What drives child protection towards failures and successes? How history predestines modern issues in Czech and Russia

Abstract

Child protection can be seen in its original essence as a form of effective intervention in family life and can be seen as a three-stage process; firstly as the prevention of crisis, then as resolution of crisis and, finally, as post-crisis support. To understand how such a system developed the historical precedents of each country are important. This can be achieved through retrospective analysis of the historical evolution of legal regulations and the institutions involved in child protection. This, in most countries, begins with various and diverse organisations looking after those without parents and eventually develops into the responsibility of the state alongside its general expansion of roles in the twentieth century. This article provides an overview of the formation child protection in the Czech Republic and Russia by exploring its historical development from early institutionalisation of child protection and the effects of communist rule through to the last decades of Post-communist reform. Clearly this historical experience has complicated the process of developing a three-stage child protection policy in both countries. Of particular interest are the dilemma of “child safety vs. family privacy” and the amplification of the role of child protection actors. The history of child safety and family autonomy concepts is presented on theoretical and applied levels. This retrospective analysis of Czech and Russian child protection is based upon highlighting the shortcomings of child safety provision and the failure to strengthen family autonomy through the provision of various stages of child protection policy. This interdisciplinary approach allows us to combine an evaluation of legal regulations with an assessment of the relevant cultural practices in each country. This comparative analysis reveals the importance of historical factors in the formation and reform of child protection services in two countries and provides future guidance to those looking to improve understanding of child protection policies in different countries.