The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its review of the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Romania, with Committee Experts commending the State on the deinstitutionalisation process of alternative care centres, while raising questions on the prevalence of corporal punishment and measures taken to combat segregation in education.
A Committee Expert said she was happy to hear about the programme for the deinstitutionalisation of alternative care centres; this was something Romania should be proud of, as well as all the foster arrangements being made, especially for children with disabilities.
Juliana Scerri Ferrante, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said there seemed to be a lack of parental education programmes around corporal punishment. How could the views of the child be respected if violence was accepted as a disciplinary measure? Could the Romanian Government take clear steps to train staff and promote child education? Philip Jaffe, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Taskforce Member, also noted that corporal punishment appeared to remain quite widespread despite being banned in 2004. What efforts were being made to lower the prevalence and change attitudes among parents and adults?
Mr. Jaffe asked what was being done to combat school segregation based on disability, special education needs, and family economic status? What improvements were being made to increase the improvement of vocational training for older children who may be leaving the school system? Were there any programmes which specifically targeted economically disadvantaged children?
The delegation said Romanian legislation completely prohibited violence against children, regardless of the environment. However, despite the legislation, which was fully aligned with United Nations Conventions, the State needed to fight against mentalities and traditions and to practically change the minds of parents and caregivers, who believed corporal punishment would discipline children better. Awareness-raising campaigns were being conducted for parents, and mechanisms including hotlines had been developed to support children, including the helpline 119. Authorities were obligated to launch investigations immediately concerning any allegations of violence against children.
The delegation said the Ministry of Education had taken steps to assist children with special educational needs, with the creation of frameworks offering them different kinds of support, based on the type of disability. Adaptive measures had been taken for Roma children, including stimulating their participation in early education and in summer kindergartens, supporting education in their current language, and translating schoolbooks in their mother tongue, among others. An increasing number of contracts between schools and the business sector had been recorded, including around 6,000 contracts in the school year 2023/2024.
Introducing the report, Helena Omna-Raicu, President of the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption of Romania and head of the delegation, said Romania’s path in recent years had been shaped by profound changes and emerging pressures, including the war in Ukraine and the arrival of thousands of children and families fleeing conflict. As a neighbouring country, Romania had mobilised rapidly to provide emergency care, protection, psychosocial support, and schooling to children regardless of their nationality.
Ms. Omna-Raicu said Romania had made significant progress in certain areas, including in the deinstitutionalisation process. Of the 167 residential placement centres operating in 2017, 149 had already been closed by the end of March 2025 and over 6,000 children were now benefiting from family-type alternative care. The remaining 18 placement centres would be closed soon.
In closing remarks, Rinchen Chophel, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Coordinator, reiterated the Committee’s appreciation for the Government of Romania’s support to Ukrainian refugees, particularly children. Significant progress had been made from the last reporting period to the current one, with many looking forward beyond the dialogue.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Omna-Raicu, expressed deep gratitude for the dialogue. The Committee’s concerns regarding urban disparities were noted. Romania would treat the Committee’s recommendations as an opportunity for deeper transformation.
The delegation of Romania was comprised of representatives from the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption; the Ministry of Education and Research; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Labour, Family, Youth and Social Security; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police; the General Inspectorate for Immigration; the National Administration of Penitentiaries; the Prosecutor’s Office; the National Health Insurance Authority; and the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s ninety-ninth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 May to begin its consideration of the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Qatar (CRC/C/QAT/5-6).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Romania (CRC/C/ROU/6-7).
Presentation of Report
HELENA OMNA-RAICU, President of the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption of Romania and head of the delegation, said Romania’s path in recent years had been shaped by profound changes and emerging pressures, including the war in Ukraine and the arrival of thousands of children and families fleeing conflict. As a neighbouring country, Romania had mobilised rapidly to provide emergency care, protection, psychosocial support, and schooling to children regardless of their nationality. The State was proud to have established the first Blue Dot in the region at the border crossing with Ukraine and launched the use of the Child Protection Information Management System Primero in only a couple of months after the onset of the refugee crisis, ensuring registration and case management for almost 40,000 refugee children.
Several new national strategies had been developed for 2021-2027 which aimed to address child poverty and wellbeing, including the national strategy for the protection and promotion of children’s rights “protected children, safe Romania” 2023-2027, and the national strategy on social inclusion and poverty reduction 2022-2027, among others. Romania had also adopted and begun the implementation of the child guarantee national action plan 2023-2030, which aimed to reduce the number of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 500,000 by 2030. Romania had seen a measurable decline in the proportion of children at risk of poverty and social exclusion from 41.5 per cent in 2022 to 33.8 per cent in 2024.
In April 2024, law 100/2024 was approved which included specific amendments to several laws relevant for social assistance. The new emergency ordinance no. 96/2024, approved in June 2024 regarding the provision of humanitarian support and assistance by the Romanian State to foreign citizens or stateless persons in special situations coming from the area of the armed conflict in Ukraine, established the legal framework providing refugees with access to a wide range of key national statutory services. Another significant legislative change was enacted by amending law 272/2004 in December 2024, which now mandated the participation of children in public decision-making processes.
There had also been several significant programmes launched, including modernising the unique national number 119 for reporting cases of abuse, neglect, exploitation and any other form of violence against children; the development of community services for children and families to prevent separation and support the family reintegration of children from the special protection system; and the development of 200 integrated community centres and 150 daycare centres for children, among others. Despite these advances, challenges remained, including disparities between rural and urban areas.
However, Romania had made significant progress in certain areas, including in the deinstitutionalisation process. Of the 167 residential placement centres operating in 2017, 149 had already been closed by the end of March 2025 and over 6,000 children were now benefiting from family-type alternative care. The remaining 18 placement centres would be closed soon. The use of European Union structural funds had also supported the training of over 11,000 foster carers. A new programme had also been introduced, aimed to scale-up integrated community-services in 2,000 marginalised rural communities, combining social assistance, health, education, and other types of social support. Over 800 million euros of European Social Funds were planned for enhancing access to social services for the most vulnerable, including children and their families.
The State had also expanded support for children at risk of early school leaving by using the early warning mechanism in education, of which around 50,000 participants from 6,950 institutions had completed the training programme. Targeted policies had been developed that supported the reintegration of children who dropped out during the pandemic, and more resources were reaching schools in deprived communities. In health, the role of community nurses and Roma health mediators had grown, and work continued to improve access to services for vulnerable groups.
Pilot projects on mental health for children had laid the groundwork for more systemic change, with mental health services for children and adolescents being expanded. However, challenges remained in ensuring equitable access to quality services in rural and marginalised areas, addressing shortages of specialised personnel, and improving early identification and intervention for children with developmental delays or disabilities.
Romania was committed to reducing the number of children affected by poverty and social exclusion by at least 500,000. The State would also pursue the complete closure of old-type residential centres, with every child in alternative care placed in family-based or community settings. Romania was committed to translating the pledges made during the first-ever global ministerial conference on ending violence against children held at the end of 2024 in Bogota, Columbia, into realities for children.
In education, the State aimed to increase the early childhood education enrolment rate by at least 22 per cent for children aged zero to three and at least 95 per cent for children aged four to six. There would be a focus on improving mental health services for children and linking schools, families, and health providers more effectively, aiming to reduce preventable mortality by 20 per cent compared to 2021 levels for children of all ages. Finally, Romania would ensure that children had a role in shaping systems through participatory budgeting, monitoring, and children and youth-led policy platforms. Romania remained committed to fully implementing the Convention and to contributing to the global effort to advance child rights everywhere.
Questions by Committee Experts
RINCHEN CHOPHEL, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Coordinator, said Romania had achieved a lot since the last report, which the Committee was happy about. Romania’s assistance to the Ukrainian refugees and children should be noted. There had been significant legislative achievements, particularly the amendments to law 272. What measures were in place to ensure effective implementation of the law? The national strategy on social inclusion and poverty reduction 2022-2027, and the child guarantee national action plan 2023-2030 were very welcome developments. How had these impacted on measures to promote and protect children? Had an assessment been undertaken to evaluate the impact of the national strategy.
While welcoming increased allocations to certain sectors, the Coordinator asked what measures were in place to develop a child-friendly budgeting process? What was the current status of the complaints mechanism in the country for reporting all forms of abuse and violence for children? What had been done to inform children of their right to file a complaint? Had professionals working with children been trained on receiving complaints concerning children and the Convention?
The establishment of the child Ombudsman in 2018 was a crucial step in the right direction, and the Government should be congratulated for that. What was the current status of the institution? How did it connect with children? The Committee noted the State party’s awareness raising activities on the Convention with appreciation, including the translation of the Committee’s general comments into Romanian. How did these efforts extend to rural children?
JULIANA SCERRI FERRANTE, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, asked if the national strategy for school de-segregation been adopted? If not, then when would this occur? What measures had been taken to address hate speech? Did the permanent committee set up in every education unit offer a complaints mechanism to children? If not, how could children complain in schools?
What had been done to decrease discrimination against the Roma population? What efforts had been made to promote the inclusion of Roma in mainstream schooling? How was discrimination against children with disabilities tackled in education? There was concern that Romanian law did not define valid reasons on which minor marriages could be authorised and this was left to the discretion of the authorities. What training was provided to apply the best interests of the child? What approaches had been taken to reduce the preventable mortality of children under five years old? What was the position of the Romanian Government on the proposed amendment to law 272 regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children?
There seemed to be a lack of parental education programmes around corporal punishment. How could the views of the child be respected if violence was accepted as a disciplinary measure? Could the Romanian Government take clear steps to train staff and promote child education? How were child labour laws enforced? How would the Romanian Government establish a child participation mechanism? Were refugee and asylum-seeking children involved in decisions which affected them? Were children provided information on their rights?
What measures were being taken to strengthen the capacity of the social welfare services? How were children with disabilities prioritised in reform measures? What was being done to combat the illicit transfer of children abroad? Had bilateral agreements been conducted in this regard? Was the Romanian Government carrying out measures to understand the impact of prison on children? How were they supported when their parents were incarcerated? What support was available for young people leaving institutional care?
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said the adoption of law 105/22 providing for automatic birth registration should be considered as positive. Could more information be provided about how the law worked in practice? Were there any plans to introduce a statelessness determination procedure? Was data on statelessness which concerned children disaggregated? What measures were in place to protect children from excessive screen use? How did Romania deal with artificial intelligence as a European Union member? Romania had one of the lowest levels of digital skills in the European Union; what measures were being undertaken to promote digital literacy among children, as well as parents?
PHILIP JAFFE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said it was wonderful that strong pledges had been made at the global ministerial conference on ending violence against children in Bogota. How was Romania implementing its mission as a pathfinding global alliance country? It seemed Romanian children were in need of protection against high levels of physical and sexual violence. One of the pledges made in Bogota was to conduct a prevalence study on sexual abuse; had the State moved forward with this study? Were there dedicated teams drawing up the comprehensive framework and strategy which had been promised? One pledge had been to enhance children’s participation regarding issues of violence. What efforts had the Government made to ensure that there was a clear public understanding that all forms of violence against children needed to be reported?
Corporal punishment appeared to remain quite widespread despite being banned in 2004. What efforts were made to lower the prevalence and change attitudes among parents and adults? It was encouraging that Romania had been one of 40 countries to recently join a statement of the Human Rights Council, expressing children’s right to protection from corporal punishment. How was bullying and cyber bullying being addressed at all levels of legislative policy? Could more information about the child helplines be provided?
Was it true that around seven to eight per cent of girls in Romania were married before the age of 18, with that percentage rising to around 20 per cent in the Roma community? What was being done in response to this? Was it true that charges had been dropped against a 17-year-old boy who entered into a non-formal marriage with an 11-year-old girl? What policy was in practice in the health sector regarding surgical interventions and intersex children? What were the guidelines to protect their bodily integrity until these children were capable of providing consent?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the law on child protection now included clear provisions which made it compulsory for public administrative bodies to involve children in consultations regarding issues which concerned them. The national strategy on children’s rights was recently adopted and another national action plan was elaborated; these plans were complimentary. This was a comprehensive package which would help the Government to better implement all necessary measures. An assessment of the national strategy had been undertaken. The State was now piloting a system which would indicate how to establish a model of financing where children would be considered as a different group that would benefit from a different budget.
The national programme for schooling in Romania ensured children received food support at schools to increase the enrolment rate and participation. School supplies were also provided for all school grades. Two hundred euros were provided for the purchase of technology, and remedial lessons were provided to students coming from disadvantaged communities. Recently, the scholarship system had been extended to encompass more disadvantaged groups.
Funds allocated to primary medical care had registered a continuous annual increase. Just last year, the fund allocated to primary care increased by 24 per cent. The national observatory was a big achievement for Romania and aimed to identify the children most at risk of being separated from their families, based on indicators. Training was being conducted on the use of the observatory to ensure the data provided was reliable.
The hearing of minors in justice proceedings took place in special rooms, and a psychologist was always required to be present. The new national strategy for the development of the judicial system provided for another 10 hearing rooms across the country. There were specially designated prosecutors to handle cases involving minors. The child Ombudsman was fully operational and cooperated with all institutions. It had a functioning complaints mechanism. If an incident was notified to the Ombudsman, an investigation started, which concluded with a set of recommendations sent to the institution responsible to correct the situation.
Civil society representatives were part of the consultative groups established at the national level. A methodology had been issued and piloted regarding identifying and banning segregation within the educational sector. The measures focused on ensuring an inclusive education. Any kind of discrimination on criteria such as ethnicity, religion or sex was completely forbidden within the educational system. Specific places in high schools were allocated for Roma students and students with disabilities. To ensure access to high quality education, educational services had been developed starting from early education to prevent early dropout and absenteeism.
A set of programmes had been introduced, including a monthly allowance for children up to the age of 18, as well as parental leave. There was also a minimum income support which supported families with children. Emergency ordinance no.96 was developed specifically for children from Ukraine and their families.
There was a dedicated intergovernmental group which addressed the subject of forced marriage, with the aim of drafting legislative projects in this regard. Concerning infant mortality and the number of deaths under one year of age, a regionalised system of care had been introduced to ensure each neonate was born in a medical unit which could provide the services necessary for their care, thereby reducing infant mortality. An important national programme was in place which contained around 15 interventions, established in partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund. Another programme provided 900 neonatal incubators around the country.
A significant number of services had been established to help families in vulnerable situations. A special programme was launched last year on the minimum inclusion income, which focused on how to assist parents within the labour market. The State was aware of a lack of social assistance in rural areas, which was where the most vulnerable communities lived. Interventions were directed, including food packages, and local administrative capacities would be developed.
A programme had been developed which aimed to establish hearing rooms for children in courts, and 29 hearing rooms were completed in April 2024. The rooms were used by the Prosecutors and police officers when they had victims who were minors. The rooms were child-friendly and specially designed with toys. The child did not see the other people participating in the hearing. A new strategy adopted in 2025 provided for the need for an additional 10 hearing rooms in the near future.
All social services were functioning based on a set of minimum quality standards, which were verified by the national agency for social inspection. With the United Nations Children’s Fund, Romania was piloting a project which would identify and train foster families to care specifically for children with disabilities. A child entering the special protection system was prioritised to be reintegrated in a family environment. Adoption was considered the best solution in this regard, and this could only be decided by a court. Priority was offered to domestic adoption, but international adoption could be considered after one year.
Amendments had been made to allow special spaces for visits in prison with children. Such spaces were now available in all prison facilities within the Romanian penitentiary system. There were cooperation protocols in place with the United Nations Children’s Fund and Save the Children which supported parents to develop their parental skills and improve their relationship with their children. The State was aware of the need to develop programmes which addressed the needs of children and adults and improved the relationship within the family.
The Ministry of Education aimed to develop digital competencies among students and parents. During the pandemic, all students were provided with laptops and digital devices to keep up with the educational process. In a new initiative launched in partnership with Microsoft, the Ministry of Education had announced the development of a project concerning artificial intelligence for increasing the school performance of students. A project was also being implemented aimed at improving the digital skills of civil servants.
Romania had a dedicated national child help line. It was toll-free and operational 24/7. Those operating the calls were specialised counsellors who could refer the cases to the relevant authorities. Another helpline just referred cases to social services. The 119 helpline was a recent development, operational from any place in Romania and accessible to children and adults. After the first year, it had been well received and was being regularly used to inform on any situation concerning a child.
Rape of a minor and sexual assault against a minor had been introduced as acts within the Criminal Code. Rape committed by an adult against a minor under the age of 18 was punished by a prison sentence of between seven to 12 years.
Questions by Committee Experts
PHILIP JAFFE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said one in 20 people in Romania held a disability certificate, with around 80,000 being children. What were the difficulties faced by certain groups of children to receive this certificate, including rural children? Were there any awareness-raising campaigns for rural minorities and poor families regarding their entitlement to services? Could more information be provided about Romania’s strategy for persons with disabilities? How were the number and expertise of professionals being scaled up? To what degree had the State embraced a human-rights approach to disability, as opposed to a medical model of disability? How many children were still left in institutions? When would such institutions all be closed?
There were two recent laws on pre-university education and higher education; could more information be provided about the implementation of these laws? What was the level of gross domestic product dedicated to education in Romania? Was there a direct pipeline to hear about the concerns of children within the education system and were these concerns taken seriously? What was being done to combat school segregation based on disability, special education needs, and family economic status? Figures suggested that 40 per cent of children with disabilities had limited access to education. What steps were being made to improve education for children under the age of three? What improvements were being made to increase the improvement of vocational training for older children who may be leaving the school system? Were there any programmes which specifically targeted economically disadvantaged children? What was the mission of the Ministry of Youth?
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair and Country Taskforce Member, asked if sufficient resources were dedicated to the capacity building of medical personnel? Did all children have access to health care, including health insurance? How were vaccinations promoted in the country? How was breast feeding promoted? Child obesity was an issue of concern; how was this combatted? Was there a hot meals programme?
Mental health was a very important issue. Was data on mental health being disaggregated, including on suicide? Was there a comprehensive strategy and action plan regarding the issue of mental health? Were quality mental health services available in rural and remote areas? According to alarming information, the country had the highest number of adolescent mothers across the European Union. What steps would the State undertake to prevent adolescent pregnancies and subsequent abortions? Would Romania make reproductive education part of the curriculum?
What measures were in place to address drugs or substance abuse? Were there treatments available for children? Romania had made substantial efforts for Ukrainian children and other groups of refugees. How would the State integrate these children long-term? Were there delays in the enrolment of refugee children and their families into the social services system? Would amendments be considered in the asylum law to end the detention of families at the legislative level? Did unaccompanied migrant children have access to services, including psychosocial support and disability services? Were there any barriers which could hinder access to education?
What measures were being undertaken to end child labour, including begging? What was being done to assist children in street situations? How were perpetrators investigated and brought to justice? Were there quality services for child victims of trafficking in place? Was the system of child justice established across the country? Were adequate financial resources allocated to it? Was free legal aid available to children in conflict with the law? Was the detention of children used only as a last resort? If yes, did it comply with international standards?
RINCHEN CHOPHEL, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Coordinator, said one in five children were affected by severe material and social deprivation, which was concerning. What was the reality on the ground? The minimum social assistance package had been introduced; could more information be provided on it? Romania was increasingly vulnerable to droughts, heatwaves, floods and landslides, and it was also grappling with water pollution. How had the national strategies pertaining to climate change helped to address the challenges of the environment and climate change in the country? What measures were being adopted to take into account children’s needs and views in the development of specific policies, including disaster-preparedness plans? Were child rights impact assessments carried out when dealing with the business sector?
A Committee Expert asked what the national coverage of vaccinations was in the country? Romania had an epidemic of measles; how did the population react to vaccinations? How was confidence being built in vaccines? Were people familiar with the law on rape? What happened once the 30-day limit for registering births had elapsed?
Responses by the Delegation
Romanian legislation completely prohibited violence against children, regardless of the environment. However, despite the legislation, which was fully aligned with United Nations Conventions, the State needed to fight against mentalities and traditions and to practically change the minds of parents and caregivers, who believed corporal punishment would discipline children better. Awareness-raising campaigns were being conducted for parents, and mechanisms including hotlines had been developed to support children, including the helpline 119.
Authorities were obligated to launch investigations immediately concerning any allegations of violence against children. Romania was committed to continuing these efforts and to changing social norms and mentalities. The numbers of cases of violence against children was increasing, which meant people were becoming more aware of the issue and reporting it.
Since 2016, the methodology applied in Romania clearly distinguished between the concept of disability and special education needs. In Romania, the deinstitutionalisation process was one of the most important commitments of the Government, and the process was now concluding. Currently, out of the 167 residential centres operating in 2017, 149 had already been closed, and more than 6,000 children were benefiting from alternative care. The legal framework stated that no placement centre could operate without the approved closure plan. The deinstitutionalisation process also involved finding better alternative and family-based care for children. Only 18 placement centres remained in the process of being closed, and by 2026 no such centre would be operating in Romania. The State was still aiming to find family-style solutions for children with disabilities, and a project was being developed with the United Nations Children’s Fund to this end.
If a birth was declared after the 30-day deadline but less than one year after the birth, the birth certificate could be issued based on approval from the mayor. If the birth declaration was made more than one year after the birth, the certificate needed to be approved by the mayor and other administrative bodies.
More than 2.8 million students were enrolled in the 2023/2024 school year in Romania. For high school, there had been a significant decrease in dropouts from 2.5 per cent in 2017 to 0.8 per cent in 2024. Around 4.5 per cent of the budget was allocated to education. The Ministry of Education had taken steps to assist children with special educational needs, with the creation of frameworks offering them different kinds of support, based on the type of disability. For students with temporary special needs, the law of education presented special measures, including the implementation of schooling hospitals, or schooling at home for those who were required to be in hospital or at home for medical reasons.
Adaptive measures had been taken for Roma children, including stimulating their participation in early education and in summer kindergartens, supporting education in their current language, and translating schoolbooks in their mother tongue, among others. More than 66,000 teachers had been trained in digital and multimedia use. An increasing number of contracts between schools and the business sector had been recorded, around 6,000 contracts in the school year 2023/2024. Most teachers had been trained to create open educational resources. Significant funds had been allocated to modernising rest room facilities in schools.
Any student could submit complaints of discrimination via an established framework. Students benefitted from representation in the school system through several platforms. The national strategy for sustainable development issued the methodology of the “green week programme”, which contributed to preschoolers and students’ competence in understanding basic concepts of climate change, to initiate individual and protective action to protect the environment. Teachers were obliged to obtain 90 transferrable professional credits every five years, through attending courses offered by Romanian training houses.
In recent years, infant mortality had remained relatively stable in Romania. From 2023 to 2024, the number of doctors treating children increased by five per cent. Regarding children’s access to medical services, all children were insured in Romania and benefitted from basic medical services across all sectors of health care. The national health insurance fund also reimbursed certain services. The Ministry of Health had launched a vaccination campaign in partnership with the Red Cross, to raise awareness of parents; this had been accompanied by a “catch-up” vaccination schedule, resulting in 1,500 children being vaccinated. A protocol had been signed with the Orthodox Church to establish an active partnership to create a framework for anyone facing a possible cancer diagnosis, offering support.
World Breastfeeding Week was celebrated in August each year, as breastfeeding remained one of the most effective ways to provide children with the best start in life. Breast feeding recommendations had been developed with partners, including the World Health Organization, and were relayed to medical practitioners at the local level. Around 200 integrated community centres would be restructured, elevated and equipped. A television broadcast had been created to promote the importance of breastfeeding in the first six months of a child’s life.
Information and education campaigns had been carried out for children, parents and teachers about the benefits of a healthy diet and the consequences of unhealthy eating. Around 1,000 people had benefited from the campaign. Substance abuse could be detected by family doctors and psychological services could be recommended. The national health insurance house implemented the national mental health programme, providing treatment for persons with substance abuses, and ensuring specific treatment for patients with depressive disorders.
Questions by Committee Experts
RINCHEN CHOPHEL, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Coordinator, said the Government had approved a social assistance programme in 2011 which targeted all communes, but was underfinanced; could more information be provided? The Environment Week presented was an excellent initiative; how was it being utilised?
JULIANA SCERRI FERRANTE, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, asked if there were any supervision orders, where children remained with their family but were supervised? Were there age assessment procedures during the asylum procedure? What rights did children applying for asylum have? Could they appeal any decisions?
PHILIP JAFFE, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund, Romanian girls felt much lonelier than Romanian boys. Was there a reason for this gap?
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair and Country Taskforce Member, asked for clarification on case management coordination?
A Committee Expert noted the prevalence of women among the large delegation and asked if women generally had an important and high-profile position in Romania, or if this only occurred when discussing children? Had there been any programmes to prevent violence? Had the concept of gender been fully institutionalised? Were teachers trained in detecting signs of violence? What was the prevalence of child marriage in the country? What about figures for marriages which were not officially recorded? Had there been any programmes to prevent the phenomenon or sanctions?
Was there any mapping of the at-risk populations in the country of female genital mutilation? Was female genital mutilation prohibited in law? What was the most updated action on sexual exploitation? Was there any cross-border cooperation between Romania and neighbouring countries? Did Ukrainian children born in Romania have access to Romanian citizenship? Did rape victims have access to emergency contraception?
Another Expert asked about vaccinations from children aged zero to 12; was there distrust in the population when it came to vaccines? It seemed that tuberculosis was a public health issue. What was being done in the field of treatment? Were there children whose births had not been declared, particularly among refugees, Roma and migrants?
A Committee Expert asked about the new concept introduced by the Parliament on parental alienation. How had this concept been consulted on, particularly with children? How would the best interests of the child be ensured? What specific measures were being taken to reduce school dropout and improve access to quality education for Roma children? What mechanisms were in place to monitor and support Roma children who were at risk of dropping out?
Another Committee Expert said she was happy to hear about the programme for the deinstitutionalisation of alternative care centres; this was something Romania should be proud of, as well as all the foster arrangements being made, especially for children with disabilities. What was the State doing to support the families of children with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said emergency contraception was available to those who had experienced sexual assault and could be obtained without a prescription. Adolescent pregnancies were a major concern for the Romanian public health system. Contraceptives and medical devices were provided free of charge through family centres and through gynaecological departments, where abortions were performed upon request. Romania was one of the first European countries to offer non-discriminatory HIV/AIDS treatment.
Refugees were granted a monthly allowance, one-month’s accommodation, and access to education for minors. Legislation in the field of asylum provided for beneficiaries to apply for family reunification when family members were not in Romania. Identity documents needed to be provided to prove family links. Family reunification of unaccompanied minors was carried out with the best interest of the child in mind. Minors from immigrant backgrounds benefitted from the same rights as minors who were Romanian citizens. Romanian language courses provided teaching support, textbooks and workbooks developed on linguistic levels according to the European Union framework. Priority for asylum applications was given to unaccompanied minors.
Medical forensic expertise was used when an asylum applicant could not prove their age and there were serious doubts about their ethnicity. The declared age of the asylum applicant was accepted if their refusal to undergo the medical expertise was based on compelling reasons. The assessment was performed with full respect for the minor’s dignity and in as least invasive way as possible.
Investigations in child and human trafficking were undertaken by specialists with supervision from specialised prosecutors. Through law 229/2024, the Romanian Parliament aimed to discourage sex tourism and the pimping of minors. More than 1,200 criminal cases had been identified regarding child trafficking. The General Inspectorate of Romanian Police organised regular sessions for border police and
non-governmental organizations, with the purpose of identifying victims. More than 125 trainings had been carried out to over 4,000 workers who may encounter trafficking victims through their work. The National Agency against Trafficking in Persons and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime had implemented a national action plan in the fight against human trafficking to improve the awareness of at-risk groups.
In 2024, prosecutors from the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime took part in 35 seminars regarding identifying child victims, compensation for victims, international cooperation, and online sexual exploitation of children, among other topics. A public awareness campaign had been launched relating to sexual acts between adults and minors. The message stated that a sexual act committed against a minor of 16 years or under constituted rape, if the age gap was more than five years, and punishments applied.
According to Romanian legislation, minors benefited from free legal aid, whether they committed a crime, or if they were victims of a crime. The Romanian penal system limited sanctions in regard to minors, and measures for deprivation of liberty were only given as a last resort and could only be ordered by a court.
The integrated social services project aimed to develop the academic knowledge of professionals working in the social assistance field, and to develop concrete measures for vulnerable groups of people.
During “green week”, schools organised activities around several topics relating to the environment. These were uploaded on a specialised platform dedicated to education on climate change and varied from one educational cycle to another. The Ministry of Education had developed a programme, the mechanism of early-living alert, which focused on early education for Roma children.
In Romania, social services were obligated to identify children in a risk situation. Children could remain within families and be monitored by social services until the risks were removed. The parental alienation provision was introduced in all cases relating to violence and neglect. It was recommended that this provision be removed, as these measures should only be applied by the courts. There were many trainings offered to judges on methods relating to children’s rights. Social workers were also trained to provide necessary assistance to visiting parents. Social services could only assist; they could not intervene and solve disputes between parents.
Closing Remarks
RINCHEN CHOPHEL, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Coordinator, reiterated the Committee’s appreciation for the Government of Romania’s support to Ukrainian refugees, particularly children. The State was encouraged to continue to undertake these activities which were important for solidarity for children. Significant progress had been made from the last reporting period to the current one, with many looking forward beyond the dialogue. This was an indication of the Government’s commitment towards children. As the country moved forward, it was important to put emphasis on implementation and ensure vulnerable children did not miss out.
HELENA OMNA-RAICU, President of the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption of Romania and head of the delegation, expressed deep gratitude for the dialogue. The delegation welcomed the Committee’s emphasis on equality, accountability and sustainability, and would underpin the next stage of the State’s deinstitutionalisation journey. The Committee’s concerns regarding urban disparities were noted. It was recognised that rights delayed were rights denied, and the State was committed to accelerating affirmative action. Romania would treat the Committee’s recommendations as an opportunity for deeper transformation.
SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for the fruitful dialogue and commended its members for their clear and comprehensive answers. Ms. Kiladze extended her best regards to the children of Romania.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRC25.013E
