Despite criticism, Rutte sticks to a solution for children placed out of home | NOW

The government does not intend to make major changes in tackling the problems of children of benefit parents who have been placed out of home. Some promises were made on Thursday, but broadly speaking, the policy has not been deviated from. Despite criticism from the House and from involved parents and experts.

Several times the House called for a reassessment of the files of children of benefit parents who have been removed from home. At the end of last year there were 555.

“A reassessment is the minimum we owe to these parents and children as a politician, as a Dutch society,” said MP Pieter Omtzigt.

In any case, there was a lot of dissatisfaction in the House about the lack of solutions. But Prime Minister Mark Rutte wanted to stick to the course that the cabinet set out in March.

Support teams assist families whose parents have been duped by the benefits scandal and whose children have been removed from their homes with advice, among other things. It also identifies what the problems are and what is needed.

‘No child back after seven months’

Only such a support team cannot review decisions, for example, and according to Omtzigt the problem is there. “After seven months, there is still no child back. I speak with the parents. In the evenings I have conversations about suicide attempts by those children,” said Omtzigt.

Rutte feared that a different approach would only have the opposite effect. “If I have gained just one experience in recent years with the broad settlement of everything that is going on around the childcare allowance, it is that constantly changing the approach only leads to delays, which means that we will be busy for years to come”, said Ruth.

It led to frustration with SP leader Lilian Marijnissen. “We as the Chamber hear this every time with just about everything that went wrong in the allowance scandal,” said Marijnissen. If alternatives are subsequently offered, they will not listen, the SP member said. “It is all pushed aside. Each time exactly with this argument, namely: that will only slow down. Now give this a chance.”

The SP therefore no longer has confidence in the chosen solutions. The party believes that this position is supported by the parents and children involved, the National Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children, the Council for the Judiciary, the parent panel and lawyers.

“They have all indicated that the chosen solution direction with regard to the out-of-home placement of children is a dead end,” according to the party.

According to PvdA MP Khadija Arib, parents still do not know where they stand after a day of debate. “The answers, especially from the Prime Minister, that the solution for these parents may take a long time to come, are indigestible.”

Room got a few minor adjustments through it

Some minor changes to the policy were announced here and there. At the request of GroenLinks, for example, it is being examined whether the court costs can also be reimbursed by the government, just like legal assistance for victims of families.

Work is also underway on a “technical solution” to find out who the 555 children who have been removed from home are. Now only the number is known, and for privacy reasons it is complicated to retrieve the personal data.

“I just want to know who we are talking about. I want to reach these people and at the same time I want to do that within the possibilities that the law gives me,” said Minister Franc Weerwind (Legal Protection).

Weerwind also promised that an independent committee will be set up to investigate the link between the benefits scandal and the out-of-home placements. A direct relationship cannot be demonstrated. There is often a lot going on with these families; the financial problems caused by the tax authorities are aggravating the situation.

An investigation had already been announced, which would be conducted by the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate and the Justice and Security Inspectorate. But Omtzigt in particular has serious doubts as to whether these bodies are suitable for this. After all, they have not intervened in recent years and have a role in the matter as supervisors themselves.

Source: NU by

*The article has been translated based on the content of NU by If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!