All for the best? A case-study of child protection procedures and decision-making in the child's best interest (Geneva, 1890-1940)

Book Chapter

Reference

All for the best? A case-study of child protection procedures and decision-making in the child's best interest (Geneva, 1890-1940)

DROUX, Joëlle

DROUX, Joëlle. All for the best? A case-study of child protection procedures and

decision-making in the child's best interest (Geneva, 1890-1940). In: Images of Education.

Cultuuroverdracht in historisch perspectief . Uitgeverij Passage, 2018. p. 223-234

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:116532

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

anciêle steun van

versiteit Groningen ^(SPO)

Rijksmuseum

E Groningen

Content

Voorwoord

Approaching educstion

Nelleke Bakker & Willem Frijhoff

¹¹

Historicus ^van heropvoeding

^en

pedagogische (beeld)cultuur

Joseph Wachelder

²⁸

Chardins

^Touch.

^De kunst van het spelen

Wilna Meijer

^4s

Actualiteit, historiciteit, reflectie. Pedagogiek en neurowetenschap- pelijke ideeën over het bewusbijn

Education

in culture

Benjamin

^B.

Roberts

⁵⁹

using emotions to educate male youths about sexuality _{in ]acob} cats'

Spiegel aan de Oude en Nieuwe

Tiidt

Leendert

F.

Groenendijk

⁷²

Advies voor opvoeding tot gehoorzaamheid ten tijde van ^{de zeven-} tiende-eeuwse RePubliek

del Mar del

Pozo

Andrés & Sjaak Braster

^B4 image

travelling

^across

^Europe.

^The

transformation of "The school

uproar" into "Le désordre

dans

l'école"

(1809-1.850)

van

Essen

& Hilda T.A. Amsing

⁹⁸

tijd

en

eeuwigheid". De pedagogische betekenis van

de

panto- het Groningse dovenonderwijs tot

1865

1.12

als historische cultuuroverdracht. Op zoek naar identificatie

immigrant childhood and

adolescence

L41

progressive education. The cover illustration of

and Society

7

1,27

Piet van der Ploeg

Parkhursts daltononderwijs

als

praktijkgedreven vernieuwing Marc Depaepe, Frank Simon &Angelo Van Gorp

Lusten

en

lasten van

een

Decroly-biografie

Rita Hofstetter & Bernard Schneuwly _u2

Teaching culture and emotions. The function of art in Vygotsky,s theory of child development

(1920-1934)

Natalia Tsvetkova _rcs

when

a teacher

cannot

be

molded by

the

hands of strangers.

Teachers

of English and

teachers

of Russian in Vietnam,

1955-7996

Ian Grosvenor

20g

"A joyful idea reborn". Aesthetic education in

a

time of crisis

Education _of children at

risk

]oëlle Droux

_22J

All for

the best?

A case-study of child protection procedures and deci- sion-making in the child's

best

interests (Geneva,1890-1940)

Pieter Verstraete _ns

Het verlegen kind. Een pedagogische kijk op de geschiedenis van emoties

|acques Dane

₂₄₈

De wereld van

een

schooljongen met astma.

Kees

Hubert

(1947-1963)

Bruno Vanobbergen & Lieselot De Wilde

262

"Meermaals heb ik

aan

de rechter gevraagd om mijn kinderen terug

te

krijgen". Tien jaar meldingen over pleegzorg bij

de

klachtenlijn van het kinderrechtencommissariaat.

Monique Stavenuiter

₂₇₄

Een gelukkige klas voor iedereen. onderwijs en arbeidsmarktkansen voor jonge nieuwkomers in Nederland

Hans Grietens & Esther Piersma

286

Between anger

and

joy.

Researchers on

sexual

abuse

in foster children speak about their emotions

Publications _of

prof.dr.leroen l.H.

^Dekker

het afsch' pedago biruren- ^{en L} van waar zij van en v(

als pedagogisch Pt verniet of ontheer of education,

in

letterl :boek

is

meer dan ^een

Dekker beweegt zich

in

van opvoeding de internationale organi 'daarmee verbonden, voorae bijdragen bieden een intel die op dit moment in de _; de toon aangeven. En zoals zo werpen de bijdragen over ^h verleden.

Bedoeld als eerbetoon aan _' geeft

dit

boek een schets van d gebruikte bronnen voor ^histor:

ken en vragery verrassende ^the voeding, onderwijs ^{en hulPver} volop de gelegenheid de eigen

Hilda Amsing, Nelleke Bakker,

M

299

Contributors

313

* Met dank aan Herman ^van der ^N

best? A case-study of child protection procedures

in the child's best interests (Geneva,

of Swiss child-welfare policies over the last

two

centuries has the general

trend of

developments

in

continental European that has been described by _Jeroen Dekker

in

thefinest de-

in particular

the paradigm

shift which

occurred at the

tum of to

the

twentieth

century,

when

state

intervention

superseded actors

in

guaranteeing the protection

of children

at risk,

in

the best interests of the

child".

In so doing, Dekker also points to the of this concepil

'âlthough

the law said that the main

justification

protection _measures should be the best interests of the child,

did not

stipulate clear educational

criteria

on

how to work in

"2 Recent scholarship on

Britain

and Ireland comes to the examines the implementation of this newconcept

in

the context of of Geneva that

first

adopted such

child

protection laws

during

the

I

describe the

spirit

behind these laws and

their

adaptation to the code

of

1912. Next,

I

examine

its

implementatiory focusing on the cultures and administrative experiences on

which

they were complements recent studies on child protection that show that

in

a home were the

main

outcome of Swiss protective policies.a

It

on the rationale according to

which

placement became the almost

of the principle of the child's best interests.

of a protection policy: the best interests of the child in the interest of all protect children from a diversity of risks became a

priority

for Swiss

during

the nineteenth century. Even before the Swiss confederation

a compulsory education decree in1874, several cantons had alread

v

own

educational policies.s Fromt877 a federal factory

law forbid-

completed this arsenal, justified

by

the need to guarantee the nation. Protecting

dril{ren's

health and

their

access to educafion as a

key to

the countr1/s economic development.

As in

other countries, this conviction

inspired

the setting

up in

subsequent a dense

network of private

and

public institutions providing

chil-

224

supported families

- particularly from

the

working

class

- ^{in their}

^{role as}

viders of care and educatiory even

if

they increasingly narrowed

their

manoeuvring. For children

who

had no

family

or

found

themselves

in with

the

law

(orphans or delinquents), special institutions were created.T

Faced

with

this apparatus, working-class parents reacted

in

different Some complied easily, others seemed more reticent or even

frankly

thorities held opposing families responsible for youth delinquenry, since raised children were said to become destitute or end up as delinquentg burden on society through parental faults: "Those who play truant

from

those

little

prowlers whose bad habits are almost always induced

by

the example set

by their uncaring

parents,

criminals

themselves, often

drink,

but always

guilty

of

ignoring

or forgetting that most sacred

of

abandoning

their child

on the street."E

An

entire segment of the

working

made

up

of elements

who

were seen as rejecting bourgeois society's integrate them, was targeted. By the end of the century, they became the of both progressive reformers and philanthropists,

united in their

support law and order.

Child

protection was thus clearly perceived as an pensable element of the social questiory calling for state intervention

in

reconcile the rights and interests of

individuals

(in this case childrery

with right

to an education and to protection)

with

the common good:

both

the reduction of disorder, insecurity, and waste of national resources.

Dealing

with

these problem families, several laws on neglected on paternal power were passed

in

Geneva

during

the 1890s.e They state to take the place of parents who endangered the physical or moral of

their offspring

(through a lack of

foresigh!

laziness, insobriefy, or violence). To guarantee that no

child would

ever have its

right

to an

tion or

protection taken away, the state

took

responsibility

for way in which

parents carried

out their

parental

duty. A

Central for the Surveillance of the Neglected

Child

was created, whose members recruited among representatives of local authorities and charities. The the Commission was

to log in

any alerts, carry

out

investigations

and

necessary, call on the forces

of law

and order to deal

with

neglectful Those

who

were

found guilty of

negligence

could

henceforth be depri their paternal power by a

civil

court and their children be placed

in

estabiishments

or in the

care

of

a foster

family. Withdrawing

these from the pemicious influence of their parents was supposed to help them

"normal"

childhood

(with

a

primary

education and integration through Geneva's

child

protection laws were expected

to

deal

with

some 550 when they were passed

in

1891 (1.5 per cent of the 0-L9-year-olds).10

Almost all

Swiss cantons had

similar

systems.

At

the end

of

the century, the Swiss

Civil

Code (CCS)

followed

the same logic,

including

measures to ensure the protection

of "the child

and the interests of The 1912 CCS thus laid the responsibility

with

the authorities to intervene

procedures led by the COPM were carried out.

225

(Art. 285).

It

authorised the

"stripping

from the parents of the custody of and his/her placement in a

family

or an institute

if

and when his/her

or intellectual

development

is

compromised

or if

the

chitd is

aban-

(Art.

284). The CCS also allowed the authorities

to

act against

unruly

on the parents' request, to ensure that their children were placed

in

an

institution.

1912, all the cantons had to

apply

the provisions of .the code. Most of like Geneva, already had similar laws

in

place, and were called to adapt the CCS; others

would

have

to

start Érom scratch. The Geneva Com- for Neglected Children was transformed

into

the Official Commission Protection of

Minors

(henceforth COPM), backed up

by

the creation of Sercice de protection des mineurs.lz

A

sign that, from then orL all minors all families

would

be under the state's watchful eye. Prevention rather was thus reinforced. Consisting of a director and a small team of re- and administrators, the service

would

monitor all minors

living

in the log

in

alerts, lead investigations,

transmit

files

to

the COPlvI, and

put

its decisions (overseeing placements, repatriation etc.). Unlike other which preferred to assign responsibility for these functions to adminis- bodies (particularly

in

German-speaking Swi2erland), Geneva chose to under the direction of the Department of ]ustice ^{and Police.13} Child was thus conceptualised as a task to enforce law and order. It

would

this way

until

the end of the 1930s.1a

decision-making process conceming the protection

of

children was,

in

particularly compler;

involving

a diversity of bodies and actors, whose interventions took place on different timescales: a small COPM Bu- each week to deal

with

the most urgent caseg whereas the

full

team fortnight for other cases. Only the most serious cases were transferred authorities, against whose decisions litigants could appeal another court. This complex set-up conferred considerable powers on the that functioned on a permanent basis: the child protection service and of agents. Responsible for setting up the minors' files, they were free the case, and express

their

own personal opinions,

During

this

im-

phase of the CCS (1912 to 1940) agents conducting investigations (rarely more than fwo

during

the interwar period) continued to be

from

the police; applicants needed to be "citizens and fathers".ls By cluster of female police officers had joined _{the team}

- ^two

assistants,

of

one was a member of the Salvation

Army -

^{in charge of the} regulation of female sexuality and prostitution.l6

Unlike

their British counterparts,lT officers were thus not specifically responsible for children's files.

CCS' implementation

in

Geneva was indeed clearly marked

up in

po- The next section questions the impact of this set-up on the way

in

From principle to practice: an implementation shaped by police experience The files of families supported by the COPM have not all been kept the basis of the available documents

it

is not easy to see

how their

agents ceived their mandate and translated it into Practice. Nevertheless, the copies

of

COPM minutes, as

well

as the

majority of

court briefs, enable assess how the intentions of the legislator were implemented.

The COPM's alarm system functioned quite

well, with

the population ing a generous use of its services,

first

of all the families concemed. Faced what was perceived ^{as a} threatening situatiory grandparents, uncles or children at

risk did

not hesitate

to

contact the COPM. One such when the director of a company

in

Neuchâtel alerted the COPM

in

^L919 his

two

nieces

living in

Geneva.

His

brother, a dentist, had died influenza, and the depressed

widow had found

herself

"materially

and

ally

incapable

to look

after

her

childreru

their

education

and their Although it

occurred

rarely,

a

minor could

also demand

for him-

or a measure

of

protection.

This is what young

Thérèse

D. did -

^beaten

widowed

father, she

applied for

an

intervention

against tûs "constant ity".rs

*or"

^{common were the cases whereby} the parents contacted the

tion

service

to apply for

a re-educational placement

in

an

institution

for child. This was the case for Marie C. who,

in

1918, asked that measures be against her nineteen-year-old son,

who

"refused to

work

and called her a

and'shit', while

repeatedly

hitting

his elderly father and his sisters".2o clearly considered ctûld protection services a means through which they appeal for educational support and whose agents could understand, support their own notions of parenthood.

Alerts could also have their

origin in

the immediate environment of a Such was the case,

for

example,

with young Henri

J., about

whom

the was contacted by his neighbours

in

19L4.

His

mother had abandoned the

ily

home, leaving the father, a 32-year-old

Italian bricklayer in

charge ten-year-old son. The

former "left

home

in

the

moming for work ing

the

child

any breakfast

- ^it

was his neighbours

who

fed

him".

As

child's

teachers, they confirmed that

Henri

"was

dirty,

^and covered

in [...]

^{and his numerous absences held him} back to the extent that he was

to

change class

and be

placed

with children with leaming difficulties"

wide

range

of

actors thus

took part in

the alert process: relatives,

civil

servants, and schoolmasters. Even

though

the CCS

did

not

definition of what

constituted

ethical

parental

behaviour,

those who the COPM seem to have shared a remarkably coherent idea: a

family in

the father and mother

provided for

the needs of

their

children (food, watched over them, and showed affection

without lacking authority

^or children's respect.

Inversely, witnesses shared

views regarding

a

whole

palette of provide

no work, makes a scene"; a mother

who

"co-habits", or

who

"has been about in next to nothing in his

flat";

children "roaming the streets"

who are "a nuisance,

who play

pranks on people".22 The existing ar- graphic

desciptions outlining

the stereotypical deficient

family of

ord.inary witnesses: parents

forgetful

^of

their

responsibilities as

and

protectors;

children

neglected,

ill-treated,

unschooled, rarely over,

or

exposed

to

scenes

of

^violence

or

sexual promiscuity these situations were,

if

not actively caused, made worse

by

the basic

of working-class families during ^these "pre-welfare state" years' This case

notably for

broken homes

(widowed,

divorced, single

or

aban- such as

that of Mrs

B.

Her

husband's employer alerted the her: alcoholic, and abandoned

by

her husband, an agent discov- at home,

blind drunk,

surrounded

by

five bottles of red

wine

and five

"their

scalps covered

in

scabs,

fult

of lice, and

without

even the most care",

in

an

"utterly

repulsive" kitchen.æ

these alerts were made out of Pity, ^concern or moral outrage, those them were obviously convinced that ^a regulatory intervention was Children s education had ceased to be

(if it

ever had been) a strictly

and had tumed into a matter of collective concem. The

willing-

elite to exercise some

form of

social control over problem families

by

a

growing public

awareness

of

certain

forms of child vul- both requiring law

enforcement. The fact

that

COPM agents were members

of

the police,

to whom the

general

population

was used obtain an

impartiaf ^fair

and ProPortionate legal ^reactiory may have this development.

only

a

minority of

^{cases were}

^followed up in

the guardianship the COPM

first applied

counselling services

in

problematic situ- as police officers'

work,

a large

part of

theCOPM agents' activitY was taken up

with

the "role of mediator ^and

with

social welfaie".2a daily

with

a public which they knew

well

and

who

knew them, and

they were socially close, the COPM agents were not only expected information on the private lives of families through their direct social (neighbours, employers, shopkeepers).

As swom

officers, they allowed to gather confidential intelligence

from

a variety ofservrces the

judiciary,

residence permits), thus

fulfiiling

the sleuthing side mandate (tracking

down

a father

guilty

of abandoning his

family

or a

teenager)

the

expertise

of ^{the COPM}

^agents

^mostly

^stemmed

from their

as fathers, which was a prerequisite for obtaining ^{the post.}

Drawing

own parental exPerience, they were supposedly apt to evaluate the fathers and mothers carried

out their

responsibilities' Such was a divorced father who had custody of his daughter was flagged officer

for

cohabiting, and

for "living by

his

wits

and

owing

money

nounced the example set

by

the father to his teenage

with

the qualities expected of ^a resPectable malebreadwirrner.

obviously concurred

with him,

asking the court

for

a sanctiory

in

line agent's opiniory

"who

thinks, apparently

with

good reason,

young B.

in

such an environment 15 very detrimental to her

same occurred when an officer was expected to determine the domestic a mother accused of neglectingher children: "The household was in utter the beds were still not made in the aftemoon, and the childrert's sheets

gustingly

dirry" ^.26 He did not blame the fact that the mother

worked'

sanctioned the

mothels inability

to carry out household tasks and stick to the

kind

of behaviour that was expected of

working

class

The same

criteria

aPPlied

to

rebellious adolescents.

In ^sudr

^cases,

agents

usually took

sides

with

theparents whose authoritY ^was as in the case of Young Marcel G.,

who " did

not give a good said. that, at his age, he is free to do ^as he likes"'27 Or

in

the who had run away from home and was found

by thewoman

ous accommodation and

with

excessif

make-up

^"areal

painting

in ^bed. at 5 p.m. and who admitted to being provided

for

teenagers' claims

of

independence and autonomy, the

the reasoning of parents of humble background, which ^saw

in

each a potential

worker who

was expected

to

contribute to

in

each pubescent

girl

a Potential out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Such an

did

not rule out a certain sensitivity towards the most r,'ulnerable' For when a report spoke of a battered

wife "who still

her body and has

difficutty in

moving her

left arm";

^or

old children who "slept

huddled

together

in

abunk, in a hovel which both kitchen and bedroom, and who were

dirty

and

mother "came in late, beat them and swore at them"'2e The genuine the agents iowards the suffering afflicted on children is palpable here the

indignation

^{of those} neighbours or witnesses who had

initiallY

authorities.

As regard the COPM's files, we arecertainly not talking here of ^a systematicallY oPPosed the

population

theY

worked with.

Faced

with

situations, they used

their

official mandate

in

the waY the Poiice

-

learned their profession

-

responded to sensitive

family

accordance

with

their own perceptions of rights and duties in line

with

shared representations of gender roles and age grouPs'

In the child's best interests: ordinary ^decisions and dilemmas

Charged

with maintaining family

^order, the agents were _PromPted their police culture ^and habits

in

order to

im

plement the

law

rules was indeed a cenlral element

in their

dealings

with

families, all

arguments and witnesses.

After

open debate/ the

authority

made daughter, utterlY

The that the

case of a officer

in

by men".æ

COPM

agents the

family

carries the scars of the

four-

and

fi

dressed in rags" and

situations, and of

family

margin

for

manoeuvring was

limited.

The COPM was neither a care service nor a branch of social services and its sole means to families

in

distress was to give advice or directions

in

order to

put

any signalled disorder. This explains their tendency to use and abuse

rigid

stance to clear

up

situations. Thethreatening tone theY used

left

no doubt as to the authoritative nahrre of their intervention:

the father and order

him ^to

^take

his children to

guardianship Summon the mother and inJorm her that ^she

will ⁱⁿ

the future, be of special

monitoring by

the neighbourhood committee. S: Summon to

throw him

out. T: Instruct the grandparents that they must grandson

in

care and help them

unofficially with

^the Process'"3o agents

did

rather use commands than persuasiorL even more ^sowhen

with

families

who

refused to

follow

the instructions issued

by

the

dealing with

these recalcitrants,

the legal framework

^{offered no} the threat of legal proceedings (the swiss

civil

code did not allow for imposed

in

cases of parental authority), ^{a means}

which

the COPM used: "E: Summon the father and threaten

him with

administrative Dame U. to place her

drild in

^care

without which all

parental

will

^{have to be} relinquished";

"D:

Summon the mother toadmonish her

with

new measures"; "K: Bring the case to the attention of

s Court and ask the president to take the necessary action"'31 this gradual succession of advice, injunctionsand intimidatioru the

to manage situations

with

the few resources that stood at its dis- a police-style. Furthermore, the COPM's key aim was to remove the over children ^as

quickly

as possible. This could be done either ,inciting failing parents to

voluntarily

change their behaviour or,

if

nec-

purely formal

amendments such ^as persuading a

widower

to in order that the new sPouse could run the household and look after the More generally, the placing of children in ^care, preferably with relatives aunts or r.rncles), was regarded ^{as a} Panacea whatever the source

of

a

family

(violence, Poverty,

widowhood).

The placement the crisis and put the children in a supposedly ^safe place'

in

the many cases when Parents refused to comply, legal pro- were an inescapable stage in the process of resolving the problem. The cited

by

the COPM

for

prosecuting families were always based on a

of failure to resolve the issue through mediation, implicating fami- known to the service, who had rejected the COPM's advice, because of or unwillingness.

In

such caseg the COPM was obliged to intervene the

minor in

his or her best interests

(Art.

283 of the CCS), and was no choice

but

to request the removal

of

custody

or

therevocation of authority

by

the Guardianship Court. On the day of ^thehearing, the the parents (sometimes accompanied

by

alawyer) were

invited

to

willingness to exPress any objections. Absence or silence were preted ^as proof of the parents' failure and the court'sdecision was in these parents' favour. Other parents were Present in courtand case ardently. Such was the ^case

with Mr

and Mrs

M',

against whom was claiming the

withdrawal of

the custody

of their four

couple's "lacklustre attitude towards

providing

anydirection to the young Paul is a pain, refuses to obey his parents and often moves household, too, was an utter shambles and the father an alcoholic.

this criticism, the parents produced several witnesses

in

court to give on their behalf (one of whom was the fathef s employer), who testified household was clean and well run and that the children were clean and that the father worked hard and had never been seen drunk"'32 In this parents won.

Faced

with

such resistance, the judges

did

not have an easy task' remained

quite

vague about

what

constituted grave negligence

protective

measures,

which

created

a wide margin for

decision-making process. Whereas some were clear-cut ^cases glected children, confirmed

by

medical certificate), others were not.

contradictory wilness statements, the judges often

found

themselves

with

a series

of

dilemmas: Was an intervention useful

in

such a

if

so, which was the most aPPropriate?

If

the child needed to be placed where and for

how

long?

It

is obvious

from

the

wording

of

their

judges were sometimes

struggling with

the margin

for

interpretation by the CCS. For example, when an unmarried motheropposed ^a

for by the COPM on the grounds that she no longer paid the host child's upkeep, the judges used "the obviously unstable

(the mother had been co-habiting

with

a series of men) to the

child from

her. They stated

that they "took inspiration

from

what

appeared to them to be closest to the direct

of the young boy", adding that "the Court believes that thenormal of the

young

O. makes this necessary".33 This last comment reveals a

urgency, ^as

well

as a certain amount of doubt ^as to the after-effects of sion in the long run for both mother and dnild.

Such formulations make clear that judges could sometmes doubt ^the ale

behind their

decisions.

In order to

reduce

this margin

of

might

have expected the guardianship authorities to take advice from experts, such as those

working for

the medico-pedagogic observation of the canton.s However, such an

input

was rarely required.

If

there doubts, the judges preferred to take recourse to analtemative measure/

the CCS had

not

planned:

to

place a

family

under

request

by

the COPM for custody to be

withdrawn,

it was quite common guardianship authorities ^{to choose a} less drastic but still quite

children their

manoeuvring (il1-treated

family

nature"

ofthe

withdraw first

and and immediate

surveillance. ^Faced

with

Jeanne K., divorced

with

one child whom she was accused

by

the COPM. The judges overruled the placement requested, and instead, that

"Miss

G., a district nurse,

monitor in

a

friendly

but

firm how

the

family

and the

child

manage and advise the courts immedi- feels that

further

protective measures are necessary; ^she should also

K.

aware that the slightest well-founded complaint ^received

by

the

immediately entail the

withdrawal

of custody of her child."35

benefitting

the accused families, the judges' doubts served as in- for new,

"soft"

coercive measures. However, dilemmas were avoided way

in

whictr the COPM and its agents

built

their case files.

possible, the COPM Put Pressure on the parents before the hearing,

would

confirm

with

a

written

note their agreement to the measures against them. Some of these notes leave room for doubt about their such as a

widow's

stressing of her distress:

"I

need

my

son and his Also,

I

could not live

without

his financial contribution. Upon ^reflec- for the good of my child, although this is very hard for me, and

if

there action

I

can take,

I

agree to relinquish custody of

my child

so that learn a trade."36 Many parents, whether isolated, widowed, unmarried or of foreign background, thus ^{gave a}

prior

agreement totheir child's that was undoubtedly forced upon them by child protectionservices.

of such engagement

would

then cost them dearly, ^as their cred- front of the judges

would

be seriously impaired. Such was the casefor 'against whom the COPM was claiming the

withdrawal

of the custody of Albert, deemed to be "completely neglected, lacking in care and atten- that "they d.id not

fulfil

^a previous commitment they hadmadeby

would

themselves place their child

in

care in the countryside'^,zz Of the fact that the COPM presented the parents ^as culprits, unreliable and concem for the interests of their child,

did

not motivate the judges to proceduremakes clear

why

many files presented

in

the guardianship

with

the decision to

withdraw

^custody

^{or to}

revoke Paren- Even so, the courfls decision

did

not always suffice to quash the resistance,

which

they exPressed

in

diverse ways:

moving

out of the than comply

with

the sanction, objecting to orappealing against s decision (often successfully). For those who

did

comply, theGuardi- Court designated the person or

institution

responsible for implementing (placement

in

care,

monitoring,

apprenticeship etc')' Placement

'if

^possible

^with

^{relatives (next of}

^kin

^orgrandparents) or

with

a host or

in

an

institution

was to be "as fat from the

unworthy

parents as Pos- However, the

latter still

had the

right to

reclaim

their

parental rights year, as did

Mr

and Mrs E.

- hit

^{in 1932 by the} withdrawal of the care of chiidren due to conflict in their home. In the next year, the Court gave

back

their

rights and

their

children, considering the efforts ^made to the siluation: the mother moved back

into

were put

in

care, and debts were ^repaid.3e

the family home,

two

of the

Conclusion

Swiss

Child

protection policies reveal the prominent role piayed tution by ^a new paradigm, that of the "best interests of the

child",

the State to forcefully intervene against Parents whose behaviour, ligence or unwillingness, went against these best interests' This ined the way this early-twentieth century ^measure worked out as a the decision-making ^process conceming the protection of children.

was often imposed on families deemed to be dysfunctional: its main the removal

of

the cause

of

the interventioru

in

the interest of the which had called for

it.

Comparative studies are

plication of

^the Swiss

civil

needed to appreciate the possible variety

in

The notion of "the best interests of the

child"

on

whidr child

were based covered ^as

much

the best interests

of

those children fected

by

parental failings ^as the entire

infant

population, whose best demandeà that a child was placed

in

safety, away from the sources of represented

by problem

families. The

laws

also covered the society ^as a whole, as these dysfunctional families were ^{seen as} venile delinquenry. The strength of this new paradigm lays preciselY

in ity

^to encapsulate the interests of both

individuals

and

explains the

political

consensus over theadoption of this innovative On the other hand, the interpretation ofthis notion (the interests of as a basis

for

protection policies was

left

to the services

in

plementation. Agents were entitled to

interpret

this

notion

points of

view which

^{could take}

into

account the perspectives of the parents or the

wider

societY (the extended

family,

the neighbours, the etc.). Geneva's

child

Protection records show

that

numerous actors

piurality of notions to

encourage the

intewention of

^{the service} àute wàs designed above

all to putting

^{an end}

to

the sources

of

emotion.

With

these alerts logged

in

and under the obligation to bodies responsible for the protection of thechild started to confront

with

a procedure stamped

by their

police background: theY mixed

with

advice, leading to different forms of constraint

if

the

could

not or would

not behave conventionally'

Finally,

the

code between cantons. Further scholarship thus be able to determine whether the

notion

of "the best interests of ^the' led to similar or altemative ^practices of coercion

in

regard to different

and political

landscapes;

it ^would

also shed

light

^on

lion

^that affected

this

ambiguous concePt

in

more recent decades, 61,1934.

986va2318, AEG.

in their which

Paper

collectivet

charge of

from

a

individual

the

subsequent',

level of its construction and ^at the grass-root national level of its

EducationalAmbitionsinHistory:ChildhoodandEducationinanExpanding

Space t'rom the L7th to ^the 20th Century @em: ^P' Lang, 2010),11 1.

Anglo-Saxon concept of cruelty, see Sarah Ann BuckieY,The Cruelty Man: Child the NSPCC and the State inIr eland ^{L 8 89} -1956 (Manchesier: Manchester Univer-

2017), s5.

Heller et al., Enfance sacrifée. Témoignages d'mfants placés entre 1'930 et 1970 Ed. EESP,2005); Marco Leuenberger and LorettaSeglias, Enfants Plaæs,

(Lausanne: Ed. d'En Bas,2009); Anne-Françoise Praz ^Pierre Awanzino Creftaz, Les murs du silence; abus sexuels et maltraitances d'ent'ants placés à

Marini(Neuchâtel:

Alphil

^{201 8).}

Les Lumières di la dêmo*atie: histoire de l'êcote primaire publique à Genètrc P. Lang 1998).

Vioe te /arascoli.aire! Entre I'école et ta famiUe ^{à Genèzse} depuis L886 (Ge- (Bem:

2006).

L'oiseau et le cachot: naissance deI'éducation con ectionnelle (Geneva: Zoé,

La criminalité à Gmèzte au XIXe siècle (Geneva: Geory 1890), 644' Droux, Enfances en dfficutté : de l'enfance abandonnée à I'assistance éducatiae

(Geneva :FOJ,2012).

the Meeting of the Grand Council of ^the Republic and Cantonof Geneaa, 1891',

La puîssance paternelle du Code citsil suisse(Neuchâtel: Attinger, 1910), 18.

the Director of PDIvI, 3 February ^1931, DIPArchives ADIP , ^{1985 o15.3.397}

'

of Geneva AEG. A juvenile court was also set up in 1913 tosuppiement system responsible for problem families.

for the caatonal Ministry ^of Justiceand Police.

the bodies responsible for child protection were transferred tothe Departrneni Education.

police inspectors for the PDM,circa1936, ADIB 1985 va 5.3.397' AEG' social féminin," ^{Le mouoemmt}féministe,1930, ^54.

Jackson, "Care or control? The metropolitan womenpolice and child wel-

The Historical lournal ^{46, no. 3 (2003):623-448.}

Guardianship Court, Sentences, Archives of the fusticeand Police DePart- L986va2318, AEG.

85,1934.

46,1918.

23,191.4.

in the archives of the Geneva Archives.

191& Guardianship Court, Sentences, ADJP,L986 va ^2318, AEG.

Koster, "Routines et contraintes de lapolice urbaine àAnvers 1890-1914,^,, in police: être policier en Europe, 1'8'-2A siècles, ed' ]ean-Marc Berlière et ^{al. (Ren-} 2008),u5-362.

Guardianship Court, Sentences, ADJB 1 1928.

28 Ibid., File 68,1932.

2e lbid., File 6, 7917, and 53, 1915.

30 Minutes of meetings of the coPlvl, vol. 1.909-1913, Archives de la Fondation de la _Jeunesse, AEG.

31 lbid., Minutes of meetings of the COPM, vol 7924-1927 '

32 File 24, 1g1,4-Ig15, Guardianship Court, Sentences, ADJB 1986 va23l8' AEG'

33 [bid., File 47, 7927 .

a _Rita Hofstetter, Marc Ratcliff ^and Bemard Schneuwly, Cent ans de oie: Ia Faculté chologie et des sciences de I'éducation héritière ^de l'Institut Rousseau et de l'ère (Geneva: Georg,2012).

35 File 43, 1934, Guardianship Court, Sentences, ADJP, 1986 va23l8' AEG'

36 Ibid., FiIe 82,1942.

37 lbid., File 20,7922.

38 Letter from the COPM to the State Council, ctrcal9l2, ADIB L985 va 5'3'392

3e File 39, 1933, Guardianship Cour! Sentences, ADJP,1986va23l8, AEG'

kind. Een pedagogische kiik op de geschiedenis

aete

ne doit être plus respecté dnns une classe que

I'ffirt

humble,

s'il

Ie faut, d'un esprit qui cherche sa pensée (L'inspection primaire,

van deze bijdrage

ligt

een persoonlijke ervaring. Een tijdje geleden dodrter thuis van de kleuterschool. ln haar boekentas zat een briefje Kinderen komen wel vaker thuis met een plastic mapje waar- of info-blaadjes steken. Op zichzelf genomen is dat niei

uit-

Ditmaal echter was de inhoud van het briefje dat de

juf

in het mapje dat wel. Via het briefje werd ons medegedeeld dat onze dochter van de volgende dag zou deelnemen aan wekelijkse bijeenkomsten rond en welbevinden. De directie van de kleuterschool had namelijk

in

met de kleuterjuffen beslist om een sPecifiek programma ^te imple- een programma voor kinderen die naar

hun

gevoel moeite hadden

van gevoelens, namelijk Het Tooerbos.l

inspanningen leveren om kleuters en lagere schoolkinderen zich voelerç daar is op zich

natuurlijk

niets mis mee. lntegendeel. Waar

het moeilijk

mee hadderu was de

wijze

van communicatie, de de

brief

en vooral de impliciete waardeoordelen die erin lagen. Eerst had onze ergemis te maken met het

feit

dat de

juf

ons nooit eerder dat

zij

zich zotgen maakte over onze dochter. Ten tweede, en matchte de

inhoud

van de

brief niet

echt met hoe

wij

onze ervaarden. Dat ze geen spring-in-het-veld

kind

was, dat wisten we bok wel. Maar om

hieruit

de noodzaak van emotionele remediëring dat leek ons toch een brug te ver. Wat ons echter het meest voor de was wat er

in

de afsluitende paragraaf van de brief

werd

gezegd' omvatten een retorische bemerking.

Net

zoals de

juffen

en zo stond er geschreverL hadden

wij

als ouders toch het beste voor en hoopten we dat ze

in

de toekomst een Positieve bijdrage zou aan de maatschappij. Wat doorheen de brief continu doorsche- idee dat je pas helemaal mens was indien je op een extraverte Ieven ging; dat je in onze maatschappij pas echt meetelt ^{als je} je zitten; dat je slechts een bijdrage kan leveren aan de samen- je _een open boek bent en steeds rad van tong. Tèrughoudend- en verlegenheid werden

in

de

brief

voorgesteld als