«Вместе к успеху!» Обзор систем защиты детства в России и США: на пути к взаимопониманию.
Сhild protection Law system in US and Russia - cross-cltural analysis
A paedophile is a person with a sexual attraction to children; some paedophiles commit child sex abuse offences. For such acts, they hold moral and legal responsibility, which presupposes that paedophiles are moral agents who can distinguish right from wrong and are capable of self-control. Like any other moral agents, paedophiles have moral duties. Some moral duties are universal, e.g., the duty not to steal. Whether there are any specific moral duties related to paedophilia is the topic of this paper. I argue that the moral duty not to commit child sex abuse is universal, and the duty to reduce the individual risk of child sex abuse is specific to paedophiles. I further argue that any society has a moral duty to help paedophiles reduce the risk. Both duties provide grounds for moral judgement. Paedophiles should be judged not for their sexual interest but for their efforts to avoid child sex abuse. If a paedophile has an opportunity to reduce the risk of child sex abuse, he is obliged to do so. Unfortunately, societies rarely provide such opportunities and hence fail in their moral duty to paedophiles and children.
This book provides new and empirically grounded research-based knowledge and insights into the current transformation of the Russian child welfare system. It focuses on the major shift in Russia’s child welfare policy: deinstitutionalisation of the system of children’s homes inherited from the Soviet era and an increase in fostering and adoption.
Divided into four sections, this book details both the changing role and function of residential institutions within the Russian child welfare system as well as the rapidly developing form of alternative care in foster families, and work undertaken with birth families. By analysing the consequences of deinstitutionalisation and its effects on children and young people as well as their foster and birth parents, it provides a model for understanding this process across the whole of the post-Soviet space.
It will be of interest to academics and students of social work, sociology, child welfare, social policy, political science, and Russian and East European politics more generally.
In this chapter, we evaluate the process of the Russian child welfare system deinstitutionalisation based on official statistical data. After an analysis of key transformations in the Russian child welfare system over the past 20 years, we consider official statistics during a shift towards a new model of childcare defined within Decree #481 in 2014. Although the formally declared ideal type of care is family-based placement, we question whether this dominant vision of alternative care is reflected in observable data for the entire country. We estimate the dynamics of primary risk of placement to alternative care, prevalence of family reunions, as well as foster family–based and residential institutional placements. Special attention is paid to alternative care placements of children with disabilities. In addition to that, we follow the transformation of institutional care and show how residential institutions of various types keep up with the pace of reform. We conclude that the declared goals are only partially realised: institutions are being reorganised, but unevenly and sometimes formally, without changing the living conditions of children. Meanwhile, the prevalence of alternative family-based care is growing, while, on the other hand, birth family reunions remain relatively rare.
This chapter analyses the various ways Russian print media present the deinstitutionalisation of child welfare. The authors argue that media coverage of childcare policies legitimates the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ agents and practices. By doing so, the media construct a social problem and demarcate symbolic boundaries along several sociopolitical divides, thereby attempting to achieve control through the promotion of an ‘us vs. them’ discourse in Russian public discussions. The authors find that the search for ‘who is to blame’ begins with foreign adoptive parents, and then shifts towards domestic actors in the field of patronat and juvenile justice. It was revealed that many children are on the margins; as the metaphor of ‘last-minute’ children, raised in one article, shows, they are only adopted unexpectedly and, in many cases, not at all. Some themes are missing or very rarely mentioned in the newspapers examined in this study, including professionalisation of care that relates to children’s rights. Children are generally treated as an object than a subject of social relations, victims of circumstances, the living outcome of deficiencies of state institutional upbringing, or a result of poor decisions made by birth parents
The idea of this paper appeared after the workshop on ‘Human Rights on the Internet: Legal Frames and Technological Implications’, organized by the Higher School of Economics on 7th Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Baku (Azerbaijan) on November 2012. This paper shows importance of the trilateral Internet Governance model in context of the example of governmental insufficiency to control the Internet.
Internet technologists contribute to the practical realization of human rights. First of all, they can improve effectiveness of existing institutions. Unfortunately in the same time Internet technologies give rise to new mechanisms of human rights violations. So we need to create new means, new technologies for human rights protection. We need new technological means, identification and classification of violations, based on predictive analytics. But to improve the situation, we should improve the existing means, and build new models of communication. Perhaps such models could be based on the concept of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0.