Sociální pedagogika | Social Education 56

Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 56–74, November 2016

ISSN 1805-8825 | doi:10.7441/soced.2016.04.02.04

Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of

Children: Expert Approach versus Public Opinion

Soňa Vávrová1

Abstract: Social and legal protection of children can be

approached from two general positions. The first is expert

Jitka Vaculíková2

discourse in the form of various scientific schools or epistemic

Jan Kalenda3

communities and the other is the position of public opinion. The

purpose of this study is to show both the coexistence and

potential contradictory nature of these two approaches on

selected current issues of social and legal protection of children

(boundary of criminal liability, institutional or protective care and

replacement care of parentless children). While mapping the

expert discourse is based on scientific knowledge of the issue,

mapping the public opinion uses data of a representative inquiry

aimed at the study of opinions of the Czech population in 2015

(n = 1.050). The study concludes that though public opinion and

Contact to authors

expert discourse regarding the replacement care of parentless

1,2,3

children are to some extent in agreement, there is a difference of

Tomas Bata University in Zlín opinion on the boundary of criminal liability and institutional or

Faculty of Humanities

protective care of children and youth with problematic

nam. T. G. Masaryka 5555

behaviour.

760 01 Zlín

vavrova@fhs.utb.cz

Keywords: social and legal protection of children, boundary of

jvaculikova@fhs.utb.cz

criminal liability, institutional care, replacement care of

kalenda@fhs.utb.cz

parentless children, social policy, public opinion, expert discourse

Kontakt na autora

Vybrané otázky sociálně-právní ochrany dětí:

1,2,3 Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve

Odborný přístup versus veřejné mínění

Zlíně

Fakulta humanitních studií

Abstrakt: K otázkám sociálně-právní ochrany dětí lze přistupovat

nám. T. G. Masaryka 5555

na základě dvou obecných pozic vědění. První je přístup

760 01 Zlín

odborného diskursu v podobě různých vědeckých škol či tzv.

vavrova@fhs.utb.cz

epistemických komunit, zatímco druhou je pozice veřejného

jvaculikova@fhs.utb.cz

mínění. Cílem této studie je na vybraných aktuálních problémech

kalenda@fhs.utb.cz

sociálně-právní ochrany dětí (hranice trestní odpovědnosti,

ústavní či ochranné výchovy a náhradní péče) ukázat koexistenci

a potenciální kontradikčnost těchto dvou přístupů. Pro mapování

odborného

diskursu vycházíme

z vědeckých

poznatků

o problematice, zatímco pro mapování veřejného mínění

používáme data z reprezentativního šetření názorů české

populace z roku 2015 (n = 1,050). Studie dochází k závěru,

že veřejné mínění zastává jiné stanovisko vzhledem k hranici

trestní odpovědnosti a ústavní či ochranné výchovy než odborný

Copyright © 2016 by the author

and publisher, TBU in Zlín.

diskurs, zatímco v případě náhradní péče se s ním v některých

This work is licensed under the

bodech shoduje.

Creative Commons Attribution

Klíčová slova: sociálně-právní ochrana dětí, trestní odpovědnost,

International License (CC BY).

ústavní výchova, náhradní péče, sociální politika, veřejné mínění,

odborný diskurs

57

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

1

Introduction

Social and legal protection of children is laid down in Czech law in the 1998 legislative Act No.

359/1999 Coll. (2016). It can be approached from two general knowledge positions.40 The first is the

approach of expert discourse, to which different groups of scientists or epistemic communities

contribute (Grundman & Stehr, 2012; Knorr-Cetina, 1999; Stehr, 2001; Stehr & Grundman, 2011).

This defines the notions of social and legal protection of children and social and social pedagogical

work by expert language, and is involved in the formation of social policy through recommendations

to the state apparatus. The second is the public opinion, the popular discourse, produced by various

social groups defined by heterogeneous socio-demographic features, such as social status, education

or age, and which may take individual standpoints to the issues of social and legal protection of

children. Public opinion is equally important for social policy formation as it exerts pressure on

political representation through media and various interest groups by which the political agenda of

the social state is affected. In this way, problems are approached and resolved – or not (see, for

example, Best, 2008; Dearing & Everett, 1996; McCombs, 2009; Škodová & Nečas, 2009). Thanks to

its power and intensity, the public opinion opens current issues related to social and legal protection

of minors in waves (often in connection with media cases), thus contributing to implementation of

or, alternatively, prevention of particular changes.

The purpose of this study is to address selected current issues of social and legal protection of

children: (1) Boundary of criminal liability, (2) Institutional or protective care and (3) Replacement

care of parentless children, and then to show the coexistence of these two approaches and their

frequent contradictory nature, which may create obstacles to addressing and resolving the issues.

This is especially true where the public opinion opposes the professional discourse and its

recommendations.

The present contribution focuses on social and legal protection, which is part of social and social pedagogical work. Here social and pedagogical work overlap and their representatives and

approaches contribute to the establishment of professional practice and formation of a media image

of the social reality. Teachers and social workers actively contribute to formation of social policy not

only by initiating the desired methodological and legislative changes but also by their actual

implementation. Thus, they become important social players affecting both expert and public

discourse and are not to be overlooked.

To study the issue of social and legal protection, we have selected the aforementioned three areas

whose legislative background is undergoing multiple changes. This suggests that these are important

issues, ideal to study and document whether the premise of overlaps between the two discursive

positions is based on real facts or not. The selection of the three issues brings methodological

advantages as well as disadvantages. The advantage is that the existence of two different knowledge

positions will be studied based on three mutually independent cases. Were we to focus on a single

theme only (even were we to subject it to profound analysis), we would still run the risk of selecting

a case in which there is chance coexistence of the expert and the popular discourse.41 On the other

40 In § 1, the socio-legal protection is defined as: Protection of the rights of a child to proper development and

education, protection of legitimate interests of a child, including protection of its assets and activities

leading to restoration of disturbed family functions and ensuring substitute family environment for a child

who cannot be permanently or temporarily reared in their own family.

41 The use of three deliberately selected cases based on a methodological approach using a small number of

surveyed units – so-called "Small-N case based research" (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012; Ragin, 2000, 2009) –

allows not only the formulation of questions that would otherwise be too general and outside adequate

empirical terrain, but which also allows to compare cases among themselves. This is the main advantage

compared with an approach that is based on the concept of individual case studies (Yin, 2002), which in

Czech studies are most often used. Systematic comparison between theories in specifically selected cases

58

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

hand, the greatest threat to our selection is our necessary inability to describe in sufficient detail the

individual issues. The limited scope of this study deprives the authors of the possibility to reconstruct

all three discourses properly. Therefore, often just the key theses on which the discourses are based

are selected with reference to works of the authors representing them.

The main aim of this study can therefore be redefined in terms of three mutually interconnected

objectives. First of all, our analysis of the expert and the popular discourse in relation to the three

aforementioned thematic areas will show expert and non-expert approach to these areas. Second,

our analysis of the data of the special inquiry focused on the opinions of adult Czech population will

reveal the main aspects of public opinion on these issues, including its inner segmentation by key

socio-demographic features (gender, age, education, etc.). And third, our comparison of the

obtained results will show key similarities and differences between the two approaches, as well as

their implications for social and socio-pedagogical work in the area of social and legal protection of

children.

The test structure will reflect the logic of these three objectives. Following a brief introduction of our

theoretical assumptions, we will discuss the positions taken by the expert and the popular discourse

towards social and legal protection of children. The next chapter will introduce the methodology and

results of the representative public opinion inquiry. And finally, by way of conclusion, we will discuss

the mutual relationship between the expert discourse and the public opinion, including their

implications for social and social-pedagogical work.

2

Theoretical assumptions

Even though recently a whole range of aspects of social and socio-pedagogical work in the Czech

Republic is systematically reflected by the expert discourse (see, for example, Bakošová, 2008;

Gulová, 2012; Hrbáčková & Petr Šafránková 2015; Punová, 2015; Stanoev, 2014; Vávrová &

Kroutilová Nováková, 2015), considerably less attention is paid to public opinion and current social

and socio-pedagogical issues (see, for example, Horáková, 2016). That is despite the fact that this is

the very public opinion that is one of the key agents driving construction of social problems (Best,

2008; Loseke, 1999; Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, Stone, 2011) – i.e., deciding how relevant they are,

whether they shall be addressed and, if so, how.

This role of public opinion leads certain authors (see, for example, Dearing & Everett, 1996;

McCombs, 2009; Škodová & Nečas, 2009) to the conclusion that public opinion, formed into a certain

thematic agenda, represents an important force affecting political and state decision-making, which

may result in the deduction that even the agendas of social policy and socio-pedagogical work are

affected. The questions of social and socio-pedagogical work often become controversial social

themes about which the public forms opinions and to which politicians must respond. What is

equally important is that these standpoints may differ from professional practical opinion (of social

workers/teachers) or scholarly opinion (research on the social and legal protection of children).

Therefore, these may stand in opposition to the agenda of the "knowledge-driven" social policy.

Thus, in reality, two general approaches to social and socio-pedagogical work coexist, representing

different forms of knowledge and different approaches to (co)creation of social policy and addressing

its issues. On the one hand, there is the expert approach typical of specialists from practice or

academic spheres, the so-called “expert apparatus” (Giddens, 1998), while on the other there is the

public opinion approach, which represents popular forms of knowledge in the form of opinions and

positions, in turn informed by age, education or socio-economic status of individuals.

can, in the long run, create prerequisites for formulating middle range theory, as highlighted, for example,

in Glaeser (2006) and Vaughan (2014).

59

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

The present study tries to view both approaches not only in the context of their mutual relation but

also with regard to their consequences for social and socio-pedagogical work. This presents a rather

unexplored field. In this respect, we will not only discuss the nature of both approaches to the

selected themes but also empirically analyse them. Examples of (1) boundary of criminal liability, (2)

institutional or protective care and (3) replacement care of parentless children will be used to show

what the position of the current professional approach is and what the public thinks about them –

that is, what the public opinion is.

3

Expert vs. popular discourse in selected areas of social and legal

protection of children

As is the case in most European countries, Czech society addresses certain controversial themes

related to social and legal protection of children in waves. The target group – children, i.e. minors

under 18 years of age – deserves special attention as one of the "vulnerable" target groups due to

the younger ages.42

The role of professional discourse and public opinion (popular discourse) will be demonstrated in a

couple of problematic issues surrounding social and legal protection of children and subjected to

recent public discussion with legislative intervention. These issues are represented by the boundary

of criminal liability and the related orders of institutional or protective care and subsequent

replacement care.

3.1

Boundary of criminal liability

In preparation for the enactment of the "new" legislative act, the New Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012

Coll., 2015; effective from 1 January, 2014) the boundary of criminal liability became the subject of

wide public discussion. Pursuant to § 109 of the Criminal Code (Act No. 40/2009 Coll., 2016), the

criminal liability of adolescents and sanctions imposed on them are stipulated by the act on

judicature for youth (Act No. 218/2003 Coll., 2016). This classifies youth as children (up to 15 years of

age) and adolescents (from 15 to 18 years of age).43 Thus, the boundary of criminal liability as laid

down by Czech law is 15 years of age.

A discussion on the boundary of criminal liability is often started by a "shocking" case with wide

media coverage, as for instance in England in 2010, when the public was surprised by the case of an

eight-year-old girl raped by two ten-year-old boys (Arthur, 2012). Although the legislative boundary

of criminal liability in England and Wales is 10 years (“States Lowering Age,” 2016), this case posed

the question whether minors committing this criminal act should be treated as adults who

committed the same offence (Arthur, 2012). The main issue here is that the law and criminal liability

system is based on the assumption that man is able to understand and foresee consequences of his

acts and make decisions on the basis of his understanding and free will. The professional and the

popular discussions are linked by the question of whether there is an age limit which, when reached,

makes the individual capable of informed decisions based on free will.

42 According to § 30 paragraph 1 of the Act No. 89/2012 Coll. (2015), one becomes full and capable adult at

the attainment of eighteen years of age. According to § 31, it is considered that any minor who has not yet

acquired full legal capacity is eligible to legal appraisal regarding his mental and moral maturity given his

age and status as a minor.

43 See § 5 paragraph 1 of Act No. 218/2003 Coll. (2016), which defines the responsibilities of a juvenile as

follows: a teenager who, at the time of the offense has neither reached the intellectual and moral maturity

to be able to recognize its unlawfulness nor control his conduct, shall not be held criminally responsible.

According to § 6 paragraph 1 and 2 of this Act, an offense committed by a juvenile is called an offense and

unless the law otherwise indicates, applies to the assessment of the offense committed by the juvenile

penal code.

60

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Many authors (for example Cipriani, 2009; Elliott, 2011; Farmer, 2011; Bateman, 2014) hold that

because childrenś personal autonomy is limited (as is their ability to make decisions from free will),

it is in principle incorrect to impose criminal liability on children. A similar statement can be found in

Hollingsworth (2013), who adds that childhood is the period of growth into complete autonomy and

thus children are not to be taken as fully autonomous. Arthur (2012) and McDiarmid (2013) extend

this argument by saying that children making decisions are less competent to assess whether their

decision and their subsequent action is clearly correct or incorrect. Their orientation in the moral and

legal systems of society is not yet fully developed when compared to young adults (18-24 years of

age). Grisso and others (2003) document with empirical data that the ability of children (11-13) to

cope with litigation differs considerably from young adults (18-24). While the accused adults are able

to resist the stress of litigation, the accused children tend to make a confession more quickly under

that stress.

By contrast, as stated by the Child Rights International Network (“States Lowering Age,” 2016), many

countries show an opposite trend: lowering the boundary of criminal liability, accompanied by public

discussions on the theme. Similar trends can be observed in the domestic environment where, for

example, a member of parliament, Mr. Tejc, stated in a TV discussion that he would like to submit a

proposal for lowering the criminal liability boundary age from 15 to 13 for selected criminal acts

(“Tejc navrhuje,” 2016). This proposal met with a negative response from both other members of

parliament and members of the legal community (“Congress Legislative Space,” 2016).

The expert discourse supported their negative approach not only through the findings of the

developmental psychology (see, for example, Erikson, 2015; Thorová, 2015; Říčan, 2014; Klusák,

2014), but also through statistical data documenting the overall reduction of criminality among

children and youth. This was corroborated at the seminar on Age boundary of criminal liability in the

light of recent events held by PSP CR (on 29 March 2016).44 Identical arguments can also be

encountered earlier, when in 2008 the server iDnes.cz reported that the opinion of certain experts

was that the boundary of criminal liability does not need to be lowered.45 This is further documented

by Svatoš (2013), who also argues against lowering the age of criminal responsibility (see Figure 1).

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Children up to 15 years 3086 3090 2710 2783 2333 1584 1636 1463 1286 1350 1308

Youth

7614 7605 8079 7728 7123 5339 5427 4713 3845 3367 2747

Source: Statistical Data of the Police Presidency of the Czech Republic (In Hulmáková, 2016).

Adapted by authors.

Figure 1 Criminality of children and youth in the years 2005 to 2015

The above allows a deduction of the existence of two approaches: one argues for contesting criminal

liability of children and denies the need for lowering the criminal liability age limit, while the other

focuses on increasing it.

44 See the age responsibility (Hulmáková, 2016).

45 See Válková and Hulmáková (2008).

61

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

3.2

Institutional or protective care and replacement care of parentless children

The boundary of criminal liability is closely connected with another area reflected in this study:

institutional or protective care of children and youth with problematic behaviour (truancy, theft, use

of addictive substances, criminal behaviour, etc.). Institutional care cannot be strictly separated from

replacement care, which is often presented as its more appropriate alternative or counterpart. These

two themes are analysed together in the context of the current stage of the discourse, which

currently favours de-institutionalisation and stepwise replacement of institutional care with other

more appropriate variants. Due to the given reality, we will discuss these two subjects together as

well.

Institutional and protective care in the Czech Republic are part of institutional care, i.e. care provided

by a certain type of resident facility, such as a diagnostic institute, childrenś home with school or

penitentiary.

Protective care, pursuant to Act No. 218/2003 Coll. (2016), is classified together with protective

therapies, detention and property confiscation as protective measures falling exclusively within the

limits defined by the quoted act, and may only be imposed on the basis of the relevant provisions of

the act. Protective care is imposed in cases (§ 22) when: (1) the young individualś care has not been

properly arranged for, (2) the young individualś care has been neglected or (3) the environment in

which the young individual lives does not guarantee his or her proper care, and when the situation

cannot be resolved by imposition of disciplinary measures pursuant to the act on social and legal

protection of children (Act No. 359/1999 Coll., 2016). The length of protective care is limited to 18, or

exceptionally 19 years of age. The purpose of the protective measures, and thus of the protective

care, is positive impact on mental, moral and social development of the young individual and

protection of the society against the criminality of the youth (§ 21, Ibid).

Institutional care may come before or after protective care. The objectives of institutional care are

more general in their essence and their role does not include protection of the society, which is

emphasized in the case of protective care. One can therefore say that this type of care is used when

the childś care or physical, mental or intellectual condition or proper development are seriously

threatened or disrupted to the extent that it damages interests of the child or when there are serious

reasons why the parents cannot secure their childś care (§ 971 (1) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., 2015),

where the court must always consider as the primary option entrusting the child to the case of

another natural person, i.e. replacement family care.

According to data of 2014/2015 (“Tab. č. 65,” 2015), there are in the Czech Republic 214 facilities for

institutional and protective care, of which 144 are childrenś homes, 29 are childrenś homes with a

school, 28 are penitentiaries and 13 are diagnostic institutes. These institutions take care of 6.495

children and young people, of whom 4.949 are under court order for institutional care and 130 are

under court order for protective care.

Replacement care covers (1) custody by another natural person, (2) legal guardianship, (3) foster

care and (4) child care (Act No. 89/2012 Coll., 2015). The following text will classify replacement care

and care on the basis of the environment in which it is provided. To that end, replacement care

differentiates between natural social environment (most resembling an ordinary family

environment) and institutional environment. A Childś placement outside his or her original family

must always be decided by court … with replacement family care preferred to institutional care

placement (Chrenková, Cilečková, & Hašková, 2015, p. 39).

There has been wide expert discussion in Czech society for decades concerning both the

appropriateness and potential negative impact of institutional care on the future life of the child

(see, for example, Matějček & Dytrych, 1994; Kovařík, 1998; Bittner et al., 2007; Kubíčková, 2011;

Běhounková, 2012; Vávrová, Hrbáčková, & Hladík, 2015). Individual forms of replacement care with

an emphasis on foster care are often seen as an alternative to institutional care (see, for example,

Bauer, 1995; Matějček, 1998; Novák, 2008; Zezulová, 2012; Sobotková & Očenášková, 2013;

62

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Chrenková, Cilečková, & Hašková, 2015). There are also studies investigating opinions of various

stakeholder groups (see, for example, Vávrová, Musilová, & Polepilová, 2014; Vávrová & Kroutilová

Nováková, 2015). The harmful effect of childrenś stays in big institutional care facilities is

emphasized by the international organisation LUMOS (with offices in the Czech Republic) and

documented by experts with more than 80 years of research pointing out retardation of cognitive,

social and physical development of children raised in institutional care for most of their most

important evolution stages.46

The mainstream expert discourse currently agrees that changes in the area of replacement care of

threatened children are necessary and should be governed by the policy of de-institutionalisation,

i.e., the policy of minimising the institutional or protective care placement in residential facilities of

children and young people in need of replacement care.47 However, the media often points out the

pitfalls of this process (see, for example, Janský, 2009). Some discussions also bring arguments that

most children living in childrenś homes show no interest in receiving foster parents (see, for

example, Slavíková & Horáková, 2014). Still, in the broadest sense, the expert discourse seems to

resonate with the popular discourse.

In conjunction with the development of care of threatened children and youth, the Ministry of

Labour and Social Affairs (“Národní akční plan,” 2009; “Návrh opatření,” 2009) issued the National

Action Plan for Transformation and Unification of the System of Care of Threatened Children for the

Period 2009–2011 and the Proposed Measures for Transformation and Unification of the System of

Care of Threatened Children – Basic Principles. Subsequently, in 2012, the Ministry issued the

National Strategy of Child Rights Protection, in which it defined its basic principles and the principles

of care of threatened children.48 In the same year, the Action Plan for Implementation of the National

Strategy of Child Rights Protection for 2012–2015 was issued. All of these strategic documents deal

with childrenś rights, including the right to family care. Reforms to replacement care bring about

fundamental changes responded to by professionals as well as the general public. Whether they are

partial changes (for example, cancellation of the institute of baby homes, transformation of

childrenś homes or introduction of temporary foster care institute) or overall transformation of the

whole system of care, both discourses see the need for the change. They differ, however, on how to

implement that change. Reflections surrounding the current issue of replacement care and care

appear in many published articles (see, for example, Toman, 1994; Svobodová, 2003; Cilečková,

2014; Vávrová & Kroutilová Nováková, 2015). Thus, the de-institutionalisation process develops its

legitimacy through both expert and popular discourse.

A little less attention is paid to institutional or protective care of children with problematic behaviour

(see, for example, Pilař, 2005; Svoboda et al., 2012; Janský, 2014). This issue is generally discussed in

waves, which are initiated from wide media coverage on a case where, for example, a young

individual living in one of the institutional facilities commits a violent act against the facility staff or

local residents. Then, the opinion of part of the Czech public radicalises (see, for example, Doubrava,

2004), which then receives its own media coverage. Unlike in public discourse, many experts

perceive the criminality of children and youth as a consequence of their previous psychic deprivation

(see, for example, Matějček, Bubleová, & Kovařík, 2004). There are also cases of violation of

childrenś rights by the institution (see the recent case in Chrastava with wide media coverage).49

46 See Lumos (“Pobyt dětí,“ 2015).

47 As a result of this current trend, there has been a decrease in the number of children in institutional care in

the Czech Republic between years 2008–2013 by almost 2.000 (“Péče o ohrožené děti,” 2014, p. 6).

48 Across the four sections, the priorities are: A. Participation of the child; B. Elimination of discrimination and

unequal access for children; C. The right to family care and D. Ensuring the quality of life for children and

families.

49 See Public Defender of Rights: Ombudsman (“Zařízení v Chrastavě,” 2016).

63

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

The Ombudsman is the institute responsible for dealing systematically with human rights in

residential facilities.50

4

Methodology of public opinion inquiry

The research was motivated by the interest to study opinions on current issues in social and legal

protection of children across a representative sample of Czech adult population. We wanted to

reveal the extent to which public opinion on the selected areas agrees with the opinions held by the

expert discourse, as disagreement might hinder reforms of social and socio-pedagogical work.

The purpose of the research was to find out the public opinion on: (1) age limits of criminal liability;

(2) provision of institutional or protective upbringing of children and youth with problematic

behaviour (truancy, theft, use of addictive substances, criminal behaviour, etc.); and (3) preferences

in selection of the form of replacement care of children and youth, and how this opinion may be

affected by various agents such as gender, age, place of residence or region in which the respondent

is based.

4.2

Research Questions

The research was based on the following research questions in order to formulate hypotheses to be

confirmed or denied:



What should be the age boundary of criminal liability?



What is the public opinion on ordered institutional or protective upbringing of children and

youth with problematic behaviour?



What form of replacement care is generally considered most appropriate?



Are there differences in answers to the above questions when considering different ages,

education, places of residence or regionally based groups?



Is the public acceptance of ordered institutional or protective upbringing different relative to

the specified age limit of criminal liability? In other words, is the acceptance of ordered

institutional or protective upbringing related to the selected age boundary of criminal liability?



Is there any relationship between public acceptance of ordered institutional or protective

upbringing of children and youth with problematic behaviour, their ages and acquired levels of

education?

4.3

Research and data collection methods

The research was based on a quantitative methodological approach with use of the exploration

inquiry method. The selected questions of social and socio-pedagogical work were part of a wider

collection of items of the Omnibus data collection, implemented in Autumn 2015.

The questionnaire included socio-demographic items about gender and age (expressed in years and

translated to the following age categories: 18-24 years; 25-34 years; 35-44 years; 45-54 years; 55-64

years; 65 up), education (basic; secondary without school-leaving examination (apprenticeship);

secondary with school-leaving examination; university level education), place of residence (city

centre; off city centre; city outskirts, suburbs and villages close to big cities; villages; settlements and

50 See Public Defender of Rights: Ombudsman (“Zpráva ze systematických návštěv,” 2011).

64

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

wilderness)51 and geographic region (Prague; Central Bohemia; South West; North West; North East;

South East; Central Moravia; Moravian Silesia)52.

Specific items about public perception of the selected issues (i.e., the boundary of criminal liability,

consent with use of institutional and protective care and the preferred form of replacement care of

parentless children and youth) were of nominal, ordinal and interval nature.

Data collection was performed by CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing), on the basis of

personal interviews by trained interviewers with assistance by electronic questionnaire. The

interview took about 10 minutes. The filled-out questionnaires were checked visually and the data

matrix was subject to both a formal and logical check of data completeness.

4.4

Participants

The research cohort included a representative sample of Czech adult population (n = 1.050). The

selection of the sample was based on quotas for gender, age, education, place and region of

residence (pursuant to the quotas of the Czech Statistical Office of 2012). Within the defined quotas

the respondents were selected randomly by CAPI method53 until the quota was met. Thus, the

research included (see Table 1) 501 males (48%) and 549 females (52%), with a mean age of 46 years

(span 18 to 89, SD = 16.82 years). For statistical purposes, the respondents were divided into six age

groups shown in the Table 1. Most respondents had acquired secondary education either without a

school-leaving examination (36%) or with a school-leaving examination (35%). Elementary education

was the highest education level achieved by 15% of the respondents and 14% were university

graduates. Although half of the respondents lived in a city, most of them lived away from the city

centre (51%), 25% were village residents, 13% lived in city outskirts, suburbs and townships close to

big cities (within 5 km). The city centre was the place of residence of 11% of the respondents. The

most heavily represented regions included South East (16%) and North East (14%). The other region

representations fell between 11–12%.

Table 1

Structure of selected research cohort

Representative sample of Czech population

(n = 1.050)

Socio-demographic characteristics

N

%

kni

kni (%)

Gender

Male

501

48

501

48

Female

549

52

1050

100

Age

18-24 years

111

11

111

11

25-34 years

194

18

305

29

35-44 years

193

18

498

47

45-54 years

173

16

671

64

55-64 years

180

17

851

81

65 up

199

19

1050

100

51 Due to the low representation of respondents form settlements and the wilderness (2 respondents), no

analysis for statistical significance for this category was conducted, as the total number of respondents

were n = 1.048.

52 In cases of non-compliance with the conditions of use of tests, there were fourteen original categories of

nominal variables (administrative districts) combined to create eight geographic regions (these are listed in

parentheses): Prague (Praha), Central Bohemia (Central Bohemia), South Bohemia and Pilsen (Southwest),

Karlovy Vary Region and the Usti Region (Northwest), Liberec, Hradec Králové and Pardubice Region

(Northeast), Vysocina and South Moravia (Southeast), Olomouc and Zlín Region (Central Moravia) and the

Moravian Silesian Region (Moravian Silesia).

53 The method of data collection CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) presents interviews

conducted by trained interviewers face-to-face with the respondents, aided by the help of laptops or

tablets.

65

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Education

Elementary

161

15

161

15

Secondary without school-leaving

375

36

536

51

examination

Secondary with school-leaving examination

368

35

904

86

University

146

14

1050

100

Place of

City centre

112

11

112

11

residence

Off city centre

535

51

647

62

Outskirts, suburbs and villages close to city

135

13

782

74

(within 5 km)

Village

266

25

1048

100

Region

Prague

130

12

130

12

Central Bohemia

126

12

256

24

South West

125

12

381

36

North West

111

11

492

47

North East

151

14

643

61

South East

166

16

809

77

Central Moravia

119

11

928

88

Moravian Silesia

122

12

1050

100

Note: kni = cumulative frequency, kni (%) = relative cumulative frequency.

4.5

Data analysis and research results

The research results evaluation was based on the predefined research questions and hypotheses.

The hypotheses were tested by non-parametric methods of statistical data analysis. For the purpose

of applicability test of the selected statistical methods (in the case of metric variables). Kolmogorov-

Smirnov and Shapiro-Wils tests were used. The statistical test differences are significant on the

significance level of .05.

(1) Boundary of criminal liability

Descriptive statistics shows that 14 years of age most often (35%) represented the adequate age for

criminal liability limit. The second most frequently limits were 15 years of age (31%) and 16 years of

age (9%). 22% of the respondents believed that the boundary of criminal liability should be assessed

case by case, and 2% were unable to assess this fact (see Table 2). These results differ significantly,

x2(4, n = 1.050) = 422.45, p < .001.

Table 2

Age boundary of criminal liability

Representative sample of Czech population

(n = 1.050)

Age limits for criminal liability

N

%

kni

kni (%)

14 years of age

372

35

372

35

15 years of age

328

31

700

67

16 years of age

91

9

791

75

Should be assessed individually

233

22

1024

98

Do not know, cannot assess

26

2

1050

100

Total

1050

100

1050

100

The descriptive statistics also suggest that the lowest age limit for criminal liability (14 years of age)

was mostly preferred by respondents with secondary education, without a school-leaving

examination (38%, 141) and with a school-leaving examination (35%, 130). The next most frequently

mentioned limit was 15 years of age, most often suggested as the limit age for criminal liability by

respondents who completed only elementary education (34%, 55). On the other hand, university

graduates tended to prefer 14 years of age as the criminal liability limit (33%, 48) or individual

66

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

assessment (30%, 44). Although perception of the adequate age limit for criminal liability according

to the highest acquired education of the respondents differed significantly, x2(12, n = 1.050) = 21.32,

p = .046), the correlation tightness was too low (Cramer's V = .08). So, the discovered correlations,

although statistically significant,54 do not represent significant circumstances.

The preferences related to the boundary of criminal liability significantly differed by region of

residence of the respondents, x2(28, n = 1.050) = 55.6, p < .001, Cramer's V = .12. According to the

respondents from all regions except Prague, the boundary of criminal liability should be 14 years of

age. Rounding out the overall ranking of the frequency of the individual variants, the second rank

belonged to 15 years of age and the third rank to individual assessment. The age limit of 16 years

seemed too high to most respondents from all regions and was therefore the least frequently

mentioned (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Boundary of criminal liability by region

(2) Institutional or protective care

The dominant majority of the respondents (80%) agreed with ordering institutional or protective care

to children and youth with problematic behaviour (such as truancy, theft, use of addictive

substances, criminal behaviour, etc.). Nearly half of all respondents (45%) strongly agreed. On the

other hand, “I rather disagree” was used in this context by 11% and 3% of respondents strongly

disagreed. About 7% of the respondents were unable to assess this, x2(4, n = 1.050) = 724.12,

p < .001.

54 Statistical significance is the likelihood that our sample comes from a set in which the null hypothesis is

valid. At the same time, it makes the claim that a lower calculated level of significance would indicate higher

statistical significance. But nothing more (Soukup, 2007).

67

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Figure 3 Acceptance of ordered institutional or protective care by region

Agreement with ordered institutional or protective care of children and youth with problematic

behaviour differed by region, x2(28, n = 1.050) = .267, p < .001, Cramer's V = .13. Respondents from all regions (except South East and North West) mostly strongly agreed with ordered institutional or

protective care. The trend of agreement/disagreement with ordered institutional or protective care

from strongly agree to strongly disagree was descending (see Figure 3).

An interesting finding was that respondents strongly agreeing with ordered institutional or protective

care mostly selected the lowest limit of criminal liability (44%, 208). These respondents further

recommended criminal liability from 15 years of age (30%, 139) and individual assessment (19%, 89).

On the other hand, respondents not considering ordered institutional or protective care of children

and youth with problematic behaviour an appropriate method of care mostly preferred higher limit

of criminal liability of 15 years of age (9%, 10) and individual assessment (7%, 9). Nevertheless, no

correlation was found between public acceptance of ordered institutional or protective care of

children and youth with problematic behaviour, age and level of education achieved.

(3) Replacement care

The respondents considered foster care (28%, 296) as the most appropriate form of replacement

care of parentless children and youth. The following methods with insignificant differences in

frequency were entrusting the child to care of another person (other than parents) (25%, 264) and

adoption (24%, 254). Legal guardianship was considered the least appropriate form of replacement

care of parentless children and youth (5%, 50). These results differ significantly, x2(5, n = 1.050)

= 332.65, p < .001.

Preferences in the form of replacement care of children and youth differed by place of residence of

the respondent, x2(15, n = 1.050) = 38.31, p < .001, Cramer's V = .11. Respondents living in a city centre most often preferred foster care (31%, 168) and adoption (27%, 143) and least frequently

selected legal guardianship (4%, 19). Respondents living in villages found entrusting the child to care

68

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

of another person (other than parents) (32%, 84) to be the most appropriate form of replacement

care of children and youth. This was followed by foster care (26%, 69) and adoption (21%, 55).

The structure of selection of form of replacement care of parentless children and youthby gender

and age is shown in Figure 4. Middle-aged females (25-34 years) preferred foster care, identical to

males of the same age group. The overall preference across age groups was foster care, followed by

entrusting the child to care of another person (other than parents) and adoption. Although the

differences are not statistically significant (p = .46), they represent an interesting finding.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

entrusting the child...

foster care

-5

temporary foster care

18-24

35-44

55-64

18-24

35-44

55-64

adoption

25-34

45-54

65 <

25-34

45-54

65 <

legal guardianship

f emale

institutional care

male

Figure 4 Form of replacement care of parentless children and youth by gender and age

University graduates showed a higher level of support for both variants of adoption compared to

respondents with basic or secondary education. Another finding important to our conclusion was

that only less than 8% considered institutional care as a suitable form of replacement upbringing.

5

Final reflection – Expert vs. popular discourse

The study shows that public opinion often addresses the same dilemmas as the expert discourse

does, although using different argumentation platforms. While argumentation in expert discourse is

based on scientific theories and obtained knowledge (about development of personality, child

identity and effects of institutional environment on the child), the popular discourse is usually only

supported by fragmentary media information and multiplied by the occasional media case, which

then affects collective emotions, especially the feelings of worries and fear, as documented by Good

and Ben-Yehuda (2009). By contrast, expert discourse is emotionally neutral, subject to control

procedure within the research community and continuously critically assessed (Stehr & Grundmann,

2011; Grundman & Stehr, 2012).

What are the expert and popular discourse positions with respect to the three defined areas of social

and legal protection of children: boundary of criminal liability, institutional or protective care and

replacement care of parentless children? Our research allows for a conclusion that members of the

general public are not unified in their opinions on the age limit of criminal liability and further, that

those opinions do not agree with the main positions in the expert discourse. About one third of the

respondents would prefer lowering the criminal liability age to 14 while another third agreed with

the currently valid limit of 15 years. About one tenth would increase the limit even further to 16

69

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

years. About one fifth believe that the boundary of criminal liability should be assessed individually,

case by case.

The expert discourse (for instance, Elliott, 2011; Farmer, 2011; Hollingsworth, 2013; Svatoš, 2013;

Bateman, 2014) rather take a defensive approach. Thus, regarding the boundary of criminal liability

in the Czech Republic, we found the assumed contradiction between the popular and the expert

discourse. However, the contradiction is typical not only for the Czech Republic but also for other

countries where similar discussions are in progress (Cipriani, 2009; Farmer, 2011; Hollingsworth,

2016). One of the reasons for the fact that one third of Czech adult population would like to see the

boundary lower might be the deeply rooted collective belief in "innocent childhood." According to

Julie Fionda (2005), the author of "Devils and Angels: Youth Policy and Crime," modern western

societies adhere to a relatively widely rooted concept of good-natured children. In Fionda’s

metaphor, a child is an "angel." If, however, a child commits a substantial offence against law and

order or moral rules, it is very quickly – much more quickly than an adult – labelled a "devil." This is

why the approach of part of the general public to child criminality is much more stringent than their

approach to adult criminality. Representatives of the professional public should therefore focus more

on education in this area and increase their emphasis on the argument against lowering the

boundary of criminal liability.

Concerning education, we cannot see any simple linearity in the case of the boundary of criminal

liability according to which decreasing level of achieved education would increase the gap between

the expert opinion and opinion of that part of the public. On the other hand, people opposing raised

limits of criminal liability are represented at all education levels. So, the education obtained and any

related cultural capital therefore cannot shed any light on public opinion.

Another non-surprising finding is the fact that the respondents who chose the lowest offered limit of

criminal liability (14 years) absolutely agreed with the ordered institutional or protective care of

children and youth with problematic behaviour. On the other hand, respondents not supporting

ordered institutional or protective care of children and youth with problematic behaviour as an

appropriate method of their support most often preferred the higher limit of criminal liability (15

years).

On the whole, the trend seen in the area of preferred form of replacement care of parentless

children and youth across all age groups was as follows: (1) foster care, (2) entrusting the child to

another natural person (other than parents) for care, (3) adoption, (4) care for a limited period of

time and only then (5) institutional care (childrenś home). The above hierarchy shows that the

discourse of non-institutionalisation of children and youth is deeply rooted in Czech society: only 8%

of the respondents considered replacement care by an institution (childrenś home) the most

appropriate method of child care. In this respect, there are in fact no contradictions between the

expert approach to replacement family care and the public opinion (see, for example, Běhounková,

2012; Chrenková, Cilečková, & Hašková, 2015; Vávrová, Hrbáčková, & Hladík, 2015). Unlike the case

of the boundary of criminal liability, an important role in this context was probably played by an

extensive educational campaign as well as the fact that media covered problems of institutional care

rather than those of non-institutional care. Non-institutional care has never become a target of

extensive moral panic or raised public opinion against it.

However, a contradiction between the popular and the expert discourse was observed in the third

area of preference of temporary foster care. Temporary foster care, through the eyes of expert

discourse, is a necessary element of non-institutional replacement care, without which the

contemplated transformation could hardly be implemented (see, for example, Cilečková, 2014;

Vávrová & Kroutilová Nováková, 2015). This is not reflected in the public opinion. This fact may be

the result of extensive media discussions where some critics of de-institutionalisation in this area

insisted that this is no longer care but rather a "sheer business."55 If public opinion and expert

55 See, for example, Regional news („Roste počet,“ 2016).

70

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

discourse should get closer to each other in the case of this problem, then more attention will need

to be paid to the educational agenda in order to broaden the awareness of the positive aspects of

non-institutional replacement care.

The implemented research confirms our initially formulated theoretical assumption of the existence

of two different approaches to issues of social and socio-pedagogical work. Public opinion on certain

issues of social and legal protection of children is considerably different from positions recently

defended and asserted by the expert discourse, and thus can stand in opposition against ongoing

reforms in the area of social and legal protection of children.

Nevertheless, public opinion does not always oppose the opinions of experts. As shown in the

example of institutional care of children and youth, the general public (like the expert discourse)

disagrees with institutionalisation. This condition is probably the result of long and systematic

education provided by experts, helping the idea of de-institutionalisation take root in Czech society

across age groups and groups with different levels of education and socio-economic standing.

In the light of the broad concept of social pedagogy (see, for example, Kraus & Poláčková et al., 2001;

Kraus, 2008; Bakošová, 2008), the results of our research are relevant for the discipline, showing that

despite the extensive accumulation of scientific knowledge in the past decade, the Czech lay

population still holds opinions completely different from the expert discourse. If social pedagogy

aims to "focus on the population as a whole in the sense of creation of harmony between needs of

the individual and the society and creation of the optimum way of life in the society“ (Kraus,

Poláčková et al., 2001, p. 12), then it must obviously also focus on: (1) Study of phenomena that are

not in accord with the desires of part of the society and the expert public, especially if the expert

public is represented by social and pedagogical workers whose knowledge and recommendations are

to serve to improve the society’s way of life, as insisted by Kraus, Poláčková and others (2001); (2)

Attempts to overcome the disharmony through systematic educational activity; (3) Pointing out how

extreme opinions (as opposed to expert knowledge) are misused to raise moral panic and create

even greater disharmony between individuals and in the society, thus requiring recommendations for

the solution of the issues in question.

In other words, social pedagogy should increasingly focus on: (1) Further study of harmonies and

disharmonies between expert and popular discourse concerning phenomena within its area of

action; (2) Reduction of the differences between the two discourses by acquiring empirical

knowledge of the attitudes in public discourse, allowing identification of major social groups who

oppose the expert discourse, in turn helping the better planning of targeted social, pedagogical and

educational activities; (3) Social pedagogues should actively contribute to the ongoing discussions

and engage in assertion of the desired positive changes not only in the area of social and legal

protection of children among general public.

References

Act No. 218/2003 Coll., on liability juveniles for illegal acts and on juvenile justice and amending

certain acts (juvenile justice). (2016, September 10). Zákony pro lidi. Retrieved from

http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2003-218

Act No. 359/1999 Coll., on child protection. (2016, September 10). Zákony pro lidi. Retrieved from

http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1999-359

Act No. 40/2009 Coll., on criminal code. (2016, September 10). Zákony pro lidi. Retrieved from

http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2009-40

Act No. 89/2012 Coll., on civil code. (2015, September 10). Zákony pro lidi. Retrieved from

http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2012-89

Arthur, R. (2012). Rethinking the Criminal Responsibility of Young People in England and Wales.

European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 20(1), 13–29.

71

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Bakošová, Z. (2008). Sociálna pedagogika ako životná pomoc. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v

Bratislave.

Bateman, T. (2014). “Catching them young” – Some reflections on the meaning of the age of criminal

responsibility in England and Wales. Safer Communities, 13(3), 133–142. doi:10.1108/SC-05-

2014-0008

Bauer, J. (1995). Pěstounská péče v zrcadle výzkumu. Práce & sociální politika, 21(6), 13–14.

Běhounková, L. (2012). Fenomén odchodu do samostatného života dítěte vyrůstajícího v náhradní

výchovné péči. Prague: Togga.

Best, J. (2008). Social Problems. New York: Norton.

Bittner, P. (Ed.). (2007). Děti z ústavů!: Právní a psychologické dopady ústavní výchovy z pohledu

ochrany rodiny a nejlepšího zájmu dítěte. Brno: Liga lidských práv.

Chrenková, M., Cilečková, K., & Hašková, A. (2015). Faktory ovlivňující formu náhradní rodinné péče

[Factors affecting the form of substitute family care]. Sociální pedagogika, 2(3), 38–50.

doi:10.7441/soced.2015.03.02.03

Cilečková, K. (2014). Změny v náhradní rodinné péči. Sociální práce, 14(2), 61–70.

Cipriani, D. (2009). Childrenś rights and the minimum age of criminal responsibility: A global

perspective. Surrey: Ashgate.

Congress Legislative Space for a Sixth Time. (2016, May 20). Bulletin advokacie. Retrieved from

http://www.cak.cz/assets/komora/bulettin-advokacie/ba_05_2016_web.pdf

Dearing, J. W., & Everett, M. R. (1996). Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.

Doubrava, L. (2004, May 14). Dětské vězení jako jediné řešení? Učitelské noviny. Retrieved from

http://www.ucitelskenoviny.cz/?archiv&clanek=5065

Elliott, C. (2011). Criminal responsibility and children: A new defence required to acknowledge the

absence of capacity and choice. The Journal of Criminal Law, 75, 289–308.

doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.4.717

Erikson, E. H. (2015). Životní cyklus rozšířený a dokončený: Devět věků člověka. Prague: Portál.

Farmer, E. (2011). The age of criminal responsibility: Developmental science and human rights

perspetives. Journal of Childrenś Services, 6(2), 86–95. doi:10.1108/17466661111149385

Fionda, J. (2005). Devils and angels: Youth policy and crime. Abingdon: Hart.

Giddens, A. (1998). Důsledky modernity. Prague: SLON.

Glaeser, A. (2006). An ontology for the ethnographis analysis of social processes: Extending the

extended case method. In T. M. S., Evens, & D. Handelman (Eds.), The Manchester School:

Practice and etnographic praxis in anthropology (pp. 64–99). New York: Berghahn Books.

Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the

social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goode, E., & Bem-Yehuda, N. (2009). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. New York:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graraham, S., Lexcen, F., Repucci, N., &

Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles competence to stand trials: A comparison of adolescence and

adults capacities as trial defenders. Law and Human Bahavior, 27(4), 333–363.

Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2012). The power of scientific knowledge. From research to public policy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

72

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Gulová, L. (2012). Aktivizace sociálně znevýhodněných skupin v pedagogické praxi a výzkumu. Brno:

Masarykova univerzita.

Hollingsworth, K. (2013). Theorising children's rights in youth justice: The significance of autonomy

and foundational rights. Modern Law Review, 76(6), 1046–1069. doi:10.1111/1468-

2230.12047

Hollingsworth, K. (2016). The utility and futility of international standards for children in conflict with

law. In L., Weber, L.; Fishwick, E., & Marmo, M. (Eds.). The Routledge international handbook

of criminology and human rights. New York: Routledge.

Horáková, N. (2016, October 10). Co je pro nás morálně přijatelné? (Etické otázky ve výzkumu

veřejného

mínění) .

SOCIO

web.

Retrieved

from

http://www.socioweb.cz/index.php@disp=teorie&shw=221&lst=106.html

Hrbáčková, K., & Petr Šafránková, A. (2015). Vnímání vlastní účinnosti pedagogických pracovníků

v oblasti institucionální péče [Self-efficacy of professional educators in institutional care for

children and minors]. Sociální pedagogika, 3(2), 9–24. doi:10.7441/soced.2015.03.02.01

Hulmáková, J. (2016, March 29). Hranice trestní odpovědnosti v kontextu trendů kriminality mládeže

a v evropském srovnání. Poslanecká sněmovna Parlamentu České republiky. Retrieved from

http://www.psp.cz/doc/pdf/00/08/49/00084976.pdf

Janský, P. (2009). Náhradní výchovná péče a její transformace. Učitelské noviny: Týdeník pro učitele a

přátele školy, 112(21), 17–19.

Janský, P. (2014). Dítě s problémovým chováním a náhradní výchovná péče ve školských zařízeních

pro výkon ústavní a ochranné výchovy. Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus.

Klusák, M. (2014). Morální vývoj školáků a předškoláků: Paradigmatické výzvy dle Jeana Piageta.

Prague: Karolinum.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard

University Press.

Kovařík, J. (1998). Dlouhodobé sledování dětí, které vyrůstaly v náhradní péči. Náhradní rodinná

péče, 2, 18–28.

Kraus, B. (2008). Základy sociální pedagogiky. Prague: Portál.

Kraus, B., & Poláčková, V. (Ed.). (2001). Člověk – prostředí – výchova: K otázkám sociální pedagogiky.

Brno: Paido.

Kubíčková, H. (2011). Dítě – rodina – instituce, aneb, Jak neztratit budoucnost. Ostrava: Ostravská

univerzita.

Loseke, D. (1999). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to constructionist perspective.

New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Matějček, Z. (1998). Desatero pro náhradní rodiče. Náhradní rodinná péče, 2, 35–36.

Matějček, Z., & Dytrych, Z. (1994). Děti, rodina a stres: Vybrané kapitoly z prevence psychické zátěže u

dětí. Prague: Ministerstvo zdravotnictví ČR.

Matějček, Z., Bubleová, V., & Kovařík, J. (2004). Kriminalita jako následek psychické deprivace. In J.

Kovařík (Ed.)., Náhradní rodinná péče v praxi (pp. 109 – 114). Prague: Portál pro Středisko

náhradní rodinné péče.

McCombs, M. E. (2009). Agenda setting. Prague: Portál.

McDiarmid, C. (2013). An age of complexity: Child and criminal responsibility in law. Youth Justice,

13(2), 145–160. doi:10.1177/1473225413492056

73

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Národní akční plán k transformaci a sjednocení systému péče o ohrožené děti na období 2009–2011

(2009, January 9). Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA). Retrieved from

http://www.mpsv.cz/files/clanky/7440/NAP.pdf

Návrh opatření k transformaci a sjednocení systému péče o ohrožené děti – Základní principy. (2009,

January 9). Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA). Retrieved from

http://www.mpsv.cz/files/clanky/9556/Navrh_opatreni_k_transformaci.pdf

Novák, T. (2008). Slasti a strasti pěstounů. Psychologie dnes, 14(10), 32–33.

Péče o ohrožené děti v České republice. (2014, November 11). Lumos Foundation. Retrieved from

http://czech.wearelumos.org/sites/default/files/material-seminar11-11.pdf

Pilař, J. (2005). Náhradní výchovná péče v nahotě reality. Učitelské noviny: Týdeník pro učitele a

přátele školy, 108(36), 16–17.

Pobyt dětí ve velkých ústavech poškozuje jejich zdravý vývoj, tvrdí odborné studie. (2015, February

17). Lumos Foundation. Retrieved from http://czech.wearelumos.org/node/180

Punová, M. (2015). Práce s mládeží v době nejisté [Youth Work in Times of Uncertainty]. Sociální

pedagogika, 3(1), 70–84.

Ragin, Ch. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, Ch. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Říčan, P. (2014). Cesta životem: Vývojová psychologie. Prague: Portál.

Roste počet profesionálních pěstounů za peníze. Dělají si opravdu z dětí byznys? A kolik jim stát platí?

Čtěte tvrdá fakta i názory z obou stran. (2015, February 2). Regional news. Retrieved from

http://www.krajskelisty.cz/praha/7808-roste-pocet-profesionalnich-pestounu-za-penize-kolik-

dostavaji-a-proc-jim-lide-nadavaji-ze-z-deti-delaji-byznys-ctete-tvrda-fakta-i-nazory-z-obou-

stran.htm

Škodová, M., & Nečas, V. (Eds.). (2009). Veřejná a mediální agenda: Komparativní analýza a

tematizace veřejné sféry. Prague: Professional Publishing.

Slavíková, A., & Horáková, Z. (2014, March 17). Mnoho dětí z dětských domovů nechce do

pěstounské péče. Deník.cz. Retrieved from http://www.denik.cz/kraj-vysocina/mnoho-deti-z-

detskych-domovu-nechce-do-pestounske-pece-pe14-e37v.html

Sobotková, I., & Očenášková, V. (2013). Pěstounská péče očima dospělých, kteří v ní vyrostli: Trendy

vs. zkušenosti. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

Soukup, P. (2007, June 1). Statisticky významný neznamená důležitý. SOCIO web. Retrieved from

http://www.socioweb.cz/index.php@disp=teorie&shw=298&lst=112.html

Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Menlo Park: Cummings.

Stanoev, N. (2014). Cesta k závislosti a zpět [The path to addiction and back]. Sociální pedagogika,

2(1), 64–81. doi:10.7441/soced.2014.02.01.05

States lowering age of criminal responsibility. (2016, November). Child Rights International Network

(CRIN). Retrieved from https://www.crin.org/en/home/what-we-do/policy/stop-making-

children-criminals/states-lowering-age-criminal-responsibility

Stehr, N. (2001). The fragility of modern societies: Knowledge and risk in the information age.

London: Sage.

Stehr, N., & Grundmann, R. (2011). Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. London:

Routledge.

74

Vávrová, Vaculíková, & Kalenda / Selected Aspects of Social and Legal Protection of Children…

Stone, D. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.

Svatoš, R. (2013). Vývoj kriminality mládeže v České republice. Kriminalistika, 46(2), 139–154.

Svoboda, Z. (Ed.). (2012). Etopedické propylaje I.: Aktuální otázky systému náhradní výchovné péče o

jedince s poruchou chování. Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.

Svobodová, M. (2003). Zpráva o stávajícím stavu náhradní rodinné péče o děti a mládež bez

rodinného zázemí v české republice. Sociální práce, 2, 28–45.

Tab. č. 65 Zařízení pro výkon ústavní a ochranné výchovy – Přehled zařízení podle území. (2015,

October

15).

Czech

Statistical

Office.

Retrieved

from

https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20555525/2300421565.pdf/144bea1f-44d0-463d-

82cc-1d8ba0390a56?version=1.0

Tejc navrhuje snížení hranice trestní odpovědnosti na 13 let. (2016, February 28). Novinky.cz.

Retrieved from https://www.novinky.cz/domaci/396129-tejc-navrhuje-snizeni-hranice-trestni-

odpovednosti-na-13-let.html

Thorová, K. (2015). Vývojová psychologie: Proměny lidské psychiky od početí po smrt. Prague: Portál.

Toman, J. (1994). Náhradní výchova a speciální výchovná zařízení z pohledu společenských změn.

Mládež, společnost a stát, 4, 19–24.

Válková, H., & Hulmáková, J. (2008, October 7). Odborníci: Hranici trestní odpovědnosti není nutné

snižovat. Retrieved from http://zpravy.idnes.cz/odbornici-hranici-trestni-odpovednosti-neni-

nutne-snizovat-prt-/zpr_archiv.aspx?c=A081003_114748_kavarna_bos

Vaughan, D. (2014). Theorizing: Analogy, cases, and comparative social organization. In R. Swedberg

(Ed.)., Theorizing in social science: The context of discovery (pp. 61–84). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Vávrová, S., & Kroutilová Nováková, R. (2015). Transformace systému péče o ohrožené děti očima

ředitelů dětských domovů [Transformation of the system of care for vulnerable children from

the perspective of children ́s homes ́ directors]. Sociální pedagogika, 3(2), 25–37.

doi:10.7441/soced.2015.03.02.02

Vávrová, S., Hrbáčková, K., & Hladík, J. (2015). Porozumění procesu autoregulace u dětí a mladistvých

v institucionální péči. Zlín: Tomas Bata University in Zlín.

Vávrová, S., Musilová, D., & Polepilová, R. (2014). Názory studentů vybraných pomáhájících profesí

na rušení ústavních zařízení pro děti do tří let věku v kontextu současných změn [Opinions on

the closure of institutional facilities for children up to 3 years in the context of recent changes

among students of selected helping professions]. Sociální pedagogika, 2(1), 82–99.

doi:10.7441/soced.2014.01.06

Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research. Design and methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Zařízení v Chrastavě deset let neplnilo své povinnosti. (2016, July 7). Public Defender of Rights:

Ombudsman. Retrieved from http://www.ochrance.cz/aktualne/tiskove-zpravy-2016/zarizeni-

v-chrastave-deset-let-neplnilo-sve-povinnosti

Zezulová, D. (2012). Pěstounská péče a adopce. Prague: Portál.

Zpráva ze systematických návštěv. Školských zařízení pro výkon ústavní výchovy a ochranné výchovy.

(2011).

Public

Defender

of

Rights:

Ombudsman.

Retrieved

from

http://www.ochrance.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/ochrana_osob/2012/2012_skolska-

zarizeni.pdf