Ombudsman and children’s rights protection
1. Case: Child Sexual Abuse in Foster Care
Facts:
A child placed in foster care was sexually abused by an employee of the child welfare institution. After the incident, the child was kept in the same premises, even isolated in the same room where the abuse occurred. The child did not receive adequate psychological support or protection following the incident.
Legal Issues:
Whether the child’s right to physical integrity and safety was respected.
Whether the child welfare authorities fulfilled their obligation to protect the child and provide support after abuse.
Whether the municipality and institution acted appropriately under Finnish Child Welfare Act and constitutional rights.
Findings:
The Deputy-Ombudsman found that the child’s rights had been violated. The institution and municipality had failed to protect the child’s physical integrity adequately and had not arranged proper support or relocation to a safe environment. Keeping the child in proximity to the offender without appropriate safeguards was unlawful and harmful.
Outcome:
The Ombudsman recommended compensation for the child for the rights violation.
Emphasized the need for better procedural safeguards in foster care settings.
Called for improvements in child welfare law implementation to prevent similar cases.
2. Case: Improper Urgent Placement and Restrictions on Child’s Freedom
Facts:
A child was urgently placed into foster care as part of a pre-trial investigation. The police instructed the child welfare unit to restrict the child’s freedom of movement and contact with family members. The restrictions were imposed without clear legal authority.
Legal Issues:
Whether police had competence to impose restrictions related to child welfare.
Whether the urgent placement and restrictions were lawful and proportionate.
Findings:
The Deputy-Ombudsman held that the police do not have authority to decide on child welfare measures or impose restrictions on children’s liberty. Child welfare decisions must be made independently by child welfare authorities following the law. Restrictions without clear legal basis or proper documentation violated the child’s constitutional rights.
Outcome:
The Ombudsman declared some restrictions illegal and recommended adherence to proper legal procedures.
Police involvement in welfare decisions should be advisory, not directive.
Highlighted the importance of preserving children’s rights even during investigations.
3. Case: Interviewing Unaccompanied Children Without Guardians
Facts:
Underage asylum seekers and applicants for family reunification were interviewed by immigration officials without a guardian or legal representative present, sometimes even young children.
Legal Issues:
The child’s right to legal representation and support during interviews.
The principle of participation and protection of vulnerable children.
Findings:
The Ombudsman criticized the practice, stating it violated children’s rights under the CRC and Finnish law. Children must have a guardian or legal representative present to protect their interests and ensure that the interview is conducted in a child-friendly, non-coercive manner.
Outcome:
Recommended that all interviews with minor children be conducted with a guardian or legal representative present, except in exceptional cases justified by child’s best interests.
Emphasized children’s right to be heard but also protected during administrative procedures.
4. Case: Family Reunification Refusals and Children’s Best Interests
Facts:
A report by the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman reviewed numerous family reunification decisions where children’s applications were refused based on unclear or inconsistent reasons. Some decisions relied on criteria not found in the law.
Legal Issues:
Whether decisions respected the best interests of the child principle.
Whether discretionary criteria were applied consistently and legally.
Findings:
The Ombudsman found that the rights of children were not always realized in family reunification cases. The best interests of the child were not sufficiently considered, and some refusals used non-statutory “individual compelling reasons” as grounds.
Outcome:
Recommended clearer legislation on family reunification criteria.
Called for transparent, consistent decision-making prioritizing children’s rights.
Urged training and supervision to ensure compliance with CRC principles.
5. Case: Residential Care Institution – Improper Use of Isolation and Restraint
Facts:
In a residential school for children requiring care (Pohjolakoti), investigations found frequent and improper use of isolation rooms, physical restraints, and forced undressing during body searches. Children’s privacy and dignity were violated, and restrictions were applied as punishments.
Legal Issues:
Whether restrictive measures had legal basis and were proportionate.
Protection of children’s dignity, privacy, and humane treatment.
Findings:
The Ombudsman and inspection authorities ruled that these practices violated Finnish law and constitutional protections. Isolation and restraints should only be used as last resort, with strict documentation, and never as punishment. Forced undressing without proper safeguards was degrading.
Outcome:
Ordered the institution to end illegal practices immediately.
Required enhanced staff training and improved monitoring.
Emphasized children’s rights to humane treatment in care settings.
6. International Case: Finnish State’s Failure to Protect Children in Conflict Zones (CRC Committee Communication)
Facts:
Finnish children held in refugee camps in Syria (relatives of Finnish nationals linked to ISIS) faced life-threatening conditions. Despite knowledge of their plight, Finnish authorities delayed repatriation and failed to provide adequate protection.
Legal Issues:
State obligations under the CRC to protect children’s right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Duty to take positive measures when children are at risk abroad.
Findings:
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child found Finland in violation of Articles 6 and 37 of the CRC due to failure to repatriate and protect the children. The conditions in the camps posed grave risks to survival and health.
Outcome:
Recommended urgent repatriation and support.
Highlighted State responsibility for children’s rights beyond national borders.
Summary of Key Legal Principles from these Cases
Best Interests of the Child: A fundamental and overriding principle guiding all decisions affecting children.
Legal Authority & Proportionality: All restrictions on children’s liberty and rights require legal basis, necessity, and proportionality.
Right to Representation: Children must be represented by guardians or legal counsel in administrative and legal proceedings.
Protection from Abuse & Neglect: Authorities must protect children from harm, abuse, and provide remedial support promptly.
Dignity and Privacy: Children’s treatment in institutions must respect their human dignity and privacy rights.
Transparency & Accountability: Decisions affecting children must be transparent, lawful, and accountable with appropriate oversight.
State Responsibility Beyond Borders: The State’s obligation to protect children’s rights applies even outside its territory under certain circumstances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments