Commending Family Reunification Policy in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Experts of the Committee on the Rights of the Child Ask about Statelessness and the Situation of Children in Conflict Situations Abroad
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Commending the Kingdom’s family reunification policy, Committee Experts asked about statelessness as well as the situation of children in conflict situations abroad.
On the subject of nationality and statelessness, a Committee Expert asked the delegation about the systemic challenge of statelessness? As for special protection measures, an Expert asked about the situation regarding children of parents who were citizens of the Netherlands but were now living in the refugee camps of northern Syria. What was the Government’s approach to the return of those children? What efforts had been made to ensure these children’s safety and well-being? Underscoring that family reunification policy in the Netherlands was considered a positive model, could the delegation elaborate on the reasons for delays in the reunification process?
Another Expert said that the Committee was seriously concerned about indications that Dutch policy did not actively focus on the repatriation of Dutch children involved in armed conflict abroad; reference had been made to the children in the Syrian camps. For the Committee, they were nationals of the State party and had the right to protection. One Expert also asked whether the Netherlands saw itself as having an obligation toward the children whilst they were in the camps in Syria? Would the Netherlands take measures to ameliorate the situation of the children while they were there? Was it not unreasonable to say that those children needed to come and report to somewhere in the Netherlands when everyone knew they could not get there? Would that policy not need to be reviewed in the face of the reality of the situation?
In opening remarks, Rodolphe Samuel, Minister for Education, Culture, Youth and Sports of Sint Maarten and Head of Delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, explained that the Kingdom consisted of four countries: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The Kingdom placed great value on the Convention and on the Committee, and looked forward to a valuable exchange of views. The COVID-19 pandemic had had serious implications for children and the implementation of their rights. The State party attached great importance to children’s rights, and to their safety, health and development.
In response to questions about nationality, the delegation said children born stateless could acquire Dutch citizenship after three years of lawful residence. A legislative proposal aimed to eliminate the lawful residence requirement for children born stateless. In the Netherlands, “nationality unknown” was not the same as “stateless,” or without rights. Children whose nationality was registered in the civil administration as “unknown” were usually children who did have a nationality but did not have source documents showing what that nationality was. Those children stayed lawfully in the Netherlands and had access to all facilities just as children of Dutch nationality. This group might include children who were in fact stateless.
When it came to children in the north of Syria in refugee camps, they were the victims of choices made by their parents, the delegation said. No child should be exposed to such conditions. Dutch children received assistance from Dutch authorities if they reported for assistance to a Dutch diplomatic representation in the region. The Dutch Netherlands did not pursue an active repatriation policy with regard to Dutch citizens in Syria. The decision whether or not to repatriate a person would always have to be judged on its own merits. To date, several children had returned to the Netherlands because they had reached diplomatic representation with their parents, or had been repatriated. Those children included orphans and victims of child abductions. Further, the security situation in north-east Syria was complex, and the Netherlands did not have direct access to the region and the camps. The situation of the children in the camps was known, but at the current moment, the Netherlands could unfortunately do no more than continue to contribute toward improving conditions through humanitarian efforts.
Gehad Madi, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Task Force for the report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in concluding remarks, thanked all the members of the delegation for their direct and accurate responses to most of the questions. The Committee also looked forward to receiving written replies. He hoped the concluding observations would be taken seriously, and that the Committee would not have to repeat its recommendations as it had done previously.
In concluding remarks, Rodolphe Samuel, Minister for Education, Culture, Youth and Sports of Sint Maarten and Head of Delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said the COVID-19 pandemic had put pressure on the human and financial capacity of States all over the world, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands had not been immune from this. The pandemic had disproportionately affected three of the four countries of the Kingdom, as well as the special municipalities of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba, which were all small islands.
Mikiko Otani, Committee Chairperson, underscored the challenging nature of conducting the dialogue remotely, and under a four-hour dialogue structure, which was an exceptional measure. On behalf of the Committee, she extended the best wishes of the Committee to the children of the Netherlands.
The delegation of the Netherlands consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; the Ministry of Justice and Security; the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations; the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment; and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The delegation of Aruba was made up of the Minister of Justice and Social Affairs and representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs; the Department of Social Affairs; and the Department of Public Health. The delegation of Curaçao was made up of the Minister of Social Development, Labour and Welfare and representatives of the Ministry of Social Development, Labour and Welfare; the Ministry of Health, Nature and Environment; the Ministry of Justice; the Directorate of Foreign Relations; and the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport. The delegation of Sint Maarten was made up of the Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports and representatives of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Yout, and Sports; the Department of Foreign Relations; the Court of Guardianship; and the Department of Youth. Representatives of the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office at Geneva were also part of the delegation.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 3 February at 3 p.m. to begin its consideration of the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Madagascar (CRC/C/MDG/5-6).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of the Netherlands (CRC/C/NLD/5-6).
Presentation of the Report
RODOLPHE SAMUEL, Minister for Education, Culture, Youth and Sports of Sint Maarten and Head of Delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, explained that the Kingdom consisted of four countries: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The Kingdom placed great value on the Convention and on the Committee, and looked forward to a valuable exchange of views. The COVID-19 pandemic had had serious implications for children, and the implementation of their rights. The State party attached great importance to children’s rights, and to their safety, health and development.
Questions from Committee Experts
GEHAD MADI, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Task Force for the report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said it was a serious concern of the Committee that the State party maintained three reservations to the Convention, and expressed hope that the new Government would consider withdrawing them. Had the State party considered ratifying the Convention’s third Optional Protocol on a communications procedure? What were the reasons for the delay? On the question of the allocation of resources, was there a central mechanism evaluating the distribution of resources and services provided to children? Some information stated that the budget for youth care had been cut; could the delegation inform the Committee about that? Was it true that the municipalities faced debts? On the subject of dissemination of the Convention, could the delegation inform the Committee about whether the Convention was included in school curricula?
The Committee welcomed Curacao’s new Ombudsperson; was it already functional, and did it have a mandate to investigate? Did Sint Maarten have an independent mechanism for monitoring and promoting children’s rights?
Turning to general principles of non-discrimination, could the delegation inform the Committee about improvements in the area of closing the gaps between municipalities when it came to children’s access to services and facilities? How was it ensured that children in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom enjoyed the same access to services as children in the European part?
The concept of the best interests of the child was not integrated in immigration law. Neither was it adequately known to judges and professionals working for and with children. Could the delegation elaborate on that issue? Children under 12 had no opportunity to be heard in courts; was it up to judges to decide whether to allow that? Were there statistics on euthanasia involving minors?
Another Committee Expert, focusing his questions on civil rights and freedoms, and family environments, asked the delegation to inform the Committee about the systemic challenge of statelessness? In situations where individuals were deprived of citizenship, how did the State party take into account the effect of that deprivation on such individuals’ children? Could the delegation provide updated information about the existence of “baby boxes” vis-à-vis children’s right to identity?
On the subject of family environments, what had been the impact of measures aiming to reduce institutionalisation? There was information that placements in secure residential youth care had declined; could the delegation provide additional, updated information? Could the delegation inform the Committee about progress around raising the allowance for foster care, to make it more attractive and reduce institutionalisation? What about efforts to prevent the need for alternative care?
A Committee Expert, raising questions around the theme of violence, asked if there had been an assessment of a national programme around child victims of violence and abuse? Could the delegation provide information on progress made and obstacles overcome with regard to the decentralisation of the child protection system since 2015? Separate child centres were being developed in many European countries, but there were no such facilities in the State party; were there plans to implement those principles in the multidisciplinary centres in the State party? What measures were being taken to address issues like online bullying and sexual abuse? Were there measures to detect and provide help to child offenders of sexual violence? What progress was being made with regard to child protection in the Caribbean part; there seemed to be a huge gap between child protection systems in the Caribbean part and those in the European part.
The Committee was concerned about abusive practices in institutions with regard to isolation and detention in residential facilities. Could the delegation inform about measures taken in that respect? The Committee was also concerned about unnecessary medical and surgical treatment of intersex children; were there plans for legal reforms in that respect? The absence of multi-disciplinary support services and counselling for families of intersex children was also of concern.
Responses from the Delegation
The delegation explained that when it came to ratifying the third Optional Protocol on a communications procedure, it was currently being studied, and an advisory opinion had been sought. The Netherlands would not withdraw its interpretive declaration to article 14, as it considered that as long as a child could not yet be deemed able to form their own opinion, their parents or guardian could decide as they saw fit on the religious education of the children.
Concerning budgets, the delegation explained that municipalities received financial and other support from the national Governments to protect children’s rights. The Netherlands had additional funding available for that purpose, and a youth reform agenda aimed to arrive at agreements on a structural budget in conjunction with commitments to improving the system. With regard to youth support and services for children, the effectiveness of local teams was being strengthened. To provide timely and appropriate support for children and their families, municipalities needed to make sure they got the basics right, irrespective of how they had organised access to youth support services.
As for general principles, the delegation noted that it was important to ensure that young people were heard in developments affecting them. The Dutch Government financed various young people’s organizations and held regular consultations with them. The promotion of youth participation was also an important focus at the local level.
With regard to violence against children, the Netherlands would ensure that every child could grow up safely. In recent years, the issue of child abuse had been addressed through a programme, which had been shown to reduce violence. Some problems of child abuse had not been solved; children and young people had options, including contacting the authorities through an online chat.
The aim of the Government was to reduce the number of children being sent to closed facilities, and to stimulate small-scale residential care for children. The policy was successful, with the number of placements in closed youth care facilities sharply decreasing over the past years.
Concerning the right of minors to participate in civil law proceedings, the delegation explained that it was standard procedure for Dutch courts to invite minor children from the age of 12 to be heard in proceedings in which they were involved. The age limit was flexible, so children under the age of 12 could also be heard. The current approach was to improve information services for minors, for example through a special informative video on hearing children, which helped raise awareness that even minor children under the age of 12 could be heard in court.
In response to questions about nationality, the delegation said children born stateless could acquire Dutch citizenship after three years of lawful residence. A legislative proposal aimed to eliminate the lawful residence requirement for children born stateless. In the Netherlands, “nationality unknown” was not the same as “stateless,” or without rights. Children whose nationality was registered in the civil administration as “unknown” were usually children who did have a nationality but did not have source documents showing what that nationality was. Those children stayed lawfully in the Netherlands and had access to all facilities just as children of Dutch nationality. This group might include children who were in fact stateless.
Responding to questions directed at Aruba, the delegation explained that the bill establishing the role of the Ombudsman was under consideration and would probably be passed by Parliament. When it came to access to services for undocumented individuals, particularly children, in Aruba everyone had access to essential care, education and basic health care. A youth health department provided care in a broad sense of the word, including medical and social care. The youth health department went to schools and provided care where it was needed. A budget was allocated to attend to the health care needs of undocumented individuals.
In response to questions directed at Curaçao, the delegation explained that all children enjoyed the same rights, the main difference had to do with capacity and resources. In response to questions around nationality and statelessness, all birth clinics and midwives were obligated to inform the mother to register the birth of the child for them to receive a name and a nationality. Undocumented people could register their children at a registry office, and receive a birth declaration, whereas the child would not be registered in the population register.
Questions from Committee Experts
A Committee Expert, focusing her questions on education, asked if an increase had been seen in home schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic? How would the Government ensure that education goals included a human rights and children’s rights approach? Could the delegation address allegations of bullying, and cyber-bullying in schools? Could the delegation provide information about trends around school drop-out and exclusion? To what extent was child participation ensured in urban planning processes, and making sure children had a place to play?
On the subject of special protection measures, what was the situation regarding children of parents who were citizens of the Netherlands but were now living in the refugee camps of northern Syria? What was the Government’s approach to the return of those children? What efforts had been made to ensure these children’s safety and well-being? Could the delegation speak about the situation of migrant children aged over 15; were they treated as adults? She underscored that family reunification policy in the Netherlands was considered a positive model. Yet there were delays in the reunification process; could the delegation elaborate on the reasons for that?
The Committee was concerned about reports of children disappearing from shelters, and possibly being trafficked. Sixty children had gone missing from a centre designed for the protection and care of trafficked children, which was very worrying. What had investigations revealed, and what measures had been taken to ensure that cases like this did not reoccur?
Another Committee Expert asked about disability and health. Were measures being taken to make the early education system more accessible for children with disabilities? It was reported that all residents were obligated to take out insurance covering basic health care; did children who were undocumented have access to health care? The Netherlands was among the top countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for high life satisfaction among its young people, which was great. Yet more than 1 in 5 young people faced serious mental illness. Many submissions informed about a very serious situation in that area in the Netherlands. Would the State party look at prevention, which was underfinanced, and mental health services in schools?
GEHAD MADI, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Task Force for the report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, noted that the Committee continued to be concerned about the lack of explicit criminalisation of the recruitment of children under the age of 18 years by non-State armed groups. Also, the Committee was seriously concerned about indications that Dutch policy did not actively focus on the repatriation of Dutch children involved in armed conflict abroad; reference had been made to the children in the Syrian camps. For the Committee, they were nationals of the State party and had the right to protection. Did the State party have a mechanism to identify children who might have been involved in armed conflict abroad, and provide them with social and psychological recovery and reintegration into society?
Responses from the Delegation
In response to questions directed at Sint Maarten, the delegation explained that when it came to disaggregated data collection, the concept note for a Sint Maarten youth monitor was drafted with steps to be taken, including designing a feasible and contextualised mechanism to collect and store data. As for the opportunity of children to be heard in court, minors under 12 were not automatically heard, but a judge could make an exception for younger children.
Concerning basic health, prevention and mental health, the delegation explained that all children in the Netherlands had access to necessary medical care, regardless of age or origin. There were programmes to deal with overweight children, including the “healthy school cantine project”, and the percentage of obese children was decreasing. There were also programmes to tackle pollution, including to decrease pollution from local sources. Breastfeeding was considered to be an individual choice of women, who were provided with information and support.
One in seven young people were in youth care, and the COVID-19 pandemic had underscored the challenges some young people faced due to a lack of social contacts and perspectives. Concerns about the mental health of young people had also existed before the COVID-19 pandemic.
With regard to human rights education, the delegation explained that pupils in school learned about the functioning of the democratic rule of law and how they could participate in it. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science offered training and guidance materials for teachers to ensure the success of their civic education lessons. The international aspect of citizenship was included. Pupils were taught about the international rule of law, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child was part of that fundament.
On intersex children, the delegation explained that no legislation currently existed to forbid unnecessary medical treatment of intersex persons, but a “rainbow ballot box agreement” included commitments, among which were a prohibition on unnecessary and non-consensual medical interventions on intersex children and adults.
Concerning the reunification of children in Aruba, the delegation explained that as a rule, mothers and children should not be separated from each other. Children from undocumented migrant parents received health care. As for disability and health, policies safeguarded the inclusion of children with disabilities. In primary and secondary school, children with disabilities had access to mainstream or specialised schools. A foundation focused on the prevention of abuse of drugs and alcohol also provided mental health guidance to youth.
With regard to cyber-bullying in schools in Curaçao, the delegation explained that two schools had implemented programmes from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization against bullying. Drop-out statistics were monitored, but not yet in a digitalised system. Schools provided reports on a quarterly basis. In response to questions about the separation of child migrants from their parents, a policy was in place whereby an unaccompanied minor was placed in a shelter until the minor could return to his or her country of origin. If family care was possible, the undocumented family could also go to a verified address, and a reporting obligation applied to them. Unaccompanied children could also go to a family with a verified address, after preliminary investigations had taken place.
Concerning the involvement of children in armed conflict, the delegation explained that recruitment without Government permission for the purpose of foreign military service, or any other form of armed struggle, was already a punishable offense. That included recruitment by non-State armed groups. When it came to children in the north of Syria in refugee camps, they were the victims of choices made by their parents. No child should be exposed to such conditions. Dutch children received assistance from Dutch authorities if they reported for assistance to a Dutch diplomatic representation in the region. The Dutch Netherlands did not pursue an active repatriation policy with regard to Dutch citizens in Syria. The decision about whether or not to repatriate a person would always have to be judged on its own merits. To date, several children had returned to the Netherlands because they had reached diplomatic representation with their parents or had been repatriated. Those children included orphans and victims of child abductions. Once in the Netherlands, children were observed during an initial period of time in a specialised institution, receiving care and guidance addressing their specific needs.
In response to questions related to migration, the delegation explained that unaccompanied minors were provided with specific safeguards, including being interviewed by a person specially trained in such interviews. When it came to family reunification, the more lenient conditions in family reunification were applicable to members of the nuclear family, in accordance with the European Union family reunification directive. The framework with more lenient conditions was intended as a “fast lane” for refugees, and extended family members had to apply for regular family reunification, an option which also existed. The COVID-19 pandemic had had a severe effect on diplomatic missions’ ability to assist family members, and on family members’ ability to travel to diplomatic missions. That had contributed to long waiting times in the processing of requests.
The phenomenon of disappearing children was known, the delegation said, adding that young asylum seekers were potentially vulnerable to abuses. Yet not every case of sudden departure was necessarily related to human smuggling or human trafficking. Unaccompanied minors were received in a variety of reception facilities, which were not closed facilities. If they really wished to leave, there were no instruments to prevent them from doing so. Protective shelters were not closed either and if unaccompanied minors wished to leave them, they could not be held against their will. All undocumented children had access to necessary healthcare and could seek it without fear of consequences due to their immigration status. While the best interests of children were indeed not integrated in the immigration legislation, they were implemented both in practice and in policy throughout the Dutch immigration system. A draft law was under consideration by the Parliament that sought to integrate the best interests of the child into the Aliens Act.
Responding to questions directed at Sint Maarten, the delegation explained that a home schooling policy included monitoring. The student support services division had been working on bullying prevention, which included conducting workshops for students and parents. When it came to disability and health, a sustainable funding model for day care was being investigated, with the aim of increasing access to those services for more children.
Questions from Committee Experts
GEHAD MADI, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Task Force for the report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, asked for clarification from the delegation about the criminalisation of recruitment of children and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
A Committee Expert asked for further information about poverty. Had the COVID-19 pandemic had any effect on poverty rates? One Committee Expert asked whether the Netherlands saw itself as having an obligation toward the children whilst they were in the camps in Syria? Would the Netherlands take measures to ameliorate the situation of the children while they were there? Was it not unreasonable to say that those children needed to come and report to somewhere in the Netherlands when everyone knew they could not get there? Would that policy not need to be reviewed in the face of the reality of the situation? Another Committee Expert asked for further information about the withdrawal of nationality and its potential effect on children. The Committee would like to know what the considerations were for ensuring that children’s best interests were protected in the case of withdrawal of nationality of their parents. A Committee Expert asked for information about the effect on children’s rights of decentralisation policies. Could the delegation inform the Committee about what it considered was the Netherlands’ greatest achievement in children’s rights?
Responses from the Delegation
The delegation, thanking the Committee Experts for their questions, explained that decentralisation had brought improvements, but had not solved all issues. The whole system needed to learn, as some children still did not receive the specialised care they needed. The reform agenda included a major programme to improve the help to children and their families, also making the system sustainable. The figures on youth happiness were good in the Netherlands and improving youth participation was an important goal. In response to questions about the Caribbean Netherlands, the delegation noted that the standard of quality for youth care needed to have a legal basis. Following constructive recommendations, the quality of youth care had been improved.
In response to questions raised about children in camps in Syria, the delegation said the security situation in north-east Syria was complex, and the Netherlands did not have direct access to the region and the camps. The situation of the children in the camps was known, but at the current moment, the Netherlands could unfortunately do no more than continue to contribute toward improving conditions through humanitarian efforts.
Questions had also been raised regarding the right of identity of new-born babies placed in “baby boxes.” Several hospitals had a special baby room where a mother could leave her child and her personal data, which was given to a notary who kept it in a sealed envelope, enabling the child to know the identity of the mother. No new-born babies were left in baby rooms without the mother leaving her personal data to be kept by a notary.
In response to questions directed at Curaçao, the delegation explained that the poverty rate was estimated at 8 per cent of total families at the moment, and the delegation could confirm an increase of about one to two per cent since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to questions directed at Sint Maarten, the delegation noted that the COVID-19 pandemic was occurring alongside recovery from hurricanes Irma and Maria. Financial assistance had been provided to people regardless of legal status, and the Government had collaborated with the Red Cross to provide services to people in need.
Questions from a Committee Expert
A Committee Expert asked for information about environmental issues and climate change. Could the delegation elaborate on the involvement of children in that issue? What would the delegation tell any children listening to the dialogue about their future participation in climate plans regarding the Netherlands?
Responses from the Delegation
The delegation said the Netherlands found it of great importance to engage young people as equal partners when developing environmental policy. The Dutch Government regularly spoke with youth organizations, and it was very important for all public authorities to recognise the voice of young people.
Concluding Remarks
GEHAD MADI, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Task Force for the report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said the Committee shared the delegation’s concern about the shortage of time - four hours instead of six hours. He thanked all the members of the delegation for their direct and accurate responses to most of the questions. The Committee also looked forward to receiving written replies. He hoped the concluding observations would be taken seriously, and that the Committee would not have to repeat its recommendations as it had done previously.
RODOLPHE SAMUEL, Minister for Education, Culture, Youth and Sports of Sint Maarten and Head of Delegation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said the COVID-19 pandemic had put pressure on the human and financial capacity of States all over the world, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands had not been immune from this. The pandemic had disproportionately affected three of the four countries of the Kingdom, as well as the special municipalities of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba, which were all small islands. The Kingdom was increasingly aware of the pandemic’s impact on young people’s mental well-being, and the importance of letting young people’s voices be heard on matters affecting them. The Dutch Government had put several initiatives into place to ensure all children in both the European and Caribbean part of the Netherlands could develop themselves in a healthy and safe environment, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In Curaçao, the Parliament had ratified the law on installing the Children Ombudsman, a long-standing recommendation of the Committee. In Aruba, streamlining of Convention-related policies had been accomplished. On Sint Maarten, the impact of policies had been re-examined to ensure the needs of children were addressed in a holistic manner. The Kingdom of the Netherlands remained committed to upholding the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and looked forward to the recommendations of the Committee.
MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Chairperson, underscored the challenging nature of conducting the dialogue remotely, and under a four-hour dialogue structure, which was an exceptional measure. The Committee expected to receive further information in writing. The Committee hoped to have a real impact on children in the Netherlands. On behalf of the Committee, she extended the best wishes of the Committee to the children of the Netherlands.
CRC22.002E