Child protection activists and professionals have long been advocating for the implementation of the Taquet law, which prohibits the placement of minors in hotels.
After two years of waiting, the decree enforcing this law was finally published in the Official Journal on Sunday, February 18. However, the publication of the decree has left many feeling both relieved and concerned.
The urgency to enforce the Taquet law arose from a tragic incident where a 15-year-old girl placed in a hotel took her own life in Puy-de-Dôme. This heartbreaking event sparked widespread indignation and prompted both deputies and activists to emphasize the need for the immediate publication of the decree.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: The Debate Over Media Pluralism And Freedom Of Expression
While the decree confirms the ban on hotel accommodation for minors under 16, it also includes exemptions that have raised concerns among those who campaigned for its enforcement.
To shed light on the subject, Lyes Louffok, a child rights activist shared his perspective on three key points. Louffok highlights that the decree should be seen as a “control” of hotel placement rather than a complete ban.
While it prohibits the placement of minors under 16 and disabled children in hotels, it allows for departments to authorize hotels as places of placement and reception for children aged 16 and over.
This raises questions about the suitability of such accommodations and the lack of clarity in the decree regarding the qualifications of professionals responsible for the care of these children.
Louffok emphasizes the importance of setting clear standards for professionals, specifying the number of children they can care for, and whether their presence is required day and night. Unfortunately, the decree fails to address these concerns, leaving room for inadequate applications and insufficient care for children.
According to the text, possessing a BAFA (a diploma in the animation field) is sufficient qualification for working in these establishments, without specifying the required diploma or level.
Additionally, the decree does not specify the ratio of supervisors to children. Lyes Louffok argues that at the very least, there should be one specialized educator with a state diploma for every four children, available day and night, to ensure their safety.
Furthermore, the criteria for authorizing these structures by the departments are not stringent enough. This raises the question of whether the ban on placing children in hotels is truly being enforced or if hotels are simply changing their status to continue operating as places of accommodation.
Additionally, some departments have already communicated their lack of resources to enforce the law, raising doubts about the effectiveness of its implementation.
While the shortcomings of the decree may not come as a surprise, there is a deep disappointment in the fact that France is not providing adequate means to protect its children.
Louffok suggests that instead of modifying the decree, the law itself should be re-specified to provide a clearer framework for the ban on placing children in hotels.
