Screening and Caring for Children

In this resource, Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist have a discourse about ensuring the optimal experience for children in the missions field.

Part 1 (from Brent)

Hello Theresa!

Time for a new thread. You and I and our other co-presenters are working on our fall seminar, focusing on the psychoeducational and spiritual needs of missionary kids. I am asked frequently by mission agencies for advice on how to screen missionary kids. I sometimes ask them if the kids are potential or future employees of the mission? Of course not. So, then, why screen them? I admit this is a poor answer to a sincere and reasonable question, but I can be squirrely at times!

Assuming this question is reasonable, I would like to propose that we broaden this discussion to the larger issue of protecting children from harm, but also helping the mission and families provide an atmosphere where children can thrive throughout their lives. This perspective takes us from merely trying to keep children safe, or finding out if they have been unsafe, to a more preventative approach of working to ensure that they thrive. For me, that means that we are automatically creating environments that help to avoid danger or abuse. I realize we cannot avoid everything, but we can all probably do more to build thriving environments.

Since you and I have talked of this before, could you address your perspective?

Thanks!

Part 2: A Different Angle on Child Safety (from Theresa)

How should a mission approach child safety? The most obvious example is related to child abuse arena, but a broad-based approach of considering potential harm to a child may open up other areas to consider. And while normally parents are responsible for the well-being of a child, arguably the mission bears some responsibility for whether children are placed in an environment where they will be adequately cared for. For one thing, the mission has more information about that environment than the family members do, especially before their first time on the field.

Most mission organizations work hard on prevention of child abuse, including background checks, prevention, and training. Where an incident is alleged to have happened, the organization will consider aspects of harm to the child, and not just the aspect of who is responsible for bad behavior. In some cases, inappropriate behavior may be perpetrated by another child. In others, adults may be acting in ways that harm a child out of their own precarious mental or emotional state. They may need treatment or support, not punishment. There can be harm without intentional misconduct by an adult actor. While responsibility for the situation (and even law enforcement reporting) are part of the analysis, evaluating harm to the child comes first.

Yet abuse is not the only way in which a child can suffer harm, particularly in an environment like missions, where children are taken outside of their familiar environment to another country. School, medical care, the social environment, and general safety may all be problematic from the outside environment. Within the family, another factor is the personality and makeup of the individual child.

Before taking a child into a given location, several things should be evaluated. Is the region reasonably safe from violence, such that it is responsible to take children there? Is medical care adequate? Is schooling available? Will the adults in the situation—the child’s family and others—have the intellectual and emotional resources to meet the child’s needs? These questions can be asked by the field director, the team, and those evaluating the parents for serving overseas.

Also of importance is the individual makeup of the child. Does the child have a difficult or fragile temperament, such as being unusually shy or unusually defiant? If so, adjusting to an overseas situation may be difficult. Does the child have disabilities that would affect his adjustment overseas, such as language delay or an auditory processing disorder that would prevent his learning the local language? Does the child have a developmental disorder like autism that would prevent him from adjusting socially? Does the child have learning disabilities that cannot be addressed with the local schooling available?

The characteristics of the child are likely more known by the family than the mission. How will the mission get information? First, the mission can ask the parents about the child’s personality, and if there are any reasons to be concerned. If there are (or may be) disabilities, the mission can ask for screening and evaluation of the child. The mission can also require regular testing of school children on the field to make sure they are developing academically. If they are not, follow-up testing could be required to identify problems and remedies.

While it is not certain to what degree the mission has legal responsibility to children under its care, practically and morally it is well worthwhile to make sure that all members of the mission are thriving—which includes the children of missionaries. In screening and preparing missionaries, the mission should consider all these aspects of child safety.

Part 3 (from Brent)

Thanks Theresa.

I think this is a good way to look at things. A number of words come to my mind, which are my vision of hoped-for goals and outcomes in how we plan to care for the children:

Reactive

Most of our protection strategies are in the reactive realm – that is basically to have a plan for when something happens. While this is important, I want us to move beyond that to the following kinds of perspectives…

Responsive

Reactive has a disciplinary and negative flavor to me. I like responsive – it addresses the need or situation.

Prescriptive

Let's develop a plan with and for families that shows that there are things that need to be addressed. To the best of our ability, we want to have a plan that takes into account what the family knows, and also what we know, which might keep us vigilant and ready to face new situations as they arise.

Pre-Emptive

Planning is at its best when we know what might happen, and have action steps set up that are triggered when conditions require it. I think this is most apparent in the stages of preparation a family goes through, as evacuation or other serious crises become more of a possibility in a developing situation.

Engaging and Compelling

I think any services or plans have a better chance of being utilized if they engage the participants and draw them in a positive way to use the identified strategy. Over at Crosswired (www.crosswired.com), we are developing online “micro learning units” which are kind of mini learning events of 1-2 minutes designed to pique someone’s interest in the topic and pursue it further. This would be an example of a technique to get families thinking about particular topics.

Resourceful

As opposed to resource-less! In other words, full of resources and additional steps, possibilities, etc. This is a goal for our member care, as we support families.

Restorative

In the best of worlds, we are not being led by being punitive approaches, but by seeking to help all parties receive some form of restoration when there has been conflict. Compassion suggests we should be helping all parties. This is not to say we don’t punish or discipline bad behavior, but that through this disciplinary process, the offending party can move towards healing as well.

Preventative (when we can)

In a perfect world, we could be so good at predicting, that we have things in place to prevent bad things from happening. But – our world isn’t perfect. Collateral damage is part of this sinful place in which we currently abide. I still want to strive for preventative strategies, but they will not always work, and I need to look at those other words above…

Brent Lindquist, Ph.D.

_________________________________________

"The Rock and the Hard Place" blog is a discourse between Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist on the topics of law, human resources, psychology, member care, and the theology of missions. To learn more about this blog and what it's all about, click here.

Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq.

Dr. Brent Lindquist