GlobalChild Platform

Article 25: Periodic review of placement and treatment

States Parties recognize the right of a child who has been placed by the competent authorities for the purposes of care, protection or treatment of his/ her physical or mental health to a periodic review of the treatment provided to the child and all other circumstances relevant to his /her placement.

-UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Overview of Article 25

Article 25 places legal obligations on governments to periodically review the (1) treatment and (2) circumstances of children who have been placed by the authorities for the purposes of (a) care, (b) protection or (c) treatment of their health in institutions or facilities. It provides legal protection against child abuse in institutions of care and treatment authorized by the State [1] and  provides for a mechanism of regular reviews to ascertain “the appropriateness of placement with regards to the decision and purpose of the placement, the quality of care and the progress of treatment or care” [2]. Regardless of the circumstances leading to the child’s placement in any facility or institution of care, the child’s view and well-being must be carefully considered in the assessment of ongoing placement and continued service delivery [3, 4].

This article sets out clear expectation that the State will set standards for the regular monitoring of private and state run care settings, including foster care that children receive service from and are placed in [4, 5]. Some guidelines set the interval of this monitoring “preferably every three months” [6]. Effectively, reviews are to assess and correct infringements on rights and assure the enjoyment of rights without discrimination [7].

Lack of effective and accessible complaints and regular review mechanisms may lead to systematic and ongoing abuse [8]. The Committee highlighted that “children’s special and dependent status creates real difficulties for them in pursuing remedies for breaches of their rights” [5] which adds to the significance of periodic reviews. Furthermore, the Committee highlights the particular concern that children within the child welfare system, as well as those children with disabilities, often have limited opportunity to have periodic review of their treatment and placement, including lodging complaints about issues related to their placement and care.

Article 25 is closely connected to articles 1, 3, 5, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23(1) as well as 39. In terms of the General Principle, States have the responsibility to ensure active measures are aimed at identifying, redressing and eliminating situations of discrimination (Article 2), inequity, exclusion, marginalization and alienation [5, 8-11] when assessing appropriateness of placement and efficacy and ongoing need for​treatment or with respects to any other matters under review. All reviews, whether they be legislative, administrative or judicial, must apply the principle of best interest (Article 3) giving primary and explicit consideration to as how children’s rights and interests are or will be affected, directly or indirectly, by the decisions and actions taken [5]. Reviews should be carried out in an environment/manner where individuals and the processes itself respects and preserves the dignity of the child and their rights, while promotes outcomes that support the holistic (optimal) development (Article 6) of every child [5].

Lastly, the right of the child to be heard (Article 12), either directly or through a representative, in any judicial or administrative proceeding affecting the child is secured.

Core attributes of Article 25

The core attributes of Article 25 are:

  • Scope and authorisation of periodic reviews
  • Periodicity and content of reviews of the placement
  • Accountability and transparency


Each of these attributes can be measured in terms of structural or process implementation or in terms of outcomes achieved through implementation as outlined in the table below. Some indicators, for instance the structural ones, may be common to all attributes. Others are common to two or more attributes, while some indicators may be relevant to one attribute only. An attempt has been made to balance the use of objective and subjective data indicators as well as qualitative and quantitative ones.

What did children say?

These are some ideas that children from around the world shared with us during the Global Child Rights Dialogue (GCRD) project:

Relevant provisions within the SDGs

No relevant SDG provisions has been identified for this article.

Potential sources of data for users of the indicators sets
  • Administrative and juvenile justice system records
  • Ministry responsible for children
  • Offices of children’s ombudspersons and offices of Child and Youth Advocates
  • Primary research by national human rights institutions for children
  • Primary research by universities and NGOs
  • Survey of children in alternative care

References used for the overview
  1. UNICEF. (2007). Implementation handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Fully rev. 3rd ed., pp.379). Geneva, Switzerland: UNICEF.
  2. United Nation General Assembly (2010). Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (A/RES/64/142). Retrieved from http://brantfacs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/United-Nations-Guidelines-for-the-Alternative-Care-of-Children-2010.pdf
  3. International Committee on the Red Cross. (2004). Inter-agency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/protection/IAG_UASCs.pdf
  4. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
  5.  United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2003). General comment No. 5 (2003) on the general measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC/GC/2003/5), (para. 12, 24, 44-45). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/4538834f11.html
  6. SOS Children’s village (2009). Guidelines for the alternative care of children. United Nations framework (para 67).Innsbruck, Austria: SOS Children’s Village International. Retrieved from https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/4972cb2e-62e1-4ae8-a0bc-b0e27fe3ea97/101203-UN-Guidelines-en-WEB.pdf
  7. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2005). General Comment No.6 (2005), Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin (CRC/GC/2005/6), (para. 13). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/42dd174b4.html
  8. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2007). General Comment No.9, The rights of children with disabilities (CRC/C/GC/9), (para. 8, 20). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/461b93f72.html
  9. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2013). General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interest taken as a primary consideration (CRC/C/GC/14). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/51a84b5e4.html
  10. United Nations International Human Rights Instruments. (2003). Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6), (p.147). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/403f2a344.html
  11. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989). CCPR General Comment No.18: Non-discrimination. (GC 18/ 1989). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fa8.html
References used to create indicators
  • Better Care Network, & UNICEF. (2009). Manual for the measurement of indicators for children in formal care. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/protection/Formal_Care20Guide20FINAL.pdf
  • SOS Children’s village (2009). Guidelines for the alternative care of children. United Nations framework. Innsbruck, Austria: SOS Children’s Village International. Retrieved from https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/4972cb2e-62e1-4ae8-a0bc-b0e27fe3ea97/101203-UN-Guidelines-en-WEB.pdf
  • Szmukler, G., Daw, R. & Callard, F. (2014). Mental health law and the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.024
  • The Child Protection Initiative, Save the Children. (2014). Child Protection Outcome Indicators. Retrieved from https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/child-protection-outcome-indicators
Glossary/key words

Competent authorities
A ‘competent authority’ in the context of adoption is an adoption agency that is a properly licensed by the law of the State, complies with minimum standards and is established, authorised and supervised by the State to undertake the role of approving applications to adopt (Hague Convention, 1993).

Article 25 Indicator Tables

© GlobalChild (2020)