Experts of the Committee on the Rights of the Child Commend Ukraine on its Commitment to Child Rights, Ask about the Mental Health of Children in Light of the War and the Evacuation of Children with Disabilities
The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the combined fifth to sixth periodic report of Ukraine under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Committee Experts said they were impressed that Ukraine had chosen not to delay the meeting with the Committee due to the Russian aggression, reflecting its commitment to child rights, and asked about the mental health of children and the evacuation of children with disabilities.
Bragi Gudbrandsson, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, said the Committee was impressed that Ukraine had not asked to delay the meeting, as it was never more important than in times of war to address the rights of the child, and this was when the obligations of the State were the greatest. This reflected the State’s commitment to children’s rights and implementing the Convention even in adverse circumstances.
He said that the war had traumatised the whole nation, including children, and this needed to be urgently addressed. Could more information be provided about the mental health project launched by the First Lady of Ukraine? What methods had been taken internally in Ukraine to protect children from violence in the context of war?
Mr. Gudbrandsson noted that reports had been received that children had suffered neglect in institutions and some had been left behind in unsafe areas. How many children with high needs had been left behind in unsafe areas? Had there been any assessment on the mortality risks of these children? Was the Ukrainian Government willing to address this issue and act accordingly? One option would be to request emergency assistance from an affluent State in Europe which could assist with addressing the needs of children with disabilities in institutions.
The delegation said that a Commission was developing a draft strategy aimed at protecting the mental health of the most vulnerable groups of the population affected by the war, including children. A programme was being developed which allowed children and adults to participate in activities in centres. Children aged 5 to 12 worked in groups with volunteers in sessions which focused on socialisation, adaptation and psychological support. There were 10 permanent and 20 mobile spaces allowing children to undertake these activities.
The safest route for children with disabilities living in institutions would be evacuation, ideally abroad, the delegation said. However, there were challenges in this, including transportation, and ensuring that the countries had the resources available to support these children. It was also difficult for these children to change environments, particularly from a linguistic perspective, and this could have a negative impact on their wellbeing. Ukraine called on the international community to support children with disabilities in Ukraine, to ensure these children safely survived the winter.
In opening remarks, Oksana Zholnovych, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, that in the last six months, the Russian Federation had launched a full-scale aggression on Ukraine, which afflicted terrible losses and destruction, affecting every family and every child. The United Nations Children’s Fund had supported a pilot project on psychological support, creating the Barnahaus centres, which hosted children who had experienced or witnessed violence from the military invasion. Specialised institutions had been created which helped women seek respite from abuse and protect their children. Ms. Zholnovych expressed gratitude to all States which had taken in children from Ukraine and provided a safe environment for them.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Gudbrandsson said the Committee appreciated Ukraine’s decision not to request a delay for the meeting due to the Russian aggression, reflecting the State’s commitment to children’s rights and implementing the Convention even in adverse circumstances.
Ms. Zholnovych expressed gratitude to the Committee for supporting Ukraine under such an adverse situation. Ukraine was grateful for the discussion and questions asked by the Committee members, even though some were not easy to answer. The children of Ukraine were the future, and it was important that they were healthy and safe.
The delegation of Ukraine consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Social Policy; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Youth and Sport; the Ministry of Education and Science; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the President’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights and Children’s Rehabilitation; the ICF “SOS Children’s Villages” of Ukraine; the Board of the Public Union “Ukrainian Child Rights Network”; the All-Ukrainian Forum “Parents for Early Intervention”; the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights for the Observance of the Rights of the Child and Family; and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s ninety-first session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon to consider the fifth periodic report of Uzbekistan (CRC/C/UZB/5).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined fifth to sixth periodic report of Ukraine (CRC/C/UKR/5-6).
Opening Remarks by the Chair of the Committee
MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee was aware of the challenges faced by Ukraine in the current conflict situation, and hoped the dialogue would help the Committee understand what children were going through during this time.
Presentation of Report
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said that in the last six months, the Russian Federation had launched a full-scale aggression on Ukraine, which afflicted terrible losses and destruction, affecting every family and every child.
Since the ratification of the Convention, Ukraine had undertaken steps to implement the treaty throughout its territory. To implement the principles of the Convention, Ukraine had adopted a law on nation-wide programmes and the action plans in support envisaged the allocation of 585 million dollars. A law was adopted which gave priority to family care for children, to replace institutional care. The benefits for children had been dramatically increased. A one-time benefit was also introduced in the case of adoption. Nearly 93 per cent of orphans and children deprived of parental care were now placed in a family environment.
In 2022, during the war, some digital tools were implemented to expand opportunities for involving citizens in forms of childcare. This included the chatbot application “The child is not alone”, which contributed to the selection of over 1,000 candidates who were ready to take children into their families. Ukraine was developing the early intervention system which helped to support the families of children with disabilities and prevented these children from being enrolled in institutions. Since 2018, the comprehensive health reform had been underway in Ukraine which allowed the family, including parents and their children, to be managed by the same doctor throughout their lifetime. Once the doctor was selected, this covered all forms of health care, including pregnancy and neo-natal care. Ukraine had also started creating regional screening centres which could diagnose muscular dystrophy in the early stages.
Ms. Zholnovych said that children with disabilities who needed accessible and quality education could benefit from inclusive education. To cover children with special educational needs, the State allocated funding to local budgets. The amount allocated had doubled since 2017. To facilitate the realisation of the citizens’ right to engage in physical culture, Ukraine had deployed more than 300 fitness centres. The State was also working on child-friendly justice. To protect minors who had committed an offense, or who were witnesses of crimes, the council on juvenile justice was established. A draft law on child friendly justice had been established.
The United Nations Children’s Fund had supported a pilot project on psychological support, creating the Barnahaus centres, which hosted children who had experienced or witnessed violence from the military invasion. Specialised institutions had been created which helped women seek respite from abuse and protect their children. There were 43 shelters for women and children, 33 crisis rooms, and 66 counselling services throughout the country, with another 45 specialised services expecting to be launched.
Ukraine still had work to be done, however, all announced achievements had to be revised due to the full-scale war which began in February 2022. All rights needed to be interpreted in a totally different context; the right to life was being violated on a daily basis due to shelling. A lot of children in the occupied territories were left without parents, and many had been taken to Russia and placed in institutions.
Only 50 per cent of schools would be able to open their doors to school children this autumn. Over 2,000 educational facilities had been damaged by bombings and shelling. Reports had been received detailing horrific acts of violence against children by the Russian military. Millions of children had been forced to flee their homes and had become witnesses to violence. The war had set back development efforts of the country. The State was unable to ensure the protection of children during the war, particularly those who were in occupied territories. Ms. Zholnovych expressed gratitude to all States who had taken in children from Ukraine and provided a safe environment for them.
Questions by Committee Experts
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, said the Committee was impressed that Ukraine had not asked to delay the meeting, as it was never more important than in times of war to address the rights of the child, and this was when the obligations of the State were the greatest. The hearts of the Committee went out to Ukraine for the great loss of life the country had experienced because of Putin’s war.
HYND AYOUBI IDRISSI, Vice Chair and Taskforce Member, commended Ukraine for adopting the third Optional Protocol on individual communications, asking what had been done to allow for the effective implementation of this instrument? The legislative arsenal had seen many amendments in Ukraine; what was being done to ensure its effectiveness? What measures were being taken on the organisational and budgetary level and the follow-up and implementation of the national action plan? What was the impact of the plan on the situation of vulnerable children? What were the resources of the Ministry of Social Policy and the measures to ensure constitutional continuity within the Ministry? What was the mandate for the national council for coordination?
While Ukraine had made a great deal of effort in data collection, there was still not a single national database. What measures were being taken to address this situation? What had the State envisaged to bring a budget that was sensitive to the rights of the child, and put an end to the disparities between regions? What was being done to disseminate the Convention? What was being done to ensure the effective implementation of the law against discrimination? What impact had this law had on reducing hate crime, racism, and xenophobia?
The hundreds of children who had been killed and wounded during the war was a reality in Ukraine and the Committee was extremely concerned about this situation. What was the State doing along these lines? Could the delegation inform about measures taken for children to freely express their opinions? What could be done to allow for a true and meaningful participation of children?
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked if there were weddings being held for children under the age of 18, particularly in the Roma population? Had relationships between adults and minors been detected? This was a problem before the war; did this remain a problem? What measures might be taken in the future to prevent these practices?
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, commended the progress in the legislation to facilitate the birth registration of children born in non-government-controlled territories. It remained an issue that the birth certificate was issued without identifying the nationality of the child. Ms. Todorova commended the ratification by Ukraine of the two Conventions regarding stateless, however, children were born in Ukraine who may remained stateless if they could not acquire the nationality of their parents. Were there measures to address this issue?
Ms. Todorova noted that Ukraine was the second largest surrogacy hub globally, and the practice remained unregulated. Ukraine was making progress in drafting legal amendments to address the gaps in surrogacy; were these drafts adopted by the parliament? Did these laws provide safeguards such as ensuring that records were preserved and allowing children the right to know their origins? Were there safeguards to prevent illegal activity around surrogacy, such as trafficking? How was the right to privacy for children guaranteed?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, said that children in Ukraine had shared narratives and it was a grim picture. The war had traumatised the whole nation, including children. The children of today would have to live with the baggage of this trauma for years to come. This trauma needed to be urgently addressed. Could more information be provided about the mental health project launched by the First Lady of Ukraine? What methods had been taken internally in Ukraine to protect children from violence in the context of war? Were children removed from parents who chose not to evacuate from war zones? If so, what support did they receive?
Mr. Gudbrandsson said that Ukraine had taken important steps in the past to protect children from violence, however, reports had been received which stated that parental practices lagged behind the legislation. Ukraine had ratified important conventions to protect children from violence, including the Istanbul Convention a few months ago. Mr. Gudbrandsson commended the State for taking such steps, especially during wartime. How was it ensured that children were also supported in centres for domestic violence? Was the Barnahaus model reflected in the draft law on justice for children? Was it possible to develop the Ukrainian Barnahaus model, in terms of the need to address the trauma due to the war? Was it possible to ensure that children were able to access Barnahaus or trauma-focused therapy following the war?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that Ukraine had a system of coordination for matters relating to children’s rights. The inter-agency commissioner annually adopted the reports on the situation around children, and civil society organizations were invited to participate in this process. However, this had been suspended because of the war. There was a function to come up with proposals to improve the situation of the protection of children. A coordination council was established in August this year, to determine the main priorities of children’s rights in times of war.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, fully agreed that comprehensive data was required. The system was currently being changed from paper data collection, and digital statistics were being compiled which would ensure automatic exchange between all databases in Ukraine. A unified register of social protection was being developed, which would include each beneficiary of social protection systems. A register of people with disabilities was also being developed. Ukraine was planning to launch the national procurement agency for social services, to cover all people in need equally. The social protection system in Ukraine covered monetary benefits, which were paid from the State budget and were equal for all children. Children with disabilities were entitled to higher benefits.
Access to healthcare for children was a priority. Since 2021, the State had guaranteed a right to all medical services. Ukraine ensured the equal funding and equal access for all children to healthcare. Under the medical guarantees programme, the State guaranteed all refugees and stateless persons living in Ukraine full payment to medical services. Children were evacuated to neighbouring countries in Europe and the United States during the conflict, and Ukraine was grateful to all partners for their assistance regarding the health of Ukrainian children.
There were 25 training facilities for teachers located across all regions of Ukraine. Teachers were trained on social and civil competence and on the Convention. The Convention made up 10 per cent of all international documents studied under the training programmes. Full secondary education in Ukraine was mandatory. Children were enrolled in school even in the case of the absence of their documents. Over 2,000 educational facilities had suffered destruction and damages because of the Russian aggression, and this number was growing every day. Fifty per cent of schools would be able to open their doors to students in September, but the rest would need to open in a hybrid format. Children in the occupied territories had the opportunity to select their educational format. Children were facing huge challenges and steps were being made in terms of mental health protection. A strategy had been adopted to promote the rights of the Roma minority, which included the protection of their native language, and the ability for these children to study in their native language.
Ukraine had taken steps to harmonise legislation with European law. Every legal act passed by Ukraine was analysed to ensure there was no discrimination enshrined in the proposed acts. The best protection against the Russian aggression was fighting back and protecting the borders. All efforts of the State focused on getting back to the pre-war borders. Children were being protected from the negative impact of hostilities. However, children unfortunately now knew how to respond to shelling, to handle ammunition and what to take with them to the bomb shelter. This was the reality despite how terrible this might be. Materials had been developed which covered actions in case a child was lost or alone because of the war. These materials were available on all information platforms. During emergencies, which included floods, radiological exposure, or armed conflicts, a partial or complete evacuation may take place. Around 50 per cent of educational facilities were equipped with shelters.
Ukraine invested maximum efforts to protect children in civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. Children older than 14 years were able to participate in court procedures and exercise their procedural rights. In the case of divorce, the child could decide which parent they wished to live with, if they were over the age of 14. During the pre-trial investigation in crimes committed by minors, the health stature and level of minors’ development should be analysed and considered, as well as the attitude of the minor towards the offence, with the minor given the opportunity to share their opinion. Children were entitled to free legal aid. A minor could not be interviewed in the absence of parents or legal representatives.
Questions by Committee Experts
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that one of the challenges before the war included the surgery of intersex children without their informed consent. Would this issue be tackled now?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, asked if the delegation could elaborate on how mental health treatment would be provided to children in Ukraine?
A Committee Expert noted the extreme gravitas which defined the exchange. The childhood of the children of Ukraine was being deeply disrupted, which would have long-term consequences. The Expert commended the State for the initiatives which were being undertaken to mitigate this. Could more information be provided about the positive interventions being provided to preserve the innocence of childhood, including leisure, play and cultural activities?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, said Ukraine had one of the highest numbers of children separated from their families in the whole of Eastern Europe, due to the conflict. The first phase of the deinstitutionalisation reform was completed, however, not much progress had been made to promote the best interest of the child and advance the process. At least 46,000 children had lived in institutions in Ukraine before the war in February; 72 per cent of these children were living there due to disabilities, and more than 90 per cent of children in care had living parents. The Government had managed to reunite between 30,000-40,000 children in institutions with their parents. How many of those left behind were in war zones? Were there plans for the de-institutionalisation of the children who had been left behind? Were there plans to strengthen the foster care system and introduce support services for children?
Many children had been evacuated from institutions; was there reliable information on these evacuations? Was there specific data on the number of children who had been evacuated from institutions and foster families? Why did the Ukrainian Government insist that those children evacuated from institutions remain institutionalised? Reports had been received that children had suffered neglect in institutions and some had been left behind in unsafe areas. How many children with high needs had been left behind in unsafe areas? Had there been any assessment on the mortality risks of these children? Was the Ukrainian Government willing to address this issue and act accordingly? One option would be to request emergency assistance from an affluent State in Europe which could assist with addressing the needs of children with disabilities in institutions.
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked if Ukraine was planning on opening health care options in all areas, and providing healthcare for all children regardless of where they lived? Were there plans to design programmes which urgently addressed mental healthcare for children and their caregivers? What measures were being taken to reduce drug use, alcohol use and tobacco use in adolescents? There had been hundreds of attacks against educational facilities; was it possible to protect educational facilities from attacks, including bombings? What measures were being taken to improve the accessibility and the quality of education, in regard to Roma children?
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, noted that asylum seeking children did not have legal status under Ukrainian law, which could provide them with additional protection. Were there measures to address bullying in schools? The exploitation of children for drug trafficking was alarming and 80 types of new psycho-substances were not in the list of prohibitions, meaning drug traffickers could not be prosecuted. Were there measures to address this? What measures were in place to protect children from being involved in the production of pornography? Had there been studies about the root causes of the high number of children living in the street? The delegation considered that discrimination against Roma was a big issue in Ukraine. What was being done to address this? What had been done to prevent instances of violence against Roma and prosecute perpetrators? What were the prospects for the justice friendly child bill to be adopted? Why had no efforts been made to move children in prison in conflict zones to safe areas? The Committee was concerned about impunity and had heard that some judges released abusers of children.
Responses by the Delegation
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said that Ukraine was in the midst of war as a result of an unprovoked aggression. As a victim, it was difficult to explain the acts committed by the abuser. All citizens in Ukraine had the right to life.
The delegation said that according to the Family Code, the marriage age for men and women was 18 years. A child 16 years or older could apply for a marriage license and the court could issue this if it was determined that it was in the best interest of the child, such as if the bride was pregnant. Marrying someone under the age of 18 without permission was punishable by a prison sentence of up to five years. A draft law had been developed which envisaged the birth registration of children in uncontrolled territories, and involved an email being sent to the civil registry.
Men and women who signed an agreement with a surrogate mother were required to give their consent for their nationality to be registered at the child’s birth. The surrogate mother should give consent to participate in the procedure, and the nationality was defined on the basis of the biological parents. Surrogacy procedures were in line with the order of the Ministry of Healthcare, which had a separate section on regulation, including a list of documents. Three draft laws were in place to regulate reproductive technologies, including surrogacy. Ukraine condemned the appeals of the Russian authorities to change the citizenship of children living in occupied territories and was determined to counteract these violations of children’s rights.
Ukraine guaranteed the right to secrecy for those who wanted to adopt a child. The authorities who held this information were obliged not to disclose this information to the child, until the child was over the age of 10. Adoptive parents had the right to conceal information about adoption if it was thought that it would hurt the child’s interests. The right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed in Ukraine. Youth organizations had the right to receive grants to implement their projects. In 2018, the Government supported the development of youth organizations of Ukraine. A general provision within the Civil Code prohibited pictures or videos being taken of any citizen, including children, unless consent was given.
The topic of intersex children was a very sensitive issue. According to legislation, every patient older than 14 years had the right to select a physician. In Ukraine there was a network of medical and genetic centres, and experts who provided counselling. The number of intersex children was growing annually. A strategy was being developed for children who had congenital disorders; however, the war posed a barrier. These children needed medical and social support and there would be a Commission under the Ministry of Healthcare relating to the sexual development of these children. Surgeries of these children would be regulated by the Commission and by documents issued by the Ministry of Healthcare in the near future.
A mental health care programme had been implemented with the help of the First Lady. A Commission was developing a draft strategy aimed at protecting the mental health of the most vulnerable groups of the population affected by war, including children. The first Barnahaus centre was launched in 2021 in June and there were currently three centres operating throughout the country, with three more planned to open. These centres ensured that psychosocial and legal support would be provided to children who were traumatised as a result of violence, and counselling would be provided to restore their mental health. The President of Ukraine had signed a decree to protect all persons from domestic violence, including children.
Due to the war, many children had lost their homes and had been forced to adapt to a new reality. Children needed to socialise with their peers, and it was important to integrate them into the hosting communities. Programmes were being developed to provide children with additional opportunities and with a focus on psychological adaption. A programme was being developed which allowed children and adults to participate in activities in centres. Children aged 5 to 12 worked in groups with volunteers in sessions which focused on socialisation, adaptation and psychological support. There were 10 permanent and 20 mobile spaces allowing children to undertake these activities. There was still a network of sports facilities, and sports and meaningful leisure contributed to psychological relief for children. Internally displaced children were able to attend these facilities free of charge.
Measures were being taken to provide psychological support to children to mitigate future effects. It was important to reduce the stress impact, especially in children. During the first few months of the war, hundreds of thousands of children and adults had had to stay underground in shelters. Many professional educators had visited shelters and hubs at railway stations to help the children during this difficult period.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said that Ukraine had adopted a strategy of deinstitutionalisation, where the first stage had been completed, with the second still underway. More measures needed to be taken to increase the number of families that were ready to adopt children. Digital tools were being implemented to make the process of adoption easier. The State was doing everything possible to minimise the number of children within institutional care.
For the first few weeks of the war, Ukrainian borders did not register children who were crossing the border. Since 12 March, the Government was in full control of the situation, and knew where children were crossing, their destination, and which facilities were taking them in. More than 3,000 children were orphans, and more than 2,500 of these children were living abroad. Poland, Germany and Italy had hosted the majority of children who had crossed the border. Ukraine was committed to creating the best conditions to return children to the State once it was safe to do so. Children with disabilities who had evacuated with their families were not registered. The Government was doing everything it could to monitor Ukrainian children with disabilities who were seeking refuge abroad. The risk of child trafficking was a challenge, particularly given the current situation.
The unprecedented project of medical evacuation of children with cancer had been implemented. The Polish Government had granted Ukrainian healthcare professionals, who had left their jobs due to war, an opportunity to work with Ukrainian children in Poland, thus removing the language barrier. Cooperation with neighbouring countries was being undertaken to ensure sustainable medical services until the war was over. The United Nations Children’s Fund and civil society organizations active in Ukraine worked together on support programmes for Ukrainian children in other countries, enabling children to receive social, legal and psychological support.
Ukraine was working on alternative sources of heating for every region and facility, for people who required support. The safest route for children with disabilities living in institutions would be evacuation, ideally abroad. However, there were challenges in this, including transportation, and ensuring that the countries had the resources available to support these children. It was also difficult for these children to change environments, particularly from a linguistic perspective, and this could have a negative impact on their wellbeing. Ukraine was calling on the international community to support children with disabilities in Ukraine, to ensure these children safely survived the winter.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, appealed to the Committee to highlight this problem, as there were not enough resources to support children in a crisis situation.
The primary healthcare in Ukraine was characterised by the large number of medical aid posts, functioning in rural facilities. However, the approach of the primary healthcare had been changed due to war. Internally displaced persons could receive healthcare wherever they were living. All the healthcare services in the occupied territories were still funded by the State, to allow access for Ukrainian citizens. Progress had been received in the reduction of sexually transmitted diseases. A network of youth-friendly clinics had been established with a focus on sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive health was studied under the biological curriculum in schools, where students learned about reproductive health, sexual relations, and sexually transmitted diseases, among other topics.
Questions by Committee Experts
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that he understood that the marriage of minors of 16 years of age was allowed in exceptional circumstances. Would this be changed and would measures be implemented allowing everyone to know the dangers of child marriage? Did the State plan to revise the parameters for addressing intersex children? Were they considered as people who had an illness? Did Ukraine plan on addressing the deep consequences of the institutionalisation of children with disabilities, by providing family-based support?
A Committee Expert expressed gratitude to the delegation of Ukraine for travelling to Geneva while the country was at war. How were children able to be returned from occupied territories? And what about the children who remained?
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, asked if children who were currently in institutions in Ukraine had reasonable services? Were they safe and was there no need for evacuation? What could be done to carry out a rescue operation and engage neighbouring countries to assist? These children needed specialised services and family settings which were not currently available in Ukraine; could the delegation share their thoughts on this?
A Committee Expert said there were significant amounts of children who had fallen through the cracks when it came to data collection. What was being done to ensure these children were properly identified and to ensure their whereabouts? Were there guidelines drafted by Ukraine regarding the receiving of children in host countries?
A Committee Expert asked if children deprived of their liberty in the criminal justice system were safe? Were there plans to evacuate them?
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the Committee was aware of certain legal issues relating to the status of Ukrainian children abroad and their future repatriation to Ukraine. Had the State considered the treaty to which Ukraine was a party? Ms. Todorova said the situation could be discussed with Germany, which was appearing before the Committee next week.
A Committee Expert asked if the views of children older than 14 were actually heard, or if their opinions were just considered?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the Family Code stipulated that children under the age of 18 could be granted permission to marry, if it was in line with the child’s interests, and if the court issued permission. Intersex children were not regarded as being ill. The Ministry of Healthcare was drafting the required framework to allow intersex children to make decisions.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said there were more than 1,300 children with disabilities in the western region of Ukraine remaining in institutions. The scope of social services would be increased, primarily by auditing the institutions. Most of these children had living parents, so the goal was to reunite these children with their families, providing the families had the resources to care for these children. Ukraine was working on increasing the number of teachers who were able to teach children with disabilities. This was a cost-intensive initiative. However, first steps had already been made.
A public portal had been created which involved all stakeholders responsible for recovering Ukrainian children from abroad, including the police. It was important for Ukraine to know the whereabouts of each child to allow for their repatriation; 53 children had already been repatriated. Due to security purposes, exact details of the repatriation process could not be provided, but action was being taken to bring these children back to their families.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, said if hosting countries were willing to provide care to children with disabilities, then Ukraine was willing to evacuate these children. However, bilateral agreements were required, as these children were not allowed to leave the country alone, which required staff to accompany them. This meant the evacuation of staff and their families was also required. During the evacuation of children with disabilities, it was easier to take children accompanied by their relatives. It was difficult for children with mental disabilities to leave the country and change their environment. Ukraine was asking the international community to support the State in providing support to these children with disabilities, within the territory of Ukraine. Many Ukrainian children had left Ukraine with their relatives while their parents remained behind. Ukraine was undertaking efforts to evacuate those in prisons.
Ukraine was guided by The Hague Conventions. It was incredibly important to start the dialogue with Germany; Ukraine would be grateful for the Committee’s guidance on this.
Children could share their opinions in the case of a dispute about child custody, and over the age of 14 the child was able to decide who they wanted to stay with.
A range of measures were being taken to prevent children from consuming drugs. Students at schools participated in Zoom trainings and webinars and parents received information about the use of drugs. Counteracting child pornography was one of the priorities of the national police. Following an investigation, 18 perpetrators were identified and apprehended and material was seized. People who were engaged in prostitution were engaged only in administrative liability, not criminal liability.
Mental health was an integral part of the recovery of people in Ukraine. The First Lady had initiated the mental health and psychosocial support programme, which had brought the topic of mental health to a higher level. Every day the number of organizations and project providers in mental health was increasing. The top priority was coordination and joining efforts with all those working in the sphere to obtain positive results. The State was aiming to create a setting which ensured that all those who needed mental health support was able to receive it, without discrimination.
Comment by a Committee Expert
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there had been no answers about the child justice system, and the responses regarding family codes were a bit disappointing.
Closing Remarks
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce on Ukraine, said the Committee appreciated Ukraine’s decision not to request a delay for the meeting, due to the Russian aggression, reflecting the State’s commitment to children’s rights and implementing the Convention even in adverse circumstances. Mr. Gudbrandsson thanked the delegation for the rich details they had shared, stating that the dialogue had been extremely helpful.
OKSANA ZHOLNOVYCH, Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine and head of the delegation, expressed gratitude to the Committee for supporting Ukraine under such an adverse situation. Ukraine was grateful for the discussion and questions asked by the Committee members, even though some were not easy to answer. Ukraine would take measures at home to improve the situation of children and was committed to providing prompt responses to challenges caused by the war in Ukraine. The children of Ukraine were the future, and it was important that they were healthy and safe.
MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for appearing before the Committee despite the extraordinary challenges faced. It was hoped that the dialogue would serve to protect the children of Ukraine under the Convention. Ms. Otani extended sincere and best wishes to the children in Ukraine who were suffering.
_______
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRC.22.022E