When children disclose abuse, they’re often forced to recount their experiences multiple times. Many will first speak to a teacher and get referred to a head teacher, a social worker, a medical professional, family members and the police. The process of retelling can traumatise them all over again and being bounced between services can leave children isolated — or they can fall through the cracks entirely.

To help avoid this process, in 1998 Iceland founded the world’s first Barnahus (Children’s House), a child-friendly hub hosting social services, health workers, therapists, prosecutors, and even judges.

Barnahus has since become a movement, having spread through Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and with Ireland, Scotland, England, Latvia, Romania and Poland to follow in 2018. But can it provide the systemic change child protection services across Europe need? And will it resolve long-standing tensions between these services and the criminal justice system?

The birth of a movement

Children who are referred to a Barnahus first undergo a forensic interview. The interview style avoids leading questions or hostile interrogation, helping a child to describe their abuse while securing the details necessary for criminal proceedings. Then, the child will see a medical professional, a social worker, or a therapist, while the police investigate any alleged perpetrators.

Children aren’t accommodated in the Barnahus, though those who require rehousing are often placed nearby. “In essence, it's a child-friendly office,” said Turid Heiberg, a child protection specialist at the Council of Baltic Sea States who has spearheaded the expansion of the Barnahus model.

While precisely who interviews the child — whether police officers or a social worker — and how much therapy they receive differs from country to country, a new set of standards has established a benchmark. The standards include guidelines on evidence-based therapies for children, quality guidelines for medical care and procedural specifications such as avoiding undue delays and protocols for interagency collaboration.

Barnahus was founded on the model of Children’s Advocacy Centres established by former congressman Bud Kramer in 1985 as part of a wider movement to protect children torn between the competing interests of the criminal justice system and social services.

But it had two crucial differences. Unlike the US model, Barnahus is a public service, owned and run by the state. Governmental oversight ensures that the health sector, the justice system, social welfare and police forces all work together. The second key difference is that in the Barnahus model, the child is not expected to testify in court — their testimony, given once or twice at most, suffices to investigate and prosecute offenders.

The perfect solution?

The spread of Barnahus is testament to its success in northern Europe, but its rise hasn’t been without hiccups.

According to Heiberg, who has spearheaded the spread of Barnahus, the success of the institutions depends heavily on government commitment. If central or federal government doesn’t get behind Barnahus, different public services struggle to work together and provide the care a child needs.

A related hurdle concerns the impulse to protect versus the need to prosecute.

When a child goes to a Barnahus, the forensic interview comes first. Interviewing a child after they have seen a therapist provides much weaker evidence for use in a courtroom, because the defence can claim that their testimony has been influenced by a therapist or social worker who, they claim, has a vested interest in conviction rates.

Barnahus significantly improves on old systems of support by offering therapy immediately after the forensic interview, but Heiberg noted that the old tension between welfare concerns and securing a conviction still persists.

A third challenge comes with the scale of reform that Barnahus requires. Just setting up a physical space where police officers, social workers, judges and therapists can work is no guarantee of full cooperation, or of a nurturing environment for abused and neglected children.

Each profession needs training on how best to nurture and support vulnerable kids. What works for adults does not necessarily work for children, whether in terms of psychological support or interviewing techniques. Retraining requires investment beyond simply building a Barnahus.

Children first

Despite its challenges, Heiberg believes that the Barnhus model symbolises a response to a much broader challenge than helping abuse victims recover and heal. “It’s one step in making public services more accessible and friendly to children,” she said.

If the momentum behind the Barnahus movement continues, the public service at large might be set for much more sweeping child-friendly reforms. — Edward Siddons

(Picture credit: Flickr/silvioassuncao)

Make sure to share your own thoughts with the author by leaving a comment below