The Devastating Impact of the Non-payment of Child Maintenance in South Africa: A Violation of the Children’s Rights

Key Words: child well-being, mass imprisonment, parental incarceration, selection bias.Throughout the last 40 years, the American imprisonment rate has increased from a fairly stable rate of about 100 prisoners per 100,000 members of the population in the early 1970s to about 500 per 1 00,000 now (Blumstein & Cohen, 1973; Glaze, 2011). Yet the American imprisonment rate is not only historically novel but also comparatively extreme, as it exceeds those in all other countries and dwarfs those in other developed democracies (Walmsley, 2008). This sea change in imprisonment may have implications for family life, especially among African American families residing in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, for whom incarceration is now common (Sampson & Loeffler, 2010; Western & Wildeman, 2009). Fully 25% of African American children will ever have a parent imprisoned, and this is true of more than half of African American children whose fathers did not complete high school (Wildeman, 2009).As a result of these increases in imprisonment, a large literature on the consequences of incarceration for family life has emerged, some of which has appeared in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Dyer, Pleck, & McBride, 2012; Green, Ensminger, Robertson, & Juon, 2006; Johnson & Easterling, 2012; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Poehlmann, 2005; Turney, Schnittker, & Wildeman, 2012). Although some research has considered the effects of having a male family member incarcerated on adult women's well-being (Wildeman, Schnittker, & Turney, 2012) or household finances (Geller, Garftnkel, & Western, 2011; Schwartz-Soicher, Geller, & Garftnkel, 2011), much of it considers how parental incarceration affects child wellbeing. In a recent Journal of Marriage and Family article, Johnson and Easterling (2012) reviewed research on the effects of parental incarceration on child well-being, focusing on the various conceptual frameworks linking parental incarceration and child well-being and the important methodological and conceptual challenges related to selection bias (p. 342) plaguing research in this area. After reviewing 10 relevant studies, the authors reached three conclusions. First, research on the effects of parental incarceration on child well-being is not particularly rigorous, as it has used few methods to diminish the often-substantial concerns about selection bias. Second, on the basis of the one study that found children with imprisoned fathers were no worse off than children of divorced parents (Moerk, 1973), the authors concluded there are good reasons to be skeptical that imprisonment has any effects above and beyond paternal separation more broadly (pp. 347-348). Finally, on the basis of rigorous studies that did not use children of divorced parents as the comparison, the authors concluded that, if there are effects of parental incarceration, it is unclear whether parental incarceration helps or harms child well-being, as the direction of average effects varies across studies (p. 348).In this comment, we address the gaps in Johnson and Easterling's (2012) review of the empirical research - gaps we consider sufficiently large that we consider the review to be an inaccurate portrayal of the existing research on the consequences of parental incarceration for child well-being. We first briefly summarize their methodological suggestions for minimizing selection bias, their review of the literature, and their key conclusions. We then introduce 12 relevant studies that were excluded from their review and emphasize how including these studies not only changes the assessment of the methodological rigor of the literature in this area but also leads to substantively different conclusions. Because we are mostly in agreement with their discussion of conceptual frameworks, we do not address that portion of their article.UNDERSTANDING UNIQUE EFFECTS OF PARENTAL INCARCERATION ON CHILDRENJohnson and Easterling's (2012) argument can be summarized as follows:Children whose parents are incarcerated often differ from children whose parents are not incarcerated on a number of dimensions other than parental incarceration status alone, making it difficult to infer whether the problems that have been observed among children whose parents are incarcerated are due to the parent's incarceration or other adversities in the child's ecology, (p. …

This research outlines an analysis of Psychological Well-Being in children who are in the final stages of primary school. The study used a literature review method with the aim of investigating and analysing a deeper understanding of aspects of psychological well-being in children of this age. Through analysing a number of literature sources, this study identified key factors that play a role in influencing psychological well-being in children in the late primary grades. These factors include, but are not limited to, social interactions at school, social support from family and peers, emotional development, adjustment skills and a supportive learning environment. The results of the analyzes suggest that psychological well-being in high school children is closely related to various psychosocial and environmental factors. Moreover, a better understanding of the relationship between these aspects and children's psychological well-being can provide valuable insights for educators, parents and mental health professionals in developing appropriate strategies and interventions to support positive psychological development in children at the primary school level. In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of a holistic understanding of the factors that influence psychological well-being in children in the upper primary grades. The implications of this study are expected to provide a foundation for the development of educational approaches and interventions aimed at improving the psychological well-being of children at this level.

The South African government introduced a strict lockdown and related legislation in reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic. During lockdown, the movement of children between co-holders of parental rights and responsibilities of a caregiver, as defined in section 1(1) of the Children's Act 38 of 2005, was prohibited. The movement of persons was only permitted in essential cases, leading to children being "stuck" with one co-holder or even a person with no parental responsibilities and rights. A court order was to be obtained for permission for a child to travel, proving that this was urgent and essential. The lockdown regulations on the movement of children covered only those in a formal arrangement and excluded co-parents without court orders and those in the process of divorce. The closure of schools for approximately three months resulted in a significant increase in inter-parental disputes. These conflicts primarily revolved around the regulations stipulating that children could only be relocated to households free from Covid-19. The regulations completely ignored the child's emotional needs and were so out of line with other countries in similar circumstances. The regulations were also contrary to the Constitution and Children's Act, which underscore that the best interests of the child are paramount in all matters involving the child as it was not in the child's interests to be with a particular parent or without a particular parent during the lockdown period. This paper aims to identify the issues and effects of co-parenting during the lockdown and present a critique on the circumstances. It is argued that the one-size-fits-all approach introduced by the lockdown regulations was not the most appropriate, as the determining criteria should have been based on what would be best in the child's interest, which should, therefore, be assessed based on a case-by-case analysis.

This article discusses the origins and early 20th-century administration of child maintenance grants, first introduced in South Africa in 1921 as an amendment to the Children’s Protection Act of 1913 and popularly known as ‘mothers’ pensions’. The grants were patently racialised: in the 1920s, government officials administered the grants so as to exclude people categorised as ‘native’ and as ‘Asian’. This article traces how, from the late 1920s, liberal members of the self-styled ‘Child Welfare Movement’ (which had established a country-wide network of local branches after the First World War) began advocating the extension of maintenance grants to African communities. During this period, mission-educated African women were also becoming increasingly involved in questions of social welfare. From the mid 1930s, growing numbers of Child Welfare Societies, along with some sympathetic magistrates, were advocating the extension of mothers’ pensions to indigent African mothers and children. In this context, senior bureaucrats in the national departments of Native Affairs and Social Welfare sought to clarify the social responsibilities of the state towards its impoverished ‘native’ subjects. The article considers the collaboration and the escalating contestation between organisations active in child welfare, civil servants and ministers of state. The qualified extension of maintenance grants resulted in a policy of limited social assistance to impoverished African families living in towns and cities throughout South Africa. The child welfare movement and its allies were partly successful in their attempts to limit racialised application of the Children’s Protection Act from the 1940s until the late 1950s. The powerful officials in the national departments of Native Affairs and Social Welfare were fully convinced that the demands of segregation must determine how the state should intervene in questions of state social assistance and parental responsibility. In principle, they had little or no sympathy with representations that the state should provide social assistance to impoverished African mothers and African children in need of care. In 1940 – in response to pressures from the child welfare coalition – they reluctantly included the urban-based African poor as recipients of child maintenance grants. This marginal assistance took place within a social welfare system designed to protect ‘civilised’ (defined as ‘European’) labour and to complement policies of segregation. In fact, the policy revision involved continued official commitment to the gendered geography of racial segregation and delimitation of civic access to state resources that placed ‘native’ families in the reserves and on white-owned farms beyond governmental regimes of child welfare.

Children in immigrant families account for nearly one-in-four children in the U.S. They are the fastest growing population of children, and they are leading the nation’s racial and ethnic transformation. As a consequence, baby-boomers will depend heavily for economic support during retirement on race-ethnic minorities, many of whom grew up in immigrant families. Because the current circumstances and future prospects of children in immigrant families are important not only to these children themselves, but to all Americans, this report uses data from Census 2000 to portray the lives of children with immigrant parents and highlights policy and program initiatives that will foster the future success of these children. This report begins by discussing the diverse origins and destinations of children in immigrant families. It then highlights substantial evidence that children in immigrant families have deep roots in the U.S. refl ected in their own citizenship, as well as their parents’ citizenship and length of residence in this country, their own and their parents’ English fl uency, and their family commitment to homeownership. Based on a new alternative to the offi cial poverty measure, the report continues by discussing economic challenges confronted by many immigrant families. It also portrays additional immigrant strengths and challenges associated with family composition, parental education and employment, and access for children of immigrants to early education and the later years of schooling. Looking toward fostering a successful future for these children, the report identifi es promising policy and programmatic initiatives for language and literacy training, and for assuring access to education, health, and other essential services, and it identifi es immigrant-related questions that should be asked in all research studies involving children and families.

Longitudinal associations between parental migration and children's psychological well-being in Southeast Asia: The roles of caregivers' mental health and caregiving quality

Child Poverty and Health in the United States: Introduction and Executive Summary.

Neuropsychomotor developmental delay: conceptual map, term definitions, uses and limitations

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic had a global impact on family social and economic well-being. Individuals and families sought alternative living arrangements as a result of the financial crisis, health implications, and housing insecurity, with many joining multigenerational households. However, it is unknown how multigenerational family life affects children's well-being. Therefore, this qualitative study explored risks and resilience-building opportunities for children's psychological and social well-being in resource-constrained multigenerational households during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. Five multigenerational families were selected through snowball sampling and case design. The three generations of participants were grandparents (n = 5), parents (n = 7), and children (n = 4). Data were gathered through a questionnaire and interviews. The study received institutional ethics approval. After thematic analysis, two themes and six sub-themes were identified. Risks were related to interpersonal conflict, family collective fear of COVID-19, and children's multiple other fears. Opportunities were identified as academic support, shared responsibilities, life skills and values acquisition, and family cohesion. Results demonstrated the potential risks and resilience-building opportunities multigenerational households present for children's psychosocial well-being. Multisystemic influences in a multigenerational household contribute to children's adjustment. These outcomes necessitate systemic school psychology interventions. Longitudinal studies are recommended to explore child well-being trends in multigenerational households in varying socioeconomic contexts.

ObjectiveTo retrieve the origin of the term neuropsychomotor developmental delay” (NPMD), its conceptual evolution over time, and to build a conceptual map based on literature review. Data sourceA literature search was performed in the SciELO Brazil, Web of Science, Science Direct, OneFile (GALE), Pubmed (Medline), Whiley Online, and Springer databases, from January of 1940 to January of 2013, using the following keywords NPMD delay, NPMD retardation, developmental delay, and global developmental delay. A total of 71 articles were selected, which were used to build the conceptual map of the term. Data synthesisOf the 71 references, 55 were international and 16 national. The terms developmental delay and global developmental delay were the most frequently used in the international literature and, in Brazil, delayed NPMD was the most often used. The term developmental delay emerged in the mid 1940s, gaining momentum in the 1990s. In Brazil, the term delayed NPMD started to be used in the 1980s, and has been frequently cited and published in the literature. Delayed development was a characteristic of 13 morbidities described in 23 references. Regarding the type of use, 19 references were found, with seven forms of use. Among the references, 34 had definitions of the term, and 16 different concepts were identified. ConclusionsDevelopmental delay is addressed in the international and national literature under different names, various applications, and heterogeneous concepts. Internationally, ways to improve communication between professionals have been indicated, with standardized definition of the term and use in very specific situations up to the fifth year of life, which was not found in Brazilian publications.

When Pandemics Collide: The Impact of COVID-19 on Childhood Obesity

Food security and good nutrition are key determinants of child well-being. There is strong evidence that cash transfers such as South Africa’s Child Support Grant (CSG) have the potential to...

The theoretical analysis of modern research on the phenomenon of psychological well-being allows us to identify the essence and features of child's psychological well-being. It is shown that there are different approaches to its evaluation (analysis of individual determinants of well-being and contextual analysis), which reflect the evolution of approaches to studying the phenomenon of happiness and human well-being in historical and scientific contexts. An analysis of Ukrainian and foreign studies shows that psychological health is most often singled out as the main component of psychological well-being. There is a difference between the concepts of psychological health and mental one. In the legislative documents of Ukraine, these definitions began to be used more often as the purpose of the activities of institutions related to the child. There is a difference between ways of assessing the psychological well-being of preschool, primary school and adolescent children. Parents' assessments of young children are often irrelevant and cannot be an indicator of their child's psychological well-being. Alternatively, it is suggested to study the relationship of parents with the child as a factor of its well-being. Positive psychology had a great influence on the study of the child's psychological well-being, and the idea of the child's positive development as a result of constructive socialization and the process of individualization can become a reference point in building a child's well-being environment. It is proved that the analysis of the environment (theory of ecosystems) of the psychological well-being of the child is one of the promising areas of research and a popular applied practice. Foreign programs for the development of emotional and psychological well-being in schools are analyzed: SEL, Zippy's Friends, MindMatters, The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP).

1. Sandra H. Jee, MD, MPH 1. Department of Pediatrics University of Rochester Rochester, NY 1. Mark D. Simms, MD, MPH 1. Department of Pediatrics Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisc Improving the Odds for the Healthy Development of Young Children in Foster Care . Dicker S, Gordon E, Knitzer J. National Center for Children in Poverty: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Promoting the Emotional Well-Being of Children and Families (Policy Paper No. 2). January 2002;1–28 Children and Family Services Reviews, Part V: Most States Fail to Meet the Mental Health Needs for Foster Children . Huber J, Grimm B. Youth Law News . 2004;Oct-Dec:1–36 CWLA Standards for Health Care Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care . Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America; 1988. Educational Experiences of Children in Out-of-Home Care . Smithgall C, Gladden RM, Howard E, Goerge R, Courtney M. Chicago, Ill: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; 2004:1–77 Fostering Health: Health Care for Children and Adolescents in Foster Care . 2nd ed. Task Force on Health Care for Children in Foster Care, American Academy of Pediatrics, District II, New York State. Elk Grove Village, Ill: American Academy of Pediatrics: 2005 Healthy Foster Care America . www.aap.org/advocacy/HFCA/ On any given day, more than 500,000 children are living in state-supported foster home care. In the course of a year, more than 800,000 children experience placement in a foster home. Many of these children return home quickly, but for some, placement may extend for years and may involve care in multiple foster homes. Most of the children have experienced serious family dysfunction prior to placement, including exposure to domestic violence and to their parents’ mental health disorders, addiction, or criminal activity. Serious neglect and abuse are the most frequently stated reasons for removing children from their parents’ care. Children entering foster homes have extremely high rates of physical and mental health problems, developmental delays, and educational underachievement. As a group, children in foster care …

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 15 No. 2 (2005) ISSN: 1546-2250 Child Well-Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations: What Do We Know? Vleminckx, Koen and Smeeding, Timothy M. (2001). Bristol: The Policy Press; 570 pages. $59.95. ISBN 1861342535. This book identifies child poverty as a priority concern for many industrialized nations. In rich countries with developed welfare states and with the resources to make a difference, child poverty nevertheless persists and it occurs at much higher rates in some countries than in others. Child poverty has implications over and above the material disadvantages suffered by the children: it has effects on their education, future employment and life chances more generally. Some policy regimes and family policies appear more effective in minimizing or tackling child poverty than others. This book aims to chart the prevalence of child poverty crossnationally for industrialized and some transition countries; explore the impact of child poverty on children’s outcomes; and examine “what works” in terms of policy and suggest what countries can learn from each other. These are clearly areas of 413 interest to a wide audience. The book provides both a point of reference for understanding differences in child poverty and a wide-ranging collection of papers on specific topics that readers may wish to exploit selectively. There are 20 chapters (plus an introduction and conclusion). While the chapters read together produce a rich cumulative understanding of child poverty research, many individual chapters are on topics that might interest readers with specialized interests. For example, there are chapters on time use among older children and young adults (Gauthier and Furstenberg) on child welfare in Central Asia (Falkingham) and on the relationship between national “values” and child welfare (Phipps). In charting differences in rates of child poverty across countries, the studies collected here all utilize the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) and its harmonized data on 25 countries, including most OECD countries, several East European countries and Taiwan. The opening chapter illustrates the power and potential of the LIS to contribute to cross-national research. It also illustrates a problem common to many crossnational studies: the potentially frustrating time-lag between date of research (and publication) and the date of the most recent waves of LIS data. Poverty and policy has changed since 1995, sometimes dramatically, and had done so even by 2001 when this book was published. The chapters attempt to achieve a balance between two approaches of comparative research: either covering one topic across a range of countries, with the risk of superficial treatment or inability to take meaningful account of institutional variation; or covering separate countries in depth and side-by-side, with the risk that differences between countries and the policy implications can only be inferred. Thus, chapters range from covering child poverty across 25 countries to covering a specific issue in one, such as change over time in child poverty in Ireland (Nolan), with many covering a selection of two, three or four countries. This approach makes sense in terms of illustrating how different questions need to be treated at different scales and the 414 importance of selecting countries for meaningful comparison of particular issues. On the other hand, it makes it hard at times to relate chapters to each other or to see what the volume as a whole (rather than as the sum of its constituent parts) can tell us about child poverty. In particular, I felt that the section on Outcomes, though it contained much of interest, did not clarify whether there were universal ill-effects of child poverty that could be generalized across all the countries considered, or whether the “outcomes” were simply aspects of child poverty, or were in fact consequences of it. The use of appropriate data to stress variation not only between but also within countries is a welcome feature. It is done at a regional level by Rainwater, Smeeding and Coder. Variation among population sub-groups is also treated in Frick and Wagner’s investigation of differences between immigrant and German-born ethnic German children; and in Christopher, England, McLanahan, Ross and Smeeding’s exploration of gender differences, their intersection with family policies and their implications for...