This is what we know about the injustice inflicted on children who were placed out of home by Jeugdzorg Nederland and related youth protection and foster care agencies—and about structural errors, misconduct, and systemic criticism. It is a broad and sensitive subject, and the stories range from individual trauma to deep-rooted structural failings.
What went wrong: abuse and a failing youth care system
There have been large-scale cases of abuse—physical, psychological, and sexual—of children in foster families and in care institutions. At the youth care and foster care facility De Glind, for example, dozens of former residents reported that they were abused: some physically, others psychologically, and some sexually. Several stated that they had already filed complaints before 2019, but that little or nothing was done.
A recent and shocking case involved a foster child (around 10 years old) who was severely abused in a foster home—resulting in lasting damage (brain trauma, fractures, coma)—despite multiple institutions (school, police, support services) reportedly having repeated signals of abuse. Yet the responsible organisations—including Enver and the William Schrikker Stichting (WSS)—failed to intervene adequately to protect the child.
Inspection bodies concluded that institutions failed in their legal duty to guarantee safety and oversight. In this case, inspectors even referred to “extreme human failure,” stating that the agencies involved acted as if the reports did not exist.
There is also structural criticism that many children receive insufficient guidance or aftercare once they have been removed from home. Returning to their biological families or receiving adequate trauma support often fails to materialise—meaning that for many children, removal is not a temporary measure but a permanent break with their parents.
Groups of children in secure youth care (closed institutions) often leave traumatised. Studies and testimonies report violence between young people, coercion, isolation cells, dehumanising control measures, and a lack of appropriate support.
Systemic shortcomings and structural criticism
Due to staff shortages, bureaucracy, overwhelming caseloads, and limited capacity, many youth protection agencies are unable to act safely and adequately. In recent years, multiple organisations have been assessed as failing to meet legal standards, which delays support or causes it to collapse entirely—sometimes with severe consequences.
In some cases, out-of-home placement has been applied too easily, too harshly, or unjustly—particularly in families struck by financial hardship or debt, as seen with children affected by the childcare benefits scandal. The Hamer Committee concluded that government failures pushed families into crisis and that children were sometimes removed instead of addressing the underlying causes: poverty, debt, and chronic stress.
For many former children in care, it remains unclear why they were removed in the first place. Files can be inaccessible, explanations are missing, and communication with parents and children is often poor—meaning that, in hindsight, the foundations for the decision appear vague, inconsistent, or weakly substantiated.
Aftercare and support frequently fall short. Children and parents are left on their own, fostering attachment to a foster family while making return to the original family impossible—even when reunification would have been desirable. This can cause long-term psychological damage and lifelong consequences.
Consequences for children and families
Many former children in care suffer from psychological symptoms such as trauma, anxiety, attachment and bonding problems, depression, and identity issues—linked to abuse, abrupt separation from parents, uncertainty about why they were removed, and the absence of reliable support.
Trust—trust in parents, in care institutions, and in their own worth—is often severely damaged. Some only discover later that they never received a clear explanation for the most drastic intervention in their life. That strikes at the very core of safety and self-image.
The system has broken families—especially families already vulnerable due to poverty, financial pressure, or social disadvantage. In many cases, structural help did not arrive, while removal was treated as a rigid “solution.”
For some children, years in institutions or foster homes resulted in nothing but trauma. Victims often received no recognition and no proper support for years—sometimes only decades later.
Response, recognition, and attempts at repair
The government has acknowledged that many children suffered additional harm—unwanted and, in some cases, unjustified—due to failures in the youth care system and inadequate institutional responses. The connection to wider government failures, including the benefits scandal, has also become part of this recognition.
A compensation scheme has existed for victims of violence in youth care settings. People who experienced serious or structural violence as minors between 1945 and 2019 were able to apply for a fixed compensation payment—intended primarily as recognition of suffering rather than full reimbursement of damage.
At the same time, civil society organisations and experts continue to call for fundamental reforms: more prevention, fewer removals, better support for families, and stricter oversight of foster care and youth institutions.
Recent cases—such as the abuse of the Vlaardingen foster girl—have triggered renewed political and public outrage, and intensified calls for stronger supervision and accountability in youth care. (IGJ)