European Network Of

EUROPEAN NETWORK OF

OMBUDSPERSONS FOR CHILDREN

(ENOC)

REPORT OF THE

9TH ANNUAL MEETING

WARSAW, POLAND, 21 - 23 SEPTEMBER 2005

ENOC Annual Meeting

Warsaw, 21-23 September 2005

Introduction

The ENOC Annual Meeting took place on 21-23 September 2005, and was hosted by the Ombudsman for Children in Poland, Pawel Jaros, and his team. There were 59 participants at the meeting, including 25 from various Ombudsperson’s Offices (covering 22 countries) and 16 observers (see list of participants in Annex 4). The meeting was opened by Pawel Jaros, who welcomed all participants to Poland. A welcome address was given by Stanislaw Trociuk, Deputy Commissioner for Civil Right Protection in Poland, who expressed his satisfaction on the fruitful cooperation between the Polish Ombudsman and his office in the advocacy of child rights within the family environment.

The ENOC activities update was presented by Rhian Davis, Assistant Commissioner for Wales on behalf of Peter Clarke. Ms. Davis reported the major activities and initiatives undertaken by the Chairperson on behalf of ENOC (see Annex 1). An official letter to request funding for a permanent Secretariat for ENOC was send to the European Commission. However, despite all efforts a reply is still pending. Ms. Davis also mentioned that the Chairperson presented and represented ENOC at the UN Regional Consultation in Slovenia, and noted that several governments have contacted ENOC with regard to establishing an Ombudsperson’s office in their countries.

Ms. Davis concluded by expressing her particular appreciation for Lesley Miller’s tremendous support and encouragement to the Network providing the Secretariat on behalf of UNICEF since the first meeting in Trondheim in 1997; Lesley has left to take up a post in Cambodia and is replaced by Caroline Bakker.

Country Updates

Each office gave a brief update outlining the past year’s major achievements, initiatives, and events (see country updates in Annex 2).

Session on Preventing Family Separation: Strengthening Children’s Right to Protection

Within the framework of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s 2005 General Discussion Day on “Children without Parental Care”, ENOC organised a thematic session on necessary measures to support families and to ensure children’s rights to remain in their family environment.

Ms. Carmen Gonzales, Deputy Ombudsperson of Madrid, Spain, spoke on preventing the separation of children from their families before, and during, as well as after separation (see annex 3). She began by stating that the family is the fundamental group of society and provides the natural environment for the growth and well-being of its members, particularly children. She stressed the importance of efforts to ensure that children remain with their parents and suggested that assistance should be provided to families that require it in order to keep their own children. She emphasized that the close coordination between the different offices involved with assisting children in the case of a separation from the family was of utmost importance. Common criteria for the children before, during, and after separation should be developed respecting the best interest of the child as well as the views of the concerned child. Ms. Gonzales finalised her presentation by presenting statistical information on the child care situation in Spain and indicating that a significant number of children without parental care live in foster care, with the remaining children living in residential care.

The second presentation was made by Professor Józefina Hrynkiewicz of WarsawUniversity. She gave an overview of legal and social measures related to the care of children in Poland. She noted that ILO labour conventions contributed to the strengthening of the rights of the family and formed the framework for social and family policies. Poland incorporated these international directions into its constitution, including family benefits and support. Professor Hrynkiewicz noted, however, that the financial benefits provided to unemployed families are not sufficient to alleviate the financial burden that the care and upbringing of children can and does represent. The protection of children against violence, abuse, and exploitation is reflected in other legislation. She mentioned that family support, and support via protection centres, education, sports, and recreation, to disabled persons, and children without parental care were decentralised to the local level. Children living with their families also includes children living with their grand-parents. Professor Hrynkiewicz noted that in Poland there is a lack of awareness for the provision of appropriate care to children in the family and that there are not sufficient activities undertaken to prevent children being separated from their families. Foster care and the conditions of that care are administered by the family court and should be similar to the care that might/should have been provided by the child’s family. Support and assistance to the foster family is provided to meet these requirements.

Mr. Miroslaw Kaczmarek of the Ombudsman’s Bureau in Poland presented his assessment of the right of the child to care. He began by stating that the child has the right to stay within his/her family and that alternative care should be based on the best interests of the child, keeping in mind the emotional, social, and physical development of the child. Based on the analysis of the current care system for children, he recommended that change or reform should take place with the aim of encouraging further reintegration of children into their natural families, and to shift the emphasis of child care away from institutions. Such reform should also be combined with adequate support and assistance to families. Mr. Kaczmarek concluded by advocating the importance of a systematic approach to child care, and the need for alternative forms of care, such as foster families and small-scale family-based care.

During the plenary discussion several countries highlighted the specific situations in their respective countries, reasons for the separation of children from their families, and measures to be undertaken so as to assist families, whether or not children were to be separated. Common issues raised were poverty, unemployment, addiction to alcohol and drugs and migration. On the issue of whether or not to separate a child from his/her family, it was agreed that this should be determined by the best interests of the child and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Several representatives emphasized the need to provide support and assistance to families through counselling, mediation, family therapy or mentoring, and financial support. A focus on the role of the family instead of the right of the family was seen as an important component in the prevention of child-family separation.

Results of Working Groups on Preventing Family Separation

A working group session was held on the prevention of child-family separation, which sought to formulate effective strategies to address issues outlined by the various Ombudspersons’ offices, as well as a collective ENOC response.

The ombudspersons outlined the following key issues:

Deficiency of provisions and inability of social services to cope with present needs
Insufficient numbers of foster families
Use of crisis management instead of prevention and early intervention
Conflicts between practice and policy
Insufficient quantity and ineffective quality of care
Lack of reintegration of the child into the family where possible
Lack of taking into account the child’s opinion and perspective
Decisions taken on children that are not in the best interests of the child (professionals not consulted in court procedures)
Delays in the decision-making process
Child-family separation without preparation of the child
Conflicts between biological and foster families
Lack of regular contact with biological parent(s)
Prevalence of violence against children by care providers

Different strategies were used and proposed to address the issues encountered. These varied from awareness-raising and lobbying for policy and legislative development to the monitoring, review, and development of legislation; the development of a national programme and plan for the support of children; adequate preparation for the child; sharing good practices; the training of social workers, court workers, and others involved with child care cases; the establishment of ‘half-way’ homes; and the involvement of youth organisations.

Concerning a collective ENOC response, it was suggested that ENOC could develop and set standards for proceedings related to child care; help in the sharing of good practices and in the cross-country coordination of migration cases; draft a declaration or resolution (for approval at next annual meeting); publish important information on the Internet and/or submit such information to the Council of Europe; and stress the participation of children in decision-making processes related to care issues.

Session on examples of prevention activities

The session on preventing family separation continued with two presentations on examples of current prevention activities in Poland.

Ms Joanna Kluuzik-Rostkowska, President of Warsaw’s Proxy for Women and Family, gave an overview of the municipal policy with respect to children and families. She mentioned that a website for women, children, and families has been established to provide information on municipal programmes for these groups (including courses on how to raise children, etc.). Furthermore, she explained the different campaigns related to the quality control of kindergartens, on equal opportunities at school, and on how to cope with family violence. She also mentioned that there are specialised therapeutic groups for women that have been victims of violence.

This presentation was followed by one from Mr. Pawel Wypych, Director of the Municipal Office for Social Policy, on the campaign to promote foster care. Mr. Wypych explained that the campaign entailed different components, such as: mass media, with the slogan ‘Don’t turn them away, give them a future’ put on buses and advertisements in other public transport; a hotline; training programmes for foster families; the organisation of events (including, for example, family picnics); all of which were intended to encourage more people and families to become foster parents. Furthermore, he noted that research indicated that attitudes in schools towards children living in residential care are negative and that programmes have been ineffective in influencing these attitudes.

Protecting the Rights of Unaccompanied and Separated Children

This session focussed on ensuring the rights of unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) outside their country of origin, including refugees, asylum seekers, child victims of trafficking, and others. A series of presentations were given.

Mr George Moschos, Deputy Ombudsman in Greece, gave a presentation on why and how Ombudspersons can deal with the rights of unaccompanied children (see annex 3). He started with the definitions and categories of unaccompanied and separated children and cited the CRC articles related to the entitlement to special protection. He proposed a full list of questions for examination of UASC cases by ombudspersons, which covered the issues of proper identification, registration, and treatment. He stressed that the treatment of UASC at the national level should ensure respect tfor the various existing international rules and standards, especially for illegal child immigrants, child asylum seekers, child victims of trafficking, and arrangements for the deportation of children.

Mr. Moschos continued his presentation with facts and figures concerning Greece and the challenges faced by Ombudspersons at the national level. He indicated that Greece faces many challenges with respect to issues of migration. Immigrants make up 10% of the total population of Greece, less than half of which have official residency permits. In addition, more than 99% of applications are rejected by the Greek authorities, while 200-300 illegal UASC are arrested on an annual basis, and, with the exception of a few cases, deported.

He concluded his presentation by addressing the challenges faced by the Ombudspersons collectively. He advocated the abolition of detention of UASC and the introduction of clear rules, instruments, systems of identification, as well as the investigation of needs and the protection of formal registration. He mentioned that minors should be informed of their rights in a language that they understand, that the child’s opinion should be heard and considered, and free interpretation and legal assistance should be provided. Mr Moschos believed that the appointment of a temporary guardian, family tracing, access to health, education and welfare placement, and accompanied repatriation, were important considerations for all Ombudspersons. He also noted that personnel dealing with UASC should be properly trained and informed so as to respect child rights.

The second presentation was given by Mr. Jaumes Funes, Deputy Ombudsperson for children in Catalonia, Spain(see annex 3). Based on his experience in Spain, Mr. Funes gave a presentation on migrating unaccompanied teenagers, highlighting the different components of the Spanish government’s response to this increasingly challenging situation.

He introduced the subject by pointing out that the characteristics of migrating unaccompanied minors (UAMs) are changing, especially with respect to the place of origin, age, methods of migration/arrival, and numbers. Through new investigation methods more information on UAMs has been collected and includes the minor’s own perspectives on their situation. UAMs were often from poor family circumstances; were attracted to the migration ‘adventure’ and dreaming of a better future; lacked proper care by adults; were forced to migrate for survival; and often had trouble integrating in destination communities. Nonetheless, many differences were found in the origin family environment, vital possibilities and available social and educative resources, life experiences, and expectations from their families and themselves.

Mr Funes noted that a proper assessment needed to be made on a case-by-case basis, being guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, regional protection acts, and national migration laws and legislation. The state should provide care for UAMs, including education, for the duration of the UAMs assessment process. The assessment should also explore the possibility of return and reunification with the family. He noted that the return and reunification of UAMs should not only be based on the existence of the family of the child, but should include the following aspects:

-family and origin environment conditions

-the child’s present situation and the impact of his/her vital experience

-real possibilities of assistance in their place of origin

-real help and proposals.

It was stressed that in the decision-making process the child’s wishes and opinions should be seriously taken into account and that the Ombudsperson should monitor, support and if necessary, debate decisions with the state.

Mr. Funes concluded his presentation by stating that there is a need for a new child protection system and new child policies that address the actual situation, given the changing characteristics of UAMs,

As third presenter, Mr Brent Parfitt, member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, chose to illustrate the importance and the role of the ombudsperson with an actual example from Canada.

Mr. Parfitt described a real case that happened several years ago in Canada in which a boat was stopped that was transporting five adults and 50 UAMs, all of whom lacked any official papers whatsoever. Nobody knew what to do and the media was pushing towards deportation of these children. The inquiry, and interviews with the minors, gave the impression that the children were on their way to the US for a job (probably in the prostitution industry), that parents had paid ‘snake heads’, and that the children didn’t want asylum, but rather, ‘opportunities’ (housing and jobs). This situation was conflicting as the children wanted to go to the US and this was not in their best interest nor was there any child policy in Canada at that time on how to/who should deal with these children. This was/is a clear situation for the Ombudsperson’s involvement. In the absence of any relevant legislation or policy the Convention on the Rights of the Child was extremely helpful and was invoked so that the children were treated as ‘in need of special protection.’ A facility was constructed and staffed 24 hours a days and seven days a week for the care and assistance of all the children concerned. Over the months some of the children sought asylum, others left for their final destination, and some eloped.

Based on this example, Mr Parfitt stressed the fact that ombudsperson need to keep in mind that children can be trafficked or abducted. Repatriation processes could have serious consequences (e.g. re-trafficking, or forced enlistment into armed forces/groups) for the children. The Committee on the Rights of the Child is very concerned about this issue.

Mr. Parfitt concluded his presentation by stressing the applicable principles on the treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin (CRC General Comment no.6, 2005), namely:

-Legal obligations of States parties for all unaccompanied or separated children in their territory, and measures for implementation