While the comment “may cause alarm,” Rutte cautioned, it had already received disdainful reactions from affected parents at the public exhibition. Socialist Party leader Lillian Marinissen also reacted disappointingly. According to the socialist, youth welfare workers point out that these decisions are not made carefully, because they do not have enough time and resources. Sometimes dads aren’t heard, Marjensen said.
Ruti admitted to her that youth welfare “doesn’t work without problems”, that mistakes are made and that the system has weaknesses that are being worked on.
The prime minister said that the government in this regard was not “a shield for the weak, but on the contrary.” Checking in to the reservation is an ‘absolute nightmare’. If at all possible, children and parents should be reunited as soon as possible, or at least called back, Root believes, just like home.
Right now, Rutte doesn’t want to give the perseverance to the support team helping parents of children who have been placed out of the home, as part of the House’s wish. He thinks the team, which has been busy for a few weeks now, should get a chance.
If the team gets to persevere now, you’ll break into the system completely. This will only lead to a delay, Ruti said in the discussion about out-of-home placements for parents affected by the allowance issue.
The House of Representatives reacted angrily to the children’s sheltering outside the home after the allowance issue. Representatives from left to right insist on better protection for parents and children at risk of being placed in foster care. The VVD also got wind of it because it delegated a member of Parliament who spoke for the first time in the plenary, where he had a tradition of asking no questions.
“This is the tip of the iceberg of human suffering caused by placement outside the home,” says Representative Umtzigt. “The rule of law was not a shield for them, but a meat grinder.” On Thursday, the House of Representatives will discuss with Prime Minister Rutte, among others, about places of detention related to the allowance issue.
Statistics Netherlands (CBS) calculated this week that 1,675 children of parents affected by the benefit case were taken out of their homes from 2015 to 2021. This is higher than the previously published figure of 1,115 children placed outside the home. The number is higher because Statistics Netherlands previously only had data for the period from 2015 to 2020, moreover, it offers more casualties in the meantime.
“They admitted that this drama was caused by the government,” said PvdA Representative Arieb. She maintains that there are still few children who have returned with their parents. “How can this little happen? This government should be deeply and deeply ashamed of itself.” PVV Member of Parliament Meijer finds it impossible to explain that victims must deal with a ‘support team without perseverance’.
GL MP Westerveld also talks about the shame about outdoor placements. “The way this is happening is precarious, and there is hardly any legal help for parents. There has been a lack of interest and support here.” Omtzigt demands a better investigation of the problems. The state that takes the children, sometimes with several police officers. Not a single child anymore, not a single child.”
“The suffering of children removed from their familiar environment is unimaginable,” said D66 Representative Van Beukering. She wants work to be done to get the children back as quickly as possible: “It is important that justice be done for the children and the parents involved.”
The coalition parties are also insisting that more precautions be taken before the child is ever taken out of the house. “Help the family in, not the child’s exit,” summarizes Representative Peters of the CDA. “The placement outside the home can be prevented if it is forbidden to live in the family.” CU Member of Parliament Ceder wants to know if it is also possible not to take the child, but the parent out of the house.
Some panic arose from the VVD’s contribution. Member of Parliament Verquelin gave his “first speech”, the first contribution to the plenary chamber of the Chamber of Deputies, where it was customary not to interrupt other political groups. Marijnissen, Westerveld and Omtzigt, among others, have made it clear that they do not think this is appropriate in this debate, but Chamber President Bergkamp and Verkuijlen wanted to stick with tradition. Then the parents, who had watched the debate in the stands, left the room in protest.