By: Enas Ahmida
In a profound article published by Al-Sabah platform, journalist Enas Ahmida raises a thorny and painful issue regarding the plight of Libyan children in care homes in certain European countries, specifically Italy. She highlights the severe challenges they face when child protection laws are applied in isolation from their cultural and religious specificities. The writer poses fundamental questions about the delicate balance required between the duty to protect the child and the need to preserve their identity, language, and family ties. She reviews the devastating psychological and social repercussions of separation from the family, calling for a larger and more effective role for the relevant Libyan institutions in monitoring these files to ensure the protection of the rights of children and their families.
Ahmida emphasizes that protecting children is a sacred duty, but reality shows that the literal application of laws can sometimes turn into a tool for breaking family ties. What is happening with some Libyan mothers abroad causes grave concern; children are snatched from their mothers’ arms for reasons that may seem legally justified on paper, but produce long-term psychological and behavioral effects. Although Italian laws are based on the principle of the “best interests of the child” to protect them from violence or neglect, applying this principle in isolation from the Libyan cultural and religious context transforms protection into cultural and emotional exclusion. The writer criticizes the imposition of certain parenting styles as a universal standard, considering it a grave mistake, regardless of intentions.
More seriously, the writer explains that removed children are assigned to care homes, where repeated reports have shown poor conditions, including neglect, mistreatment, and sometimes physical and psychological abuse, making the outcomes of these homes worse for the child than staying with their mother. These experiences increase the child’s vulnerability and place them in a cycle of accumulated trauma, making reintegration into society more difficult and doubling the risk of delinquency and aggressive behavior later. The final result is children losing their linguistic, cultural, and religious identity, and even their sense of security, and mothers feeling powerless against an administrative and legal apparatus full of loopholes that decides for them.
Psychological studies cited by Ahmida indicate that these experiences lead to behavioral disorders, rebellion, and sometimes drifting toward dangerous behaviors, something no religion disagrees on, because the human soul needs roots, not forced cutting. She emphasizes that protecting the child does not mean uprooting them from their mother or erasing them from their cultural context. Solutions exist, but they require genuine cultural mediation, psychological support for mothers, and finding less harmful alternatives before resorting to any separation. Maintaining family ties must be the rule, not the exception, along with ensuring continuous monitoring of any alternative institutions for children if separation is required.
Ahmida asserts that justice is not in the speed of the decision, but in the ability to protect the child without erasing them from their roots and doubling the harm, noting that what is happening in Italy is not an exceptional case, but repeated patterns and stories heard daily. Therefore, the writer concludes that it is the duty of the relevant Libyan institutions for social affairs and child rights to place this issue on the priority agenda, and to work on monitoring the conditions of Libyan children in European care institutions, providing legal and psychological support to affected mothers and families, building direct communication channels with European authorities to ensure respect for the cultural and religious rights of children, offering solutions that protect the child without compromising their identity or roots, and preserving the right of mothers to defend their children and reclaim them.