The guideline that children who have been removed from home cannot return to their parents after a certain period of time has been removed. The Dutch Youth Institute (NJi) announced this on Thursday in de Volkskrant† Instead of applying a strict, generally applicable term, youth protectors will soon have to look at what is possible per family.
To prevent that after a custodial placement it would be uncertain for too long where a child would grow up, a so-called acceptable term was included in the Civil Code in 2015. It must be clear within six months (for children up to 5 years) or a year (5 years or older) whether a child can return home. If not, parental authority can be terminated and the custodial placement becomes permanent. The terms are intended as an indication, but according to the NJi professionals take them as a prescription.
The guideline for out-of-home placements is therefore being amended. There should be a new version before the summer. But will it change the practice? Will more children soon be able to return home?
Mariëlle Bruning, professor of juvenile law at Leiden University, was a member of the committee that advised the legislator on the new law seven years ago. She understands why the wording is now being adjusted. “The intention was that we would not mention maximum terms in the law, so that youth protectors can act at their own discretion. The scientific insights used for the Directive at the time, however, have been interpreted quite absolutely. There has been a lot of discussion about this lately, also in response to the Allowances affair.”
Also read: Her son was removed from home without a court order, ‘I didn’t know what happened to me’
According to Bruning, it is difficult to say what letting go of the acceptable term means. “It could be that those who decide on relocation will be more critical.”
Children’s ombudsman Margrite Kalverboer calls the adjustment mainly symbolic. “It comes across as if the directive is now the reason for careless out-of-home placements. That is not the case: although these terms are stated in the law, we do not have to use them. You have to see what is best in each child.”
No legal protection
How long an out-of-home placement lasts is in principle decided by a juvenile court judge. But once a child is gone, it is the youth protectors who determine the ‘perspective’. This practice has been widely criticized. So noted the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection in December that parents do not always know what has been decided and by whom. In addition, they cannot object because the decision has no legal status.
“How the perspective decision is taken is indeed very opaque,” says lawyer Eva Huls. It is ‘worrying’ that parents have no legal protection in the event of such a drastic decision. Sleeve investigated on behalf of Defense for Children why the number of out-of-home placements in the Netherlands is hardly falling. Her conclusion: parents often do not receive enough or the right help, both before and after their child is placed out of the home.
It is not known how often the acceptable term is used as an argument for not allowing a child to return, says Huls. “But in case law I see that juvenile judges do not just accept it.” Like Bruning and Kalverboer, she thinks that this is not the only knob that needs to be turned. The fact that children do not go back home, all three say, is mainly due to the youth care system, in which families do not receive the help they need.