31
Januar
2024

Mapping Child Protection Systems in the EU – Update 2023

Children’s rights exist to ensure the safety and wellbeing of every child. Improved child protection systems ensure that these rights are met. In recent years, the EU has taken significant steps to improve child protection systems. This mapping of child protection systems gives an overview of the state of such systems at national level and developments since 2015. It promotes the improvement of integrated child protection systems. It is an update of FRA’s mapping of child protection systems in 2015, based on data collected in 2023 in the 27 EU Member States. By publishing this, FRA aims to support securing the sustainable well-being, safety and rights of all children living in the EU.


6.1. Monitoring the performance of national child protection systems

An effective accountability mechanism should include regular monitoring based on clear indicators and evaluation through systematic data collection.

NHRIs and/or ombudspersons are vital to ensuring independent monitoring of a Member State’s compliance with the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil children’s rights and implement child protection laws and policies.


Key findings

  • At national level, an authority affiliated with the ministry primarily responsible for child protection, or a department or secretariat within that ministry, is usually in charge of monitoring the child protection system as a whole (Table 6).
  • All Member States have independent bodies responsible for monitoring (ombudsperson offices for children and/or other NHRIs) (Table 7).
  • All Member States have provisions for self-monitoring and evaluation of services.
  • Ombudspersons for children may not have sufficient human and financial resources to allow them to systematically and effectively monitor the performance of national child protection systems.
  • Most NHRIs and ombudspersons do not systematically monitor child protection systems and institutions. Instead, they respond to filed motions and individual complaints.
  • In many Member States, ombudspersons and/or NHRIs are the only independent bodies responsible for monitoring children’s rights and child protection systems.

Most EU Member States assign monitoring responsibilities to different national, regional and local authorities.

Table 6 presents information on national public authorities.

Some Member State have established independent monitoring bodies. These complement effective government monitoring structures and accountability mechanisms.

Table 7 presents information on independent monitoring bodies.

All Member States have provisions for self-monitoring and evaluation of services. In some Member States, data are collected but not used by monitoring mechanisms.

Table 6National authorities responsible for monitoring the child protection system’s performance at national level, by EU Member State

EU Member State

National authorities responsible for monitoring the child protection system’s performance at the national level

Austria

Austrian Advocates for Children and Juveniles  (Kinder- und Jugendanwaltschaften Österreichs)

Austrian National Youth Council (Österreichische Bundesjugendvertretung)

Belgium

National Commission on the Rights of the Child (De Nationale Commissie voor de Rechten van het Kind / La Commission nationale pour les droits de l’enfant / Die Nationalen Kommission für die Rechte des Kindes)

Bulgaria

The State Agency for Child Protection (Държавна агенция за закрила на детето)

Croatia

Council for Children (Vijeća za djecu)

Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities (Ured za ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih manjina Vlade)

Cyprus

n/a

Czechia

Committee on the Rights of the Child (Výbor pro práva dítěte)

Denmark

Social Supervisory Boards (Socialtilsynet) (since 2014)

Estonia

National Audit Office (Riigikontroll)

Finland

National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto / Tillstånds- och tillsynsverket för social- och hälovården)

Regional State Administrative Agencyies  (Aluehallintovirasto/Regionförvaltningsverket)

National Audit Office of Finland (Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto / Statens revisionsverk)

France

General Inspectorate of Social Affairs (Inspection générale des affaires sociales)

General Inspectorate of Judicial Services (Inspection générale des services judiciaries)

National Observatory of Child Protection (Observatoire national de la protection de l’enfance)

Germany

Children’s Commission (Kinderkommission) of the Federal Parliament

Greece

General Secretariat of Welfare (Γενική Γραμματεία Πρόνοιας) within the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (Κοινωνικοί Σύμβουλοι)

Office of the General Inspector of Public Administration (Γενικός Επιθεωρητής Δημόσιας Διοίκησης)

Hungary

Ministry of Human Resources (Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma),

Directorate-General forof Social Affairs and Child Protection (Szociális és Gyermekvédelmi Főigazgatóság)

Ireland

Health Information Quality Authority (An tÚdarás Um Fhaisnéis agus Cáilíocht Sláinte)

Italy

Parliamentary Committee on Childhood and Adolescence (Commissione parlamentare per l’infanzia e l’adolescenza)

National Observatory on Childhood and Adolescence (Osservatorio nazionale per l’infanzia e l’adolescenza)

Latvia

Ministry of Welfare (Labklājības ministrija) – State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights (Valsts bērnu tiesību aizsardzības inspekcija)

Lithuania

National Audit Office of the Lithuanian Republic (Lietuvos Respublikos valstybės kontrolė)

Luxembourg

Ombuds Committee for the Rights of the Child (Ombuds-Comité fir d’Rechter vum Kand)

Malta

Commissioner for Children(Kummissarju għat-Tfal)

Netherlands

Dutch Inspectorate for Healthcare and Youth Care (Inspectie GezondheidsJeugdzorg en Jeugd)

Joint Inspectorate for Youth (Samenwerkend Toezicht Jeugd)

Poland

Council of Ministers (Rada Ministrów)

Parliamentary Committee for Social Policy and Family (Komisja Polityki Społecznej i Rodziny)

Portugal

Social Security Institute (Instituto de Segurança Social)

Public Prosecutor (Procuradoria-Geral da República)

Romania

National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption (Autoritatea Naţională pentru Protecţia Drepturilor Copilului şi Adopţie)

National Agency for Payments and Social Inspection (Agenţia Naţională pentru Plăţi şi Inspecţie Socială, ANPIS) through the local ACounty Agencyies for Payments and Social Inspection (Agenţia Judeţeană pentru Plăţi şi Inspecţie Socială, AJPIS)

Slovakia

Department of Strategy and Social Protection of Children and Family – Section of Social and Family Policy (Odbor stratégie sociálnej ochrany detí a rodiny – Sekcia sociálnej a rodinnej politiky)

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny Slovenskej republiky)

Slovenia

Social Inspection (Socialna inšpekcija) of the Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (Inšpektorat Republike Slovenije za delo)

Inspectorate for Education and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia (Inšpektorat Republike Slovenije za šolstvo in sport)

Spain

Childhood Observatory (Observatorio de la Infancia)

Juvenile Prosecution Services (Fiscal de Sala Coordinador de Menores de la Fiscalía General del Estado)

Sweden

Health and Social Care Inspectorate (Inspektionen för vård och omsorg)

Note: n/a: not available.

Source: Franet, 2023.

 

Table 7Independent bodies monitoring child protection at national level, by EU Member State

EU Member State

Ombudspersons office(s) and NHRIs

Ombudspersons for children’s office(s)

Austria

Austrian Ombudsman Board(Volksanwaltschaft) – Austrian NHRI

Ombuds Institution for Children in Alternative Care (Kinder- und Jugendanwaltschaft Wien) – functions at regional level in Vienna

Belgium

Federal Ombudsman (federale Ombudsman / federale Ombudsman / föderale Ombudsmann)

Flemish Office of the Children’s Rights Commissioner(Kinderrechtencommissariaat)

General Delegate for the Rights of the Child(Délégué Général aux droits de l’enfant) – French Community

Observatory for Childhood, Youth and Youth Care(Observatoire de l’Enfance, de la Jeunesse et de l’Aide à la Jeunesse) – French Community

Ombudsperson of the German-speaking Community of Belgium (Ombudsperson der deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft Belgiens)

Bulgaria

Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria (Омбудсман на Република България)

Commission for Protection against Discrimination (Комисия за защита от дискриминация)

n/a

Croatia

n/a

Ombudsperson for children(Pravobranitelj za djecu)

Cyprus

n/a

Commissioner for Children’s Rights(Επίτροπος προστασίας των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού)

Czechia

Ombudsperson

n/a

Denmark

Parliamentary Ombudsman (Folketingets Ombudsmand) – Children’ Division (Børnekontor)

n/a

Estonia

Ombudsman for Children(Lasteombudsman)

Chancellor of Justice(Õiguskantsler) – conducts independent monitoring of child protection system in his duties as Ombudsman for Children

Finland

Parliamentary Ombudsman(Riksdags justitieombudsman)

Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri/justitiekansler)

Ombudsman for Children(Lapsiasiavaltuutettu) – acts with the assistance of the Child Advisory Board  (Lapsiasiavaltuutettu) established by the government

France

Public Defender of Rights(Défenseur des droits)

National Consultative Commission on Human Rights(Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme)

n/a

Germany

German Institute for Human Rights(Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) – German NHRI

n/a

Greece

Greek Ombudsman(Συνήγορος του Πολίτη)

National Commission for Human Rights (Εθνική Επιτροπή Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου)

Hungary

Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Alapvető Jogok Biztosának Hivatala)

n/a

Ireland

n/a

Ombudsman for Children

Italy

n/a

Italian Authority for Childhood and Adolescence(Autorità garante per l’infanzia e l’adolescenza)

Latvia

n/a

Ombudsperson of the Republic of Latvia – Children’s Rights Section(Latvijas Republikas tiesībsargs)

Lithuania

n/a

Ombudsperson for Child’s Rights(Vaiko teisių apsaugos kontrolierius)

Luxembourg

n/a

Ombuds Committee for the Rights of the Child(Ombuds-Comité fir d’Rechter vum Kand)

Malta

n/a

Commissioner for Children(Kummissarju għat-Tfal)

Netherlands

n/a

Ombudsman for children (Kinderombudsman)

Poland

n/a

Children’s Rights Ombudsman(Rzeczniku Praw Dziecka)

Portugal

Ombudsman(Provedor de Justiça), Centre for Children, the Elderly and the Disabled (Núcleo da Criança, do Idoso e da Pessoa com Deficiência)

n/a

Romania

National Ombudsman(Avocatul Poporului), department specialising in the rights of the child

n/a

Slovakia

Public Defender of Rights(Verejný ochranca práv)

n/a

Slovenia

n/a

Human Rights Ombudsman (Varuh človekovih pravic)

Spain

Spanish Ombudsman(Defensor del Pueblo)

Ombudsperson (autonomous regions) – ‘Defender of the Andalusian People (Defensor del Pueblo Andaluz), Catalan Ombudsman (Síndic de Greuges) and Galician Ombudsman (O Valedor do Pobo)

Childhood Observatory(Observatorio de la Infancia) – subordinated to the Ministry of Health (Ministero de Sanidad)

Sweden

n/a

The Institute for Human Rights (Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter)

The Ombudsman for Children (Barnombudsmannen)

Source: Franet, 2023.

According to Article 40 of the CRC (emphasis added):

[w]henever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. […] A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence’.

In all Member States, provisions and standards regarding foster care are established by law. Provisions cover the maximum number of children in one foster family, training and support for foster parents, proximity to biological family and minimum age for residential care. These aim to ensure the quality of children’s care and facilitate the monitoring of foster parents.

Foster parents must complete the training that the responsible authority and/or the service foster care agency provides. However, in most Member States, training requirements do not apply when the foster parents are the child’s relatives (kinship care). The training length and content vary significantly both within and between Member States. Usually, in Member States, the training is continuous rather than one session.

Member States may provide care measures other than foster care. Examples are residential/institutional care, other forms of family-based care and supervised independent living arrangements for children.

Figure 16  Provisions determining the maximum number of children in a foster family

A screenshot of a computer screen

Description automatically generated

Alternative text: A map shows whether or not EU Member States have legal provisions determining the maximum number of children in a foster family. Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia all have such provisions. For Spain and Bulgaria no information was provided and in Belgium the provisions are established only at the regional level with no provisions in place for the Flanders region.

Source: FRA, 2023


Key findings

  • The most common forms of care are residential/institutional care, other forms of family-based care and supervised independent living arrangements for children. Some Member States also provide specific support and group-based homes to assist pregnant women or those who have just given birth, if they cannot be sufficiently supported in their homes. These could be used, for example, in a case of domestic abuse.
  • Not all EU Member States have provisions specifying the maximum number of children in one foster family. Moreover, children in the foster care system can be difficult to track due to the constant flow of children entering and leaving the system.
  • In some Member States, where the maximum number of children per foster family is not established by law, the number is dependent on other criteria: family income, the space in the home, the number of children in the family, etc. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. In general, the more children a foster family accommodates, the less likely it is that they will obtain custody of others. The number and the circumstances of a foster family’s own children are factors in this assessment.
  • Where specific provisions exist, the maximum number of children per foster family varies significantly. For example, it is three in France and six in Latvia.
  • Provisions are often related to the child’s physical and mental health, the number of a family’s own children and whether the foster child has siblings (and how many).
  • The situation of children with disabilities is less regulated by national law. Thus, there is no upper limit on placement in foster care or adoption. Rather, it is an issue of families lacking sufficient professionalism to be able to take care of children with disabilities.

In several Member States, the number of children accommodated in a foster family is limited: Croatia (3), France (3) and Finland (4). The number can differ for siblings fostered together or children with disabilities.

In Member States without specific provisions regulating the number of children in foster families, the authorities decide a foster family’s capacity. In Germany and Romania, the number of children is decided on a case-by-case basis. The authorities consider factors such as space, the child’s physical and mental ability and needs, the number of adult carers and the number of biological children living in the house.

Some Member States make efforts to ensure that children are placed in a foster care home geographically close to their biological families, school, friends or community, if it is in the child’s best interests. However, in Germany, France and Austria, this is not always the case. Here, the competent authorities look for a family that best suits the child’s needs and do not necessarily consider proximity to the biological family. In some countries, such as Bulgaria, Spain, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia, geographical closeness is never a criterion.

In some Member States, residential/institutional care is an alternative to foster care. In Croatia, the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy oversees residential/institutional care institutions, which can be established as social care homes under certain circumstances. The Social Assistance Law regulates other forms of family assistance. It offers supervised independent living arrangements for children in alternative foster care until they turn 18.

Italy categorises residential/institutional care as family-type communities and public or private institutions. Such communities for pregnant women, mothers and children accommodated 1,772 women in 2020. Foster care is a last resort for children under six years old.

In Germany, local authorities provide residential institutional care. Foster care is more prevalent for younger age groups and adolescents.


According to Article 40 of the CRC (emphasis added):

‘States Parties shall seek to […] Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with […] children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. […] A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence’.

Standards on residential care (see Table 8) refer to the management of facilities, their human resources (number of staff, qualifications of staff), living conditions (premises and safety), number of children accommodated, operational practices and policies.

Not all Member States have registries for foster families and residential care. Those that do regulate the registries at local level rather than national level, as is the case with Germany.

14 Member States have nationwide registries for foster families: Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Most Member States have nationwide registries for residential institutions: Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden.


Key findings

  • Standards for alternative care do not always apply at national level. This may result in disparities in the care provided within a country.
  • Existing standards are often non-binding recommendations or guidance.
  • Existing standards often lack precision. They set out vague requirements and criteria. Monitoring compliance is therefore challenging.
  • Some Member States’ standards lack a holistic approach. They primarily cover only certain elements, such as financial aspects, technical requirements and material conditions. They fail to cover other relevant issues, such as human resources.
  • Some countries have provisions regarding quality elements that must be adhered to at operational level. However, these do not always become concrete, measurable indicators, and are therefore often not complied with.
  • Existing standards do not always apply across all types of institutions. In many Member States, national standards do not apply to institutions for juvenile offenders or to reception facilities for unaccompanied children.
  • Most Member States have formal specific provisions for assistance for adolescents / young people who leave alternative care.

Some Member States have registries for foster care families at local level. This is the case for Germany. National registries are found only in Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden have registries for residential institutions at national level.

EU Member States with federal structures, such as Belgium, Germany, Spain and Austria, develop standards at regional level. Some of these Member States, such as Austria, however, acknowledge the need for a national approach. Others, such as Spain, have also developed non-binding quality standards at national level.

Some Member States’ quality standards apply only in certain types of facilities and institutions. This applies, for example, in Czechia and Italy.

Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia currently have no standards. However, the responsible authorities are considering their development.

Most Member States have national registries and/or accreditations and licensing procedures for residential institutions for children that are based on standards. The Netherlands and Finland have no national registry of residential institutions for children or accreditation and licensing procedures for residential institutions.

 

Table 8Standards for the operational frameworks of residential institutions, by EU Member State

EU Member State

Compulsory national standards for the operational framework of residential institutions

Compulsory standards applicable at region/province level

No standards identified

Standards developed at national level in the form of recommendations with no statutory value

Austria

()

 

 

Belgium

 

 

 

Bulgaria

 

 

 

Croatia

 

 

 

Cyprus

 

 

 

Czechia

 

 

 

Denmark

 

 

 

Estonia

 

 

 

Finland

 

 

 

France

*

 

 

Germany

 

 

Greece

 

 

 

Hungary

 

 

 

Ireland

 

 

 

Italy

()

 

 

Latvia

 

 

 

Lithuania

 

 

 

Luxembourg

 

 

 

Malta

 

 

 

Netherlands

 

 

 

Poland

 

 

 

Portugal

 

 

 

Romania

 

 

 

Slovakia

 

 

 

Slovenia

 

 

 

Spain

 

 

Sweden

*

 

 

Total

19

5

3

6

NB: (), Provisions at national level regulate some aspects of the operational framework of residential care facilities. Detailed standards exist at regional level. *, Provisions at national level set up the general standards of the operational framework of residential care facilities. National monitoring authorities have developed detailed quality standards in the shape of recommendations and guidance with no statutory status.

Source: Franet, 2023.


6.4. Deinstitutionalisation of childcare

Deinstitutionalisation is an important topic in the context of integrated child protection. Eurochild, Hope and Homes for Children, the International Foster Care Organisation, the European branch of the International Federation of Educative Communities and SOS Children’s Villages International launched the Opening doors for Europe’s children campaign (2013–2019), with the goal of strengthening families and ending institutional care.

The campaign aimed to support national efforts to develop child protection systems that strengthen care for children, by leveraging EU funding and policy-building capacity in civil society. The campaign ran in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain and Ukraine. It contributed to the EU incorporating deinstitutionalisation reforms into its monitoring of social and economic reforms.

The campaign also contributed to the prioritisation of child protection reforms and deinstitutionalisation in several countries. Examples are Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. These countries are seeing fewer children placed in institutional care and increased provision of family-based foster care.

The Polish Ministry of Family and Social Policy has been transitioning from institutional care to local community-based care. This involves developing support close to families and those in need, preventing children from remaining in inadequately supported families and reducing institutional care.

The ministry has announced activities related to deinstitutionalisation in national programmes, such as the national programme for combating poverty and social exclusion. Its goal is to introduce a comprehensive support system for foster parents, including employment stabilisation, professional development, therapeutic support, childcare organisation, training and building loans. It aims to raise awareness about foster family care, its challenges and the benefits for children, and encourage local authorities to transform the foster care structure.

Poland has passed a law amending the Family Support and Foster Care System Act, introducing paragraph 1a to Article 106. This limits the creation of social, intervention and specialised therapeutic care and education institutions if they do not increase institutional foster care places or if local need does not justify expansion.

Bulgaria’s child protection policies have shifted from institutional care to deinstitutionalisation, addressing issues such as poor conditions and abuse by staff. The government is promoting alternative community-based services to end these practices and protect vulnerable children. These children often live in poverty and face increased risks of neglect, institutional placement, child marriage, dropping out of school, begging and involvement in recyclable waste collection. This move aims to break away from the classic system of institutional care.

A child rights impact assessment is a process or tool used to analyse and predict the impact of any proposed law, policy or budgetary allocation that potentially affects children and their enjoyment of rights. This takes place before the policy, law or regulation is adopted or before a decision or action is implemented. Child rights impact assessments should be integrated into government decision making at all levels and as early as possible in policy and law development.

An ongoing child rights impact assessment process is needed, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child notes in several of its general comments. In its general comment No. 5 (2003) on general CRC implementation measures, the committee focuses on: ‘[e]nsuring that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions affecting children (art. 3 (1)) and that all provisions of the Convention are respected in legislation and in legislation and policy development and delivery at all levels of government demands a continuous process of child impact assessment (predicting the impact of any proposed law, policy or budget allocation which affects children and the enjoyment of their rights) and child impact evaluation (evaluating the actual impact of implementation)’.

The child and adolescent rights impact assessment is another example of assessment. It is an ex post analysis done after the adoption of a legislative act (or measure). This analysis is an opportunity to consider the intended or unintended effects that legislative changes, budgetary decisions, policies, programmes or services have had on children’s and adolescents’ rights.

Nonetheless, even Member States that provide for ex post analysis have no comprehensive data on the effectiveness of child right impact assessments. This might be because, many Member States devolve the implementation of these assessments to regional level. Therefore, there is no national or more general collation of these results.

Figure 17  Provisions requiring a child rights impact assessment

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated

Alternative text: A map shows whether or not EU Member States have legal provisions requiring a child rights impact assessment.  Almost half of Member States have such provisions. The status for each Member State can be found in the following “Key findings” section.

Source: FRA, 2023


Key findings

  • Not all Member States require specific child rights impact assessments of law or policy.
  • In some Member States, a child rights impact assessment is part of the human rights or social impact assessment.
  • When in place, a child rights impact assessment is often limited to laws and policies only directly affecting children.
  • Not all authorities whose decisions directly or indirectly affect children systematically conduct child rights impact assessments.

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and Finland partially provide for specific provisions requiring a child rights impact assessment.

Nearly half of Member States have specific provisions requiring that a child rights impact assessment takes place when developing laws and policies and in taking administrative decisions regarding children. Some Member States, such as Poland, are moving towards introducing this requirement.

The absence of any requirement does not necessarily mean that no child rights impact assessment ever takes place. In many Member States, the child rights impact assessment is part of the human rights or social impact assessment. Some of them specifically list children’s rights. Others do not specifically reference children’s rights, but list children with other vulnerable groups.

In some Member States, such as Ireland, the mandate of the ombudsperson for children includes conducting a child rights impact assessment for newly developed laws or policies and drawing attention to potential impacts. However, whether this is systematic and whether it takes place for all policies and laws that directly or indirectly affect children depends on the ombudsperson’s financial and human resources.


This section discusses children’s right to be heard, child participation principles, models and examples, and direct consultation with children.

Article 12 of the CRC states that (emphasis added):

‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’.

General comment No. 12 (2009) on the right of the child to be heard supports the states parties in effectively implementing this article. Accordingly, Article 12 is inextricably linked to other rights such as non-discrimination and the best interests of the child.

According to Article 24 of the Charter:

‘[c]hildren […] may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity’.

Children’s right to be heard on ‘matters affecting the child’ (see section 5.6) requires that the views of children affected by specific issues should be considered. Examples are considering the views of migrant children in relation to migration law and policy or those of children with judicial hearing experience regarding judicial system reform. Children should be given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the planning, implementation and evaluation of child protection policies and programmes.

Sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 each touch upon elements of child participation and the right to be heard. The right of all children to participate has come into greater focus in recent years. This can be seen in the growing number of international, EU and national child and youth delegates and advisory committees. Children’s participation has also increased in events that affect them, such as the European Forum on the Rights of the Child.

The first strand of the EU strategy on the rights of the child (2021) relates to child participation in political and democratic life. It emphasises children’s role in society, not least as drivers of change. Children can become guardians of the respect for fundamental rights, diversity, tolerance and values in our societies, including for future generations, when they are meaningfully empowered.

The risk of tokenism is, however, prevalent in this space. For example, ‘children and young people consistently expressed frustration that their views were not being heard and taken seriously’, according to the Northern Irish Commissioner for Children and Young People’s study of tokenism. Many policies aim to prevent ‘a false right of the child’ to prevent children and young people from developing fatigue from being consulted or cynicism from the perceived futility of participating.

Regarding child participation principles, models and examples, in 2007, Laura Lundy, professor of international children’s rights at the School of Education of Queen’s University Belfast, developed an important model of children’s right to be heard. The model is now known as the Lundy model.

The Lundy model is a way to conceptualise the child’s right to participation as set forth in Article 12 of the CRC. The model is based on four elements with a rational chronological order: (i) space, (ii) voice, (iii) audience and (iv) influence. Children must be given (i) space, inclusive and safe opportunities to form and express their views; (ii) voice, that is, helped to express their views; (iii) audience, meaning their views must be heard; and (iv) influence, meaning their views must be acted upon, as appropriate.

In addition, Professor Lundy developed a checklist on the child’s effective participation in the right to be heard. ‘[T]his checklist is intended to help organisations working with and for children and youth comply with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’, according to Ireland’s national strategy on children and young people’s participation in decision making for 2015–2020. The Irish Department of Children and Youth Affairs endorsed the Lundy model and thus featured it in the abovementioned national strategy.

At EU institutional level, the European Commission together with the European Parliament and children’s rights organisations established the EU Children’s Participation Platform. The platform’s first general assembly took place in June 2023. Its first consultation focused on child protection in support of the planned Commission’s recommendation. The platform’s goal is to ensure children’s right to be heard. This right is often at the discretion of the competent authority, based on the child’s degree of discernment (see Section 5.6).

Specifically, the platform aims to link existing child participation mechanisms at local, national (in the different Member States) and community levels and to arrive at a uniform definition of children’s involvement in decision-making processes in Europe. This definition must promote children’s meaningful participation in decision-making processes, in a voluntary, respectful, transparent and informed manner. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers underlines this in Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)2 on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18. This is also based on Eurochild’s statement that ‘[c]hildren are experts in their own lives. It is essential that they participate in decisions that affect them.’

Lastly, child consultation and participation should be through direct contact with children and not only through intermediaries, such as non-governmental organisations or human rights institutions.

Figure 18  Direct consultation with children

A screenshot of a computer screen

Description automatically generated

Alternative text: A map shows whether or not EU Member States consult directly with children and their parents (guardians) when developing, implementing and evaluating child protection policies and laws. 13 Member States have such identifiable processes. The status for each Member State can be found in the following “Key findings” section.

Source: FRA, 2023


Key findings

  • Many EU Member States consult with children and their parents (guardians) when developing, implementing and evaluating child protection policies and laws.
  • In some Member States, child and family consultations primarily take place through formal structures and representative bodies.
  • General provisions on evaluating social services and programmes may cover consultations with service users and beneficiaries and hence with children and families.
  • Guidelines and protocols for the implementation of these rights are essential. However, they do not always exist.
  • Some Member States enshrine in law the responsible authorities’ obligation to consult with service users, children and families.
  • For a long time, most of these Member States did not embed child and parent consultations in the decision-making process and did not perform them systematically. However, there have been positive developments and promising practices in recent years. The importance of children’s rights awareness for children, their parents and educational or health staff has come more into focus, especially in child and youth participation.
  • Children’s access to complaints procedures varies across EU Member States. Every child can turn to children’s ombudspersons for consultation or to lodge a complaint in Member States with such ombudspersons, according to the law.

Only 13 Member States have identifiable processes of direct consultation with children and families when developing or assessing the impact of laws and policies: Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden. In the others, consultation is indirect, taking place through formal structures and/or representatives such as children’s councils or parental associations. This is the case in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia.

In many EU Member States, national child ombudsperson’s offices and children’s rights commissioners have established consultation practices to promote children’s participation in their daily work. This is the case in Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Finland. The ombudspersons consult children on various issues related to their rights, including child protection. Consultation takes place either ad hoc with a specific group of children or, more often, through formal structures, such as children’s panels.

18 EU Member States have procedures that are consistent with international standards (the Paris Principles): Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Finland. This means that the ombuds institutions of the 10 other EU Member States – Czechia, Denmark, Ireland, France, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden – cannot hear, review and enforce individual complaints from children.

Some Member States, such as France and Romania, have general provisions concerning consulting children and families in their capacity as beneficiaries. This is part of the evaluation process of social services and programmes.

Cyprus has not embedded consulting children and families in law and policy development. However, children are consulted on the appointment of the Commissioner for Children’s Rights. Some other Member States, such as Germany, Estonia and France, have similar identifiable promising practices.


Children’s rights awareness and education go hand in hand with child protection.

Article 42 of the CRC stipulates that:

‘States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike’.

Article 42 of the CRC has special importance, general comment No. 5 on general CRC implementation measures underlines. It is also important that children and those around them, such as parents, other family members, teachers and carers, know about the CRC and consider children rights holders, it notes. To this end, states parties need to ‘develop a comprehensive strategy for disseminating knowledge of the Convention throughout society’, the Convention on the Rights of the Child Committee states.

Moreover, school curricula should include education about the CRC and human rights in general at all stages. There should be child-friendly versions of the CRC for children of different ages, the committee encourages. Reports should be translated into all languages, including child-friendly language, and made accessible to people with disabilities.

The media has an important role in disseminating the CRC and making it understandable to the public, the committee recognises. The committee promotes cooperation with governments and NGO in this regard.

Within the EU, under the strategy on the rights of the child, the European Commission has committed itself to ‘help children, professionals working with and for children, the media, the public, politicians and policy-makers to increase awareness of children’s rights, and to ensure the right of the child to be heard and listened to’.


Key findings

  • The Committee on the Rights of the Child has made numerous recommendations to states parties, including all EU Member States. Nevertheless, teaching and raising awareness of children’s rights is still not anchored in most Member States’ school curricula, professional training, parenting programmes and national campaigns. There is even less effort to raise awareness of the welfare and protection of children in specific vulnerable situations.
  • The EU and UNICEF jointly promote and fund the child rights schools programme. Schools and teachers are supported in recognising children as rights holders and in further realising children’s rights throughout the school environment. This model is a potential promising practice that could be mainstreamed across Member States.
  • The provision of accessible materials on children’s rights, for example in child-friendly and minority languages, has increased. These include web texts, brochures and manuals. However, the practice is neither comprehensive nor systematic.
  • Most Member States report some concrete promising practices regarding rights awareness and education. However, these activities are sporadic, project dependent and reliant on the availability of specific funding. These initiatives often take place in partnership with UNICEF and/or civil society organisations specialising in children’s rights and protection.
  • Ombudsperson institutions run campaigns, programmes and/or operate websites for awareness raising, some Member States report.
  • Several countries, for example Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden, have government-led campaigns.
  • Campaigns usually address specific issues, such as domestic violence and digital safety.
  • Some Member States identify raising awareness on children’s rights as an objective of their national strategies, such as Ireland’s Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures national policy framework for children and young people for 2014–2020.
  • The number of universities in the EU providing postgraduate study programmes on children’s rights is growing (e.g. those in Hungary, Romania and the Netherlands).
  • There is no specific EU programme aimed at training professionals on children’s rights. Several grants and programmes have provided opportunities to develop national and regional programmes for professionals and children themselves to run training on children’s rights-related topics. However, there is no available catalogue of those programmes.
  • Most EU Member States’ children’s rights teaching or awareness-raising campaigns that address human rights refer to the CRC, but not specifically to the Charter. However, some Member States regularly carry out fundamental rights awareness-raising activities aimed at children. These include information and activities on the Charter.


6.8. Children’s rights, protection and participation

Some Member States have developed campaign partnerships, mostly with NGOs. For example, in Belgium, a partnership with children’s rights organisations guides primary and secondary schools to obtain quality labels. These are ‘child rights school’ for primary schools and ‘school for rights’ for secondary schools.

In Denmark, Childrens Welfare (Børns Vilkår) launched a campaign in 2019 in collaboration with the telecommunication company TDC. It equips parents so they can help their children with cyber security.

In addition, UNICEFs rights school model has become widespread since 2015. More than 50 Danish elementary schools in all parts of the country use the model. The Denmark’s Council for Human Rights consists of children and adults. It works continuously to improve the conditions for all children in schools.

A Nordic Child Forum took place in Copenhagen in January 2020. Leading up to the event, children participated in the drafting process of a child participation and involvement declaration.

The Finnish Children’s Rights Week (Lapsen oikeuksien viikko / Veckan för barnets rättigheter) takes place annually in connection with World Childrens Day. It aims to increase awareness of the CRC among children and young people The Childrens Rights Communication Network organises the event and the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Central Union for Child Welfare (Lastensuojelun keskusliitto / Centralförbundet för Barnskydd) provide funding. The campaign has a different thematic focus each year; in 2022, the theme was child security. Its resource materials are available online throughout the year.

In France, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights and the Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) carry out various actions to raise awareness of children’s rights. The Defender of Rights has set up an educational programme for children and young adults. They take part in a 9-month civic service assignment with the institution. It has also created the Educadroit platform to raise awareness.

The National Consultative Commission on Human Rights has published Human Rights: 13 preconceived ideas to deconstruct (Les driots: 13 idées reçues à déconstruire). The book targets 14- to 20-year-olds. There are various distribution channels in France, with the Ministry of Education, and internationally, with UNESCO. It is available in child-friendly French, but Arabic, English, Spanish translations are planned.

In Sweden, the Ombudsman for Childrens developed the web portal My rights (Mina rättigheter) on children’s rights.

In Austria, UNICEF carried out awareness-raising campaigns on children’s rights targeting children and the general public. They covered children’s meaningful participation and violence against children and adolescents. The Austrian Minister of Justice presented envisaged measures regarding child protection and prevention of violence against children/adolescents through awareness raising on children’s rights in January 2023.

In Poland, UNICEF ran the public awareness campaign School with children’s Rights. It drew attention to the importance of education about children’s rights.

In Italy, UNICEF and the National Association of Italian Municipalities wrote a letter to all Italian municipalities in 2022. It shared information on childrens rights and invited municipal administrations to organise discussions and meetings on this issue.

In Luxembourg, the Ministry of Education, Children and Youth developed a separate website section with material on the promotion of children’s rights. The section is suitable for a wide audience, including parents, stakeholders and citizens. It includes a video banner of children explaining their rights in various languages of the country.

In Greece, UNICEF runs the U-Report campaign in cooperation with the NGO Network for Childrens Rights. The campaign aims to empower young people and promote their participation in matters concerning them and their communities.

The Latvian Ministry of Welfare, State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights and NGOs regularly organise awareness-raising and promotion campaigns on children’s rights and protection issues.


6.9. Preventing violence against children

In 2022, the Spanish Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030 launched the online campaign ‘It matters to you’ (‘A ti te importa’) to address violence against children. The same year, the Ministry of Social Rights denounced all forms of violence. In 2019, the Ministry of Health raised awareness about the protection of children and adolescents. In 2018, Save the Children launched #LosÚltimos100, a campaign against violence against children, requesting the approval of a law for the eradication of this violence.

In Portugal, the Institute for Child Support is promoting the awareness campaign Not one more slap, which is open to the public. Physical punishment of children and young people continues to be tolerated, despite it being expressly forbidden by law. Therefore, the institute is promoting a set of actions aimed at raising awareness among families, society and the state to eradicate these harmful and degrading practices from children’s and young people’s daily lives. These actions include raising awareness of the negative impacts violence has on children’s development, running training sessions for professionals and parents and studying parental beliefs regarding physical punishment.

Malta’s Ministry for Social Policy and Children’s Rights has launched a book targeting children between the ages of 7 and 12. It is written in simple language. The book aims to raise awareness in young children of the perils and dangers related to domestic violence in various forms. Parents, teachers and professionals support the book and it will be available in national libraries.

In addition, Children’s Rights Observatory Malta has published a children’s manifesto. The observatory is a joint initiative between the Malta Foundation and the University of Malta.

In 2022, the Swedish government agency the Living History Forum launched the exhibition and workshop Children have rights too! It focuses on children’s rights and the CRC. The Living History Forum, the Ombudsman for Children, Save the Children and UNICEF produced the exhibition. It was co-developed with children aged 9–13 and will tour Sweden in 2023.

In addition, the Equality Ombudsman has the task of providing information on protection against discrimination and abusive treatment. This is to be completed by November 2023.


6.10. Children in judicial proceedings

The Croatian Bar Association organised the seminar ‘Manipulation of children and the system in divorce proceedings and children’s participation in parental care proceedings for the purpose of sensitisation and education of lawyers’, as the Ombudsperson for Children recommended. The seminar was a one-time activity.

The ombudsperson also created a calendar for 2022 entitled ‘Let’s build a digital world tailored to children and young people!’ The ombudsperson aimed to reach as many children as possible with the messages of the related CRC general comment.

The Bulgarian Supreme Judicial Council, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Science, offers the educational programme ‘Judiciary – Informed choice and civic trust, open courts and prosecution offices’ [6] For more information, see the website of the Supreme Judicial Council.
. It aims to raise school children’s awareness of the judiciary’s structure, functions and importance.

The programme was piloted during the 2014/2015 school year. Since then, it has been offered in cooperation with NGOs, local authorities and the media. Students and judges discuss children’s rights and the treaties protecting them, including the Charter.


6.11. The Charter in the context of children’s rights

In Italy, some initiatives were organised locally to raise awareness of the rights enshrined in the Charter. For instance, during the 2022/2023 school year, Europe-Direct Emilia Romagna made an education kit available to primary and secondary schools and teachers. It comprises activities aimed at raising awareness of fundamental rights, including children’s rights. These include labs with a board game focused on the principles and rights included in the Charter.

In Spain, the municipality of Barcelona has organised Diversity Day – Barcelona for Human Rights (Dia de la Diversitat – Barcelona pels Drets Humans) annually since 2011. The programme includes awareness-raising activities on fundamental rights that aim to make children aware of the rights recognised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter.

Portugal established the nationwide Safe school programme (Projeto Escola Segura), which the Public Security Police promotes. The programme includes all non-higher education establishments (public, private and cooperative) and targets the school community. This programme aims to ensure the safety of the school environment and its surroundings by preventing risky behaviour and reducing acts that generate insecurity in the school environment. Every year, the Public Security Police conducts awareness-raising actions on topics related to human rights and fundamental rights, including children’s rights.

Slovenia launched the Active EU Citizenship – Teachers’ guide (Aktivno državljanstvo EU – priročnik za učitelje) in 2022 as a handbook for teachers. It explicitly mentions various EU efforts aimed at protecting and promoting rights and values enshrined in the EU treaties and, explicitly, the Charter.


6.12. Other relevant awareness-raising activities, resources and studies

UNICEF conducted a study on teaching and learning children’s rights in 26 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. It identified several issues about the lack or partial nature of different levels of policies supporting children’s rights education. These included the need for training and knowledge/skills sharing with teachers to create change and the attitude needed, which could then be combined with other education agendas and topics. Where policymakers and teachers are aware of these options, relationships and networks are essential to introduce children’s rights education.

Only 11 countries have included children’s rights in their national curriculum lessons, according to country reports. This applies to Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland. In seven countries, some schools or regions include partial children’s rights education. None of the 26 countries in the study could ensure teacher training on children’s rights or familiarity with the CRC, according to UNICEF [7] UNICEF (2015), Teaching and Learning about Child Rights: A study of implementation in 26 countries, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, and UNICEF, Geneva, pp. 8–9.
.

Eurochild and the International Step by Step Association have conducted a European campaign on the importance of the first years of life, with a specific focus on children in vulnerable situations. It covers nine countries: Bulgaria, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Spain. The First Years First Priorities campaign can raise awareness on the developmental needs of children, supporting parents, professionals and the public to learn more about the well-being of young children.

Within the EU context, a group of 16 NGOs launched the campaign VoteforChildren before the EU Parliamentary elections of 2013 and 2019. The campaign advocated for the creation of a new children’s rights intergroup in the European Parliament. VoteforChildren did not only ask EU citizens to vote for the child rights champions candidates. It also called on the Member of the European Parliament candidates to break the cycle of poverty, invest in children, listen to children and act on children’s views.

The Training professionals working with children in care project was a 2-year partnership (2015–2016) between SOS Children’s Villages International, the Council of Europe, Eurochild and partners in Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Hungary and Romania. This project aimed to improve the living conditions and life prospects of children and young people living in alternative care by providing care professionals with continuous training on applying a children’s rights-based approach to their work. The training was based on two SOS Children’s Villages International and Council of Europe guidelines prepared for children titled Securing Children's Rights and Discovering Your Rights.

SOS Children’s Villages prepared the handbook Realising Children’s Rights: A training manual for care professionals working with children in alternative care. It is based on the experiences and best practices of European countries. A team of international experts also conducted training workshops for two trainers from each country. National training for 842 care professionals from various care-providing organisations followed.

SOS Children’s Villages International and Eurochild developed European recommendations on the implementation of a child rights-based approach for care professionals working with and for children as another output of the programme. This was possible owing to funding from the EU.

A specific 5-hour training course was conducted on the basic knowledge and skills needed for meaningful inclusion of children’s rights principles and practices in EU development cooperation [8] UNICEF, Programme Division (2014), EU-UNICEF Child Rights Toolkit – Integrating child rights in development cooperation, New York.
. The EU rights, equality and citizenship programme funded the Children as champions of change: ensuring children’s rights and meaningful participation project. Seven UNICEF national committees implemented the project: Ireland as a lead partner, and Austria, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands and Portugal. It aimed to raise awareness about children’s rights, child rights schools and child participation between 2021 and 2023 and included training for professionals and children.

The Hungarian Family, Child, Youth Association prepared the project Unlocking Children’s Rights: Strengthening the capacity of professionals in the EU to fulfil the rights of vulnerable children. It involved partners from 10 European countries, including the Bulgarian branch of the International Federation of Educative Communities, the Czech Helsinki Committee, the Estonian Human Rights Centre, Social Educational Action (Greece), University College Cork (Ireland), the European Roma Rights Centre and the Family, Child, Youth Association (Hungary), Fondazione L’Albero della Vita (Italy), the Empowering Children Foundation (Poland), the Children of Slovakia Foundation, and Coram Voice and Coram Children’s Legal Centre (the United Kingdom).

The project aimed to develop a comprehensive learning system, including face-to-face training modules, e-learning packages and an online knowledge-sharing resource for professionals working with children in residential care facilities, detention centres and justice systems across the EU. It developed an accompanying advocacy and dissemination guide to identify how training could be integrated into existing training in different sectors and registration and accreditation systems. Following the project, national partners could accredit the training programmes and invite professionals to participate in the translated and adapted versions.