The comment “may cause irritation”, warned Rutte. He received scornful reactions from affected parents in the public gallery. SP leader Lilian Marijnissen also reacted frustrated. According to the socialist, youth caregivers indicate that these decisions are not made carefully because they do not have enough time and resources. Sometimes parents are not heard either, Marijnissen said.
Rutte acknowledged to her that youth care ‘does not work smoothly’, that mistakes are made and that the system has vulnerabilities that are being worked on.
The prime minister said the government in this affair has not been “a shield for the weak, on the contrary”. A deprivation of liberty is an “absolute nightmare.” If possible, children and parents should be reunited as soon as possible, or at least get in touch again, Rutte believes, just like the House.
For the time being, Rutte does not want to give persistence to the support team that helps parents of children who are placed outside the home, as part of the Folketing wants. He thinks the team that has been busy for a few weeks should have a chance.
If the team gets perseverance now, you will completely break into the system. It will only lead to delays, “Rutte said in the debate on placements outside the home of parents affected by the unemployment benefit affair.
The House of Representatives reacted angrily to placements outside the home of children after the unemployment benefit affair. MEPs from left to right insist on better protection for parents and children at risk of being detained. VVD also gained traction because it delegated a member of parliament who spoke for the first time in the plenary hall, where tradition is not questioned.
“This is the tip of the iceberg of human suffering caused by placement outside the home,” said Member of Parliament Omtzigt. “The rule of law was not a shield for them, but a meat grinder.” On Thursday, the House will debate with, among others, Prime Minister Rutte about custody in connection with the unemployment benefit case.
Statistics this week (CBS) has calculated that 1,675 children of parents affected by the benefit case were placed outside their homes in the period from 2015 to 2021. This is higher than the previously published figure of 1115 placed children outside the home. The figure is higher because Statistics Denmark previously only had data for the period from 2015 to 2020, and moreover, more victims have emerged in the meantime.
“Recognize that this drama is caused by the government,” said PvdA MP Arib. She emphasizes that there are still almost no children left with their parents. “How is it possible that so little is happening? This cabinet should be deeply and deeply ashamed of itself. ” PVV MP Maeijer finds it impossible to explain that the victims have to make do with ‘a support team without persistence’.
GL MP Westerveld also speaks shamefully about placements outside the home. “The way it is going is appalling, there is hardly any legal assistance to parents. There was a lack of attention and support here. ” Omtzigt requires a better investigation of the problems. “The state that takes children, sometimes with more police officers. No child has returned, not a single child. “
“The suffering of children removed from their familiar environment is unthinkable,” says D66 MP Van Beukering. She wants work to be done on the return of children as soon as possible: “It is important to do justice to the children and parents involved.”
The coalition parties also insist on more preventive efforts before a child is even placed outside the home. “Help the family in, not the child out,” sums up CDA MP Peters. “Placement outside the home can be prevented if one prevents livelihood in the family.” CU MP Ceder wants to know if it is also possible not to place the child, but the parent out of the home.
There was some dismay over the contribution from VVD. Member of Parliament Verkuijlen gave his ‘maiden speech’, the first contribution in the plenary session of the House of Representatives, where it is customary for other political groups not to interrupt. Among others, Marijnissen, Westerveld and Omtzigt made it a point that they did not think it fit into this debate, but Chamber President Bergkamp and Verkuijlen would stick to the tradition. The parents who followed the debate in the stands then left the room in protest.