy makers and practitioners (8). The third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect in the USA (NIS-3, 1996) found inter alia that the rate of maltreatment for children from the poorest families (income below 15.000 dollars) was three times that of children from families with incomes between 15.000 and 30.000 dollars and even 25 times that of children in families 30.000 dollars or more. It further documented that income is inversely related to the severity of maltreatment. It is clear that poverty and the related economic deprivation is one of the major root causes of CAN. Garbarino notes that the correlation between poverty and child maltreatment may reflect an effect of social policy It seems reasonable to assume that in a society in which low income is not correlated with minimal access to basic human services (for example in societies providing universal availability of maternal-infant health care), these correlations between poverty and child maltreatment would be smaller; in a society totally devoid of policies to ameliorate the impact of family-level differences in social class, on the other hand, the correlations might be even larger(9). The message should be clear: professionals associations should initiate and/or join actions to reduce poverty. They should in e.g. discussions about the prevention of CAN urge the government to invest to the maximum extent possible of the available resources (see art. 4 CRC) in the reduction of poverty. In that regard you can remind your government of its commitment made in 2000 when signing the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the UN, to halve the poverty by 2015. So professionals should translate their collective responsibilities in ongoing actions and lobbying with members of parliament (and other relevant actors in the society) to force the government to really eliminate poverty. This applies not only for developing countries but also (and even more so given the fact that they are very rich) for developed countries, in which a considerable percentage (up to almost 20% in the USA) of children live under the poverty line. And, with reference to Garbarinos observation: poverty reduction is not only a financial problem. A child reduction policy should include effective measures to establish a system of basic human services (health care, education, welfare) that is equally accessible for everybody and of good quality. Another area where collective responsibility of professionals for the protection of children can take shape and make a difference in the multidisciplinary approach in trying to prevent or stop child maltreatment. For several decades in fact almost immediately from the time CAN (re)-emerged as an important social problem (10) professionals working in the field of CAN have recognised that this approach, drawing from the perspectives and methods of disciplines such as psychology, social work, medicine and the law, is the best and most effective approach in recognising, treating and preventing CAN. It resulted among others in the establishment of multidisciplinary teams handling CAN cases in a number of countries (mainly in the developed world) in different settings e.g. within a hospital or within child protective services. A lot has been written about this approach (11) but research in how those teams operate in practice, how effective they are and how professionals see their responsibility is quite limited. A study conducted at the end of the 90s in New Jersey found that there was a considerable degree of inequality in levels of participation in multidisciplinary meetings. In this case it was noted that the participation of the staff of the prosecutors office was strong and dominated many of the meetings (12). I very much hope that this is not representative for multidisciplinary meetings elsewhere. In my opinion it is the challenge for multidisciplinary teams to develop a practice that takes the best interests of the child as a primary consideration (Art. 3 CRC). This (collective) professional responsibility requires an equal and active participation of all disciplines involved. For instance: the importance of prosecution of the perpetrator should be balanced against the best interest of the child and should therefore not have a negative effect on her/his harmonious development. This matter is particularly relevant in cases of child abuse within the family. The collective professional responsibility can be developed via protocols for multidisciplinary cooperation for handling cases of CAN. In conclusion: collective responsibility of professionals for the protection can and should be practiced in the light of the CRC and result in a systematic participation in the development and implementation of all relevant legislation and policies of all relevant legislation and policies and in well-balanced multidisciplinary cooperation in handling cases of CAN. In achieving this it is very important that professionals are systematically and in ongoing manner informed about and trained in respecting and implementing the rights of the child. This is also important for the professionals individual responsibility for the protection of the rights of the child. 3. Individual responsibility In her or his efforts to protect a child from abuse or neglect a professional may become involved in situations in which her/his responsibility is challenged. It is of course impossible to give an exhaustive description of these situations. I will limit myself to some examples with a direct link to the most relevant provisions of the CRC, in particular article 19 dealing with the right of the child to be protected against all forms of child abuse, article 18 (primary responsibility of parents for the upbringing of the child) and article 9 (the principle of non-separation of the child from her/his parent). a. Prevention An individual professional can in various ways contribute to the prevention of abuse and violence against an individual child e.g. by timely identifying at risk situations and take adequate measures as much as possible in cooperation with parents and appropriate involvement of the child (art. 18 and 12 CRC) to prevent that abuse occurs. In this regard some observations on the sometimes heatedly debated prohibition of corporal punishment (13). In a document approved last May the CRC Committee has explained that and why the elimination of violent and humiliating punishment including corporal punishment of children is an immediate and unqualified obligation of States Parties. It also makes various recommendations for the measures that should be taken to fulfil this obligation (14). For an individual professional it means that he/she has to refrain from all forms of corporal punishment e.g. when working in a school or in a childrens institution or similar residential facility. But it also means that he/she has to react if colleagues in those settings use corporal (or other forms of degrading) punishment. One may ?????? such an action also has an element of the collective professional responsibility. By way of example: the Dutch Law on Youth Care contains a provision requiring that a person working in child care service/facility who knows that a colleague has (possibly) abused a child (apparently not necessary a child cared for by the service/facility) has to report the case if the allegations are reasonably funded to the Centre for Advice and Reporting in cases of Child Abuse (15). b. Reporting Article 19, par. 2 CRC requires the State Party to take protective measures, among many others, for reporting of instances of child maltreatment. The CRC Committee consistently recommends States Parties (when appropriate) to establish an effective system for the reporting of cases of CAN. Although the Committee sometimes recommended to introduce mandatory reporting, it leaves it in principle to the government of a State Party to decide whether the reporting should be mandatory or that a non-mandatory system is enough for an effective (timely and with adequate follow-up actions) reporting of CAN. It goes beyond the scope of this lecture to discuss the pros and cons of each of the possible systems of reporting, a discussion which so far has been focused mainly on the mandated reporting (16). Therefore the following observations: Various studies show that in countries with mandated reporting professionals often use a certain discretion in deciding when to report. This is partly the result of the interpretation of the rule that reporting must be taken when there is a reasonable suspicion. The difference in interpretation seems to be linked for some professionals with the possible negative impact of reporting on the therapeutic process. The question reporting or not? indeed does sometimes produce difficult dilemmas. But the individual professional responsibility under the CRC requires that an action taken ensures the effective protection of the child with as a minimum standard that a repetition of the abuse has to be prevented. It is unacceptable to serve the interests of adults such as parents or other relatives of the child or to protect to the interests of a profession or service at the expense of the protection of the child. This applies regardless the existing reporting system in the country. Reporting is not a goal in itself but a tool for an effective protection of the child. In case of non-reporting the professional has the full responsibility to ensure - much as humanly possible such protection. Studies indicate that educating professionals improves their reporting (17) and I would strongly recommend to make information about the CRC an integral part of such educational programmes. c. Intervention/removal of the child When an intervention and more in particular a removal of the child is necessary to protect the child, the professional is facing a number of problems. Many of them are related to on the one hand respect for the parents obligation and right to raise the child the way they see fit (parental autonomy) and on the other hand the need and right of the child to be protected from (further) abuse. Compassion with the family and the parental problems may result in an over-identification with the abusive parent and a reluctance to intervene for the protection of the child. At the same time, this protection cannot be isolated from the family context and the possible future role of the parents in the life of the child. But the professional should not loose sight of primordial right of the child to be protected and this can mean that he/she should set clear limits to the parents behaviour while at the same time offering guidance and support. In the light of article 9 CRC the removal of the child should be a last resort, which is when it is necessary in the best interests of the child. It means that the professional responsibility to respect the child-parent relationship should generate efforts to explore and when possible, use alternatives such as the removal of the alleged perpetrator. From the reports submitted by States Parties to the CRC Committee a trend emerges to introduce legal and other measures to remove the alleged perpetrator and not the child victim of the abuse. There is no simple recipe for striking the balance between the interests of parents and the best interests of the child, but the latter must be a primary consideration. The rights of the child to be protected from abuse ultimately should override the interests of parents. It is the professionals responsibility under the CRC to side with the child. In that regard it is important that the professional fully implements the childs right to express her/his views as enshrined in article 12 CRC. d. The right of the child to be heard (art. 12 CRC) In addition to what I already said in the introduction some observations in this regard: - par. 2 of art. 12 stipulates that the child shall be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. It is the responsibility of professionals, in this case particularly judges, magistrates, prosecutors and others involved in such proceedings, to ensure that this opportunity is not just a formality, but a genuine offer to the child to express her/his views. This implies inter alia that the child is given information about in which kind of question/matter he/she can express her/his views and that circumstances are created that facilitate/enhance that the child is comfortable/feels safe allowing her/him to really freely express her/his views. The professional should know and apply the Guidelines approved by ECOSOC (..2004) regarding interviewing children victims/witness of violence etc. (check the correct title + resolution ECISOC). The views of the child should be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. In my opinion it means that a judge or another decision maker has to inform the child about what he did with the child views. This is particularly important if the decision is not in accordance with the childs views/opinion; - the right to be heard is not limited to legal procedures but applies to all matters affecting the child. It means that professionals working in e.g. residential youth facilities, childrens homes or juvenile detention centres should involve children in the decision they take. This applies to the development and implementation of an individual treatment plan or the decision to return the child to her/his parents, but also to decision of more general nature e.g. regarding hours for watching TV, cultural activities and sports. Research has shown that such active involvement contributes significantly to the acceptance of decisions and rules/regulations and the effectiveness of treatment plans. In short: if you want to intervene effectively in cases of CAN do listen to children and take their views into account. It is in the best interests of the child and also a matter of respect for the rights of the child. Much more can be said about the responsibility of the individual professional for the implementation of the rights of the child and not only those working in the field of CAN. Think e.g. of urban planners and their responsibility to make sure that urban environments are child friendly (e.g. safe roads to schools, easily accessible play grounds (art. 31 CRC) and that children are consulted and involved. Or: think of the professional working in a juvenile detention centre to treat the child even the most difficult ones with humanity and with respect for her/his inherent dignity taking into account the childs needs and age (art. 37 (c) CRC). All these and other observations underscore and confirm that a professional individual can and should contribute in a significant manner to the creation of a culture of respect for childrens rights. In conclusion: Professionals working for or with children had and continue to have the moral and/or ethical responsibility to protect children. The CRC has added an important legal weight to this responsibility, because it creates a legally binding obligation to take all necessary measures individually and/ore collectively (as an association of professionals) to protect a child/children against neglect, abuse, violence and exploitation (art. 19 CRC). At the same time, this legal weight provides the professionals with a legitimation for their actions and with a very solid basis for their claim that the government has to provide them with adequate support and assistance. Henry Kempes work cannot be better honoured than by assuming this responsibility under the CRC because it will be an important contribution to creating a world fit for children. Footnotes 1. Currently there are seven international human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (in force since 3 Jan. 1976 and now ratified by 152 States, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in force since 23 March 1976 and now ratified by 155 States, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (in force since 4 January 1969 and now ratified by 170 States, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (in force since 3 September 1981 and now ratified by 180 States), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (in force since 26 June 1987 and now ratified by 141 States), Convention on the Rights of the Child (in force since 2 September 1990 and now ratified by 192 States) and Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (in force since 1July 2003 and now ratified by 34 States). In addition two new international Conventions are being prepared: A Convention on Enforced Disappearance and a Convention on the Protection of the Right of Persons with Disabilities. The text of these Human Rights Treaties and other information can be found on  HYPERLINK "http://www.ohchr.org" www.ohchr.org 2. See for more information about the reasons and functions of these monitoring bodies General Comment No 2 (2002) of the CRC Committee on The role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. UN Docum. HRI/GEN/1/Rev./8 (8 May 2006), p. 356-362. 3. The CRC Committee has provided specific guidance for the implementation of the CRC for (very) young children in its General Comment No. 7 (2005) on Implementing child rights in early childhood. UN Docum. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.8 (8 May 2006), p. 432-451. 4. See about the CRC as an instrument for empowerment of children Jaap E. Doek: Childrens Rights: Tokenism and/or Empowerment ; Presentation at a conference in Roskilde (Denmark), June 17, 2006; see  HYPERLINK "http://www.jaapedoek.nl" www.jaapedoek.nl 5. In addition to these articles the Optimal Protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. These two Protocols are ratified by more than 100 States Parties to the CRC and the USA; see more information  HYPERLINK "http://www.ohchr.org" www.ohchr.org 6. It goes beyond the scope of this lecture to elaborate on the various aspects of the process of monitoring the implementation of the CRC. See for more information e.g. Jutta Gras, Monitoring the Convention on the Rights of the Child; 2001 Helsinki: The Erik Castren???? Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Research Reports 8/2001. 7. For the texts of these and other General Comments see www.ohchr.org 8. B. Drake and S. Zuravin, Bias in child maltreatment reporting: Revising the myth of classlessness, American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry 68 (1998), p. 295-304. 9. James Garbaroni, The Role of Economic Deprivation in the Social Context of Child Maltreatment, in: The Battered Child 5th edition, Mary Edna Helfer, Ruth S. Kempe and Richard D. Krugman (editors), p. 49 60; 1997 University of Chicago Press; Chicago/London. 10, See e.g. The Abused Child, A Multidisciplinary Approach to Developmental Issues and Treatment, Harold P. Martin (editor); 1976 Cambridge Massachusetts; Bal??????er Publishing Company. 11. See e.g. D/C/ Bross, R.D. Krugman, M.R. Lenherr, D.A. Rosenberg and B.D. Schmitt, The new child protection team handbook 1988 New York Garland Publishing Inc. 12. Lorna Bell, Pattern of interaction in multidisciplinary child protection teams in New Jersey, Child Abuse and Neglect 25 (2001), p. 65-80. 13. A lot has been written abour corporal punishment, see e.g. (to mention some of the most recent books) Susan H. Bitensky, Corporal Punishment of Children. Human Rights Violation 2006 Trans-national Publishers Inc. ; Michael Donelly and Murray A. Strauss (eds), Corp[oral Punishment of Children in Theoretical in Theoretical?????2x? Perspective, 2005 New Haven, Yale University Press; Stuart N. Hart (ed.), Eliminating Corporal Punishment. The way forward to constructive child discipline; 2005 Paris UNESCO; Eliminating corporal punishment; a human rights imperative for Europes children; 2005 Strassbourg Council of Europe. 14. General Comment No. 8 (2006). The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts 19, 28, par. 2 en 3 inter alia). 15. In Dutch: De wet op de jeugdzorg, art. 20; the Centre (in Dutch: Advies- en Meldpunt Kindermishandeling; shortened as AMK) has been established in 1972 and its mandate is to investigate cases of CAN and to refer them, when appropriate. 16. See e.g. Seth C. Kalichman, Mandated Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse. Ethics, Law and Policy; 1993 Washington American Psychological Association and Murray Levine/Howard J. Doneck and associates, The Impact of Mandated Reporting on the Therapeutic Process Picking up the Pieces; 1995 Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi, Sage Publications. 17. See e.g. Emalee Flaherty, Invited Commentary, Child Abuse and NEGLECT 30 (2006) p, 341-343 and Stephen W, Webster et al, Overreporting and underreporting of child abuse: Teachers use pf professional discretion, Child Abuse and Neglect 29 (2005) p. 1281-1296. PAGE  PAGE 11 & kl}~@Y##2233):,:>>KKNNRRoTyT9]Z]^^paya!eRepq}qttyyyyyyy{ {{||| }!}"}2}3}O~P~r~s~t~~~HjUmH sH jUmH sH  0JmH sH jUmH sH jUmH sH 5\mH sH  >*mH sH mH sH mH sH G7X|}%& l}-(Ys<=Z<##'*;-G/Z2225n9;=@-FgHH]JKKK p#KKNNNOkTlTyTVWYw\5]6][](` a-c>deeReejnoqpqqt p#tttttttttttttx{yyy6{7{1|2|4}5}~~()̀ p#̀̀Ӂԁ56Ńƃ==>FGHIJKLNOPQR p#HJsyYZ`abdeklnopst0JmHnHu0J j0JU5\mH sH mH sH  H*mH sH RSTUVWXYbcdpqrsth]h&`#$ p## 01h. A!"#$%DyK www.ohchr.orgyK ,http://www.ohchr.org/DyK www.jaapedoek.nlyK 2http://www.jaapedoek.nl/DyK www.ohchr.orgyK ,http://www.ohchr.org/ iF@F Standaard CJOJQJ_HaJmHsHtHDA@D Standaardalinea-lettertype0@0 Koptekst  p#()@( Paginanummer.U@. Hyperlink >*B*pht7X|}%& l } - ( <=Z<#&;)G+Z...1n579<-BgDD]FGGGGJJJKkPlPyPRSUwX5Y6Y[Y(\ ]-_>`aaRaafjompmmpppppppppppppt{uuu6w7w1x2x4y5yzz{{(|)|||}}~~56==>FGHIJKLNOPQRSTUVWXYdpqu0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0 0 HtFMKt̀RtGIJKLNsHuuux!y2yOzszztXXX !!T 5://O2V233n5w5;;fcjc}oop#pw wwxtxxx|xxxx/{4{{{=|D|||^}d}n}s}}}p~{~~~~~~~9Aʀ̀);AFNOaKQȅYruuy n q } 6O(Z(((NNNNT"TVVXXOZTZaaaaddffff|nnw wwxxxo{p{{{x~{~_Yru3333333333333333333333333333333333X|GGlPxPppYru Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer~C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoHerstel-versie van HenryKempelectureaug2006.asd Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc Mary Boer~C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoHerstel-versie van HenryKempelectureaug2006.asd Mary Boer/K:\Mijn documenten\HenryKempelectureaug2006.doc@_ :l'+%mxE9FbHtJ#Rw@|U^`>*o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(- ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(M^`Mo(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(- ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(^`>*o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.@_ w@|J#R'+%E9F 1~| XB@ppPBppt@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialA& Trebuchet MS?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"q-& won8!20  2QC Mary Boer Mary BoerOh+'0l   ( 4 @LT\dCss Mary Boer aryaryNormale Mary Boer 17yMicrosoft Word 9.0@Q&X@F@6Lon՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp   Stand Inw8  C Titelt 8@ _PID_HLINKSA, ]http://www.ohchr.org/http://www.jaapedoek.nl/ ]http://www.ohchr.org/  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuwxyz{|}Root Entry F|¦LData P1TableX*WordDocument%SummaryInformation(nDocumentSummaryInformation8vCompObjjObjectPool|¦L|¦L  FMicrosoft Word-document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q