Chained to files: Parents and children suffer from mistakes in youth protection
There are structural problems in youth protection that politics in The Hague cannot solve. Erroneous estimates by aid workers have enormous consequences in this region, according to files and conversations with those involved.
For four years, a 50-year-old mother from Neder-Betuwe fought against the placement of her two children, teenage sons. They are now back. 'The goals have been achieved', was the message of the last youth protector when her sons came back to live at home.
It caused great surprise to the mother and her lawyer, who fought against the custodial placement for years. Because in fact there was nothing different in the situation with the mother than when the children were removed from the home. "And now the children are traumatized by youth care," says the mother.
The family experienced first-hand how great the problems are in youth protection. In the file that ensured that the children were out of the house for a long time, it was stated, among other things, that the woman is mentally retarded, says Monique Gerson, the mother's lawyer at the time. ,,That is not true. Very strange that it ended up in the files, without it ever really being investigated.”
Gerson thus points out a problem that is seen by more lawyers. Factual inaccuracies will no longer be corrected. "Once something is in a file, people often fail to do proper research."
Children experienced sexual violence in foster care
It is not certain whether the 'feeble-minded' stamp in this file was the decisive factor in placing the children out of the home. Yes, the mother, her sister and the father have also made wrong choices in anger and sadness. Calling things out in anger.
Children involved in stories that are not really intended for their ears. And no, they are not perfect. But they also notice that once they're in the suspect's bench, they can't get out of it.
Whether it was justified or not: the out-of-home placement proved unsuccessful. The boys went from foster home to institution and experienced all kinds of things. Up to sexual violence.
The family received an offer for compensation from the government because of the violence in youth care. The woman did not accept it. She still wants to sue the state. Because she is not helped, she says. And certainly not her children.
De Gelderlander previously wrote that there is a major shortage of personnel in the Youth Protection. New research by this newspaper in collaboration with research platforms Follow The Money and Pointer shows that the organizations responsible for determining whether a child is safe or not, the Child Care and Protection Board and the Youth Protection Institutions, are far too often not doing their job properly.
Disastrous Consequences
This has already been raised in several reports in political The Hague. Just nothing is done about it.
The Child Protection Board assesses reports from Safe Home or a municipality. The council advises the juvenile court judge, who can then decide to place a child under supervision. Then youth protection comes into the picture. He then assesses whether a child should remain under supervision or should be placed out of the home, and then submit it to the court. The judge decides.
But the information that comes to the court is by no means always complete. Or even completely correct. Sometimes with disastrous consequences for parents.
The fact that factual inaccuracies in files have major consequences was also apparent in the case of the son of a 26-year-old from Arnhem. Her baby was removed from home after being hospitalized with injuries. Shaken.
Error in file makes big differences
That happened when he was staying with his aunt. Not with his mother. “There was a police investigation. We have been heard as witnesses.” But the file of the Child Protection Board states several times that the parents are suspects.
The result: the judge was not sure that the child was safe with mother or father and so the child was removed from the home. “That has marked us. We are traumatized.” Her son is doing well now, she says. He lives with his father, but she also has regular contact with them.
In the file, lawyer Mieke Krol was surprised to see how the parents were always regarded as suspects by the Youth Protection. “That has far-reaching consequences. In the judge's ruling you can see in black and white that it makes the difference. Parents weren't believed when they said it's different."
The moment they were able to demonstrate through the Public Prosecution Service that parents are not suspects, the judge says that placement in a mother-child home must be investigated and children can therefore be with parents. "Then you read that a factual error has an effect on a custodial placement."
Reverse legal order: lawyer must prove that mother is innocent
A judge usually has no choice but to comply with the information provided by the youth protectors. Lawyer Mieke Krol has sometimes asked a judge outside court why more value is attached to the vision of youth protection than to the story of the parents.
“The judge then indicated: we must assume that the youth protectors speak the truth. They are our ears and eyes in the field. They have no other interests.”
What the lawyer then encounters is that parents have to prove that something is incorrect or outdated. This is called reversed burden of proof. "This is worrying because the judge thinks it's the recent situation in a family that he or she has to make a decision about." Added to this are the many changes in the workforce. Mieke Krol: ,,If there are errors in the file, the next youth protector will of course take over.”
Judges are already resigned to delays.
What strikes lawyer Gerson is that judges now take into account the problems in the system in their rulings. “Up until now, a regular out-of-home placement has often been for the duration of six months. More and more often, judges now say: nine months. Not because the cases are worse, but because they know that all investigations will not be done in six months.”
Mieke Krol believes that much more care should be taken. “Youth protectors should be given much more time to conduct an investigation. Some family guardians clearly lack experience.”
Chris Sent, lawyer in Amsterdam, also sees how inexperienced youth protectors go wrong. "You shouldn't have had me as a lawyer when I was 24. Besides the fact that they have no life experience, they also lack scientific knowledge. They should be able to substantiate every fact. But that doesn't happen. And then there is institutional mistrust towards the parents. And if you assume child abuse, you will always find something to confirm that.”
Medium worse than the Waal
In much of her cases, Sent now draws a cynical conclusion: the cure is often worse than the disease. “You don't stand next to the parents. There is a file in which as much as 19,000 euros per month goes to care providers. But then there is no money to finish an extra room in a house, so that peace can be offered for parent and child.” Like many parents, Sent regularly draws parallels with the allowance affair. “But as a state, we don't want to see that there is something wrong with youth care.”
That feeling also creeps up on an Arnhemmer. In the midst of a divorce, he lost contact with and custody of his children. They are now under the supervision of youth protection because the judge also has concerns about the parenting situation of the mother. In addition, the judge is concerned about the loss of contact with the father.
The youth protection process is only getting off to a slow start. The documents about this family show that all legal guidelines for periods in which there must be a plan and help must be available. Moreover, there are many characteristics of parental alienation in the children, according to the father. “So often I have asked whether youth protection wants to investigate this, whether they want to work on it. But it just doesn't happen.”
'Doing their best' is enough
There is still no final goal after six months. While there should be. 'Due to insufficient insight into the family patterns, it is not possible to formulate a feasible end situation', says the report that was made after the children have been under supervision for six months. The father has no confidence that things will change soon.
According to the Arnhemmer, there is really something wrong with the system. “Instead of demanding excellent technical and personal skills from them, it seems sufficient that youth protectors 'do their best'. The result is mental abuse of the vulnerable children. In addition, youth protection causes trauma for parents.”
The Arnhem father filed a complaint with the Health Care Inspectorate, among other things. He said he would not investigate the complaint further. There is already a process with the Youth Protection. The reason: 'During an inspection visit, concerns arose about non-compliance with the legal deadlines.' Yesterday, another critical report from the Inspectorate about the situation in Gelderland was published.
The parents tell their story anonymously, because children are still under supervision and because they fear that publication will have negative consequences for their business. The names of the parents involved are known to the editors.
This newspaper was given access to the reports of the various authorities through the parents and spoke with the lawyers involved. The various youth protection agencies involved do not comment on individual files.