This paper outlines MYAN’s Youth Engagement Strategy, which provides a framework for working alongside young people and support them to actively participate in civic life, influence policy, and strengthen their leadership. It sets out MYAN’s approach to meaningful participation, guided by the voices of young people, and highlights the structures, goals, and commitments that underpin this work.
Eurochild is the largest network of organisations working with and for children throughout Europe, striving for a society that respects, protects and promotes the rights of all children. We represent over 225 organisations and individuals from across 41 European countries, reaching approximately 5,000 organisations and individuals on the ground. Our mission is to promote the rights and well-being of children in policy and practice, through advocacy, membership exchange, and research. We aim to bring about tangible positive changes in the lives of children, particularly those affected by poverty and disadvantage.
The best interests of the child are paramount and healthcare services must be child-centred and respect the rights of children and young people.
The Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, has requested the Family Law Council provide advice aiming to improve support for children and young people in accessing appropriate support services and participating in the family law system. The report outlines the history and current understandings of the application in laws, policy and practice of children’s rights, including Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and one of the worst affected groups is children and youth. This same group has been key to climate action in and outside of the courts. As well as engaging in numerous consultative fora such as COP, and in the introduction of a General Comment on the right of children to a healthy environment, they have gone on to become key litigators in climate cases/applications at both national and international level. These justice processes are, however, notoriously ill suited to the particular needs of children and youth. Child friendly justice is a concept which has been elaborated in recent years by the Council of Europe. Yet climate litigation is very different to the cases (e.g. in family law) in which children have traditionally been parties – amongst other things it can involve very public campaigns. This article considers child and youth friendly justice in the context of the climate crisis through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and through the concepts of access, participation, interests, and judgments.
Children and young people are increasingly participating in events organised by international organisations. In spite of a growing body of research on children’s participation in decision-making, little is known about their experiences and the perceptions of adults who attend. This article compares the experiences of 16 children and 12 adults who participated in high-level global events. Three themes were identified, Representation, Capacity and Impact. Findings suggest that while children and adults identified similar opportunities and challenges for meaningful participation, children’s perceptions of their engagement differed from adults’ in that they were more likely to be positive about the value of their contribution.
Child empowerment is on the policy agenda of education systems around the world, in particular since the increasing emphasis in policy and research discourse on supporting children’s participation rights. A large body of literature suggests that child participation in making decisions on matters that affect them is not only essential from a child rights perspective, but also that it is associated with several positive outcomes from the individual to societal level. In OECD countries there are many domains in which children can and do actively participate in making decisions, including regarding their education. This paper explores how and where children can participate in decision making, with a focus on policies and practices in OECD education systems. It outlines key considerations for child participation, including barriers that many systems are struggling to overcome.
In a digital world, certain milestone birthdays define childhood experiences. The age of 13 is commonly dubbed “the age of digital consent” and embedded in the terms and conditions of social media platforms, although data protection regulation may set an older age limit for companies to profile children. For access to “adult” products and services such as pornography or gambling, 18 is the recognised age barrier. Three critical questions arise: (i) Are age limits the optimal way to regulate children’s digital experiences? (ii) Does such “bright line” regulation select the “right” age, according to evidence from the field of children and digital media? (iii) Does it matter that age limits are widely contested and often poorly implemented?
In this provocation, we acknowledge but also question calls from parents and politicians for researchers to determine the “right age” for children to get their first smartphone, access social media, or decide their online activities without parental monitoring. These calls are often expressed negatively – should society ban “under-age” children from various aspects of the digital world? Whether the focus is on access or restriction, these are calls for simple answers that lead to more, often problematic questions: Who should manage this and how? Is the “right age” for parents to determine, governments to put into law, or companies to decide according to their interests?
For many academics, these are the wrong questions – too reductive of the pros and cons of digital access, insensitive to the heterogeneity among children, naïve about the practical efficacy of bright-line rules or bans, and deaf to the voices of children and young people. Moreover, it is near impossible to channel the complex and uneven body of available evidence about children’s encounters with risks of harm towards a straightforward consensus regarding any “right age.” Researchers recognise the host of risk and protective factors shaping children’s digital lives, so researchers prefer to answer – it depends. Or, as danah boyd (2014) powerfully argued a decade ago, it’s complicated.
To navigate both academic commitments and public concerns, we deploy a children’s rights framework to evaluate milestone birthdays as they are applied to the digital environment and highlight emerging alternatives that seek to redesign digital policy and practice in age-appropriate and child-rights-respecting ways.
The Ombudsman for Children’s Office (OCO) is an independent statutory body, which was established in 2004 under the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 (2002 Act). Under the 2002 Act, as amended, the OCO has two core statutory functions:
to promote the rights and welfare of children up to 18 years of age; and
to examine and investigate complaints made by or for children about the administrative actions of public bodies, schools and voluntary hospitals that have, or may have, adversely affected a child.
This briefing is third in a series that the OCO is producing to raise awareness of children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).1 We are creating this series in line with our duties:
to encourage public bodies to develop policies, practices and procedures designed to promote the rights and welfare of children (section 7(1)(b) of the 2002 Act); and
to collect and disseminate information on matters relating to children’s rights and welfare (section 7(1)(c) of the 2002 Act).
The Ombudsman for Children’s Office (OCO) is an independent statutory body, which was established in 2004 under the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 (2002 Act). Under the 2002 Act, as amended, the OCO has two core statutory functions:
to promote the rights and welfare of children up to 18 years of age; and
to examine and investigate complaints made by or for children about the administrative actions of public bodies, schools and voluntary hospitals that have, or may have, adversely affected a child.
This briefing is second in a series that the OCO is producing to raise awareness of children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).1 We are creating this series in line with our duties:
to encourage public bodies to develop policies, practices and procedures designed to promote the rights and welfare of children (section 7(1)(b) of the 2002 Act); and
to collect and disseminate information on matters relating to children’s rights and welfare (section 7(1)(c) of the 2002 Act).