Latvia’s Ombudswoman, Karina Palkova, has called for an immediate reform of the country’s Orphan’s Court system, proposing two alternative models for restructuring child protection decision-making.
According to the Ombudsman’s Office, Palkova has urged the Cabinet of Ministers to develop a new institutional model for the Orphan’s Court system by the 1st of December this year and implement it by the 1st of January, 2028.
She has also called on the Latvian Parliament to ensure parliamentary oversight of both the reform process and the broader improvement of Latvia’s child protection system.
The Ombudsman’s Office argues that significant disparities exist in how Orphan’s Courts operate across different municipalities, citing inconsistent practices, weak supervision, and serious shortcomings ranging from inadequate consideration of children’s views to unjustified removal of children from their families.
Palkova stressed that the current system was created under very different circumstances.
“Perhaps it once served its purpose, but many facts indicate that this is no longer the case. The quality of child rights protection depends on where in Latvia a child lives and on the municipality’s understanding, resources, and the professionalism and experience of officials working in Orphan’s Courts,” she said.
According to Palkova, the current framework fails to provide equal, professional, and timely protection of children’s rights.
“This situation is alarming. It negatively affects the lives of many children and families and therefore cannot be ignored,” she emphasized.
She argued that
the state has a duty to act because children’s rights and interests cannot remain subordinate to institutional inertia.
“Children’s rights are my priority, and initiating orphan’s court reform is part of that commitment. I call on the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament to act immediately in order to build a strong child protection system in Latvia,” Palkova said.
In a report entitled On the Need to Review the Current Institutional Model of Orphan’s Courts, the Ombudsman concludes that Latvia’s system is structurally fragmented and highly uneven.
Although formally a single national system, in practice there are “42 different approaches,” as each municipality organizes the work of its Orphan’s Court differently, including funding levels, salaries, available resources, and operational methods.
The report further concludes that oversight is weak because responsibility is spread among multiple institutions,
while no single authority assumes full responsibility for the overall quality of the system.
In addition, Orphan’s Courts handle not only child protection matters but also guardianship, notarial functions, and other issues unrelated to children.
One of the Ombudswoman’s strongest criticisms concerns professional qualifications.
Palkova highlighted as particularly troubling the fact that decisions involving fundamental human rights are often made by officials who do not possess legal education.
“The fact that an Orphan’s Court consists of several members does not in itself guarantee quality. As a result, the level of protection afforded to a child’s rights depends on where they live, because substantial differences exist between municipalities,” the report states.
The Ombudswoman proposes two possible directions for reform.
The first model would divide Orphan’s Court functions between municipal social services and the judicial system. Under this approach: social services would focus on early intervention, prevention, and family support. Courts would make the most sensitive decisions concerning a child’s future rather than municipal institutions.
The second model would transfer responsibilities to a centralized Child Protection Centre with regional branches operating in municipalities, alongside the courts.
According to the Ombudsman’s Office, the key advantages of this model would include: Uniform quality standards nationwide, professional recruitment and training of staff, centralized supervision, faster complaint handling and more objective assessments of children’s needs and best interests.
Palkova has invited all relevant institutions to examine the proposed models in detail
and to suggest improvements or alternative approaches aimed at strengthening child protection.
Previously, Palkova told the LETA news agency that Latvia’s Orphan’s Court institution is outdated and that decisions regarding children’s futures would be better placed within the judicial system.
However, the Latvian Association of Orphan’s Court Employees has rejected the Ombudswoman’s criticism. The association argues that the overall quality of Orphan’s Court decisions remains high and opposes transferring decision-making authority to the courts.
Meanwhile, Parliament adopted amendments to the Orphan’s Court Law in December last year, postponing until the 1st of January, 2027 the introduction of a certification system and qualification commission for Orphan’s Court officials.
The Ministry of Welfare concluded during the reform process that
the planned certification model was not suitable for the specific nature of orphan’s court work.
Instead, it has prepared amendments proposing a unified evaluation system.
The implementation deadline was postponed because Parliament was unable to complete consideration of those amendments in time. According to the explanatory notes accompanying the legislation, failure to extend the deadline would have created legal uncertainty and potentially jeopardized the lawful operation of Orphan’s Courts.
The extension is intended to ensure the continued and lawful functioning of the system until a new professional assessment framework is adopted.
Read also Latvian immunologist Ņikiforenko sentenced to 13 years in prison for sexual abuse of patients