Child & Youth Care Centers Under the Microscope
Ann Skelton, Director of Centre for Child Law
Child and youth care centres (CYCCs) appear to be unable (or unwilling) to care for the children that they are in fact designed to accommodate. South Africa has a long tradition of residential care for children – some facilities are owned and run by the Department of Social Development, but the vast majority are owned and run by NPOs, with a partial subsidisation of the costs by the Provincial Departments.
Some CYCCs are registered to run programmes of children in need of care and protection, others to run specialised programmes for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, others run programmes for children who are referred by the criminal justice system – and all these services are mandated by the Children’s Act – they are the responsibility of the Department of Social Development.
But this year the Centre for Child Law has dealt with several cases that have left us wondering if the staff running the programmes care about these children at all, and whether they have the necessary skills to do so.
Case 1: The boys in the Bisho CYCC
These boys were all sentenced to the CYCC for offences they committed as teenagers. The courts had carefully selected this sentencing option in the belief the boys would receive rehabilitation and education that would turn them away from a life of crime. Instead, the boys found that their caregivers had no interest in them. Subsequently, the caregivers went on strike for two weeks leaving the boys unattended; they misbehaved and trashed the place. They were moved by the police and – without them being legally represented at the time – were transferred to prison by court order. It has taken the better part of the year to get them out of prison. The CCL got the court order set aside, but then had to review the sentences, and the High Court directed that each case had to go back to the final magistrate. All but one of the boys are now back at home, with just one serving a shortened term of imprisonment for his serious crime.
Case 2: The girls at Emmasdal CYCC
These girls were placed at Emmasdal as they are children in need of care and they have behavioural disorders. Emmasdal is a CYCC designed to house children with behavioural and emotional problems, as provided for in section 150(1)(b) of the Children’s Act. As such, the staff at Emmasdal are meant to be able to deal with their challenging behaviour. However, when the girls protested about their treatment by setting their room on fire, they were transferred (again with no legal representation) to a child and youth care centre, where they spent some time before appearing in court on arson charges. A mother of one of the girls tipped us off and the girls have now been diverted. However, when we approached the State Attorney about these girls they sent us a High Court order sanctioning the move of children from one facility to another – again ex parte, no legal representation. To our puzzlement, the names and facilities did not match our clients – we had accidently uncovered another ‘midnight move’ – granted by a judge on an urgent basis after hours. This is how we discovered the children in Case 3 below.
Case 3: The boys and girls at Soshanguve
This secure care centre is designed to hold a mixture of teenagers, some awaiting trial, some sentenced. Teenagers at Soshanguve misbehaved and the staff, afraid of them, had let them run amok. Tough tactics then resulted in their removal by police and an urgent court order, placing them elsewhere. We went back to the High Court on this one and asked for a developmental quality assurance process – a court ordered investigation into the situation at the CYCC. The results are awaited. Again, staff at a CYCC appear to be inadequately trained to cope with their duties.
Case 4: A 10 year old
EM, is an orphaned child in need of care and protection who suffers from one or more severe disruptive disorders (DBD), similar to the children in Case 2. DBDs are disorders that are typically characterised by physical aggression, argumentativeness, defiance, rule-breaking, resistance to authority, lack of compliance, truancy, stealing,
property damage and a range behaviours that are considered antisocial. As such, children with these disorders require specialised care.
EM has been moved from pillar to post between the care and protection system, the mental health care system, and even the criminal justice systembecause no one could manage or cope with her. In addition, CYCCs that are meant to manage children with behavioural disorders do not provide for children under 12. As a last resort, EM had been placed in temporary care that was due to expire, leaving her stranded.
Subsequently the Centre brought an application against various Departments, to provide an adequate solution for her. The parties subsequently agreed to place EM in SoshanguveCYCC with an additional care worker to assist her. While this is adequate for EM herself, CYCCs do not generally provide for children under 12 years of age who have severe behavioural disorders. Even for children over 12 years of age, with severe behavioural disorders – as in Case 2 above – the CYCCs have been unable to manage these children. The Centre is seeking to remedy such policies in 2017.
Page 1 of 2