Reforming Child Protection Legislation: Uncovering Issues and Gaps in Barbados Law

The administration’s efforts to reform existing Child Protection legislation and bring it into the 21st Century has unveiled a number of issues that still require attention even with all the controversy surrounding attempts to amend the legal framework.

There have been several arguments and counter arguments about the reasons for the amended legislation. Some are rooted in deep suspicions and lack of trust in governmental establishments, while others honestly believe parents are “losing” their control over what happens to their children.

Whether these are valid, evidenced-based concerns is yet to be established, however, it is incumbent on the various empowered state agencies to ensure the public is aware and convinced that protection of the island’s children is the priority and nothing more.

The suite of legislation introduced by government which includes the Child Protection Bill and the Child Justice Bill have highlighted many deficiencies in our current legal framework.

We can accept that legislation which was written more than 100 years ago was unlikely to cover many of the modern peculiarities and vagaries of life in Barbados in 2024.

During discussion in the House of Assembly this week on the report of a Joint Select Committee on Social Sector and Environment on the Child Justice Bill 2023, government backbencher and medical practitioner Dr Sonia Browne, raised the issue of handling teenagers who are at the age of consent but are still not legally adults.

It represents a glaring gap that has been allowed to stand for far too long. Under the island’s law, a 16-year-old is viewed as an adult who can be sent to an adult penal institution if they come into conflict with the law.

At 16-years-old a child can be kicked out of school or turned out from their home and asked to fend for themselves.

He or she can also on their 16th birthday give consent to sexual contact with an adult without that person facing the possibility of statutory rape.

Here is where the contradiction is exposed. That same 16-year-old that can consent to sexual contact with an adult, can be sent to an adult prison if accused or convicted of a crime, but cannot consent to marriage. That same 16-year-old or a 17-year-old cannot access medical treatment without the consent of a parent or guardian.

Important also, though seen as an adult in the eyes of the law when it comes to criminal responsibility, or sexual contact, or full-time employment without being engaged in child labour, a 16 or 17-year-old is regarded as not adult-enough to vote for a political representative.

These are major anomalies that require urgent attention by our law makers. It is a gap or grey area that Dr Browne says should not be allowed to continue. It makes no sense, and we completely agree with her.

You are either an adult who can make adult decisions, or you are still a child until you reach the age of 18.

What the gap does is serve to hamstring healthcare providers and significantly impacts 16 and 17-year-old girls seeking reproductive health care from private practitioners and public institutions such as the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and our polyclinics.

The Member of Parliament and representative for the constituency of St Philip North, asserts that many in the medical profession remain “foggy” on how to treat these cases, particularly so if a 16 or 17-year-old girl presents alone to a medical practitioner and is pregnant.

Addressing this grey area not only has legal implications but cost implications for government. If the state is going to provide protection for young people until the age of 18, then they must be required to be in an educational institution until then.

They should be provided with juvenile protections when they come into conflict with the law and the age of consent would by necessity have to be increased to age 18.

At age 16 we know that many youngsters are still immature and have not settled into the role of adulthood.

As the former Minister in the Ministry of Health revealed in the House last Tuesday, if she was turned out from her home at age 18, she would have been completely unprepared for all the demands of adulthood. It is the same for many of our young people today who still require much.