miércoles, 25 de enero de 2017

La custodia compartida en Suecia 2017, un modelo a seguir

La custodia compartida en Suecia 2017

Un modelo a seguir


En Suecia, todos los niños menores de 18 años tienen derecho a estar bajo la custodia conjunta de ambos progenitores o, de un solo progenitor, en caso de familias monoparentales.
Son deberes de los progenitores que el niño tenga sus necesidades afectivas y materiales cubiertas, como son: seguridad, sanidad y educación.

La custodia lleva aparejada la obligación de decidir sobre todos los aspectos de la crianza del niño, en temas de educación y atender a todas las necesidades del hijo, incluso a tener en cuenta su opinión, cuando tengan suficiente juicio, y sea un deseo acorde a la ley y razonable.

La custodia es sinónimo de “responsabilidad” parental. Los adultos custodios tienen el deber de vivir con los niños de forma cotidiana.

Hay veces que el progenitor custodio no vive con el niño siempre, sino que en los casos de divorcio o separación de los progenitores, el tiempo que están bajo el cuidado de uno de ellos de forma alterna, quién está con el menor es el custodio en ese tiempo.

La custodia compartida no significa que el tiempo de reparto de convivencia de los niños con ambos progenitores sea igual o el 50% del tiempo, ya que ello es imposible, porque los niños cuando están en el colegio, es el colegio quien posee la custodia legal (responsabilidad legal) sobre los niños, o cuando van a una actividad extraescolar, son los responsables del niño en ese momento quien ostenta la custodia o responsabilidad de cuidar al niño.

El hecho de que haya un reparto mas o menos igualitario del tiempo de cuidado del niño entre ambos progenitores no significa que no exista una custodia compartida. La custodia compartida podrá ser igualitaria o no.

En todo caso, cada progenitor deberá abonar los gastos acreditados del hijo a medias o en proporción a sus ingresos, sea cual sea el modelo de reparto de custodia.

Si ambos progenitores cuentan con los mismos ingresos, se reparten al 50% los gastos del hijo. En caso de que exista diferencias de ingresos, este reparto de asumir el coste de los gastos del hijo, será proporcional.

En todo caso, se tendrá en cuenta en dichos gastos, el garantizar que ambos progenitores pueden ofrecer una vivienda digna donde vivir con su hijo, esto es, que dentro del coste del sostenimiento del hijo se sumaran el coste de cada vivienda familiar.

Lo más importante en custodia compartida es que ambos progenitores siguen teniendo la facultad y el deber de adoptar de forma conjunta todas las decisiones relevantes para la vida del hijo.

Sólo cuando un progenitor este impedido por cualquier causa, el otro podrá tomar decisiones unilaterales de carácter urgente. En los demás casos (desacuerdo entre progenitores), necesitará la aprobación de la autoridad de bienestar social, no de la autoridad judicial.

Ambos progenitores custodios, deben garantizar que el hijo no recibe ningún daño ni sufre por ningún motivo. El causante del daño podrá ser suspendido en su custodia de formas temporal o permanente, según los casos.

Se incluyen en estos casos, los castigos físicos o psicológicos, incluso cuando un progenitor pone obstáculos para que el hijo no vea al otro progenitor, o en casos de manipulación mental grave del menor, o el uso inadecuado de los recursos públicos judiciales, como por ejemplo con denuncias instrumentales.

La custodia conjunta legal lo es desde el nacimiento del hijo, y no desaparece con el divorcio o separación de los progenitores y tampoco se puede renunciar a ella.

Solo en casos de grave peligro para el hijo, puede un progenitor ser desposeído temporalmente o definitivamente de la custodia de su hijo.

Solo cuando la pareja o matrimonio conviven, existe la custodia conjunta, que queda disuelta con la separación o divorcio y se convierte en custodia compartida o alterna.

Solo en casos de peligro o grave perjuicio del menor puede un Tribunal aprobar desposeer de la custodia a un/a progenitor/a, previo informe vinculante de los servicios sociales de Bienestar Social.
Incluso en los mutuos acuerdos, Bienestar Social debe prestar su consentimiento.

La custodia compartida y su forma de reparto de tiempos de cuidado de los hijos debe ser comunicada a la Agencia Tributaria del Gobierno sueco, a fin de poder aplicar las deducciones por hijo en la misma proporción que cada progenitor tiene atribuidos los tiempos de cuidado del hijo.
La custodia compartida alterna es la forma más común de vivir que poseen los niños divorciados en Suecia, aunque ello no signifique que estén la mitad del tiempo con cada progenitor, aunque ello se da en la mayoría de los casos.

Este sistema legal de custodia de los niños en Suecia, ha provocado que apenas se produzcan juicios por la lucha por la custodia, ya que el progenitor que pretenda la custodia en solitario, deberá justificar y probar ante un Tribunal de Justicia que el otro progenitor no es idóneo, y si no lo logra, deber pagar todos los costes judiciales del Estado y de las partes, que son reclamados por la agencia tributaria al litigante.

Con este sistema, se evita judicializar la vida de los niños y de las familias en conflicto y se logra que acudan a los servicios sociales para resolver sus problemas, y que acudan a la mediación para lograr un acuerdo razonable de custodia compartida, que sea aceptable para bienestar social.

El fiscal apenas tiene funciones en estos asuntos, salvo cuando hay grave peligro para un menor.

En realidad, cada día en nuestro país, todas las sentencias que se dictan son de custodia compartida, como en el modelo sueco, pero lo que falla en España, es que desaparece la obligación legal, de facto, de compartir las responsabilidades, en igual o proporcional medida.

Creo que en España, copiando el modelo sueco, grosso modo, desaparecerían miles de pleitos de familia en nuestro país, y nos ahorraríamos mucho recursos públicos que en la actualidad estamos necesitando por una mala y muy negativa forma de gestionar por los poderes públicos este tipo de conflictos.


Sevilla enero de 2017.-

martes, 24 de enero de 2017

Sobre el sutil machismo judicial

Sobre el sutil machismo judicial

No deja de sorprender, que últimamente, se hable tanto sobre las actitudes machistas en los órganos judiciales, en especial en sus órganos de gobierno o, de miembros de altos tribunales de justicia.

Desde voces judiciales (asociaciones de juezas, por ejemplo) y voces supuestamente, progresistas (excargos políticos elegidos a dedo), se critica que no existen apenas mujeres en cargos tales como el CGPJ o los Tribunales Supremo o Constitucional.

Tras ello, esconden un discurso victimario, al que ya estamos tan acostumbrados.

Sin embargo los datos son otros.  

De cada diez jueces que hay en España, más de seis son mujeres (CGPJ 2015).

No deja de sorprender que en este caso no se exija, como a otros poderes públicos, una paridad de sexos.
Pero el machismo no se define por las cuotas de poder que tienen hombres y mujeres, como muchos quieren hacernos creer.

El machismo es una actitud y una forma de entender las relaciones y la vida de los hombres y mujeres, en las que se parte de la idea básica que la mujer es inferior al hombre, o que la mujer tiene que ser tratada de forma distinta a un hombre, por la Justicia en este caso, por ser una víctima de los hombres (art. 1 LO 1/2004 de 28 de diciembre).

Como desde este feminismo equivoco, se parte de la premisa de que las mujeres, son inferiores y hay que protegerlas de forma especial, frente a la mitad de la población que representan los hombres, se entiende que la discriminación “positiva” es un derecho humano, pero que no se sustenta cuando se pone frente al principio universal de la igualdad de trato.

Para justificar ese trato desigual a las mujeres, idea que no deja de ser machista y reaccionaria, se deben buscar expresiones y justificaciones para ello.

Por ejemplo, la critica a que en los órganos superiores de la Justicia, hay muchos más hombres que mujeres.

Olvidan que desde el año 1966 hay mujeres juezas en España, y que muchas de ellas deciden abandonar la carrera judicial, cuando deben sacrificar sus vidas personales, cuando deben cambiar de destino, o de ciudad.
Muchas de ellas, según datos de los años 90 del CGPJ, decidían dejar la judicatura y pasar al mundo de la abogacía, que les permitía tener unos horarios más flexibles, mantener su estatus social y conciliar su vida familiar, mucho mejor.

Así, por ejemplo, ocultan quienes critican que hay pocas juezas en los órganos superiores, que casi todos los jueces que ascienden a estos órganos superiores, lo hacen tras años de acumular experiencia en órganos inferiores, y se deben acomodar al irse a vivir a donde están dichos órganos judiciales, que son las capitales de muchas CCAA, o a la capital de España. Deben abandonar la ciudad donde han vivido durante años y abandonar a su familia, hijos y amigos.

Muchos miembros del CGPJ deben estar todo el día en trenes o aviones, yendo de aquí para allá, de su ciudad de origen o donde estaban establecidos, y deben sacrificar su vida personal y familiar, con un alto coste personal.

No hace mucho, una jurista miembro permanente del CGPJ, me decía que apenas veía a su hijo y a sus amigos, desde que la habían nombrado para el cargo. Que perdía muchas horas a la semana en viajar de su ciudad a Madrid, que es donde tiene su puesto actual.

Comprendía perfectamente que se planteara muy en serio, si le merecía la pena ostentar dicho cargo, pero su enganche al poder del cargo por motivos ideológicos, en este caso, ha pesado más que su vida personal. En este caso, es la misma actitud  machista y tradicional de los hombres, que se sienten enganchados más a su vida profesional, que a sus familias y amigos.  

Muchos jueces del Supremo han tenido que sacrificar sus vidas personales a cambio de dar un buen servicio a la sociedad, estableciendo Jurisprudencia y dictando sentencias, que deben crear seguridad jurídica y, desarrollar la ingente responsabilidad, que entraña tener que interpretar las leyes.

En cuanto a las actitudes machistas de miembros del Supremo o del Constitucional, salvo contadas excepciones que confirman la regla, puedo afirmar que éstos órganos judiciales, han hecho más por la igualdad de trato a hombres y mujeres, que todas las leyes promulgadas por las mujeres y hombres de la clase política.  Bastaría estudiar un poco la jurisprudencia de dichos órganos, en los últimos 20 años.

Por otro lado, se oculta por aquellos que tachan de machistas a estos órganos, que muchos avances en los derechos de las mujeres han partido, precisamente, de dichos órganos superiores de justicia.

Asimismo, se oculta, y es muy llamativo, que muchas sentencias desde los órganos inferiores en los que las mujeres juezas son mayoría (mas del 63%, son mujeres juezas), están perpetuando en sus sentencias los roles tradicionales de género, o incluso, aumentado las desigualdades, en base al principio o la idea de que las mujeres necesitan una especial protección por ser consideradas inferiores. Veamos algunos ejemplos:

En el derecho civil, y en especial en derecho de familia se sigue otorgando el cuidado cuasi exclusivo a las mujeres, en cuanto madres, ya que se parte de la idea que ellas “si pueden” y “deben” sacrificar sus vidas profesionales y sociales, en pro del cuidado de la prole. Los hombres “pueden y deben” tener menos responsabilidades parentales, para seguir siendo el proveedor principal.

Como vemos no se puede ser más machista que en este tipo de resoluciones.

Pues para que el lector lo sepa, este tipo de resoluciones se da en casi el 80% de los asuntos de familia.
Pero lo más sorprendente, es que 8 de cada 10 jueces que dictan este tipo de sentencias (ámbito derecho de familia), son mujeres juezas. Y 6 de dada 10 fiscales que apoyan este tipo de ideas machistas, son mujeres fiscales.

En la abogacía la proporción es mucho mayor, aunque sus ideas no parten del machismo, sino de una idea mucho más práctica: defendiendo esta tesis se gana, simplemente, más dinero.

Otra actitud, inexplicablemente machista, es el hecho de que una ejecución en temas de familia instada por una mujer es inmediatamente ejecutada, mientras que si es un hombre quien procede a ejecutar una sentencia, no sólo tarda mucho más tiempo en darse una respuesta judicial, sino que además casi nunca se ejecuta, sino que se le da la oportunidad a la mujer a hacer alegaciones.

Se me dirá que el machismo es de la ley a aplicar como por ejemplo el art. 776 de la LEC, pero lo que más me sorprende es cuando una madre incumple un régimen de visitas o custodia, no se dicta casi nunca de inmediato, un auto de ejecución procedente, sino que incluso se incumplen las leyes y las sentencias muchas veces, como por ejemplo cuando se dice que las visitas deberán ser a través de un PEF o punto de encuentro.

En el ámbito penal las cosas no son muy distintas: se condena a más pena a un hombre que a una mujer, por cometer el mismo delito.  Así de simple es el machismo latente en las sentencias judiciales, y que siguen aplicando esta premisa, sin rechistar.

Por ejemplo, en los delitos de homicidios en el seno de una pareja, basta que la mujer asesina alegue que su marido la maltrataba, para que hayan condenas de solo un año de prisión por matar a su pareja, como el reciente caso de la chica que atropelló y mató a su pareja en Galicia.

Sin embargo, si un hombre asesino de su pareja alega que lo hizo por defensa propia, porque era maltratado, pese a que se demuestre, los jueces siguen considerando que como él es hombre, no es atenuante el ser maltratado, porque según las leyes, un hombre es quien siempre oprime a su mujer y nunca a la inversa.

En 2004 con la LO 1/2004, se abrió una puerta en el derecho positivo muy peligrosa, al establecerse por ley, aprobada por unos cuantos políticos ignorantes y oportunistas, en mi opinión, la desigualdad de trato, y por ello abrieron como digo, una puerta muy peligrosa. Me explico.

Si, existe una ley que establece que, por el hecho de ser hombre se es culpable de los males que sufren las mujeres,

¿Cómo podremos oponernos a la idea que los españoles roban a los catalanes o a los vascos?

¿Cómo podremos oponernos a la idea de que los inmigrantes son unos delincuentes?

¿Cómo podremos oponernos a la idea que de que (todos) los políticos son unos corruptos?

O aquellas ideas del pasado de que:

El pueblo judío roba al pueblo alemán, o “la raza aria es superior”, o la más cercana de que “los rojos, son malignos”  

Y desde la aprobación de aquella ley nefasta para los DDHH de la mitad de población española, se abrió un discurso más dogmático, a modo de establecer una verdad política, que hoy ha sido integrada en la verdad judicial, de forma capciosa y premeditada.   

Pues por ello, no nos deberá extrañar, que desde las voces que se critican al CGPJ o a los Tribunales superiores, de ser machistas por tener miembros masculinos, mañana pueda acusarse a los mismos de cualquier otra cosa, o mejor dicho, como se dice ahora, son Tribunales y órganos que participan y son cómplices del “España nos roba”.

Termino, preguntándome: ¿Cuándo alguien sensato terminará con este disparate?

OTROSÍ: Lo que más teme un político hoy, es que lo echen a la hoguera de los medios, acusándole de machista.   
2º OTROSÍ: ¿Qué medidas disciplinarias toma el CGPJ cuando una jueza emite públicamente, críticas e injurias hacia otros miembros de la judicatura?

3º OTROSÍ: ¿Por qué los abogados no han protestado por el mensaje sexista lanzado desde la abogacía española, a propósito de todo esto?

José Luis Sariego Morillo

Abogado

sábado, 7 de enero de 2017

Guía de la mediación en los divorcios 2017



La mediación, no es sólo una forma de gestionar los conflictos. Es una ancestral y nueva forma de ver la vida que se nos ha ido olvidando: dialogar, escuchar, reír, mirar a los ojos, pararse a pensar, comprender al otro, ponerse en su lugar, etc., cosas que se nos están olvidando en nuestro quehacer diario.
Esta guía trata de explicar cómo aplicar las habilidades que todos tenemos para gestionar problemas y conflictos usando sencillas herramientas. 
Ayuda a evitar el conflicto aprendiendo a gestionarlos.
Casi todos los conflictos comienzan en algo pequeño que se va alimentando a sí mismo. Éste libro intenta ayudarnos a gestionar los problemas de una separación de una pareja o divorcio desde una óptica que sea asequible a cualquier lector, sin que sea necesario tener una formación especial. Y ayudará también a profesionales de las ciencias sociales y de derecho en cuanto gestores de conflictos.




viernes, 6 de enero de 2017

Trabajos sobre los derechos de los niños en la Unión Europea en 2.016

Contents



1.          28-30 November 2016 – 10th European Forum on the rights of the child – the protection of children in migration

The 10th European Forum brought over 300 participants together to discuss the protection of children in migration.  A side event on guardianship for unaccompanied children preceded the Forum.  The background papers and links to webstreaming of all discussions, including the side event, as well as a selection of photos, are available here.  The report and other outcomes will be added to the webpage in due course.  Many thanks to all our speakers and participants, and those who otherwise worked with us in preparing the Forum.

2.          November 2016 – update to compilation of EU acquis on the rights of the child

and
Extracts of child-specific provisions in recent Common European Asylum System (CEAS) proposals: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/rights_child/ceas_provision_on_children_table_updated.pdf

3.          25 November 2016 – updated compilation of data, situation and analysis reports and media reports on children in migration

4.          24 November 2016 – updated list of EU-funded projects on rights of the child and violence against children

5.          6.12.2016 Commission decision regarding the follow-up to National Parliaments' Opinions - reply to the House of Lords (UK) - ASAP/DOS/2016/421 final – House of Lords Inquiry on unaccompanied children in the EU

6.          5.1.2017 – European Judicial Training 2016 report


7.          21.12.2016 – SIS II – modifications to Schengen Information System relevant to children

21.12.2016 Proposal for a regulation on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU
Article 20 – provides for subcategories of missing person such as unaccompanied child, runaway, etc., to be further defined in implementing measures
Article 22.1(b) – provides for DNA profiles to be added, e.g. for missing children
Articles 32 and 33 – provides for preventive alerts to be issued, subject to procedural safeguards – in the case of potential parental abduction

8.          16.12.2016 – adoption of reports on transposition of Directive 2011/93/EU – child sexual abuse and exploitation

The two reports on the transposition of the Child Sexual Abuse Directive were adopted on 16.12.2016 (overall report and removal/blocking of child sexual abuse material).

9.          24.11.2016 EU FUNDING (Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme) OPEN CALLS   - 1.) awareness of boys and girls on GBV/prevention and 2) Access to justice and support to GBV victims and treatment of perpetrators- Deadline 8 March 2017

REC-RDAP-AWAR-AG-2016, TOPIC : Action grants to educate and raise the awareness of girls and boys about gender-based violence as a way to prevent it at an early stage (budget 2,000,000 EUR)
REC-RDAP-VICT-AG-2016, TOPIC : Action grants to promote the access to justice and support of victims of gender-based violence and the treatment of perpetrators  (budget 4,000,000 EUR)

10.      27.10.2016 - EU FUNDING – Award decision – Call for proposals on multi-agency and multi-disciplinary cooperation to respond to violence against children and tackle under-reporting



11.      25.5.2016 – Children as consumers - GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION/APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC ON UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

See, among others, page 49 and section 4.6 on direct exhortations to children

12.      7.11.2016 Education and training monitor

Education and training in Europe: Investment on the rebound but inclusion remains a challenge
This year's edition of the European Commission's Education and Training Monitor shows progress towards important EU targets, but also highlights that Member States need to make their education systems more relevant and inclusive, in particular regarding the integration of newly arrived refugees and migrants. Europe relies on effective education systems to equip young people with the skills they need to build their lives as citizens and develop their professional careers. Schools, universities and vocational education and training institutions are the foundation of economic growth, job creation, innovation and social cohesion. In its 2016 edition of the Education and Training Monitor published today, the Commission analyses where the European Union and national systems stand, and shows that Member States face a dual task of ensuring adequate financial investment and offering high quality education to young people from all backgrounds – including refugees and migrants. Tibor Navracsics, Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, said: "Europe's education systems can play a crucial role in helping us tackle important issues like persistent youth unemployment and slow economic growth, as well as new challenges such as the refugee crisis. But education will only play its part if it delivers good results. Today more than ever we need to ensure that education enables young people to become active, independent citizens and find fulfilling work. This is not only a question of securing sustained growth and innovation. It is a question of fairness." Commissioner Navracsics will present today's results during a press conference at 12:30 CET livestreamed on EbS. A press releaseis available in all EU languages as well as a factsheet and country sheets.

13.      15.12.2016 – European Council Conclusions on migration

Call for Member States to intensify efforts to relocate unaccompanied children.  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/press-releases-pdf/2016/12/47244652435_en.pdf

14.      14.12.2016 Eurofound Eurofound (2016), Approaches to the labour market integration of refugees and asylum seekers

Useful report covering EU28 and Norway.  Includes a section on access to education for children of asylum seekers.
Subscribe to Eurofound email alerts here: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/crm/default

15.      22.12.2016 – EU Daphne Programme funded Promise project – update No 3

15.1.        Spotlight on: putting the child in the centre 

Barnahus, child advocacy centres, and child friendly centres have many commonalities as they all work towards preventing re-victimization of child victims of violence by putting the child’s experiences and story in the centre. They complete their work in coordination with multiple sectors under one roof and in a child-friendly manner, limiting the need for multiple interviews. Their work helps to ensure that child victims and witnesses of violence can tell a complete story and it helps to streamline care and support services.              

However, there are also differences as the 
Nordic model of the Barnahus is an integral part of the public child welfare and judicial systems. During the forensic interview, the child’s story is recorded and submitted as valid evidence for court proceedings. The child does not have to appear in court and due process is upheld. Child Advocacy Centres and child-friendly centres, on the other hand, provide multi-disciplinary services to support the child and may coordinate with the police and prosecution, but they are usually not directly linked with the court system and the child generally has to appear in court.

Both models have clear advantages – the Nordic Model is accepted as part of the system and is acknowledged as a professional unit ensuring that children do not have to appear in court. The child-friendly centres, which are not so strictly integrated into the system, have 
many other advantages and freedoms and the existing centres show remarkable work in the areas of advocacy, developing preventive initiatives and in support services. Some are also offering treatment for offenders and in particular young offenders.     

The challenge for the Barnahus community is to strive to achieve increasingly higher standards and quality to 
ensure that the services provided are in the best interest of children and that they not in any way further traumatise children seeking justice and care. A certification system has not yet been developed for the Children’s Houses – but it could be an idea to discuss the relevance of having an A-level definition. However, we do have the new quality standards and tools developed by the PROMISE project as inspiration, which can help us raise our ambitions higher and higher. Reviews, evaluations and feedback from children, young people and caregivers is also necessary.           

15.2.        PROMISE 2017-2019

The PROMISE vision is for all children who are victims of violence globally to have rapid access to justice and care. 

From 2017 until 2019 we will upgrade the media and communication efforts to serve an inclusive Barnahus Movement. Interested countries in the EU, wider Europe and globally will be informed and take part in the Movement. All outputs, outcomes and reflections from PROMISE I and the foreseen PROMISE II will be shared with interested countries and advocates. 
Pilot country progress
  • PROMISE II: A project application has been submitted to the European Commission which will focus on national level implementation in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Romania and the UK. If funded, activities will include national roundtables, drawing up of frameworks and agreements, training for Barnahus staff, workshops for judges, national and European dialogue, and development of a methodology for gathering the perspectives of children.
  • Germany: is planning to open a Children’s House “light” in Leipzig – as the first of 3 (Hamburg, Leipzig and Frankfurt). The City of Leipzig, the State of Saxony and the Government of Germany are foreseen be involved long term in ensuring the sustainability. The World Childhood Foundation will fund select equipment, staff, and training.
  • Practical preparations continue in a number of pilot countries. We hope to see multiple countries launch MD/IA service provision in early 2017.


16.      November 2016 – EU-funded project - SOS Children's Villages – closing conference  – Realising children's rights – a training manual for care professionals working with children in alternative care

The manual is available for re-use

17.      Platform for international cooperation on undocumented migrants (PICUM) December news bulletin and testimonies of undocumented children

December news bulletin http://picum.org/en/news/bulletins/51691  and
November 2016 publication of testimonies of undocumented children: Ahead of Universal Children’s Day on 20 November 2016, PICUM launches a collection of testimonies*, which highlights the challenges faced by children and young people considered irregular or undocumented migrants and the strength it takes to overcome them day by day.

18.      14.12.2016 UN statement on children and families and immigration detention

19.      6.12.2016 UN Committee on the rights of the child – General Comment No 20 (2016) on the implementation of the rights of the child  during adolescence

20.      2.11.2016 – Statement by the UN Committee on the rights of the child on Calais

21.      UNHCR – Beyond detention report -

This "Progress Report” outlines key achievements and progress in the 12 countries participating in the Global Strategy Beyond Detention. It is designed to guide decision-makers and practitioners in identifying and remedying any shortcomings in national frameworks pertaining to detention. It also highlights some successful initiatives by UNHCR and other stakeholders across the world to end the detention of children. Since the launch of the campaign mid-2014, there have been 4 EU countries engaged in the Global Strategy : Hungary, Lithuania, UK, and Malta. Specific information related to the achievements on the three goals of the Global Strategy (1. End the detention of children ; 2.Ensure ATDs are available in law and implemented in practice ; 3. Ensure detention conditions meet international standards) in are available in the Report under the section page 38 (results by country). More information on the Global Strategy, including National Actions Plans for each country, is also available on www.unhcr.org/detention webpage.

22.      22.12.2016 Online course University of Geneva – Children's human rights: interdisciplinary introduction

A sign in is required and access to some of the materials is free of charge.  The overall fee for full access looks to be €45. 
The course consists of seven topical modules:
1.       International standards and monitoring systems
2.       The history of children’s rights in the context of human rights
3.       Interdisciplinary children’s rights studies
4.       Juvenile justice
5.       Violence against children
6.       Children’s right to participation
7.       Children’s rights and global health

23.      16.12.2016 – Immigrant Council of Ireland – report Child Migration Matters – children and young people's experience of migration

The report outlines children and young people’s experiences of navigating the Irish immigration system, accessing legal advice and legal representation, and the impact of immigration status on access to education and employment.  Its key findings include:  Children are largely invisible in Ireland’s immigration system. Until 16, they are assumed to have the same immigration permission as their parent, but cannot access confirmation of this position.  There is no legislation or guidance on the appropriate permissions to be granted to children. This lack of clarity results in inconsistency in the immigration permissions granted to children when they turn 16, even in identical circumstances.  The immigration status and access to citizenship for children in care is not adequately addressed. Despite being in the care of the State, they are not automatically considered to be lawfully resident. Their immigration permission still depends on their parents.  Children cannot easily access information or specialised legal advice about their immigration status. They are frequently unaware of their duty to register with GNIB at 16 years, or their eligibility for naturalisation.

24.      Talking and listening to children

This is a four nation UK research project funded by the ESRC that explores how social workers communicate with children in their everyday practice and how social workers and children involved in these encounters experience and understand them.  The research is a collaboration between Cardiff University, the University of Sussex, Queen’s Belfast University and the University of Edinburgh. The research aims to generate new knowledge that will enhance the quality of social work education, practice and policy and in doing so improve children’s experiences of policy and practice outcomes. Specifically the research will:
ü  Identify how social workers communicate with children in practice, from early encounters
to established relationships, encompassing the high priority areas of child protection and ‘looked after’ children
ü  Enable practitioners and children to reflect on specific practice encounters,
helping to identify the barriers to and enablers of effective communication
ü  Identify how practice in this domain could be improved and develop paper-based
and video/digital resources to enable these improvements to be realised.

It includes resources.  Access to some resources (for social workers and other professionals) requires a sign in. http://www.talkingandlisteningtochildren.co.uk/about-tlc/

25.      eNACSO – Children as consumers – when free isn't

The overall aim of this Policy Paper is to stimulate and contribute to a discussion on the potential development of better measures to protect children and young people from a range of online business practices, as part of a wider project designed to make the Internet a better place for kids.
The paper highlights how different Internet business models work, and provides examples of commercial practices that, typically, have flown under the radar of policymakers – and in many cases still do.
All the examples and issues outlined in the paper were analyzed through the lens of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which is the pillar upon which eNACSO bases its work.
The collected information was triangulated and analyzed with the aim of assessing the impact of the main Internet business models and the resulting online marketing practices on the lives of children.
The analysis then looked at the extent to which these models and practices might comply with or break EU regulations or violate or uphold children’s rights as enshrined in the UNCRC.
The outcomes and feedback received from eNACSO’s child participation processes were integrated into the report along with the findings arisen from Focus Groups with young people providing children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of online advertising and advergames, privacy and data collection.
Lastly, the draft was sent to experts in the field of data protection, advertising to children, alcohol policies and a legal firm for feedback, which was a lengthy but invaluable process to reach the final stage and publication.
To download the final draft of the report click here
To download the launch event report click here
To download the executive summary click here
To download the press release click here

26.      Children of parents in prison – Italian memorandum of understanding – a good model to be explored by other Member States

The EU gives an operating grant to COPE http://childrenofprisoners.eu/  and awareness-raising and advocacy activities have been gathering momentum.  The next event takes place on 10 January 2017, hosted by MEP Julie Ward and the Quality of Childhood Alliance.  http://childrenofprisoners.eu/2016/11/14/qoc-session/

I have previously circulated information on the Italian memorandum of understanding – but for anyone who missed it the first time around it is good practice that could usefully be explored by more Member States:

n 2014, Italian network member, Bambinisenzasbarre, obtained the signature of a “Memorandum of Understanding”, an agreement between the Italian Minister for Justice, the National Ombudsman for Childhood and Adolescence and Bambinisenzasbarre, regarding the fulfilment and protection of the rights of children of imprisoned parents. Bambinisenzasbarre’s President, Lia Sacerdote, signed the Memorandum, which is valid for 2 years, on 21 March 2014. The charter is applicable in all Italian prisons and certainly represents a significant milestone for the work of the Italian charity. It is due to be renewed on 21 March 2016.
Article 1 of the Memorandum covers decisions regarding judicial authorities who are encouraged to take into account the rights and needs of any underage children of an arrested or detained person who still has parental responsibility; giving priority to alternative measures to pre-trial detention. Authorities are required to provide contact between a pre-trial detainee and their child in respect of the child’s rights as laid out in Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Memorandum also includes the recommendations made by the Children of Prisoners Europe network with regards visiting conditions and provisions for children of imprisoned parents, such as providing a suitably equipped children’s space in all visiting rooms, complete with resources for babies (bottle warmers, changing tables, etc.) and young children (toys, drawing tables). The signatories also commit to implementing all necessary actions to ensure that the location of the prison for parents of minor children is compatible with guaranteeing direct contact between child and parent during the sentence. The Memorandum also requires that a child be able to visit his/her imprisoned parent within a week of the arrest and on a regular basis from then on.
The full text in its various languages can be accessed here:
“For the first time in Europe and in Italy, a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the Minister for Justice, the Ombudsman for Children and Adolescence and by the not-for-profit organisation Bambinisenzasbarre which represents the 100,000 children who cross the Italian prisons gates every day. The Charter of Children of Detained Parents formally recognises the right of children to maintain direct contact with their detained parent and, at the same time, it reiterates the prisoner’s right to parenting. The “Charter of Children of Detained Parents” is a document which commits the penitentiary system to change various aspects of their relations with, and treatment of, the detainee, taking into consideration his/her parental role, and to change the way they receive individuals, with greater awareness of the innocent, free children who are so often burdened by marginalisation, prejudices, financial difficulties and the shame caused by the detention of their parent.” 
– Lia Sacerdote, President, Bambinisenzasbarre
“Bambinisenzasbarre’s Memorandum of Understanding is a really signficant milestone both for the Italian organisation and for the whole Children of Prisoners Europe network. We are very proud of the achievement of our Italian partner in getting such a commitment from their Government and we hope that this step forward will not only spark further improvements for children of imprisoned parents in Italy but will also trigger similar commitments in our other member countries.”
– Lucy Gampell, President, Children of Prisoners Europe

27.      31.3.2016 University of Luxembourg - research on overcoming bias related to pupils' ethnicity in teachers' decision-making



28.      University of Leiden – Master of Laws Advanced studies in children's rights – academic year 2017-2018

Master of Laws Advanced Studies in International Children's Rights at Leiden Law School. You will find information regarding new applications, the first graduates of the programme, the start of the academic year 2016-2017, news and upcoming events. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/privaatrecht/2016_10_11-newsletter-october.pdf   Applications for the upcoming academic year 2017-2018 are now welcome.http://en.mastersinleiden.nl/programmes/international-childrens-rights/en/introduction

29.      EPIM Funding on children in migration

My dispatch is late so the call has already closed, but perhaps it is still useful for people to know that EPIM is now processing applications for funding to protect children in migration: http://www.epim.info/2016/09/call-epim-call-for-proposals-on-long-term-prospects-and-protection-of-children-and-youth-on-the-move-in-europe/

30.      Previous message 13.09.2016  – attached for ease of reference

Call 1:  Capacity-building on rights of the child and child protection for children in migration, focusing on guardianship and foster care for unaccompanied children:  deadline for applications 13 Decemberhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/rec/topics/rec-rchi-prof-ag-2016.html
(Extracts only – please refer to link for full text)
This call for proposals will support capacity building on rights of the child and child protection for professionals working for and with children in migration. The aim of the call is to ensure better protection and respect for the rights of all children in migration on EU territory through capacity-building for family-based care for unaccompanied children (Priority 1) and through building capacity and cooperation mechanisms for guardians whose role is to safeguard the rights of children in migration (Priority 2). Proposals shall complement the efforts of the EU in the area of rights of the child and child protection, and support the work on integrated child protection systems. To this end, proposals should be carried out in line with the 10 Principles for integrated child protection systems, and proposals should describe how their project implements the principles. This call does not aim to support operating costs.

·         Priority 1.This priority aims to expand the national systems of family-based care, such as foster care, for children in migration, as provided for in Article 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection. Projects should support capacity-building for practitioners/professionals working with or for children in migration to increase the provision of quality family-based care to host unaccompanied children. This could include activities to attract and/or improve the quality of further capacity for quality family-based care (such as foster family care or small family-type units), adapt foster care standards to the situation of unaccompanied children, recruitment, training, monitoring and supervision activities for future foster parents, overcoming any barriers in the way reception funds are allocated (e.g. where funds are currently ring-fenced to be allocated solely to reception centres) as well as professionals working in the guardianship system. Account should be taken of previous EU funded projects on family-based care for unaccompanied children. Projects should also seek to address known gaps, such as the limited availability of family-based care, challenges in recruitment and monitoring foster parents, the need to train more foster parents, and the gaps for transition to adulthood in preparations for ageing out of care of unaccompanied children (e.g. independent living arrangements for older children and/or those that are aged out). Proposals are expected to boost child protection system changes and result in improvements that are sustained and sustainable after EU funding ends. This will require that project activities are integrated (and/or linked) within the national child protection systems and in particular alternative care systems.
·         Priority 2: Capacity-building and cooperation mechanisms for guardians whose role is to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied and separated children in migration (including development, piloting and delivery of training and accreditation taking account of the FRA Handbook on guardians and the FRA report on guardianship). This priority can include activities relating to the development, piloting and delivery of recruitment, training and accreditation of guardians taking account of the joint FRA/Commission Handbook on guardians and the FRA report on guardianship, with the objective of strengthening the role of guardian in the protection of children and clarification of the guardian's tasks in safeguarding the bests interests of the child, promoting the child's safety and well-being, facilitating child participation, acting as a link between the child and others, helping identify a durable solution in the best interests of the child, exercising legal representation and supporting the child in administrative or judicial procedures). Joint training activities could be envisaged to contribute to strengthening cooperation among guardians, foster-care professionals, child protection, judicial, migration and asylum authorities to enhance the protection of children, including at crossborder level. This priority can also cover activities that strengthen cross-border cooperation and exchange, for instance through the setting up of direct contacts with counterparts in other EU Member States, in the context of Dublin transfers and family reunification. The work of the European Network of Guardianship Institutions (ENGI, www.engi.eu) should be taken into account by applicants.
This call does not aim to fund projects addressing principally:
·         information to children on rights of the child
·         general awareness-raising on rights of the child
·         research on rights of the child
·         child victims, or violence against children (can be funded under other areas of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, such as Daphne's topic for action grants to support integrated and multidisciplinary child-centred approaches to child victims of violence, REC-RDAP-CHIL-AG-2016).
This call aims to fund targeted, practical projects ensuring maximum tangible and demonstrable benefits and impact on the lives of unaccompanied and separated children in the context of migration. All projects should not only develop a sound methodology using recognised existing good practice or tried and tested intervention models but consist of a large proportion of practical implementation measures and outcomes, ultimately to improve children's experience of the child protection systems. These aspects will be taken into account when evaluating the quality of proposals. Applicants are invited to consider the weighting of the work streams, with a view to ensuring maximum practical benefits and impacts for the target groups and the final beneficiaries (children), and to check that the management and coordination work streams (including travel) are not over-resourced. Activities such as the development of materials, the mapping of existing materials or research should be, at most, minor components of project proposals. If included, the need should be solidly justified in the proposal; they should lead to practical applications and interventions.
Any training and/or practical tools should have an overarching objective to make the system work better to improve outcomes for children. This may include development and delivery of new training modules/tools or roll out and delivery of previously tried and tested training modules/tools. Proposal should describe how access to those to be trained will be assured and describe how training/tools will be rolled out in the participating countries. In terms of promoting sustainability, capacity-building should preferably focus on train-the-trainer approaches and may also include tools such as checklists/draft protocols, etc. Any training modules developed should be made available and be easily adaptable for use in all EU Member States. New training modules must be piloted and, if necessary, adapted prior to delivery.
Given the challenges and known gaps in transnational cooperation and coordination, all proposals submitted under this call should describe how their project would enhance interagency and multidisciplinary cooperation and collaboration, both at national and transnational levels, to ensure the closer involvement of state child care and child protection authorities (national, regional, and/or local) for all children in migration situations, involving international organisations and non-governmental organisations where appropriate, to ensure a child-centred and child-rights based approach. For both priorities, the involvement of national (and/or regional and/or local if decentralised) authorities, or other entities mandated by the State, is essential. The range of actors proposed for each participating State must be appropriate in terms of the project objectives and activities. See Section 2.1.2 Eligibility of the application for more details
All proposals are expected to respect the child's right to participate and be aligned with Article 24 of the Charter, relevant EU law and the UN Convention on the rights of the child. The child's right to be heard, as set out in UNCRC Article 12 and General Comment No 12, must be an integral part of all project activities.
Proposals must make children's involvement central and integral to the project, for example in designing and reviewing responses to reports and actual cases of child victims, in reviewing services, in assessing what needs to be changed at system level, in empowering children to be involved in decisions that affect them and in empowering children and young people to help themselves and other children, etc. Are there possibilities to involve children in project design prior to submission of proposals? Are the views of children on issues addressed in the call (possibly gathered elsewhere) reflected in the proposal?
Accessible guidance on how to ensure child participation is also contained in the Lundy Model of Participation and the Lundy Voice Model Checklist for Participation, designed by Professor Laura Lundy of Queen's University, Belfast.

30.1.1.  Call 2: TOPIC : To support integrated and multidisciplinary child-centred approaches to child victims of violence – Deadline for applications 13/12/2016


(Extracts only – please refer to link for full text)
.1. Priorities
The aim of this call is to support integrated and multidisciplinary child-centred approaches (such as children's houses/Barnahus) to child victims of violence in line with Directive 2012/29/EU to contribute to better reporting, investigation, treatment, follow-up and judicial involvement in cases of violence against children. Proposals shall complement the efforts of the EU in the area of rights of the child and child protection, and contribute to integrated child protection systems. To this end, proposals should be carried out in line with the 10 Principles for integrated child protection systems, and proposals should describe how their project implements the principles.
1.2. Description of the activities to be funded under this topic
This call will fund activities for two priorities focusing on different types of activities. Project proposals must specify whether one (specifiying which) or both of the sub-priorities is/are addressed. Priority two is only relevant where an integrated and mulitidisciplinary child-centred approach to child victims of violence already exist, or is about to be implemented. Proposals that do not address at least one of the priorities of this call will not be considered.
All proposals must aim to ensure a child-friendly response to violence against children that is interagency, multidisciplinary, comprehensive and, where possible, under one roof (Barnahus/children's house model). Children's house models can be found in Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Croatia.
·         Priority 1: mutual learning, exchange of good practices, capacity-building to design and adapt proven children's house models to the national context, multi-agency collaboration and protocols (e.g. police, prosecutors, judges, social workers, child protection authorities, health, mental health and education services). Activities can be foreseen to include capacity-building on particular areas of the children's house model, such as medical exams and evaluations, joint investigative interviews, victim therapy, family counselling/support, as well as education training and research. All projects must aim to foster cooperation at local, regional, and national level among child protection professionals and agencies. Development of integrated and targeted strategies to enhance multi-disciplinary and interagency cooperation between relevant actors providing support to victims, including in the fields of health, education, employment and social assistance.
·         Priority 2:capacity building, education and awareness-raising for stakeholders This can include capacity building and awareness-raising for professionals and other adults who come into regular contact with children and are the first points of contact for (potential) (child) victims of violence so that they: are aware of child safeguarding standards and the role and mandate of national interagency and multidisciplinary child-centred approaches to child victims; can better assess risks and meet the specific needs of child victims, in particular by signposting them to integrated multidisciplinary specialist support services (such as children's houses). The target group is thus likely to include: professionals and other adults in the education, health, sports and leisure, child protection/welfare, parents/caregivers, alternative/corporate care, law enforcement and justice sectors, child helplines and hotlines, etc. The applicant should explain the rationale and their choice of target group.
This call aims to fund targeted, practical projects ensuring maximum tangible and demonstrable benefits and impact on the lives of child victims. All projects should not only develop a sound methodology using recognised existing good practice or tried and tested intervention models but consist of a large proportion of practical implementation measures and outcomes, ultimately to improve children's experience of the justice and child protection systems. These aspects will be taken into account when evaluating the quality of proposals. Applicants are invited to consider the weighting of the work streams, with a view to ensuring maximum practical benefits and impacts for the target groups and the final beneficiaries (children), and to check that the management and coordination work streams (including travel) are not over-resourced. Activities such as the development of materials, the mapping of existing materials or research should be, at most, minor components of project proposals. If included, the need should be solidly justified in the proposal; they should lead to practical applications and interventions.
Any training and/or practical tools should have an overarching objective to make the system work better to improve outcomes for children. This may include development and delivery of new training modules/tools or roll out and delivery of previously tried and tested training modules/tools. Proposal should describe how access to those to be trained will be assured and describe how training/tools will be rolled out in the participating countries. In terms of promoting sustainability, capacity-building should preferably focus on train-the-trainer approaches and may also include tools such as checklists/draft protocols, etc. Any training modules developed should be made available and be easily adaptable for use in all EU Member States. New training modules must be piloted and, if necessary, adapted prior to delivery.
All proposals are expected to respect the child's right to participate and be aligned with Article 24 of the Charter, relevant EU law and the UN Convention on the rights of the child. The child's right to be heard, as set out in UNCRC Article 12 and General Comment No 12, must be an integral part of all project activities.
Proposals must make children's involvement central and integral to the project, for example in designing and reviewing responses to reports and actual cases of child victims, in reviewing services, in assessing what needs to be changed at system level, in empowering children to be involved in decisions that affect them and in empowering children and young people to help themselves and other children, etc. Are there possibilities to involve children in project design prior to submission of proposals? Are the views of children on issues addressed in the call (possibly gathered elsewhere) reflected in the proposal?
Accessible guidance on how to ensure child participation is also contained in the Lundy Model of Participation and the Lundy Voice Model Checklist for Participation, designed by Professor Laura Lundy of Queen's University, Belfast.


Margaret Tuite
Commission coordinator for the rights of the child 
European Commission
DG JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS - Unit C2 Fundamental rights policy
M059 5/80
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium

Sobre el consentimiento sexual afirmativo

Como abogado, hace unos años nos propusimos desarrollar una app como IYeah, tras conocer en 2011, una ley aprobada en el estado de Califor...