The law is already in effect, the Ministry of Social Policy is still preparing rules: who is responsible for protecting the child?

On the eve of Adoption Day, 17 September, the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Humanitarian and Information Policy discussed family-based upbringing. The state proclaimed a child’s right to a family, while foster parents, communities, and services explained why without support, money, and personnel this right remains a formality.

Law No. 2541-IX, which waited four years for the president’s signature, was finally signed and came into force on 5 August. It was supposed to delineate the responsibilities of the state and communities in the area of child protection. But the hearings showed: a formal division of powers is not enough. The person responsible for a child must have not only duties, but also personnel, funding, services, and real authority to protect them.

A child should grow up in a family. But family placement cannot be a mechanical transfer from an institution to the first available family. A family does not become safe automatically. Foster parents do not have unlimited resources, and the state should not disappear on the day a placement decision is signed.

The main question of the hearings remained unanswered: who is personally responsible for the child — from the moment the danger becomes known until the moment the child is actually in a safe and stable environment?

Family is not a spare bed

The first family-type orphanages appeared in Ukraine in 1989, foster families in 2000, reminded Member of Parliament Yurii Pavlenko. Before the full-scale invasion, about 5100 foster families and family-type orphanages (FTOs) operated in Ukraine. Now — fewer than 4000. Each day roughly six to seven children are placed into such families — about the same number leave them. At the same time, about 35 children daily acquire the status of orphan or child deprived of parental care.

Ukraine has been creating family-based forms of upbringing for more than two decades, but still has not learned to sustain them. The number of children needing families is growing faster than the state’s capacity. And without data on children’s subsequent fate, the figure “placed in a family” guarantees nothing.

Foster families and FTOs cannot be used as universal temporary accommodation. Participants in the hearings spoke about cases when children of different statuses and from different communities were placed into families, sometimes without proper assessment of the family’s capacity. It was as if there were a spare bed, not people raising children with trauma, disabilities, challenging behavior, and experiences of loss.

FTO caregiver Tetyana Vengreniuk put it precisely: “A family-type orphanage is, first and foremost, a family, not a social service or a project.” If the state treats a family as a place to deliver a few more children, it jeopardizes the safety of the whole family.

When well-being exists only on paper

The sharpest remarks at the hearings were about oversight. Head of the Verkhovna Rada Temporary Investigative Commission Pavlo Sushko cited cases where children in family-based settings were beaten while services reported well-being. In Dnipro, children were placed into one family for years even though it could not cope. In Odesa region, several teenagers were immediately placed into a newly formed foster family; later one child was beaten by the foster mother.

These cases do not discredit family-based forms — they show that formal control does not protect a child. When social services, schools, medical workers, and police each sign their document, but no one sees the full picture, collective irresponsibility arises. The system’s performance indicator is not a report but the child’s safety.

Law No. 2541-IX was to define the powers of the state and communities and fix who is the guardianship and custodianship authority at the local level. But some subordinate acts are still being developed or approved. A separate dispute concerns territorial bodies of the State Service for Children. The law does not provide for them, while the Ministry of Social Policy believes such units are needed for monitoring, control, training, and coordination.

However, a new level of control will not make a child’s life safer if the community lacks psychologists, transport, social workers, and places for temporary placement. There will be more letters and reports, but not protection.

Head of the State Service for Children Valentyna Zozulia reported: the service’s staff structure foresees 200 positions, but in fact 74 people work there. The question is obvious: why build a territorial network if the central body cannot fill its own staff?

The law exists. People and money do not

Executive Director of the Association of Ukrainian Cities Oleksandr Slobozhan reported that 92% of surveyed communities named a shortage of candidates for foster parents and caregiver-parents as a problem. New families cannot be created with calls alone.

The state transfers new powers to communities, but the draft budget for 2027 foresees a reduction of their share of PIT from 64 to 60%. Responsibilities rise, resources shrink.

In Volyn about 30% of communities have only one child protection service employee, reported regional service head Alla Onishchuk. Salaries often amount to 10–12 thousand hryvnias. One person cannot simultaneously be a social worker, lawyer, psychologist, case manager, and inspector. Demanding systemic protection from them is asking the impossible.

After 18 years the child does not disappear

Foster mother Iryna Umanska said her family, raising 10 children (six foster), receives about 86 thousand hryvnias in monthly payments. A large part goes to utilities, house maintenance, and fuel. The rest covers basic food. There is effectively no money left for clothing, extracurriculars, development, recreation, and unforeseen expenses.

The problem is not only payments but the absence of services — from respite and rehabilitation to housing for children after 18 years. The state reports how many children were placed into families, but says far less about what happens after their exit. Do they have housing, education, and support for independent living?

Representative of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Aksana Filipishyna proposed extending assistance to children under guardianship up to 23 years if they are studying. The Ministry of Social Policy again said it is working on such changes.

A successful pilot is not yet a system

Director of the regional office of the charity “Hope and Homes for Children” Halyna Postoliuk said that in a year and a half of project work, it was possible to place 50 children with disabilities, complex needs, and developmental disorders into foster families and FTOs. In Dnipropetrovsk region 33 prepared families accepted 39 such children.

This disproves the myth that some children cannot be raised in families. But a pilot is not policy. It works where there are NGOs, trainers, partners, and donor funds. In another community there may be no training, no family assistant, no rehabilitation.

Chair of the board of the Ukrainian Network for Children’s Rights Daria Kasyanova presented the network’s recommendations: properly finance family-based forms of upbringing that are on the verge of survival, prepare and support parents, and do not allow children to return to institutions; develop quality social services in communities. In her view, even services that the state currently pays for — rehabilitation for children from foster families or social support — are often so poor that it would be better if they did not exist at all. Foster families also need to be prepared for a potentially harsh winter. Local authorities must do this, without waiting for orders from above.

Child rights expert Liudmyla Volynets drew attention to another-level problem: the reform makes it hard to find someone personally responsible for a specific decision. When powers are distributed among ministries, services, and communities, a child can fall between agencies. A child’s chance of entering a family should not depend on whether a strong NGO operates in their region.

Who coordinates child policy

Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Olena Kondratiuk phrased the problem this way: “Everyone is a little responsible for child protection — and no one specifically.”

The war has put the system under unprecedented pressure: according to UNICEF, more than 2,6 million Ukrainian children have been displaced by hostilities — 791 thousand internally, nearly 1,8 million abroad. A separate challenge is the return of children from deportation.

There is also a cautiously encouraging figure: the number of children in institutional facilities is 3265, one third less than two years ago. But Kondratiuk emphasizes: reform should be evaluated not by the number of closed institutions but by what happens to a specific child. More than 58 thousand children have the status of orphan or child deprived of parental care; registered for adoption are 14 333 children, candidates to adopt — only 1850.

She called to create a single central coordinating authority for state policy in the field of child protection. The proposal is important, but a new body alone is insufficient. It will make sense only if it has real powers, its own budget, complete statistics, and the ability to designate who is responsible for a specific child. Otherwise the system will gain another managerial layer, not a single responsible person.

What must change

Law No. 2541-IX can become a reboot point, if it does not turn into another redistribution of functions.

It is necessary to:

finalize subordinate acts without duplication;

provide communities with staff and funding;

create accessible services for children and families;

track the child’s entire pathway;

guarantee oversight and support after 18 years;

appoint a specific person responsible for the outcome.

Another discussion diagnosed the problem but offered no ready prescription. Ukraine has the right laws, strategies, and pilots, but lacks personal responsibility, capable community services, accessible services, and guaranteed funding.

A child can be formally placed in a family. But the state will fulfill its duty only when it guarantees the child’s safety — not on paper, but every day. Success is not the number of children moved from an institution. Success is children who remain safe, who do not experience repeated displacement, who keep ties with siblings, who receive education, treatment, housing, and support after 18 years.