New guideline: children who have been removed from home can still return to their parents after a year

Children who have been removed from home should also be able to return to their parents after a longer period of time. The directive that currently often prevents this from happening is being scrapped. Youth protectors can then deal more flexibly with the so-called 'acceptable period for return'.

The change of course of the Netherlands Youth Institute (NJi), which draws up the guidelines together with the professional associations, is important for the approximately 420 children of parents affected by the benefits affair who have been placed out of their homes and still live separately from their parents. A government support team has been available for them since last week. In total, about 46 thousand children live in foster families or institutions in the Netherlands, more than 20 thousand of whom are through the intervention of the juvenile court.

Determine what is possible per family

The new starting point is that it must be determined per family what is possible, without applying a generally applicable strict term any longer. Even before the official new guideline is available, which is expected after the summer, it is already the intention that the acceptable term will be applied less strictly.

The term 'acceptable term' was included in the Civil Code in 2015 to prevent children from being left in uncertainty about where they would grow up for too long after a custodial placement. As a national knowledge centre, the NJi has drawn up two terms based on scientific insights and practical experience: a maximum of six months for very young children up to 5 years old, and a maximum of one year for children aged 5 and older. Although the terms are 'indicative', it also stated firmly: 'If it is not possible to improve the conditions sufficiently within this term, then a permanent custodial placement is necessary.'

The idea was that such a maximum term encourages social services to work as quickly as possible on the return of children to their parents. But it didn't always work out that way. The guideline is notorious among parents: often before they had a chance to improve their home situation, the judge ruled that their children could no longer go home on the basis of exceeding the acceptable term.

Due to waiting lists, the old guideline works to the disadvantage of parents

Strict adherence to that term is not desirable. With the current long waiting lists for youth care and a shortage of youth protectors, the guideline works too much to the disadvantage of parents and children', says developmental psychologist Karlijn Stals of the NJi. 'Even if there had been too little support for the family at that time, the term could be used as an argument for not allowing children to return home. The Directive is intended to be an instrument, not a law. That is why we are revising that guideline.'

'A term should never be the only argument for not returning a child', says NJi board member Rutger Hageraats. 'The incentive remains to work on return as quickly as possible and to create clarity.' The NJi has already been in contact with the support team for benefits parents about this. Youth care expert Peter Dijkshoorn previously argued for extending the acceptable term, in order to give this team and the youth protectors more elbow room in the attempts to reunite parents and their children.

Stals does want to temper the expectations of parents that children who have been removed from home can now return home immediately. 'The basic principle remains: what is the best place for a child. That decision is very complicated. It is very difficult if the child has been out of the house for five years, for example.'

Assistant professor Joost Huijer, who specializes in family law, thinks it's an 'excellent idea to be more flexible with the acceptable term'. 'We have to get away from thinking in terms, you have to see how the child is doing.' But along with other experts, he also warns against expectations that are too high. 'Even if it turns out that mistakes have been made and that the parents are now able to raise their children. When so many years have passed, can you still remove a child that has been attached in a foster home? In that case, reversing an out-of-home placement cannot be in the best interests of the child. That's tragic.'

'