Committee on the Rights of the Child considers the report of Romania

GENEVA (24 May 2017) - The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Romania on its implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
 
Gabriela Coman, President of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice of Romania, informed the Committee about Romania’s new vision of child development and well-being, which involved breaking the cycle of disadvantage in early years and reducing risks of poverty and social exclusion.  To that end, Romania had adopted several strategies for the 2014-2020 period, including on the protection and promotion of children’s rights, social inclusion and poverty reduction, health, prevention of early school leaving, rights of persons with disabilities, and Roma inclusion.  The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence had been ratified and in 2016 Romania had become one of the two European pathfinder countries in the Global Partnership to End Violence against Children, committing to end violence against children through the delivery of a comprehensive response and prevention programme.  The institutionalization of children under the age of three was prohibited in 2014, and a Deinstitutionalization Master Plan was being developed to close all old-type institutions and develop family-like alternatives and community-based alternatives for all children in the care of the State.
 
In the discussion that followed, Committee Experts welcomed the adoption of the 2014-2020 strategy for the protection and promotion of children’s rights and the efforts to prevent the separation of children from their parents by strengthening the families to be able to care for their children.  Experts took positive note of the legislation that was mostly in line with the Convention, but expressed concern about the weak implementation of those laws.  A particular issue of concern was corporal punishment and its roots in the culture of the country, so Experts inquired about the implementation of the positive legislation and raising the awareness of parents and professionals who worked with children on the negative impact of punitive discipline on children.  The Committee was concerned about the very low prosecution rate for perpetrators of violence against children, which was as low as five per cent, and Experts asked about steps taken to tackle the institutional violence against children and the arrangements that were in place for victim’s protection and reintegration.  The number of children in public care was still rather high and as many as one third were still institutionalized; furthermore, poverty remained among the key factors for the separation of the child from the family and her or his placement in State care.
 
Velina Todorova, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Romania, concluded by saying that Romania needed to strengthen measures in the areas of violence against children, children with disabilities, discrimination, and institutionalization of children, and urged Romania to involve civil society in the implementation of the Committee’s concluding observations.
 
In her concluding remarks, Ms. Coman said that steps were already being taken to address the concerns raised by the Committee, which would be helped by the vision and a holistic approach to children’s rights, better understanding of the effective use of European funds, and the real commitment to protect children and work with them to protect their rights.
 
The delegation of Romania included representatives of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption, National Agency against Trafficking in Persons, National Penitentiary Administration, General Inspectorate for Preschool Education, General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Health, and the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
 
The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 26 May, when it will review the fifth periodic report of Mongolia under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/MNG/5).
 
Report

The fifth periodic report of Romania under the Convention on the Rights of the Child can be accessed via this link: CRC/C/ROU/5.
 
Presentation of the Report
 
GABRIELA COMAN, President of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice of Romania, introducing the report, said that the economic and financial crisis which had affected Romania from 2009 to 2013, and during which the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child had been dismantled, had been an opportunity to develop a new vision of child development and well-being and ensure respect for children’s rights.  Since the re-establishment of the National Authority in 2014, important choices had been made in breaking the cycle of disadvantage in early years and reducing risks of poverty and social exclusion, including the adoption of strategies for the 2014-2020 period on the protection and promotion of children’s rights, social inclusion and poverty reduction, health, prevention of early school leaving, rights of persons with disabilities and Roma inclusion.
 
In line with the new vision and the new policy framework, Romania had amended the law on adoption in 2016, which had reduced bureaucracy, improved transparency and increased the speed of the procedure.  It had further ratified the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence and had become in 2016 one of the two European pathfinder countries in the Global Partnership to End Violence against Children, committing to end violence against children through the delivery of a comprehensive response and prevention programme.  The legislation on community health nursing had been amended to ensure access to healthcare and community services for disadvantaged people, with a focus on Roma.  Furthermore, the package of legislation had been adopted concerning the rights of children with disabilities in relation to education, training and rehabilitation, and the newly established National Commission for Desegregation and Educational Inclusion coordinated actions aimed at preventing, combatting and prohibiting school segregation in pre-university establishments across the country.
 
Turning to the challenges, Ms. Coman said that around 46 per cent of the children in Romania were still poor or socially excluded.  Romania’s strategies addressing child poverty recognized the complexity of the intergenerational roots of poverty, and promoted an integrated approach going beyond income support and focusing on most deprived areas.  Additional challenges were stigma and discrimination against different categories of children, including among professionals, as well as general acceptance of violence against children which took place in the family and in school and also had an international dimension such as child trafficking and exploitation, child sex tourism and child pornography.  Romania had decided to develop integrated community-based services and so ensure the shift from special care protection to prevention; it had successfully piloted the Minimum Package of Services which brought together the health, education and child protection systems to support vulnerable children and their families, and which was considered an effective solution to combat child poverty and social exclusion and to promote equal opportunities for all the children. 
 
Romania had been one of the first countries to respond to the call of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prevent harmful and unnecessary institutionalization and had prohibited in 2014 the institutionalization of children under the age of three.  The National Authority was developing a Deinstitutionalization Master Plan which would lead to the closing of all old-type institutions and developing family-like alternatives and community-based alternatives for some 57,000 children.  In conclusion, Ms. Coman outlined the priorities for Romania, which included the creation of an Ombudsman dedicated to children’s rights; the increase in the investment in early education and opening 2,500 new crèches, kindergartens and after school settings in the most deprived areas; and the adoption of the new law on health in 2017.
 
Questions from the Experts
 
OLGA KHAZOVA, Committee Vice Chairperson and Rapporteur for Romania, welcomed the adoption of the 2014-2020 strategy for the protection and promotion of children’s rights and took positive note of the legislation which was mostly in line with the Convention; however, its implementation was problematic.  The coordination of institutions working on the protection of children’s rights was insufficient on both inter-sectoral and inter-ministerial levels, as well as on the country level.
 
What steps were being envisaged to improve the coordination and to increase budgetary allocations for children, which were still very low and had not yet reached the levels prior to the 2009 economic and financial crisis?  Money seemed to be distributed unequally within the sectors, for example in the education sector, more resources were allocated to higher education than to pre-school and primary education.
 
How was data collected, integrated, analysed and used in the policy planning cycles?
 
Romania had stated that the creation of the Children’s Ombudsman was a priority – when might this happen?
 
The age of marriage was 18 years of age in the civil code, but it could be lowered with parental consent.  Was there another institution involved in the authorisation of under-age marriage?
 
With regard to harmful traditional practices, in some rural areas there was the custom of young children, as young as 12 or 13 years of age, to start living together and have children together.  Those were not registered marriages.  What steps were being taken to address this phenomenon?
 
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Vice Chairperson and Committee Co-Rapporteur for Romania, took up the issue of persistent discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children in schools and asked what plans were being put in place to protect this population from discrimination and to change the negative attitudes among their fellow students and teachers?  What complaint mechanism was available to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students?
 
With regard to the best interest of the child, what plan was in place to promote the principle among the administrative and judicial staff and among parents?  How was this principle applied in cases of children seeking asylum?
 
MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur on Romania, asked the delegation about birth registration and how children born outside of hospitals were registered at birth.  The concern remained about the protection of the privacy of children aged 14 and above, since the National Audiovisual Commission Decision of 2011 allowed for the revealing of the identity of children above the age of 14 who were accused of committing a crime or were victims of abuse, provided that certain conditions were met.  What was being done to ensure that the children were effectively protected from broadcasting their images or statements which were contrary to the best interest of the child?
 
How was Romania educating children on the risks of the Internet and which preventive measures were being adopted to protect children from exposure to harmful information and harmful materials targeted at children on the Internet?  Were there any monitoring and regulatory bodies for the Internet services?
 
Ms. Otani also asked about the religious education in school and how the right to opt out of attending religious classes was actually implemented.
 
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Co-rapporteur for Romania, addressed the situation of children deprived of liberty and children in conflict with the law and asked the delegation to inform about measures taken to ensure the access of children to a lawyer and to counselling services at all levels of criminal proceedings.  What access did children in detention have to education and health care services and to social integration services?  Were there programmes available to train the professionals on the rights of the child to be protected from torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment in closed settings?
 
What were the short and long-term plans of the national preventive mechanism to inspect the settings where children were deprived of liberty, including psychiatric hospitals, prisons, detention centres, and schools for children in conflict with the law?
 
A particular issue of concern in Romania was corporal punishment and its roots in culture.  How was the Government implementing the positive legislation and raising the awareness of parents on the legislation and on the negative impact of punitive discipline on children?  What steps were being taken to increase such awareness among the professionals working with children in all settings and among the general public?
 
Ms. Todorova commended Romania for establishing helplines and independent complaint mechanisms for children, and requested additional information about their use and effectiveness, including the guarantees of safety of the child, State funding, and follow-up on received complaints, among others.
 
Romania had established methodologies for early identification and intervention in cases of violence, noted the Committee Co-Rapporteur and asked whether this methodology functioned as a referral mechanism; what triggered the mechanism, particularly for children in closed settings; the leading institution in managing the cases; and the services already in place.
 
Was mental violence between children at school and other forms of bullying, including cyber bullying, being addressed by any government programmes? 
 
The Committee was concerned about the very low prosecution rate for perpetrators of violence against children, as low as five per cent in some reports.  How would institutional violence against children be tackled?  What arrangements were in place for victims’ protection and reintegration?
 
Responses by the Delegation
 
In response to the questions raised about coordination, the delegation said that the Coordination Council was active at the national, county and local levels: at the national level, it coordinated the elaboration of policies and strategies; at the county level, it dealt with children in need of protection; while at the local level it coordinated the activities which aimed at preventing children from entering the care system in the first place.  In addition to this vertical coordination, the Council was implementing horizontal coordination with other ministries, particularly in budgetary allocation decisions.
 
The law on the Ombudsman for children was under preparation and would be finalized by the end of this year; it would define how the institution would be set up, its composition and its mandate.
 
In terms of the dissemination of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the delegation explained that the provisions of the Convention were part of the curriculum already at the preschool level, and was also included at the primary and secondary school levels.  Teachers received continuing training in children’s rights. 
 
With regard to training of judges and prosecutors, it was explained that the Convention was part of the domestic law and that training provided to the judges focused on the best interest of the child, which was the determinant principle that judges and prosecutors must take into account.
 
The Convention was part of both base and continuous education programmes; in base training, it was part of the subjects dealing with the family law, criminal law and criminal procedure law.  In continuing education, seminars were being regularly organized on specific themes, such as child-friendly justice, the fundamental rights of the child in practice, working with vulnerable categories, hearing and interacting with juveniles in criminal proceedings, child protection, aspects of hearing techniques for minors, and others.
 
In terms of the participation of children and civil society organizations in the preparation of the report, the delegation explained that the report had been drafted based on the input received by various ministries, State agencies and institutions and civil society organizations.  Once the report had been drafted, a public session with the representatives of non-governmental organizations and children had been organized during which comments and suggestions on the draft report had been received and integrated in the final version.  The National Council of Students was an important partner of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, and they were involved in all important decision-making processes.
 
The non-governmental organizations were represented within the Coordination Council, which meant that civil society organizations were involved in law and policy making from the beginning 
 
The age of majority was set at 18 years of age; exceptionally, marriage at the age of 16 was allowed with parental consent and the approval of the court, and the delegation stressed that the procedure for authorizing such marriage was not easy.
 
The best interest of the child was a very important issue in courts where all children aged 10 and above had the right to be heard.  Also heard could be the child under the age of 10 who could formulate and sustain his or her opinion.
 
Romania was aware that discrimination in access to services arose from the differences between rural and urban areas, and between the regions.  That was why an integrated approach in providing both social, health and education services had been adopted.  In order to address discrimination against children with disabilities, a package of secondary legislation had been finalized several months ago to define access to health, education and rehabilitation services.  For the first time, all relevant ministries – health, education, and labour - had put together the common criteria to be used in the evaluation of children with disabilities.  This would go a long way in combatting discrimination against children with disabilities.
 
In response to questions raised about children deprived of liberty and children in conflict with the law, the delegation said that major progress had been made in the legislation and that, as per the Committee’s previous recommendation, the law 545 from 1972 had been repealed and replaced with the new law which prohibited minors from entering prisons.  Instead, minors were housed in educational and detention centres where they were assessed for education and psychological support, and individual intervention plans were established for each minor, which aimed to facilitate their social reintegration at the end of the sentence.
 
The education and detention centres were supervised by the Institution of the Judge, which had been recently established to monitor the rights of the minors in those centres, and ensure they were respected and that minors had a possibility to file a complaint for rights violations.
 
In their follow-up questions, Committee Experts noted that the awareness among children of their rights was rather low and asked what was being done about this.  The delegation was asked about measures to address discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students; the difference between a penitentiary and a detention centre; the definition of a minor in the criminal justice system; and whether educational centres were open, semi-open or closed types of institutions. 
 
The delegation said that children’s rights were an important subject for all levels, starting from the preschool education, and that every child in Romania would learn about children’s rights, starting in kindergarten.  As of next year, there would be a new discipline in fifth grade called children’s rights and critical thinking.  Romania was aware of the critical importance of the awareness of children’s rights and was doing more on this issue every year.
 
Following the ratification of the Convention and the demand by the National Authority, the Government had undertaken steps to introduce in law a set of criteria to guide not only judges but all other professionals to better assess what the best interest of the child meant.  A guide had therefore been produced on this issue.
 
Violations of children’s rights under the domestic law, the Convention or any other international instruments, could be challenged though the civil court, administrative court or the Constitutional court.  If the breach was criminal in nature, it would be challenged in the criminal court.  Minors could not bring the case to the court but had to represented by a parent, or a court-appointed curator.
 
Information and communication technology issues were included in the curricula of high school and safety on the Internet was one of the topics discussed.  As for younger children, teachers were obliged to introduce the risks and help children keep safe on the Internet.  Teachers would also address this topic in their meetings with parents, and there were programmes to train parents and teachers on safety on the Internet.
 
Questions from the Experts
 
In the next round of questions, VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Romania, commended the child centred approach adopted in the new civil code with regard to parent-child relationships as it would help changing the traditional patterns of parenting still in place in the country, particularly in rural areas.
 
The efforts of the Government to develop policies to strengthen families to care for their children and so prevent separation from parents should be commended too.  Still, the number of children in public care was rather high and one third were placed in residential facilities of which many were still old-type institutions.  Poverty remained one of the key factors for the placement of the child in public care, which was inconsistent with the best interest of the child.
 
The delegation was asked how the effectiveness and efficiency of social assistance programmes and community services were monitored and evaluated, which were the standards and budgetary allocations for basic preventive services, and how effective the early identification and interception were in cases involving children with disabilities.  Several projects had been implemented to train the local public authorities on prevention of separation – was there data available on their effectiveness?
 
Although there were more than 57,000 children in public care, the number of adopted children was very scarce – only about 1,000.  In light of the new legislation on adoptions, what was the timeframe for the finalization of adoptions?  How long did it take to establish the suitability of a child for adoption – most children got adopted between the ages of one and four, indicating that the time was rather long?  Which agency was in charge of adoptions and who was responsible for matching the child with the prospective adoption family, what were the criteria and the procedure?
 
OLGA KHAZOVA, Committee Vice Chairperson and Rapporteur for Romania, asked the delegation to explain the problem of Romanian children kept in other European countries and who could not be returned to Romania despite requests by the authorities.
 
With regard to children with disabilities, Ms. Khazova noted that the National Authority for Persons with Disabilities did not carry out child-related activities, which meant that there was no national authority that specifically addressed all the issues related to children with disabilities.  Systematic data was lacking to allow monitoring and evaluation of progress in the situation of children with disabilities, and a comprehensive strategy for this group of children was not in place.
 
Although children under the age of three should not be institutionalized, in reality there were many young children with disabilities in institutions.  In fact, 60 per cent of children in State institutions were children with disabilities. 
 
There was no inclusive education as a system in Romania; instead there were school centres for inclusive education which were in fact segregated settings with separate kindergartens and classes for children with disabilities.  It was not easy to get a child with disabilities to school and it required first that the child was registered as a disabled child with the competent authorities, and this was not an easy or cheap process.  A child not registered as disabled could not access education and would either stay at home or be institutionalized.  The situation with the education of children with disabilities in rural areas was an even greater problem due to the lack of schools and services.
 
The Committee was very concerned that Roma children had to study in specialized schools, not because they were disabled but because they could not follow the mainstream curricula for one reason or another.  The situation of street children did not seem to be on the priority list of Romania, although there was now the third generation of children living in the street.  What was Romania doing to address those two grave concerns?
 
JOSÉ ANGEL RODRÍGUEZ REYES, Committee Vice Chairperson and Committee Co-Rapporteur for Romania, noted with concern the persistent high rate of infant mortality and the high rate of malnutrition among children.  He inquired about the impact on the health of children of the national health strategy. 
 
The national strategy on children and adolescent mental health had been rolled out in 2016 – what was its particular focus, what was its position concerning the internment of adolescents in psychiatric institutions, and what early identification mechanism was in place for mental health issues?
 
Romania had made excellent progress in modernizing school infrastructure, particularly in rural areas.  Which particular measures had been taken to counter school exclusion, principally of Roma population?  Was human rights education a part of the school curricula in Romania?
 
MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur on Romania, asked the delegation to elaborate on the national strategy on social inclusion and poverty reduction 2015-2020, in particular on measures aimed at reducing child poverty.  Did the strategy include targeted measures for vulnerable children such as children living below the poverty line, Roma children, rural children and children with disabilities?
 
Family assistance to low-income families was linked to school attendance and could be diminished according to the child’s school absences.  The concern was that families which could not afford to send their children to school for various reasons would see their allowances reduced.  What could be done to carefully assess the situation of the family and support those families which had difficulties in sending their children to school?
 
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Co-rapporteur for Romania, asked about the situation of refugee children, and the type of accommodation and legal guardianship provided to unaccompanied children until the end of the asylum procedure.
 
The Committee had been informed that the teenage participation in the labour market was rather high and that young children were engaged in hazardous labour.  Bearing in mind the strong correlation between poverty, unemployment of parents and school dropouts, what was being done to address the phenomenon of child labour?
 
Ms. Todorova asked about the intentions of Romania vis-à-vis the reform of the juvenile justice system and in particular how the diversion system and the system of restorative justice would be implemented. 
 
How would the effectiveness of educational centres for juvenile offenders be evaluated and did the judges have the discretion to decide on non-custodial measures?
 
With regard to victim protection, Ms. Todorova wondered about the availability of child-friendly information about proceedings, whether the repeated hearing of victims was still practiced, and the availability of trained professionals - not only judges and prosecutors but also social workers and psychologists.
 
OLGA KHAZOVA, Committee Vice Chairperson and Rapporteur for Romania, asked about the plans to address the situation of Roma children, specifically to increase their social inclusion and participation, and reduce segregation.
 
Responses by the Delegation
 
Responding to questions about the implementation of the best interest of the child in practice, the delegation explained the new legislative interventions in Romania and said that the principle had been a traditional principle in the legislation, particularly in the family code that was a guideline for every court decision involving a child.
 
In the framework of the legal reform, the principle had been included in article 163 of the new civil code, which now included also the provisions of the family code which had since been abolished.  The civil code also decreed that parental responsibilities could only be exercised in the best interest of the child.  The principle of the best interest of the child was enshrined in the law on public notaries, law 272 on the protection and promotion of the rights of children, and the adoption law.
 
The right of the child to be heard was regulated by the civil code and the law 272 on the protection and promotion of the rights of children, which gave children the right to freely express their opinion in matters concerning them, to request and receive information, and to be informed about the consequences of any decisions concerning them.
 
Concerning the juvenile penitentiary system, the delegation said that the custodial surveillance judge monitored educational centres and the implementation of individual intervention programmes, and also addressed the complaints filed by the minors.  Minors were entitled to receive visits by their defence lawyers at any time, and any minor had the right to make a complaint by a way of the petition sent to the competent authorities and to the custodial surveillance judge.  The minimum age of entry into an educational centre was 14.
 
All asylum-seeking and refugee children in Romania were entitled to the same rights and protection as Romanian children.  A legal guardian was thus appointed to an unaccompanied child; accommodation was provided in the child protection centres until the age of 16, and older minors could choose, of their own will, to be placed in migration centres with adults.  All minors were enrolled in language learning training classes.  Social workers, border guards and immigration officers had been trained in line with the European border control and migration requirements.  The forms of protection for each child were determined following an interview with the child by the trained social case worker.
 
The provisions concerning refugee and asylum children were regulated by the law 122 from 2006 on asylum; the amendments to the regulations were being currently debated and the important change in the law would see the introduction of the intensive language teaching and developing an individual integration plan for the child.
 
With regard to victim protection, a pilot project had been developed in 2015 in cooperation with child protection non-governmental organizations which had set up three centres for the interviewing of victims by judges and prosecutors in a manner that would avoid their re-victimization.  Initially developed for victims of trafficking, the services were extended to all children who were victims of crimes.
 
Education was considered to be the key instrument in preventing social disadvantage for all social groups.  Main targeted groups were Roma children, children from disadvantaged communities – rural, remote, or poor – and children with disabilities. 
Roma children were particularly disadvantaged in their access to education and in completion of education.  Of almost 600 Roma children aged 7 to 11, some 30 per cent were not included in education, and quality of teaching and education in schools attended by Roma children was lower than elsewhere.
 
Children with special educational needs had access to different educational facilities and might be enrolled in either mainstream schools or special schools, depending on the degree of disability.  The number of children with disabilities in mainstream schools had increased over the past 15 years, and in particular in urban schools.  Barriers to greater inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream education included lack of teaching skills, inadequate school curricula, inadequate involvement of parents of children with disabilities, and the negative attitude of other parents.
 
There was a significant gap in access and educational outcomes between rural and urban areas which started early in education and increased with age.  It was difficult to attract highly qualified teachers to rural schools, the school infrastructure was inadequate and poverty of the family were some of the obstacles. 
 
Measures undertaken to address some of those problems included the provision of school transport for children from remote areas, the provision of school supplies for children from poor families, offering school snacks, establishing Roma education inspection, scholarships for high school and vocational training, a € 200 grant for poor children to buy computers,  annual training of 50 to 60 teachers in Roma history, supporting bilingual teaching in 22 kindergartens in Roma communities, and the development of the centre for inclusive education in all counties to support access to school for all children.
 
Follow-up Questions and Answers
 
Committee Experts asked about training for professionals involved in the juvenile justice system, which was particularly important in order to ensure that the children received adequate information in a way they could understand.  There were reports about torture and ill treatment of children in detention – how many children had alleged torture and ill-treatment, how were those complaints addressed and what forms of rehabilitation and compensation was provided to victims?  What support was available to juveniles leaving detention and reintegrating into the community?  The number of children of imprisoned parents was rather high – some 16,000 throughout the country - what steps were being taken to mitigate the impact of parental incarceration on children?
 
Experts stressed that there should be no segregated or “special” education for children with disabilities and inquired about the availability of early childhood development programmes in rural areas, where most Roma children lived and Roma were most disadvantaged as far as entry into the school was concerned.  Was there a national early childhood development strategy in place?
 
Romania’s external debt amounted to some €92 billion at the end of 2015 – to which extent did the servicing of the foreign debt hamper the provision of basic services?
 
Responding to questions raised on children deprived of parental care, the delegation said that the number of children in institutions was on the decrease: from 100,000 children in 1990, to 80,000 in 2000 to 19,000 in 2016.  Of the 57,000 children in State care, one-third were placed with their relatives, one-third were with foster families, and one-third were in institutions.  A decision had been made in 2004 to reduce the number of children entering the care system and the time spent within the system; a study into the causes of entry into the care system and the obstacles to them leaving institutions had been conducted. 
 
Based on this evidence, a master plan for deinstitutionalization was being developed which called for the closing of old-type institutions, and for measures to prevent children from entering the system.  In line with this plan, local authorities would be supported to increase their institutional capacity to provide services to families and children and thus reduce the number of children separated from their families.  Romania was now in the process of developing the budget for the plan for action for the implementation of the child protection strategy. 
 
Out of the 57,000 children in State care, some 3,600 had been declared adoptable.  The amendments to the law on adoption had seen the change in the procedure which reduced the duration of an average adoption procedure to about eight months.  A family wishing to adopt went through an evaluation and vetting procedure and at the end received a certificate of suitability; the new law had removed the element of “ethnicity” from the assessment.  The evaluation of prospective adoptive families was done by the National Authority or by mandated non-governmental organizations. 
 
The delegation said that in 2016, only four complaints had been submitted by minors to the custodial surveillance judge and none of them involved torture or ill treatment.
 
There was financial support available for children of incarcerated parents to ensure their education and in 2016, some 115 children benefitted from those scholarships.  A programme called “A day with mom/dad” was in place to strengthen family relations between inmates and their children. 
 
A leading cause of neonatal and infant mortality was premature birth and low birth weight.  A regionalized system of care at three levels had been introduced and a specialized centre for neonatal support had been established in 2016.  Genetic malformations were the third leading cause of death in children.  The law prohibiting aggressive advertising had been adopted in November 2016 in order to support breastfeeding and the concept of baby friendly hospitals which applied the 10 steps promoted by the United Nations Children’s Fund had been adopted. 
 
Another objective in the 2014-2020 national health strategy was to reduce morbidity due to communicable diseases through the increase of the in-country vaccine production and management capacity, and the compliance of the population with the vaccination plans and programme.  Further, the health strategy aimed to reduce maternal mortality; this would be achieved by reducing the number of abortions through increased access to contraceptives, by increasing access of pregnant women to ante-natal care, by increasing the number and role of midwives, and by establishing community-based health care.
 
In further follow-up questions, Committee Experts strongly objected to the putting of children in detention in the same bed – it could lead to abuse, violence and exploitation and could never be considered the best interest of the child.  The delegation was asked about early detection of disabilities, vaccination programmes and the strategy to fight trafficking in children for purposes of sexual exploitation.
 
The delegation explained that children in detention were never put in the same bed.  Ordinary medical services for children did not require the consent of the parent.  Romania had a strong response to trafficking in persons which was evidenced by the highest successfully prosecution rate in Europe.  Trafficking in children was considered to be an aggravating factor to the crime and in order to address the phenomenon, the police cooperated with other sectors, especially teachers and social workers.
 
In 2014, Romania had prohibited the institutionalization of children in State care who were under the age of three, with the exception of children with heavy disabilities who required constant medical care and for whom placement in an institution might be in their best interest.  The recent modifications to the legislation had harmonized the criteria for the identification of disability between the Ministries of Health, Education and Labour and had, for the first time, brought together the concepts of “disability” and “special education needs”.
 
Concerning the lack of data on children with disabilities, the delegation said that disaggregated data was available on the number of children with disabilities broken down by age, sex and degree of disability, their environment and services available to them in communities.  Romania had recently approved the common standard model of reporting to harmonize the formats of data collected and avoid that unnecessary data was collected.
 
There were two helplines in Romania that could be used for children.  One received complaints from children, parents or other interested parties, which were then transmitted to social welfare for action.  The other line was operated by local authorities in most of the counties in the country; a call to this helpline would trigger a dispatch of a mobile team to verify the situation.  As a result of awareness raising, the number of calls to the helplines had increased.

Concluding Remarks
 
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Romania, welcomed the progress made in a number of areas and noted with concern that measures taken to address violence against children, children with disabilities, discrimination and institutionalization of children were not sufficient.  Ms. Todorova urged Romania to widely disseminate the Committee’s concluding observations and to involve civil society in their implementation.
 
GABRIELA COMAN, President of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption, Ministry of Labour and Social Justice of Romania, said that Romania shared all the concerns expressed in this dialogue.  Steps were being taken to address some of those concerns, for example the institutionalization of children, or the situation of children with disabilities, which was the Government’s preoccupation today.  As the European Pathfinder, Romania had committed to combatting violence against children, and it would continue to use partnerships as an important tool to improve child welfare - with non-governmental organizations, with children and with the United Nations Children’s Fund.  In conclusion, Ms. Coman stressed that the vision and a holistic approach to children’s rights were there, the better understanding of the effective use of the European funds was there, as was the real commitment to protect children and work with them to protect their rights.
 
RENATE WINTER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation and hoped that the Committee’s recommendations would be helpful.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record