The Bulgarian Community for Liberal Democracy (BOLD) is an\nassociation of citizens that aims to increase public support for democracy,\nhuman rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help consolidate liberal\ndemocracy in Bulgaria. With this position BOLD participates in the formation of\npublic attitudes and public policies in the field of family and policies\nregarding the family and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Recently, a discourse on the family and family values \u200b\u200bhas\ndeveloped in our country that has been dominated by cultural conservatism. It\nis a part of a global campaign against liberal-democratic ideas, including\nhuman rights and gender equality. In many countries, like Bulgaria, this\ncampaign is currently being waged by strong civic movements under the banner of\ndefending \u201cfamily values\u201d. Their ideas are inscribed in recent emerging new\nright-wing traditionalist ideologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Bulgaria, the range of participants in these movements is\ncomplex. At one end stand conscious supporters of anti-liberal ideologies such\nas the Russian Orthodox-Eurasian Conservatism of the Izborsk Club and some\nAmerican religious-conservative movements, while at the other one finds\nordinary people, especially parents who have been manipulated into believing\nthat children\u2019s rights and women\u2019s rights run counter to \u201cfamily values\u201d. In\nthe platforms of these movements, the rights of the child and the woman are\neither rejected, as allegedly foreign-imposed, subversive liberal fabrications,\nor recognized in theory, but as inferior to the rights and values \u200b\u200bof the\nfamily. Relying on the atavistic fear of every parent of losing their children,\nunfounded rumors have spread in our country that the social services system\nthreatens to take children away from their parents, and that the biggest threat\ncomes from non-governmental organizations driven by foreign interests. In\nOctober 2019, we witnessed the paroxysm of parents in many settlements of\nSliven and Yambol regions withdrawing their children from school, for fear they\nmight be taken away by the social workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In all cases of sharp attack on women\u2019s and children\u2019s rights\nand on democratic civil society organizations over the past decade, the GERB\ngovernment and its partners have remained silent, while bending backwards to\nmeet the demands of ultra-conservative movements. The main opposition party,\nthe BSP, most often supported GERB\u2019s actions, and in many cases took even more\nretrograde positions. Thus, back in 2012, a draft Law on the Child aimed at full\napplication of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Bulgarian\nlegislation was withdrawn under pressure. For years, work on a new law on\njuvenile justice has been suspended; it was meant to replace the current\nanachronistic law on combating juvenile anti-social behavior that has been in\nforce since 1958 and is completely contrary to basic international standards.\nIn 2018, the government\u2019s behavior led to the rejection of the Council of\nEurope Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic\nViolence (Istanbul Convention), and in 2019 the National Child Strategy was\nrejected. In December 2019, the entry into force of the Social Services Act was\npostponed, under strong pressure from ultra-conservative civic associations.\nThe legitimacy and role of non-profit civil society organizations in the\nprotection of human rights have been under attack, and there have been calls\nfor NGOs to be banned from providing social services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, BOLD states its support for a set of principles\non which family law and policies in a democratic society should be based.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Basic principles on the family in a democratic society<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. The family is the basic structural unit of society and an\nenvironment in which human rights, including the rights of the child, are\nrealized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. The family exists in diverse, historically changing forms and\nhas a variety of functions. The family may consist of married couples with or\nwithout children; couples in actual cohabitation and their children; single\nparents and their children; families headed by or including grandparents; older\nchildren caring for younger siblings; registered partnerships with or without\nchildren; same-sex partners and their children, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. According to the Constitution, the state must apply a secular\napproach to the regulation of public relations, including in matters of family\npolicy. It must recognize, respect and support the diversity of family forms in\ntoday\u2019s social reality and the right of people to live in families they wish to\ncreate. The state must firmly oppose the attempts of conservative organizations\nto impose a mandatory understanding of the family as a \u201ctraditional family\u201d\nthat in some way stands above the rights of the child or the women\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. A good family is one that is a positive factor for the\nrespect and realization of human rights. The state is obliged to ensure the\nprotection of the rights of all family members, including when they are\nviolated by family members themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. Family members, including children, have equal rights\nregardless of their gender, ethnicity or religion, disability, sexual\norientation, age, or other grounds on which the law protects against\ndiscrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. Children have a number of special rights recognized in the UN\nConvention on the Rights of the Child, the Constitution of the Republic of\nBulgaria and the Bulgarian Child Protection Act. Any rejection of the principle\nthat the child is a subject of rights is in deep conflict with the fundamental principles\nof human rights. The law must also take into account the dynamically developing\ncapacity of children and young people to make decisions that affect them. Child\nparticipation, in a way appropriate for the child\u2019s age and maturity, is a\nbasic principle of modern child policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. Domestic violence in any form \u2013 physical, sexual, mental or\nemotional \u2013 must not be allowed or tolerated. In addition to being a violation\nof human rights, violence is one of the most serious factors in the destruction\nof the family. Protecting the family requires the prevention of violence.\nViolence seriously damages a child\u2019s development. The state must guarantee the\nright to freedom from all forms of domestic violence and have effective\nmechanisms in place both for the prevention of domestic violence and for\naddressing it when it occurs. Education on issues related to freedom from\nviolence should be part of compulsory curricula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. Laws and policies regulating the family and providing family\nsupport cannot violate anyone\u2019s sexual and reproductive rights, including the\nright of women to decide the number and spacing of their children, as enshrined\nin the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.\nForced sterilization and forced pregnancy are crimes. Sexual and reproductive\neducation should be compulsory in school curricula and should be\nage-appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 9. For the full and harmonious development of their personality,\nthe child must grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,\nlove and understanding. This is one of the reasons why the state needs to build\na comprehensive system of family support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10. Parents have the right to raise their children as they see\nfit, but without violating their rights and dignity. They should have access to\nstate support in the exercise of their parental function when they need it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11. Removing a child from their family and placing them in\nalternative care is a last resort that can only be done when all other actions\nto support the family have been exhausted, and for as short a time as possible.\nThe efforts of the protection system should focus on the reintegration of the\nchild into their native family, except when this would be against the interests\nof the child. Within the system of alternative care, placement should be based\non the principle of the best interests of the child, and the latter is\nunderstood as creating an environment that is as close as possible to that of a\nfamily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Comments on the principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The traditional family and modern society<\/em>. Numerous civic movements and organizations have recently glorified the merits of the \u201ctraditional Bulgarian family.\u201d For example, the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church expressed a widely shared ultra-conservative view when it stated, \u201cFor a number of years, we have seen Christian values replaced by legally enshrined ideas that not a part of the Bulgarian national psychology and tradition, and are in conflict with the foundations of our Orthodox faith.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0But in reality, this is a call to deny and replace the democratic values \u200b\u200breflected in the Constitution by virtue of the political choice made 30 years ago by the Bulgarian people \u2013 the choice for a secular state with a liberal-democratic political system. What are these \u201cChristian values\u201d of the traditional family? On one hand, the Christian values \u200b\u200bof charity, love, and care for one\u2019s fellow human beings, like the values \u200b\u200bof many other religions, are compatible with democratic values. On the other hand, however, the traditional Bulgarian family has been patriarchal for centuries, placing women in a subordinate position to men, where the woman had to know her place as a housewife and mother. And the child was entirely at the mercy of the father who could do whatever he wanted \u2013 apply severe corporal punishment, send them away as an apprentice from an early age, stop them from school, and if the child was a girl, marry her against her will at an immature age and disallow the pursuit of an education or a profession. It has taken a lot of time and the struggle of many generations to reach a stage of affirmation of equality between women and men, as well as the recognition of the child\u2019s right to be a holder of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. Traditionalists want to take us back to the supposedly good old days of the Bulgarian tradition, but in effect they take us back to pre-modern patriarchal morals degrading human dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this is the \u201ctraditional family\u201d, we reject it. A happy\nfamily consists of equal members, and the rights of each of them are respected\nand protected, including the rights of the child. There may be specific family\nroles that each family determines, but with the exception of childbirth and\nbreastfeeding, there is no other family life activity in which men and women\ncannot freely choose their roles. Dad can change diapers. Mum can repair the\ndamaged boiler. And the child is not the property of its parents and has its\ninalienable rights: it cannot be abused, forcibly married, suspended from\nschool or forced to work to the detriment of its health and full development.\nIn the 20th century, modern states introduced mechanisms to protect against\nsuch violations of children\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conservative-traditionalist approach does not really work\nfor the preservation and prosperity of the family. Violence in all its forms, and\nthe authoritarian upbringing of children based on punishment, coercion and\nguilt, lead to the destruction of families, while healthy and resilient\nfamilies are built on love, mutual respect and respect for the freedom of\neveryone in the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to sociological research, traditional attitudes\ntowards the family, the role of women and the upbringing of children prevail in\nBulgarian society today. Family policies have so far failed to significantly\ninfluence these attitudes. Nor did they have a deterrent effect on the\ndemographic collapse. The criteria for the success of family support policies include\nhigher birth rates and fewer broken families, but this requires looking forward\nto the future, rather than trying to resurrect some fiction of the so-called\n\u201ctraditional family\u201d. At the same time, a large number of children are raised\nin families of unmarried partners \u2013 which in no way makes these families inferior\nin raising children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Equality<\/em>: In today\u2019s Bulgaria, the understanding of human rights,\nespecially what \u201cequal rights\u201d means and what \u201cdiscrimination\u201d is, is extremely\nweak and very far from the international standards. More work is needed on the\npart of the state with the help of experts and professional human rights\norganizations in order to create a better understanding of equal rights. For\nexample, many people do not understand how children have equal rights with\ntheir parents: shouldn\u2019t a child\u2019s right to freedom of expression be commensurate\nwith its age and degree of maturity? Such a misunderstanding comes from a very\noutdated notion of equal rights as identical rights. But in the conceptual\nframework of all modern legislation as well as jurisprudence of international\ntribunals, the understanding of equality of rights follows the classical\nAristotelian principle: equality required treating the likes alike and the\ndifferent differently (see, for example, the case of the European Court of\nHuman Rights Tlimenos v. Greece<\/em>). If the parent and the child are not in\nthe same situation, it would be discriminatory for them to be treated identically.\nAccordingly, the child has no less right to express itself than its parents,\nand everyone who has cared for a child knows how rich a set of means of\nexpression is possessed by even a baby who has not yet learned to speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One key element of continuing de facto inequality in the family\nis the burden of unpaid and unappreciated responsibilities related to caring\nfor family members. Taken up primarily by women, care responsibilities can\nhinder their ability to participate in education, employment and other\nactivities on an equal footing with men. Thus, women are economically and\nsocially disadvantaged in both the family and the community, and are at a higher\nrisk of poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Protection from violence<\/em>: Families can be\ndangerous places for children or other family members when they become victims\nof violence, including harmful traditional practices such as child marriage, as\nwell as educational practices involving severe corporal punishment. This is one\nof the reasons why Article 19 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child\nobliges states to take all appropriate measures to protect children from all\nforms of physical or mental violence, harm or abuse, including sexual abuse,\nand neglect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Social services<\/em>: The social services system must support\nthe family, based on the principles set out in the Voluntary European Framework\nfor the Quality of Social Services: better access to services, in line with the\nneeds and demographic profile of the population; individualization of the\nsupport \u2013 availability of general and specialized services, according to\nindividual needs; an integrated approach to delivery; efficiency \u2013 social\nservices able to find a good solution for the person in order to overcome\nsocial exclusion, to protect their rights and to improve their quality of life;\nflexibility, transparency and efficiency in the use of public resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deinstitutionalization<\/em>: This is a process that\nis not limited to the closure of large resident institutions. But the Bulgarian\ngovernment was content with just such a limited understanding. It closed most such\ninstitutions, creating a large number of \u201cfamily-type placement centers\u201d in\ntheir place. But as the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities\nexplains, \u201cLarge or small, group homes are especially dangerous for children,\nfor whom there is no better environment than the family, designed to meet their\nneeds as they grow up. Family-type institutions are still institutions and\ncannot replace family care.\u201d Work to support families to prevent the separation\nof children from their parents must be a key part of the deinstitutionalization\nprocess, as must be the support for children and young people leaving care and for\nprofessionals working with children and parents. The same goes for supporting\nfamilies caring for elderly people with disabilities. The UN Convention on the\nRights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by Bulgaria in 2012,\nprotects the right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community\n(Article 19), and with regard to children, this right is interpreted by the\nCRPD Committee as the right to grow up in a family (General Comment \u21165 (2017)\non independent living and inclusion in the community, UN Doc. CRPD \/ C \/ GC \/ 5\n(27.10.2017), paragraph 37). The state needs to create a system of community\nsupport, early childhood intervention, inclusive education and a transition to\nindependent living that would help children with disabilities stay in their\nfamilies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recommendations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Definitions<\/em>: Critics of child protection legislation point out that\ndefinitions of basic concepts such as \u201cviolence\u201d, \u201cphysical violence\u201d, \u201cmental\nviolence\u201d, \u201cneglect\u201d, etc. are provided in a by-law \u2013 an additional provision in\nthe Regulations for the implementation of the Child Protection Act, which in\ntheir opinion contradicts the basic principles of the rule of law. In addition,\naccording to them, the definitions are too broad and vague, which opens the\ndoor to abuse in deciding whether a child is at risk, leading to fears that\nchildren may be unjustifiably taken from their parents. These fears should be\nadequately addressed. We recommend revising the basic definitions in order to\nnarrow and clarify the meaning of the terms, and to include the definitions\nthemselves in the laws that are built on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Protection from violence<\/em>: Bulgaria must ratify\nthe Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against\nWomen and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) and ensure adequate\ntransposition of its norms into domestic law, including the 2009 Law on\nProtection from Domestic Violence. Legislation and policies must protect\nagainst all forms of gender-based violence, including cyberbullying and online\nharassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Child protection and alternative care.<\/em> For various\nreasons, still a large number of children continue to be separated from their\nfamilies. Children from marginalized and vulnerable communities are at the\nhighest risk of being separated from their families. It is strictly forbidden\nto take a child out of his\/her family due to poverty or disability. As such\nremoval is currently, albeit illegally, still practiced under various\nlegitimate pretexts, child protection legislation needs to be reviewed in order\nto prevent this prohibition from being breached. Poor families and those of\nchildren with disabilities should receive adequate support to prevent the\nchild\u2019s separation from their family. A moratorium should be introduced on the construction\nof new \u201cfamily-type placement centers\u201d and specialized institutions. If\nfamilies receive the support they need, the placement of children outside\nfamily care can be kept to a minimum. The priority for the system of social\nservices should be the integration of children in their own families or in the\nfamilies of relatives. In cases where it is either impossible or not in the\nbest interests of the child to remain in its own family or in the family of\nrelatives, temporary accommodation in adequately supported foster families\nshould be resorted to. A key priority should be to close the entrance to\ninstitutional care, making every effort to keep newborns and young children\nwith or without disabilities with their parents, or have them placed in a\nsupported family of relatives or a foster family. It is necessary to radically\nredirect efforts and investment toward the development of foster care in\nBulgaria, parallel to the gradual closure of all institutions \u2013 large and\nsmall, for children and adults, for people with and without disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Family support<\/em>: The state must accelerate the process of building a system of social services aimed at preserving families. Early childhood development should be among the main priorities of the state, which should invest in incentive policies in this area. Research shows that early childhood development has a huge impact on the overall development of the individual and delayed development at an early age has negative consequences for the whole subsequent life. Policies in this area should focus on the provision of health care, the promotion of good nutrition and early learning, quality forms of education and care (cr\u00e8ches and kindergartens), and support for building parental capacity to provide positive, responsive parental care.[2]<\/a> The government should develop, and the National Assembly should adopt, a National Strategy for the Child \u2013 as per their obligation under Art. 1 (3) of the Child Protection Act \u2013 in which they should define the policies and measures to ensure compliance with the rights of the child and support for the family. Many of the necessary measures are contained in the draft of such a strategy, which was suspended in 2019, which is why we call for its revision and adoption as a matter of urgency, as well as the provision of the necessary funds for the implementation of the measures it provides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0Opinion of St. Synod on the newly adopted Law on Social Services, November 25, 2019,\u00a0https:\/\/www.bg-patriarshia.bg\/m\/news.php?id=306152<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> World Health Organization, United Nations Children\u2019s Fund, World Bank Group. Nurturing care for early childhood development: a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.\u00a0https:\/\/apps.who.int\/iris\/bitstream\/handle\/10665\/272603\/9789241514064-eng.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Bulgarian Community for Liberal Democracy (BOLD) is an association of citizens that aims to increase public support for democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help consolidate liberal democracy in Bulgaria. With this position BOLD participates in the formation of public attitudes and public policies in the field of family and policies regarding [...]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4608,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[101],"tags":[56,73,74,72,64],"yoast_head":"\n