El verano largo: el amor en la mejor época de la vida

Children may be forced to become street children, may be lured to life on the streets or may choose to be on the streets either to escape hardships in their home life or for survival purposes. The different reasons are described below.

2.3.1 Familial factors

50 Familial reasons, such as changes in the composition of the family, death of a parent, remarriage, separation or desertion, are said to be one of the factors that force children onto the streets in Bangladesh (Greksa, Rie, Islam, & Maki, 2007).

Changes in the composition of the family which push children onto the street, maybe due to family breakdown, death of a parent or divorce, were also reported in Ghana (Baffoe, Dinther, Saakwash, & Nathan, 2002; Orme & Seipal, 2007) and in Zambia (Lemba, 2002). Similar findings were reported in other studies in

Pakistan (Iqbal, 2008) and in Brazil (Raffaelli, Koller, Reppold , Kushick, &

Krum, 2001).

Some empirical studies have also demonstrated that familial reasons are one of the main causes that push children onto the street. In a study by Felsham, in

Colombia, almost all street children, that is, 97% of the children, abandoned their home due to a non-conducive family environment (Felsman, 1989). According to Berge-Simenel (2004) in Accra, Ghana, 86% of respondents were pushed onto the street due to familial reasons, while the other 14% of street children registered in the centre were connected with poverty. Greska, Rie, Islam, & Maki (2007)in Dhaka, Bangladesh, illustrated that most of the children in their study (35%) left home due to reasons connected with the family, such as the composition of the family, death of a parent, remarriage, or desertion, while 30% were abused and 29% left home due to the desire to earn money.

Davies (1999) states that family breakdown produces a wide variety of stresses to children, including feelings related to loss of parents, loss of support, changes in home and school, financial adversity, parental depression and new parental relationships; stress is also influenced by abuse, and child neglect, all of which compound family difficulties and pushes children towards life on the street.

2.3.2 Abuse and neglect

51 Abuse has been reported by a number of studies in different countries as being a contributing factor: in Brazil (Abdelgalil, Gurgel, Theobald, & Cuevas, 2004), in Egypt (Bibars, 1998) and in Turkey (Duyan, 2005); sexual abuse (Bibars, 1998), and verbal abuse (Duyan, 2005), were all cited as reasons which pushed children onto the street. Bibars (1998) further reported that some parents who intentionally injured or maimed their children (as this improved opportunities for begging) often abandoned their children in the street.

Empirical findings also report that physical and/or sexual abuse are primary reasons for street children to leave home. Farber, McCoard, Kinast & Faulkner (1984) reported that 78% of the respondents in their study left home as a result of physical and or sexual abuse. Similarly, Nye (1980) found that 40% to 50% of street children had escaped from severe sexual and physical or emotional abuse at home. Also, the majority of the street children in Bangladesh left home due to abusive behaviour in the home; 30% of the street children were abused or oppressed (Greska et al., 2007), and 78 out of 80 respondents were physically, sexually and emotionally abused (Conticini & Hulme, 2006).

Iqbal (2008), in Pakistan, gathered qualitative information about how children had come to live on the street. Physical violence, strict family discipline and corporal punishment commonly appeared as the main reasons that brought them onto the street, and being beaten up by a stepfather was commonly reported (Iqbal, 2008).

Similarly, several reports found that children were abused or neglected following a parent’s remarriage and the presence of a stepfather or stepmother in Bangladesh (Conticini & Hulme, 2006; Greska et al., 2007) and in India (Singh, Sareen, Ojha,

& Sareen, 2008). Step-parents were likely to be the main perpetuators of abuse as many children were found to leave a home with one step-parent (Conticini &

Hulme, 2006; Greska et al., 2007; Iqbal, 2008; Singh et al., 2008). Sexual and physical abuse by a husband was also reported by very young married street girls in Dhaka, Bangladesh (Conticini & Hulme, 2006). Bibars(1998), in Egypt, found that abusive behaviour of step-parents as well as real parents pushed children onto

52 the street, and fathers or uncles were reported as first line perpetuators by street children who were sexually abused.

Similarly, most of the children in studies in Nepal reported that they were beaten by their parents, and included domestic violence and family conflict as reasons for leaving home (Dhital et al., 2002; Rai et al., 2002). As in other countries, children reported that step-parents were the main perpetuators, and more than two thirds of street children were abused by a stepfather or stepmother (Subedi, 2002).

Tournon (2008) stated that the presence of a stepfather or stepmother created a lack of proper family environment, resulting in children feeling neglected and pushed onto the street. Children, driven by despair and frustration at being abused and neglected by family members, abandoned their homes and sought shelter in the street. The literature review thus confirmed that domestic physical abuse was often associated with step-parents (Bibars, 1998; Conticini & Hulme, 2006;

Greska et al., 2007; Iqbal, 2008; Singh et al., 2008; Subedi, 2002; Tournon, 2008).

2.3.3 Drug abuse and neglect

Both qualitative and quantitative studies have shown children’s exposure to serious abusive issues from alcoholic or substance-abusive parents. Dhital et al.

(2002) in Nepal reported that 57% of street children expressed various types of impact from alcoholic parents, such as scolding, beating, punishment, lack of food, and consequently being pushed from home. A number of researchers explored the relationship between parental substance abuse and child neglect.

Research in ten European states showed that children of drug and alcohol abusive parents suffered from physical and emotional abuse, and that they had very little support available, other than occasional support from family members (Velleman

& Templeton, 2008).

53 Ennew (1994) explored the weak relationship between children and alcohol and drug-addicted parents in Turkey. Velleman & Templeton (2007) in Aracaju, Brazil, suggested the correlation of alcohol and drug abuse as the cause of domestic abuse. Abdelgalil et al. (2004) in Brazil emphasized that alcohol and drug use among step-parents was a precipitating factor for family disruption.

Alcoholism can be the focus of family conflict, and if this is accompanied by additional risks like housing problems, poverty, unemployment and a low level of education, then the risk of motivating children to leave home is further increased (Cleaver, Unell, & Aldgate, 1999; Duyan, 2005; Velleman & Templeton, 2008).

A drug and alcohol-abusive family is a triggering factor that results in family disintegration (Abdelgalil et al., 2004; Inciardi & Suratt, 1997; Martins &

Ebrahim, 1993), and was found to be one of the causes of leaving home for street children in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo (Inciardi & Suratt, 1997; Martins &

Ebrahim, 1993).

An alcoholic father was one of the reasons that children left home in Nepal. Rai et al. (2002) and Tuladhar (2002) illustrated that 16% of the participants in

Kathmandu, Nepal, left home due to an alcohol-abusive family. Also, Farhat (2004) in Pakistan reported that 9.7% of the participants mentioned drug addiction as a cause of leaving home. Domestic abuse associated with alcohol misuse was often found to be the worry for children that caused most upset (Nicholas &

Rasmussen, 2006; Ritter, Stewart, Bernet, Coe, & Brown, 2002; Velleman &

Orford, 1999) and motivated them to leave home.

2.3.4 Economic issues

Economic issues were identified as one of the important factors that pushed children onto the street. Aptekar (1988) in Cali, Colombia, and Rizzini & Lusk (1995) in Latin America, found that the majority of street children left home due to economic reasons. Therefore, almost all engaged in some form of economic activity in the street. Some researchers carried out empirical studies and found that

54 economic or family factors were the most significant factors that pushed children onto the street. Research conducted by Farhat (2004) in Pakistan showed that 26.4% of respondents were pushed onto the street due to economic reasons.

UNICEF (2001) asserted that poverty was the major leading cause of children being on the street, and this was supported by WHO (2000). Several studies identified poverty as the main, or the only, cause that pushed children onto the street. Research in Indonesia found that poverty was the dominant factor behind the emergence of children onto the street. Though the terms expressed by street children were found to be dissimilar, the importance of economic factors was supported by their economic motivation to earn money for a better chance of survival and self-reliance (Greska et al., 2007). Poor parents could not meet the needs of a growing family. This forced children onto the streets to work, to increase family income and to maximize the purchasing power of existing income by reducing the family size (Silva, 1991). Similarly, Rai et al.(2002) in Nepal reported that some street children left home in search of employment due to poor economic conditions.

Contrary to these findings, Conticini and Hulme (2006) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, illustrated that not all the street children were from economically poor households, but ranged from severely poor to well-off households. In addition, Tournon (2008) reported that not all the street children in Nepal were from poor families. Tournon further stated that about half of the street children’s families were involved in income-generating activities, such as farming or skilled work. Abdelgalil et al (2004) supported this view, stating that poverty was not a sole contributory factor in street children leaving home, as other poor families in the neighbourhood managed to retain their children at home. Similar findings were also reported from Rio de Janeiro (Martins & Ebrahim, 1993). Matchinda (2002), in Cameroon, also supporting these views, suggested that the link between street children and family structure and parenting style reflects only a weak association between leaving home and poverty.

55 It is supported by these studies that step-parents, especially stepfathers, were more likely to be abusers than biological parents, and to cause children to be on the street (Conticini & Hulme, 2006; Greska et al., 2007; Iqbal, 2008; Singh et al., 2008; Subedi, 2002; Tournon, 2008). Further, Osterling (2008)stated that poverty typically does not have a direct effect; instead it indirectly affects the children mentally, via a negative impact on certain family processes, including parenting behaviour and family conflict and violence. It is primarily factors such as single parent status, ineffective parenting, parental depression, family dysfunction and overcrowded or poor housing that push children onto the street. Similarly, various other studies have explained that poverty is not a direct cause in its impact on children, but a contributing factor for child neglect (Crosson-Towner, 2005;

McSherry, 2004) and child abuse (Frederick & Goddard, 2007; Guterman, 2001).

Also, Stevenson (1998) reported that the majority of families living in poverty did not abuse children. Supporting these views, Tournon (2008) reported that children did not leave home if they had been provided with a proper family environment, care and love. Therefore poverty is only one important factor in a complex web of factors of abuse that push children onto the street.

2.3.5 Social factors

Previous studies have shown the issue of traditional family structures to be one of the factors that push children onto the street. Duyan (2005) states that street children in Turkey moved onto the street due to extended and overcrowded families; many street children had five or more siblings. Similarly, Aksit et al.

(2001) reported that children moved onto the street due to large nuclear families with an average household size of 8 (7.8). Singh et al.(2008) illustrated that 76%

of street children were living in joint families and only 24% of street children were living in nuclear families. Joint families imposed economic burdens on the household, which was a reason why children felt compelled to adopt life on the street. Similarly, most of the respondents (86%) had six siblings (Pakistan

56 Voluntary Health and Nutrition Association (PAVHNA), 2004).The average family size of the total selected sample of 50 street children in Cairo and Alexandria was 5.94 persons in the family (United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UNODCP), Undated).

Most of the street children in Nepal were from a family size of six (Subedi, 2002).

57% of the total respondents reported that they had five to seven family members, and more than three quarters of the street children originated from a family size of more than four. The distribution pattern of respondents by their family size

suggested that a large family size may be one of the reasons that pushed children onto the street. Duyan (2005) said that an extended family structure was one of the major factors in children being pushed onto the street, but in contrast, Subedi (2002) suggested that it was difficult to conclude that a larger family size was exclusively associated with the phenomenon of street children, as 23% of the respondents were from a family size of 1 - 4. However, Subedi suggested that a larger family size might have implications on the availability of sufficient food, care and support, and finances, a lack of which may push children onto the street.