The Defender’s Activities in the Area of Detention in the 1st quarter of 2007

Visits were held in four facilities: in Chrastava Reformatory and Orphanage with School, Primary and Secondary School with School Dinning Hall, the detached workplace of the Ostrava-Hrabůvka Reformatory and School Dinning Hall in Polanka nad Odrou, Pšov Reformatory with School Dinning Hall and Department for Children with Extreme Behavioural Disorders with the Orphanage with School as part of the Boletice nad Labem-Děčín Reformatory, Orphanage with School, Centre of Educational Care, Primary School, Secondary School and School Dinning Hall.

Among other matters, the Defender focused on the request for more consistent separation of children with ordered institutional education from children with imposed protective education, on the legality of audio-visual systems and special technical and structural aids (bars) placement, the regime in different facilities and fulfilment of children’s rights in the sense of international conventions and Act No. 109/2002 Coll., on the Execution of Institutional and Protective Education in school establishments and on preventive educational care in school establishments (hereunder only the AEIPE). On a general level, the Defender concerned himself with conceptual care for the family and child, respectively foster care, having used his findings from the complaints agenda. He asserted that the overall concept of foster care for a child or youth, respectively care for family and children – currently disjointed and often uncoordinated between the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, should be unified under the authority of one central state body to prevent any further rebukes from the Committee on the Rights of the Child – the supervisory body for implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, i.e. the international agreement by which the Czech Republic is bound and that has priority over the law. Given the extension of the social work context often to the entire family, this body should be the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

The Defender also came to the conclusion that work with the family must be intensified – current state policy and practice does not pay much respect to this aspect, respectively little attention is actually given to preventive aspects and continuous work with the family. The remaining alternative to inadequate terrain work with the family is a placement in an institution. This is due to the insufficiently developed system of social services on the preventive and advisory level as well as inadequate number of staff in the bodies of social and legal protection of children. While 10-12 cases fall under one worker in other countries, this number is higher by 100 and more in the Czech Republic. Therefore, it is understandably impossible to work intensively with a child let alone the family under such conditions (sometimes also the great distance between the institute and the child’s home plays a role – see below).

With respect to the actual regime of the exercise of institutional and protective education, the Defender concluded that the legal requirement for more marked separation between children with ordered institutional education and imposed protective education tends to be ignored. Children with protective education are mostly incorporated in institutions in a different educational group, which should be an exception in keeping with the law. The requirement for separation of children with ordered institutional education from children with imposed protective education that the law presumes, ensued from legislative changes (AEIPE amendment executed by Act No. 383/2005 Coll.) aimed at harshening conditions in the protective education regime, particularly the option to use special technical and structural aids and audio-visual systems. The purpose of the separation of both regimes is to protect children with ordered institutional education, i.e. a guarantee that the stricter regime would not impact on them as well.

Given that protective education has been imposed on 102 children at present (whilst 98 cases are a deviation from the criminal measure pursuant to Section 12 (b)) in association with Section 22 of the Act No. 218/2003 Coll., on the liability of juveniles for illegal acts and on juvenile courts (hereunder the ALJ), their placement in the few facilities would impact on their opportunity to preserve bonds with family and relatives in connection with the distance of the facility from their homes. This only corroborates the fact that the concept of institutional education should be aimed towards setting up the small family-type facilities so common in neighbouring countries. A similar problem (large distance from family) occurs in the case of facilities that should focus on children with special needs (like the Polanka facility).

The Defender also concentrated on installation of special structural and technical aids and audio-visual systems pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of the AEIPE containing legal sanction to install camera systems and monitor the building surroundings and site of the facility, premises where children have no access, and the facility’s corridors. The Defender found the existence of cameras in Chrastava reformatory and at the EBD dep. in Boletice. The cameras in Chrastava reformatory have been fitted in the building for children with imposed protective education, yet the Defender discovered their installation in a section exclusively housing children with ordered institutional education, which contravenes Section 15 (1) of the AEIPE. Cameras have also been installed at the EBD dep. in Boletice too: in corridors, common areas and rooms for the teaching of children.

On his visits the Defender perceived differences in the material equipment of facilities, the number and qualifications of personnel, the presence of psychologists as well as in the very regime (for instance the setting of points systems, steps in education that have no hold in the law – like removal of their own clothing) and similar. Such a state could threaten the principle of equality in the rights of children. Other findings pertained for instance to differently set so-called points systems, the possibility of children’s stays at home with their parents, outings, the possibility of telephone contact with family, etc.

The Public Defender of Rights recommended particularly:

• to start taking immediate conceptual steps to unify care for children under the authority of a single body,
• to focus on altering the whole concept of foster care and care for family and children as follows:
  • augmenting the social services system in the field of prevention and counselling,
  • heightening preventive influence on threatened children and their families,
  • continuous intensive work with threatened children and their families including compilation of aid plans in the presence of all concerned,
  • stress on the fact that removing a child is an extreme option and parent’s housing and property relations should not be such a reason,
• establishing “small” family-type facilities; particularly with respect to facilities for groups of children who need heightened or specific care (like drug-addicted children),
• immediately take out cameras from those places where they are not legally sanctioned and interpret provisions of the law in order for the option to fit in audio-visual systems not to affect children with ordered institutional education and to protect the rights of children with imposed protective education,
• formulate standards for care provided to children in school facilities.

Systematic visits to social services facilities, specifically the newly renamed retirement homes, or homes with special regime, have been under way since January 1. Homes were selected for the Defender’s visits in order to represent facilities of all regions, with different founders and of different sizes. Given the number of homes the Defender is going to visit, the visits will carry on in the second quarter of 2007.

The Defender’s Activities in the Area of Detention in the 1st quarter of 2007

In March 2007, the Defender published his conclusions from visits to facilities for the exercise of institutional and protective education carried out in the fourth quarter of 2006. The unabridged version of the extensive reports from such facilities is displayed on the Defender’s website in the Ochrana osob omezených na svobodě section.

Visits were held in four facilities: in Chrastava Reformatory and Orphanage with School, Primary and Secondary School with School Dinning Hall, the detached workplace of the Ostrava-Hrabůvka Reformatory and School Dinning Hall in Polanka nad Odrou, Pšov Reformatory with School Dinning Hall and Department for Children with Extreme Behavioural Disorders with the Orphanage with School as part of the Boletice nad Labem-Děčín Reformatory, Orphanage with School, Centre of Educational Care, Primary School, Secondary School and School Dinning Hall.

Among other matters, the Defender focused on the request for more consistent separation of children with ordered institutional education from children with imposed protective education, on the legality of audio-visual systems and special technical and structural aids (bars) placement, the regime in different facilities and fulfilment of children’s rights in the sense of international conventions and Act No. 109/2002 Coll., on the Execution of Institutional and Protective Education in school establishments and on preventive educational care in school establishments (hereunder only the AEIPE). On a general level, the Defender concerned himself with conceptual care for the family and child, respectively foster care, having used his findings from the complaints agenda. He asserted that the overall concept of foster care for a child or youth, respectively care for family and children – currently disjointed and often uncoordinated between the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, should be unified under the authority of one central state body to prevent any further rebukes from the Committee on the Rights of the Child – the supervisory body for implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, i.e. the international agreement by which the Czech Republic is bound and that has priority over the law. Given the extension of the social work context often to the entire family, this body should be the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

The Defender also came to the conclusion that work with the family must be intensified – current state policy and practice does not pay much respect to this aspect, respectively little attention is actually given to preventive aspects and continuous work with the family. The remaining alternative to inadequate terrain work with the family is a placement in an institution. This is due to the insufficiently developed system of social services on the preventive and advisory level as well as inadequate number of staff in the bodies of social and legal protection of children. While 10-12 cases fall under one worker in other countries, this number is higher by 100 and more in the Czech Republic. Therefore, it is understandably impossible to work intensively with a child let alone the family under such conditions (sometimes also the great distance between the institute and the child’s home plays a role – see below).

With respect to the actual regime of the exercise of institutional and protective education, the Defender concluded that the legal requirement for more marked separation between children with ordered institutional education and imposed protective education tends to be ignored. Children with protective education are mostly incorporated in institutions in a different educational group, which should be an exception in keeping with the law. The requirement for separation of children with ordered institutional education from children with imposed protective education that the law presumes, ensued from legislative changes (AEIPE amendment executed by Act No. 383/2005 Coll.) aimed at harshening conditions in the protective education regime, particularly the option to use special technical and structural aids and audio-visual systems. The purpose of the separation of both regimes is to protect children with ordered institutional education, i.e. a guarantee that the stricter regime would not impact on them as well.

Given that protective education has been imposed on 102 children at present (whilst 98 cases are a deviation from the criminal measure pursuant to Section 12 (b)) in association with Section 22 of the Act No. 218/2003 Coll., on the liability of juveniles for illegal acts and on juvenile courts (hereunder the ALJ), their placement in the few facilities would impact on their opportunity to preserve bonds with family and relatives in connection with the distance of the facility from their homes. This only corroborates the fact that the concept of institutional education should be aimed towards setting up the small family-type facilities so common in neighbouring countries. A similar problem (large distance from family) occurs in the case of facilities that should focus on children with special needs (like the Polanka facility).

The Defender also concentrated on installation of special structural and technical aids and audio-visual systems pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of the AEIPE containing legal sanction to install camera systems and monitor the building surroundings and site of the facility, premises where children have no access, and the facility’s corridors. The Defender found the existence of cameras in Chrastava reformatory and at the EBD dep. in Boletice. The cameras in Chrastava reformatory have been fitted in the building for children with imposed protective education, yet the Defender discovered their installation in a section exclusively housing children with ordered institutional education, which contravenes Section 15 (1) of the AEIPE. Cameras have also been installed at the EBD dep. in Boletice too: in corridors, common areas and rooms for the teaching of children.

On his visits the Defender perceived differences in the material equipment of facilities, the number and qualifications of personnel, the presence of psychologists as well as in the very regime (for instance the setting of points systems, steps in education that have no hold in the law – like removal of their own clothing) and similar. Such a state could threaten the principle of equality in the rights of children. Other findings pertained for instance to differently set so-called points systems, the possibility of children’s stays at home with their parents, outings, the possibility of telephone contact with family, etc.

The Public Defender of Rights recommended particularly:

• to start taking immediate conceptual steps to unify care for children under the authority of a single body,
• to focus on altering the whole concept of foster care and care for family and children as follows:
  • augmenting the social services system in the field of prevention and counselling,
  • heightening preventive influence on threatened children and their families,
  • continuous intensive work with threatened children and their families including compilation of aid plans in the presence of all concerned,
  • stress on the fact that removing a child is an extreme option and parent’s housing and property relations should not be such a reason,
• establishing “small” family-type facilities; particularly with respect to facilities for groups of children who need heightened or specific care (like drug-addicted children),
• immediately take out cameras from those places where they are not legally sanctioned and interpret provisions of the law in order for the option to fit in audio-visual systems not to affect children with ordered institutional education and to protect the rights of children with imposed protective education,
• formulate standards for care provided to children in school facilities.

Systematic visits to social services facilities, specifically the newly renamed retirement homes, or homes with special regime, have been under way since January 1. Homes were selected for the Defender’s visits in order to represent facilities of all regions, with different founders and of different sizes. Given the number of homes the Defender is going to visit, the visits will carry on in the second quarter of 2007.