This chapter outlines the main assessment and the specific policy recommendations resulting from the OECD analysis of Latvia’s justice system and its effectiveness for children and young people. The recommendations aim to support the ongoing efforts by Latvia to transform its justice system to be more responsive to the needs of children and young people and to implement child-friendly policies and service delivery, including the Barnahus model.
Towards a Child-friendly Justice System in Latvia
Implementing the Barnahus model
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
1. Assessment and recommendations for a child-friendly justice system in Latvia
Abstract
1.1. Leaving no child behind: towards a vision for child-centred justice
The Latvian authorities have pledged their commitment to addressing the vulnerabilities and the legal and well-being needs of children and youth. To that end, Latvia’s sustainable development strategy of 2030 focuses on “leaving no child behind”, which translates into fulfilling children’s rights through sustainable development goals and aims to offset the main obstacles that children and young people face in Latvia. These obstacles include poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, inequalities, violence as well as limited access to justice among other issues. In addition, Latvia’s current National Development Plan, approved in 2020, articulates a vision for the Latvian justice system by 2027, which provides the foundation for developing programmes to tackle existing inequalities, exclusion and violence against children and young people and to improve their access to rights and justice systems; in line with its 2030 development agenda. This includes the implementation of the Barnahus model, one of the key initiatives to deliver joined-up legal and social services to children and young people who are victims or witnesses of abuse and violence.
Recent data shows that cases of abuse and violence involving children and young people have been constantly increasing since 2016 in Latvia (Government of Latvia, 2022[1]). Indeed, abuse and violence appear to be some of the most serious issues that children and young people face and have devastating consequences (World Health Organization, 2022[2]). Violence not only affects the physical and mental well-being of children and young people, but also prevents them from enjoying their rights. In addition, it has crucial socio-economic and health consequences for children and young people, their families as well as societies if not dealt with properly or prevented through appropriate policy measures and early interventions (Council of Europe, 2016[3]).
Following established international standards and good practices in the development of national policies is the first step towards building a child friendly justice system. Latvia is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since 1992. While Latvia is required to undergo regular reviews on the implementation of the convention, the next review has been pending since May 2021. In addition, Latvia is party to the Treaty of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, in order to make sure that the main objectives of these standards are met and considered in the development of relevant policies and programmes, applying the targeted EU strategies and completing the National Action Plan to implement the European Union Child Guarantee are essential. Moreover, conventions such as the Istanbul Convention, which aims to protect the rights of women and children offer important examples to follow. Becoming a part of international agreements such as the Istanbul Convention, which was found to be compliant with Latvia’s constitution in 2021, can further strengthen the rights of vulnerable groups, such as children and in particular girls.
Importantly, Latvia has put in place a comprehensive legal and policy framework – across sectors - related to the protection of children’s rights. Yet a coherent, comprehensive, cross-government vision for children’s access to justice as well as the overarching strategy for children’s rights, or for child-friendly justice in Latvia are lacking. There are also limited interactions between various sectoral plans and strategies. As such, there is scope to strengthen cross-sectoral linkages and develop a clear mission statement for the Latvian justice system as a whole, and in particular the role of justice and access to justice – including for children and young people. The current vision for the justice system can also be broadened to encompass the role of actors beyond the formal justice system, recognise the benefits of legal empowerment, prevention and early intervention, and articulate the contribution of access to justice, especially for children and other groups in vulnerable situations.
Key recommendations
Complete the second review for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which includes an examination of a country report and submissions from national human rights and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which have been pending since May 2021.
Complete the National Action Plan to implement the European Union Child Guarantee.
Become a party to the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combatting Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, which will also benefit children, and in particular girls.
Develop a clear mission statement for the justice system, which could underline Latvia’s commitment to fully embrace the role of justice -and access to justice, including for children and young people, and can facilitate the development of a more child-friendly justice.
Put in place a coherent and comprehensive cross-government vision for children’s access to justice and child protection, encompassing the role of actors beyond the formal justice system and recognising the benefits of legal empowerment, prevention and early intervention in justice matters regarding children and young people.
1.2. Co-ordination, governance and culture of a child-friendly justice system in Latvia
1.2.1. Towards a whole-of-state approach to child-friendly justice: strengthening inter-institutional co-operation and co-ordination
Latvia has made significant progress in developing the concept of child-friendly justice within the national context. Yet the considerable efforts in this direction are currently being hampered by a relatively complex co-ordination structure. For example, stakeholder interviews revealed that there is need to further clarify roles and responsibilities between different institutions, which could facilitate more effective co-ordination and leadership for the implementation of child-friendly justice policies. In addition, many stakeholders emphasised the need and the importance of political commitment for the implementation of child-friendly justice.
To support the implementation of a child-friendly justice system, the implementation of a whole –of-state approach is essential. A whole of state approach promotes strong leadership in the design and implementation of a child-friendly justice system that takes strategic action and effective responses by different levels of government that are responsible for the design, implementation and delivery of child-related services.
Yet, despite the existing efforts and attempts to protect children’s rights, many stakeholders signalled that there is no clearly defined model of institutional co-operation, and co-ordination for strategy, policy and programme development with visible inter-sectoral impacts and accelerate the processes of implementing a justice system that prioritises children’s rights. Limited overarching priorities and absence of a common agenda for children’s access to justice can pose challenges to creating a child-friendly justice system and to improving child well-being more broadly. To respond to the unique pattern of children’s needs, the inter-related nature of their legal and justice needs—and to overcome the fragmentation of services for this age group—it is vital to strengthen co-ordination and co-operation between relevant institutions, possibly through stronger role and significance of the centre of government in coordinating policies in this area.
Key recommendations
Establish a clear governance structure to deliver child-friendly justice, supported by high-level political commitment, mechanisms for robust oversight and accountability and a whole-of-state approach that recognises the inter-relationship of children’s needs that go beyond legal and justice institutions and extend to health, education, social and youth sectors.
Establish a leadership role for coordinating the collective responses by different institutions and for ensuring overall accountability, possibly through entrusting a greater co-ordination role to the centre of government.
Embed horizontal co-ordination and integration into policy design and implementation processes through clear distribution of roles and responsibilities across different government institutions, at different levels, possibly by upgrading the legislation to provide a clearer framework for co-ordination and collaboration, including at the service delivery level.
Establish joined-up policy making initiatives, policy planning, joint working systems and a shared commitment for multidisciplinary and integrated services, such as the Barnahus model, among relevant stakeholders for a successful co-ordination for child-friendly justice. Improve referral and reporting pathways for service delivery.
1.2.2. Human and financial resources
Latvia is making considerable efforts to establish a child-friendly justice system, including through the efforts to establish a Barnahus model for children experiencing or witnessing abuse or violence. However, Latvia’s efforts are challenged by limited resources, a staffing crisis, IT and data issues. Indeed, interviews with stakeholders revealed that resources within the child protection system are insufficient especially at the municipal level and in rural areas, which can prevent access to social and youth services. There is also uneven involvement of NGOs in the design and delivery of child protection and justice services, as well as limited funding available for civil society and NGOs. There is also limited identification of child-specific budgets in government strategies and financial plans across levels of government, and underdeveloped mechanisms for monitoring use of resources for child-friendly justice, including by civil society.
In addition, interviews highlighted that there is a widespread staffing crisis that negatively affects children’s services within the justice system. Those include police officers and investigators, social workers, youth workers, mental health workers, including psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors, who are often reported to have very low levels of pay. Moreover, challenges with IT infrastructure were reported to affect the ability of professionals in the justice system to assure child-friendly proceedings and create inefficiencies in the system. These include technological expertise available to investigators when computers of alleged perpetrators are seized, difficulties for prosecutors in distributing cases electronically, and low-quality video technology available for interviewing children (which can lead to loss of evidence). Moreover, lack of computers and large screens in courts hinders the ability to conduct hearings remotely. The on-going digital transformation in the country can help address some of the challenges, although concerted and dedicated efforts to advance digital transformation in the justice sector would be important.
Key recommendations
Increase targeted investment and balance resources across the formal justice system, auxiliary services and preventive community-based services, including in less-populated, rural and poor areas, to facilitate evidence-based, cost-effective integrated child-friendly justice models. These should include such resources as adequate staffing and pay levels, buildings, IT and other infrastructure to service providers, including NGOs to ensure effective local implementation of child-friendly justice measures.
Identify child-specific budgets in government strategies and in financial plans both at the national and local levels and implement transparent, effective systems to monitor the use of resources for child-friendly justice, including by civil society.
1.2.3. Status of children and child-rights culture in Latvia
Despite progress, a child-rights culture, defined as a culture where children’s rights are prioritised by all within a society (UNICEF, 2023[4]), needs to be further developed in Latvia. There is scope to further recognise children as having the same human rights as adults in addition to the specific rights based on their specific circumstances and special needs (UNICEF, 2023[4]). It would be important for Latvia to strengthen the shift towards a child-rights culture from a reported tendency for child-blaming in Latvian society when abuse occurs. In addition, in accordance with stakeholder interviews, child abuse within families could sometimes be treated as a private matter by the broader society. Such instances can also make it challenging to establish a positive child rights culture and environment within the justice system, which currently seems to be more focussed on punishing offenders than on supporting victims. As such, Latvia could advance towards a more child-friendly culture by taking effective measures against negative attitudes towards abused children within society.
Moreover, several stakeholders reported that children often mistrust their parents or social services and may thus be wary to confide in them or even reveal abuse. Therefore, the cases often cannot be detected easily or can be often overlooked, which can make it hard to produce targeted policies for the establishment of a child-rights culture or defend children’s rights in Latvia. Indeed, the 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey (LNS) of Children in Latvia points out that one-third of children who responded to the survey either think that seeking help would not make any difference in terms of solving the problem they had, or they did not think that anybody would listen to them.
Key recommendations
Make children’s rights a cross-departmental priority by implementing child-rights culture and good practices in the justice system, across department agencies, in civil society and community. Alter existing laws, rules and regulations by prioritising child-rights culture.
Take effective measures to address negative attitudes towards abused children or children exposed to violence, promote positive attitudes within the community for children’s rights, uphold the protection of children’s rights as a key value, implement community development programmes to enhance people’s understanding and awareness of children’s rights.
Provide additional training and capacity building activities for professionals working with children to enhance their understanding of a child rights-based culture and strengthen interaction and communication with children.
1.3. Towards a child-friendly continuum of justice services
1.3.1. Evidence-based planning and understanding the legal and justice needs of children
Even though various statistical systems are in place in Latvia, stakeholders reported concerns related to the quality of data collection and the consistency of evaluations of programmes on child justice. In particular, stakeholder interviews revealed that data is collected in an unsystematic fashion through a range of uncoordinated separate mechanisms, such as police and school records, as well as those kept by social services and health workers. There appears to be no systematic way through which such records are collected and utilised to inform policy development. In addition, there is room to strengthen data quality, sufficiency and governance, particularly at the municipal level. The uneven quality of data also poses a challenge to the capacity of policymakers and institutions to ensure that child protection and child justice programmes and services are informed by high quality evidence and analysis. Academic research in the field is also sparse.
Moreover, Latvia has had an opportunity to move to the forefront of research into children’s legal needs by conducting a 2022 OECD LNS of Children in Latvia. Yet it would be important to ensure capacity to conduct these surveys on a regular basis, in order to inform service planning and improvement over time.
In addition, interviews with professionals working with children, including social workers, school staff, police officers also point to the need to strengthen evidence about the overall performance of the child protection and child justice systems. Limited detection, reporting and prosecution of cases such as abuse and violence against children, by professionals as well as delays in proceedings, systems that re-traumatise children and limited provisions for children’s participation were all deemed to act against the achievement of fair and just outcomes for children. As such there is scope to enhance performance data collection with a view to strengthening fairness and effectiveness justice service delivery for children.
Finally, while there are examples of evaluations of state programmes that have informed subsequent programming for children, their consistency still need improvement. More broadly, there is also a need to strengthen culture of monitoring, evaluation and learning among public officials and practitioners working on child protection and justice issues, in order to foster continuous improvement.
Key recommendations
Take stock of where the gaps and overlaps in data collection are; allocate resources more systematically and increase funding for the areas in need (e.g., different data collection methods), to understand the needs and experiences of children with the justice system and identify what works in preventing and responding to abuse and violence, child protection, rehabilitation and reintegration. Consider systematic use of LNS of Children to support the design and implementation of child-centred services. Strengthen collection of date on performance of child protection and justice system.
Improve quality, sufficiency and governance of data from multiple sources, involving children, such as abuse and violence cases against children and young people; including by establishing robust protocols and systems for data collection and sharing.
Invest in a high-quality independent evaluation of child-friendly justice initiatives to deepen understanding of what works and areas for improvement.
Foster a culture of monitoring, evaluation and learning among public officials and professionals working with children by consistently engaging them in capacity building activities.
1.3.2. Equality and inclusion
While the legislative framework in Latvia provides for equal access to justice for children, this protection in law does not always fully translate into practice for all children, especially for those with special needs and disabilities. There are reports of enduring challenges faced by multiple groups of vulnerable and marginalised children, together with inequalities in access to justice services and complaints mechanisms, which present substantial barriers for many children in exercising their rights, leaving them on the edge of justice.
With regards to equality and inclusion in legal proceedings, Latvia reports prioritising cases involving abuse or violence against children but there is still a need for improvement in different types of proceedings involving children. While children are provided with access to interpretation services where required, arrangements for children with disabilities appear to be limited. As such, there is scope for Latvia to strengthen equality and inclusion of its justice services for children.
Key recommendations
Ensure rights and protection provided to children by law are fully translated into practice by coordinating with service providers and by enhancing reporting mechanisms for abuse and violence and services at the national, local and community levels.
Ensure that cases involving abuse or violence against children are always prioritised by various services, including police, health and in court proceedings.
Review arrangements for the inclusion of children with disabilities, as well as other groups of children in vulnerable situations, in legal proceedings.
1.3.3. Accessibility and availability of services for children
While important steps are being made in Latvia to provide a broad range of child protection and child justice services, a range of gaps remain. For example, evidence from Latvia shows that children’s access to early information and advice is limited. As revealed by the LNS of Children in Latvia, children tend to lack trust in a range of professionals who could act as critical early problem identifiers. The results of the Survey show that when young people faced bullying, verbal and physical harassment, they had difficulty accessing a doctor or a psychologist/psychotherapist. 22% of the LNS for Children respondents indicated that they faced difficulties when accessing health and welfare services. In addition, 14% of the Survey respondents declared that they are unhappy with how their medical needs were with during the last 2 years.1
In fact, a high proportion of the respondents pointed out that they would benefit from free access to a mental health professional (e.g., a psychologist or psychotherapist) where the consultation is anonymous and confidential, which clearly shows that there is a need for improving free services by professionals. Several young people also pointed out that they are in need of easily accessible lawyers, youth day centres and social workers. Similarly, a small number or respondents included recommendations for providing free housing for those who are in poverty. More than one-quarter of respondents noted that they hoped that the treatment they received from social workers, teachers and psychologists would improve. They reported a lack of respect, unfriendliness, poor listening skills, low motivation and interest in their problems as the main issues they wished to be resolved.
In terms of advice and support to children, significant reliance is placed by the system on the Child and Adolescent Helpline. Yet several young respondents to the Survey highlighted that they could benefit from a helpline, which indicates that the existing helplines in Latvia are not well-known. Others argued that they would prefer a helpline that offers a chatroom because they disliked talking on the phone (Kendrick, 2011[5]).2 There are also gaps in community-based information, advice, counselling and support services for young people in Latvia, including a lack of a co-ordination body in this regard. Similarly, there seem to be no specialist legal advice services available to children and young people, More broadly, there is scope to strengthen a range of services available to children, including community-based services, where they can turn to in person for age-appropriate help on a range of legal, social, emotional and health issues, or for specialist child-friendly legal advice.
In terms of systems for children complaints and reporting of abuse and violence, they seem to be limited. Where available, they seem to be difficult for children to navigate. For example, complaint mechanisms that are available to children in high-risk settings such as detention or institutionalised care centres, tend to lack child-friendly systems for submitting complaints and children appear to be unaware of them or, when they are aware of such centres, they do not trust them. There are also few reporting mechanisms in schools, in healthcare settings or in other institutions. In addition, while there are two well-respected national institutions that can pursue complaints on behalf of children: the Ombuds Office and the State Inspectorate for Protection of Children’s Rights (the State Inspectorate thereafter), neither seems to undertake much direct work with children (although both have Children’s Rights departments). Better clarity is needed to understand how effective their efforts are to ensure that children can access them independently from their parents (i.e., without obtaining consent from their parents). There appears to be scope to delineate the two services more clearly from one another and to increase their collective focus on hearing, and acting upon, the voices of children and young people. Importantly, children may approach the State Police directly to submit complaints about violations of their rights, although it is reported that investigations usually take a long time and rarely result in prosecutions.
As such, in order to enhance children’s and young people’s trust in complaint receiving services, there is scope for Latvia to enhance investments in the establishment of a wider range of services, including consultation and complaint receiving centres (e.g., Barnahus houses). Such centres are also needed for the medical treatment of victims of abuse and violence, and for the rehabilitation as well as reintegration of victims. As the children who experienced abuse and violence need to feel safe to come forward with their most intimate secrets, the environment should be favourable to the physical and mental health, self-esteem and honour of a child. This concerns all stages of consultation, complaint making and court proceedings; as well as the broader justice system and related departments. More broadly, there is a need for more support for recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration for child victims and offenders.
Key recommendations
Improve children and young people’s access to early information, intervention advice and prevention programmes. Develop community-based services that children and young people can turn to, such as youth information, advice and counselling services – places where young people can turn to for age-appropriate help on a range of legal, social, emotional and health issues and specialist child-friendly legal counsel
Improve awareness and accessibility of Child and Adolescent Helpline to children and young people needing support independently from parents including diversifying ways in which they can contact the helpline, including the chatbots
Improve children and young people’s access to child-friendly complaints systems, particularly in institutions (i.e. courts, healthcare facilities, schools, police).
Clarify the respective roles of the Children’s Rights departments at the Ombuds Office and the State Inspectorate, with a view to reducing any possible duplication and increasing their collective capacity to hear, and act upon the voices of children and young people. Strengthen the Ombud’s Office’s Children’s Rights Department, increase its expert capacity and provide more differentiated services to children.
Improve support for recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration for child victims and offenders - service planning should be joined up with planning of other support services for vulnerable children.
Create safe environments (i.e., consultation/complaint centres for children and for young people) to report abuse and violence or ask for help when needed; ensure child-friendly practices are in place when gathering evidence and testimony (before, during and after court proceedings); design the physical settings of the medical examination (waiting, interview and court rooms) as well as places of detention in a way to protect children’s privacy, confidentiality, safety and well-being.
1.3.4. Prevention, proactivity and timeliness
Latvia has implemented a range of policies and programmes focussed on preventing crimes by and against children. However, stakeholder interviews highlighted the limited effectiveness of measures taken to date, often as a result of limited resources, an absence of joined-up planning, and insufficient focus on the provision of support to vulnerable children and young people. Limited long-term and in-depth support services leave children at risk with few trusted sources of support and puts unsustainable pressure on the few services that do exist. This in turn risks leading children into vulnerable situations or into criminal behaviour. More broadly, it was reported, there is a need for a greater focus on the provision of mental health support for children and young people and the role of NGOs in their delivery – and for recognition of such services as key to prevention as well as crisis support. As such, there is an opportunity to ensure that forthcoming policies and plans for children, young people and families integrate a broader and more joined-up approach to prevention, child safety and timely intervention in proactive manner. Much will depend on the successful co-ordination and delivery of these programmes.
Importantly, the justice system has made a concerted effort to prioritise cases involving children. However, cases are still subject to lengthy delays at various points of the investigatory and judicial processes, which can have a deleterious impact on the children involved and the delivery of just outcomes.
Finally, while state compensation is available to child victims of crime, abuse and violence, the process for children to access compensation is reported to be complex and the level of compensation provided is low. In this context, it would be important for Latvia to step up its efforts to alleviate the barriers that children face and improve prevention, proactivity and timeliness of justice delivery.
Key recommendations
Ensure that policies and programmes focussed on preventing crimes by and against children have adequate resources, are joined up, and have a greater focus on the proactive and timely targeting of children and young people in vulnerable situations, as well as prevention.
Improve the provision of long-term, in-depth support services - from early years to youth service - in local areas to address the entrenched and multiple issues that may lead children into vulnerable situations or criminal behaviour.
Provide better access to early intervention and prevention and mental health support, including through NGOs .
Continue prioritising cases involving children by the justice system and simplify complex court procedures that slow down cases.
Simplify the process for child victims to access compensation and consider increasing the level of compensation.
1.3.5. Appropriateness and responsiveness
Child-friendly justice systems need to be age-sensitive and tailored to children's needs. This calls for enabling a child-friendly environment and arrangements, such as physical settings, interaction and support to children before, during, and after proceedings. Although protection of child rights well established in the legal and policy framework, there are reports of uneven professional practice and limitations in resources, including expert paediatricians for forensic examinations of child victims of abuse and violence and social workers. To this end, there is scope to emotional support, access to counselling and capacity building for professionals dealing with cases of child abuse and violence. There is also room for improvement in specialization, flexibility and expertise in investigating sensitive cases. More generally, there is a strong need to increase overall resourcing of the child protection and justice system and increase attractiveness of the field.
Finally, it was reported that the judicial system does not contain specialised child-friendly facilities, protocols or support staff such as psychologists. There are also no specialist children’s judges, although it was noted that cases involving children tend to be assigned to judges with relevant experience. In addition, stakeholders highlighted the challenge of repeat interviewing of children, which can lead to their re-traumatisation. To this end, Latvia can consider deepening court and judicial specialisation and friendliness to deal with child-related matters, as the absence of a child justice system, with specialist child courts and child-friendly premises, can make it difficult to achieve child-friendliness in a system designed primarily for adults.
Key recommendations
Invest in strengthening capacities of and provision of support services to professionals working with children (e.g., social workers, police, prosecution, judges), including through enhanced training offer, sharing best practices, and discussing effective service delivery models in multidisciplinary teams such as workshops, as well as access to counselling and emotional support.
Increase overall resourcing of the child protection and justice system and increase attractiveness of the field
Strengthen the specialisation and friendliness of services, such as courts, to deal specifically with children and family cases.
1.3.6. Empowerment and participation
As in many other countries, efforts in Latvia to develop children and young people’s legal capability by providing education and information about rights, responsibilities, justice services and democratic systems remain in their early stages. Nevertheless, the inclusion of rights education in the school curriculum provides a promising foundation for teaching children many key concepts, although in accordance with stakeholders, there is still scope to enhance effectiveness of this approach in schools in Latvia.
In addition, the efforts made by the State Inspectorate and the Ombuds Office to develop informational materials and educational programmes for children on their rights are worth noting, yet they may not have reached far enough to ensure vulnerable children are aware of their rights, responsibilities and the services available to them. For example, about 40% children and young people responding to the OECD LNS of Children reported having heard about the Ombudsman.3 As such there could be scope to continue developing ongoing initiatives, through co-design with young people and harnessing the skills of NGOs, so that they become more relevant, interactive and accessible to marginalised young people.
With regards to children’s participation in proceedings, the LPCR provides a robust underpinning framework for ensuring participation of the child in all proceedings affecting them. However, these provisions are challenged by other legislation that sets limits on children’s participation. In particular, the role set out in legislation for children’s representatives and other institutions, such as the Orphan’s and Custody Courts, can have the effect of watering down the right of children to be heard as a voice separate from that of their parents. Overall, the law can be confusing for professionals to interpret when deciding how and when children’s views should be sought directly. Indeed, while the Orphan’s and Custody Courts and courts of general jurisdiction aim to ensure that the views and opinions of children are fully heard and represented in proceedings, it was reported by stakeholders that most often children’s voices are mediated by a parent or other adult acting as their representative. A small number of young people reported that they wished for a faster response from institutions such as the Orphan’s and Custody Court or professionals like social workers or lawyers when dealing with their issues.
In addition, there is room for improvement when it comes to professional practice in facilitating a child’s right to participate in proceedings. In accordance with stakeholders, even where there is clear scope to ask children for their views, this tends not to happen. Within relevant institutions, there appears to be a culture of relying on adults to mediate and relay children's opinions and wishes, rather than taking the time and effort to listen to children directly where this would be possible. Children do not currently have access to an effective system of trusted ‘support persons’ or guardian ad litems to support their participation in proceedings. Thus, children are reported to be often left out of proceedings. As a result, court decisions affecting children’s lives in fundamental ways can be made without the court being in possession of all the evidence required. In addition, courts appear to have limited resources to enable them to provide children with child-friendly information about procedures and decisions made by the court.
Moreover, increasing children’s procedural rights to initiate civil or administrative cases independently from their parents could help make services more accessible for children. It was reported that children whose interests may differ from those of their parents, and children in residential institutions, have limited options to either take an independent action against violations of their rights or challenge institutional limitations to provide care or services or to otherwise uphold their rights. The cumulative effect of underperforming complaints mechanisms and a court system that does not fully take into account the voice of children may mean that children have no one on their side at multiple critical stages of the problem resolution process. In such circumstances, child-friendly justice can become a remote concept.
With regards to the participation of children and young people in the design and development of policy and services, the recognition and promotion in both law and policy of the benefits of young people’s involvement does not appear to translate consistently into practice. Therefore, there is scope for further child empowerment and for enhancing their overall experience while they participate in court proceedings.
Key recommendations
Continue to develop education about rights, responsibilities, justice services and democratic systems as part of the school curriculum. Involve children, young people and NGOs in co-designing informational materials and educational programmes for children on their rights so that they become more relevant, interactive and accessible to marginalised young people.
Provide support to the civil society sector to enable it to play a more influential role in the development and implementation of integrated, child-friendly justice services.
Ensure the authentic views and opinions of children themselves are fully heard and represented in proceedings in the Orphan’s and Custody Courts and in courts of general jurisdiction. Implement measures aimed at facilitating a child’s right to participate in legal proceedings by making courtrooms more child-friendly, providing support to children before, during and after court proceedings and providing child-friendly information about procedures and decisions of the court. Improve arrangements for children to receive support during proceedings from a ‘person of trust’ or guardian ad litem who is guaranteed to act in their best interests.
Increase children’s access to independent, expert, age-appropriate legal advice, assistance and representation in judicial proceedings, particularly in civil and administrative cases. Increase children’s procedural rights to initiate civil or administrative proceedings independently from their parents.
Ensure that the participation of children and young people in the design and development of policy and services becomes routine across all relevant services and departments.
1.3.7. Collaboration and integration
Latvia has taken active steps to strengthen legislation, regulations and planning mechanisms to provide for co-operation between key institutions and professionals in protecting children’s rights. For example, there are joint planning structures established at both national (Children’s Affairs Co-operation Council) and local levels (Children’s Rights Co-operation Groups), which are reported to be working well and appear to offer a sound basis for further strengthening co-ordination and co-operation, including at the service level.
Despite the strong foundations provided by legislation and joint planning structures, there is room for improvement at the level of professional practice and service delivery. Some institutions do not appear to understand or trust one other. At the service level, inter-institutional co-operation between social services and the police appears to be limited, although this is a key relationship in the overall child protection system. It was also reported that there are instances when doctors and medical institutions under-report cases and that some institutions reportedly do not always co-operate with the Ombuds Office’s investigations as expected. In addition, it was noted that there is no clear path for referral and reporting pathways for service delivery, which makes child-friendly service delivery for children a challenge. It was also highlighted that social services should be identified as a participant in the law for criminal proceedings to facilitate co-ordination and support for children. In cases where there are protocols and systems for joint working, more could be done to improve their implementation. In particular, stakeholders report instances of non-reporting, insufficient following of referral protocols and incomplete data entry into the information-sharing and statistical database systems, which can hinder problem detection and the capacity to understand the patterns and gaps in service provision.
As noted, addressing these issues requires strong leadership both at the policy and service delivery levels, including more clarity and reducing overlaps in roles and responsibilities. In this context, by piloting the Barnahus model, with plans for further implementation, Latvia has made an important step towards establishing child-friendly, multi-agency and interdisciplinary services for child victims and witnesses where children can be interviewed, examined, assessed and supported. The findings from the cost-benefit analysis research highlighted that the Barnahus model will generate greater benefits compared to its costs the longer it operates and the more children it serves. Given widespread existing support for the model, there is strong potential for further progress over the next few years.
Finally, the civil society, such as the Dardedze Centre, the Latvian Child Welfare Network or the Marta Centre, is playing an important role in the delivery of integrated services for children and the development of good practices in Latvia. However, inconsistent support and funding for NGOs, as well as limited opportunities to inform the design of child-centred policies and services are reported to serve as barriers for effective delivery of services. As such, there is clear scope to increase the role of civil society in the field of child-friendly justice with a view to responding to the needs of children in the most effective manner.
Key recommendations
Continue strengthening joint planning mechanisms, such as the Co-operation Council in Children Affairs and Children’s Rights Co-operation Groups, including through increased resources, overcoming role fragmentation, cultural attitudes and participation barriers for children and young people
Strengthen trust and understanding between relevant institutions, including between social services and the police by improving conditions for joint work. Identify social services as a participant in the law for criminal proceedings and integrate the child protection system with criminal justice and other systems.
At the service delivery level, strengthen mechanisms for co-operation between professionals, especially in smaller municipalities.
Improve reporting of child protection cases, compliance with referral protocols and recoding of data by professionals.
Pursue current plans to introduce an interdisciplinary and inter-institutional one stop model (i.e. Barnahus) for supporting and protecting child victims of violence and ensure its longer-term sustainability.
Enhance the role of civil society in providing child-friendly justice services and protecting child rights, including through sufficient resources allocation.
References
[3] Council of Europe (2016), Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016-2021), https://edoc.coe.int/en/children-s-rights/7207-council-of-europe-strategy-for-the-rights-of-the-child-2016-2021.html.
[1] Government of Latvia (2022), Statistics Portal of Latvia, https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/population/crimes.
[5] Kendrick, J. (2011), The outcomes and impact of youth advice: the evidence, Youth Access, https://baringfoundation.org.uk/resource/the-outcomes-impact-of-youth-advice-the-evidence/.
[4] UNICEF (2023), Child rights and why they matter, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/child-rights-why-they-matter (accessed on 21 February 2023).
[2] World Health Organization (2022), Violence against children - key facts, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-children.
Notes
← 1. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.
← 2. Legal needs surveys tend to show that young people are much less likely to access advice services by telephone than other age groups and tend to prefer face-to-face advice for many legal problems. See, for example, (Kendrick, 2011[5]), Young people’s access to advice – the evidence, London: Youth Access, for a detailed analysis of legal needs data on preferred modes of access in England and Wales.
← 3. 2022 OECD Legal Needs Survey of Children in Latvia.