Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Children's ...

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2008, Vol. 78, No. 3, 359 –368

Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0002-9432/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014183

Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Children’s Rights Among Middle School Students in Jerusalem: The Role of Family Values and Patterns, Nationality, and Religion Asher Ben-Arieh, PhD, and Mona Khoury-Kassabri, PhD The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Children’s rights have become a cornerstone of discussions of human rights and human services around the world. However, the meaning of children’s rights and their significance for policies and programs vary across nations, cultures, religions, and families. Only recently has research begun to study the conceptualization of children’s rights in non-Western and non-Christian-dominated cultures and, thus, in more traditional and authoritarian families. This article reports on a cross-sectional survey among 810 Jewish and 582 Arab children (372 Muslims, 210 Christians), aged 12–14 from eastern and western Jerusalem to examine how children view their rights. Adolescents completed a structured, anonymous, self-report questionnaire. Results suggest that nationality/ethnicity is a major factor in explaining differences in children’s views of their rights, with religion playing a minor role. Results also suggest that family values and practices are significantly correlated with the approach to children’s rights, as is gender, although its explanatory power is weaker. These findings should guide practitioners and children’s rights advocates as they strive to enhance the support for children’s rights in the Middle East and develop appropriate policies. Keywords: children’s rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, non-Western culture, misconceptions of rights, sociodemographic context

development to explain the developmental progression of the children’s concept of their rights. Melton found that children’s concept of their rights emerges in the early years of elementary school. Moreover, their understanding of rights progressed through three levels or stages: At the first level, young children (i.e., first graders) conceive rights on the basis of what is allowed by authority; at the second level, they conceive them on the basis of fairness and competence, which is found among children in third grade or higher; at the third level, children (mostly adolescents) justify rights on the basis of abstract principles. Melton’s threestage developmental progression in children’s reasoning about rights has been confirmed in several additional studies in different cultures and countries, such as Norway (Melton & Limber, 1992); Estonia (Limber et al., 1999), and South Africa (Peens, 1997). The claim that children’s ability to think abstractly typically emerges early in middle childhood was supported further by Helwig (1997) when he examined the views of 6-, 10-, 12-, and 22-year-olds. The majority of the sample of 6- and 10-year-olds affirmed their belief in freedom of speech and religion for children and adults and identified restrictions on these rights as a wrongful expression of authority by the family, school, or government. Thus, it seems that such ideas are usually well inculcated by age 10 (Ruck, Keating, Abramovitch, & Koegl, 1998). It is interesting to note that the literature has rarely focused on children’s misconceptions about children’s rights. We found little research on the possibility of misconception of the term children’s rights among children. In popular discourse, such misconception is usually defined as understanding rights as an entitlement to receive “whatever I want” on the one hand or “whatever the adults decide to give me” on the other (Melton, 1980).

The global recognition of children’s rights as it has been expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children calls for a thorough investigation of children’s understanding of the concept of children’s rights. Critical to children’s meaningful participation in a civil society, and thus to their well-being, is an understanding of their rights as individuals within a family, community, and society. It is especially important to study children’s own perspective of their rights (Limber, Kask, Heidmets, Kaufman, & Melton, 1999; Melton & Limber, 1992) for several reasons: (a) Such an understanding is fundamental to a child advocacy agenda; (b) research on the topic can illuminate situations in which children believe their rights are practically unenforceable and help to improve interventions to correct such problems; (c) studying children’s own views communicates personal respect for them (United Nations, 1989, Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Children); (d) such research can inform efforts to educate children about democratic values; and (e) adults are rarely skilled in identifying the matters of most concern to children (Ben-Arieh, 2005). Melton (1980) was among the first to examine children’s understanding of their rights. He used Kohlberg’s theory of moral

Asher Ben-Arieh, PhD, and Mona Khoury-Kassabri, PhD, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. This article is based on a study supported by a research grant from the Warburg Foundation. For reprints and correspondence: Asher Ben-Arieh, PhD, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel 91905. E-mail: [email protected] 359

360

BEN-ARIEH AND KHOURY-KASSABRI

In contrast, the literature did pay attention to the distinction between nurturance rights — children’s rights to basic care and to protection from harm and exploitation and self-determination rights— based on the assertion that children are not the property of their parents or of the state but are legal persons who are entitled to many of the same rights as adults, such as the right to make choices, “do things,” or express oneself (Peterson-Badali, Ruck, Morine, & Slonim, 2004; Peterson-Badali, Ruck, & Ridley, 2003). Although maturity is an important factor in children’s understanding of rights (Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998), attitudes about the appropriateness of asserting children’s rights and the importance of particular types of rights are contingent also on the social and cultural context. Maturation has a stronger effect on children’s reasoning about exercise of autonomy than it does on their ideas about the exercise of entitlements (Ruck, Keating, et al., 1998). The emphasis that children place on their right of access to various basic resources (e.g., education, health care) in comparison with their rights to self-determination and privacy is dependent on the strength of a social welfare orientation in the society (Cherney & Perry, 1996; Melton & Limber, 1992). Social class is a significant determinant of children’s concepts of and attitudes toward their rights, as children from disadvantaged families exhibit less mature reasoning about rights than do children of greater privilege, who experience entitlement daily (Melton, 1980, 1983). However, little is known about the cultural, familial, gender, and religious factors that affect children’s understanding of their rights. This lack of knowledge is of special interest, as most of the studies to date have focused on children from Western cultures who live in “Western” families and in a Christian-dominated society. Thus, studies in non-Western cultures and among other religions are critical if we are to more fully understand the special roles of culture, family, and sociodemographic context.

The Role of Culture in the Approach to Children’s Rights Helwig and Turiel (2002) provided a thorough review of existing knowledge about children’s perspectives on civil liberties, autonomy, and democracy across cultures. They present ample research demonstrating that children affirm their own rights and autonomous decision making in many situations. In addition, children’s judgments regarding civil liberties, autonomy, and democracy vary by both cultural context and maturity. For example, in Western societies, even young children possess concepts of rights and civil liberties and prefer democratic social organization in a variety of social contexts, whereas in non-Western settings, such concepts develop later in life. Neff and Helwig (2002) examined children’s reasoning about rights and authority in four cultures: China, India, Canada, and the United States. Whereas Canada and the United States are seen as primarily oriented toward individual rights and autonomy, China and India are seen as primarily oriented toward obedience to authority. However, Neff and Helwig (2002) found that children’s social reasoning, even if culturally distinct, does not necessarily follow the general cultural orientation (e.g., individualistic vs. collectivistic). Thus, additional factors, such as familial and parental authority variables, are likely influencing children’s reasoning about their rights. Neff and Helwig suggested that research must move beyond broad cultural orientations such as individualism and collectivism to consider how specific cultural practices

influence social reasoning of autonomy and rights. They also stressed that such concepts are not defined by a cultural orientation that simply “transmits” them to individuals; rather, these concepts represent shared features of social life, reasoning, and experience, all of which must be accounted for within a truly constructivist model of social cognition and development. Several comparative studies suggest that the prevailing culture affects children’s attitudes about their rights, even among elementary school-age children. Whereas research in several different cultures (i.e., the United States, Norway, and South Africa) suggests a shared developmental progression in children’s reasoning about rights, studies of children in the United States, South Africa, Canada, and Switzerland point to some interesting cultural differences in children’s attitudes about their rights and the saliency of the concept of children’s rights (Cherney & Perry, 1996; Melton & Limber, 1992; Peens, 1997). For example, in response to the open-ended question, “What rights do children have?” Norwegian children (Melton & Limber, 1992) were very likely to discuss nurturance rights (special entitlements and protections for children, such as rights to free health care, a safe home, peace, and clothing), whereas Estonian (Limber et al., 1999) and American children (Melton & Limber, 1992) focused on self-determination (the right to make choices, “do things,” or express themselves). In a similar study of Canadian children, nurturance rights were less salient than self-determination, although not quite to the same extent as among American children (Ruck, Keating, et al., 1998). Even relatively subtle differences in sociopolitical orientation, such as those between American and Canadian children, are reflected in children’s emphasis on personal autonomy (PetersonBadali et al., 2003; Ruck, Keating, et al., 1998; see also Cherney & Perry, 1996, for a comparison of American, Canadian, and European [mostly Swiss] children). All of the studies involved societies in which Christianity was dominant, and most focused on Western cultures. A few more recent studies have ventured into non-Western cultures that are not dominated solely by Christianity. One example is Peens’s (1997) study of Afrikaans-, English-, and Sothospeaking children in South Africa. Peens concluded that, in general, Afrikaans-, English-, and Sotho-speaking children’s perceptions of their rights were more similar than disparate. However, two main factors appeared to contribute to the differences. The first factor was respect for authority figures among Afrikaansand Sotho-speaking children; the second was the cultural meaning of the adult world and, in particular, the appropriate age for children to be taken seriously in different groups. In other words, respect for the elderly and the cultural meaning of adulthood played a major role in children’s emerging perception of their rights. Another recent study has compared four generations (adolescents, young mothers, older mothers, and grandmothers) of Jews and Muslims living in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority (Ben-Arieh, Khoury-Kassabri, & Haj-Yahia, 2006). This study found that, for most of the items, Jewish adolescents had higher support for children’s rights than Palestinian adolescents from Israel and Palestinian adolescents from the Palestinian Authority. The latter two were similar in their acceptance of children’s rights. However, this trend was not consistent across all types of rights examined in the study. For instance, Palestinian adolescents from the Palestinian Authority were more similar to Jewish adolescents

PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

than Palestinian adolescents from Israel were in terms of general support of the idea of children’s rights. Also, the three groups were similar in their low agreement with the idea of giving children rights in governmental matters (Khoury-Kassabri, Haj-Yahia, & Ben-Arieh, 2006).

The Familial Context and Its Role in the Approach to Children’s Rights Within the context of ongoing conflicts of both social groups and political ideas, Arab families in Israel generally maintain a traditional “Eastern” culture (Al-Haj, 1995; Haj-Yahia, 1995). Arabs commonly emphasize family life, value family cohesion and continuity, and practice mutual assistance within the family. They tend to put the well-being of the family as a whole above that of individual family members. Arab society stresses the importance of good relations between nuclear and extended families. Children’s status is affected by the partial responsibility of the extended family (in cooperation with parents) for their upbringing. In Arab families, fathers commonly are responsible for discipline and mothers support, educate, and raise the children. Children are supposed to obey their parents, submit to their demands, and fulfill their expectations. Relations between siblings are typically hierarchical. Parents continue to delegate responsibility for child care to older siblings. Sons (particularly, eldest sons) are usually favored in Arab society, because parents regard them as responsible for preservation of the family’s reputation and the memory of ancestors. The eldest son in the Arab family serves as a role model. Not only does he take care of his younger siblings during childhood, but he also shows paternal concern for them in later stages of life. Like their Arab neighbors, Jewish families in Israel are torn between the pressures to modernize and “Westernize” on the one hand and to strengthen traditional values on the other hand (for an extensive review of Israeli Jewish life, see Lavee & Katz, 2003). Changes analogous to those in other Western industrialized nations have taken place in marriage, family, and divorce patterns. However, Israeli Jewish families are generally more stable than elsewhere in the West. Relative to families in societies on the European continent, Israeli Jewish families have more children, fewer divorces, and more traditional gender roles and social mores. Nonetheless, there is not a monolithic Jewish family pattern. Large differences exist among families of diverse religious orthodoxy, national heritage, and immigration history. For example, recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union are much more likely to be divorced single parents and live in three-generation households (Slonim-Nevo, Sharaga, & Mirsky, 1999). Furthermore, immigration itself is somewhat disorienting, and generational roles may be reversed as children learn the norms and language of the new homeland. These changes are magnified because of parents’ upbringing in a then-totalitarian society (but cf. Limber et al., 1991). Parents or other adult family members in authority often have the power to frustrate, facilitate, or directly implement the fulfillment of children’s rights. Parents may also indirectly affect children’s capacity to assert their rights, because parents are likely to play a key role in the inculcation of children’s own views. Research does support the hypothesis that parents often shape children’s own perspective on their rights (Ruck, Keating, et al., 1998;

361

Ruck, Peterson-Badali, & Day, 2002; Smetana, 1995; Smetana & Asquith, 1994). However, little is known about the particular mechanism or mediators of such effects, including the relative impact of parents and other influences of familial patterns or factors. In a study of the allocation of authority between parents and children, Bohrnstedt, Freeman, and Smith (1981) found ethnic and religious differences in respondents’ tendency toward favoring an adult’s or child’s point of view. Anglo Americans and Asian Americans were more favorable to the child’s point of view than were African Americans and Hispanic Americans; Jews and agnostics were more favorable than were Catholics and Protestants. Although Bohrnstedt et al.’s study was not specifically about attitudes toward children’s rights (issues related to governmental action were not included), their general thesis that “views on children’s rights are rooted in more general liberal-conservative postures” (Bohrnstedt et al., 1981, p. 459) was nevertheless well supported by their findings. Furthermore, in more traditional societies, the importance of studying children’s perceptions of their rights is amplified by concomitant changes in the social order, such as the nature of parental authority (Al-Haj, 1995) and corresponding parenting styles (Haj-Yahia, Musleh, & Haj-Yahia, 2002). Such family variables influence attitudes toward children’s rights (Peterson-Badali et al., 2003; Smetana, 1995; Smetana & Asquith, 1994). In this work, we expected to find that the more the adolescents perceive their family as having democratic values toward children, the greater their support of children’s rights. In addition, we expected to find negative relationships between family patriarchal values and measures of children’s rights.

The Role of Gender in the Approach to Children’s Rights Studies have found few significant gender differences in approaches to children’s rights and level of reasoning about rights (Limber et al., 1999; Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998). In an earlier study in Israel and Palestine, Khoury-Kassabri et al. (2006) found very few differences between male and female adolescents in their approach toward children’s rights, with the exception that more male adolescents supported political rights. The researchers suggested that this difference was a reflection of patriarchal society in which males are given more privileges. Political rights require more contact with external systems, such as legal institutions; therefore, it may be easier for males to support these specific rights than females, who are less expected to be politically active and to have political rights. However, more support to the role of gender can be found when one looks specifically at attitudes toward children’s’ rights. Here (in contrast to children’s reasoning about rights), findings were more consistent, with females showing greater support for nurturance rights than males. Finally in a recent study in the United Kingdom, clear gender differences in terms of both adolescents’ endorsement and reasoning about children’s rights were found (Ruck, Tenenbaum, & Sines, 2007). Therefore, in this work we also expected to find gender differences with regard to students’ approach and support of children rights.

362


The Role of Religion in the Approach to Children’s Rights Research on religion and its relation to children’s approach to rights is sparse. However, perspectives on children’s rights in particular may be influenced by religious beliefs in relation to human dignity (e.g., people as beings created in the image of God) and the nature of childhood (Khoury-Kassabri & Ben-Arieh, in press). Furthermore, religious institutions typically are distinct from other community settings because of the progressively greater participation that children are granted (e.g., children’s choir members, acolytes, youth group leaders, church council members) and the presence of culturally respected rites of passage. The empirical research thus far supports the significance of religion in democratic socialization and personal identity development (Helwig, 2006) and thus supports a more careful comparative study. For example, a study conducted in the southwestern United States showed that students attending fundamentalist religious schools were relatively slow to acquire democratic values compared with their public school peers, although they ultimately did so by 12th grade— except with regard to tolerance for nontraditional lifestyles (Godwin, Godwin, & Martinez-Ebers, 2002). Among public high school students in a Boston suburb, religiosity was linked developmentally to civic integration and avoidance of substance abuse in a longitudinal study (Kerestes, Youniss, & Metz, 2004). In two studies conducted in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, (Ben-Arieh et al., 2006; Ben-Arieh & Kimchai, 2008; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006), religion was found to be correlated to children’s approach toward their rights only partially and with a relatively weak correlation. These findings and the overall scarcity of research call for further investigation on the role of religion in children’s perception of their rights. As our brief introduction shows, the global interest in children’s rights necessitates an examination of children’s own perspectives on their rights (Helwig & Turiel, 2002). However, there is a significant gap in our understanding of children’s approach to and perceptions of their rights. In particular, there is a need to study the effect of culture, family patterns, gender, and religion to increase that understanding. In that regard, more studies among non-Western and non-Christian cultures are especially important. It is essential that culturally contingent concepts also be examined. For example, studies have shown that parental authority (Al-Haj, 1995) is a predictor of children’s perceptions of their rights (Smetana, 1995; Smetana & Asquith, 1994) and could be a mediating variable, as could parenting styles (Haj-Yahia, 2000), which may vary across cultures and which may play a role in shaping children’s conceptions of and attitudes toward their rights (Peterson-Badali et al., 2003). Our study examines, from a comparative perspective, children’s understanding of their rights in differing familial, religious, and cultural contexts. We chose young adolescents for a variety of reasons. First, earlier research has shown that, at this age, youth are able to understand abstract ideas such as rights and democracy (Helwig, 2006; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schultz, 2001). Second, on a practical level, focusing on adolescents enabled us to reach a large numbers of students from three different religions in school settings. Specifically, we sought answers to the following question: Does adolescents’ understanding of children’s rights relate to their culture/nationality, gender, family patterns, and religion?

Method The study included data collected in Jerusalem (both its eastern and western sections), including subsamples of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim children aged 12 to 14 (see earlier for the reasons for the age chosen). We used a structured, anonymous, self-report questionnaire completed by the adolescents in their classrooms (in Arabic for the Arab students and in Hebrew for the Jewish students). The questionnaires were composed in Hebrew. They were then translated from Hebrew to Arabic and checked by backtranslation. The research team comprised Arabic and Hebrew native speakers who critically examined the translation and suggested changes on the basis of their experience and on students’ and experts’ comments. A research assistant was available for any questions that arose while students completed the questionnaire. The study was approved by the Hebrew University Internal Review Board and by the Israeli Ministry of Education. Passive consent procedure was used, in which before the study started, school principals were sent consent forms and letters for the parents, informing them of the study’s goals and questionnaire and asking them to return the form in case they reject their child participation in the study. By doing so, we gave them the possibility to refuse their child’s participation. Student assent was active, and they were free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason. Confidentiality was ensured for all participants.

Sample We used a quota sampling method (in which the sample is selected by dividing the population into categories or strata and selecting a predetermined number of participants from each category). Three categories were used in the present study: Jewish schools, Arab public schools (mostly Muslim children attend these schools), and private Christian schools (both Muslim and Christian children attend these schools). We approached several principals of middle schools in eastern and western Jerusalem and asked for their permission to participate in this study in an attempt to include participants from two national or ethnic groups (Jewish and Arab1). Of the 19 schools we contacted, 13 agreed to participate. Only 3 students did not participate because of parents’ refusal, and very few others chose not to participate or simply did not complete the questionnaire. Overall, fewer than 5% of the students who attended class during the survey did not turn in a completed questionnaire. The sample was designed to include those from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths. Finally, among the Jewish subsample, we included both Orthodox and secular adolescents (ultra-Orthodox Jews were excluded). Overall, the sampling procedure yielded responses from 1,427 children: 810 Jewish children (mean age ⫽ 13.58, SD ⫽ 0.61) and 582 Arab children, among whom were 372 Muslims (mean age ⫽ 13.66, SD ⫽ 0.64) and 210 Christians (mean age ⫽ 13.54, SD ⫽ 0.63). The study included 53.9% females. 1 All the research respondents were Israelis. However, most of the Arab adolescents (both Christian and Muslim) live in eastern Jerusalem, where most of the population regards itself as Palestinian and sees itself as part of the Palestinian state in the occupied territories. For this reason, the study defined Jewish youth as both a national category (in contrast to their Arab-Palestinian peers) and a religious one (in comparison with their Muslim and Christian peers).


Measures We adapted original research protocols to the different nationalities and religions. The research protocols included items and scales related to the following: Children’s understanding of the concept of children’s rights. This measure included six items (the Appendix presents the measures and the specific items included), based on measures used by Limber and colleagues (1999) in their comparative study. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed that each of the six items represented “children’s rights.” All answers were made on a scale ranging from 1 (are not at all related) to 4 (strongly related). A few items measured misconceptions of rights. Factor analysis yielded two subscales: Nurturance and SelfDetermination Rights (␣ ⫽ 0.60), which included four items (e.g., “To get what I need in order to live,” “To use self-expression”); and Misconception of Rights (␣ ⫽ 0.32), which included two items (e.g., “To get what I want”). The scales are based on means of the items included in them. Children’s support for rights in different contexts. This measure relied on an earlier version developed by Ben-Arieh and Haj-Yahia (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006) and was slightly modified for the present study. Participants were asked to what extent they support giving children five specific rights (the right to privacy, the right to express opinions, the right of due process, the right to be heard, and the right to security). They were further asked to what extent children should be given rights within five domains (the family, the community, the educational system, the legal system, and the public/governmental system). Responses ranged from 1 (do not support at all) to 4 (strongly support). Factor analysis yielded three subscales: Personal Level Context (i.e., rights in family, personal rights of privacy), which included three items (␣ ⫽ 0.60); Interpersonal (Social-Level) Context (i.e., rights in the community, social interactions rights), which included five items (␣ ⫽ 0.74); and Public/Governmental Context, which included two items (␣ ⫽ 0.32). The scales are based on means of the items included in them. Children’s understanding of violations of rights. We used a modified version of Melton’s Children’s Rights Interview for this study (Melton, 1980, 1983). Participants were given 10 vignettes describing specific situations and were asked to indicate whether there was a violation of children’s rights. Responses ranged from 1 (no violation at all) to 4 (a serious violation occurred). Factor analysis yielded two main subscales (three cases were not included in these two subscales because they were not related significantly to these or other measures): Violation by Public Systems, which included four items (e.g., “Ron has a disability; he can’t get to school by regular transportation, and the authorities did not arrange any alternative way for him to get to school”; ␣ ⫽ 0.49); and Violations Resulting in Direct and Personal Harm to the Child, which included three items (e.g., “Gill beat his little brother. When his mother found out, she slapped him with anger”; ␣ ⫽ 0.39). The scales are based on means of the items included in them. Family values. This scale included 19 items based on the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale—FACES II in the circumflex model (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russel, 1979)—and was modified to include items relevant to the Israeli context, such as family patriarchy and extended family. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed that each of the items described

363

their family. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (always). Factor analysis yielded four subscales. The present study focuses on the following two scales: Family Democracy, which included eight items (e.g., “In our family it is easy for everyone to express his or her opinion”; ␣ ⫽ 0.74); and Family Patriarchy, which included four items (e.g., “I have no right to resist my parents”; ␣ ⫽ 0.43). The scales are based on means of the items included in them. Religion. Participants were asked to indicate their religion (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish).

Data Analysis The study used the following methods: (a) descriptive analysis (means and standard deviations) for each of the measures in this study (see Table 1); (b) t test analyses to examine the differences between males and females, Christian and Muslim children, and Jewish and Arab children (see Table 2); (c) a correlation analysis between the children’s rights subscales (as detailed earlier) and family factors (family democracy and family patriarchy); and(d) stepwise multiple regression analyses to examine the contribution of gender, family factors, and national/cultural affiliation to each of the children’s rights subscales (measuring misconception of rights; nurturance and self-determination rights; support for children’s rights in the personal, the interpersonal, and governmental contexts; violation by public systems; and violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child).2

Results We first calculated the means and standard deviations of each of the measures for all study participants. We also compared males and females, as well as Jewish and Arab children. Among participants in the Arab group, we examined the differences between Muslims and Christians (see Table 1). Overall, children understood the concepts of nurturance and self-determination (M ⫽ 3.53, SD ⫽ 0.57) as related to and representing the general concept of children’s rights. The mean of the measure referred to children’s misconception of their rights was lower than their understanding of the concepts of nurturance and self-determination (M ⫽ 2.46, SD ⫽ 0.81). Children expressed high support for their rights in the personal context (M ⫽ 3.53, SD ⫽ 0.57) and in the interpersonal context (M ⫽ 3.53, SD ⫽ 0.67) and expressed relatively lower support for the public/ governmental context (M ⫽ 2.64, SD ⫽ 0.81). The adolescents understood both violations of children’s rights when they were attributed to public/governmental systems and those violations that resulted in direct and personal harm to the child, and scores were relatively high for the first violation case (M ⫽ 3.41, SD ⫽ 0.56) and lower for the second violation case (M ⫽ 2.91, SD ⫽ 0.69). We conducted t tests to examine the differences between males and females, Christian and Muslim children, and Jewish and Arab children. 2 We examined age differences in children’s rights subscales, but there were no significant differences and thus age was not included in the analyses.


364

Table 1 Mean Scores for Children’s Understanding of the Concept of Rights Gender Variable Children’s understanding of the concept of children’s rightsa Nurturance and self-determination rights Misconception of rights Children’s support for children’s rights in different contextsb The personal context The interpersonal context The public/governmental context Children’s understanding of cases of violations of children’s rightsc Violation by public systems Violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child

Ethnicity

Religion: Arab

Total (n ⫽ 1,392)

Male (n ⫽ 632)

Female (n ⫽ 759)

Jewish (n ⫽ 810)

Arab (n ⫽ 361)

Christian (n ⫽ 210)

Muslim (n ⫽ 372)

3.53 (0.57) 2.46 (0.81)

3.48 (0.59) 2.44 (0.82)

3.57 (0.54) 2.48 (0.80)

3.63 (0.47) 2.24 (0.75)

3.39 (0.65) 2.77 (0.80)

3.36 (0.67) 2.65 (0.80)

3.41 (0.65) 2.83 (0.78)

3.35 (0.57) 3.35 (0.67) 2.64 (0.81)

3.29 (0.68) 3.43 (0.61) 2.70 (0.79)

3.41 (0.64) 3.60 (0.47) 2.59 (0.83)

3.45 (0.55) 3.54 (0.52) 2.47 (0.78)

3.20 (0.78) 3.49 (0.60) 2.88 (0.80)

3.21 (0.79) 3.48 (0.61) 2.85 (0.83)

3.19 (0.78) 3.49 (0.59) 2.89 (0.78)

3.41 (0.56)

3.35 (0.58)

3.45 (0.54)

3.42 (0.52)

3.39 (0.62)

3.40 (0.64)

3.38 (0.61)

2.91 (0.69)

2.82 (0.70)

3.00 (0.66)

3.10 (0.60)

2.66 (0.72)

2.75 (0.74)

2.61 (0.71)

a

Answers were on a scale ranging from 1 (not related at all) to 4 (strongly related). b Answers were on a scale ranging from 1 (do not support at all) to 4 (strongly support). c Answers were on scale ranging from 1 (no violation at all at all) to 4 (a serious violation occurred).

Gender

National Differences

We found significant gender differences. Female adolescents more often supported most children’s rights measures examined than male adolescents, except for rights within the public/ governmental context (see Tables 1 and 2).

The comparison between Jewish and Arab children revealed several differences (see Tables 1 and 2). Arab children agreed significantly less than Jewish children that nurturance and selfdetermination were children’s rights. Jewish children showed significantly less agreement on the items representing misconception of rights. Jewish adolescents more strongly supported children’s rights in the personal context than Arab children. However, Arab children more strongly supported rights within a governmental context. We found significant differences on violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child; more Jewish children perceived this as a violation than Arab children.

Data for Christians Versus Muslims We found few significant differences between Muslim and Christian Arab children in adolescents’ approach to children’s rights (see Table 2). The only differences were in their reports on nurturance and self-determination rights; Christian children agreed significantly less than Muslim children that nurturance rights fell under the concept of children’s rights (see Table 1). Another difference involved violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child; more Christian children perceived this as a violation than Muslim children.

Family Factors We found significant positive correlations between family democracy and most of the children’s rights variables (see Table 3).

Table 2 t-Test Analyses That Examine Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion Differences

Variable Children’s understanding of the concept of children’s rights Nurturance and self-determination rights Misconception of rights Children’s support for children’s rights in different contexts The personal context The interpersonal context The public/governmental context Children’s understanding of cases of violations of children’s rights Violation by public systems Violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child

Gender differences

Ethnicity differences

Religion within the Arab group

Male vs. female

Jewish vs. Arab

Christian vs. Muslim

t ⫽ ⫺2.86, p ⬍ .01 t ⫽ ⫺0.89, ns

t ⫽ ⫺7.95, p ⬍ .001 t ⫽ 12.57, p ⬍ .001

t ⫽ 0.87, ns t ⫽ 2.72, p ⬍ .01

t ⫽ ⫺3.36, p ⬍ .001 t ⫽ ⫺6.11, p ⬍ .001 t ⫽ 2.62, p ⬍ .01

t ⫽ ⫺7.08, p ⬍ .001 t ⫽ ⫺1.68, ns t ⫽ 9.46, p ⬍ .001

t ⫽ ⫺0.41, ns t ⫽ 0.15, ns t ⫽ 0.49, ns

t ⫽ ⫺3.36, p ⬍ .001 t ⫽ ⫺5.10, p ⬍ .001

t ⫽ ⫺1.02, ns t ⫽ ⫺12.51, p ⬍ .001

t ⫽ ⫺0.36, ns t ⫽ ⫺2.24, p ⬍ .05


Table 3 Correlation Between Dependent Variables and Independent Variables Variable

Family democracy

Family patriarchy

.27ⴱⴱ .01

⫺.17ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ

.25ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .03

⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ .05

.19ⴱⴱ

⫺.09ⴱⴱ

.13ⴱⴱ

⫺.13ⴱⴱ

Children’s understanding of the concept of children’s rights Nurturance and self-determination rights Misconception of rights Children support for children’s rights in different contexts The personal context The interpersonal context The public/governmental context Children understanding of cases of violations of children’s rights Violation by public systems Violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱ

365

tors, where most of this variance was attributed to national/cultural affiliation (10%). With respect to children’s support for children’s rights in different contexts, 10% of the variance in the personal context and 13% of the variance in interpersonal context were explained by the predictors entered into the formula. Most of this variance was explained by family factors (8% and 10%, respectively). In the public/ governmental context, our predictors explained 7% of the variance, with national/cultural affiliation having the higher contribution (6%). As for children’s understanding of violations of children’s rights, 7% of the variance in violation by public systems and 13% in violations resulting in direct and personal harm to the child were explained by the study’s predictors. Most of the variance in the first violation case was explained by family factors (4%), whereas in the second violation case, most of the variance was explained by national/cultural affiliation (8%). Gender explained very little of the variance in adolescents’ approach toward children’s rights (less than 3% in all measures).

p ⬍ .01.

Discussion

The more the adolescents described their family as having democratic values toward children, the greater their support of children’s rights. In addition, we found significant negative relationships between family patriarchal values and most measures of children’s rights. The more children perceived their family as having patriarchal values toward children, the lower their support of children’s rights.

Stepwise Regression We conducted stepwise regression to examine the contribution of each group of predictors to the explained variance in adolescents’ approach toward children’s rights. Table 4 presents the regression results of the last step and the contribution of each step to the explained variance. The results in Table 4 reveal that 12% of the variance in nurturance and self-determination rights was explained by the predictors used in this study. Most of this variance was explained by family factors (9%). Also, 12% of the variance in misconception of rights was explained by our predic-

Our research echoes earlier studies showing that young adolescents are competent and able to understand the concept of children’s rights (Ben-Arieh et al., 2006; Helwig, 2006; Limber et al., 1999). In that regard, the study’s major contribution is in demonstrating that young adolescents from non-Western cultures that are not dominated by Christianity support and understand the concept of children’s rights. Furthermore, we find that children understand the concept of children’s rights and recognize what elements are not parts of children’s rights (identifying misconceptions of rights). That all children in our study support and understand the concept of children’s rights does not, however, suggest there are no differences in the level of support and in support within different domains. This leads us to the main focus of our study, the role of culture/nationality, religion, family context, and gender in the development of approach to children’s rights.

The Role of Culture/Nationality Although culture is a broad term and can be defined and analyzed with regard to a variety of variables, our sample consisted of

Table 4 Stepwise Results and Explained Variance

Variable Gender Family democracy Family patriarchy Nation Explained variance (⌬R2) Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Overall R2 ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

Violation by public systems

Violation by public systems

The public/governmental context

The interpersonal context

The personal context

Misconception of rights

Nurturance and self-determination rights

.13ⴱⴱ .07ⴱⴱ ⫺.05ⴱ .29ⴱⴱ

.06ⴱ .18ⴱⴱ ⫺.06ⴱ ⫺.02

⫺.08ⴱ .08ⴱⴱ ⫺.00 ⫺.26ⴱⴱ

.12ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ ⫺.09ⴱⴱ ⫺.01

.05ⴱ .22ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ

.03 .09ⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ

.05 .23ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ .15ⴱⴱ

.02 .03 .08

.01 .04 .00

.01 .02 .06

.03 .10 .00

.01 .08 .01

.00 .02 .10

.01 .09 .02

.13

.05

.07

.13

.10

.12

.12

366


two major cultural/national groups: Arabs and Jews. In fact, we use the nationality variable as the differentiating variable with regard to culture. In part, this approach is similar to that of Peens (1997), who used three different language groups in South Africa to define three cultures. This was also the approach used in earlier studies in Israel (Ben-Arieh et al., 2006; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006) on the issue of children’s rights. Our findings adhere with earlier studies (Cherney & Perry, 1996; Limber et al., 1999; Melton & Limber, 1992; Peens, 1997) that found culture/nationality to relate to most measures of children’s understanding of their rights. Our findings are in accordance also with Helwig and Turiel’s (2002) suggestion that different pictures of children’s judgments about civil liberties, autonomy, and democracy emerge developmentally in different cultures and societies. They found that, in Western societies, even young children possess concepts of rights and civil liberties and prefer democratic social organization in a variety of social contexts, whereas in non-Western settings, such concepts develop later in life. Earlier studies in Israel and the Middle East among Jewish and Palestinian adolescents reported that Jewish adolescents showed more support for children’s rights than their Arab counterparts (Ben-Arieh et al., 2006; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006;). The present study supports these findings. For most of the variables we explored, Jewish adolescents supported children’s rights more than their Arab peers. These findings are in line with the assumption that traditional societies are slower to recognize children’s rights (Bohrnstedt et al., 1981; Helwig, 2006; Peterson-Badali et al., 2003). However, we found a different pattern in the realm of public/ governmental rights (i.e., the rights within the educational system, such as choosing which class to attend, and rights within the governmental system, such as the right to express political opinions and influence political processes). In this case, Arab respondents are more supportive than Jewish children. Khoury-Kassabri et al. (2006) documented similar findings. Arab children may diverge from Jewish students in this domain because they are subject to discrimination within the Israeli state; therefore, they may not perceive of their rights as irrevocable—as Jewish students tend to perceive of their personal rights (Melton, 1980, 1983). In addition, Arab children have been major players in Palestinians’ struggle for independence, which may have contributed to their stronger support for children’s rights in this context (Garbarino & Kostelny, 1997).

The Role of Religion The Israeli context offers a unique picture of the role of religious background. Both Muslim and Christian children belong to the Arab ethnic/national group and share many values, such as traditional and collectivistic values, while their Jewish counterparts are usually defined by a more Western, individualistic culture. Still, in Israel, the Arab-Muslim population is usually regarded as a more traditional society than the Arab-Christian (Ben-Arieh & Haj-Yahia, 2006) and therefore should be, in theory, less attuned to children’s rights (Helwig, 2006). In addition, Arab-Muslim children are commonly more disadvantaged economically than Arab-Christian children (Ben-Arieh & Kimchai, 2008). Therefore, it was important to examine the differences between these three religious groups. We find almost no differences between the Christian and Muslim groups in their approach to children’s rights. Although religious beliefs conceivably could influence beliefs about rights, especially as

they pertain to human dignity (e.g., people as created in the image of God), our findings do not support this presumption. However, given that the empirical research thus far supports the significance of religion in democratic socialization and personal identity development (Godwin, Godwin, & Martinez-Ebers, 2002; Kerestes, Youniss, & Metz, 2004), further exploration is warranted.

The Role of Family Context Beyond the cultural context, we need to look at the family pattern variables also by themselves. This study is among the first studies to clearly show a significant correlation between the family factors and children’s approach to their rights. These findings are in accordance with the assumption that more modern families (i.e., more democratic and less patriarchal families) are more “Western” and therefore show more support for children’s rights. Other studies have noted a potential conflict between parental authority and children’s rights (Sheleff, 1984; Westman, 1999). Our study shows a lower support for children’s rights among more patriarchal family patterns. Such findings point toward a potential conflict, but only if one accepts that this is a zero-sum game. Such findings can also shed light on the relation between family democratic patterns and the support of democratic concepts at large and for children’s rights in particular (Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998; Ruck et al., 2002; Smetana, 1995; Smetana & Asquith, 1994). Thus, even if the relation of these family factors to general cultural variables remains unknown, our study has contributed to a better understanding of children’s views on their rights. This is because differences in family patterns also existed within the cultural groups and not only between them and the overlap between family variables and nationality was not complete. Furthermore, a general understanding that culture makes a difference is not enough. We need to deepen our inquiries to truly understand the role of culture in shaping children’s approach to their rights. Studying family patterns in particular can deepen this understanding. The importance of family context to children’s approach to their rights is even more evident in the results of our stepwise regression. Family factors are the largest contributors in explaining the variance with regard to nurturance and self-determination rights and to children’s support for their rights in the personal and interpersonal context. Family factors also contribute the most to explaining the variance in attitudes about violation of children’s rights by public systems.

The Role of Gender Here, our study complicates the emerging knowledge on the influences on children’s view of their rights. Although earlier studies have found gender to be insignificant (Limber et al., 1999; Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998), our study shows opposite results. Indeed, we find gender to be correlated with support for children’s rights. Girls supported most of our children’s rights measures more often than boys, whereas boys supported children’s rights within the public/governmental context more than girls. Although we find gender to have very little explanatory power in our stepwise regression (less than 3%), we should not dismiss this relation between gender and children’s approach to their rights. Researchers have suggested that gender differences might be a reflection of patriarchal values (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006).


Such a scenario might lead one to expect to find (as did these researchers) that boys are more supportive than girls. However, our study finds just the opposite. One possible explanation for these divergent findings may be that girls are granted fewer rights and are more frequently deprived of their rights; therefore, they may be more aware of what they do not have. Future studies should focus on the role of gender in shaping children’s approach to children’s rights as an independent variable, as well as on its interface with cultural and sociological variables.

Conclusion This study takes our knowledge of children’s approach to children’s rights one step forward. Although earlier studies focused on children’s personal variables and on children’s culture as a whole, this study move another step forward by focusing on the role of culture and family patterns. Our findings clearly show that although culture matters, family patterns may matter more. However, the onion is far from being peeled, and more research is needed if we are to understand what influences children’s approach to their rights. Not only is more research needed to deepen our understanding of the effect of culture and family patterns, but also more variables should be tested and brought into the discussion. Primary candidates for such future investigations should be a variety of community variables, with particular attention to the education system.

Limitations A number of limitations that should be considered. First, we use quota sampling to represent the different categories we are interested to study. Still the sampling for the quota was based on convenience sampling. Second, although we are confident with our research tools that measure the approach to or understanding of children’s rights (and they are well grounded in earlier studies), some of our scales had only two items, which in some cases resulted in low internal reliability such as in misconception of rights. In addition, although our results on nationality find support in past research (Ben-Arieh et al., 2006; Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2006), a definitive answer in regard to the role of nationality awaits further comparative research involving other nations. In the same vein, more work is needed to better understand the role of religion and religiosity.

Future Research Finally, future research should consider the mechanisms by which young people grow into a political culture or by which understanding of children’s rights change with age. Research on this issue will be important in building a sense of collective efficacy among young people in diverse cultures and thus bringing the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) to life.

References Al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment, and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany: State University of New York. Ben-Arieh, A. (2005). Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators, 74, 573–596.

367

Ben-Arieh, A., & Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2006). The “geography” of child maltreatment in Israel: Findings from a national data set of cases reported to the social services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 991–1003. Ben-Arieh, A., Khoury-Kassabri, M., & Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2006). Generational, ethnic, and national differences in attitudes toward the rights of children in Israel and Palestine. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 381–388. Ben-Arieh, A., & Kimchai, M. (2008). Children’s issues in Israel. In L. Limage (Ed.) & Irv Epstein (Series Ed.), Children’s issues in Europe, Volume 1: Encyclopedia of children’s issues worldwide (pp. 235–252). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Bohrnstedt, G. W., Freeman, H. E., & Smith, T. (1981). Adult perspectives on children’s autonomy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 443– 462. Cherney, I., & Perry, N. (1996). Children’s attitudes toward their rights: An international perspective. In E. Verhellen (Ed.), Monitoring children’s rights (pp. 241–250). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Garbarino, J., & Kostelny, K. (1997). What can children tell us about living in a war zone? In D. Joy (Ed.), Children in a violent society (pp. 32– 41). New York: Guilford Press. Godwin, R. K., Godwin, J. W., & Martinez-Ebers, V. (2002). Civic socialization in public and fundamentalist schools. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 1097–1111. Haj-Yahia, M. (1995). Toward culturally sensitive intervention with Arab families in Israel. Contemporary Family Therapy, 17, 429 – 447. Haj-Yahia, M. (2000). Wife abuse and battering in the sociocultural context of Arab society. Family Process, 39, 237–255. Haj-Yahia, M. M., Musleh, K., & Haj-Yahia, Y. M. (2002). The incidence of adolescent maltreatment in Arab society and some of its psychological effects. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 1032–1064. Helwig, C. C. (1997). The role of agent and social control context in judgments of freedom of speech and religion. Child Development, 68, 484 – 495. Helwig, C. C. (2006). Rights, civil liberties, and democracy across cultures. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 185–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Helwig, C. C., & Turiel, E. (2002). Civil liberties, autonomy, and democracy—Children’s perspectives. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25, 253–270. Kerestes, M., Youniss, J., & Metz, E. (2004). Longitudinal patterns of religious perspective and civic integration. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 39 – 46. Khoury-Kassabri, M., Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Adolescents approach toward children’s rights: Comparison between Jewish and Palestinian children from Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1060 –1073. Khoury-Kassabri, M., & Ben-Arieh, A. (in press). Adolescents’ approach toward Children’s Rights: Comparison between Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Children in Jerusalem. Social Issues. Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel: Between tradition and modernity. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 193–217. Limber, S. P., Kask, V., Heidmets, M., Kaufman, N. H., & Melton, G. B. (1999). Estonian children’s perceptions of rights: Implications for societies in transition. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 7, 365–383. Melton, G. B. (1980). Children’s concepts of their rights. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 186 –190. Melton, G. B. (1983). Child advocacy: Psychological issues and interventions. New York: Plenum Press. Melton, G. B., & Limber, S. P. (1992). What rights mean to children: Children’s own views. In M. Freeman & P. Veerman (Eds.), Ideologies of children’s rights (pp. 167–187). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Neff, K. D., & Helwig, C. C. (2002). A constructivist approach to understanding the development of reasoning about rights and authority within cultural contexts. Cognitive Development, 17, 1429 –1450.


368

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russel, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems in cohesion and adaptability dimension, family types and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3–28. Peens, B. J. (1997). Children’s perceptions of their rights. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M. D., Morine, S., & Slonim, N. (2004). Predictors of maternal and child attitudes towards children’s nurturance and selfdetermination rights. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 159 –179. Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M. E., & Ridley, E. (2003). College students’ attitudes towards children’s nurturance and self-determination rights. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 730 –755. Ruck, M. D., Abramovitch, R., & Keating, D. P. (1998). Children’s and adolescents’ understanding of rights: Balancing nurturance and selfdetermination. Child Development, 64, 404 – 417. Ruck, M. D., Keating, D. P., Abramovitch, R., & Koegl, C. J. (1998). Adolescents’ and children’s knowledge about rights: Some evidence for how young people view rights in their lives. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 275–289. Ruck, M. D., Peterson-Badali, M., & Day, D. M. (2002). Adolescents’ and parents’ understanding of children’s rights in the home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 373–398.

Ruck, M. D., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Sines, J. (2007). Brief report: British adolescents’ views about the rights of asylum-seeking children. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 687– 693. Sheleff, L. S. (1984). Paternalism and the young. Children and Youth Services Review, 6, 267–283. Slonim-Nevo, V., Sharaga, Y., & Mirsky, J. (1999). A culturally sensitive approach to therapy with immigrant families: The case of Jewish emigrants from the former Soviet Union. Family Process, 38, 445– 461. Smetana, J. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299 –316. Smetana, J., & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and personal autonomy. Child Development, 65, 1147–1162. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schultz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. United Nations. (1989, November 20). Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Assembly Resolution 25 session 44. New York: Author. Westman, J. C. (1999). Children’s rights, parents’ prerogatives, and society’s obligations. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 29, 315–328.

Appendix Items Included in Each Measure Children’s Understanding of the Concept of “Rights” Misconception of Rights To get what I want To get what I am given

The Governmental Context Rights in the educational systems Rights in governmental matters

Children’s Understanding of Children’s Rights Violations Violation by Public Systems

Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights To get what I need in order to live To get what I need in order to grow up and develop in a good and healthy way To use self-expression To have the option to protest

Children’s Expressing Support for Children’s Rights in Different Contexts The Personal Context Rights in the family Right to privacy Rights in legal matters

The Interpersonal Context Right to security Rights in the community Right to express their opinion Right to consider their opinion Right to due process

In the school, there is a special science enrichment course. Chris is not interested in participating, but he still must pay for it. Ron has a disability that prevents him from getting to school by regular transportation, even though the authorities did not arrange any alternative way for him. Mika was told that because her parents did not pay the annual payment to the school, she is not allowed to join the school trip. Yaron’s parents are getting divorced. A custody trial is occurring. Yaron asked to express his opinion in the trial. However, he was not allowed to do so.

Violations Resulting in Direct and Personal Harm to the Child Jo was violent toward another student during school break. In order to punish him, his teacher told him to stand against the wall with his back to the class for an hour. Gill beat his little brother. When his mother found out, she slapped him in anger. John wrote a note to his friend during the lesson. The teacher found the paper and read it to all the students in the class. Received September 21, 2008 Revision received September 21, 2008 Accepted September 24, 2008 䡲