Aiming to address children’s vulnerabilities and treat children as children rather than offenders, Child First presents an appealing policy framework for youth justice systems. However, it is laden with conceptual ambiguities and limited critique. While it appears progressive, this article argues that it functions as a ‘magic concept’; it is widely appealing, resistant to scrutiny and lacking in operational clarity. It offers a veneer of progress by masking enduring structural injustices and legitimises the purposeful neglect of children. By exposing these contradictions, this article calls for critical engagement with, and a more nuanced development of, Child First policy in the pursuit of genuine child-centred and rights-based responsive youth justice systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burns et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: