1. Introduction
1. The present report
is
motivated by the rapporteur’s concern about the persistently large
number of children without parental care, the new problems they
are facing in a globalised context, the lack of appropriate alternative
care and the limited efforts being made to reduce the numbers of
children placed in large institutions in favour of other care arrangements.
At a time when the world is celebrating the 20th anniversary of
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
the
main objective is to renew the attention paid to the rights of children
without parental care and to urge member states to better co-ordinate
and strengthen relevant policies at European and national level.
There is urgent need for action, given the fact that the well-being
of many children is not yet ensured, despite the major achievements
of the past decades and the positive approach that can be observed
across Europe. As already affirmed by the UNCRC, in its Article
3, all political, legal or administrative actions concerning children
should continue to focus on the best interests of the child as a
primary consideration.
2. Even though priority should clearly be given to future action,
the rapporteur wishes to build on previous texts of the Parliamentary
Assembly, namely
Recommendation
1601 (2003) on improving the lot of abandoned children in institutions,
Recommendation 1698 (2005) on the rights of children in institutions: follow-up
to
Recommendation 1601
(2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly,
Resolution 1587 (2007) on the situation of children living in post-conflict
zones in the Balkans, and
Recommendation
1864 (2009) on promoting the participation by children in decisions
affecting them. He further welcomes recent activities undertaken
in the intergovernmental field leading up to Recommendation Rec(2005)5
of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the rights of
children living in residential institutions, as well as the follow-up
work undertaken, such as the report on the implementation of this
recommendation, edited as recently as 2009. Other documents to note
are the European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised)
(opened for signature in 2008, but not yet entered into force) (CETS
No. 202) and the most recent Recommendation of the Committee of
Ministers CM/Rec(2010)2 on deinstitutionalisation and community
living of children with disabilities.
3. Despite the efforts made at European level, the lack of quantitative
and qualitative data on children without parental care in Europe
is very often one of the main constraints to effective intervention
and evidence-based policymaking, as well as to monitoring the implementation
and effectiveness of policies in favour of these vulnerable children.
Data is not collected in a consistent way across Europe and various
definitions are used when it comes to designating orphans or alternative
care.
On these grounds
and for the purpose of this report, national experts from a number
of countries were ready to share their knowledge and experience
with regard to the situation of children without parental care and
existing alternative care arrangements in their country in order
to provide practical examples for the arguments raised.
Of course, more intensive research
will be required at national level when it comes to the future implementation
of co-ordinated European policies.
4. The rapporteur believes that the Council of Europe should
pursue its efforts to improve the plight of children without parental
care. Whilst aware of the complexity and multitude of problematic
situations that children can find themselves in, he would notably
like to draw attention to two main issues: the “new risks” encountered
by many children in a globalised world and the need for further
deinstitutionalisation of childcare in Europe. The Assembly should
contribute to raising a renewed sense of urgency for these issues
amongst member states with a view to reinforcing action at the national
level and co-ordinating approaches at international and European
level.
2. Children’s
right to a family environment
5. The family plays the role of the primary caregiver
for all children. It provides the immediate environment conducive
to the growth and development of the child. Ideally, it provides
maximum opportunities for the fulfilment of the emotional, physical
and developmental needs of the child.
Again
the UNCRC of 1989 states that “the family, as the fundamental group
of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of
all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the
necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume
its responsibilities within the community” and further that “the
child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality,
should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,
love and understanding”.
6. The biological family is ideally the best place for a child.
But there are circumstances that deprive children of the possibility
of growing up within their own families. Hence the above-cited United
Nations convention includes various “alternative care arrangements”,
notably foster care, adoption and institutional or residential care.
These can be options whenever an existing family is unable to provide
an appropriate environment for a child, for example in case of the
death of one or both parents, if a child is being exposed to abuse
and violence within the family or if the biological parents, for
various health or economic reasons, are not in a position to live
up to their responsibilities. For such cases, the UNCRC considers
that separation from its parents may be necessary in the best interests
of the child.
7. The United Nations convention recognises that children are
entitled to grow up in a family environment and should therefore
be placed in institutions only as a last resort. The United Nations
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, as adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in November 2009, are more precise,
stating that “decisions regarding children in alternative care …
should have due regard for the importance of ensuring children a
stable home and of meeting their basic need for safe and continuous attachment
to their caregivers, with permanency generally being a key goal”.
It further says that the “use of residential care should be limited
to cases where such a setting is specifically appropriate, necessary
and constructive for the individual child concerned, and in his/her
best interests” and that “alternative care for young children, especially
those under the age of 3 years, should be provided in family-based
settings”.
8. The world community has agreed in a number of declarations
that the family is the fundamental group unit in society. The United
Nations convention and the European Convention on Human Rights emphasise
the importance of protecting the family circle as the social unit
that nurtures most children to adulthood. At the level of European
standards, the
European Social
Charter (revised) explicitly refers to the protection of children
and represents the main legal text establishing social, legal and
economic rights for all children. It protects the rights of children
as family members: “The family as a fundamental unit of society
has the right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection
to ensure its full development”.
3. Situation of children
without parental care and risks they encounter
9. Children may be without parental care for a variety
of reasons and not just as a result of their parents’ death. The
main root causes leading to children being deprived of family care
are poverty, discrimination, HIV/Aids, violence and wars or emergency
situations. To identify the causes leading to the specific situation
of children, they must be considered in their broader context, as
a range of socio-political, cultural and economic factors impacting
on children and their families’ lives.
The main groups of children
without parental care are presented here, according to the categories
widely used by European researchers and organisations. This overview
will be used as a basis to identify some of the appropriate policy
responses.
3.1. Orphans and abandoned
children
10. Orphans are, by definition, the first group of children
exposed to the risk of finding themselves without parental care.
At international and European level, various definitions are in
use to identify orphans. In the common use, an orphan does not have
any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Joint United Nations Programme
on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other organisations label any child
that has lost one parent as an orphan. Using this definition, a
maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan
is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both
parents. The variety of definitions is also reflected in national
legislation as replies to the survey undertaken have shown.
11. The concept of “social orphans” is notably known in some of
the eastern European countries, for children whose parents are deprived
of their parental rights for socio-economic reasons (currently concerning
over 300 000 children in Russia and more than 50 000 in Ukraine,
for example). Another group of children not easily classified into
any of the categories are the children who are voluntarily abandoned
by their parents as they are unable to face their responsibilities
for various reasons. This is very often the case with disabled children,
who were placed in large institutions well into the 1990s, especially
in eastern European countries (Bulgaria and Romania, for example).
Fortunately, numerous measures to improve their situation have been
taken since and some of the countries have undergone a true programmatic
change, thanks also to the support and intervention of international
and European organisations.
3.2. Street children
12. According to Recommendation 253 (2008) of the Congress
of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the
term “street children” refers to any children who live and/or work
on the street. This group includes homeless children and unaccompanied
foreign minors. It also includes those who, while normally living
with their parents or in a social welfare institution, are nevertheless
in a situation where they are not directly protected or supervised
by responsible adults. Some street children live or work on the
streets and still maintain certain ties with their families, others
do not have such contacts.
13. There is almost no reliable data regarding the number of street
children and their identity in member states
and
partial data is collected in various contexts. In Lithuania, for
example, the only statistical data regarding children living or
working on the streets concerns children who are brought to police
stations because of begging or vagrancy. As regards Sweden, the
association Save the Children published in 2009 a study on youngsters
who run away or are thrown out of their homes
.
14. The lack of systematic data collection is partly due to the
fact that these children do not clearly fit into statistical categories.
Nevertheless, there is agreement that the issue has recently become
one of major significance in a number of European countries and
a serious challenge to towns and cities whose authorities must find
ways to prevent and counteract the marginalisation and social exclusion
of large numbers of children and young people.
3.3. Children separated
from biological parents following abuse and neglect
15. Regarding children separated from their biological
parents for reasons of abuse and neglect, a similar approach can
be found in national legislation across Europe. According to German
law, decisions to separate a child from his or her parents are only
possible if there is no other possibility to protect them from danger. Likewise,
in Bulgaria, raising the child in the family environment is a main
principle in the Child Protection Act and placement of the child
outside the family is done as a protection measure after exhausting
all other possibilities, except for cases where an urgent removal
is required. In Serbia, the number of abused and neglected children
known to the system of social welfare has increased considerably
in past years, not necessarily because of an increase in victims,
but rather due to the fact that there is greater awareness of the issue.
The problem of child abuse and neglect within the family exists
all over Europe and there is increasing awareness in all countries.
At Council of Europe level, the launch of a pan-European campaign
to stop sexual violence against children is planned for November
2010. Given the extent of the problem and the need to provide comprehensive
policy responses, the Assembly should strongly support this initiative.
3.4. Trafficked children
16. In Europe, different legal approaches are adopted
when addressing the issue of child trafficking. Less than half of
the Council of Europe member states have included a distinct legal
definition of child trafficking in national law (23 out of 47),
although
the issue of child trafficking is considered a burning problem by
most European countries. Information was obtained from Lithuania
where child trafficking is experienced due to the state’s economic
and social situation and geographical position (as a transit country),
but where the scope of the problem seems to be difficult to assess.
Bulgaria and the Czech Republic indicate that they too are confronted
with child trafficking. The Czech Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs believes that there is a lack of fast information exchange
mechanisms among countries regarding the victims.
17. In the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings,
special provisions for
children are included throughout. The preamble recognises that “all
actions or initiatives against trafficking in human beings must
be non-discriminatory, take gender equality into account as well
as a child-rights approach”. The convention further calls upon states
parties to “take specific measures to reduce children’s vulnerability
to trafficking, notably by creating a protective environment for
them”. However, only 26 of the 47 Council of Europe member states
have ratified the convention. Only recently, the Assembly has once
again insisted on the importance of the ratification of the convention
by all member states and of subsequent action to be taken at European
and national level.
18. Recent studies confirm that there seems to be a general tendency
of child trafficking from eastern to western countries for cheap
labour, child prostitution or illegal international adoption. When
trying to access more specific information, one can observe a dramatic
absence of harmonised and systematic data collection, analysis,
dissemination and exchange at all levels. Again, this seems to be
an obstacle for specific national policy responses, given that only
nine countries in Europe have developed national action plans that
address child trafficking specifically and comprehensively.
3.5. Children left behind
in their country of origin
19. According to available data, the new European Union
member states in particular are affected by the considerable migration
of workers. The situation of children who are left behind on their
own in the country of origin when parents emigrate to other countries
in search of a job is an issue of great concern. Although there are
comprehensive policies for improving the living conditions and education
of children who have migrated with their parents, less attention
has so far been paid to the children who are left behind. The migration
of parents abroad for work is a social phenomenon with a complex
impact on the dynamics and functionality of the family, as well
as on society as a whole. Children in such situations certainly
belong to the most vulnerable groups.
Nevertheless,
this issue has not been addressed sufficiently either by existing
instruments, such as the recent Committee of Ministers Recommendation
CM/Rec(2008)4 on strengthening the integration of children of migrants
and of immigrant background, or by relevant national policies.
20. Lithuania, affected by relatively high rates of migration
of workers just like other new European Union member states, was
ready to share its data on children left behind by migrating parents,
which was collected by municipal children’s rights protection services.
According to their information, as of 31 December 2008, temporary
custody was determined for 1 952 children (971 boys and 981 girls)
at the request of parents who had left Lithuania. The estimated
number of children in Romania affected by their parents’ migration
at the time of research was about 350 000; 126 000 of these children
are affected by the migration abroad of both parents and about half
of them are less than 10 years of age. Some 16% of children with
both parents abroad spent more than a year without them, while 3%
had to live parentless for over four years.
3.6. Unaccompanied migrant
minors
21. Some unaccompanied children seek asylum or protection
for fear of persecution or because of human rights violations, armed
conflicts or disturbances in their own country. Other unaccompanied
children become victims of trafficking for sexual or other types
of exploitation. Yet others travel to the more affluent European countries
to escape serious deprivation or to look for better living conditions.
In some cases, unaccompanied children seek reunification with family
members already present in a given country. A study by ChildONEurope, conducted
from the destination country perspective, shows that a total number
of 29 130 unaccompanied children were reported in Europe in 2002.
There do not seem to be recent reliable statistics on how many unaccompanied
migrant children enter Europe every year. Asylum statistics, although
they do not account for all children, are indicative of the proportion
of unaccompanied children as compared to other asylum seekers. According
to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over
the past ten years unaccompanied children have consistently made
up 4% or 5% of all asylum applicants in the European Union.
22. Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)9 of the Committee of Ministers
proposes measures in favour of unaccompanied
migrant minors who are outside their country of origin, regardless
of their status, irrespective of the reasons for their migration
and whether or not they are asylum seekers. The notion of “unaccompanied migrant
minors” includes separated children and minors who have been left
to their own devices after entering the territory of a member state.
They are under the age of 18, have generally been separated from
both parents and other relatives and are not in the care of another
adult specially appointed for this purpose.
23. With regard to this focus group, Serbia, for example, established
a working unit under a specific placement centre that accommodates
young foreign nationals who enter Serbia illegally and are not accompanied
by their parents. The Czech Republic has also established such a
special facility as it is facing problems with children from other
European Union countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania). The Swedish Migration
Board is under a legal obligation to search for family members of
unaccompanied minors who have applied for asylum in Sweden, often
a difficult task due to the fact that most asylum-seeking minors
do not present any identity documents or details of their families’
whereabouts.
3.7. Children placed
in correctional or penal facilities as a result of an administrative
or judicial decision
24. There is increasing concern about the practice of
depriving children of their liberty in order to provide them with
protection, care or treatment in a secure setting. The use of so-called
“protective custody”, which can play a positive role in certain
circumstances, can also mask inadequately developed systems of social
welfare and care provision. According to the Council of Europe Commissioner
for Human Rights, protective custody is compatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights only where it serves the purpose of “educational supervision”.
It should, regardless of its
purpose, only be used as a last resort once other options have been examined
(family support services, foster care and temporary shelters). If
it cannot be avoided, important measures should include seeking
the consent of the child in order to prevent arbitrary placement,
and regular review of the placement.
4. National policies
in Council of Europe member states
4.1. Prevention of the
loss of parental care
25. International and European instruments defending
children’s rights to parental care and a family environment also
govern the obligations of states to ensure that children are not
separated from their parents without a due judicial process, and
to provide support for parents and the family unit. Many European
countries have built up comprehensive family welfare and childcare
systems, including health insurance and financial security in case
of illness, disability and old age, as well as for families with
young children.
26. Despite these childcare systems, neglect within the family
environment occurs and children need to be taken care of by social
services. In this context, poverty and material deprivation clearly
continue to be reasons for, or at least underlying causes of, placement
of children in institutions.
Moreover, the involvement
of children and parents in decision-making processes concerning
them should be further strengthened in the future. For this purpose,
the Assembly adopted
Recommendation
1864 (2009) on promoting the participation by children in decisions
affecting them.
27. The Council of Europe has addressed these challenges on several
occasions, such as in 2006, when the Committee of Ministers adopted
Recommendation Rec(2006)19 to member states on policy to support positive
parenting. Current activities at Council of Europe level are aimed
at accompanying and supporting relevant prevention policies, such
as the preparation of guidelines on child-friendly social services
or on child-friendly justice (adoption of the latter expected in
November 2010).
4.2. Alternative care
arrangements
28. According to Article 20 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), “a child temporarily or permanently
deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best
interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall
be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state.
States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure
alternative care for such a child. Such care could include,
inter alia, foster placement,
kafalah of Islamic law, adoption
or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care
of children”.
Foster care
29. It is generally agreed that foster family care is
the least restrictive and most nurturing out-of-home placement for
children in need. A foster family can be one which is not related
to the child concerned, but can also be part of the child’s direct
family context. Foster care is an attractive choice for out-of-home
placement as it provides the child with an alternative family, it
is potentially capable of accommodating the different needs of children
due to its flexibility and, finally, it is cost effective as it
is estimated, for example, in western countries to represent only
a fraction of the cost of residential care.
In some cases, the foster family
may become a permanent solution for those children who cannot be
reunited with their parents. As early as 1977, in its resolution
on the placement of children, the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe called upon member states to promote foster care
as being frequently the best mode of temporary placement, especially for
young children.
30. Certain countries have made particular efforts in recent years
to further promote foster care as an alternative care arrangement.
Amongst countries surveyed, Serbia, for example, indicates positive
results in this field according to the number of foster care services
and the increased level of efforts invested in strengthening and
enhancing foster care services. Measures taken included a public
campaign for foster care promotion, a network of foster care families,
as well as a number of training courses for relevant social services. In
the Czech Republic, despite a strong tradition of institutional
care, foster care is also recognised by law as the best mode of
temporary placement for children without parental care. Therefore,
support for foster care was increased and the accompanying services
for foster families were improved. Bulgaria also boasts enormous progress
in this field. If in 2002 the number of children raised by relatives
other than parents was only 878, their number had already reached
5 919 in 2008.
National and international adoption
31. Adoption is sometimes seen as a way to fulfil one’s
wish for a child. However, one must not forget that adoption is
first and foremost a service for children and undertaken in the
best interests of the child (again, according to the UNCRC). The
European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised) (opened
for signature in November 2008) deals essentially with national
adoption, and therefore complements the relevant international standards,
principally the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children
and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption (“The Hague
Convention on Adoption of 1993”).
32. In its
Recommendation
1828 (2008)on the disappearance of newborn
babies for illegal adoption in Europe, the Assembly firmly condemned
all practices designed to steal or sell newborn babies, as well
as all other forms of child trafficking. It drew attention to the
fact that children are increasingly traded on a real “marketplace”,
notably to the detriment of poorer countries. Such practices were
said to be all the easier due to the absence of strict rules on
registration of birth in some countries, although the “fine line”
between international adoption and child trafficking also concerns
older children. In order to continue the fight against mercantile
practices of child adoption, member states of the Council of Europe
should also subscribe to the principles laid down by The Hague Convention
on Adoption of 1993, which to date has been signed or ratified by
only 36 of the 47 Council of Europe member states.
Institutional care
33. It can be roughly estimated that around 1% of children
– approximately 1 million children – are taken into public care
across the European Union, although figures may vary from one country
to another (examples: Latvia 2.2%, Romania 1.6%, Sweden 0.66%).
It is widely recognised that infants under 3 years of age in institutional
care for several months suffer irreversible damage to their brain
development, as their fundamental need for attachment is not met.
Nonetheless, and although child protection law prohibits this, the
practice of placing young children in institutions (such as orphanages,
maternity wards or paediatric hospitals) still exists in several
European countries. As a result of a procedural void, many children
are furthermore left without any identification papers, leaving
them particularly vulnerable to exploitation, including trafficking.
A 2005 study of the World Health Organization estimated that about
22 000 children under 3 were in institutional care across Europe
(figures of 2003).
34. According to other sources, in central and eastern Europe
alone, almost 1.5 million children live in public care. In some
countries, the annual number of “children left without parental
care” has more than doubled over the last ten years, despite falling
birth-rates.
The
vast majority of children in institutions still have biological parents
who are alive, and only a small percentage of them are orphans.
The social and economic instability of the early transition period
put family structures under particular pressure, and in the absence
of preventive measures and support mechanisms, led to an increase
in the number of children left without parental care and being placed
in formal care, usually in institutions. In many countries these
trends have also continued in the period of economic recovery. They
are extremely worrying and suggest that state support of families
in difficulty is still inadequate in many cases.
35. Despite the identification of these basic figures, existing
data on the scope of residential care in Europe is fragmented. Official
data is collected in various ways by different states and even within
the state administrations, where responsibilities are often divided
between several ministries or official bodies. International comparisons
are also difficult due to variable definitions of target groups,
type of care, reasons for out-of-home placement, legal status of
children, etc.
4.3. Deinstitutionalisation
of childcare
36. The so-called “deinstitutionalisation” of childcare
in favour of other arrangements is nowadays addressed at different
levels. The notion does not only refer to the simple “removal” of
children from residential care in favour of other alternative care
arrangements such as foster families or adoption. Deinstitutionalisation is
essentially the process of moving away from a care system based
on large institutions, not necessarily by closing them down, but
also by developing modern and effective care systems for children
and families. This reflects a global concern to redefine residential
care systems and to support family-based care models, including
prevention work with biological families.
37. In accordance with this broad understanding, the concept of
deinstitutionalisation first of all encompasses any measures undertaken
by relevant social services enabling children to return to their
original family environment in better circumstances, and should
therefore be part of preventive strategies. Secondly, it can describe
any efforts undertaken to place children in alternative care arrangements
other than residential care. Finally, the concept can be seen as
a complete restructuring of institutional care systems. This tendency was
led by some of the northern countries in previous decades, but can
nowadays be observed in other states of western Europe as well as
central and eastern Europe, where increasing efforts are made to
create family-type environments in public institutions. Given the
fact that for such a pressing matter as children without parental
care innovative approaches are welcome, the rapporteur would like
to address the issue of deinstitutionalisation in this differentiated
way.
38. In this context, the rapporteur would like to draw attention
to the very recent work undertaken by the European Commission and
other partners with regard to central and eastern Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS), the result of which
is an excellent “Guide to good practice” concerning the deinstitutionalisation
of childcare.
This
guide firstly defines the main preconditions for successful deinstitutionalisation,
such as the concern for the best interests of the child as a motivation
(instead of cost-cutting intentions) or the capacity to welcome
children as individuals in traumatic situations in a sensitive and appropriate
way. Secondly, it addresses recommendations for policy makers with
a view to designing childcare policies in general, and finally presents
a 10-step approach to deinstitutionalisation containing very pragmatic measures
and indicators. Another interesting text is the above-mentioned
Recommendation Rec(2010)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe on deinstitutionalisation and community living of children
with disabilities, which develops important aspects to be considered
when it comes to the requirement of well-planned and structured
transition processes related to deinstitutionalisation. Both documents
should serve as central references when it comes to further work
on the issue at European or national level.
5. Conclusions
39. The present report shows that, on the one hand, children
in Europe today can be deprived of parental care due to numerous
causes and situations. Many problems they are facing have been known
for a long time, others are new phenomena occurring or increasing
in a globalised context where most countries are currently confronted
with the economic crisis to some extent. On the other hand, research
undertaken for this report has shown that more efforts and resources
could be deployed to develop and strengthen childcare systems as close
as possible to family settings and following the best interests
of the child as the main guiding principle. With a view to tackling
these two sets of problems, a comprehensive, co-operative and innovative
approach at European and national level is needed.
40. On these grounds and first of all, the overall objectives
should be to:
i. follow a broad approach,
based on a fine analysis of all possible situations of abandoned
children in a globalised context;
ii. promote high quality childcare arrangements in a comprehensive
and differentiated manner and notably those considered as most favourable
for a child’s personal development;
iii. address the issue of children without parental care at
all possible levels of intervention:
- preventing the abandoning of children by strengthening
the capacity of families to care for, protect and empower their
children, by providing relevant training to professionals in social
services and by strengthening the participation of children and
families in decisions concerning them;
- systematic data collection and appropriate mechanisms
for the exchange of information at international, European and national
level;
- implementation of existing international standards at
European level and development of new standards where required;
- focused policy making at international, European and national
level, including the development of quality standards for children
in out-of-home care at national level, corresponding to a broad approach
to the issue of deinstitutionalisation;
- commitment to the implementation of policies and regular
monitoring of progress made at all levels.
41. Recently increasing phenomena, such as street children, child
trafficking or children left behind by migrating parents, should
be further analysed and relevant and co-ordinated policy responses
provided at national and European level. National and European work
should also be pursued on topical issues where international standards
already exist, but need to be better implemented, such as the field
of international adoption. In order to provide for a full understanding
of these complex issues, which would allow for the development and
implementation of focused and co-ordinated policies at national
level, the rapporteur would recommend that specific studies on children
without parental care be carried out in each country, not only highlighting
national situations but also relevant bi- or multilateral interdependences
with other European countries. Efforts made in respect of the present
report have shown that it is very difficult to access coherent national
data on children without parental care.
42. A new and more far-reaching approach should be followed when
it comes to the situation of children in institutions and the quality
standards of residential care. There is a lack of focused and committed
action in favour of alternative care arrangements to institutional
care, such as foster care, which is generally considered to be the
solution closest to a child’s own family context. The development
of new types of institutional care (small-size institutions, family-type
settings, etc.) should also be further explored. Considering deinstitutionalisation
as a long-term process which is to be thoroughly planned and structured,
the rapporteur strongly recommends taking the above-mentioned approaches
and methodologies recently developed at European Commission and
Council of Europe level as starting points for any future national
action. Member states should further be prepared to regularly report
on progress made regarding the deinstitutionalisation of childcare
in their respective countries and in the context of relevant monitoring
procedures to be set up at a European level.
43. The lines set out here should also be followed at Council
of Europe level when it comes to future intergovernmental work on
children without parental care. The focus suggested is entirely
coherent with the current programme Building a Europe For and With
Children and its Strategy 2009-2011. In the future, however, not
only the situation of children residing in institutions and the
quality of institutional care should be looked at, but more visible
efforts should also be made towards the deinstitutionalisation of
childcare in Europe. Furthermore, the Assembly should support and
promote specific Council of Europe action, which can be useful to
consolidate the situation of children without parental care, such
as activities related to child-friendly social services, health
care or justice systems. In the same spirit, the upcoming launch
of a pan-European campaign to stop sexual violence against children
(November 2010) could also be a measure supportive of children at risk
of losing their parental care.
44. As in individual studies so far, data on children without
parental care should generally be collected more systematically
by member states, through specific national surveys as suggested
above, and at European level wherever appropriate. Any data collected
should be presented in an accessible manner so as to be operational as
a source of information and European “best practice” when it comes
to public action to be taken. A more co-ordinated action at Council
of Europe level, for example by linking up different monitoring
mechanisms (European Convention on Human Rights, European Social
Charter, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, European Charter of Local
Self-Government), could be a first step in this direction.
45. Any action at Council of Europe level should be undertaken
in close co-operation with European and international organisations
that have already done substantial work on the issue, such as the
United Nations and its agencies (UNICEF), the European Commission,
as well as networks such as Eurochild, SOS KDI, Save the Children
and others. Their activities have delivered most valuable elements
for a comprehensive policy approach at European level. In order
to tackle the complex issue of children without parental care in
a more efficient manner, it will, however, be necessary to better
co-ordinate and link-up existing activities, for example by reinforcing
the use of United Nations instruments – notably the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recent United Nations
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children – as central reference points
for all. Member states could be asked to contribute to better European
policy co-ordination through the preparation of national action
plans for the implementation of the United Nations guidelines.
46. The Council of Europe has yet to define its specific role
and contribution in this international landscape of stakeholders.
Its added value could certainly be found in joint programmes aimed
at policy making and implementation strategies related to specific
national situations, such as the Joint Council of Europe/European Union
programme Enforcing the Rights of the Child and Re-integrating Children
at Risk into Society, Russia 2007-2008. The rapporteur considers
that, regarding both its substance and methodology, this programme constitutes
a positive example that could be reproduced in other national contexts
and thus increase the impact of international and European standards
at national level.