Children and young people
Estonia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. Under Article 4 of the Convention, States Parties must undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure respect for the rights recognised in the Convention.
Since 2011, the Chancellor of Justice also performs the function of the independent Ombudsman for Children.
The Ombudsman for Children ensures that all the institutions and persons that pass decisions concerning children proceed from the best interests of the child.
During the reporting year, the Chancellor paid special attention to the right of children and young people to participate in decision-making concerning them. For example, the Chancellor was asked about the constitutionality of lowering the voting age in the elections for the European Parliament. The Chancellor found that the Constitution does not prevent lowering the voting age in elections to the European Parliament and pointed out that all the age limits laid down by law should be reviewed as a whole. In a letter sent to the Chairman of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, the Chancellor explained that a thorough analysis and discussion is needed on how the established age limits fit together. The Chancellor recommended to involve also representatives of young people in the discussions, which the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee did.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Constitution of Estonia assume that a reasonable balance is found between the need to protect a child and their right to decide. On the one hand, due to their physical and mental immaturity children need special protection and care. On the other hand, a child is an independent person with the right to participate in making decisions about themselves. The underlying basis should be that a child develops so that their decision-making ability and sense of responsibility also increase. The more knowledge and experience a young person has, and the more capable of understanding they are, the more independently they can exercise their rights. When setting age limits, an appropriate balance should be sought between the need to protect the child and their decision-making powers.
In order for young people to participate meaningfully in making decisions concerning them, young advisers to the Chancellor of Justice, under the leadership of the Chancellor’s Office, translated into Estonian the summary of General Comment No 26 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This summary is prepared for children and deals with the impact of climate change on the rights of the child. The Committee stresses that in making decisions concerning environmental and climate change it is necessary to assess their impact on children and give children and young people the opportunity to have a say in these decisions. It is important to assess the impact of decisions on current and future generations.
A reasonable balance between a child’s right to participate and the need for protection must also be found when making decisions about the child’s health. The Chancellor’s advisers and health professionals jointly drafted a guide titled “Assessing a child-patient’s decision-making capacity in provision of healthcare services”. The guide explains in which cases a healthcare professional is required to assess the decision-making capacity of a patient under the age of 18 and how this should be done. The guide offers health professionals advice and resources to address such situations.
Children and parental care
The Chancellor’s assistance is often sought by parents who have been unable to agree with each other on matters of child custody, maintenance or access. The Chancellor does not resolve such disputes; however, the Chancellor’s advisers do help to clarify these situations and, if possible, offer advice.
Certainly, it would be best if separated parents could find consensus on issues concerning the child and make a joint effort for the child’s well-being. Agreement is part of parental responsibility and, if necessary, assistance can be sought from an impartial intermediary, i.e. a family conciliator. However, state coercion cannot mend human relationships. If parents are unable to agree on custody of the child and access to the child, the dispute is resolved by a court. When making its decision, the court must take into account the specific circumstances and proceed from what is best for the child.
Child in a foster family
A parent asked the Chancellor on what legal basis their children were staying in a foster family with whom no foster family contract had yet been concluded.
The Chancellor explained that the city government, as the guardian, has the right to determine the child’s place of stay, so it can also allow the child to be in a foster family that has been assessed as suitable. The Social Insurance Board assesses the family as suitable after checking whether the family meets the requirements set out in the law and, based on a family survey and a home visit, concluding that the family is able to raise the child.
The Social Insurance Board has explained on its homepage how a suitable foster family for a child is found. Before a city or rural municipality enters into a foster family contract, the child’s meetings with the family are organised. Meetings are needed so that the child can get acquainted with the family and their residence. The child’s opinion is then heard. Based on this opinion and other important circumstances, the child protection worker can make sure that concluding a contract with a particular foster family is in the best interests of the child.
Child maintenance
The Chancellor was asked whether a parent who is separated from the child must pay maintenance to the child even if the child is in a closed childcare institution.
A parent must provide maintenance for a minor child regardless of where the child is staying. A minor is entitled to receive maintenance from their parent. The fact of a child being in a closed childcare institution does not relieve the parent from their maintenance obligation.
A child in a closed childcare institution also has costs that must be covered by their parents. A closed childcare institution provides the child with accommodation, food, support and supervision, as well as activities that the child needs and that support their development. Parents need to make sure that the child has clothes, hygiene items and other necessities for everyday life, such as glasses. The childcare institution may also require the parent to cover the child’s expenses for medicines, school supplies and hobby activities. The family may also have communication and travel expenses if the child visits home. During the child’s home visit, the child is maintained by the family. In addition, in a closed childcare institution children can eat food brought from home.
Parent’s right to inviolability of private life
A parent of a child with a disability asked the Chancellor to check whether the local authority could require them to submit an application every time they need a babysitter for their disabled child. Each time, the local authority wanted to decide, on the basis of the parent’s application, whether use of the babysitter’s help in a particular case was justified.
The Chancellor found that such a condition imposed on the petitioner was not in accordance with the principle of human dignity laid down by § 4 of the General Part of the Social Code Act or the right to inviolability of private life (§ 26 Constitution).
A person must disclose their private data only to the extent necessary to make a decision concerning assistance to them. When providing the parent of a disabled child with the assistance of a babysitter, it should generally be sufficient to provide data showing that raising a disabled child entails a higher care burden than usual, which is why the parent needs time off from care.
In order to assess a parent’s burden of care, neither the city nor the rural municipality needs to know what the person raising a child with a profound disability does in their free time. It does not matter whether a parent with a high care burden applies for a babysitter in order to go for a run in the forest, to a hairdresser or to visit a relative. The same things are done by parents who do not have to care for a child with a profound disability, but who can take their child with them or leave the child at home alone, or ask next of kin to mind the child during this time.
Grant of benefit for families with many children
The Chancellor was contacted by a parent who asked about the lawfulness of actions of the Social Insurance Board where the Board refused to grant family benefits to them and the other parent by turns for their joint child, who is growing up with both parents for an equal time alternately, if no consent is given by the other parent.
In 2020, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and invalid the part of the statutory provision that does not allow the Social Insurance Board to decide, without the consent of the parent who has so far received benefit, that separated parents receive child benefit for a joint child and benefit for a family with many children by turns, if that child grows up alternately in the family of both parents for an approximately equal time. The Social Insurance Board resolved the problem after the Chancellor’s intervention.
The support person service for a child
A parent was concerned that their child might be left without a support person because the City of Tallinn could not reach agreement on the terms of service provision with the child’s current support person, although neither the family nor the city had any complaints about the work of the child’s support person.
In view of the circumstances, the Chancellor did not consider the city’s actions to be unlawful, but found that the city could have provided clearer and more timely information to the parent about the support person. Tallinn City complied with the applicable laws and legal acts established by Tallinn City when organising the support person service. At the request of the Chancellor of Justice, the city also found a solution by ensuring assistance to the child until new decisions are made.
Entitlement to family benefits when each parent lives in a different country
The Chancellor’s help was sought by a parent who lives and works in Estonia while the child’s other parent lives and works in Latvia. The Social Insurance Board had suspended paying child benefits to the family because, according to the Board, the child’s main place of residence was unclear.
The Chancellor found that the Social Insurance Board had not violated the law. As a general rule, a person is not entitled to receive benefits for the same purpose from several Member States of the European Union at the same time. Nor is a person entitled to choose from which country they want to receive benefits. Regulation No 883/2004 of the European Union lays down rules under which family benefits are paid primarily by the country where the parent works and pays taxes. If each parent works in a different country, benefit is paid by the country where the child resides. Separate rules apply if the child lives in several countries, in which case the child’s main place of residence is determined.
This situation may also affect the right to benefits paid by cities and rural municipalities.
In this particular case, the issue concerned entitlement to childcare service support, which requires that, according to the population register, both the child and their parent must reside continuously in the same rural municipality or city for a certain period.
Childcare service support is paid voluntarily by cities and rural municipalities; the law does not stipulate payment of this support. The Supreme Court has said that cities and rural municipalities may voluntarily pay support only to people who are residents of that city or rural municipality according to the population register.
Family benefit for a non-working parent
The Chancellor was contacted by a parent who lived in Estonia and was not working at the time of submitting the petition. The child’s second parent, the petitioner’s former spouse, worked in Finland. As the petitioner had stopped working, the Social Insurance Board suspended payment of child benefit to them.
Under European Union regulation No 883/2004, as a general rule, family benefits are to be paid by the country where the person works. If both parents are employed, family benefits are paid by the country where the child lives. The regulation does not exclude the possibility that, if the family benefits are higher in one country, that state will pay supplementary benefits to a family residing in the other country.
As long as the petitioner worked in Estonia, the Estonian state was responsible for paying family benefits. Therefore, during the petitioner’s employment, they were paid child benefit by the Social Insurance Board. As Finnish child benefit is higher than Estonian child benefit, the Finnish state could pay a supplementary benefit to the child’s parent working in Finland.
When the petitioner stopped working, the responsibility for paying child benefits transferred to Finland. As a result, the Social Insurance Board suspended paying child support to the petitioner. Child benefits continued to be paid to the family by the Finnish state, which paid the benefit to the child’s parent working in Finland, but the petitioner did not know this.
The European Union regulation also provides that if a parent who receives family benefits does not use this benefit to support their child, the authority responsible for family benefits will pay the benefit to the person who is actually raising the child.
It was explained to the petitioner that they may request the other parent to voluntarily pass on the child maintenance benefits to the petitioner. In such a case, the parent may also turn to the Finnish social security authority KELA for help.
The right of a beneficiary of temporary protection to family benefits
The Chancellor was contacted by a person to whose partner, who is a Ukrainian citizen, payment of child benefit and benefit for a family with many children was suspended.
According to the Social Insurance Board, many families who have come to Estonia from Ukraine have received benefits from both Estonia and Ukraine simultaneously. Under the Family Benefits Act, residents of Estonia receiving a benefit of the same kind from another country are not entitled to family benefit. Under the social security agreement between the Republic of Estonia and Ukraine, family benefits are paid by the country where the family lives. If entitlement to family benefit arises under the legislation of both Contracting Parties, the benefit is paid by the state in which the child resides (Article 10 of the Agreement).
In such a situation, the Social Insurance Board may suspend paying family benefits and ask the competent Ukrainian authority or the beneficiary themselves for information concerning payment of family benefits. This situation may be burdensome for the person, but it is still necessary to find out whether they are entitled to support from the Estonian state.
Child protection
The Chancellor is often contacted by parents who are dissatisfied with the actions of child protection workers in a situation where the relationship between parents is strained. Alas, child protection workers cannot resolve conflicts between parents. Child protection workers can, above all, advise parents on how to ensure the child’s well-being and where to get help to improve cooperation between them. If the parents are unable to agree between themselves or through a state family conciliator, then child access arrangements are established by the court.
Often, parents involved in court litigation consider the position of a child protection worker to be biased. In these cases, the Chancellor’s advisers explain that, in litigation concerning a child’s living arrangements, a child protection worker must also submit a reasoned opinion. The child protection worker is expected to offer an assessment as to the best solution for the child. In turn, parents can present to the court their views and evidence of the actions and opinions of a child protection worker. The court decides what weight it gives to the position of the child protection worker. The Chancellor of Justice cannot assess a court judgment.
The Chancellor can assess whether a child protection worker acted lawfully when identifying a child’s need for help and offering assistance.
Based on a parent’s petition, the Chancellor checked whether child protection workers of two city governments cooperated with each other in ascertaining a child’s need for assistance and coordinated their actions in a situation where each of the child’s parents lived in a different city. In several cases, the parents challenged the competence of the child protection worker handling their case and asked for a check on whether the qualifications of the child protection worker met the requirements laid down by law. The Chancellor found no violations in these cases.
The Chancellor’s assistance was also sought in resolving child protection cases abroad. In one case, the petitioner was dissatisfied with the work of Finnish child protection officials and alternative care providers. In the second case, the petitioner sought intervention by the Estonian authorities in ongoing child abduction proceedings in Ukraine.
The Chancellor’s advisers explained that in the event of moving abroad everyone must take into account that all that country’s legislation will be applicable to them and disputes will be resolved in line with the procedures applicable in that country. A person’s country of origin cannot intervene in the activities of foreign officials or administration of justice there. Estonian officials can only provide assistance and explanations. In Estonia, international child protection cases are dealt with by the child protection department of the Social Insurance Board, which can provide advice on how to act in the event of problems with cross-border custody and guardianship and where to obtain legal assistance in such cases.
Kindergarten and school
Children are supported in growing up into independent individuals by their family, teachers, kindergarten, school, as well as the state and society as a whole. Every child is invaluable; it is the duty of us all to help them grow into a good person, to create Estonia’s future (see the interview with the Chancellor of Justice published in the Sirp newspaper).
A parent is entitled to choose a school for their child within the existing education system. At the same time, neither children nor parents have the right to demand abstention from reorganisation which is necessary in the public and community interests and is not excessively burdensome for individuals. Regardless of their place of residence, parents and home language, all children are entitled to education in line with their abilities, said the Chancellor of Justice at the education network development conference “HaridusLood” in November 2023.
Schools should not be divided into good or bad. All schools should support the desire to learn and develop into a good person. After all, school also means preparing for adult life: for adaptation and effort, for a calm and cordial understanding of what is different from oneself, for being a dignified citizen.
The task of the state and of cities and rural municipalities is to organise school life in a rational way. A city or rural municipality which feels that these tasks are beyond its capacity has the right and duty to take the state to court. Children and young people have the right to education. A local authority may not leave the functions assigned to it by law to the families.
In order to obtain a place at a kindergarten for their child, parents often have to seek help from the court. The reason is that several cities and rural municipalities have failed to create enough kindergarten places. Violation of the rights of parents and children is such an acute problem that judges have also addressed it in their podcast Kohtulood (see “Mida peab teadma lasteaiakoha taotlemisest või koolitranspordist?” (What do you need to know about applying for a place in kindergarten or about school transport?)). Judges from the Tallinn Administrative Court discussed this issue with a Chancellor’s Adviser on the podcast.
One of the biggest goals in education in the coming years is the transition to instruction in Estonian.
The unity of a co-operative society also depends on how people understand each other. In Estonia, the basis for this unity is the Estonian language, which is best learned in kindergarten and school.
Kindergarten
A rural municipality or city government must provide a place in kindergarten to all children between the ages of one and a half to seven years whose parents apply for it. Recognition is due to those cities and rural municipalities who are able to ensure kindergarten places for all children by establishing new kindergartens, opening additional groups, involving private kindergartens or cooperating with a neighbouring city or rural municipality.
Several rural municipalities and cities support parents in paying the place fee for a private kindergarten. When offering such voluntary support, a rural municipality or city may decide on the conditions under which this is done. The Chancellor of Justice found that a rural municipality may establish a procedure according to which the parents of a child attending a private kindergarten or childcare are not supported if, by 1 October of the current school year, the child has turned at least three years old and the family has waived a place offered in a municipal kindergarten. So, if a child should go to another kindergarten, they will have to get used to the new environment, which may take some time. However, this need not always be detrimental to the child’s well-being. In the specific case, the rural municipal council gave the rural municipality government the opportunity to consider whether paying support could exceptionally be justified.
If a child’s home municipality or city has fulfilled its task, but the parent has chosen for their child a kindergarten maintained by another rural municipality or city, the child’s home municipality or city must, according to the law, contribute to the costs of that kindergarten place. Covering the costs of a kindergarten in another city or rural municipality is essentially performance of a state function, the costs of which must be covered from the state budget (see the Chancellor’s opinion on “Termination of payment of support for a private kindergarten”). As currently no legal norm stipulates that the costs directly related to performing such a state function should be covered from the state budget, a local authority can demand that expenses incurred be covered by the Ministry of Education and Research. If the ministry refuses to do so, the rural municipality or city may have recourse to the administrative court with a claim for expenses incurred.
Cities and rural municipalities may not impose additional restrictions on obtaining a place in kindergarten. According to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional for a rural municipality or city to make grant of a kindergarten place conditional on the availability of vacancies. The court reasoned that, as a result, children enjoying a statutory right to a place in kindergarten may be left without one. The Chancellor of Justice found that a local authority should repeal such restrictions. Cities and rural municipalities should also repeal illusory restrictions that could mislead a parent and leave the impression that a kindergarten place may be denied or postponed. The Chancellor recommended that the Ministry of Education and Research should look for additional ways to help local authorities in predicting the need for kindergarten places and ensuring places.
A family does not necessarily have to obtain a place for their child in the kindergarten that the parent considers most suitable or that is located closest to home. The city and rural municipality government has fulfilled its obligation when it gives the family a place in a kindergarten within the service district. However, the courts have found that the obligation of a rural municipality and a city cannot be considered fulfilled if the family is offered a place in a kindergarten that is not accessible to it, i.e. it is located at an unreasonable distance from where the family actually lives, so that the family would have to incur significant expenses in order to take the child to the kindergarten (see Tallinn Circuit Court of Appeal judgment in case No 3-21-336). If, in the opinion of the parent, a kindergarten place is not accessible, the parent may notify the local authority thereof and apply for a new kindergarten place. If the local authority does not resolve the problem, the parent may have recourse to the court to protect their own rights and those of the child.
A local authority is responsible for the proper maintenance of a kindergarten. For example, a rural municipality or city government decides on the opening hours of a kindergarten, based on a proposal by the board of trustees. The rural municipality or city government must take into account the interests of children and families and consider the proposal by the board of trustees on the merits (see the opinion on “Changing the opening hours of a kindergarten”). The opinion of the board of trustees helps the local authority better understand what happens in kindergarten on a daily basis. At the same time, the rural municipality or city government does not have to agree with a proposal by the board of trustees. A parent who does not like such an arrangement can have recourse to the court.
According to the law, a child is entitled to receive assistance in kindergarten from a speech therapist, a special educator or other support service provider. A child’s development is monitored and evaluated by kindergarten teachers. A child’s need for speech therapy is assessed by a speech therapist. Unlike a speech therapist, teachers (including special educators) lack preparation for provision of speech therapy. On the recommendation of the Chancellor of Justice, a rural municipality organised speech therapy assessment and speech therapy for children.
A child is entitled to speech therapy in kindergarten free of charge. The owner of the kindergarten cannot refuse to provide a child the assistance of a speech therapist because there is no speech therapist in the kindergarten. A local authority that fails to fulfil its task, i.e. arrange assistance of a speech therapist, must reimburse the parent for expenses incurred for an appointment with a speech therapist. Sometimes local authorities are unable to observe these principles. For example, in one case, the rural municipality began to provide speech therapy to children in kindergarten only after the intervention of the Chancellor of Justice. At the same time, the parent was reimbursed for the costs of a speech therapist’s appointment which the parent had to incur because the children could not go to a speech therapist’s appointment in kindergarten.
If Rajaleidja counsellors have determined that a child needs an adjustment group and if the parent has submitted a relevant application, the owner of the kindergarten must create this possibility. A recommendation by Rajaleidja cannot be ignored or interpreted as meaning that implementing the recommendation is voluntary. Nor is the owner of a kindergarten relieved of the duty to create an adjustment group by the justification that it is difficult to do so. The Chancellor recommended that the child be given the opportunity to attend a kindergarten adjustment group.
School
A child is entitled to attend a school close to their place of residence. This school is assigned to a child by the city or rural municipality government, taking into account, first of all, the proximity of the child’s residence to the school and whether other children of the same family are studying at a particular school. If possible, parents’ other wishes are also taken into account. When assigning a school to a child, a local authority is also allowed to take into account other circumstances if more children are eligible than there are places in a particular school (Supreme Court judgment in case No 3-4-1-16-16, para. 21).
For a parent who finds that the rural municipality or city government has violated a child’s rights when assigning a school according to the child’s residence, it is most expedient to protect the rights of the child through the court. The court can assess whether the rural municipality government has lawfully assigned the school according to the child’s residence, and can also oblige the rural municipality government to make a new decision (Tallinn Circuit Court of Appeal judgment in case No 3-20926, paras 21 and 24). All the important circumstances must be taken into account in aggregate.
The Chancellor of Justice has received a number of petitions from parents who are dissatisfied with the way their home municipality has arranged for their child’s attending school. Although rural municipalities and cities have broad possibilities to decide how to organise school transport, they must first and foremost take into account the interests of the child, and school transport must also be accessible to the child.
A local authority cannot leave the organisation of school transport to families. If it is found that for some reason a child cannot use the school bus, the municipality must find another solution so that the child arrives at school on time and safely (see the Chancellor’s opinion on “Organising school transport”). The school route must be safe and manageable for the child, and the waiting time for the bus after the school day must be of reasonable length. A local authority can establish the conditions for organising a school route, based on which it can assess how the school transport arrangements suit a particular pupil.
The school educates and nurtures at the same time. The learning environment must be age-appropriate, safe and developing for pupils. A pupil must be supported if everything does not go smoothly for them at school, which can only be done through mutually understanding cooperation between the family and the school. A parent’s concern for the child is understandable, but the school nevertheless does not have to agree with all the parent’s proposals. In the event of a loss of trust between the school and the parent, the parties may ask for help from the Social Insurance Board or Rajaleidja. In such a situation, the Social Insurance Board will be able to implement a restorative justice programme.
If a pupil violates the school internal rules, the school has the right and obligation to find out all the circumstances of the incident, but such action must not be perceived as a punishment or degrade the dignity of the pupil. In order to ascertain a pupil’s point of view, the school could speak with them in an age-appropriate manner, rather than request a written explanation (see the opinion on “Taking explanations from a pupil”). However, the law does not prohibit asking for a written explanation.
Sanctions may be used in respect of a pupil in order to ensure compliance with the school internal rules and to create a mutually respectful and safe learning environment. A written reprimand to a pupil must be in accordance with the law in both substance and form (see the opinion on “The lawfulness of a reprimand”).
When planning decisions affect a child, it is necessary to ascertain the child’s best interests and rely on them as a primary consideration when making a decision (see the opinion on “Temporary prohibition on participation in studies”). A more effective measure than prohibition from participating in studies may be to offer the pupil the help of a support specialist and a behavioural support plan is drawn up for them. The pupil’s behaviour can also be discussed with their parent and, in a situation of conflict, the parties can be reconciled so that an agreement can be reached on how to proceed.
Excluding a pupil from school cannot be decided lightly by the school. Before making a decision on exclusion, the pupil must first be offered support. If, despite implementing appropriate support measures and sanctions, an upper secondary school pupil continues to violate the school internal rules, they must be expelled from school according to the law. Since exclusion from school restricts the fundamental right to education and can have a significant impact on a young person’s future life, the reason for exclusion from school cannot be just any repeat violation of the internal rules (e.g. being late for class, lack of indoor footwear, and the like), but only violations which can be said to amount to compelling reasons for restricting access to education, and exclusion must be justified in the specific case. The decision to exclude a pupil from upper secondary school must be in writing and must also state the reasons. The decision must also indicate the possibilities for challenging the decision (see the opinion on “Exclusion of a pupil from school”).
A teacher’s intervention in pupils’ interaction with each other is justified when someone is being insulted, someone is being excessively loud or discomfort in others is caused because they cannot understand the talk of their peers due to a foreign language. However, in their free time, pupils are entitled to communicate in the language of their choice (see the opinion on “Language of communication between pupils“). Everyone has the right to maintain their ethnic affiliation, and the mother tongue is part of a person’s national identity. Everyone is also entitled to free linguistic self-realisation and inviolability of private life.
The daily schedule at school must also provide sufficient time for rest and eating (see the opinion on “The organisation of studies”). Pupils should not become tired at school, the load must be distributed evenly. Each lesson must be followed by a break of at least ten minutes. Pupils must have at least 15 minutes for eating. Although in some cases the school has found that pupils and teachers could agree on the length of the break among themselves, such an agreement does not replace the school’s daily schedule or what is established in the school internal rules.
A school may not require an upper secondary school pupil to present an authorisation for leaving the school building during lessons or a break. Therefore, while resolving a complaint the Chancellor found that the requirement to present an authorisation justifying leaving the school restricts freedom of movement, whereas the freedom of movement of upper secondary school pupils may not be restricted. However, for security and supervision purposes, basic school pupils leaving the school building and school grounds may be restricted. Nevertheless, a school may, if necessary, check the entry and exit of pupils (including upper secondary school pupils) to and from the school building, for example by asking them to present a pupil’s card.
The law states that a school may not prohibit absence if a pupil wishes to go on a trip, participate in competitions or sports camps, or the like, during studies. However, the school always has the right to assess whether a pupil’s absence is justified or not. A pupil has the right and duty to study, so that they may be absent from school only for a compelling reason. According to the law, it is enough for a parent to inform the school about a pupil’s absence and the reason for it on the first day of absence. Thus, in order for a pupil to be absent, a parent does not have to apply for permission from the school in advance (see the opinion on “Notification of absence from studies”). If a child is absent from studies at the decision of the parent, but in the opinion of the school the parent has not behaved correctly, the school can discuss the situation with the pupil and the parent, for example, during a development conversation.
Every child must be able to acquire education in the best possible way in line with their abilities, and teachers must create a good atmosphere for learning. This also means that a pupil must be supported in their studies primarily by the school, a responsibility that cannot be left to the parents. A pupil can receive assistance, for example from a school psychologist or other support specialist. A teacher must have basic skills for teaching pupils with special educational needs (see the Chancellor’s opinion). The head of the school is responsible for ensuring that a teacher working at the school has the relevant skills. In addition, the school must ensure that, if necessary, a special educator is also available, who, among other things, instructs the teacher in teaching children with special educational needs.
If necessary, the school must offer a pupil individual supervision, the help of a support specialist, as well as study assistance lessons by group. If Rajaleidja recommends referring a child to home schooling or individual study for health reasons, the school must take this recommendation into account.
A recommendation by Rajaleidja is mandatory for the school if the parent has also given written consent to it. While resolving a petition, the Chancellor found that a school had violated a child’s rights by not allowing the child to study in a special class with up to 12 pupils in the 2023/2024 academic year, as had been recommended by Rajaleidja. It is unacceptable to allow a situation to arise in which a child cannot learn to the best of their abilities and is not provided with the necessary support at school. In this particular case, the school agreed to organise studies for the child beginning from the new academic year in line with the recommendation of Rajaleidja, but this does not reverse damage that may have been caused by not providing the child with appropriate support in the previous academic year.
Sometimes a child needs to be transferred to a class with a smaller number of pupils. Before implementing such a support measure, the school must listen to the pupil and justify to them why they are being transferred to the new class (see the opinion on “Transfer to another class”). If the child runs into difficulties in adapting to the new class, once the school has learned about this, it must find out the causes of the problem. To facilitate a child’s studies, all possible measures should be considered. Before a decision is made, the pupil and their parent are also heard.
A rural municipality and city, as school owners and providers of social services for residents of the municipality, can organise the necessary assistance for a child through either the social or educational system, or both. While resolving a complaint, the Chancellor found a rural municipality had not acted correctly when deciding to leave a child without a support person. The issue was that the rural municipality government had provided a support person for the child during the previous two and a half years, and the child’s need for assistance had not changed during the current academic year. Although the rural municipality government had taken the position that, in the future, the school but not the rural municipality social welfare department should provide assistance to the child, the municipality should have continued providing assistance until the school was ready to take over this task completely.
A child’s development and coping at school is monitored by teachers, based on whose assessment teaching can be adjusted in line with the child’s individual needs and abilities. For example, it is possible to implement instructed studies organised by a school, during which a teacher directly supports the pupil. The knowledge and skills check must measure the level of skills and knowledge established by the curriculum and provide feedback to the pupil in a graded form. Based on the grade, it can also be decided whether the pupil might need support in studies. Also, a grade, including a grade for a test retake, can affect the aggregate grade, as well as the child’s further education.
After an extended absence, a child may need more support in learning. Absence may lead to lagging behind in studies, but absence from class cannot lead to the conclusion that the pupil’s knowledge and skills are insufficient. The Chancellor found that it was not correct to assess a child’s knowledge with a grade of "1" simply for being absent from class. What is assessed are a pupil’s knowledge and skills, not absence from class. A grade of "1" means that in a particular subject the pupil’s knowledge is insufficient.
A pupil is entitled to retake a test that could not be taken before or for which a negative grade was received. If a pupil does not go and retake the test, the teacher may give them a negative grade since the pupil has not been given an opportunity to assess their knowledge and skills. However, when setting the deadline for retaking a test, the school must also take into account, for example, that if a pupil has been absent for a long time, they need to retake tests in several subjects simultaneously. This can be overwhelming for the pupil, as during a short period they will have to retake all the tests that had not been taken due to absence and, at the same time, learn new material with others. The aim is for the pupil to master the material as best as possible and not lag behind others in their knowledge and skills.
A pupil’s knowledge is assessed according to the grading scale, which, according to the national curriculum, is the basis for evaluating both the original tests and retakes. It must be objectively clear at what level the pupil’s knowledge and skills meet the requirements of the curriculum. Therefore, no reason exists to lower the grade of a pupil who has retaken a test (see the Chancellor’s opinion). Nor can it be considered correct if a pupil’s grade for a retaken test is raised without justification. Such a consideration is a teacher’s subjective decision, though objective feedback on the pupil’s knowledge and skills might not be offered in this way. A teacher may use a grading scale different from the national curriculum only if the test is simpler or more complicated than the grading scale established in the curriculum. A retake test measures the same learning outcomes as are measured by the original test.
The Chancellor has repeatedly been asked how many tests a week can be arranged for one class. Up to three tests may be carried out in one study week, and a test is defined as written work verifying acquisition of the learning outcomes of an academic quarter or of a course. If it is possible to make a note about the planned test in the school’s online environment, then teachers must make this note, as failing to make a note can cause unnecessary tension. The more clearly tests are planned, the easier it is for the school to assess pupils’ study load. Teachers must organise studies so as to support pupils in their learning.
Transition to instruction in Estonian
The transition of Russian-language schools to instruction in Estonian has made parents worry that too many non-Estonian-speaking children may start studying in classes at the same time. Parents of both Estonian and non-Estonian speaking children, whose children have so far studied in Russian, are concerned.
The Chancellor has said that if a Russian-speaking child needs additional support when studying in Estonian, this does not mean that a pupil whose mother tongue is Estonian can be left uninstructed and unsupported.
For non-Estonian-speaking students, learning in Estonian can be difficult at times. The success of instructed and supported learning depends on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of school staff. It is important that the school environment as a whole should support instruction in Estonian, encourage young people to learn Estonian and show interest in Estonian culture, history and current events. When living in Estonia, one needs to know Estonian.
Transition to instruction in Estonian is compatible with the Constitution. The Constitution does not enshrine the right to request that the state should provide basic education in another language (see Supreme Court order in case No 3-23-2480; the Chancellor’s opinion to the Supreme Court on “The language of instruction in public school”). According to the Constitution, the official language of Estonia is Estonian and children are entitled to free basic education in Estonian. Nor does it follow from international law binding on Estonia that a child or a young person should be guaranteed free basic education in their mother tongue which is not the official language.
Children and young people with disabilities who do not speak Estonian are entitled to receive education that supports their ability to cope in the Estonian-speaking environment and participate in society equally with others. Thus, the transition to instruction in Estonian is also in the interests of children and young people with disabilities (see the Chancellor’s opinion on “Transition to instruction in Estonian”).
When organising studies, the abilities of pupils in need of support must be taken into account. If properly supported, the vast majority of children with special educational needs are able to learn in a language other than their mother tongue. It is necessary to use a teaching methodology appropriate to the child’s development, as well as make greater adjustments in teaching and learning. The law has also taken into account the interests of children and young people who, due to their disability, are unable to learn in Estonian.
Organisation of the online test examination and final examinations
In April, an online test examination in Estonian was organised for basic school leavers. During the examination, pupils were given the opportunity to use the combined dictionary of the Estonian Language Institute’s language portal Sõnaveeb as a reference material, but not the dictionary of standard Estonian, Õigekeelsussõnaraamat.
In her letter to the Education and Youth Board, the Chancellor recalled that the basis for standard written language is the latest dictionary of standard Estonian. Written work in the Estonian language as a subject in the syllabus must follow the orthographic rules, and the teacher must evaluate a pupil’s work on the basis of the norms for standard written Estonian.
The Chancellor found that if reference material is to be made available to pupils during the basic school final examination in Estonian, it must be the latest dictionary of standard Estonian, Õigekeelsussõnaraamat (ÕS) or its online version. Reference material at an examination must be unequivocally clear for a pupil.
According to the Ministry of Education and Research, the standing recommendation is to provide pupils access only to the dictionary of standard Estonian during the online examination.
An examination may be undertaken in writing on paper or electronically in the test database, or orally. This is decided by the Minister of Education and Research for each subject for the following academic year by 25 May at the latest. If the minister establishes an electronic form for the written part of the exams in these subjects, then basic school graduates must be able to prepare for the electronic examination.
Computer literacy has become increasingly essential over time, which must be taken into account by schools when organising studies. Basic education must give a pupil the opportunity for self-realisation according to their abilities. The task of the school is to offer all pupils the opportunity to learn how to use a computer well, so that they can also perform learning tasks on a computer. The ability to use a computer is one of the general competences whose acquisition must be supported in order for a pupil to be able, among other things, to make learning more efficient.
The Chancellor of Justice found that although pupils who have completed an informatics curriculum may have better computer skills, in abstract terms this does not give any advantage to an examinee. It is important that all pupils should be able to familiarise themselves with both the structure and form of an examination before the examination itself. The structure and form of an examination must not come as a surprise to a pupil during the examination.
Equal conditions for graduation, including the same exceptions, must be established for pupils with the same level of education. Different conditions may be established for graduating from basic school than apply to graduation from upper secondary school (see the opinion on “Basic school graduation conditions“). In graduating from upper secondary school, it is possible to replace the state examination in a foreign language with an internationally recognised examination, but no such opportunity is laid down in graduating from basic school.
Since, in graduating from upper secondary school, it has been considered possible to replace a foreign language examination with an internationally recognised examination, it may be considered appropriate to introduce a similar possibility for basic school graduates. The Chancellor also forwarded this position to the Ministry of Education and Research, which prepares draft legislation concerning the organisation of general education.
Supporting children with special needs in school and kindergarten
The Chancellor of Justice received a letter from parents whose child had been left without a support person according to a decision of the rural municipality government, although the child still needed the help of a support person at school. The child had been receiving the support person service for more than two years and it was clear that the child’s need for assistance had not changed during the school year. Nor was the necessary assistance ensured through support provided by the school. Because of this, the child had to be absent from school for some time.
The Chancellor emphasised that the task of the rural municipality government is to arrange the necessary assistance for the child through either the social or educational system, or both. At the same time, the rural municipality government was both the owner of the school and the organiser of social services for the municipality’s residents. The Chancellor recalled that the rural municipality government is responsible for ensuring that assistance offered to a child is not interrupted. Even if the rural municipality government is convinced that the child should receive assistance from the education system, it must continue supporting the child through the social system until the school is ready to adequately support the child.
Thus, the Chancellor asked the rural municipality government to make a new decision to resolve the matter and to provide the child with the necessary assistance. The municipality took the Chancellor’s recommendation into account.
One parent was concerned that their children did not receive speech therapy in kindergarten. The parent was dissatisfied that the rural municipality was willing to reimburse them only part of the expenses they had incurred in obtaining the assistance of a speech therapist for their children.
According to the law, a child is entitled to free speech therapy in kindergarten. This opportunity must be created by the owner of the kindergarten, i.e. the local authority. The shortage of speech therapists does not relieve the city or rural municipality of this task. If the owner of the kindergarten fails to fulfil the task, i.e. fails to arrange the assistance of a speech therapist, it must reimburse the parent for the costs of a speech therapist’s appointment incurred by the parent.
The municipality government resolved this problem in the course of the Chancellor’s proceedings. The Chancellor also recommended that the municipality government reimburse the costs of the speech therapist’s appointment incurred by the parent. The municipality government followed the Chancellor’s recommendation.
Children and health
The amount of daily in-patient fee
The Chancellor of Justice was contacted by a parent who had to pay a fairly high (caregiver’s) in-patient fee so that they could stay in the hospital with the child to whom they wanted to offer essential support during treatment. In view of the child’s situation, the parent considered that asking for such a fee was unfair to them and the child and failed to take into account the child’s needs.
During a child’s hospital treatment, part of the child’s health service benefit also includes the in-patient fee for accommodation for the child’s caregiver (parent or other trusted next of kin). The amount of the fee has been established by the Government of the Republic in its regulation on “The list of health services of the Health Insurance Fund”.
The established procedure is based on the assumption that children acquire the necessary skills at the latest at the age specified in the regulation (by the age of 8 during rehabilitation treatment, by the age of 10 during other hospital treatment, and children with severe or profound mobility or multiple disabilities by the age of 16), so that they can independently cope with the disease, hospitalisation and the accompanying stress. Children who do not fit within these age limits can only be hospitalised with their parent if the parent themselves pays the hospital for accommodation.
In terms of equal treatment, it is important that the needs of each child are taken into account during treatment and not their age, since age may not be an indicator of a child’s ability to cope with stress. Nor is age the only criterion in terms of coping with hospital experience. For example, a chronically ill seven-year-old child may be sufficiently accustomed to being in hospital and not need a parent by their side around the clock. At the same time, a child in their early teens may need the support of a loved one due to their first-time experience, trauma-induced shock, and other comorbidities (e.g., a child with autism). Nor can a difference in treatment be justified solely on the basis of the severity or type of disability. For example, a child with visual, auditory, intellectual or other disabilities may need the support of a loved one during hospitalisation in the same way as a child with a severe or profound mobility impairment or multiple disabilities. Children in a similar situation must be treated in a similar way.
Based on these reasons, the Chancellor of Justice proposed to the Government of the Republic that the regulation "List of health services of the Health Insurance Fund" be brought into line with § 12 and § 27(3) and (4) and § 28(1) and (4) of the Constitution insofar as these provisions do not guarantee every child the right to be in hospital with next of kin, if this is the best solution in the interests of the child.
The Prime Minister tasked the Ministry of Social Affairs with resolving the situation. The Ministry of Social Affairs informed the Chancellor that amendments to the regulation will be prepared and will enter into force no later than 1 January 2025.
Prevention and promotion
The Chancellor’s task as Ombudsman for Children involves raising awareness of the rights of children and ensuring that children can actively participate in the life of society. The Ombudsman for Children initiates analytical studies and surveys of the situation of the rights of the child and, on this basis, makes recommendations for improving the situation. The Ombudsman for Children represents the rights of children in the law-making process and organises a variety of training events and seminars on the rights of the child.
Traditionally, meetings of the Ombudsman for Children with children and young people have played an important role in promoting children’s rights. Hundreds of children and young people also visited the Chancellor’s Office during the past reporting year: children from Kaarli School, Rocca al Mare School, Vanalinna Hariduskolleegium, Tallinn state upper secondary schools and Tilsi Family House, as well as young people related to the Fridays for Future movement.
The Chancellor’s advisers participated in the events of the Estonian School Student Councils’ Union and the Estonian National Youth Council and introduced the work of the Chancellor of Justice at Tallinn Tõnismäe State Upper Secondary School, Haabneeme School and Kuie School of the Estonian Open Air Museum. At Mustamäe Upper Secondary School, the Chancellor gave a speech at the ceremony marking the anniversary of the Republic of Estonia.
What is positive, is the will and ability of children and young people to have a say in issues important for them. Last autumn, two young advisers to the Ombudsman for Children took part in the Athens Democracy Forum where a discussion group with young people was organised for the first time. Young people from several countries discussed climate justice and active citizenship with adults.
International cooperation project on alternative care
The Office of the Chancellor of Justice once again participated in the project “Let’s Talk Young” organised under the auspices of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC). This year, discussions with children and young people focused on alternative care. Fifteen young people aged 14–17 from all over Estonia participated in the project. Young people growing up in families and in alternative care institutions shared their thoughts.
During the meetings, the Chancellor’s advisers introduced their work to young people and listened to young people’s ideas and proposals. There were discussions with experts, and the Chancellor’s advisers talked about the rights of the child. The topic of mental health was introduced by clinical psychologist Sirje Rass and supervisor Aivar Simmermann from the Moreno Centre. Ingrid Sindi, a lecturer at Tallinn University, spoke about participating in making decisions concerning one’s life and knowing one’s origin. Financial wisdom and scholarship application opportunities were introduced by Katrin Laks from SEB Pank and Triin Lumi from SEB Charity Fund. Discussions about the future were held with Dagnar Engel, who has won the Kuldne Kartul (Golden Potato) award for an exceptional young person with alternative care experience, and Marina Sepp from the Estonian Association of Alternative Care Workers. On the basis of these discussions, recommendations were put together by young people on how to better organise alternative care.
Young people suggested that every child in alternative care should have a life book in which pictures, videos and important documents from the child’s life are collected.
Young people were concerned that children would not always receive equal attention in alternative care. Being deprived of attention can affect a child’s behaviour and mental health. Young people wanted to be able to meet a trusted person in a safe environment at a scheduled time to talk about their concerns. Sometimes it is enough just to know that someone is there for the child.
According to young people, many rumours are circulating in communities and people are prejudiced against alternative care. In children’s opinion, parents and educators should learn to listen and trust children more, and not base their assessments on rumours and prejudices. Young people felt that child protection workers could be more interested in children’s well-being and talk to children.
Young people in alternative care often need the help of mental health professionals. Unfortunately, it happens that children are sent from one specialist to another, and then to a third and a fourth. It can take a long time to get an appointment with a new specialist and build a trusting relationship with them. Young people do not like to re-tell their story to a new person from the very beginning. Young people want specialists to have more diverse skills to offer advice and assistance, so that a young person should not have to go from one specialist to another.
For a young person in alternative care, physical integrity is an important issue. Based on their experience, the young people explained that some young girls and boys only tell their peers about being sexually abused. Young people feel it is necessary that adults in alternative care be able to talk to them about sexuality-related topics; teach young people how to say 'no' and help them seek help if they have been abused. At the same time, young people in alternative care feel that they are often not allowed to decide about their bodies and appearance in the same way as other young people.
Two young people presented the proposals of Estonian youth at the ENOC young advisors gathering in Slovakia. Based on the opinions of young people, European ombudsmen for children will draw up proposals on how to make alternative care more child-friendly. Proposals from Estonian young people have already been presented to the members of the Estonian Association of Children’s and Youth Welfare Institutions. Young advisers also plan to submit proposals to the Minister of Social Protection and other actors in the field of alternative care.
Perhaps the thoughts, experiences and suggestions of young people will help alternative care professionals better understand the needs, joys, and concerns of young people.
Young advisers to the Chancellor of Justice participated in responding to a petition about bullying at school. A parent whose child was bullied at school wrote to the Chancellor of Justice. The parent thought it would help the child if the child received supportive messages from both children and adults. Young people sent good wishes, which they themselves would like to hear if they had been hurt, to the child who had suffered bullying.
Information materials, training and debates
The Chancellor’s advisers help to prepare video and printed materials introducing the rights of the child. During the reporting year, in cooperation between the Chancellor’s Office and health professionals, a guide was prepared on “Assessing a child-patient’s decision-making capacity in provision of healthcare services“. The guide explains in which cases a healthcare professional is required to assess the decision-making capacity of a patient under the age of 18 and how this should be done.
Usually, the child and the parent make decisions concerning the child’s health together, by discussion between themselves. In such cases, there is no need for a health professional to assess the child’s decision-making capacity. The need to assess a child’s decision-making capacity arises primarily when, for some reason, the child does not wish the parents to be aware of an issue or it is not possible to contact the parents. The completed guide advises healthcare professionals on how to deal with such situations.
The Chancellor’s adviser Kristi Paron presented the guide at the general meeting of the Estonian Gynaecologists Society in May and to family doctors at an information day of the Health Insurance Fund. The adviser wrote about child-friendly healthcare in the nurses’ magazine Eesti Õde and about assessing the child patient’s decision-making capacity together with Marje Oona, Associate Professor of family medicine, in the family doctors’ magazine Perearst. On 13 March, an adviser to the Chancellor of Justice participated in the webinar “Lapsed ja tervis“ (Children and health) organised by the Social Insurance Board, where she spoke about legal issues in relation to a child patient.
The Chancellor’s young advisers translated into Estonian the summary of General Comment No 26 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This summary is prepared for children and deals with the impact of environmental and climate change on children’s rights. Young people also prepared illustrations for the summary. In this comment, the Committee explains that children have the right to live in a clean, healthy and biologically diverse environment, so that their human rights are guaranteed. The Committee impresses on countries the need to assess the impact on children and future generations of decisions on environmental and climate change.
The Chancellor sent the summary of the general comment, translated and illustrated by young people, to ministers and organisations dealing with the topic. Those interested can find the summary on the Chancellor of Justice’s website.
The Chancellor’s advisers constantly train specialists working with children. During the reporting year, study days were organised for child protection workers, judicial clerks, doctors, psychologists, child psychiatrists and employees of several establishments for children.
An adviser to the Chancellor of Justice participated in a debate on children’s privacy at the Opinion Festival.
Overview to the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child
Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is monitored by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to which countries must submit regular reports about the situation of the rights of children. Based on these reports, the Committee assesses how the rights of the child are guaranteed and makes recommendations to the country for improving the situation.
The Estonian government submitted its report on implementation of the Convention to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in May 2023. The Chancellor of Justice also prepared an overview of the situation of children’s rights in Estonia.
The Chancellor submitted her report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in August 2023. In November 2023, Estonian children and young people also submitted their report on the situation of the rights of the child to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
On the initiative and under the aegis of the Chancellor’s Office, a report was prepared by the children’s rights ambassadors of the Union for Child Welfare. In drafting the report, children and young people were supported by advisers from the Children’s and Youth Rights Department of the Chancellor’s Office and staff of the Union for Child Welfare.
In February 2024, youth representatives met in Geneva with members of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, discussing important topics for Estonian children. This was the first time that Estonian children submitted their messages to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
To collect children’s ideas, workshops were organised for introducing to children of different ages their rights and explore what could be improved in their lives. Workshops were organised for children in several regions of Estonia. Discussions were held in schools and kindergartens, at meetings of children’s and youth organisations, at the opinion festival, and conversations took place with children in alternative care and children who had fled from Ukraine to Estonia.
The workshops were mostly led by children’s rights ambassadors, who were supported by staff from the Office of the Chancellor of Justice and the Union for Child Welfare. The suggestions and thoughts expressed by the children participating in the workshops were collected anonymously. An anonymous online questionnaire was also opened, which could be answered in both Estonian and Russian. Schools and youth centres were informed about the possibility to answer the questions, a call was published in the media and on social media, and the event was also presented at the annual conference of the Union for Child Welfare, as well as in the frame of the programme on the rights of the child featured at the Black Nights Film Festival.
In workshops and through the online survey, nearly a thousand children and young people shared their thoughts. Based on the children’s thoughts, in the animation school of the children’s studio of the non-profit association Nukufilm the ambassadors of the rights of the child also prepared a video clip, which has been translated into Russian and English.
In spring 2024, under the aegis of the Children’s and Youth Rights Department of the Chancellor’s Office, the children’s rights ambassadors also presented children’s thoughts and the overview to the prevention council. Meetings were held with several ministers and ministry officials (the ministers of Social Protection, Health, Culture, Education and Research and their teams) to find solutions to children’s concerns.
In June 2024, the Committee sent to Estonia its recommendations on how better to ensure the rights of the child. Many of the Committee’s recommendations were based on the observations and recommendations in the reports by the Chancellor of Justice, NGOs and children.
The Chancellor of Justice plans to monitor how government agencies implement the Committee’s recommendations.
Programme on the rights of the child at the Black Nights Film Festival
The children’s rights programme as part of youth and children’s films (Just Film) featured at the Black Nights Film Festival for the thirteenth time. The programme was once again prepared in cooperation between several organisations (the Chancellor of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, the Social Insurance Board, and the Estonian Union for Child Welfare) and, as has become a tradition, children and young people were also invited to help select the films.
The children’s rights programme opened on 4 November with the Estonian premiere of the domestic documentary “Kellele ma naeratan?” (Who am I smiling at?). Screening of the opening film was followed by a discussion on family relations and child protection. Indrek Vaheoja, the ambassador of the children’s rights programme, and the filmmakers spoke about the film with the audience.
Traditionally, the authors of the programme contributed to collaboration with teachers to encourage them to come to the cinema with pupils and discuss films in school lessons. Before the festival, the organisers introduced the programme of children’s and youth films in 29 schools. The organisers prepared worksheets to support discussions about five of the films screened in the programme and sent them to the teachers, who went to see these films with their pupils. In addition, schools were able to invite programme makers to schools to carry out discussions about a film. This time, two schools took advantage of this opportunity. 150 pupils participated in discussions.
A total of 2603 cinema lovers went to see the films in the special programme on the rights of children.
Merit awards event “Lastega ja lastele”
The Ombudsman for Children can further contribute to making society more child-friendly by helping children and young people speak out on issues important for them and by recognising those children and young people who have done something remarkable for other children.
Under the leadership of the Chancellor’s Office, the television programme “Lastega ja lastele“ (With and For Children) was produced: this was aired on TV3 on 1 June. Programme hosts Otto and Aksel Kahar explored the life and well-being of Estonian children. In addition to children and young people, President Alar Karis and Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise also spoke on the programme.
International cooperation
International cooperation also plays an important role in promoting the rights of the child. Meetings and discussions with colleagues from other countries offer an opportunity to learn from colleagues and exchange knowledge.
On 3-4 June, the Chancellor of Justice hosted the spring seminar of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC). The seminar was attended by 60 ombudsmen and specialists from a total of 33 European countries. On the first day, the situation of the rights of children in alternative care was discussed, experiences were shared and preparations were made to form the network’s position on the subject. The second day focused on the rights of children whose parent or other next of kin is in prison. Specialists from Children of Prisoners Europe (COPE) shared their knowledge and experience on this topic with ombudsmen for children.
The Chancellor’s Office helped to translate into Estonian the COPE online survey, seeking responses from children and young people whose parent or next of kin is or has been in prison. These children are in a particularly vulnerable situation and need understanding and support from adults. In cooperation with the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, and prisons, an opportunity was created for Estonian children and families to participate in this study. Children and young people were asked how they thought prison premises could be made more child-friendly and hospitable.
Children taking part in the survey considered it important that they could also spend time with their parents playing outdoors or in the sports hall. It can be difficult for children to see their imprisoned parent leave the meeting, which is why they wanted to be able to leave the visiting room before the parent at the end of the visit. The bars in front of the windows of the visiting rooms were intimidating for children, and they would like to have more pictures on the walls.
The Children’s and Youth Rights Department of the Chancellor’s Office was visited by representatives of the Latvian Child Welfare Union. The Chancellor’s advisers explained to the guests how children and young people participate in the work of the Chancellor of Justice.
Inspection visits
Viru Prison
During the reporting year, the Chancellor of Justice scrutinised detention conditions in Viru Prison. The Chancellor complimented Viru Prison for the significant efforts it has made to improve organisation of visits. The prison’s waiting and visiting rooms are now more child-friendly and comfortable. Children who come to the meeting are searched differently from before. Officers are friendly and supportive with children. In prison, the opportunity to take pictures together has been created. Capturing the time spent together with the parent is important for children and also supports the return to society of parents in prison.
Although the prison has made significant changes to the organisation of visits, the issue of the fee for long-term visits remains unresolved. The Chancellor is still of the opinion that the fee imposed on long-term visits is not conducive to visits. The fee charged for a visit turns the right to a visit into a privilege that less well-off families cannot afford or can rarely afford. In particular, charging such a fee may affect the situation of a child who, as a result, is unable to exercise their right to regular and direct contact with their parent in prison.
According to the Chancellor’s assessment, a parent in prison should be able to wear their own clothes instead of prison uniform when meeting their child. This would help alleviate the strict and punitive impression of the prison in the eyes of children. Meeting with a parent wearing ordinary clothes would help a child to maintain, and in some cases also create, as positive an image of their parent as possible. This would enable a prisoner to feel dignified as a parent even while in prison and would thus promote a prisoner’s communication with the world outside and support a prisoner’s reintegration into society.
During the reporting year, the Chancellor also had to resolve a number of misunderstandings due to which, for example, children could not meet with their parent in prison or the parent could not call from prison. The Chancellor of Justice considered it understandable that children may not be available by phone at the time when calls take place in prison. It may therefore be justified to allow a prisoner to make such calls at a different time than usual. When deciding on requests to call children, the prison must take into account the interests of children, among other circumstances. However, in prison conditions, it must be taken into account that the phone might not always be accessible at the exact time requested or for the same length of time as at liberty.
The department for children and adolescents at the North Estonia Medical Centre
In the past reporting year, the Chancellor of Justice inspected the work of the department for children and adolescents at the North Estonia Medical Centre. The inspection revealed that children and adolescents are often restrained in the acute treatment unit of the psychiatric clinic of the North Estonia Medical Centre. This led the Chancellor to ask the hospital to find ways to avoid mechanical restraint of minors. If restraining a minor is unavoidable and still necessary as a measure of last resort, it should instead be arranged in the clinic’s department for children and adolescents. The Chancellor also drew attention to this in 2019.
The Chancellor has explained that if the hospital to which a child is taken has a child psychiatry department, then the child should be treated separately from adults. In the department of child psychiatry, it is possible to offer children an environment adapted to their needs. Also, the segregation of children and adults in separate departments helps reduce the risk of child abuse.
Closed childcare institutions
The Chancellor of Justice inspected the Nõmme tee facility of the Tallinn Centre for Children at Risk and the Youth Home of the Hiiumaa Social Centre, where young people receive the closed childcare institution service.
In both institutions, the supportive and empathetic attitude of the staff towards young people left a very good impression. While, in addition to social pedagogues, psychologists and medical nurses also work at the Nõmme tee facility, unfortunately no such support was provided in the youth home. The healthcare expert participating in the visits stressed that the staff in both facilities should work more closely with a young person’s treatment team.
The Chancellor found that, in fact, for several young people participation in the social programme offered at the Nõmme tee facility was not voluntary. This led the Chancellor to ask to be ensured that only those young people join the social programme who are really ready to receive and participate in this service. A voluntary-based service cannot be imposed or provided under pressure.
The living conditions at the youth home were not suitable for clients with challenging behaviour and did not ensure them safe living. The Nõmme tee facility must ensure that the doors of the toilets and showers can be locked from the inside (for example, with a thumb turn lock), so that staff can quickly open the door from the outside if necessary.
Separation of a young person receiving the closed childcare institution service from others must be carried out in accordance with the requirements laid down by law. A young person may be held in a seclusion room until they calm down, but not longer than three hours, and the stay in a seclusion room must also be documented. A young person and their belongings may be inspected only if a reasonable suspicion exists that they are in possession of prohibited substances or objects.
Some of the children brought into the youth home behave defiantly and aggressively. Unfortunately, the youth home team lacked the necessary training to deal with young people behaving aggressively. The sense of security and willingness to work of some of the employees at the Nõmme tee facility had decreased significantly due to serious incidents. The Chancellor offered solutions on how the staff’s sense of security could be restored and increased. Among other things, it is necessary to constantly offer training and mental health support to staff, especially after resolving difficult situations.
The Chancellor asked that the Nõmme tee facility make sure that a young person can always address their concerns to an employee of the same sex as them. Young people who find themselves in difficult situations should also be dealt with by staff of the same sex as them. Some measures taken against young people, such as collective punishments, are not lawful. Communication based on punishment and restrictions does not support rehabilitation of young people.