In 1981, Catalonia became the first autonomous community in Spain to assume jurisdiction over the protection and guardianship of minors. At that time, juvenile courts were competent both in matters of protection and in what was then called "reform." This power not only referred to criminal conduct, but also to situations in which children or young people were considered to have engaged in debauchery, were prostituted, or were "unsafe."bums and vagabonds", and interventions were also carried out. The age range was 0 to 16 years old.
Very soon, two clearly differentiated lines of action emerged: for criminal lawyers, the main concern was to ensure a system with guarantees throughout the entire process, avoiding confinement measures whenever possible. For those concerned with the protection system, the priority was the conditions of protection; children These two tendencies coexisted within the Department of Justice in two distinct services: one called the Legal Defense Service for Minors, for which I was responsible, and another called the Center Service
Over time, the differences became even more pronounced, until in 198 the powers clearly separated. The first area was transformed into what would later become the General Directorate of Juvenile Justice, and the second, into the DGAIA.
This process culminated in the approval of the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Act 5/2000, the only criminal law in the entire State that could be described as educational-punitive. In the area of protection, with the application of Act 1/1996 on the legal protection of the administration, without judicial control.
The evolution of these two systems, after almost forty years of operation, has given rise, on the one hand, to a relatively stable juvenile justice system, despite changes in the profile of the young population, but with a clear containment of a system of protection of children and adolescents that offers little guarantees, since it is the administration that decides and executes the measures, especially that of abandonment, which involves the separation of children from their families.
2,749 children in residential care in 2010, up from 5,271 in February 2025. In this sense, in 2024, 58.4% of children and adolescents under protective measures were in residential care, and only 10.4% Unfortunately, complex – and extremely painful – cases, when they occur, set off all the alarms.
Children have the right to grow up with their families or, when this is not possible, in a family. Often, factors such as poverty, addiction, or mental health problems, among others, prevent parents from exercising their parenting skills to the fullest. But probably, with appropriate support for these at-risk families, the separation of children from their family environment could be avoided—at least in most cases. The alternative, especially for very young children, of growing up in a center is absolutely inadvisable. But it is also the case for adolescents, who are overrepresented in centers, and even more so for girls, for whom this is often far from the most appropriate option.
An emergency situation may be understandable and acceptable for a limited time, but, unfortunately, the slowness of the administration also takes its toll in these cases, and the children see the years go by and grow up in centers without a clear or stable solution.
From a report that we presented from the Síndic institution in November 2023, it was extracted That approximately half of the children currently in residential care could benefit from other resources.
However, I fear that these days the debate will focus on something similar to what happened twenty years ago. Perhaps it will lead to some improvement in the care and attention provided to the centers, but I'm not sure that the system will be thoroughly questioned and revised.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't hesitate to face these changes with the utmost courage, because, despite being aware of the difficulties, we've been waiting too long for a change that never comes.
I believe we cannot continue one more day with a system that not only offers no guarantees, but which, while aiming to protect unprotected children, actually generates unprotected children. However, we still dare to say that we do this "for the best interests of the child"...
That's why we believe that a thorough review of the structural conditions that made this case possible is urgent, as well as of many other situations that children experience every day in the protection system. This is and has been our position as an institution defending rights.
