fra 2015 violence against children with disabilities en

8/20/2019 Fra 2015 Violence Against Children With Disabilities En

1/124

EQUALITY

Violence against children withdisabilities: legislation, policies

and programmes in the EU


2/124

Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental RightsSchwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – AustriaTel. +43 158030-0 – Fax +43 158030-699fra.europa.eu – [email protected]

Luxembourg: Publications Ofce of the European Union, 2015

Paper: - - - - . / TK- - - -EN-CPDF: - - - - . / TK- - - -EN-N

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2015

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

P - (PCF)

Europe Direct is a service to help you nd answersto your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

This report addresses matters relating to the right to integrity of the person (Article 3), the rights of the child (Article 24),and the integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26), falling under the Titles I ‘Dignity’ and III ‘Equality’ of the Charterof Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

http://fra.europa.eu/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://fra.europa.eu/


3/124

Violence against children with

disabilities: legislation, policiesand programmes in the EU


4/124


5/124

3

ForewordInternational, European and national law all recognise the right to protection from all forms of violence, which appliesto all children, including those with disabilities. Nonetheless, girls and boys with disabilities are more likely than theirpeers to experience violence, sexual abuse and bullying in schools, at home and in institutions across the EuropeanUnion; they also often face violence linked to their disability.

This report scrutinises the important but under-reported issue of violence against children with disabilities. Comple-menting other research carried out by FRA – on the rights of persons with disabilities, rights of the child, hate crime,victims of crime and multiple discrimination – it aims to raise awareness of the diverse challenges faced by childrenwith disabilities.

After outlining relevant international and European standards, the report reviews national legislation and policiesaddressing violence against children with disabilities. In addition, the report explores the extent and different causes,settings and forms of such violence. To encourage European Union (EU) Member States to share experiences andpractices, the report also presents examples of promising practices and includes a concluding chapter outlining pro-tective measures and initiatives adopted in various countries.

EU Member States have shown their commitment to the rights of children with disabilities in various ways. All of themhave ratied the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and almost all have ratied the Convention on the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities (CRPD). The EU itself is signatory to the CRPD, sending a strong message about the issue’simportance. In its recently adopted Concluding Observations on the EU’s implementation efforts, the CRPD Commit-tee recognised the EU’s commitment, but also voiced some criticism and specied recommendations for improve-ment, noting that children with disabilities still face abuse and exploitation, are often excluded from society, andlack access to mainstream education.

By presenting the current legal and policy landscape, shedding light on the extent and diverse aspects of the prob-lem, and identifying remaining hurdles as well as possible solutions, FRA hopes to support future EU and Member

State efforts to confront these lingering challenges.Constantinos ManolopoulosDirector a. i.


6/124

4

AcronymsCAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against WomenCoE Council of Europe

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

DPO Disabled Persons’ Organisation

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights(Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

EHIS European Health Interview Survey

EHSIS European Health and Social Integration SurveyENIL European Network for Independent Living

ESF European Social Fund

ESIF European Structural and Investment funds

EU European Union

EU-SILC EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NHRB National human rights bodyOHCHR Ofce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

OP Operational Programme

PA Partnership Agreement

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund


7/124

5

ContentsFOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................................................................

ACRONYMS ............... .................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ................. ................. ................. ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FRA OPINIONS .........................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................................

INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN STANDARDS ...........................................................................................................

1.1. United Nations ........................................................................................................................................................... 211.2. Council of Europe ...................................................................................................................................................... 281.3. European Union ........................................................................................................................................................ 30Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34

NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................

2.1. Legislation .................................................................................................................................................................. 352.2. Policies ........................................................................................................................................................................ 412.3. Challenges to implementing national law and policies ...................................................................................... 452.4. Data collection mechanisms on violence against children with disabilities ................................................... 482.5. Participation of children with disabilities and their organisations ................................................................... 52Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54

EXTENT, CAUSES AND SETTINGS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ........................................

3.1. Extent of violence .................................................................................................................................................... 553.2. Causes of violence against children with disabilities ......................................................................................... 593.3. Settings and forms of violence against children with disabilities .................................................................... 65

3.4. Intersection with other characteristics and multiple layers of risk .................................................................. 79Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 84

MEASURES AND INITIATIVES FOR PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ....................

4.1. Measures targeting all stakeholders ..................................................................................................................... 864.2. Measures targeting children with disabilities ...................................................................................................... 884.3. Measures targeting families and communities ................................................................................................... 924.4. Measures targeting professionals and institutions ............................................................................................. 934.5. Multiagency cooperation ........................................................................................................................................ 984.6. Support services for children with disabilities and families ............................................................................ 101Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 105

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................

ANNEX : METHODOLOGY ................ ................. .................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................. ........


8/124


9/124

7

Executive summary and FRA opinionsChildren with disabilities face signicant barriers toenjoying their fundamental rights. They are oftenexcluded from society, sometimes living in institutionsor other facilities far from their families. Children withdisabilities are denied access to basic services, suchas health care and education, and endure stigma anddiscrimination, as well as sexual, physical and psycho-logical violence.

This report outlines the findings of research con-ducted by the European Union Agency for Funda-mental Rights (FRA) on violence against children withdisabilities, focusing on the extent, forms, causes andsettings of such violence.

The report is based on desk research covering all28 EU Member States, examining legal and policy pro-visions that address violence against children with dis-abilities, as well as national measures for preventing,and protecting against, this violence.

In addition, individual interviews were conducted in13 EU Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, theCzech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania, the Neth-erlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, and theUnited Kingdom. These countries reect a range of

geographical regions and a variety of approaches tolaw and policy, as well as to data collection methods.In total, between April to September 2013, 132 inter-views based on semi-structured questionnaires wereconducted with stakeholders from designated bodies ofthe national frameworks for implementing the Conven-tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).These include public authorities, health professionals,educational professionals and providers of services forchildren with disabilities; civil society organisations,including organisations representing people with dis-abilities; parents’ organisations; victim support organi-sations; NGOs working in the eld of children’s rights;as well as various human rights bodies, such as nationalhuman rights institutions (NHRIs) and Ombudspersons.

Violence against children withdisabilities: a fundamentalrights issueInternational and European legal and policy frameworksacknowledge that violence against children with dis-abilities requires particular attention by policymakers

and practitioners. The Convention on the Rights of theChild (CRC) and the CRPD are essential in ensuring thatchildren with disabilities are protected from violence;one specically relates to children and the other to

living with a disability. All EU Member States have rati-ed the CRC and, as of September 2015, 25 EU Mem-bers States have ratied the CRPD. In 2010, the EU alsoacceded to the CRPD, meaning that the convention isnow an integral part of the EU legal order, and that allEU legislation and practices must be consistent with itsrequirements.

The treaty bodies of both of these UN conventions haveelaborated on violence against children with disabilitiesin several General Comments and in Concluding Obser-vations to States Parties’ reports. Member States havealso acknowledged the protection needs of childrenwith disabilities in various ways, such as when crimi-nalising violence or when dening national policies toaddress it. In its recent Concluding Observations to theEuropean Union, the CRPD Committee recommends thatthe EU take necessary measures to mainstream disabil-ity in all legislation, policies and strategies for ghtingviolence, abuse and exploitation.

Violence against children with disabilities is difcultto substantiate since these children are largely invis-ible in ofcial statistics. Few reliable estimates of thenumber of children with disabilities exist, due to out-dated and varied denitions of disability; a lack of reli-

able data-collection methods on disability, especiallyamong children; as well as differences in approachesto collecting data on disability prevalence across coun-tries. The 2011 World Report on Disability, citing the2004 Global Burden of Disease study, estimates thatthe average global prevalence of moderate and severedisability in children aged 0–14 years is 5.1 %. This cor-responds to about 93 million children around the world.There is no unied source that provides data on childrenwith disabilities in the EU.

Although there are similarly little data regarding theextent of violence against children with disabilities,respondents in the context of this research indicateda high prevalence of abuse against such children. UNICEFestimates that children with disabilities are three to fourtimes more likely to experience physical and sexual vio-lence, as well as neglect, than non-disabled children.

“Children with disabilities appear to be very vulnerable,much more vulnerable than all other children.”(Representative of a children’s rights NGO, Netherlands)

“It denitely happens to them. It’s […] very serious. Andevidently the cases that are dealt with are just a fraction ofthe actual number […]. It’s a problem that’s much larger thanwe think.”(Clinical psychologist, Czech Republic)


10/124

Violence against children with disabilities: legislation, policies and programmes in the EU

8

Children with disabilities can fall victim to violence indifferent settings, including schools, at home, or ininstitutions. Compared with adults, all children are ina situation of vulnerability, due to their stage of devel-opment, limited legal capacity and dependence onparents or other caretakers. This situation is exacer-bated when a child has an impairment. Children withdisabilities experience higher rates of violence as wellas disability-specic forms of violence, which are dif-ferent to those experienced by children without dis-abilities. They include violence motivated by prejudicetowards the disability, restraint, sexual abuse duringdaily hygiene routines, violence in the course of treat-ment, as well as overmedication. Research shows thatchildren with disabilities are particularly vulnerable topsychological, sexual and physical abuse, which candevastate their lives.

“Children with disabilities are among the most stigmatisedand marginalised children and it could be said that the risk ofviolence for them is signicantly higher namely because theyare ignored by society and there is a negative traditionalmind set.”(Public authority representative, Bulgaria)

Social isolation and stigma, as well as their particu-lar situation and higher reliance on care – at home, incare centres and in institutions – increases the risk ofviolence for children with disabilities for a variety of

reasons. Impairments often make children appear as‘easy targets’, because they may lack the skills to pro-tect themselves, face barriers in reporting violence, ortheir complaints might not be taken seriously. Genderand ethnic, migrant or socioeconomic status can addadditional layers of risk. The impact of these factors,which increase the risk of violence, is multiplied whenchild protection services do not respond adequately tospecic needs of children with disabilities – whetherdue to inaccessibility or a lack of trained professionals.

“We estimated that […] if you were a black boy, classed as‘special educational needs’ from a low income background,you were 168 times more likely to be excluded from schoolthan a girl from a more afuent area without ‘specialeducational needs’.”(Respondent from a national human rights body, United Kingdom)

Children with disabilities are often excluded from childprotection services or initiatives that cater to child vic-tims without disabilities. This makes it more likely forchildren with disabilities to fall between the cracks ofgeneral child protection services and specic servicesfor persons with disabilities. Furthermore, providingservices to children with disabilities is often in the hands

of several organisations or different authorities that donot properly coordinate their efforts.

“For example, it can happen that three bodies are actingin parallel, without networking in terms of information sharing, without case conferencing or coordination of some segments of action. They would be much moreeffective if they were interlinked and networked, ifthey were exchanging information.”(Respondent froma national human rights body, Croatia)

Child protection systems, reporting mechanisms andvictim support services often fail to take into accountthe needs of children with disabilities, placing furtherobstacles in the way of those seeking support, tryingto report abuse, or seeking redress. The European Com-mission reection paper on “Coordination and coop-eration in integrated child protection systems”hasemphasised the need to ensure that national child pro-tection systems are accessible to children in vulnerablesituations, including children with disabilities.

Key ndings and FRA opinionsBased on its research, FRA believes that policymak-ers and relevant stakeholders should concentrate theirefforts to ght violence against children with disabili-ties, and to effectively protect them from abuse andexclusion across the EU, on the action areas outlinedbelow.

Establishing more inclusive childprotection systemsMeasures to prevent and address violence against chil-dren with disabilities are most effective when they areholistic and cross-cutting. FRA research indicates thatefforts need to involve and target all actors who playa role in a child’s life – from families, communities, pro-fessionals and institutions to the general public.

When combined with disability, other factors – such asa child’s gender, socioeconomic, ethnic or migrant back-ground – increase the risk of violence. It is thereforeimportant to recognise the multiple layers of risk, takepreventive measures, and craft services and measuresto provide multi-faceted support. Many respondentsstressed that early intervention systems are often inad-equate for children with disabilities, failing to rapidlyidentify and respond to risk situations.

Child protection services play a vital role in ensuringthat the multiple needs of children with disabilities areadequately addressed. But they sometimes fail to caterto the specic needs of children with disabilities, and areoften inaccessible, both in terms of physical accessibility

and a lack of staff with the requisite skills or training.


11/124

Executive summary and FRA opinions

9

General services and measures targeted at children oradults with disabilities tend to overlook the specicsupport needs of, and barriers faced by, children withdisabilities, which can prevent them from accessingservices.

Member States have adopted different policyapproaches to tackling violence against children withdisabilities. Some include the protection of childrenwith disabilities in child protection policies, while othersaddress this in policies on the rights of persons withdisabilities; and some have devised specic policies toaddress violence against all children in schools or athome. While these general policies acknowledge thehigher risk of violence faced by children with disabil-ities, they often fail to establish concrete measures.A majority of respondents asserted that policies shouldhave a holistic aim, cover all children – including chil-dren with disabilities – and thus avoid having separateinstruments covering different groups of children (foran in-depth analysis, see Sections 2.2., 3.1., 3.3. and 4.6).

FRA opinions

EU Member States should address violenceagainst children with disabilities through anintegrated approach. General policies targetingchildren or persons with disabilities shouldrecognise that children with disabilities facea higher risk of violence and set out concrete,

specialised measures and accessible support services. Such an integrated approach helpsensure that protecting children with disabilitiesis part of the general national child protection

system, and that all measures and support services for children who are victims of violenceare age-, gender- and impairment-sensitive.

Child protection services should provide all-round support to children with disabilities and theirfamilies. They should also take into considerationother characteristics that could increase thechildren’s vulnerability to violence, such as

gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background.

Prevention programmes could include earlyintervention programmes, awareness-raisingmeasures, training on responsible parenting andfamily support, as well as respite programmes.

EU Member States should ensure that publicauthorities monitor the situation of children withdisabilities, especially with regards to violence.They should involve, as appropriate, independentmonitoring mechanisms established under

Article 33 (2) of the CRPD, as well as nationalhuman rights institutions.

Enhancing the legal and politicalframeworks for protecting children withdisabilitiesRespondents identified a number of challenges inaddressing violence against children and ensuring thatcrimes against them are efciently prosecuted. Theseinclude difculties in viewing children with disabilitiesas reliable witnesses in court, a lack of trained profes-sionals, a lack of age-appropriate and accessible com-plaint mechanisms, and low levels of reporting.

FRA research shows that most EU Member States con-sider disability and age as aggravating factors for violentcrimes. At the EU level, several directives protect childrenwith disabilities from violence. Directive 2011/93/EU oncombating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of chil-dren and child pornography (Combating Sexual Abuse andExploitation Directive) and Directive 2012/29/EU establish-ing minimum standards on the rights, support and protec-tion of victims of crime (Victims’ Rights Directive) aim fora certain level of harmonisation of criminal law provisions,including regarding support for child victims, reporting ofcrimes and prosecuting offenders.

Only 13 EU Member States explicitly address bias basedon disability in their criminal code. Of these, only a fewseparate the hate motivation from the basic offenceby using enhanced penalties to stress the severity of

bias-related offences; most dene bias motivation asan aggravating circumstance.

The European Commission has adopted policy docu-ments on both children’s rights policy and disabilitypolicy – the EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child and theEuropean Disability Strategy 2010–2020, respectively.Both refer to the rights of children with disabilities. Inaddition, the Commission has established two groupsconsisting of Member State representatives – one ofexperts on the rights of the child, and one on the rightsof persons with disabilities – allowing for cooperationand exchanges of information, experiences and goodpractices. As a party to the CRPD, the EU is bound bythe convention’s obligations to the extent of its com-petences. In the Concluding Observations on the initialreport of the EU, the CRPD Committee specically rec-ommended that all disability strategies address andmainstream the rights of boys and girls with disabilities.

The European Parliament has two distinct Inter-groups –one to deal with issues relating to children and anotherrelating to disability policy. These structures couldincrease the attention paid to children with disabili-ties, particularly to issues of protection from violence,

in discussions and actions (see Chapters 1 and 2).


12/124


10

FRA opinions

EU Member States should ensure that victim support services, as well as judicial and non-judicial redressmechanisms, are fully accessible to children withdisabilities who are victims of violence and theirfamilies. They should also promote the reportingand recording of incidents through active outreach policies. Redress mechanisms should provide age-and impairment- appropriate accommodations and professional support.Member States should ensure that speciallytrained staff are involved in investigating andfollowing up on reported incidents of violenceagainst children with disabilities, including duringthe individual assessment required by the Victims’Rights Directive.Member States must ensure that age and disabilityare regarded as aggravating factors in the contextof sexual violence, as established in the Directivecombating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitationof children and child pornography. They shouldconsider including disability on an equal basis withother forms of bias motivation and introducingenhanced penalties for bias-motivated offences,as suggested in the FRA Focus paper entitledEqual protection for all victims of hate crime – The case of people with disabilities.The European Commission should considerincluding a comprehensive rights-based strategyfor children with disabilities in future reviews ofthe EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child and otherchildren’s rights policies. The mid-term review ofthe European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 shouldinclude explicit measures for the protection, promotion and fullment of the rights of childrenwith disabilities, with specic reference to the prevention of violence.

Ensuring coordination and appointinga focal point for children with

disabilitiesRespondents emphasised that a holistic frameworkbringing together all bodies involved in child protec-tion is essential to prevent violence against childrenwith disabilities. Such a framework should include dis-abled persons’ organisations and organisations thatrepresent children with disabilities and their families.Respondents stressed that cooperation needs to startat the stage of developing strategies and action plans,and then be reected in the actual implementation ofpolicies and the provision of services.

Services for children with disabilities are often devel-oped by a range of actors. To avoid overlaps or gaps,regular and coordinated cooperation is crucial. But

respondents note that a lack of cooperation often hin-ders the effective provision of services; that formalcoordination mechanisms are either missing or notimplemented in practice; and that cooperation is mainlyinformal and takes place outside of established chan-nels. Even where formalised coordination mechanismsare in place, they often fail to address children withdisabilities’ particular risks of, and greater vulnerabilityto, violence. Professionals generally lack the compe-tence and knowledge to adequately address potentialrisk situations and cases of abuse concerning childrenwith disabilities.

In addition, respondents noted a lack of unied proce-dures across professional groups – such as police, social,health and educational staff – and stressed that ofteneven a common understanding of how to recognise andaddress abuse against children with disabilities is lack-ing (see Sections 2.2., 2.3., 4.4. and 4.5).

FRA opinions

EU Member States should consider appointinga national focal point for children with disabilities,as suggested in CRC General Comment No. 9, toensure appropriate coordination between allactors – both public and private – who provide services and support to children with disabilities.This focal point should closely cooperate andcoordinate with the national mechanisms in

place for implementing the CRPD, dened in its Article 33.To facilitate the work of such national focal points,Member States could create, at the local level,a network of coordination mechanisms responsiblefor overseeing the implementation of national policies and measures, improving collaborativeand integrated responses in cases of violence, andensuring adequate cross-professional capacitiesin assessing risk situations. Such coordinationmechanisms could bring together professionalsfrom the health, social, and educational sectors; judicial authorities; social workers; practitioners

working in victim support organisations; as wellas representatives of DPOs and organisationsof children with disabilities and their families.This would help avoid the compartmentalisationof responses and improve the coordination of services for children with disabilities.Member States should consider standardisingoperational procedures among different authoritiesresponsible for preventing and respondingto violence against children with disabilities,for example, through targeted memoranda ofunderstanding clearly dening responsibilities, procedures and referral mechanisms. Anothereffective way to promote cooperation would beto provide compulsory training courses bringingtogether professionals working in diverse elds.

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilities


13/124


11

Addressing societal attitudes,promoting diversity and counteringisolationViolence against children with disabilities takes manyforms and occurs in diverse settings. Respondents iden-tied various causes of violence, ranging from nega-tive societal attitudes based on prejudice and a lack ofknowledge or understanding about disability to pro-fessional or individual attitudes rooted in intolerancetowards the ‘other’.

According to the respondents, social exclusion andisolation increase the risk of violence against childrenwith disabilities in various settings. They noted that theinstitutional isolation of children with disabilities limitstheir interaction with the general population, hamper-ing broad awareness and understanding of disabilities.

Respondents also stressed that children who are disa-bled and have other vulnerable characteristics – due totheir socioeconomic status, ethnicity, migrant status, orgender – face an increased risk of violence (see Sec-tion 3.2. and Chapter 4).

FRA opinion

EU Member States and the EU should developawareness-raising and accessible-informationcampaigns to raise awareness of the CRPD, promotediversity, combat prejudice and tackle the societal stigma and isolation of children with disabilities.Such campaigns should target the general public, parents, children, as well as public ofcials and professionals working with these children. Variousinstitutions at the national level, such as relevantministries, national human rights bodies, NGOsand DPOs, could organise these campaigns.

Promoting child-focused prevention

measures and child participationThe research shows that EU Member States haveestablished a number of measures to address violenceagainst children with disabilities, targeted at variousgroups, including children themselves. However, includ-ing children with disabilities in mainstream activitiesis not always ensured. Respondents noted that, dueto their isolation, children with disabilities are oftenexcluded from formal and informal activities that teachchildren how to identify risks and respond to violence.

Respondents point to children with disabilities’ lack of

understanding of what constitutes abuse as a main riskfactor. Many children with disabilities may not be awarethat certain behaviour is unacceptable, particularly inthe case of sexual abuse.

Promoting the participation of children and persons withdisabilities is one of the key pillars of the CRC and theCRPD. Respondents believe that, despite the efforts ofDPOs, NGOs, NHRBs and other actors, children with dis-abilities remain excluded from opportunities to expresstheir views. When children with disabilities are not givena voice, they remain invisible in policy planning and theirneeds unmet by inaccessible general services. Respond-ents highlight the importance of including children withdisabilities in activities that promote their general par-ticipation in all aspects of life as key to preventing vio-lence and giving them tools to identify and report violentincidents (see Section 2.5. and Chapters 3 and 4).

FRA opinions

EU Member States should establish, in

cooperation with civil society actors, appropriateeducational programmes that strengthen the self-condence and assertiveness of childrenwith disabilities to help them identify risky

situations and inappropriate behaviour, anddetermine how and where to seek adviceand redress. Such programmes should includeinformation about relationships and sexuality to

permit children with disabilities to distinguishbetween appropriate and inappropriate sexualbehaviour.

Member States should ensure that educational programmes on violence, bullying or general chil-

dren’s rights issues are fully accessible to childrenwith disabilities, irrespective of impairment, and sensitive to gender and other characteristics, suchas ethnic and/or migrant background.In line with their obligations under the CRC andthe CRPD, Member States should ensure that thevoice of children with disabilities is represented,directly and through representative and familyorganisations, in the design, implementation andmonitoring of laws, policies, services and measuresaddressing violence against them. To this end,EU Member States should consider strengtheningexisting consultative mechanisms, for example by setting up advisory bodies that include childrenwith disabilities and their representatives.

Providing family-focused services

Violence against children with disabilities also occurs indomestic settings. Respondents identied exhaustion,burn out, economic distress and a feeling of being “leftalone” amongst families and carers of children withdisabilities as the main triggering factors. Respondentshighlighted insufcient support in easing the nancial,

physical and emotional burden placed on families andcare givers of children with disabilities, and stressed theimportance of providing programmes – such as respiteprogrammes – to reduce stress. Many pointed out that


14/124


12

rural areas particularly lack support services for childrenwith disabilities and their families.

Respondents believe that the exposure and response toviolence may be linked to a child’s personal or family sit-uation, such as being at risk of poverty, having a migrantor ethnic minority background, or growing up in a sin-gle-parent household. Respondents often mentionthe nancial strain on families as a possible cause ofneglect and a key area in which social support is needed.Respondents found that families living beneath the pov-erty line have less knowledge of, and access to, services,and hence fewer opportunities to get support.

Respondents also noted that feelings of shame and dis-appointment are sometimes attached to the disability ofa family member, especially of a child, and that disabilitycan be considered taboo. This makes family membersreluctant to access support services to address exhaus-tion or burnout (see Sections 3.2., 3.3., 4.3. and 4.6).

FRA opinions

EU Member States should provide child protection services with the necessary training and resourcesto prevent abandonment, and assist families inensuring that children with disabilities stay withtheir family, while safeguarding the child’s bestinterests. To this end, child protection services should provide targeted information, orientation,counselling, peer support and training to families,as well as direct and indirect nancial supportreecting the needs of children with disabilitiesand their families. Respite care programmes should be offered to parents or other carers atan affordable cost to prevent burn-out or neglectdue to exhaustion.Member States should ensure that the multiplelayers of risk faced by children with disabilities areacknowledged and addressed by child protection services, such as through the early identicationof risk and comprehensive family-focused support services. Special attention – including through

outreach by organisations that represent childrenand children and adults with disabilities – shouldbe given to migrant and single-headed families,families at risk of poverty or in other vulnerable situations, and families living in rural areas, asthey may not be aware of available support.

Ensuring inclusive education andparticipation in all aspects of life on anequal basis with others

Respondents indicate that children with disabilities aremore vulnerable to abuse at school, both from theirpeers and from teachers. This reects a lack of propermechanisms to ensure inclusion in mainstream schools,

inadequate training of teachers and the absence ofrobust prevention mechanisms. Respondents spokeabout widespread bullying of children with disabili-ties, as well as other, more subtle, forms of violence,such as exclusion and isolation. The research showsthat Member States implement various instruments toaddress bullying in schools, and that these could morestrongly consider children with disabilities.

Article 24 of the CRPD reects a clear commitmentby States Parties to ensure an inclusive educationalsystem for children with disabilities, and obliges statesto provide the support necessary to facilitate their fulland equal participation in education. However, manyrespondents noted difficulties in accomplishing aninclusive education, and argued that, to ensure a safeenvironment for all children, including children with dis-abilities, in mainstream schools requires proper supportto enable genuine participation, and not just integration(see Sections 3.3., 4.2. and 4.4).

FRA opinions

EU Member States should ensure that schools provide a safe and supportive environment with“zero tolerance” for any form of violence, andthat they have effective mechanisms in place torespond at the earliest sign of hostility. Anti-bullying policies and procedures should specically includechildren with disabilities.

Member States should ensure that all teachers, support staff and other educational professionalshave the skills and tools necessary to identify andreact to cases of violence against children with dis-abilities in school settings. Educational authoritiescould consider incorporating children’s rights, witha particular focus on children with disabilities, intoteacher training curricula. They should also addressthe lack of, or shortages in, appropriate training onrecognising violence and on early intervention.National human rights mechanisms, includingequality bodies, national human rights institutionsand children’s ombudspersons, should be mandat-ed, resourced and encouraged to monitor and raiseawareness on the rights of children with disabilitiesin education and to investigate and follow up oncases of violence, denials of access to mainstream schools and bullying of children with disabilities.Organisations representing children and childrenand adults with disabilities should be encouragedto support children with disabilities and theirfamilies to ensure their inclusion in education,and should develop and conduct educationalcampaigns to be carried out by self-advocatesand role models in schools. Reaching out to schoolauthorities to provide information and knowledgeon the specic support needs of children withdifferent forms and extents of impairments would strengthen the effectiveness of such actions.


15/124


13

Advancing deinstitutionalisationefforts and strengtheningthe monitoring of institutionsThere is no reliable data on the exact number of chil-dren living in different institutional settings, but esti-mates suggest that around 150,000 children live inresidential settings across the EU. Member States havein recent years made progress in gradually movingfrom institutional-based care systems to family-basedcare. However, the institutionalisation of children withdisabilities remains a concern, as repeatedly high-lighted by the CRC and the CRPD Committees. Insti-tutionalisation increases the likelihood of childrenbecoming victims of neglect and mental, physical orsexual violence; some respondents view institution-alisation itself as a form of violence. In addition, thevetting of residential care personnel in Member Statesdoes not always cover all groups of professionals, andits frequency is not determined by law. Respondentsfelt that violence and neglect can easily be hidden ininstitutions. They criticised monitoring mechanisms forlacking rigour, noting that inspections of institutionsare often not systematic, and are reactive rather thanpreventive – for example, only after the media reportson abuse or deaths in institutions. Some respondentsalso claimed that certain monitoring bodies lack com-petence or independence.

Other challenges highlighted by respondents includeproblematic working conditions for staff, resulting inburnout, and training that is inadequate, sporadic andoften not mandatory.

The legislative package for the European Structural andInvestment Funds (ESIF) for the period 2014–2020brought important changes that prioritise deinstitu-tionalisation and compliance with the CRPD. The criteriaattached to promoting social inclusion and combatingpoverty and discrimination – the so-called ‘ex anteconditionalities’ that Member States must meet tobenet from ESI funds – are particularly important,and include “measures for the shift from institutionalto community based care” (see Sections 3.2. and 3.3).

FRA opinions

Member States should consider banning placingchildren – especially those under the age of three –in institutions, regardless of the type or severity oftheir impairment, as endorsed in the UN Guidelinesfor the Alternative Care of Children. MemberStates should allocate resources for the promptdeinstitutionalisation of children with disabilitiesand their full inclusion in the community. In thisrespect, Member States should make use of theEU Structural and Investment Funds to support bothchildren with disabilities and their families in thetransition from institutional to family-based care.Member States should strengthen monitoring andinspections of institutions and other closed resi-dential settings to address neglect, mistreatmentand other forms of violence. This is particularlyimportant with deinstitutionalisation under way(partly funded through the EU’s Structural and In-vestment Funds). Monitoring should be independ-ent, well-resourced and involve regular and unan-nounced inspections.

Developing targeted tools, allocatingadequate resources and improvinghuman resource capacityThe research suggests that the existing national legal

and policy frameworks can address violence againstchildren with disabilities only if adequate resourcesare provided for their implementation. Respondentsidentify overextended and untrained personnel, staffburn-out, a lack of resources and problematic work-ing conditions as some of the obstacles to effectivelyaddressing violence against children with disabilities.

Respondents suggest that, in addition to ‘specialised’professionals in daily contact with children with disabili-ties, professionals providing general services – such asdoctors, nurses and teachers – should be trained on therights of children with disabilities, accessible communi-cation methods, as well as on means and processes toidentify, respond to and report violence against them.

Respondents consider the lack of practical guidance andtools to be a main challenge in the implementation of lawsand policies. These should target different professionals,and clearly outline how to prevent and respond to violence.

The EU has established EU funding schemes – such as theRights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 2014–2020,which replaced Daphne in 2013 – to support activitiesrelating to research, training, guidance development, and

good practice exchanges, including in the area of com-bating violence against children. Respondents recognisethe positive impact these funding schemes can have atthe national level (see Sections 2.3., 4.4. and 4.6).


16/124


14

FRA opinions

EU Member States should facilitate the effective implementation of existing laws and policies on preventingviolence against children with disabilities by developing practical guidelines, protocols and training to enable

professionals to recognise violence against children with disabilities, adequately support victims and theirfamilies, and ensure that perpetrators face justice. Such tools should be jointly developed with organisationsthat represent children and adults with disabilities and their families, and be supported with the human andnancial resources necessary for their implementation.

Member States should review the required qualications and working conditions of professionals working withchildren with disabilities to ensure that these professionals have the requisite skills and time for preventing,and responding to, violence against the children.

Member States should provide compulsory training for professionals who may potentially work with childrenwith disabilities. Such training should be based on a systematic needs assessment, and should cover the legaland policy framework, stress management, and recognising and reporting violence. Training should also coverhow to accessibly communicate with children, including those with hearing, cognitive, speech, intellectual or

psychosocial disabilities. Different professionals should be targeted, including: teachers and other educational professionals; doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals; and providers of specialised and general services for children and care workers.

Guidelines and toolkits for practitioners working with children with disabilities, as well as for general services staff – such as health and educational professionals – should be developed to provide clear guidance onresponsibilities, prevention, referrals and steps to take when suspecting violence.

To achieve sustainable and tangible results with respect to social inclusion, Member States should make useof available EU funding – such as via ESIF and the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme – to developcommunity-based services for children and their families, and to raise public awareness.

The European Commission should ensure that the Concluding Observations of the UN CRPD Committeeregarding the use of European Structural and Investment Funds are implemented. These recommend that theEuropean Union strengthen the monitoring of the use of ESI funds to ensure they are being used strictly for thedevelopment of support services for persons with disabilities in local communities and not the re-developmentor expansion of institutions; and that the European Union suspend, withdraw and recover payments if theobligation to respect fundamental rights is breached.

Collecting data

The research shows increased awareness of violenceagainst children with disabilities and the legalobligations established in the CRC and the CRPD,but reliable data regarding the situation in the EUremains lacking. Respondents believe that the lack ofinformation on the scale, forms and characteristics ofviolence against children with disabilities inhibits thedevelopment of targeted policies and programmes.Without proper data, service providers are not awareof the needs of children with disabilities, puttingthem at risk of being overlooked by inaccessible andunresponsive services.

The research also shows that some countries collectdata on violence against persons with disabilities, butdo not lter the data based on age, while others collectdata on violence against children in general, but do notcollect information about the childrens’ disability status.This is true of both ofcial governmental sources as wellas of information collected by civil society.

Respondents emphasised that, where data andresearch on the situation of children with disabilitiesare available, efforts should be made to disseminateresults widely among all concerned actors to triggerevidence-based reforms and targeted measures (seeSections 2.4. and 4.2).


17/124


15

FRA opinions

In line with their obligations under international law, the EU and its Member States should collect disaggregated statistical and research data to permit them to formulate and implement policies to prevent and addressviolence against children with disabilities. Member States that already collect data on violence against children

should make sure that these data are appropriately disaggregated and in accessible formats. Data shouldat a minimum include information on reported cases of violence against children with disabilities, and oninvestigations, prosecutions and protection services provided. Data should provide information on the typeof violence, including whether discriminatory or bias-motivated; the perpetrator; the type of impairment,including multiple or severe impairments; and other victim characteristics, such as gender, migrant status and

socioeconomic background, to uncover patterns and information about sub-groups of children with disabilities.

Member States should also collect and publish disaggregated data on the operation of crisis hotlines, childhelplines and victim support services.

Member States could consider establishing a database listing the different forms of support available through public services and civil society organisations, including disabled persons’ organisations and victim supportorganisations. This database could also act as a gateway to existing tools, such as training or awareness-raisingmaterials.

Member States could consider developing, with the support of FRA, fundamental rights indicators that can support monitoring and evaluating the implementation of policies and measures addressing violence againstchildren with disabilities.


18/124


19/124

17

IntroductionThis report outlines the extent, various forms and charac-teristics of violence against children with disabilities, aswell as the different protection and prevention measuresadopted in EU Member States. It aims to provide furtherinformation on a subject regarding which there is limitedresearch and awareness, but which deserves attentionfrom policymakers and society as a whole. Parts of soci-ety still incorrectly assume that children with disabilitiesare among the most protected group of children, andthat it is not possible that they are subjected to violence.

The report is part of the FRA’s broader work on therights of children and of persons with disabilities, asset out in the Multi-Annual Framework 2013–2017. Itfollows previous FRA research, which included inter-views with adults with disabilities and shows that tar-geted violence and hostility – often experienced fromchildhood and throughout adult life – strongly inter-fere with people with disabilities’ ability to enjoy theirrights. FRA research into child protection systems acrossthe EU Member States shows that children with disabili-ties often remain overlooked by generic protection sys-tems, and that many Member States have no structureor mechanism in place for consultation with childrenand families, and even less so for children with disabili-ties. This report thus builds on previous FRA research,

particularly on the reports listed in the box highlightingrecent FRA publications.

FRA PUBLICATIONS

This report builds on previous FRA research, par-ticularly on the following publications:• Choice and control: the right to independent liv-

ing (2012)• Making hate crime visible in the European Union:

acknowledging victims’ rights (2012)

• Opinion of the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency on the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia – with special attention to the rights of victims of crime, FRA OpinionNo. 02/2013 (2013)

• Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for services (2015)

• Equal protection for all victims of hate crime - The case of people with disabilities, FRA Focus (2015)

• Child-friendly justice – Perspectives and experi-ences of professionals on children’s participation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States (2015)

• Mapping of child protection systems, online,(2015)

There are little data and research available regardingmany aspects of the lives of children with disabilities inEurope, including on violence. Existing research showsthat children with disabilities face higher rates of vio-lence, with UNICEF estimating that such children arethree to four times more likely to experience physicaland sexual violence, and neglect, than non-disabledchildren.1 Children are vulnerable to violence due totheir stage of development or dependence on care-takers. Children with disabilities are even more vulner-able, given that they depend more on care-takers, andface specic forms of violence, including social exclu-sion and hate crimes.

The CRC and the CRPD are the main international instru-ments acknowledging that children with disabilitieshave a right to protection from violence. In line withArticle 19 of the CRC, violence is understood as any formof physical or mental violence, injury, abuse, neglector negligent treatment, maltreatment, or exploitation,including sexual abuse:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative,administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mentalviolence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while

in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. 2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate,include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for thechild and for those who have the care of the child, as wellas for other forms of prevention and for identication,reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-upof instances of child maltreatment described heretofore,and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.CRC, Article 19.

The EU and its Member States have a solid legal frame-work prohibiting discrimination and violence againstchildren with disabilities. Almost all Member Stateshave ratied the CRPD, and the EU has acceded thereto,creating momentum for disability rights and foster-ing developments in recent years.2 But the Conclud-ing Observations of the CRPD Committee to the EU’srst report, adopted in September 2015,3 point out thatthere is still a long way to go for full implementation ofthe CRPD within the EU’s competences.

1 UNICEF (2013),The State of the World’s Children 2013.Children with disabilities, New York, UNICEF.2 FRA (2015a).

3 UN, CRPD Committee, Concluding observations on theinitial report of the European Union, CRPD/C/EU/CO/1,4 September 2015.

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/choice-and-control-right-independent-livinghttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/choice-and-control-right-independent-livinghttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rightshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rightshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/victims-crime-eu-extent-and-nature-support-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/victims-crime-eu-extent-and-nature-support-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/comparative-data/child-protectionhttp://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/report.htmlhttp://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/report.htmlhttp://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/report.htmlhttp://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/report.htmlhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/comparative-data/child-protectionhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/child-friendly-justice-professionalshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/equal-protection-all-victims-hate-crime-case-people-disabilitieshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/victims-crime-eu-extent-and-nature-support-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/victims-crime-eu-extent-and-nature-support-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2013/fra-opinion-framework-decision-racism-and-xenophobia-special-attention-rights-victimshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rightshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/making-hate-crime-visible-european-union-acknowledging-victims-rightshttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/choice-and-control-right-independent-livinghttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/choice-and-control-right-independent-living


20/124


18

Several EU instruments – of primary and secondarylaw – are relevant to this research, mainly the Victims’Rights Directive and the Combating Sexual Abuse andExploitation Directive. A number of policies are also rel-evant, particularly the EU Agenda for the Rights of theChild and the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020, asare EU funding schemes such as the ESIF funds, furtheranalysed in this report.

National policy frameworks often acknowledge thatchildren with disabilities are more vulnerable to vio-lence, but lack concrete and targeted measures or basicdisaggregated data on the issue. An important conclu-sion of the research is that children with disabilitiesneed to be integrated into general child protection poli-cies and services, without spurring further isolation bycreating separate instruments or programmes. Herecoordination between the various actors and structuresis essential, and the report presents concrete sugges-tions on how to improve multi-agency cooperation.Enabling professionals to support children’s individualneeds requires resources, developing tools, training,and better working conditions.

In the context of addressing deinstitutionalisationefforts in EU Member States, as well as the use of ESIfunds, the reports also acknowledges both the abusesuffered by children in institutions, and the importanceof strengthening family support to allow them to take

care of their children in a safe environment.

Scope, methodology andstructureThis report presents an overview of the applicable inter-national, European and national frameworks, and thechallenges faced in implementing the existing frame-works at the national level. This is followed by an over-view of relevant standards, and an outline of researchndings and respondents’ views on the extent of vio-lence, its causes, and the different settings in whichit can occur – focusing on violence at home, in school,and in institutions.

Following up on previous FRA work, this research alsolooked into how disability intersects with other char-acteristics, and at the multiple discrimination faced bychildren from ethnic minorities, girls, and children withdisabilities who are also in a situation of poverty.

The report also presents – either in promising prac-tice boxes throughout the report or by identifyingpreventive measures – examples of various Member

State efforts to ght violence against children with

disabilities. The preventive measures are listed in Tablesin Chapter 4. The scope of the research did not allow foran evaluation of any of these measures, so the Tablesaim only to promote the sharing of experiences, andto inspire national authorities and NGOs to explore dif-ferent ways of responding to violence against childrenwith disabilities.

This report is based on desk research in 28 EU MemberStates and interviews with stakeholders in 13 MemberStates. The desk research examined national legal andpolicy instruments addressing violence against childrenwith disabilities, data collection, case law, measurestaken by national authorities and programmes thataddress specic forms of violence.

The interviews complement the information gatheredthrough the desk reports, providing in-depth informa-tion about important characteristics of violence againstchildren with disabilities, the implementation of lawsand policies, triggers of violence in particular settings,as well as the operation of prevention and protectionmeasures.

The 13 EU Member States selected for the eldworkreect a range of geographical regions and a vari-ety of legal and policy frameworks (Austria, Bulgaria,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania,the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden,

and the United Kingdom). In total, 132 interviews withselect stakeholders were conducted on the basis ofsemi-structured questionnaires from April to Septem-ber 2013, including with representatives from:

• designated bodies of the national frameworks for theimplementation of the CRPD Art. 33 (1) national focalpoints and Art. 33 (2) independent mechanisms;

• public authorities, health professionals, educationalprofessionals, and service providers for children withdisabilities;

• specialised organisations (such as national umbrellaorganisations representing people with disabilities;parents’ organisations; victim support organisations,and NGOs working on children’s rights);

• human rights protection bodies (such as NationalHuman Rights Institutions, equality bodies, and Ombud-spersons, particularly Children’s Ombudspersons).

FRA has included ndings from research involving inter-views with children, as well as examples of measures inwhich children with disabilities are active participants.During a meeting organised by FRA in April 2015, theagency discussed the research ndings with selectstakeholders. Annex 1 includes more information on

this meeting and on the research methodology.


21/124

Introduction

19

The report is divided into four chapters:

■Chapter 1 reviews the international and Europeanlegal and policy frameworks addressing violenceagainst children with disabilities.

■Chapter 2 examines how national laws across theEU address violence against children with disabili-ties and protect victims, and what policies, moni-toring and data collection mechanisms are in place.It also analyses the main challenges to implement-ing laws and policies, and to access to justice forchildren who are victims of violence.

■ Chapter 3 examines the extent, causes and charac-teristics of violence against children with disabilities.It covers violence at home, in schools and in institu-tions, as well as the intersection with other charac-teristics, such as poverty, ethnicity and gender.

■ Chapter 4 examines protective and preventivemeasures in place in EU Member States, as well asremaining challenges in support services targetingchildren with disabilities and their families. The chap-ter presents measures for targeting different groups:stakeholders, children with disabilities themselves,families and communities, and professionals.


22/124


23/124

21

Violence against children with disabilities is a cross-cut-ting issue for two major United Nations (UN) conventionsand their respective committees. This chapter provides anoverview of the Convention on the Rights of the Child andthe Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.In the European context, the Council of Europe (CoE) hasdeveloped relevant standards and there is important caselaw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).This chapter also provides information on EuropeanUnion (EU) laws and soft law relevant to protecting chil-

dren with disabilities from violence.

1.1. United NationsThe UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),adopted in 1989, and the UN Convention on the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006, mutu-ally reinforce each other to provide protection againstviolence aimed at children with disabilities. The rightsand principles contained in the CRC, such as the rights toeducation, health, recreation and participation, apply toall children, including those with disabilities. This gen-eral convention on children also contains specic guar-antees for children with disabilities. Additionally, theCRPD, a general convention on persons with disabilities,contains specic guarantees for children. Given that onerelates to the specicities of children and the other to thespecicities of living with a disability, both are essentialto ensuring that children with disabilities are protectedfrom violence.

The CRPD, adopted 17 years after the CRC, benets fromincreased awareness and evidence on adults and childrenwith disabilities’ exposure to violence and their rights

as victims of violence. As such, it is more detailed onthe rights of victims of violence and their families, andtheir specic needs. The General Comments of both theCommittee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee)

and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Dis-abilities (CRPD Committee) have further elaborated on,and facilitated, the interpretation of several provisionsrelevant to violence against children with disabilities.Although both conventions apply in their entirety tochildren with disabilities, some articles are particularlyrelevant.Table 1 provides an overview of these articles.

While the CRC has been ratied by all EU Member States,the CRPD is the rst and to date the only UN human

rights instrument that the EU itself has acceded to, doingso in 2010.4 The EU’s accession has been a key factorin developments in Europe during the last years. AllEU Member States except for Finland, Ireland and theNetherlands have ratied the CRPD, and these three havestarted the legal reforms necessary for its ratication.

The CRC obliges all States Parties to recognise that chil-dren with disabilities should enjoy a “full and decentlife, in conditions which ensure dignity, [and] promoteself-reliance” and to “facilitate the child’s active par-ticipation in the community”. To implement this obliga-tion, States Parties must eliminate barriers that preventchildren with disabilities from achieving full and effec-tive participation in all areas of life, e.g. in education andhealthcare (Article 23 (1)).

The CRC further requires States Parties to recognisechildren with disabilities’ right to “special care”, and to“ensure the extension of assistance to the eligible childand those responsible for his or her care, provided freeof charge, whenever possible” (Article 23 (2)).

The CRPD obliges States Parties to adopt “all necessarymeasures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with

disabilities of all human rights and fundamental free-doms on an equal basis with other children” (Article 7).

4 Council of the European Union (2010).

International andEuropean standards

http://-/?-http://-/?-


24/124


22

Additionally – and reiterating the best interest principlecontained in Article 3 of the CRC – it underlines the dutyof States Parties to consider the best interests of the childin all actions concerning children with disabilities.

The issue of violence against children with disabilities islinked to several topics addressed by both conventionsand their respective committees’ Concluding Observa-tions.5These topics are: the prohibition of discrimination;the right to protection from violence; the right to access

5 CRC Committee Concluding observations between 2010 and2015: UN, CRC Committee, Concluding observations on thecombined third and fourth periodic report of Austria, (17 Sep-tember – 5 October 2012); Concluding Observations: Belgium;Concluding observations on the combined third and fourthperiodic reports of Croatia, (1-19 September 2014); Conclud-ing observations on the combined third and fourth periodicreport of Cyprus (29 May–15 June 2012), Concluding observa-tions: Cyprus; CRC Committee, Concluding observations: Den-mark, 17 January – 4 February 2011; Concluding observations:Finland, 30 May – 17 June 2011; Concluding observations onthe combined third and fourth periodic reports of Germany,25 February 2014; Concluding observations: Greece, 29 May –15 June 2012; Concluding observations on the combined third,fourth and fth periodic reports of Hungary (1 – 19 Septem-ber 2014); Concluding observations on the combined third andfourth periodic reports of Lithuania (16 September – 4 Octo-ber 2013); Concluding observations on the combined thirdand fourth periodic reports of Luxembourg (16 September –4 October 2013); Concluding observations on the combinedthird and fourth periodic report of Portugal, 25 February 2014;Concluding observations: Spain, 13 September-1 October 2010;Concluding observations on the fth periodic report of Swe-den, 6 March 2015. CRPD Committee Concluding observationsbetween 2010 and 2015: Concluding observations on the initialreport of Austria, (2–13 September 2013); Concluding observa-tions on the initial report of Belgium, 28 October 2014; Conclud-ing observations on the initial report of Croatia, 17 April 2015,Advanced Unedited Version; Concluding Observations on theinitial report of the Czech Republic, 17 April 2015; Concludingobservations on the initial report of Denmark, 30 October 2014;Advance Unedited Version; Concluding observations on the

initial report of Germany, 17 April 2015, Advance Unedited Ver-sion; Concluding observations on the initial periodic report ofHungary (17-28 September 2012); CRPD Committee Concludingobservations, Spain, 19 October 2011; Concluding observationson the initial report of Sweden, 12 May 2014.

justice and the right to be heard; and the rights to par-ticipation and to accessible services and information.

The respondents interviewed in this research believethat the CRC and CRPD provide useful standards andguidance for their work. National actors advocatingchanges to laws, policies and services often base theirarguments on rights enshrined in the conventions.

“I think it’s very much the CRC, in the Cabinet there isa children’s conventions coordination […] which handles andaddresses these types of issues[…] it’s clear that these childright politics has really come through in recent years. I believthat the CRC is a strong driving factor in this. The CRC is supposed to be in every business where there is a child.”(National human rights body (NHRB) representative, Sweden)

“Before you know it you end up at the Ministry of Health,Welfare and Sport, there’s no way around it. In other words:other ministries do not feel involved. Perhaps the Ministryof Education somewhat but other ministries say ‘that is notour responsibility because that is arranged by the Ministryof Health and all legislation that originates there.’ We thinkthat is a one-sided approach. So the [CRPD] is a much better

starting point. And so is the children’s rights convention.” (NGO representative, the Netherlands)

“When the CRPD is ratied, the Institute will become themonitoring body […] and as one article specically mentionthe rights of children, we will denitely pay attention to thatThat entails that we will specically look at that and if thereare signals we will surely start an investigation.”(NHRB representative, the Netherlands)

Respondents asserted that the new paradigm establishedsince the CRPD’s adoption has inuenced and facilitated

changes at the national level. For example, a representa-tive from a CRPD monitoring body stated that the principleof inclusivity is a core value of the CRPD, and should betaken into consideration in all domestic policy.

Table 1: A selection of CRC and CRPD articles most relevant to children with disabilities and protection from violence

CRC CRPDChildren with disabilities

• Article 2: Right to non-discrimination• Article 23: Rights of children with disabilities tobecome independent and participate in thecommunity. Special care free of charge, accessto education, training, healthcare, rehabilitationand preparation for employment and recreation.

• Article 7: Rights of children with disabilities on an equalbasis with other children. Best interest of the child withdisabilities. Right to express views.

• Other important articles: 8 (awareness raising), 18 (libertyof movement and nationality), 23 (respect for home andthe family), 24 (education), 25 (health), 26 (habilitationand rehabilitation), 30 (participation).

Protection from violence• Article 19: Right to protection from violence.

States must take appropriate measures• Article 16: Right to protection from violence. State obligation

and protection services must be age-, gender- and disability-sensitive. Need for child-focused legislation and policies.

Source: FRA, 2015


25/124

International and European standards

23

“The social model of disability promoted by the CRPD […]basically ensures the inclusivity of persons with disabilitiesas a key element of ensuring that their rights are protected.” (CRPD monitoring body representative, United Kingdom)

“The Disability Convention is based on the slogan ‘Nothingabout us without us’, and we try to respect that to thewidest extent possible. It [inclusion of organisations] gives good input to our work […] and our co-operation [with theorganisations] is good”.(CRPD monitoring body representative, Denmark)

1.1.1. Prohibition of discrimination

The CRC was the rst international human rights instru-ment to explicitly identify ‘disability’ as a ground ofdiscrimination. The CRC Committee, in its General Com-ment No. 9, recognises that children with disabilitiesface discrimination in various aspects of their livesand development, and examines how this is linked toviolence:

“Social discrimination and stigmatization leads to theirmarginalization and exclusion, which can lead to physical ormental violence against children with disabilities.” United Nations (UN), Committee on the Rights of the Child (2007),General Comment No. 9 (2006),The Rights of Children withDisabilities , CRC/C/GC/9, 27 February 2007, para. 8.

6 UN, CRC Committee (2002), paras. 1–2.7 For detailed information on the structures set up to

implement the CRPD in EU Member States, seeFRA AnnualReport 2014 and the FRA website, at:http://fra.europa.eu.

The CRPD requires States Parties to prohibit all discrimi-nation on the basis of disability and to “guarantee topersons with disabilities equal and effective legal pro-tection against discrimination” (Article 5). Additionally,it obliges States Parties to take measures to ensure that“reasonable accommodation” is provided to promoteequality and eliminate discrimination. The convention

denes “reasonable accommodation” as carrying out,when necessary, appropriate modications and adjust-ments that do not impose a “disproportionate or undueburden”, so that persons with disabilities can enjoy theirhuman rights and fundamental freedoms on an equalbasis with others (Article 2). The concept of “dispropor-tionate or undue burden” is essential in determiningwhether, for example, educational institutions or ser-vice providers took all required measures to accommo-date a child with a disability. Institutions must prove thataccommodating the needs of a child “would impose anundue or disproportionate burden on the organizationconsidering factors such as health, safety or cost” to beexempt from the duty to accommodate.8

The duty to provide reasonable accommodation set outin the CRPD applies to different areas, such as employ-ment (Article 27), education (Article 24) and health(Article 25), as well. Such a duty is not explicitly found inthe CRC. However, in its General Comment dedicated tothe rights of children with disabilities,9 the CRC Commit-tee stresses the need to, for example, provide childrenwith disabilities the appropriate technology to accessmedia and the internet, and notes that “children shouldbe provided with whatever mode of communication

they need to facilitate expressing their views”.

8 UN, OHCHR (2010), p. 21.9 UN, CRC Committee (2007).

Monitoring CRC and CRPD implementationRespective expert committees monitor the implementation of the CRC and the CRPD. Based on periodic reports,both committees regularly engage in dialogue on implementation with States Parties, and issue concluding obser-vations and recommendations to improve and strengthen implementation. Where a State Party has ratied therespective Optional Protocols, the committees can also handle complaints from individuals regarding that state.The CRC obliges States Parties to “undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for theimplementation of the rights recognized in the […] Convention” (Article 4), but does not require the establishment ordesignation of a national body tasked with monitoring its implementation. However, in its General Comment No. 2 onthe role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child,the committee encourages States Parties “to establish an independent institution for the promotion and monitoringof implementation of the Convention” and “considers the establishment of such bodies to fall within the commitmentmade by States parties upon ratication”.6 The comment also provides detailed guidance on establishing and operat-ing independent human rights institutions for children, and recommends that NHRIs carry out a range of activities.

While the CRC encourages establishing an independent mechanism to monitor its implementation, Article 33 of theCRPD obliges States Parties to “maintain, strengthen, designate or establish, a framework, including one or moreindependent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the present Conven-

tion.” Furthermore, it requires Member States to ensure that persons with disabilities and their representative or-ganisations are involved, and fully participate, in the monitoring process (para. 3). Of the 25 EU Member States thathave ratied the CRPD to date, 17 have established or designated independent monitoring mechanisms.7

http://www.refworld.org/docid/461b93f72.htmlhttp://www.refworld.org/docid/461b93f72.htmlhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/fundamental-rights-challenges-and-achievements-2014http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/fundamental-rights-challenges-and-achievements-2014http://fra.europa.eu/http://fra.europa.eu/http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/fundamental-rights-challenges-and-achievements-2014http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/fundamental-rights-challenges-and-achievements-2014http://www.refworld.org/docid/461b93f72.htmlhttp://www.refworld.org/docid/461b93f72.html


26/124


24

1.1.2. Protection from violence

Both the CRC and the CRPD guarantee the right of chil-

dren with disabilities to be protected from all formsof violence. The CRPD includes detailed provisions onthe elements necessary for protection from violence.The CRC Committee issued a comment – General Com-ment No. 13, addressing the right of children to freedomfrom all forms of violence – which refers to childrenwith disabilities.10

Both the CRC (Article 19 (1)) and the CRPD (Article 16 (1))stipulate that States Parties must take appropriate leg-islative, administrative, social and educational measuresto protect children from violence. The CRPD also requiresprotection against gender-based violence. It is worthmentioning that the Convention for the Elimination ofAll Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)also includes girls. The CEDAW Committee’s work hasalso addressed girls with disabilities and mothers ofchildren with disabilities in its general recommenda-tions and through jurisprudence.11

The CRC requires States Parties to adopt preventivemeasures such as social programmes to support chil-dren and their caregivers; measures for identifying,reporting, referring, investigating, treating and follow-ing up on child maltreatment; as well as measures on

10 UN, CRC Committee (2011a).11 See, for example, UN, CEDAW Committee (2012); UN, CEDAW

Committee (2005).

judicial involvement (Article 19 (2)). The CRC also callsupon States Parties to take measures appropriate forpromoting the physical and psychological recovery

and social reintegration of child victims of any form ofneglect, exploitation, abuse, or torture, or any otherform of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or pun-ishment (Article 39).

The CRPD requires similar assistance, but also demandsthat support be “age, gender, and disability-sensitive”. Itfurther provides that persons with disabilities and theirfamilies and caregivers should be given informationand educated on how to avoid, recognise and reportinstances of violence (Article 16). The CRPD explicitlycalls for child-focused legislation to ensure that violenceis identied, investigated and prosecuted.

The CRPD also identies – in Article 16 (3) – the need tomonitor facilities and programmes for children with dis-abilities, thus addressing the issue of violence in insti-tutions. In this context, it is essential to note childrenwith disabilities’ right to family care. The CRC acknowl-edges that a child has “the right to know and be caredfor by his or her parents” (Article 7), and provides thata child “shall not be separated from his or her parentsagainst their will, except when such separation is nec-essary for the best interests of the child” (Article 9).Moreover, “parents have the primary responsibility for

the upbringing and development of the child” (Arti-cle 18 (1)). Where parents face difculties in raisingtheir children

fra 2015 violence against children with disabilities en

Documents