COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD HOLDS DAY OF GENERAL DISCUSSION ON CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTAL CARE

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today held a Day of General Discussion on children without parental care. Participants from the Permanent Missions in Geneva, non-governmental organizations and the international organizations were present. Among the Experts addressing the issue were Committee Expert Rosa Maria Ortiz, who provided the key-note speech, Emanuel Sherwin of the International Foster Care Organization, Annachiara Cerri and Bragi Gudbrandsson of the Council of Europe, and Alexandra Yuster of UNICEF.

Jacob Egbert Doek, the Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, introducing the discussion, said the Convention underscored the importance of parental care for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. Children without parental care were very vulnerable human beings because their rights could easily be abused, including by trafficking and exploitation.

Rosa Maria Ortiz, Committee Expert, said it was not possible to consider children without examining their fundamental context, including the family. There were an increasing number of children living in the absence of parental care, and the situation for children had worsened in many countries. When facing the situation of children without parental care, there was a new paradigm, and a need for a change in the attitude of professionals, whose role today was not just to provide advice and to diagnose errors, but to work hand in hand with the family to understand their potential, dynamics, and capacities to solve problems. The State should also strengthen these capacities within families and the communities involved.

Emanuel Sherwin of the International Foster Care Organization said States parties failed children by the inappropriate application of outdated laws; the media stereotyped them daily; society failed them every day because of their minority status; and this attitude ensured a lack of care for society’s most vulnerable children. Children without parental care required international standards, as they should never have to live in institutional care, and these standards should be upheld by the only international organization with bite, the United Nations. Children in care were the consumers of the care product, and only through meaningful dialogue with them, their caregivers, natural parents and families could the best standards be developed and implemented throughout the world.

Annachiara Cerri of the Children, Families and the Elderly Section of the Council of Europe said success could only be achieved by working together with other institutions and civil society. In the last two decades, the Council’s human rights mechanisms had been increasingly used to address the rights of the child, and this commitment had recently been renewed at the highest level. The status of children as human rights subjects who required at least as much protection as adults had been reaffirmed. Children were not mini-human beings with mini-human rights. There was a need to close down large institutions, and prevent children with disabilities from being placed in institutions, and this would only be possible with the support and financial backing of the international community.

Bragi Gudbrandsson, a Council of Europe Expert and the General Director of the Government Agency for Child Protection in Iceland, said the initiative for United Nations guidelines for the protection of children without parental care was applauded, but he wondered if this was sufficient, and if there was not the need for a stronger, more efficient tool in the work. Institutionalisation contributed to stigmatisation and emotional deprivation, and had long-lasting negative effects on development - and yet there were millions of children living in institutions, and the figure was rising rapidly. There should be an effective international mechanism for the assessment of the quality of life of children in institutional care.

Anna Yuster of UNICEF said experience had long shown that a safe and supportive family provided children with the best start in life for their healthy growth and development. The reality for many children, however, was that this first line of defence was missing: millions of children around the world lived in formal or informal foster care, in institutions, or were otherwise separated from their parents; many more were at risk of separation. Children who were within the formal care system suffered a risk of poor emotional development, and the risk of abuse was well known. The Committee had recommended that United Nations Guidelines be developed, and UNICEF welcomed and supported this call for standards.

After hearing these statements, the Committee was divided into two Working Groups to discuss the role of States in preventing and regulating separation, and meeting the challenges of out-of-home care provision.

One of the principles that emerged from the discussions in the Working Groups was the individualisation of solutions for children without parental care, but there were a few obstacles standing in the way of this ideal path. There was a need for a National Family Plan to aid families, and not just from a palliative point of view, but also from a prevention angle. Strategies and criteria to prevent institutionalisation should be established.

There was general agreement to draw up guidelines, basic principles, standards or guiding principles with regards to the provision of care outside the immediate family to children, which was something that would be extremely helpful, beneficial and favourable for Governments, the various services delivering care, social workers, parents, families and children who were the subject of protection..

Mr. Doek, in brief concluding remarks, said that developing guidelines was a wide challenge, and given the current climate of the United Nations human rights field, the emphasis on implementation rather than investing time on fields that had already been tilled would have ultimately more concrete results. An open and consultative process was aimed for during the development of the guidelines, and today’s event had been the first major part of this. A very good start had been made, and the Committee hoped that with the support of UNICEF, States parties, international and national NGOs, it would succeed in developing guidelines that were helpful and practical for people on the ground.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Monday, 19 September 2005 at 10 a.m. when the Committee will take up the second periodic report of China (including the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau) as well as the initial report of China on the Convention’s Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (including the Special Administrative Region of Macau).

Statements

JACOB EGBERT DOEK, Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, introducing the discussion, said the Convention underscored the importance of parental care for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. Children without parental care were very vulnerable human beings because their rights could easily be abused, including by trafficking and exploitation. Four experts would introduce the day’s discussion, and it would become clear that children without parental care was a wide-ranging problem.

ROSA MARIA ORTIZ, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, acting as keynote speaker, said the Convention set forth the importance of the family in the life of every child. It was not possible to consider children without examining their fundamental context, including the family. The family should receive protection and assistance as necessary, the Convention stipulated, and it also stressed the responsibility of States parties to focus on other types of adequate care. Thanks to the existence of a number of international instruments that provided better direction to the Committee in this context, the Committee had realised that State policies often did not have precise guidelines for guaranteeing the rights of the child to live in a stable family, even when living without parental care.

There were an increasing number of children living in the absence of parental care, Ms. Ortiz says, and this was due to a wide variety of factors, including violence, HIV/AIDS, natural disaster, disability and family and social disintegration. The Committee had decided to hold a debate in order to draft guidelines and directives concerning children without parental care. The situation for children had worsened in many countries - legislation had been adopted to ensure that the lack of economic resources could not be a sufficient reason to prevent a child from being reared by his or her own parents. These achievements could not be sustainable however if there was no integral protection system for children. There was a lot of frustration when national plans and plans on specific issues were not backed up by national plans, policies and budgets as well as training to make them viable.

When facing the situation of children without parental care, there was a new paradigm, and a need for a change in the attitude of professionals, whose role today was not just to provide advice and to diagnose errors, but to work hand in hand with the family to understand their potential, dynamics, and capacities to solve problems. The State should also strengthen these capacities within families and the communities by policies providing social, psychological and economic backing. This protection would allow a more active growth and cohesion between all groups working for the rights of the child. It was important to work in proper cohesion at all levels, including administrative.

Among the recommendations made to States with regard to the protection of children without parental care were: to avoid family break up; to develop clear and practical policies recognising the hierarchy of existing mechanisms for children; measures should be examined on a case-by-case basis and a life plan developed for a permanent solution for the child; secure professional help; obtain the agreement of the child; regulate and monitor all different forms of foster care; minimise and eliminate institutional care; invest in an integral protection system with ongoing training of professional and support staff; and to act to see that international cooperation and credit and national and local funding be available to make these changes possible.

Emmanuel Sherwin, Chairperson of the Youth Committee of the International Foster Care Organization, said there were millions of young people in the care system, and they would like to change the youth and care system. Despite article 12 of the Convention, their voices were rarely heard. States parties failed children by the inappropriate application of outdated laws; the media stereotyped them daily; society failed them every day because of their minority status; and this attitude ensured a lack of care for society’s most vulnerable children. There was too much reliance on non-governmental organizations to protect children without parental care with help.

Children without parental care required international standards, as they should never have to live in institutional care, and these standards should be upheld by the only international organization with bite, the United Nations. Residential care was better than institutional care. Children from ethnic minorities and with disabilities were over-represented in institutions, and States parties needed to provide more aid to such families in order to avoid institutionalisation. Children in care should have their voices heard in the decision-making process. The effective use of a care plan should identify the needs of the child and include permanency-planning, including options like adoption, and offer support for the biological parents who were in trouble. The current over-protection in residential care led to a deprivation of freedom for the children involved.

For children in care, leaving care was like being pushed off a cliff. After care needed to provide a link to resources, training and support for young people beginning adult independent living. Poor training of professionals in this regard led to high levels of failure. Only with the very best standards could the most vulnerable children in society be properly protected by States parties. Children in care were the consumers of the care product, and only through meaningful dialogue with them, their caregivers, natural parents and families could the best standards be developed and implemented throughout the world. Internationally recognised standards should be developed for children without parental care.

ANNACHIARA CERRI, Head of the Section “Children, Families and the Elderly” of the Social Policy Department, of the Council of Europe, said success could only be achieved by working together with other institutions and civil society. The Council of Europe was the oldest political inter-governmental organization in Europe, covering almost all the European continent, including 155 million children. It had been set up to defend human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. The Committee of Ministers of the Council had recently adopted some instruments relevant to this topic, including on the rights of children living in residential institutions, and on safeguarding adults and children living with disabilities from any form of abuse. The second body, the Parliamentary Assembly, had also influenced the work of the Committee of Ministers on the rights of the child.

In the last two decades, the Council’s human rights mechanisms had been increasingly used to address the rights of the child, and this commitment had recently been renewed at the highest level. The status of children as human rights subjects who required at least as much protection as adults had been reaffirmed. Children were not mini-human beings with mini-human rights. The situation of separated or unaccompanied children was an issue to which the Council attached considerable importance. Dialogue and cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination were the proper means by which this issue should be addressed. It was hoped there would be high-level agreement on future cooperation.

It was needless to say that children without parental care were those for whom the violation of human rights and the impact of growing up without a primary carer were causing irreversible developmental delays, and the development of alternatives to institutional care was a priority. There was a need to close down large institutions, and prevent children with disabilities from being placed in institutions, and this would only be possible with the support and financial backing of the international community.

BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, General Director of the Government Agency for Child Protection in Iceland and Expert at the Council of Europe, said the participation at the meeting and the quality of the background papers was an indication of the enormous importance of this issue for those working with children. Earlier this year, the Committee of Ministers had submitted a recommendation on the rights of children living in institutions, and this was an important step in the development of children’s rights internationally, as it was the first to specifically address the situation of these children. The work of the Council of Europe had focused, over the past year, on prevention and alternative care, and, complementary to the recommendation, a report had been submitted on this.

The recommendation was an attempt to operationalise the Convention in the institutional framework, to translate its base provisions into the institutional setting. The emphasis was on preventive measures, support to families, that the placement of a child elsewhere than the family should always be an exception, and to have as a reason the best interests of the child. The recommendation also focused on the specific rights of children living in institutions, such as the right to have an identity, for siblings to stay together, privacy, and to maintain regular contact with the family. These were more guidelines or standards of quality, and these included issues of monitoring of regulations and national minimum standards of care, on the basis of which an efficient system of monitoring should be ensured.

It went without saying that a recommendation remained a recommendation, and as such had limitations, but this one had great potentiality for improving the lot of children in residential institutions, and this had already been proved in the Baltic States, where it had been applied to a particular situation. The initiative for United Nations guidelines for the protection of children without parental care was applauded, but the speaker wondered if this was sufficient, and if there was not the need for a stronger, more efficient tool in the work. Institutionalisation contributed to stigmatisation and emotional deprivation, and had long-lasting negative effects on development - and yet there were millions of children living in institutions, and the figure was rising rapidly. There should be an effective international mechanism for the assessment of the quality of life of children in institutional care.

ALEXANDRA YUSTER, Senior Advisor - Child Protection, UNICEF, said the Convention stated that children had the right to know and be cared for by their parents, and that all had the right to grow up in a family environment. Experience had long shown that a safe and supportive family provided children with the best start in life for their healthy growth and development. Families were also the first line of defence in protecting children from abuse, violence and exploitation. Keeping children in safety with their families was more than a specific objective of the Convention, it was an underlying principle of just about every article. The reality for many children, however, was that this first line of defence was missing: millions of children around the world lived in formal or informal foster care, in institutions, or were otherwise separated from their parents; many more were at risk of separation.

Children without any form of care were among those most at risk for abuse and exploitation. Some 1.2 million children were trafficked every year, and 2 million children worked in the commercial sex industry. The risk of joining this group was also higher for children who grew up in residential care or poorly monitored and supported foster care. Children who were within the formal care system suffered a risk of poor emotional development, and the risk of abuse was well known. For children not in any form of care a range of protective measures was needed, and these needed to include support for reunification with family or appropriate alternative care options, but even then they would face the risks of those who were already in care, unless the systems were improved for all.

A number of key issues needed to be addressed, including: unwarranted recourse to out-of-home care; the over-burdened foster-care systems; the lack of protection in informal care; the over-use of residential care; the costs of and conditions in residential care; poorly managed care systems; children and parents with no voices; lack of support to child-headed households; and care for separated children abroad. These many and complex risks needed to be addressed systematically, and in every country. The Committee had recommended that United Nations Guidelines be developed, and UNICEF welcomed and supported this call for standards, as well as the recommendation of many interested groups that these be adopted at the level of the General Assembly.

Conclusions of the Working Groups

JACOB EGBERT DOEK, Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, invited the Rapporteurs of the two Working Groups to present the results of the Groups in terms of a brief overview of the various topics and the suggested recommendations for the Committee. In terms of follow-up, Mr. Doek said, the Committee would adopt a set of recommendations which could be considered as a first kind of compilation of important issues. The suggested recommendations of the Working Groups were very important in this respect. The ultimate goal of the Day of General Discussion was to develop guidelines for the protection and care of children without parental care, and it was hoped the General Assembly would adopt and approve the guidelines in the autumn of 2006.

JEAN ZERMATTEN, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Working Group on meeting the challenges of out-of-home care provision, said it was very difficult to make such a report as the dialogue had been very rich, with many participants. Identifying best practices was very difficult to do. In the Working Group, there had been general agreement to draw up guidelines, basic principles, standards or guiding principles, and this type of instrument was perceived to be something that was extremely helpful, beneficial and favourable for Governments, the various services delivering care, social workers, parents, families and children who were the subject of protection.

Guidelines or general principles were something that were very helpful and good, but required to be implemented, and that was what the exercise was about. The first question was who had the responsibility of legislating these, and the answer was the United Nations, under the guidance of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; the second was who was to apply them, and the answer was everybody, as they were aimed at the previously mentioned authorities. An institution in the traditional sense was something that had been pointed out in an accusatory fashion throughout the meeting, and there was a need for a new paradigm today, as it was an innovation that had lived out its useful life and required change. Even the name would have to change - proposals included “residential care”. However, there was a risk, and it was that a hierarchy might be imposed that was too rigid and inflexible in care, and would cause stigmatisation of children brought up in residential care.

There would always be a number of children who required intensive care. There was a need for new options - if the “institution” was no longer current, then the family could take its place, and there had been agreement to designate the family as the best environment to ensure the harmonious development of children, but between the ideal family and the failing institution, options had to be determined. It could be seen that the institutional memory was needed, and was called on to find new solutions that had already been envisaged but moved aside. One of the principles that had emerged from the discussions was the individualisation of solutions, but there were a few obstacles standing in the way of this ideal path towards individualisation. Two main needs had been pinpointed: first training of professional staff involved; and monitoring and evaluation of the protection.

GHALIA MOHD BIN HAMAD AL-THANI, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Working Group on the role of States in preventing and regulating separation, said the two statements that had been repeated during the discussion were that the interests of the child should be taken into account primarily, and the right to a family was paramount. Legal principles should be based on parental responsibilities. States should assist families to this effect. Public and private sectors should be involved in child protection; and policies should avoid institutionalisation. The opinions of children and adolescents should be taken into account at all stages. Institutionalisation should never take place due to a lack of State policies. The family was the best home, but if the family could not provide, the State should step in. There was a need for a National Family Plan to aid families, and not just from a palliative point of view, but also from a prevention angle. Strategies and criteria to prevent institutionalisation should be established.

Children from minorities, with disabilities, affected or infected with HIV/AIDS, indigenous children, those associated with drug abuse, refugee children or asylum-seeking children were all in situations where there was a need for guidelines. Community-based care was favoured by children themselves. The importance of the local level and local authorities should not be neglected in providing basic protection for children. The importance of documentation was emphasised for children in alternative care and in all settings. Parenting should be taught in schools, and support systems should take into account community and indigenous values. Early prevention, early identification of children at risk and other services needed to be redefined. These were just a few of the remarks and suggestions made during the meeting of the Working Group.

JACOB EGBERT DOEK, Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in brief concluding remarks, said that prevention itself was an important part of the concern for children without parental care. The decision to remove a child from the parental home was creating a situation that was very different from many others in which a child lost a parent, including abandonment, neglect, and socio-economic problems. Developing guidelines was a wide challenge, and given the current climate of the United Nations human rights field, the emphasis on implementation rather than investing time on fields that had already been tilled would have ultimately more concrete results.

An open and consultative process was aimed for during the development of the guidelines, and today’s event had been the first major part of this. A very good start had been made, and the Committee hoped that with the support of UNICEF, States parties, international and national NGOs, it would succeed in developing guidelines that were helpful and practical for people on the ground. Consultations would be held with States parties including NGOs and other actors in the field.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRC05031E