, ,

The Netherlands 11 places lower in child rights index

child rights index (Photo: www.blikopnieuws.nl)

The Netherlands tumbles 11 places in child rights index: from second to 13th place in a new ranking of countries’ attitudes to children’s rights.

The KidsRights Index is the annual global index which ranks how countries adhere to and are equipped to improve children’s rights.

The KidsRights Index ranks 163 countries and is topped by Norway, followed by Switzerland, Finland, Portugal and Ireland.

The KidsRights Index is an initiative of the KidsRights Foundation, in cooperation with Erasmus University Rotterdam.

 

The Netherlands’ child rights index

The Dutch decline follows a report by the United Nations’ committee on the rights of the child that declares that government measures to finance and facilitate equal rights for children had worsened.

According to professor Karin Arts of the Erasmus University, who worked on the report, the fact that the Netherlands is no longer in the top 10 reflects concerns by the UN committee about children growing up in poverty and about the impact of government cutbacks.

Former children’s ombudsman Marc Dullaert, who founded the KidsRights Index, told broadcaster RTL that 390.000 children in the Netherlands live below the poverty line. ‘If the Netherlands does not do better than this, parents will pass on poverty to their children and they will have no real future,’ he said.

Arianna

Arianna

Publisher / Community / Marketing Manager at expatsHaarlem
Arianna was born in Rome, Italy and grew up mostly in Florence. When she was 18 years old she came to the Netherlands, where she remained till today. Arianna likes to make trips, discover Haarlem, taste good food, meet internationals and share experiences. Currently she is living with her hubby and 3 toddlers in one of the cutest little neighborhoods of Haarlem, de Vijfhoek.
Arianna

3 replies
  1. Barbara Summa
    Barbara Summa says:

    Anyway, you see this in a lot of measures taken the last couple of years. Two years ago there was this change in financing and organizing care for children with chronical illness or mental issues/behavioural diagnosis etc. . It moved from government to city councils. City counsels were not prepared to organize this all themselves and lacked the expertise. Expertise centra did not know for months who was going to hire them and pay the bills. parents in need did not know to whom go for help. schools were adjusting as well, and if anything saved the situation of many children it was thanks to the schools when they dared to apply a creative approach to cover the bills for urgent care. a box of pencils less and an hour of school therapist more, I guess.
    We were lucky because we got in the system with our youngest child before this whole year of confusion, but my oldest, who was diagnosed later, is still paying the bill for delays, incomplete diagnose, lack of facilities and the group activities that would have helped a lot in the beginning, so we are fighting now a more complicated situation. And we were lucky because we are highly educated, informed, assertive, with medics in the family for counseling and good advice, we were lucky with two wonderful schools with expert people in it, we were lucky because we could pay ourselves the extra care needed.
    And I could see all of this happen because of what as seemingly a minor change in financing. Still I know what it did to children with less resources of ours. and this is not worth a country as the Netherlands.

  2. Daniel
    Daniel says:

    “3,900,000 children in the Netherlands live below the poverty line. ‘If the Netherlands does not do better than this, parents will pass on poverty to their children and they will have no real future,’ he said.

    This statement is one of the most absurd things I have read in a long time. In essence, 1 in 4 people in the country is a child and they all live below the poverty line. Surely this must be a typing error because it’s nonsensical.

    • Arianna
      Arianna says:

      Dear Daniel, it was a typo that the editor missed, indeed. It must be 390.000. We promptly corrected the typo. Thanks for reporting.

Comments are closed.