“We did not listen enough and cared for our children in the families that faced major recoveries”

LONGREAD CREATED TO STUDY INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM IN 2022/2023

‍The conclusion of the CBS report of January 2023 should not have read: “The benefits affair did not increase the chance of a child protection measure”, but: “We did not listen enough and cared for our vulnerable families.” And that is sad.

‍CBS research dated 30/1/2023 indicates that 2,090 removals took place. The number of displacements among victims would also be almost the same as a percentage of a CBS comparison group of 4100 people. Is the picture that has been painted that there is little or no connection between being duped by the surcharges and relocations? For this study, I examined the CBS figures in more detail, had contact with top statistician Richard Gill, spoke to parents whose children were removed from home, and did research online.

Does origin play a role in the risk of being evicted?

According to the CBS, origin, in particular, is clearly related to the risk of being duped. Of people who were not affected by the benefits affair, 78 percent were born in the Netherlands themselves, as were both parents. Among those affected by the benefits affair, this is 29 percent. It is also known that this characteristic played a role in the benefits affair. Surinamese applicants and applicants from the Dutch Caribbean in particular seem strongly overrepresented in the group of victims. To a slightly lesser extent, this also applies to applicants with a Turkish or Moroccan background. The age at birth of the first (legal) child is also strongly related to duress. More than half of the victims were relatively young (under 25 years old) when the first child was born. Among non-victims, this is 12 percent. Age at birth of the first child is also quite strongly related to the risk of child protection measures being imposed in the family (people who had a child at a relatively young age have a higher chance of coming into contact with child protection measures). Applicants without a partner (married or unmarried) are also overrepresented in the group of victims and in the group of people who come into contact with child protection measures. Victims are more likely to be women, are relatively young, live more often in South Holland and live in very urban areas. 70% of the affected parents are single mothers.

‍Age, birth, first child plays a major role in being imposed on child protection measures

‍The age at birth of the first (legal) child is also strongly related to suffering. More than half of the victims were relatively young (under 25 years old) when the first child was born. Among non-victims, this is 12 percent. Age at birth of the first child is also quite strongly related to the risk of child protection measures being imposed in the family (people who had a child at a relatively young age have a higher chance of coming into contact with child protection measures). Applicants without a partner (married or unmarried) are also overrepresented in the group of victims and in the group of people who come into contact with child protection measures.

‍Drop stitches? “This nuances the picture” that there is a “causal relationship” between duping and eviction, writes Minister Franc Weerwind (Legal Protection, D66) in a letter to the House of Representatives. The minister confuses two things with this reasoning, says Ido Weijers, emeritus professor of juvenile justice and youth protection. According to him, no distinction is made between less invasive measures such as undersupervision and drastic measures such as relocation. Weijers: “This shift from focus on relocations to minor interference with youth protection does not allow conclusions about the relationship between the Benefits affair and evictions.” He hopes that the announced follow-up investigation “will really look at individual files in terms of content”. And then “specifically to the removals”. Did the CBS make any mistakes? Not entirely, thinks university lecturer Joost Huijer, who obtained his PhD on justifying child protection measures. According to him, the institute is now experiencing the adverse effects of the fact that “the number of displacements in the past ten to twenty years has hardly been registered”. Inspector General of the Justice & Security Inspectorate Henk Korvinus says in a telephone conversation that parents sometimes voluntarily agree to a relocation. Korvinus: “We are consulting files to see exactly how the relocations went.” For example, the Inspectorate wants to investigate the degree of voluntariness.

Research notes

With these figures, a more up-to-date picture is available of the number of displaced children of those affected by the benefits affair. Like the previously published tables, this update has a number of caveats:

• Because CBS does not have data on the actual displacements imposed, the approach was taken at children who have both a youth protection measure and a youth assistance program with a stay (so the child does not live at home).
• Situations where a child has been removed from home without a youth protection measure formally pronounced by the court remain out of the picture. The CBS has no information about the size of this group.
• Where the child will actually live after the removal is with the available data unchartable.
• The CBS only has databases on youth care since 2015. The benefits affair covers a longer period, but it is only with the introduction of the new Youth Act in 2015 that youth care providers are obliged to provide data about the youth assistance and youth protection provided to the CBS.
• When these tables are published, the figures on youth care for the last available six months are still provisional. These are usually slightly lower than the final figures, but the picture is similar (see the recent publication about youth care (for more information). The used figures on youth care for the first half of 2022, the further provisional figures are. These were published on November 30 and replace the provisional figures (as published on October 31) after an honest response showed that local preliminary figures on youth protection were far too low. The response received about youth assistance and juvenile probation was also included in the further preliminary figures (although its effects on the figures are very limited).
• ‍

Further information about the research:

• The UHT file received in October 2022 is the basis of this research. To do this, UHT first looked at the victims who were known at that time. A person is registered as a victim when they have received a formal order from the tax authorities stating that he/she is a victim and/or has received an amount of 30 thousand euros as a result of the Catshuis Childcare Allowance Scheme. Not all of these people have yet been fully treated with the file to find out to what extent they have been duped.
• This file lists all children who are related by UHT to (a victim of) the allowance affair. More specifically, we look at recognized children, children for whom childcare allowance has been applied for and/or children for whom a child-related budget has been requested by the affected parent.
• The CBS has not investigated the causes of the relocation, because it does not have the files that underlie decisions to relocate.
• By municipality and youth region, the total number of children of victims who were minors in the period 2015-end of June 2022 is also shown. Children who were not yet born during this period or who were over 18 years old are not included because, by definition, they could not be removed from home during those years.
• To prevent people from being recognisable or traceable, in this study, results are rounded to fifteen and figures below 10 are subsequently not shown. As a result, numbers do not always add up to the total number of displaced children.
• The CBS emphasizes that it never provides information about individuals, or that can be traced back to individuals.

Finally, a bright spot in the ongoing Allowance affair. Or not? Families affected by the Allowance Affair did not face child protection measures more often than comparable, unaffected families. Last week, that was the conclusion of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), which, on behalf of the Justice and Security Inspectorate research into this has gedaan.Dat isn't the whole story. The question that should have been answered more specifically, say two youth protection experts, is to what extent the Benefits affair was a direct reason for the eviction of children. CBS figures previously announced that at least 1,675 children from affected families have been removed from their families. The question arose whether there is a causal relationship between the Benefits affair and those relocations. The CBS report does not answer that question. A “grave loss”, according to experts. CBS counters that the 4,100 files of affected families only included “a few dozen” removals. Such a small number says “statistically [speaking] too little”. The CBS looked at all child protection measures, such as undersupervision. The study showed that allowance families and comparable unaffected families come into contact with youth protection equally often: around 4 percent. The families are comparable when looking at thirty characteristics, including family composition, socio-economic circumstances (lowest income group, debt problems), ethnicity and age at birth of the first child.

‍CHILDREN'S JUDGE BART TROMP FINDS RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS PREMATURE AND URGES INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

‍When this' investigation 'was announced in November 2021 by the then Minister Dekker (Legal Protection), we had already predicted in advance that the report by this instance to be precise this would lead to a conclusion. That was pretty much included in the research question that Dekker asked.

(1)“And indeed, it appears that the affected families were already vulnerable before the benefits affair and that the benefits affair therefore did not matter.”

‍By the way, the affected group of allowance parents was more than four times more likely to receive a child protection measure than for parents from the general Dutch population. The fact that the benefits affair would not have had an impact after all smells like condoning, which we should be careful about, because no distinction was made between the extent to which families were affected by the benefits affair (50 or 50,000 euro recovery?) , whether the accumulation of risks had an influence, and the nature of child protection measures (was there eviction?). In addition, dry data does not reflect the whole reality behind the figures. For these and other reasons, children's judge Bart Tromp also finds the CBS' conclusion premature and criticizes the method of the investigation and the lack of independence on the part of the client (the Ministry of Justice and Security).

(How should we look at the CBS report? Vulnerable families

‍First of all, the report shows that a comparison has been made between two groups that both actually belong to the same group of highly vulnerable families. With regard to the comparison criteria tested by CBS, CBS provides an enormous laundry list of problems: a suspect in the family, mental health problems, low education, three or more children, having children at an early age, single-parent family, etc. These families also belong to the lowest income category and were not always able to pay for their health insurance.In short, these are families that we should worry about and protect preventively. The opposite appears to have happened: they were duped by the benefits affair and their children were often taken out of their homes with the police, in good condition. English 'a double whammy' (double whammy). The fact that they were equally likely to receive a child protection measure compared to non-victims means nothing, at most that they did not receive the help they needed when they received the afterclaims. And that's bad enough.

‍Inadequately protected

‍It defines our system: the most vulnerable are not adequately protected and we more often protect the least vulnerable, such as large companies that were criticized by the tax authorities 'rulings' (mutual agreements) get away. If not the vulnerable families, none for them 'rulings'. This is because the tax authorities and the Youth Protection systems are systems that do what they need to do. The English cyberneticist Stafford Beers already indicated in 1972 that you can't blame systems for that; they do what they have to do. But, Beers said, to deal with a complex environment, systems must have sufficient internal flexibility (variability). And that's the problem: in our systems, the tax authorities, youth protection and many municipalities do not work together enough and are sometimes not flexible. (We could set up systems differently. The Care Ethics (Ethics of Care) by Tronto (1993) gives us instructions on how to organize our systems differently. Ethics of Care is about personal, social, moral and political responsibility for each other, because we are interdependent.

‍System reality

‍By the way, it is precisely that system thinking that is the problem. The system often puts the system's effective and efficient work first. The test of whether something is correct then becomes the test of whether the system does what the system had previously set itself as a goal: a systemic reality. And that is exactly what is actually the case with this CBS report: if you test against (the same) assessment criteria that bring out the most vulnerable families, it is quite surprising that there is no difference in terms of outcome with the group that was hardest hit.

‍The conclusion of the CBS report is therefore a piece of paper truth if you don't address the question how it's because these families have been pushed over the edge.

‍We see that question empirically answered in practice: families who are unfairly criminalized as fraudsters and are hounded by the Collection to repay tens of thousands of euros, while these vulnerable families are just with help from the childcare allowance just made ends meet. For many families, it was the last straw that drove them to the abyss. Because don't forget: you're talking about families, mostly single-parent families, but not exclusively, who just have a profession had to do it at an additional cost.

‍Childcare was desperately needed for them because they also have to work full-time.

Care ethics

‍Care ethics is about listening to each other without making immediate judgments. The tax authorities envelope certainly doesn't do that, but recent studies into child protection placements also show that people are not listened to and opinions are often presented as facts (lying). The recent WODC report by Professor of Juvenile Law Mariëlle Bruning and others also shows that the children are also yourselves indicate that they believe that they are (far) too little listened to in drastic measures such as relocations and undersupervision. The report concluded that the prevention policy — the entire approach of the Youth Act 2015 — is failing. And this CBS report actually confirms that. Healthcare ethics is also about taking responsibility. There, too, our government fails in numerous cases: from gas extraction problems in Groningen to the nitrogen crisis and the benefits affair. According to health care ethics, what you should at least expect is competence and responsive government. If the same stripped-down government is not competent, because it hides too much behind others and when it does not respond to the needs of its citizens or responds too late (gas prices), it shows no respect and solidarity with the vulnerable citizen and loses its authority. If a child is not better off because of government intervention, that same government is not legitimized to break into fundamental rights and freedoms, as guaranteed in human rights treaties. Proposed article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees family life and the right to live your own family life behind your own front door. And then have we haven't even talked about the The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees, among other things, the law, education, good health care and a life without poverty for every Dutch child. The child must also not be separated from the biological parents against his or her will. And finally, we will come back to flexibility. Include multiple viewpoints in your system, as Stafford Beers mentioned in 1972. But our systems are often “all or nothing” (zero-sum game). This is an important shortcoming and one that is not in line with social reality, which is already complicated enough for vulnerable families.

The conclusion of the CBS report should not have been: “The benefits affair did not increase the chance of a child protection measure”, but: “We did not listen enough and cared for our vulnerable families.” And that is sad.

1. See “Investigation into evicting children from the benefits affair threatens to expertly cover mistakes” in Trouw of November 30, 2021 https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/onderzoek-naar-uithuisplaatsing-kinderen-van-de-toeslagenaffaire-dreigt-fouten-vakkundig-toe-te-dekken~b197eb67/
2. Source: https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/sociaal/de-conclusie-van-het-cbs-over-de-toeslagenaffaire-voorbarig
3. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228138437_Goals_Gone_Wild_The_Systematic_Side_Effects_of_Over-Prescribing_Goal_Setting
4. Source: https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/3194
5. Source: https://www.igj.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2022/06/27/feitenonderzoek-voorafgaand-aan-uithuisplaatsingen-van-kinderen
6. See the WODC Report Final Evaluation Act on Child Protection Measures: https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/3194/3169-eindevaluatie-wet-herziening-kinderbeschermingsmaatregelen-volledige-tekst.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The Inspectorate also concludes that specific groups of families were affected by the benefits affair. This conclusion is in line with previously shared insights from the CBS.24 Affected childcare allowance applicants were mostly women, often under the age of 25 when their first child was born. The large majority of those affected have a country other than the Netherlands as their country of origin. Other notable features are that there are more likely to be single-parent families, with a low or secondary education level, lower incomes and financial problems that are already being duped. The chance of being affected by the childcare allowance affair was most increased by the applicant's country of origin: applicants for childcare allowance with a non-Dutch origin were — depending on the specific country of origin — almost nine times more likely to be duped than applicants with the Netherlands as their country of origin.

‍Committee of Inquiry — At the request of the House, Franc Weerwind is setting up an independent committee of inquiry.

‍For this purpose, the following draft assignment was drawn up: “The committee's task is to investigate the relationship between the benefits affair and relocations (2004 to the present). In any case, the committee focuses its attention on: — insight into the sequence and coherence of factors that occurred among affected families who were affected by an eviction. — the impact of the coincidence between the benefits affair and the relocation on the lives of those directly involved, and in particular the extent to which contact between parents and children was affected. — the role of the government and other agencies involved.— how learned from this can be used for the future (preventing recurrence). — generic additional recommendations for recognition measures and how to implement them. The committee is asked to include the Support Team reports and the results of the inspection investigation. The committee is advised to set up a hotline where parents and children can tell their story and provide input”. I am pleased to announce that Mrs. Drs. Mariëtte Hamer has found her willingness to lead the committee as chairman.

‍Benito from East Groningen (21) fights for children in youth care. “Stop treating, start raising lovingly” Benito Walker (21) fights for children in youth care. They are listened to far too little, he says. Just like he wasn't listened to when he grew up in a foster family in East Groningen. “We have too little faith in children.”

‍Benito Walker Photo: Corné SparidaensMaaike Borst • March 25, 2023, 7:00pm

•It wasn't his fault that he was evicted from home. Benito Walker was two years old, his mother was an addict and couldn't take care of him. He was just a toddler who needed love and attention. Yet, in the foster home he ended up in, the fault was always on him. “I was approached as a problem, not as a person. I was given labels: “insecure attachment”, “autism”. I was treated, diagnosed. I wasn't seen. Everything I did was negative, it was never good enough.” In the disciplinary case that Walker later filed against his foster mother, the Supervisory Board of the Youth Quality Register (SKJ) ruled that his main complaint is well-founded: he was mentally abused and neglected where he should have been protected. ,, Then you feel very lonely as a child.” Jeugdzorg NederlandWalker is not alone. Countless studies and reports show that youth care in the Netherlands has been deficient for decades. Or worse: that children come out of youth care more damaged than they go in. It has to be different. For Benito Walker (21), his youth has become his driving force: youth care in this country needs to change dramatically and he will do what he can to help with that. Last year, as a board member of the National Youth Council, he participated in the Youth Reform Agenda that should improve youth assistance. Recently, he has also become a member of the Hamer committee, which investigates the removals of children of parents who are victims of the benefits affair.

Benito Walker Photo: Corné Sparidaens Giving young people a voice is what it's all about for him. Especially in youth care, but also in the rest of society. Walker is a personal advisor to the chairman of the national client council, chairman of Bureau Burgerberaad, member of D66 and co-founder of Youth for Climate NL. And, oh yes, if he has time to spare, he studies public administration in Leiden. “I love politics. I love the discussion, thinking about where to go with society. At school in Veendam, I also always participated in debate clubs and started discussions with teachers. School was great. The fact that I was very different at school than at home was seen by my foster parents as abnormal behavior. I was blamed. I've always thought: I'm different. I'm crazy.” It's a big step: starting a disciplinary case against your own foster mother. “She says I'm doing it out of vengeance. Because I would have attachment problems, it is logical for me to give a kick to my foster parents. But I am not a vindictive person. But there are six more children in that family and I do not think it is responsible to let them grow up there. That's why I started the business.” His foster parents have had a family home since he was sixteen, where six children have been cared for. The prerequisite for such a family home is that one of the parents is registered with the SKJ as a youth care professional. The SKJ Supervisory Board ruled in the Walker disciplinary case that his foster mother should be removed from the register and should never be registered again. “In my opinion, it has never happened before that a child files a disciplinary case himself and wins. Let alone impose such a severe measure. I think it's important that other young people know you can do this.” How was that statement for you? ,, I'm not a very emotional guy, but everything came out. What I've experienced, what I've felt, how I've been mentally trampled by the system, which was recognized. Very nice. But it wasn't a win. It also means finding a different place for those children. I'm not taking that lightly.” His foster mother has appealed, the verdict is likely in April. At least until then, the children will stay in the family.Benito Walker Photo: Corné Sparidaens

‍

‍CONCLUSIONS

• The number of children displaced from home is higher than that included in the CBS figures. Currently, more than 61,000 parents have registered as victims, of which only 29,000 have received recognition. The tax authorities are unable to recognize these parents because the influx is too large to manage. By default, the applications are rejected and already have a waiting period of 2 to 3 years because the notices of default sent through the Court have priority. In this group, I spoke to a number of mothers with displaced children.
• The figures do not include the period 2005 to 2015. The figures from 2015 to 2022 assume an average influx of displaced children of 175 children. Given the consistency of the influx, it is statistically likely that around 1750 additional children were removed from home in the period 2005 to 2015.

CURRENT FIGURES

‍New CBS figures will be available soon.

Franc Weerwind has requested a biannual analysis up to 2024. 29,000 parents have currently been recognized, 7,000 more than when reporting on 22/11/2022, with an error of 30/1/2023.

‍

‍ARTICLE VOLKSKRANT March 27, 2023 about the specially created Support Team

• “Only 300 allowance parents receive help to repair contact with their children who have been displaced from home”.
• Only 11 children returned home through the mediation.
• Five new removals were prevented thanks to the team.
• The government has failed to provide the most complete list possible of whose children have been placed out of their homes in the past 15 years.
• This list will be available after the summer at the earliest and a special law is needed regarding privacy sensitivity.

KEY QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED

‍The exact relationship between being affected by the benefits affair and the evictions has still not been fully answered. An in-depth follow-up investigation by the Justice and Security Inspectorate, including interviews with involved parents, should provide more clarity.The report in September 2022 established a data link where 28,000 recognized duped benefit parents of children investigated between 2008 and 2022. This means that the inspectorate already had a list of 2800 parents with details of parents and children. Due to the special powers of the Inspectorate, they can dispose of this.

According to Minister Weerwind, only the Inspectorate has such authority.ARE THERE MORE REMOVALS AMONG AFFECTED PARENTS? The Health Care and Youth Inspectorate says it will investigate this on 17 January 2022.

‍Inspections are investigating how youth protection dealt with affected families, benefits affair

‍News item | 17-01-2022 | 16:15

The Justice and Security Inspectorate, in cooperation with the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate, is investigating whether the government's failure in the benefits affair had an effect on youth protection. They will check whether youth protection has dealt differently with families affected by the benefits affair than with other families. The inspections published their research program today. The benefits affair has revealed systemic errors in legislation, implementation and case law. Large groups of parents were unfairly suspected of fraud with childcare allowance and had to repay a lot of money to the tax authorities. The government and the judiciary did not protect them against this. The fundamental principles of the rule of law have been violated as a result, trust in the government has been shaken. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) calculated that 1,115 children of these affected families were removed from home between 2015 and 2019. The inspections are looking at the youth protection system by investigating whether affected parents as a group were more likely to face child protection measures than other parents. They are in consultation with the CBS to obtain additional data for this purpose. The inspections then want to clarify why affected families - disproportionately or not - had to deal with youth protection. The inspections will check whether this could reasonably have been prevented. For example, they look at what factors played a role in imposing a child protection measure on affected families. They investigate whether those factors were the same for affected families as for non-affected families. Were there mechanisms that made them disadvantaged? To find out that, the inspections speak to stakeholders such as affected parents and youth protectors and analyze files. For both sub-studies, separate so-called plans of action are made, which explain how these sub-studies are carried out. Victims, external organizations and experts are asked for advice on research questions. The Justice and Security Inspectorate has the lead in the entire investigation. The plans of action will be published on its website. In the course of the investigation, its progress will be available on this website. Both sub-studies are expected to be completed by the end of the year. The report will then be published on the website of the Justice and Safety Inspectorate. The investigation does not assess whether an individually imposed child protection measure was justified or whether children removed from home can live at home again. This investigation is being done by other agencies. Nor does the inspection investigation judge the actions of youth protection professionals in individual cases. The inspections have long been concerned about youth protection. That is why an investigation into the safety of children on the waiting list at the Child Protection Council is underway. In addition, the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate, in cooperation with the Justice and Security Inspectorate, will monitor the quality of the fact-finding of displacements in the youth protection chain.Image: ©Inspectie JeNV

‍ Fact-finding prior to child removals

‍Fact-finding that is done prior to the forced removal of a child is not always, and not in all parts, careful enough. Youth protection professionals do not provide enough oral and written evidence why relocation is necessary. It is clear, however, that there is always a combination of problems. Decisions to apply for relocation are also made by several experts together. They are highly enthusiastic professionals who work to the best of their ability for the healthy and safe development of children. But they are running up against limits in the complex system of the jeugdbescherming.Dat, writes the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate in this report.de+Quality+of+Research+Previous+On+Outhuisplaatsingen.pdf

‍ALLOWANCE PARENTS AFFECTED IN THE HEART

‍Due to the high recoveries, the unreasonable and unlawful focus on origin, the racism element and the focus on fraud hunting, the affected parents were also seriously affected by the consequences of this heist. They alone received so many financial concerns. They were unsolvable. This had a huge impact on the families. Children were unable to receive an appropriate education. There was not enough food. Often problems with basic needs such as water, heat and clothing.Instead of helping these parents to find out what was going on, parents lost their children. Sometimes through a simple message from Safe Home from a neighbor.