Child Welfare Is Judged on Preventing Harm. The Authors Want Broader Well-Being Counted, Too
A recent study by one of this article's authors, looking at clinical encounters in youth mental-health services, suggests that participation can sometimes become symbolic rather than meaningful. Writing in The Conversation Canada, the authors state the general version of that gap bluntly: listening to young people is not the same as genuinely incorporating their knowledge into decision-making. Listening is the cheap half. Letting what a young person knows change the decisions made on their behalf is the half that costs something.
On the bigger picture, the authors note that child welfare systems are often judged by how well they prevent harm, while young people themselves tend to describe a broader set of needs and interests. Their worry is that attention ends up narrowed to risk, failure and responsibility. What gets overshadowed, they argue, is how well those systems support the broader well-being of the young people in their care.
AI-generated discussion · Different perspectives
The relationship half of the argument is the part I would actually act on: the article cites research showing supportive relationships help young people navigate adversity, argues relationships are not simply an added benefit of effective services, and notes that instability and a lack of trust can contribute to worse long-term outcomes for young people involved in child welfare. That makes a consistent adult look less like a soft aspiration and more like a service metric.
I would resist filing this under relationships and moving on. The authors also say a significant gap remains between listening and genuinely incorporating young people's knowledge, and they describe young people asking for real opportunities to be heard, to take part in decisions made on their behalf, to have hope, and to form relationships with adults who stay long enough for trust to develop. Warmth without a share of the decision is a kinder waiting room.