ovire, s katerimi se sreőujejo otroci s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo pri dostopanju do pravnega varstva v slovenijiphoto: © unicef/nyhq2011-1044/holt1ovire, s katerimi se sreőujejo otroci s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo pri dostopanju do pravnega varstva v sloveniji2015isbn 978-615-5577-05-5ovire, s katerimi se sreőujejo otroci s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo pri dostopanju do pravnega varstva v slovenijiizjava o avtorskih pravicah:© mental disability advocacy center (mdac), 2015. vse pravice pridrűane. priőujoőe strnjeno poroőilo temelji na raziskavi, ki smo jo izvedli med letoma 2013 in 2015 v okviru evropskega projekta o dostopu do pravnega varstva otrok s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo, pri katerem je sodelovalo deset drűav őlanic. podrobnejše informacije o projektu so na voljo na spletni strani projekta: www.mdac.org/accessing-justice-children.april 2015prebivalstvo:2,062,874ljudje, mlajši od 18 let:358,773otroci z oviranostjo: ni dostopnih podatkov.otroci v institucijah:ni dostopnih podatkov.otroci z oviranostjo v institucijah:1,300otroci s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo v nastanitvenih ustanovah: 1,043datum ratiőkacije konvencije zn o otrokovih pravicah: 6. julij 1992datum ratiőkacije konvencije zn o pravicah ljudi z oviranostjo: 24. april 2008 neustrezen dostop do informacij o pravicah otroci imajo pravico do neposredne informiranosti o lastnih pravicah (npr. pravicah, da izrazijo svoje űelje, da izbirajo med alternativnimi podpornimi metodami itd.), naravi postopkov, morebitnih posledicah in odloőitvah o namestitvi, vendar samo takrat, ko doseűejo starost 15 let in so sposobni razumeti pomen in pravne posledice svojih dejanj. v vseh drugih primerih so otroci informirani preko svojih pravnih zastopnikov. 1. januarja 2015. podatki statistiőnega urada republike slovenije, http://www.stat.si/statweb/en/show-news?id=5148&title=prebivalstvo-slovenija-1.-januar-2015 (zadnji dostop: 27. april 2015), 1. preglednica.v drugi polovici leta 2014. podatki, ki so na voljo na podatkovnem portalu si-stat statistiőnega urada republike slovenije, na spletnem naslovu: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/dialog/varval.asp?ma=05c1002e&ti=&path=../database/demographics/05_population/10_number_population/05_05c10_population_kohez/&lang=1 (zadnji dostop: 27. april 2015).leta 2011. neűa kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilities (brussels: european parliament, policy department c – citizens‘ rights and constitutional affairs, civil liberties, justice and home affairs, 2013), dostopno na: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/regdata/etudes/etudes/join/2013/474431/ipol-libe_et%282013%29474431_en.pdf (zadnji dostop: 28. april 2015), str. 6.v letu 2012 je bilo vkljuőenih 445 otrok in mladih v starostnem razponu od 0 do 20+ let z “zmernimi, hudimi in najhujšimi teűavami z duševnim zdravjem”, 201 otrok z “blaűjimi teűavami z duševnim zdravjem” in 397 otrok s “őustvenimi in vedenjskimi motnjami”. statistiőni urad republike slovenije, “institucije, domovi za otroke in mladino ter druge ustanove, v katerih bivajo otroci in mladi s posebnimi potrebami, slovenija, 2012– sklepni podatki” (6. julij 2013), dostopno na: http://www.stat.si/statweb/en/mainnavigation/data/show-őrst-release-old?idnovice=5528 (zadnji dostop: 27. april 2015). 5pomanjkanje ustreznega nadzora za otroke, ki so namešőeni v institucijah, ni ustreznega regulatornega okvirja, ki bi prepreőeval nasilje. prav tako ni speciőőnih akcijskih naőrtov ali podatkov o nasilju v institucijah niti ukrepov za prepreőevanje takšnega nasilja. stanje je takšno kljub poroőilom, ki kaűejo, da otroci z oviranostjo in otroci v institucijah izkušajo visoko stopnjo zlorab.5 varuh őlovekovih pravic rs je pooblašően za nadziranje vseh institucij, v katerih je ljudem, tudi otrokom, odvzeta prostost.6 kljub temu pa nima posebne strokovne usposobljenosti za nadziranje uresniőevanja pravic otrok z oviranostjo (ali otrok na splošno). varuh rs za őlovekove pravice űe veő let zagovarja ustanovitev urada varuha otrokovih pravic, ki bi otrokom podajal informacije o lastnih pravicah, nasvete, jih zagovarjal ali podpiral, še posebno tiste, ki űivijo v institucijah. nobeden od obstojeőih okvirjev in shem otrokom z oviranostjo v institucijah ne omogoőa zagovorništva. sodelovanje otrokpilotski projekt, “zagovornik otrok – otrokov glas”, je leta 2006 uvedel varuh rs za őlovekove pravice. toda őe otrok űeli imeti zagovornika, mu ga mora odrediti center za socialno delo, pri tem pa se morajo strinjati tudi starši, kar pomeni, da otrok nima neposrednega dostopa do zagovornika po lastni izbiri. zagovorniki pa v imenu otroka sami ne morejo sproűiti sodnega postopka; njihova primarna vloga je omogoőiti, da se sliši otrokov glas. med leti 2007 in 2012 je imelo 237 otrok svojega zagovornika (število otrok je z leti narašőalo). poroőilo o delovanju te sluűbe pa ne omenja, koliko otrok s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo je sprejelo storitve zagovorniške sluűbe, nekaj študij primerov pa opisuje podporo, ki so je bili deleűni otroci s “posebnimi potrebami”, otroci z epilepsijo, otroci s “őustvenimi motnjami” in “teűavami z duševnim zdravjem” itd.7 zagovorniki so izjavili, da le malo otrok s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem koristi njihove storitve, pri tem pa so dodali, da űelijo razširiti svoje storitve, da bi jih bili v prihodnje deleűni tudi ti otroci. obstajajo postopki, v katerih je glede na zakonodajo, zavezujoőe prisluhniti otrokovemu mnenju, denimo v primerih, ko gre za spore glede skrbništva in odrašőanja otroka ter stikov s starši in sorodniki8 in v povezavi z odloőitvami o tem, kje se bo otrok izobraűeval.9 otrokove űelje in izraűene preference niso upoštevane, őe se ugotovi, da niso v skladu z otrokovo “najveőjo koristjo”.10v drugih postopkih, kot je sprejem v institucijsko ali rejniško oskrbo ali pa pri namestivi v skrbništvo, ni nobene zakonske obveze po tem, da bi pridobili mnenje otroka, mlajšega od 15 let, őeprav so centri za socialno delo to sprejeli kot priőakovani standard. v praksi pa otroci niso vedno slišani, tudi v primerih, ko to zahteva zakon. otroci imajo pravico sodelovati in biti slišani, kadar kompetenten organ presodi, da je otrok sposoben razumeti pomen postopka, v katerem je udeleűen.11 otrok ima neodvisen pravni poloűaj v civilnem postopku, őe je “dopolnil 15 let in je sposoben razumeti pomen in pravne posledice svojih dejanj.”12 otroci, ki ne izpolnjujejo teh dveh pogojev lahko sodelujejo samo preko svojega zakonitega zastonika ali v primeru navzkriűja interesov med otrokom in zastopnikom, preko takoimenovenega “posebnega zastopnika”13. samo otroci, ki so dopolnili starost 15 let in so v postopkih izrazili svoje mnenje, imajo pravico izpodbijati odloőitve. drugi otroci lahko odloőitve izpodbijajo le posredno, preko pravnih ali posebnih zastopnikov. 5neűa kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilities, p.23.za letna poroőila varuha őlovekovih pravic republike slovenije na podroőju izvajanja nalog nacionalnih mehanizmov za prepreőevanje nasilja pod okriljem izbirnega protokola konvencije zn proti muőenju in drugim krutim , neőloveškim ali poniűevalnim kaznim ali ravnanju glej http://www.varuh-rs.si/publikacije-gradiva-izjave/porocila-varuha-v-vlogi-dpm/?l=6 (zadnji dostop: 10. april 2014).m. jenkole, posebno poroőilo o projektu – zagovornik glas otroka /special report of a project – advocate the children‘s voice (ljubljana: varuh őlovekovih pravic, 2013).zakon o zakonski zvezi in druűinskih razmerjih, uradni list republike slovenije, št. 69/04 upb, dostopno na: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/őleadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zakonodaja/law_on_marriage_and_family_relations.pdf (zadnji dostop: 15 oktober 2013). kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilities.10podatki, zbrani v intervjuju s sodnico, ki se ukvarja z druűinskimi zadevami na okroűnem sodišőu v ljubljani na oddelku za druűinsko sodstvo, 31. marca 2014.1112zakon o pravdnem postopku, őlen 409.136primerne in postopkovne prilagoditveotrokom prijazne sobe za zaslišanje so posebni prostori, v katerih so otroci lahko zaslišani na otroku prijazen in varen naőin.14 opremljene so tako, da ne zbujajo strahu in omogoőajo zaslišanje, ki je prijazno do otrok, ki so bili űrtve kaznivih dejanj. v sloveniji obstaja 11 tovrstnih sob.15 z nekaterimi upravljajo drűavne oblasti, z drugimi pa nekatere organizacije civilne druűbe v okviru pilotskih projektov.16 posneto zaslišanje varno shranijo za potrebe sodišő in drugih teles, ki sodelujejo v postopku.17 ker ni pravnega in politiőnega okvirja, otrokom prijazne sobe niso na voljo vsem otrokom, ki so udeleűeni v kazenskih postopkih. prav tako vsi sodniki in toűilci niso seznanjeni s temi prostori, zato njihova uporaba ni dosledna.18 med postopki otroci nimajo na voljo psihosocialne ali psihoterapevtske podpore. v sloveniji tudi primanjkuje specializiranih psihoterapevtov za delo z otroki – űrtvami zlorab, ki jih je teűko najti, kar zahteva dodaten őas za őakanje. dolűina postopkovposledica vkljuőevanja strokovnjakov v kazenske in civilne primere, ki zadevajo otroke s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem, so dolgotrajni postopki, őe sodimo po besedah staršev otrok s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo. starši, ki smo jih intervjuvali v sklopu projekta, priporoőajo, naj bo v tak postopek vkljuően najveő eden strokovnjak ali strokovnjakinja, da bi se tako izognili tovrstnim zamudam.19 14ministrstvo za pravosodje, priporoőila – razgovor z otrokom ob pomoői videokonferenc in drugih tehniőnih sredstev [ministry of justice, recommendations – conversation with a child with the help of videoconferences and other technical gadgets] (ljubljana: ministry of justice, 2011). 15sabina klaneőek, children and justice (osebno gradivo, 2014).16intervju z vodjo oddelka za mladoletniško, druűinsko in spolno kriminaliteto okroűnega drűavnega toűilstva v ljubljani na okroűnem drűavnem toűilstvu v ljubljani, 21. marca 2014.17kogovšek šalamon, children‘s involvement in criminal judicial proceedings in the eu: contextual overview for the criminal justice phase – slovenia.18intervju s slovensko varuhinjo őlovekovih pravic, republika slovenija– varuh za őlovekove pravice, republika slovenija, 3. marca 2014, in intervju z vodjo oddelka za mladoletniško, druűinsko in spolno kriminaliteto okroűnega drűavnega toűilstva v ljubljani, okroűno drűavno toűilstvo v ljubljani, 21. marca 2014.19to izjavo nam je v okviru intervjujev v fokusni skupini podal predsednik strokovnega sveta zveze društev sonőek; mati otroka s cerebralno paralizo in blago intelektualno oviranostjo, sonőek – zveza društev za cerebralno paralizo slovenije, 10. marca 2014.7pomanjkljivo usposabljanje strokovnjakovštevilni strokovnjaki niso dovolj usposobljeni ali pa imajo premalo znanja za delo z otroki. to velja tudi za odvetnike, toűilce in sodnike. to teűavo rešujeta varuh rs őlovekovih pravic in vlada, ki se vkljuőujeta v stalne programme strokovnega in interdisciplinarnega usposabljanja.20 ěal pa nobeno od omenjenih usposabljanj ne zagotavlja informacij ali gradiv za delo z otroki s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo. otroci imajo v doloőenih okolišőinah pravico do odvetnika za pravno pomoő,21 pravno zastopanje pa je problematiőno, kadar odvetnik ni usposobljen za komuniciranje z otrokom z oviranostjo ali takrat, ko odvetnik ne pozna otrokovih pravic. pomanjkanje inkluzivnega izobraűevanjaslovenska zakonodaja daje otrokom z oviranostjo pravico do izobraűevanja, saj doloőa, da “imajo otroci z motnjami v telesnem ali duševnem razvoju ter druge huje prizadete osebe pravico do izobraűevanja in usposabljanja za dejavno űivljenje v druűbi. izobraűevanje in usposabljanje iz prejšnjega odstavka se őnancira iz javnih sredstev.”22 odloőitev o tem, kje se bodo izobraűevali otroci z oviranostjo sprejme komisija za usmerjanje otrok s posebnimi potrebami, ki deluje pod okriljem zavoda republike slovenije za šolstvo.23 zakonodaja šolam omogoőa, da zavrnejo dostop otrokom z oviranostjo, őe otroku niso zmoűne zagotoviti primernih prilagoditev.24 zavod republike slovenije za šolstvo sicer priznava, da prihaja do zamud pri sprejemanju odloőitev glede usmerjanja otrok, hkrati pa meni, da so starši in otroci dovolj vkljuőeni v postopek odloőanja. nekateri starši in socialni delavci in delavke pa se s tem ne strinjajo: “s starši in otroci se sploh ne sreőajo, őe starši niso dovolj vsiljivi.”25 to pomeni, da je dostop do izobraűevanja pogojevan z dejanji staršev otroka, njihovo stopnjo angaűiranosti, znanja in povezav. pri otrocih, za katere menijo, da niso sposobni dosegati doloőenih akademskih standardov, sploh ne razmišljajo, da bi jih namestili v obiőajno izobraűevanje, temveő jih samodejno usmerijo v posebne šole ali pa se ti otroci šolajo doma.26intervju z vodjo oddelka za mladoletniško, druűinsko in spolno kriminaliteto okroűnega drűavnega toűilstva v ljubljani na okroűnem drűavnem toűilstvu v ljubljani, 21. marca 2014; intervju z višjim policijskim inšpektorjem–specialistom – ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, generalna policijska uprava, uprava kriminalistiőne policije, oddelek za mladoletniško kriminaliteto, 13. marca 2014; intervju s slovensko varuhinjo za őlovekove pravice, republika slovenija– varuh őlovekovih pravic, 3. marca 2014; intervju z odgovorno osebo na ministrstvu za pravosodje, na podroőju izvajanja “otrokom prijaznega pravosodja”, zlasti pri projektu “otrokom prijaznih sob za zaslišanje” in usposabljanje sodnikov in drugega osebja, ki delajo na sodišőih, in intervju s specialistom za kazensko pravo pravo za mladoletnike na ministrstvu za pravosodje, 13. marca 2014.2165. őlen zakona o kazenskem postopku (uradni list rs, 32/07) doloőa v kazenskih postopkih, ki so posledica kazenskih dejanj proti spolni nedotakljivosti, kazenskih dejanj zanemarjanja mladoletnikov in krutega ravnanja ter kazenskih dejanj trgovanja z ljudmi, da ima űrtev, ki je mladoletna, ves őas postopka na voljo zakonitega zastopnika, ki varuje njene pravice, zlasti ko gre za varovanje njegove osebne integritete med zaslišanjem pred sodišőem in pri zahtevi po praviőni odškodnini.22ustava republike slovenije, 52. őlen.23glej zavod rs za šolstvo, “it‘s all about education”, dostopno na spletni strani zavoda rs za šolstvo na: http://www.zrss.si/default.asp?link=ang (zadnji dostop: 10. april 2014).24b. opara et al, analiza vzgoje in izobraűevanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami v sloveniji [analysis of the education of children with special needs] (ljubljana: pedagoški inštitut, 2010).fokusna skupina s sodelovanjem vodje institucionalne oskrbe pri zvezi društev sonőek; in mati otroka s cerebralno paralizo in blago intelektualno oviranostjo ter predstavnik uporabnikov, sonőek – zveza društev za cerebralno pralizo slovenije, 10. marca 2014.bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobraűevanju v republiki sloveniji [white paper on education in the republic of slovenia] (2011) dostopno na: http://www.belaknjiga2011.si/pdf/bela_knjiga_2011.pdf (zadnji dostop: 10. april 2014).8institucionalizacijainstitucionalizacijo poganjajo toge prakse in zakonodaja. center za socialno delo lahko na lastno pobudo ali v soglasju s starši namesti otroka v insitucijo zaradi “osebnostnih ali intelektualnih in duševnih motenj, ki bistveno ogroűajo njegov zdrav osebnostni razvoj.”27 ta ukrep lahko velja najveő tri leta in se lahko “izjemoma podaljša … őez opredeljeno őasovno obdobje” na podlagi mnenja institucije.28 poleg tega pa tudi zakon o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami, ki je bil sprejet leta 2000, doloőa, da otroka lahko namestimo v institucijo ali rejništvo, “őe je posebna šola zanje preveő oddaljena, da bi lahko dnevno potovali tja”. glede na intervjuje, ki smo jih izvedli med raziskavo v tem projektu, je institucionalizacija glede na slovensko prakso najpogostejša moűnost, ki jo ponudijo ljudem, ki potrebujejo kompleksnejšo podporo. ljudje z dolgotrajnimi motnjami ali stiskami, ki imajo lahko razliőne razloge (denimo, starost, intelektualna ali telesna oviranost, vedenjske teűave) pogosto konőajo v institucionalnih okoljih.29 pomanjkanjanje razőlenjenih podatkovizven podroőja, ki ureja izobraűevanje v institucionalni oskrbi je na voljo zelo malo podatkov o otrocih s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem in intelektualno oviranostjo. podatki statistiőnega urada rs o nesodnih postopkih, ki so povezani z izobraűevanjem, so sicer na voljo, vendar ne vsako leto. zadnji dostopni podatki segajo v leto 2008 in kaűejo, da je 2916 otrok z oviranostjo zaprosilo za prilagoditve v šoli zaradi posebnih potreb, med njimi pa je 1638 otrok, ki so prejeli posebno podporo. od teh primerov jih je 0,6% povezanih z otroki “v duševni stiski”, 11,3% je otrok z intelektualno oviranostjo in 5.2% jih je “otrok z omejenimi intelektualnimi sposobnostmi”. 25,4% primerov je povezanih z otroki, ki imajo veő oviranosti, to pa vkljuőuje tudi otroke z intelektualno in psihosocialno oviranostjo.30 na podroőju števila sodnih postopkov, v katerih so udeleűeni otroci s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem, kot so postopki glede druűinskih razmerij in skrbništva ter upravnih postopkov, ni dostopnih podatkov. v kazenskih in civilnih postopkih je število otrok, ki so bili űrtve, priőe ali domnevni storilci kaznivih dejanj, neznano. zato ni mogoőe vzpostaviti primerjave o tem, kakšne so posledice za otroke s teűavami z duševnim zdravjem v sistemu kazenskega prava. 27zakon o zakonski zvezi in druűinskih razmerjih, uradni list republike slovenije, št. 69/04 upb, dostopno na: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/őleadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zakonodaja/law_on_marriage_and_family_relations.pdf (zadnji dostop: 15. oktober 2013), őlen 121(1).zakon o zakonski zvezi in druűinskih razmerjih, őlen 121(2) in (3).intervju s socialno delavko na oddelku za varstvo otrok in mladine na centru za socialno delo, 10. marca 2014; intervuju z vodjo oddelka za mladostniško, druűinsko in spolno kriminaliteto okroűnega drűavnega toűilstva v ljubljani, 21. marca 2014.b. opara et al, analiza vzgoje in izobraűevanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami v sloveniji [analysis of the education of children with special needs] (ljubljana: pedagoški inštitut, 2010).9w www.mdac.org mentaldisabilityadvocacy@mdacintlbarriers children with mental disabilities face in accessing justice inlovenia2015isbn 978-615-5577-03-1copyright statement:© mental disability advocacy center (mdac), 2015. all rights reserved.this factsheet is based on research conducted between 2013 and 2015 within a european project on access to justice for children with mental disabilities, which took place in ten eu member states. full information can be found on the project website: www.mdac.org/accessing-justice-childrenapril 2015population:2,062,874people under the age of 18:358,773children with disabilities:no available data.children in institutions:no available data.children with disabilities in institutions:1,300children with mental disabilities in residential care:1,043date of crc ratiőcation: 6 july 1992date of crpd ratiőcation: 24 april 2008inadequate access to information on rightschildren have the right to be informed directly of their rights (e.g. their rights to express a preference, to choose between alternative support methods, etc.),the nature of the proceedings, their possible outcome and about decisions on placements, but only where they have attained the age of őfteen and are considered to be capable of understanding the meaning and legal consequences of the acts they perform. in all other cases, children are considered to be informed via their legal representative.lack of appropriate monitoringthere is an inadequate regulatory framework for the prevention of violence against children in institutions. there are no speciőc action plans, legislation or data on violence in institutions, or prevention measures. this is despite reports which show that children with disabilities and children in institutions experience high rates of abuse. the slovenian ombudsman is designated to monitor all institutions where people, including children, are deprived of their liberty. however, the ombudsman has no particular expertise on monitoring the rights of children with disabilities (or children more generally). the human rights ombudsman has been advocating for several years for the establishment of a children‘s rights ombudsman which would provide information, advice, advocacy and support for children in institutions on their rights. none of the existing schemes provide advocacy to children with disabilities in institutions. on 1 january 2015. data available on the statistical ofőce of the republic of slovenia,tp://www.stat.si/statweb/en/show-news?id=5148&title=prebivalstvo-slovenija-1.-januar-2015 (last accessed 27 april 2015), table 1.in the second half of the year 2014. data available on the si-stat data portal of the statistical ofőce of the republic of slovenia, at http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/dialog/varval.asp?ma=05c1002e&ti=&path=../database/demographics/05_population/10_number_population/05_05c10_population_kohez/&lang=1(last accessed 27 april 2015).in 2011. neűa kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilities (brussels: european parliament, policy department c – citizens‘ rights and constitutional affairs, civilliberties, justice and home affairs, 2013), available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/regdata/etudes/etudes/join/2013/474431/ipol-libe_et%282013%29474431_en.pdf (last accessed 28 april 2015), p. 6.including 445 children and young people between the age of 0 and 20+ with “moderate, severe and the most severe mental health issues”, 201 children with “minor mental health issues” and 397 children with “emotional and behavioural disorders” in 2012. statistical ofőce of the republic of slovenia, “institutions, child and youth homes and other establishments for lodging of children and youth with special needs, slovenia, 2012– őnal data” (6 july 2013), available at: www.stat.si/statweb/en/mainnavigation/data/show-őrst-release-old?idnovice=5528 (last accessed 27 april 2015).neűa kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilitiesfor annual reports of the human rights ombudsman of the republic of slovenia on the implementation of the tasks of the national preventive mechanism under the optional protocol to the un convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, see http://www.varuh-rs.si/publikacije-gradiva-izjave/porocila-varuha-v-vlogi-dpm/?l=6 (last accessed 10 april 2014).child participationa pilot project, “child advocate – voice of the child”, was launched in 2006 by the ombudsman‘s ofőce. although it is only a pilot project, the advocates work all over slovenia. however, if a child wants to have an advocate, the centre for social work has to allocate one to them and the parents have to agree, meaning that the child cannot have direct access to an advocate of their own choice. the advocates cannot take any legal actions for the child; their primary role is to facilitate the voice of the child to be heard. from 2007 to 2012, about 237 children had an advocate (the number increased each year). a report on the service does not mention how many children with mental disabilities have received advocacy services but a few case studies described support provided to children with “special needs”, children with epilepsy, children with “emotional disturbances” and “mental health troubles”, etc. advocates themselves stated that few children with mental disabilities beneőt from their services, although they also said that they would like to extend their services to include these children as well.there are proceedings in which, according to the law, it is mandatory to listen to the child‘s opinion, such as disputes concerning the care and upbringing of the child and contact with parents and relatives, and in relation to decisions about where education will be provided. the child‘s wishes and expressed preferences might not be considered if it is thought that it would go against their perceived “best interests”.in other proceedings, such as admission to institutional or foster care or placement under guardianship, there is no legal obligation to obtain an opinion from a child below the age of 15, although it has been adopted as an expected standard by centres for social work. in practice, however, children are not always heard, even when required by law. children have the right to participate and be heard when the competent authority considers that the child is capable of understanding the meaning of the procedure in which they are participating.the child has independent legal standing under the civil procedure where he/she “has attained the age of 15 and is capable of understanding the meaning and legal consequences of the acts he performs.” children who do not fulől these two conditions can participate only through their legal representative or, in case of conűict of interest between the child and the representative, through a so-called “conűict representative”.only children who have reached the age of őfteen and have given their opinion during the proceedings have a right to object to decisions. other children can only object indirectly, via legal or special representatives.m. jenkole, posebno poroőilo o projektu – zagovornik glas otroka /special report of a project – advocate the children‘s voice (ljubljana: varuh őlovekovih pravic, 2013).marriage and family relations act, ofőcial gazette of the republic of slovenia, no. 69/04 upb, available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/őleadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zakonodaja/law_on_marriage_and_family_relations.pdf (last accessed 15 october 2013).kogovšek šalamon, country report on slovenia for the study on member states‘ policies for children with mental disabilities10information gathered through an interview with a family court judge working in the department of family justice district court of ljubljana on 31 march 2014.1112civil procedure act, article 409.13reasonable and procedural child-friendly interview rooms are special rooms where children can be questioned in a child-friendly and safe way. they are furnished in a non-intimidating way in order to provide a child-friendly space for questioning children who have been the victims of crimes. there are 11 such rooms in slovenia.some are managed by state authorities and some by civil society organisations, within pilot projects. audio and video recording are used to ensure the child is questioned only once.the recorded hearing is securely stored for the needs of the courts and other bodies taking part in the procedure. as there is no legal or policy framework, child-friendly rooms are not available for all children involved in criminal procedures. also, not all judges and prosecutors are aware of their existence and therefore they are not used consistently.children are not provided psycho-social or psycho-therapeutic support during the proceedings. slovenia also has a lack of specialised psychotherapists for working with children – victims of abuse, which are difőcult to őnd and require additional waiting time. length of proceedingsthe involvement of experts in criminal and civil cases concerning children with mental disabilities sometimes results in lengthy proceedings, according to parents of children with mental disabilities. parents who were interviewed for this project recommended involving one expert maximum in order to avoid such delays.14ministrstvo za pravosodje, priporoőila – razgovor z otrokom s pomoőjo videokonferenc in drugih tehniőnih sredstev [ministry of justice, recommendations – conversation with a child with the help of videoconferences and other technical gadgets] (ljubljana: ministry of justice, 2011). 15sabina klaneőek, children and justice (personal material, 2014).16interview with head of the department of juvenile, sexual, and family crime of the district state prosecutor of ljubljana at the district court of ljubljana on 21 march 2014.17kogovšek šalamon, children‘s involvement in criminal judicial proceedings in the eu: contextual overview for the criminal justice phase – slovenia18interview with the slovene human rights ombudsman, republic of slovenia – human rights ombudsman, 3 march 2014 and interview with head of the department of juvenile, sexual, and family crime of the district state prosecutor of ljubljana, district court of ljubljana, 21 march 2014.19statement was given in a focus group interview by the president of a council of experts at the association sonőek; a mother of a child with cerebral palsy and mild intellectual disability, sonőek – cerebral palsy association of slovenia, 10 march 2014.lack of training of professionalsmany professionals lack knowledge or training on working with children, including lawyers, prosecutors and judges. to respond to this, the ombudsman and the government are involved in an ongoing programme of professional and interdisciplinary training. regretfully, none of the training provides information or materials on how to work with children with mental children have, in certain circumstances, a right to a legal aid lawyer, but legal representation is problematic when the lawyer is not trained to communicate with the child with a disability or when they lack awareness of the rights of the child. lack of inclusive educationslovenian legislation provides for the right of children with disabilities to education by stating that “[p]hysically or mentally handicapped children and other severely disabled persons have the right to education and training for an active life in society. the education and training referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be őnanced from public funds.”about where children with disabilities are educated is made by commissions for the placement of children with special needs working under the national education institute.the law allows schools to refuse access to children with disabilities where they state that they are unable to provide reasonable accommodations for the child. while the national education institute recognises that there are in delays in making decisions, they consider that parents and children are sufőciently involved in the decision making process. some parents and social workers, however, disagree: “they do not see the parents or the children unless the parent is very aggressive.” therefore, access to education is contingent on the actions of the parent of the child, their level of involvement, knowledge and connections. children who are not perceived as able to achieve certain academic standards are not even considered for placement in mainstream education, being directed automatically to special interview with head of the department of juvenile, sexual, and family crime of the district state prosecutor of ljubljana at the district court of ljubljana on 21 march 2014; interview with a senior criminal police inspector – specialist at police – ministry of interior, general police directorate, criminal police directorate, juvenile crime section on 13 march 2014; interview with slovene human rights ombudsman, republic of slovenia – human rights ombudsman on 3 march 2014; interview with the person responsible at the ministry for justice for the implementation of “children friendly justice”, speciőcally for the project “children friendly rooms for hearings” and for training for judges and other staff working in the court and a specialist for juvenile criminal law at the ministry of justice on 13 march 2014.21pursuant to article 65 of the criminal procedure act (ofőcial gazette 32/07), in criminal procedures which are taking place due to criminal offences against sexual inviolability, the criminal offence of neglect of minors and cruel treatment, and the criminal offence of trafőcking in human beings, a victim who is a minor must have, for the entire duration of the procedure, a legal representative who protects his/her rights, in particular in relation to the protection of his/her personal integrity during the hearing before the court and in claiming fair compensation.constitution of slovenia, article 52.see the national education institute, “it‘s all about education”, available on the webpage of the national education institute of the republic of slovenia, at www.zrss.si/default.asp?link=ang (last accessed 10 april 2014).24b. opara et al, analiza vzgoje in izobraűevanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami v sloveniji [analysis of the education of children with special needs](ljubljana: pedagoški inštitut, 2010).focus group with the participation of the head of institutional care at association sonőek; president of the council of experts at the association sonőek; and a mother of a child with cerebral palsy and mild intellectual disability and user representative, sonőek – cerebral palsy association of slovenia, 10 march 2014.bela knjiga o vzogoji in izobraűevanju v republiki sloveniji [white paper on education in the republic of slovenia] (2011) available at: http://www.belaknjiga2011.si/pdf/bela_knjiga_2011.pdf (last accessed 10 april 2014).institutionalisationinstitutionalisation is perpetuated by entrenched practices and through legislation. a social work centre may on its own, or in agreement with the parents, place a child in an institution because of “personality or mental disturbance which essentially threatens its healthy personal development.”measure may last for a maximum of three years and can be “exceptionally extended … beyond that time limit” on the basis of the opinion of the institution. also, the placement of children with special needs act 2000 states that children can be placed into an institution or foster care “if it is too far for them to travel daily to the special school”. moreover, according to interviews conducted during this research, in slovenian practice, institutionalisation is the most common option offered to people who need more complex support. people with a long-term condition arising for any reason (such as old age, mental or physical disability, behavioural issues) frequently end up in institutional settings.lack of disaggregated datathere is very little data on children with mental disabilities outside the area of institutional placement education. the statistical ofőce collects data on education-related non-judicial proceedings, however not in every year. the latest data available is from 2008, which states that 2,916 children with disabilities applied for special needs adjustments in schools, of which only 1,638 were received special support. of these cases, were 0.6% related to children with “mental health distress”, 11.3% were regarding children with intellectual disabilities, and 5.2% concerned “children with borderline intellectual capacities”. 25.4% of cases related to children with multiple disabilities, which is likely to include children with intellectual or psycho-social impairments.on the number of judicial proceedings involving children with mental disabilities, such as family and care proceedings, administrative proceedings and criminal proceedings–, there is no data available. with regard to criminal and civil proceedings, the numbers of child victims, witnesses and alleged offenders with mental disabilities are unknown. it is therefore impossible to compare outcomes for children with mental disabilities in the criminal justice system27marriage and family relations act, ofőcial gazette of the republic of slovenia, no. 69/04 upb, available at: ttp://www.mddsz.gov.si/őleadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zakonodaja/law_on_marriage_and_family_relations.pdf (last accessed 15 october 2013), articlle 121(1).marriage and family relations act, article 121(2) and (3).interview with the social worker at the department for protection of children and youth at the center of social work, 10 march 2014; interview with head of the department of juvenile, sexual, and family crime of the district state prosecutor of ljubljana, 21 march 2014.b. opara et al, analiza vzgoje in izobraűevanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami v sloveniji ji analysis of the education of children with special needs(ljubljana: pedagoški inštitut, 2010).barriers children with mental disabilities face in accessing justice inloveniaphoto: © unicef/nyhq2011-1044/holtwww.mdac.org mentaldisabilityadvocacy@mdacintl
