Experts of the Committee on the Rights of the Child Praise Slovenia for its Barnahus Facilities, Raise Issues Concerning Child Marriages and Child Poverty
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the fifth and sixth combined periodic reports of Slovenia under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with Committee Experts praising the State’s Barnahus protection facilities for children and raising issues concerning child marriages and child poverty.
Bragi Gudbrandsson, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for the dialogue, congratulated the State on its plan to open two new Barnahus facilities. Slovenia had been at the forefront of developing high-quality facilities in Europe, ensuring that children could give testimony under the safeguards of due process at the pre-trial stage to prevent revictimisation.
Mr. Gudbrandsson expressed concern that the Family Code allowed marriage from age 15 with the permission of the courts, and that child marriages among the Roma continued to take place. What measures were in place to address this issue?
Philip D. Jaffe, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, said some 19 per cent of Slovenian children reportedly lived in inadequate housing. What prevention and rehousing measures were available for families with children? Could data be provided on child poverty, food insecurity, housing costs, homelessness and evictions, particularly for vulnerable groups? Did child allowances and other benefits meet the real cost of raising a child?
Introducing the report, Anita Pipan, Acting Director-General for International Law and Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia, and head of the delegation, said Slovenia had a strong commitment to respecting, protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of the child. The driving force behind all the State’s efforts was to ensure that the rights of the child were effectively realised for all children and continuously advanced through constructive dialogue.
On Barnahus facilities, the delegation said they had commenced operation in 2022. The Barnahus housed children who were victims or witnesses of criminal offences. Placement in these houses was not mandatory, but they had increased recently, with 54 placements in 2023 and 86 in 2025. In these houses, psychosocial support could be provided for children for as long as they needed it.
Marriage in Slovenia for persons younger than 18 was prohibited, the delegation said, expect when courts granted exceptions allowing for marriage from age 15 for justified reasons. The State party had established an ad-hoc working group addressing the issue of early and forced marriages in the Roma community. It had published a handbook on the identification of such marriages and assistance for victims.
On measures to address child poverty, the delegation said Slovenia provided a child support allowance to around 80 per cent of families with children and could also provide rental subsidies and exceptional financial support for families at risk of social exclusion. It had extended the scope of one-parent households that could obtain an additional child support payment and had increased the minimum wage in recent years.
In closing remarks, Mr. Jaffe said Slovenia was a small country but had made remarkable democratic and economic progress since independence. The Committee encouraged the State party to make further progress on children’s rights and place children firmly at the centre of policy, budgeting and public services, not only as future citizens but as rights holders.
Ms. Pipan, in her concluding remarks, thanked the Committee Experts for the constructive dialogue, which provided an opportunity to present recent developments regarding how the Slovenian Government worked to promote the rights of the child. The Committee’s recommendations would serve as guidelines for the State’s further efforts to strengthen the protection of children’s rights.
Sophie Kiladze, Committee Chair, in closing remarks, said the delegation had shown that Slovenia was doing a lot for children. Despite the progress made, however, the protection of children’s rights was a never-ending process. The Committee’s concluding observations would address the challenges the State faced and the needs of its children, particularly the most vulnerable, she said.
The delegation of Slovenia consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Demography, Family and Social Affairs; Office of the Government for the Support and Integration of Migrants; Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Education, Science, and Youth; Ministry of Culture; General Police Administration; Ministry of Health; Ministry of the Interior and Public Administration; Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning; Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs; Office of the Government for National Minorities; National Institute of Public Health; and the Permanent Mission of Slovenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Slovenia at the end of its one hundred and first session on 28 September. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public this afternoon at 3 p.m. to consider the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Kazakhstan (CRC/C/KAZ/5-6).
Report
The Committee has before it the fifth and sixth combined periodic reports of Slovenia (CRC/C/SVN/5-6).
Presentation of Report
ANITA PIPAN, Acting Director-General for International Law and Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia, and head of the delegation, said approximately 380,000 children were growing up in Slovenia in 2025. In Slovenia, the rights of the child were protected by the Constitution, which provided for special protection and care for children.
In 2018, Slovenia ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on a communications procedure and adopted a Government decree establishing the procedure for preparing a response in the event of communications. The 2017 Family Code defined the best interests of the child as a principle to be observed by all and transferred decision-making powers regarding the protection of children’s best interests in foster care, adoption and guardianship from social work centres to courts. At the same time, the new non-contentious civil procedure act entered into force, establishing an obligation to obtain the child's opinion in proceedings before the court. Last year, the provision of foster care act was amended to regulate the amount and structure of foster care payments and introduce financial incentives and an annual holiday allowance. A 2016 amendment to the domestic violence prevention act prohibited corporal punishment of children, and a study was currently being conducted on reports of domestic violence made to social work centres by the education and healthcare sectors.
In recent years, progress had been made in child-friendly justice. In 2022, the first Barnahus children's house in Slovenia began operating, providing children who were victims of sexual violence with support in one location, in a child-friendly and safe environment. In the coming years, Slovenia planned to open two additional Barnahus units, one in the eastern and one in the western part of the country. The number of children receiving support under the Barnahus model was increasing. The 2026 juvenile justice act ensured individualised and child-friendly treatment in proceedings concerning a suspected criminal offence and prioritised diversionary measures over criminal prosecution. In June 2026, the State completed two projects aimed at ensuring better protection of the rights of the child in judicial proceedings, one of which had led to the development of a strategy and action plan for ensuring the best interests of the child in civil proceedings.
The recent comprehensive reform of the education system strengthened support for children with disabilities, migrant children, Roma children and other vulnerable groups, and aimed to create a safe, supportive and inclusive learning environment in which children's needs were recognised and appropriate support was provided. Language, citizenship, culture and the arts, sustainable development, health and well-being were integrated as key objectives into all school subjects, learning standards, teaching recommendations and school life. Attention was paid to mental health, social and emotional learning, education for democratic citizenship and human rights education.
To protect children online, Slovenia had established an inter-ministerial working group tasked with preparing legislative solutions that would ensure a safe digital environment through the effective prosecution of offenders and support for children who faced online violence or inappropriate use of digital technologies.
In Slovenia, the compulsory health insurance system provided all children with free access to preventive healthcare and medical treatment, as well as medicines. During the reporting period, the State adopted the national mental health programme 2018–2028, and expanded and established numerous mental health services, including 22 teams within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Centres.
Measures to improve the situation of Roma children were set out in the national programme of measures for Roma for the period 2021–2030. This year, the Government Office for National Minorities carried out several activities to raise awareness among relevant institutions and representatives of the Roma community about discrimination, early and forced marriages, the empowerment of Roma people, strengthening identity and preserving heritage in the Roma community. In 2021, a handbook on identifying early and forced marriages in the Roma community and on how to act in such cases was published. Several multidisciplinary professional training sessions were also conducted for staff at school counselling services, social work centres, Roma coordinators and others, and a follow-up study on early and forced marriages was currently underway.
An important step forward in improving the care and integration of unaccompanied children was the adoption of the decree on providing appropriate accommodation, care and treatment of unaccompanied minors in October 2023. The Government Office for the Support and Integration of Migrants provided an accommodation facility where unaccompanied minors, regardless of their status, received 24-hour professional care, food, clothing, footwear and hygiene products. An individual care and personal development plan was prepared for each child.
These measures demonstrated Slovenia's strong commitment to respecting, protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of the child. The driving force behind all the State’s efforts was to ensure that the rights of the child were effectively realised for all children and continuously advanced through constructive dialogue and cooperation with all relevant stakeholders in society.
Questions by Committee Experts
PHILIP D. JAFFE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator for Slovenia, said the Committee was interested in understanding the realities of all children in Slovenia, their achievements and opportunities and the difficulties they faced. It aimed to recognise progress, clarify the remaining gaps and identify practical steps that would make a real difference in children’s lives.
CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that the State party did not yet have a comprehensive law on children’s rights, and the Convention was applied through various sectoral laws. How did the Government systematically ensure that all new legislation, policies and budget decisions complied with the Convention? Would Slovenia introduce a mandatory child rights impact assessment for legislation, policies and budgets affecting children?
The programme for children 2020–2025 had ended, and the programme for children 2026–2031 was still being developed. What were its targets, implementation deadlines and monitoring arrangements? The Council for Children and Families reportedly only met occasionally and served in an advisory capacity. Which institution had the authority and resources to require coordinated action on child rights across all relevant ministries and municipalities? Had State expenditure improved children's rights outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged children?
Slovenia generally did not collect data by ethnic or national origin or socioeconomic status. How did it measure inequalities affecting Roma children, migrant children, and children in poverty? Would the State establish a coherent system of disaggregated equality data and child-rights indicators?
The Committee appreciated the work of the Human Rights Ombudsman and child advocates. Had the Human Rights Ombudsman act been amended to guarantee a permanent children's rights function with sufficient resources? What confidential, independent and child-friendly complaint and remedy mechanisms were available in schools, foster and residential care, and other settings? How did the State ensure children knew about and could use these mechanisms?
What binding obligations required companies domiciled or operating in Slovenia to conduct child-specific human rights and environmental due diligence, and provide an effective remedy where children were harmed? Slovenia devoted 0.22 per cent of gross national income to official development assistance in 2025. What was the timetable for increasing that share in line with Slovenia's international commitments? How were children's rights systematically incorporated in development cooperation?
MARIANA IANACHEVICI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, welcomed the range of measures described by the State party to improve the situation of Roma children. However, she said significant disparities appeared to persist in health, education and living conditions, while sufficiently disaggregated data was still not systematically available. How did the State party measure whether these disparities were narrowing, and what progress had been achieved for Roma children in health, education and access to adequate living conditions?
The Committee welcomed the strong recognition of the best interests principle in the Family Code and other legislation. What criteria and procedural safeguards did decision-makers use to assess the best interests of an individual child in practice? Were authorities required to explain in their decisions how the child’s best interests were assessed and the weight given to the child’s views?
Slovenia had developed valuable mechanisms such as child advocacy, the Children’s Parliament and the “U-Report”. However, existing mechanisms for hearing children were reportedly not used consistently in all proceedings affecting them, and public participation mechanisms did not always result in demonstrable influence on decision-making. How did the State ensure that children’s views were given due weight both in individual decisions affecting them and in public policymaking?
The Committee welcomed Slovenia’s accession to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Did the nationality framework guarantee that every child born in Slovenia who would otherwise be stateless could acquire Slovenian nationality? Did Slovenia intend to establish a dedicated statelessness determination procedure with child-sensitive procedural safeguards?
The Committee noted progress in the recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, but the legal gender recognition procedure for minors appeared to continue to require parental involvement and medical documentation. How did the State ensure that the child’s own views and evolving capacities were given due weight in legal gender recognition procedures? Did the State intend to remove requirements for psychiatric diagnosis?
The Committee noted that Slovenia was preparing proposals for a comprehensive approach to protecting children in the digital environment and was considering age-assurance mechanisms and possible age-based restrictions on access to certain digital services. How would the State ensure that any measures adopted effectively protected children from harm while avoiding disproportionate restrictions on their rights to privacy, freedom of expression, association and access to information?
The Committee noted that the 2025 amendments to the basic school act allowed, where there was a suspicion, searches of pupils’ bags, lockers and other personal belongings, as well as the temporary confiscation of prohibited electronic devices. What safeguards ensured that such searches were necessary, proportionate and consistently applied? Did the State collect data on the number and grounds of searches, their outcomes and any complaints submitted by children?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, commended Slovenia’s national programme on preventing domestic violence and violence against women for 2024 to 2029 and it related action plan. How were these monitored and what outcomes had they achieved? The Committee welcomed the State’s legal ban on corporal punishment. However, violence against children remained a real problem and families continued to use corporal punishment as a discipline measure. What awareness raising was conducted on responding to violence against children?
The Expert congratulated the State on its plan to open two new Barnahus facilities. Slovenia had been at the forefront of developing high-quality facilities in Europe, in particular by ensuring that children could give testimony under the safeguards of due process at the pre-trial stage to prevent revictimisation. Had the State recently evaluated legislation on Barnahus with the aim to strengthen its functions? Were the recovery services offered by Barnahus sufficient?
What steps had been taken to strengthen collaboration between social work centres and the police? Interviews of children by the police and judicial officials were not always conducted in child-friendly rooms and there was often a lack of specialised staff, especially regarding younger children. How was the State addressing these inadequacies?
Slovenia did not have a national database on child abuse. Was the State considering this? There was credible evidence of multiple cases of child sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy in Slovenia. Did the State plan to conduct investigations into these cases?
The Committee was concerned that the Family Code allowed marriage from age 15 with the permission of the courts, and that child marriages among the Roma continued to take place. What measures were in place to address this issue? Had a protection scheme for victims of child and forced marriages been established?
Had the State party conducted a review of legislation to ensure that it was in line with the Optional Protocol on the sale of children. Had the State conducted surveys of at-risk children? Were recovery services provided to child victims?
There were calls for the child maintenance system to be upgraded, expedited and modernised. How was the State responding to these calls?
The Committee welcomed the strategy for deinstitutionalisation in social care for 2024 to 2034. What progress had it made? It also welcomed the 2025 amendment to the act on foster care. Could the delegation provide information on measures to increase the number of foster carers and build their capacities? The number of children and adolescents placed in specialised care due to emotional or behavioural problems had increased, apparently due to a lack of specialised interventions and support for families and children. How was this issue being addressed? Were regular reviews of placements conducted? What independent living pathways were available in Slovenia?
There was no standard national curriculum for training of prospective adoptive parents. Were there plans to develop this? Slovenia did not provide adopted children or adults with the right to obtain their biological parents’ identities. Was the State considering revising its legislation in this regard?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Slovenia did not have a single comprehensive law on the rights of the child, but responsible ministries monitored the realisation of children’s rights. The State party was currently discussing the possibility of developing a single law. The implementation of the programme on the rights of the child for 2020 to 2025 was evaluated on an annual basis. The new programme for 2026 to 2031 had been delayed due to a recent election but was expected to be adopted at the end of the year. The priority areas of the new programme for children would include fostering a safe and inclusive environment for children, a life without violence, child-friendly justice and environmental protection. The State party intended to strengthen the Professional Council for Children and Family and the legal basis for various programmes regarding children’s rights. The body coordinating the implementation of children’s rights policies in Slovenia was the Ministry of Demography, Family and Social Affairs.
The situation of Roma children was monitored through relevant ministries and local communities. The national programme of measures for the Roma included monitoring measures, with annual reports on implementation. An interim evaluation of the success of the programme over a four-year period would soon be carried out.
Since the last dialogue, several changes had taken place regarding the Human Rights Ombudsman. Following legal amendments in 2017, the Ombudsman was granted “A” status under the Paris Principles. The institution could turn to the Parliament directly when there were issues with its budget. There was currently no dedicated Ombudsperson for children, but the Human Rights Ombudsman had a direct reporting line for children, which it promoted in schools.
The promotion and protection of children’s rights was a priority in Slovenian foreign policy, and the State paid attention to the protection of children against violence and to support for children affected by armed conflict. Slovenia conducted projects in various countries focused on the rehabilitation of the psychosocial health of children in regions where armed conflict took place. In the past three years, Slovenia had provided financial contributions to international cooperation and humanitarian aid in support of children across the world. In one project, it supported rights education for more than half a million children in 27 countries.
The State party had introduced joint training for social work centres and courts on the best interests of the child. It had recently introduced a project on the modernisation of the social protection system for children and families, which would be implemented until 2029. The State was also strengthening the framework for the participation of children in social protection and monitoring of State policies. It was holding regional consultations with children this year that addressed all areas of their lives.
The Family Code, which entered into force in 2019, ensured the protection of the best interests of the child in all legal proceedings. The non-contentious civil proceeding act required that the views of children needed to be obtained in social work centres through interviews with child advocates. One project on respecting the best interests of the child was completed in June this year. A web portal on the rights of the child was being developed, as was a project involving judges and legal experts on considering the best interests of the child when assessing the risk of abuse.
Slovenia intended to amend article nine of the citizenship act so that citizenship could be granted to the children of parents who had no citizenship.
The State party had set up a working group on the protection of children in the digital environment. This working group had developed applications for young people to exchange views and held discussions on the report prepared by the European Union Commission on the safety of children online. Schools adopted a balanced approach to smart devices, which could only be used when planned by a teacher or for health reasons. Schools promoted safe and responsible use of technology.
There needed to be clear legal basis for searches of bags or other personal belongings at schools. These could only be carried out when school staff suspected that children held arms, e-cigarettes or similar objects. The search process needed to respect the dignity of the child and reports on searches needed to be prepared.
The State had increased the budget for implementing the national programme on the prevention of domestic violence and violence against women. The national programme included measures for analysing its implementation and would work to strengthen data collection in this regard. In 2024 and 2025, the State set up programmes on preventing violence against persons with disabilities and on rehabilitating children and adolescents who perpetrated violence.
Corporal punishment had been prohibited since 2016. Next year, the State planned to conduct a national survey on the practice. Over the past 10 years, the State had invested intensely in positive parenthood programmes, which improved relationships between parents and children. There were also programmes supporting parents with preschool children, children with autism, and children with intellectual difficulties.
The police cooperated with social work centres and educational institutions on identifying criminal offences and on awareness raising on identifying the signs of violence and reporting violent incidents. As a result, reports of violence and neglect had increased in the last few years. Police officers had been trained on identifying violence against children and trafficking in persons, and worked with social work centres and non-governmental organizations to provide support to victims.
The State party had set up Barnahus houses, which commenced operation in 2022. They housed children who were victims or witnesses of criminal offences. Placement in these houses was not mandatory, but placements had increased recently, with 54 placements in 2023 and 86 in 2025. In these houses, psychosocial support could be provided for children for as long as they needed it. In 2027, a new law on juvenile justice would come into effect and a centre for juvenile offenders would be set up so that interdisciplinary rehabilitation methods could be implemented in complex cases.
Marriage in Slovenia for persons younger than 18 was prohibited, unless when courts granted exceptions allowing for marriage from age 15 for justified reasons. Parents did not have a say in such decisions. In 2024, no such marriages were granted, while in 2025, one marriage of a boy aged 17 was permitted by a court that found that he understood the consequences of the marriage. When amending the Family Code, the State party would remove this provision. It did not have any connection with forced marriages of Roma children.
The State party had established an ad-hoc working group including police, social workers, non-governmental organizations and others on addressing the issue of early and forced marriages in the Roma community. It had published a handbook on the identification of such marriages and assistance for victims. In 2025, a study was carried out in 26 schools where Roma children attended. The study found that around 13 girls needed to leave school or had missed classes over a long period due to forced marriage or pregnancy.
A small proportion of children with disabilities lived in residential centres. In 2025, the Centre for Rehabilitation helped 260 users, but around 57 per cent of these children lived at home with their parents. The State party was pursuing its project on deinstitutionalisation to promote the best interests of the child.
Under the Constitution, parents were required to support their children until the age of majority. Maintenance was determined by courts depending on the needs of the beneficiary and the ability of the person obliged to pay maintenance. In 2016, the State legally defined failure to pay maintenance as a form of economic violence against children. In 2022, it amended legislation to allow divorced parents to file court complaints to receive compensation from the State for unpaid child maintenance; in 2026, such compensation was paid in 4,073 cases.
Questions by Committee Experts
PHILIP D. JAFFE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, said that there were still forced and early marriages in the Roma community. Did the State party have data on the number of these marriages and the rate of early pregnancies among Roma girls? The Expert noted Slovenia’s strong record on maternal and child health, broad insurance coverage, preventive health services and free contraception for minors. Could all children obtain timely and appropriate support? Could the State party provide data on national and regional waiting times for health services? What proportion of urgent referrals were seen within appropriate timeframes?
The Committee welcomed the psychotherapeutic activity act adopted in November 2025. Where did implementation stand? When would licensing and child-specific professional standards be operational? How many children currently needed mental health support and what were the average waiting times for assessment and treatment? How were schools, primary care, mental health centres and social services coordinated so that children did not deteriorate while waiting for support? There seemed to have been a post-pandemic rise in eating-disorder diagnoses. What capacity existed for early detection, family-based intervention, specialist treatment and follow-up? Could data be provided on childhood obesity? How was this data used for early, non-stigmatising support and coordinated action on healthy food, physical activity and treatment?
Could the delegation provide current data on exclusive breastfeeding up to six months and continued breastfeeding thereafter? How were vulnerable mothers supported after maternity discharge? What safeguards regulated the marketing of breast-milk substitutes, including online and in health care settings?
Slovenia’s low adolescent pregnancy rate and free contraception were very encouraging. How did health, education, social protection and justice services identify and support girls under 18 whose pregnancies were linked to sexual violence, coercion, exploitation or child marriage? How was confidential care combined with protection, best-interests assessments and psychosocial support?
What were the current trends in alcohol, nicotine and other substance use among children and adolescents, including regional differences? How did Slovenia ensure that children who used substances received health care, counselling and family support rather than stigma, criminalisation or exclusion from school? Were community-based and residential treatment programmes available?
What was the legal status of the “TOM Telefon” child helpline, and how was it funded and integrated into the national mental health and child protection response? The telephone line reportedly only operated from noon to 8 p.m. What measures existed to extend availability or provide a clear out-of-hours alternative? What safe pathways were available for children at risk of suicide or immediate danger who used the hotline? How were children protected from retaliation and supported to navigate adult emergency systems?
Reports suggested that medically unnecessary “sex-normalizing” procedures on intersex children could still occur. Would Slovenia adopt legislation prohibiting non-urgent and irreversible medical or surgical interventions until a child could give free and informed consent? Was an independent multidisciplinary review required before an irreversible intervention was undertaken on a child unable to consent? Were parents and children offered independent counselling and effective remedies?
Slovenia had made progress in reducing child poverty and had a range of family benefits. Could data be provided on child poverty, food insecurity, housing costs, homelessness and evictions, particularly for vulnerable groups? Did child allowances and other benefits meet the real cost of raising a child? How often were benefits reviewed and adjusted? What budget was available for implementing the child guarantee action plan, which authorities were implementing it, and how had it impacted access to food, health care, preschool, social support and adequate housing? Some 19 per cent of children reportedly lived in inadequate housing. What prevention measures and rehousing arrangements were available for families with children? How did Slovenia ensure that children were never separated from parents solely because the family could not afford adequate housing? What measures were in place to ensure that Roma children had access to safe, secure and non-segregated housing, drinking water, sanitation, electricity and waste collection?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that the comprehensive legislation on Barnahus in Slovenia was remarkable. The social assistance act was positively amended in 2025, and the act on disability was also positive. What tangible outcomes had this legislation achieved? Eligibility for support services was often restricted to children with severe disabilities and there were long waiting lists for such services. There was also a lack of financial support and services for female-headed households. How was the State working to overcome these challenges? How was it promoting the participation of children with disabilities in society?
CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, welcomed the adoption of the climate act in July of last year and the Youth Climate Delegate Initiative. The 2026 call for the Youth Climate Delegate was only open to people aged 18 to 29, thus excluding children. The Environmental Ministry did not regularly consult children and information on climate change was reportedly not presented in a child-friendly way. What measures were in place to ensure the meaningful participation of children, including vulnerable children, in the implementation of the climate act, the national climate and energy plan and disaster risk reduction plans? How would the State make child rights impact assessments standard in climate and environmental decision making? Children in Slovenia were reportedly vulnerable to air pollution. What actions had the State taken to reduce children’s exposure to pollution from traffic, domestic heating and industrial pollution hotspots? Did the State monitor air quality at schools and kindergartens?
The State had reported a shortage of approximately 3,600 teachers and was employing teachers who lacked the necessary qualifications to fill the gaps. What was the Government’s timeline for filling shortages with fully qualified staff? How was it ensuring that education quality did not drop due to the emergency hiring mechanisms adopted? How was the State working to reverse declining learning outcomes? Could the State provide information on the educational outcomes of Roma children at all levels? How would it address the gap in learning outcomes between Roma and other children?
This year, a deafblind child reportedly could not be placed in a suitable school because there were no staff members with the necessary training. What was the State’s long-term goal for moving from special education to inclusive education with reasonable accommodation and accessible transport? How did the State guarantee access to secondary and vocational education for adolescents with disabilities?
How did the State measure the impact of Slovenian language classes for migrant children and ensure that such classes did not lead to the prolonged separation of migrant children from their peers? What progress had been made on federal legislation on the integration process for migrants?
Would standardised education on the Convention, human rights, non-discrimination and environmental rights be provided in all schools? What training did teachers receive on these subjects and how were students involved in reform of the curriculum? What data did the State collect on the participation of vulnerable children in sport, leisure, cultural and artistic activities, and how was the State addressing cost barriers for participation in such activities?
MARIANA IANACHEVICI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about legal standards for assessing the best interests of the child. What weight did courts give to children’s opinions? Would the planned amendment to the citizenship act guarantee Slovenian nationality to every child born in Slovenia who would otherwise be stateless? How many children in the State were currently regarded as stateless?
The Committee welcomed the dedicated accommodation arrangements introduced for unaccompanied children. However, there appeared to be a very significant gap between the number of unaccompanied children who expressed an intention to seek international protection and those who ultimately lodged an application. Could the delegation explain the process of identifying unaccompanied children and establishing individual protection and care plans? What measures were being taken to guarantee every unaccompanied child free and independent legal assistance from the first instance of the asylum procedure, and to ensure that medical methods of age assessments were used only as a last resort?
The State party had established trafficking identification and referral mechanisms. However, there was a considerable gap between the scale of reported risks and exploitation and the number of children formally identified as victims. Why was this? What triggered the formal identification and referral procedure?
The Committee welcomed the adoption of the act on the criminal treatment of juveniles, which would be applied from January 2027. How would this act strengthen legal assistance from the earliest stage of proceedings? What practical preparations, including training, staffing, infrastructure and protocols, were being completed to ensure full implementation from January 2027?
The State report stated that military recruitment could take place before the age of 18, although not earlier than the calendar year in which the person turned 18. This appeared to contradict legislation prohibiting recruitment of children under 18; could the State explain this?
Other Committee Experts asked about the percentage of Slovenian correctional facilities that had child-friendly visitation rooms, and whether prison personnel were required to undergo training on handling child visitors; how the State was addressing the shortage of child psychologists in Slovenia; measures for supporting the registration of the births of children in Roma communities; the cost of birth registration; whether parents could access paediatric care for their children without a birth certificate; how the State assessed the impact of the Family Code on children; the number of children in Barnahus who benefited from psychological support; whether there were regional disparities in access to mental health services; how the State identified children with emotional or psychological difficulties and provided them with support; and measures the State party was implementing to address the threats posed by artificial intelligence.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that in multidisciplinary interviews with children in social care centres, the best interests of the child were considered. The State party was currently updating its social protection system to strengthen the weight given to the views of the child. Decisions were based not only on children’s views but also the assessments of experts.
The State party consulted with children on all policies related to them. It cooperated with the Network for Children’s Rights, which included more than 40 non-governmental organizations working in the field of children’s rights, and included children in the meetings of the Council of Children and Families. Consultations had been held with children when drafting the programme on children’s rights for 2026 to 2031, for example.
The Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office included child advocates, who helped children to express their views in legal matters and worked to protect the best interests of the child. The work of advocates was monitored by an expert council that was chaired by the Deputy Human Rights Ombudsman.
The adoption procedure was managed by social work centres, which assessed prospective adoptive parents. Adoptive parents needed to be 18 years older than the child and could not be persons with serious intellectual disabilities. Adoption was possible by same-sex partners. Adopted children had no right to receive information on biological parents; such data could only be shared when written permission was provided by the parent.
The State party had drafted guidelines on foster care and in 2025, legislation on foster care was amended. Foster care payments ranged from 1,100 to 1,650 euros for a 15-day period, and there were also one-off payments for settling in. Foster care was promoted by the State to prevent the separation of children from a family environment. Foster carers were provided with 90 days of holidays and free legal assistance. Training for foster carers was mandatory and addressed issues such as trauma and the digital environment. Children could lodge complaints regarding foster carers at social work centres, without carers present.
Legislation had been developed to establish professional centres supporting children with disabilities. Mobile teams from these centres worked with these children in kindergartens and schools. The number of children requiring assistance was increasing, so last year, more than 400 jobs were made available within these centres. The State party had allocated 33 million euros for the operation of the centres. There were nine centres across the State operating at 64 locations.
Medical examinations could be carried out in Barnahus in collaboration with the Institute for Forensic Medicine, but courts ordered only a low number of such examinations. The State aimed to ensure that these examinations could take place at Barnahus in future.
While parents were in prison, they were encouraged to maintain ties with their children. All places of deprivation of liberty in Slovenia had informal premises specially equipped for visits by children. There were also two institutions that allowed for longer, unsupervised visits in apartments for certain detainees. Children could stay in detention with their incarcerated mother up to one year of age, after which time they were given to the father, relatives or to foster care. Prison officers were trained on the needs of persons incarcerated with children.
The State party was working to amend the citizenship act to allow for granting of citizenship to the children of stateless parents. After children were born, they were registered regardless of the parents’ status within 14 days. Registration was performed by healthcare professionals or parents when children were born outside of healthcare institutions.
The State had a low rate of juvenile pregnancy. For women and girls up to 19 years of age, 3.3 per cent fell pregnant. In the Roma population, the average age of mothers was five years lower than for the rest of the population. Almost two-thirds of births in the Roma community occurred when the mother was aged between 15 and 24, and 24 per cent of births occurred up to age 19.
The State party was following the European Commission’s policy regarding children’s rights in the digital environment. It followed high standards of privacy and tried to prevent addiction. The best interests of the child were at the forefront of efforts to regulate artificial intelligence. Platforms were not allowed to show profiled advertisements, and inappropriate content was supervised by trustworthy persons appointed by the State. There was a web portal and a free telephone line for reporting images of sexual abuse of children. Between 2024 and 2025, the State held 742 workshops for more than 17,000 children on digital safety and artificial intelligence. It also organised a national day of safe internet use and conducted campaigns in 2022, 2024 and 2025 on preventing hate speech and bullying online and in schools.
The State co-financed the “TOM” helpline, which was functional every day from 12 p.m. to midnight. There was also a chat support service that functioned from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m., and non-governmental organizations also operated 24-hour helplines. These services were confidential. Response measures were implemented immediately when children who used these services needed medical assistance or protection.
The parents of children who needed special care received childcare benefits and payments for lost income when they were forced to leave their jobs equal to 1.2 times the minimum wage. Parental leave was increased by 90 days when children needed special care, and parents received 100 per cent of their income while on parental leave.
Slovenia had a system of comprehensive treatment for children with special needs. The identification of needs was carried out by multidisciplinary teams. In 2026, 5.2 per cent of preschool children were identified as having special needs. Some 90 per cent of these children were integrated into mainstream classes, while the remaining 10 per cent were placed in departments for adapted treatment. Some 76 per cent of staff members in kindergartens were qualified to provide support to children with special needs. Nearly every one in six of these children had the support of an assistant. Since 2019, the Government had financed costs faced by preschools and parents for assistance services and staff supporting children with special needs.
The duration of the referral process remained an issue due to the documentation and expert assessments required. The State was working to shorten the process without compromising on quality. Children could be involved in the decision-making process depending on their capacity. Some 97 per cent of children with disabilities were educated at mainstream primary schools. Regarding the case of a deafblind child not being accepted in a school, the State was working to find an individual solution so that this child could be integrated soon. Individualised study programmes were prepared for each child. The State had organised training for teachers on the provision of inclusive education.
Questions by Committee Experts
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about avenues for children to confidentially report abuse in residential care and about whether regular reviews of placements were conducted.
CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that there were vulnerabilities in infrastructure procurement that led to overcrowded classrooms, poor school environments and a shortage of early childhood care placements. What measures were in place to reform municipal public procurement and oversight mechanisms to address these issues?
MARIANA IANACHEVICI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked whether the State party continued to distinguish between autochthonous and non- autochthonous Roma. Did the classification of a Roma person affect the rights they could access? What data did the State party collect on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children and asylum-seeker and refugee children? How many children and their families were currently affected by the 1992 erasure of permanent residents from the register? Were affected families entitled to compensation or other forms of reparation?
PHILIP D. JAFFE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, said that Slovenia had not made pledges at the last global ministerial conference in Bogota in 2024 on ending violence against children. Would it make pledges at the next conference in November 2026?
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair, commended the State’s efforts to address threats posed by artificial intelligence and digital technologies. How did the State use digital avatars to facilitate interviews with children in the Barnahus?
Others Committee Experts asked about the number of foster families, monitoring of such families, and the content of information provided to them; how Roma children were registered and issued with birth certificates; how unregistered children could access health care and education; cases of withdrawal of children from foster families due to non-compliance with care standards; the causes of the recent increase in the number of placements of children in specialised centres; the mechanisms in place to ensure that the views of younger children and children in vulnerable situations on matters concerning them were heard; whether children received meaningful feedback on how their views had influenced laws, policies and programmes; the number of children who had received mental health services over the past three years; whether access to child protection services was equal across Slovenia; how the State provided support to prevent children from leaving the family environment; how the State ensured that child victims’ needs were taken into account following judicial decisions; and whether the State was considering making at least one year of pre-primary education compulsory.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the new criminal proceedings act focused on the best interests of the child and rehabilitation. Judges that dealt only with juvenile cases were appointed to assess cases involving juveniles. Complex assessments of children were conducted in the Barnahus. The range of criminal cases for which settlements could be reached had recently been increased. In family disputes, children had the right to an advocate.
The State party had prepared a handbook for officials on identifying trafficking cases. The police collaborated with countries in the Western Balkans to conduct joint investigations into cases of trafficking of migrants.
In the past year, Slovenia had developed a network for mental health and juveniles, which was an entry point for early treatment of mental health problems. In these centres, the level of treatment needed was determined by multidisciplinary teams. Currently, there were 22 centres and the State planned to set up three more centres by 2028 to cover the needs of up to 16,000 children. It was also intensifying the training of staff in these centres. In 2024, these centres provided nearly 12,000 services for children. The act on psychotherapeutic activity would be implemented from April 2027, after which time persons would be able to apply for licences to carry out psychotherapeutic treatment. This would lead to a decrease in the waiting list for mental health services.
The State provided early identification services for eating disorders through school paediatricians and conducted awareness raising among families regarding eating disorders. A special unit on eating disorders had been set up to oversee support in clinics and hospitals. Data on obesity was provided to doctors, which helped them identify overweight children and refer them to treatment. There were also community programmes addressing drug and alcohol addiction among juveniles.
More than 90 per cent of infants in Slovenia were breastfed up to six months. Breastfeeding mothers who worked full time had the right to one hour of rest per day for breastfeeding.
There was a shortage of 3,600 teachers in the State. The Ministry of Education had increased funds for training teachers and implemented measures to increase the number of advisory staff members in response.
Foreign children received from 120 to 180 hours of Slovenian language and culture education in schools. They did not need to attend this education once they had A2 level Slovenian language skills. Human rights and citizenship education was included in the school curriculum. The State collaborated with the school student association when determining the secondary school curriculum. Sport was a compulsory subject in schools. Schools were obliged to organise meals and snacks for students, which were either fully or partially subsidised by the State. Municipalities and the Ministry of Education co-financed the transport of elementary school pupils and pupils with disabilities. There were measures in place to integrate Roma children in the education system and support them to continue their studies in higher grades. The Ministry also co-financed projects for the development of school infrastructure.
Slovenia had in recent years adopted several measures to decrease the exposure of the population to the impacts of pollution and climate change. The State supported the replacement of old heating devices and had amended environmental legislation to increase the supervision of industrial emissions. It measured the content of lead in the blood of children and strengthened measures to improve air quality in playgrounds, kindergarten and schools. A youth climate delegation had been set up to provide input on the State’s climate policies, and the State had set up eco-school programmes covering 720 educational institutions.
In 2024, the State established a separate accommodation facility for unaccompanied minors. It was drafting individual support plans for such children that were in line with the best interests of the child. From April 2024 to August 2026, Slovenia had accommodated 5,400 unaccompanied minors in the accommodation facility, and almost 95 per cent of them had subsequently left the facility. Minors could move freely in and out of the facility.
The State provided a child support allowance to around 80 per cent of families with children and could also provide rental subsidies and exceptional financial support for families at risk of social exclusion. It had extended the scope of one-parent households that could obtain an additional child support payment and had increased the minimum wage in recent years.
There were 456 foster care families in Slovenia. Social work centres could propose the withdrawal of children from families when necessary to protect the child; courts needed to assess each case individually. Slovenia had not attended the conference on violence against children in Bogota and it had not decided whether it would attend the next conference in Manila in November. However, combatting violence against children remained a priority for the State.
The State co-financed the arrangement of Roma settlements. Roma status was determined based on the registration of settlements, not on whether Roma were indigenous or not. The State was currently considering whether to amend the Roma community act in this regard.
Slovenia had a network of 58 central libraries and 283 local libraries, which ensured that children could access libraries wherever they lived. Libraries conducted various free events to encourage access to literature and culture for children.
Concluding Statements
PHILIP D. JAFFE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Coordinator, thanked the delegation for the constructive dialogue and its engagement. Slovenia was a small country but had made remarkable democratic and economic progress since independence. The Committee encouraged the State party to make further progress on children’s rights and place children firmly at the centre of policy, budgeting and public services, not only as future citizens but as rights holders. Slovenia could live up to its special distinction of being the only country that had a name containing the word “love” by ensuring that every child felt it through protection, inclusion, opportunity and care.
ANITA PIPAN, Acting Director-General for International Law and Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia, and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee Experts for their insightful questions during the constructive dialogue. The dialogue provided an opportunity to present recent developments regarding how the Slovenian Government worked to promote and protect the rights of the child. The State remained firmly committed to advancing the prosperity of every child, promoting a holistic approach to child development and well-being, as well as ensuring that all children, particularly those in vulnerable situations, were protected from violence, abuse, neglect and discrimination.
The State was proud of its achievements but also aware that the promotion of children’s rights was an ongoing process. New challenges, including new forms of violence and exploitation, required the State to remain vigilant and proactive. Slovenia was committed to strengthening the protection of children and to advancing their rights in all spheres of life, including health, education, access to information, participation, play and development. The Committee’s recommendations would serve as guidelines for the State’s further efforts to strengthen the protection of children’s rights. In closing, Ms. Pipan thanked all those who had contributed to the dialogue.
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for the clear and precise answers it had provided. The delegation had shown that Slovenia was doing a lot for children. Despite the progress made, however, the protection of children’s rights was a never-ending process. The Committee’s concluding observations would address the challenges the State faced and the needs of its children, particularly the most vulnerable. In closing, Ms. Kiladze conveyed best wishes to the children of Slovenia.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRC26.16F