Between “Freedom from” and “Freedom to”: Religious Freedom and Conditional Autonomy In Faith-Based Residential Child Care

Background and Purpose: In Taiwan, nearly half of children in out-of-home care live in residential institutions, many with Christian backgrounds. While religion can provide emotional support and social resources, it may also create power imbalances, especially in trans-religious placements. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) emphasizes children’s rights to religious freedom. However, in practice, religion is often embedded in daily routines, undermining a child's autonomy. Empirical research remains scarce, and gaps persist between CRC principles and institutional practices, highlighting the need to examine how religious freedom is interpreted and implemented in care settings.

Methods: A hermeneutic approach was used to explore how religious freedom is practiced and experienced in residential childcare, focusing on how staff and youth interpret and respond to religious practices. Participants include 12 current or former staff members who had worked in residential care institutions for at least three years, and 4 care leavers who had at least two years of placement experience and left within the past five years. Participants were identified through professional networks and referrals, after which staff shared study information with eligible colleagues and care leavers, who then contacted the researcher voluntarily if interested.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and five months of field observations in a residential institution. Interviews explored participants’ interpretations of religious freedom and their experiences and perspectives on institutional religious practices, with youth asked about their views and expectations regarding such provisions. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through an iterative coding process using thematic analysis within a hermeneutic framework.

Findings: Findings reveal a fundamental ethical tension between “freedom from” coercion and “freedom to” practice religion within faith-based residential child care. While policy frameworks advocate for religious neutrality, practical challenges—such as limited placement resources and collective management—often render religious participation a "default" rather than a choice.

The study categorizes staff into three archetypes: Institutional Trusters, Flexible Practitioners, and Faith Guardians, suggesting that the realization of religious freedom depends more on a caregiver’s ethical sensitivity than formal evaluations.

Most care leavers reported that their religious identity was shaped primarily through relational bonds with caregivers rather than doctrinal conviction. However, their "right to opt-out" is frequently conditional, requiring negotiation or behavioral compliance. The research concludes by advocating for a shift toward "opt-in" mechanisms and informed consent, ensuring that religious care respects children's autonomy and involves their biological families in the decision-making process.

Conclusion and Implications: This study identifies a gap between the formal discourse of religious freedom and its practical implementation in residential care, suggesting that institutional practices often fall short of fully respecting children’s autonomy.

The study recommends: (1) establishing informed consent and opt-in mechanisms for religious activities; (2) prohibiting the linkage between religious participation and rewards or sanctions; (3) incorporating religious freedom into institutional evaluation with clear policies and documentation requirements; (4) strengthening training on religious diversity to enhance workers’ ethical sensitivity and reflexivity; and (5) recognizing the role of biological families and fostering an environment that respects diversity and supports children's autonomy.