COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS OF CHILD EXAMINES REPORT OF ROMANIA

Committee on the Rights of the Child

5 June 2009

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the third and fourth consolidated periodic reports of Romania on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Introducing the report, Ileana Savu, Secretary of State of the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights, said that she had started her mandate as head of the National Authority this February. At that time, she had taken over the responsibility of coordinating a system of child rights protection that had made considerable progress in the last few years, due to the commitment and sustained efforts made by all the previous governments. The progress achieved had been, to an important extent, guided by the previous recommendations of the Committee. Starting in 2005, when the new legislative package in the field of the protection and promotion of children’s rights had entered into force, Romania had been acting in a more concerted fashion to create the necessary conditions for the observance of children’s rights.

Ms. Savu said the percentage of children placed in family-type alternatives to institutional care, where they benefited from good quality living conditions and a holistic approach, had increased compared with those being placed in institutions. Currently, children were placed in care mainly as a consequence of their abuse, neglect, or exploitation and not, as in the past, when poverty and/or disability had been the main causes of institutionalization. Furthermore, given the current economic situation, special attention also had to be paid to preventing and combating child poverty. In that regard, Romania would continue to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the important financial allocations under the European Union funds.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Committee Expert Maria Herczog, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Romania, said that despite the many developments in Romania there were still complex issues that needed to be dealt with. She was concerned that the process of working for the protection of children’s rights had slowed down since the accession of Romania to the European Union, as the European Union was not monitoring the situation as closely as when Romania had still been a candidate country. Health education and social support were still very weak and would need to be strengthened. It would also help to have a much more holistic approach and a better coordination with all the national bodies working for children.

Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, care for Roma children, in particular with regard to education; the situation of disabled children, and what was being done to address social stigmatization of such children; the abortion rate among adolescent girls; hidden costs for “free” education; an increase in the number of children abandoned in hospitals, probably due to the current financial crisis; why the adoption rate was currently decreasing in Romania; criteria for establishing whether a child could be adopted; and the reason behind the creation of the special national authority for Roma children and what its role was.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the third and fourth consolidated periodic report of Romania towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 12 June 2009.

The delegation of Romania also included representatives of the Romanian Office for Adoptions; the National Authority for the Protection of Child’s Rights; the National Authority for People with Disabilities of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Equal Opportunities; the Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation; the Ministry of Public Health; the Ministry of Administration and Interior; the Ministry of Justice and Citizen’s Freedoms; the National Authority for the Roma; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and the Permanent Mission of Romania to Geneva.

As one of the 193 States parties to the Convention, Romania is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to comply with the provisions of the treaty. The delegation was on hand throughout the day to present the report and to answer questions raised by Committee Experts.

The Committee will reconvene in public on Tuesday, 9 June, at 10 a.m., when it will consider the initial report of Oman under the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/OMN/1) and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/OMN/1).

Report of Romania

According to the third and fourth consolidated periodic report of Romania (CRC/C/ROM/4), child protection has been a priority for all of Romania’s governments from 1990 to the present. Before this period many children were kept in institutions in inhuman and harsh conditions. Romania launched child protection reforms in the early 1990s after having been frequently accused of not being able to care of its children. It subsequently became clear that the role played by institutions and the State in child protection should be decreased as it had become obvious that the education and developmental needs of huge numbers of children were not well served by this institutional framework. A decision was therefore taken to close down these institutions and replace them with family-type homes offering protection to a smaller number of children. This arrangement offered these children similar conditions to those they would find in a normal family, as well as better educational conditions.

The recent opening of Romania’s borders following its accession to the European Union has also entailed preparing labour reports on Romanian citizens. Attracted by the opportunity of a better income and a better lifestyle for their families, many Romanians have chosen to leave the country, and have left their children at home in the care of relatives, extended family, and even state institutions. The extent of this development was initially disregarded but has become a source of real concern for authorities as it began to realize the extent and tragic impact of parental absence on the children that had been left at home. Thus, a number of actions were initiated, together with a simultaneous application of new instruments to quantify and monitor this phenomenon by the competent local and central authorities, in order to provide adequate strategies adapted to the real needs of these beneficiaries.

Presentation of Report

ILEANA SAVU, Secretary of State of the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights of Romania, said that she had started her mandate as head of the National Authority this February. At that time, she had taken over the responsibility of coordinating a system of child rights protection that had made considerable progress in the last few years, due to the commitment and sustained efforts made by all the previous governments. The progress achieved had been, to an important extent, guided by the previous recommendations of the Committee.

Starting in 2005, when the new legislative package in the field of the protection and promotion of children’s rights had entered into force, Romania had been acting in a more concerted fashion to create the necessary conditions for the observance of children’s rights, said Ms. Savu. This legal framework had created the premises for inter-institutional collaboration, under the coordination of the National Authority. The Action Plan for the implementation of the new legislative package and the National Strategy in the field of the protection and promotion of child rights, 2008-2013, were the programmatic documents guiding the interventions of the institutions with responsibilities in this field.

Ms. Savu said that significant progress had been made concerning informing professionals, parents, and children about the provisions of the new legislation and securing better protection against child abuse. There was a sound political will to do that and measures had already been initiated for undertaking an ample decentralization process and for developing and diversifying the child daycares services. Particular attention was currently given, in the process of decentralization, to supporting the local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities in the field of children’s rights. However, the continuation of decentralization in the field of child protection had raised some problems regarding financial and human resources.

Ms. Savu said the percentage of children placed in family-type alternatives, where they benefited from good quality living conditions and a holistic approach, had increased compared with those being placed in institutions. Currently, children were placed in care mainly as a consequence of their abuse, neglect, or exploitation and not, as in the past, when poverty and/or disability had been the main causes of institutionalization.

Support given to parents by professionals needed to be improved, Ms. Savu recognized. Punitive attitudes against parents were still persisting, while the need of developing and diversifying the services offered to them, including parental education programmes, were increasing.

Violence against children had already been included in the Government’s agenda in the form of an integrator concept of child abuse, neglect, exploitation and trafficking, Ms. Savu said. In that connection, a national plan for preventing and combating violence against children would be approved by a Government decision in the coming period.

Mental health was an issue that needed to be further addressed by the authorities. The Ministry of Health would finalize in the next period a national strategy referring to children’s mental health. The benefits granted for children with disabilities living in their own families and to their families had not always been accompanied by the necessary services, Ms. Savu noted. The National Authority had thus recently initiated an ample project aimed at supporting the social integration of children with disabilities.

Education continued to be a national priority, Ms. Savu said, noting that higher percentages of the gross domestic product had been granted for that field last year, mainly for investment in infrastructure. Furthermore, child day-care services would be developed by the local public authorities according to the needs identified in their communities, including leisure and recreational needs.

An increased attention was also being paid by local authorities to the creation or refurbishment of sports grounds and gymnasiums. Progress had also been made in the creation and improvement of parks and playgrounds for children under 10 years of age.

On the issue of juvenile justice, justice, judges and prosecutors working on cases involving children had received training in children’s rights, Ms. Savu said. Also, many projects had been implemented starting in 2005 with the objective to train professionals entering into contact with children in their daily activities.

Given the current economic situation, special attention also had to be paid to preventing and combating child poverty. In that regard, Romania would continue to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the important financial allocations under the European Union funds, Ms. Savu said.

Questions by Experts

MARIA HERCZOG, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Romania, said that the past 20 years had fundamentally changed the life of children in Central and Eastern Europe, including Romania. Joining the European Union in 2007 had meant an opportunity in many ways and a lot of obligations as well. According to the survey that had been carried out by the Romanian Children’s Council, a very high proportion of Romanian children knew about the Convention. But how could children enforce their rights? Who was helping them in doing so? Moreover, had Romania’s report been translated in Romanian and distributed to Romanian children?

On the issue of Roma children, Ms. Herczog noted that that was a very sensitive issue as anti-Roma sentiments had become widespread throughout Europe. Many of the children among Roma migrants were without proper health, social care and education and living mostly on the streets and committing offences. An important agreement had been the decision by Romania to handle more properly the situation of unaccompanied Roma children entering Italy.

On the national plans of action aimed at strengthening the rights and the well-being of children, Ms. Herczog said that the need for adequate budget allocation, together with monitoring and evaluation mechanisms seemed to be lacking. The most vulnerable groups of children, such as poor, Roma, disabled, HIV/AIDS infected and street children would also need more attention.

Further, birth registration was still not universal and some children were denied many services as a result, Ms. Herczog noted.

PETER GURAN, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur for the report of Romania, said that an important fact was that the accession period to the European Union had strongly stimulated all activities in the field of children’s rights in Romania. The situation of child rights in Romania, compared to other post Soviet countries, had been highly criticized in the past. That situation had been resolved in a very short time. All the packages of legislation adopted by Romania in 2005 were highly commendable.

Mr. Guran noted three main areas of concern: coordination, decentralization, and independent monitoring. What were the competencies of the Coordination Council? On decentralization, while that was a very important step, how were the decentralized services being monitored to ensure that minimum standards were met? As for monitoring, the Parliament had recently rejected a draft document for the creation of a new Ombudsman and he asked for more details.

Other Experts then raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, awareness-raising campaigns to ensure that legal authorities were aware of the Convention; the status of the Convention in Romania and whether it could be invoked in the courts; whether the Convention was taught in schools; the abortion rate among adolescent girls; plans to create public-private partnerships to assist in implementing the national strategy on children; whether kindergarten was free or if not affordable for everybody; and whether education had already been decentralized.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that, that the Government mechanism which was tasked with monitoring and implementing the Convention was the Council of Coordination. That body was at the level of experts but in every meeting someone from at least the level of State Secretary was invited to attend.

The delegation said that there was still a high level of poverty in Romania, and the way they helped families was through budgetary allocations. About budgetary resources, there were none especially for children, but rather for various activities.

Concerning how the Government was supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the delegation said that there was a draft law currently being discussed that would allow the Government to contract services from NGOs. They had had a lot of discussions with NGOs and all agreed that this was a needed law. Moreover, NGOs were invited to the Coordination Council’s meetings every time it was debating laws.

On how the Government intended to monitor the Plan of Action, the delegation said that that was also the role of the Coordination Council.

Regarding decentralization, at the moment, the competencies were split between the local and county levels. An evaluation of the different practices and the current stage of decentralization were currently being undertaken. They were looking at staff and financial resources. They also intended to provide a new form of organization for the general directorate of social assistance and child protection this autumn. The State currently allocated budgets for counties and the general directorates of social assistance and child protection but not at the local level, said the delegation.

On birth registration, that was an obligation in Romania. The registration was made immediately after birth. The child had also the right to citizenship. There was no law asking people working with unregistered children, such as doctors or teachers, to report them, but they were doing awareness-raising targeted at parents and to try and get them to register their children. There were many uneducated and poor families in Romania, with parents who were often not able to read and write and did not know how to fill out a birth registration.

The delegation said that a Subcommission for Children’s Rights had been constituted in the Chamber of Deputies. That was very good, as it could conduct independent monitoring of the work done on the government side by the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights.

With respect to the legal status of the Convention, the delegation said that it had been ratified by law in 1990 and was now part of Romanian legislation. It was directly applicable and could be invoked in legal proceedings. Regarding the highest interest of the child, it was specifically provided for in the law and the Constitution also provided for the protection of children in the pursuance of their rights.

On the issue of the respect of the privacy of the child, the delegation indicated that Court hearings could be done in private in various cases, such as for domestic violence or human trafficking. The Court proceedings could also use video testimony from children in cases of human trafficking.

Further Questions by Experts

During the second round of questions, an Expert noted that the number of children abandoned in hospitals was increasing, probably due to the current financial crisis, despite child allowances provided by the State. What measures had the Government taken to resolve that problem? On a related issue, an Expert wondered why the adoption rate was currently decreasing in Romania, when the amount of children remaining in institutional care and waiting for adoption was still very important, and more information was requested.

An Expert asked what was being done to address reports that several parents of disabled children were hiding their children for fear of stigmatization. What was the Government doing to change the public perception of such children? An Expert also wondered how the Government monitored the provision of services available to disabled children, when many families denied the disability of their child for fear of stigmatization.

On specialized juvenile justice, while children in conflict with the law were now in a better position than in previous years thanks to the many improvements in the system, it was a matter of concern that minors were still often held together with adults during pre-trial custody.

The Committee commended the many efforts that had been undertaken in the area of education. But it was not enough; many parents had to cover hidden costs. Compulsory education was not yet fully free in Romania. Would the Government further improve the existing programmes to cover all costs? Also, according to data received by the Committee, the attendance rates in schools were decreasing and the number of school dropouts was increasing. Around 10 per cent of children were leaving primary school before completion. What was being done to address that issue? Also, it seemed that not enough opportunities for vocational training were available.

Other questions included whether there was any daycares service for very small children; a statistic that only 12 per cent of women breastfed their children and concern that that was due to a certain “de-linking syndrome” between parents and mothers from their children; data on adolescents, including their mental health and lifestyle; and what sexual education programmes existed and whether there was awareness-raising to change perceptions about contraception.

The delegation was further asked about the criteria for establishing whether a child could be adopted; whether Roma children were ever adopted or if they were mostly directed to care institutions; and the reason behind the creation of the special national authority for Roma children and what its role was.

Response by Delegation

Responding to those and other questions, on the issue of adoption, the delegation said that the Romanian Government had recently taken a decision to put a moratorium on international adoptions. According to current law, the declaration of adoptability was by court decision. A child became adoptable after all efforts to reintroduce him into his biological or his extended family, up to the fourth degree of familiarity, had failed. There was currently no time limit set for the reintegration of a child. The Government was also considering reducing the familiarity degree for adoption to the third degree. In 2008, 1,261 children had been deemed adoptable.

On Roma children, it was hard to have statistics on Roma children, as it was forbidden to register the ethnicity of children. As for the issue of why Roma children were often note adopted, the delegation explained that a lot of poor parents left their children in institutions but did not agree to their being adopted. They hoped that when they were in a better situation they could get their children back.

Regarding the problems linked to adolescents, the delegation said that that issue was being addressed by the Ministry of Health. It was currently adopting a strategy for adolescent and child health, which included friendly services for adolescents. It was expected that the strategy would have a huge impact on the status and health of adolescents.

Concerning breastfeeding, it was true that the rate was very low; however, the rate was 98 per cent at discharge from maternity wards.

As to the rate of abortion, it had dramatically decreased since 1990, when over 3,000 abortions had been performed, as compared with only 500 abortions in 2008. Contraceptives, including the pill, were available for free. A network of some 100 family planning specialists was available all over the country around the clock. Further, Romania had some 11,000 family doctors working in the country and children were put on the list of a family doctor at birth by the medical staffs of the maternity clinic where they were born.

Turning to the role of the National Authority for Roma, the delegation said that they were training so-called sanitary and medical mediators. These were Roma women who then went to the most disadvantaged communities and talked with Roma about family planning and contraception methods. But those poor communities were also very conservative. Thus, the Government was not expecting to see waves of vasectomies in these communities. Further, Roma people were not considered an ethnic indigenous people, as Committee members had said.

The National Authority for Roma was not a ministry of Roma people. It was not taking care of their schooling or vaccination. They were rather a catalyst inside the Government, a sort of lobby to monitor and evaluate to work and to push the ministries and the bureaucracy to bring the issues of Roma people forward. One important tool at the disposal of the national authority was the law against discrimination. It was forbidden to discriminate against Roma in job vacancies or to use certain terms, such as “stinky gypsy”. Further, local elected officials were being supported by the National Authority and through European Union financing if they decided to build infrastructures, such as social housing for minorities, including for Roma people.

Compulsory Education was free of any charges and school manuals were free for students, the delegation stressed. The Government had also noticed the importance of early childhood development. The Ministry of Education had already devised a strategy on early childhood development in 2006. The aims were to provide full support for children in order for them to reach their highest scholastic potential and to raise the level of the quality of their education. They had also identified possibilities to provide alternative education to children living in disadvantaged areas.

Turning to children with disabilities, their rights were being covered by two laws: the law on protection of children’s rights and the law on the rights and protection of disabled persons. A family had to go before a multidisciplinary committee for their child to be registered as disabled. The law provided for the architectural adaptation of buildings for disabled people and public transportation was free of cost for disabled persons and an accompanying person.

Concerning the perception of handicaps by the society in general, the Government had acknowledged that that was an issue. They were making every effort to change the attitude of society. The authorities had organized several nationwide information campaigns and training of staff to address that issue. Further, Romania was in the midst of the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The delegation wished to stress that in Romania mentally disabled children were not considered to be sick children.

Turning to refugee students, the delegation said that they enjoyed the same rights as Romanian citizens and children. They were also offered psychological counselling, cultural activities and Romanian language courses for free.

On educational activities in penitentiary centres, there were compulsory classes and school instruction for all detained minors. The right of the child to education was fully provided for by the law. Psychological assistance was also compulsory for detained minors. Access to libraries was also provided, the delegation added.

The National Penitentiary Service had created a group to work on a social reinsertion strategy for children. A second strategy revolved around preparing children before their release from prison. Social workers and psychologists were involved in that process. A third strategy of cooperation with NGOs had been set up to help the child after release from prison and housing was provided for released children.

The delegation noted that the number of children detained in penitentiary centres had gone down by 40 per cent since 2006. According to a new law, children could no longer be detained together with adults. The current number of children that had committed a criminal offence and were not criminally liable due to their age was around 4,000. Those children had been placed in specialized centres for children who had committed offences. The most frequent offence was theft and the most frequent offenders were boys from urban areas. Around 16 per cent of these children were recidivists and 90 per cent of the time the measure that was taken was placement under specialized supervision.

Regarding custodial measures for children that had committed criminal offences, either educational measures or punishment could be applied to them. That included internment in a re-educational centre or internment in a medical centre. Children could be detained in such centres until the age of 18 years.

On trafficking, during 2004-2007 a National Plan of Action against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Children had been put in place and in 2008 an evaluation of the plan had been performed. Questionnaires had been sent to all General Directorates for child protection. Sexual exploitation of children had been identified as the worst exploitation of children. Two resource centres specialized in sexual exploitation of children had been set up and two phone lines had also been set up by NGOs.

Romania had set up centres for child victims of trafficking, where they could receive counselling and psychological assistance. The centres were primarily meant for children trafficked from Romania, as it still was a country of departure and not a country of destination, but they were also used for children of other countries that were found on the territory.

Turning to street children, the delegation said that in 2008 the Government had registered some 900 of them: 152 of them were living on the street with their families; 253 were living without their families; and the rest were working in the streets during the day and went home to their family at night. Some 180 daycares centres had been established for street children.

Child labour was strictly forbidden. When children were found working, social services had to undertake measures to reintroduce the child into the school system. In 2008, 1,072 cases of child labour had been reported.

Poverty was big problem in Romania and the fight against poverty had been a major priority of the Government. Most of the measures were being undertaken by the national agency for social benefits. Benefits and services should be provided together in the view of the delegation.

Preliminary Concluding Remarks

MARIA HERCZOG, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Romania, in preliminary concluding remarks, said that the dialogue had been very fruitful. Despite the many developments there were still complex issues that needed to be dealt with. She understood that all institutions were doing their best in the country. Non-governmental organizations were also an integral part of that work.

Ms. Herczog was, however, concerned that the process of working for the protection for children’s rights had slowed down since the accession of Romania to the European Union, as the European Union was not monitoring the situation in the country as closely as during the period before the accession, when it was still a candidate country.

Health education and social support were still very weak and would need to be strengthened, Ms. Herczog said. It would also help to have a much more holistic approach and a better coordination with all the national bodies working for children.




_________
For use of information media; not an official record