Position Paper 2023

Transdisciplinary Research for Youth Justice – Position Paper 2023 23 gain money (for survival having left an unsafe home environment). However, criminal justice responses to this entirely responsibilises Charlie for these self-protective behaviours without addressing, or even acknowledging, the wider structural issues leading up to them – school exclusion, adult-perpetrated abuse, lack of appropriate care facilities, lack of support when effectively living independently. Therefore, he is seen as an offender – fully culpable for his behaviours in a contextless adversarial process which denies his ‘child ’status. Seeing Charlie as a child (rather than an offender) immediately places him back within the context of his traumatic experiences, which brings with it acknowledgement of his immature level of development (social ‘ –inappropriate ’coping mechanisms; brain – increased impulsivity, poorer decision-making and emotional management). Early interventions with Charlie could have begun by seeing him as a child (therefore not in control of most of his circumstances) and started with building relationships, providing trusted adults to whom he could have gone when his situation deteriorated. It is particularly concerning that he mentions no specific youth justice practitioners implying that this is a negligible aspect for him, when strong relationships between children and youth justice practitioners could be the bedrock of effective interventions (Johns et al., 2017). The second Child First tenet sees supportive relationships between a child and youth justice practitioner as pivotal in helping children’s pro-social development (Case and Browning, 2021), potentially providing a child with a stable attachment figure (reflecting the frequently in secure attachments of justice-involved children; Moran et al., 2017). Charlie has acknowledged no aspect of his contact with the justice system which demonstrates strong collaboration with him – his reporting of these experiences seems stark in its detachment; justice processes appear to be seen as done to him. Tenet three of Child First justice sees meaningful collaboration as key to engagement (Case and Browning, 2021) – put simply, if Charlie feels that he has no say in his plans, he is less likely to see any benefit, leading to disengagement and perhaps even further court action. Thus, to prevent tokenism, it is crucial that professionals reflect upon whether, how or to what extent they see Charlie’s knowledge or insights as credible. If Charlie is viewed as a capable co- producer, he may be more likely to participate in processes and meaningfully engage with services (see Burns, 2019). A fully Child First response to Charlie, responsibilising adults and systems which have contributed to his increasing traumas, focusing on Charlie as a child with needs and strengths, facilitated through strong relationships and with collaboration at its heart, would be more likely to draw Charlie onto a more prosocial future trajectory. Adopting this holistic