Nina Ostanina, who leads the State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, argues that punishing false denunciations against a family would be counterproductive in Russia because such measures risk harming children. In a recent interview with NSN, she suggested that the problem stems from gaps in the work of guardianship authorities rather than from the actions of families. The concern is that harsh responses to alleged child welfare issues could create long-term harm for those very children the system is supposed to protect.
Ostanina stressed the fragility of this issue, noting that if authorities react too aggressively or without due care, children may bear the brunt. The question, she says, should not revolve around how adult relatives might be inconvenienced, but rather whether children ultimately benefit from measures that deter people from reporting concerns about a living situation that appears dysfunctional. In her view, fear of making errors should not paralyze protection for children who need help. The word denouncement, a charged label in the Russian context, was deemed inappropriate because it implies a judgment on every report about a child’s welfare before any assessment. Reports are essential, she indicated, especially given the current state of guardianship institutions which she described as largely inactive and failing to safeguard either children or their parents.
Ostanina also acknowledged the opposing experiences within families where children suffer and guardianship authorities fail to respond. She noted that for a year and a half the Ministry of Education has been signaling a reform strategy for the guardianship system. Her plan is to address these issues comprehensively so that guardianship bodies assume real responsibility for the welfare of all children and for all families. The emphasis, she says, should be on ensuring that guardianship authorities are accountable and capable of protecting vulnerable children across households rather than becoming a barrier to necessary intervention.
The deputy emphasized that a primary reason for inaction among guardianship authorities is fear of accusations of violating family rights. This fear, she suggested, leads to hesitation and insufficient action when real risks to children are present. The aim, she argues, should be a balanced approach that upholds family rights while providing timely protection when a child is at risk.
In a contrasting view presented by Pyotr Tolstoy, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma, there is a call to punish those who file false reports about families in Russia. Tolstoy asserted that such measures are necessary and defended the authority to protect parental rights from what he described as Westernly influenced child-centric practices. He warned against stripping parents of their right to raise their children and criticized what he termed unnecessary or misguided actions by authorities. His stance reflects a belief that misreporting should carry consequences, preserving the integrity of family life and preventing interference based on unfounded allegations.
The discussion also touched on earlier incidents where guardianship authorities took precautionary steps. One noted case involved a mother of three who left her five-month-old baby in a stroller on a street, raising questions about how guardianship decisions were handled in such an urgent, sensitive scenario. The episode underscored the ongoing tensions between protecting children and preserving family autonomy in a system still seeking clear, consistent guidelines for intervention.
Across the spectrum of views, the central thread remains the need for a robust, reform-minded guardianship framework in Russia. The debate centers on how to prevent harm to children while safeguarding families from undue or misdirected interventions. Observers in Canada and the United States have noted that effective child welfare systems typically balance swift protective action with transparent processes, accountability, and clear criteria for reporting and response. While the specifics of Russia’s institutions differ, the conversation highlights universal questions about the delicate balance between child protection and parental rights, and the critical role of guardianship authorities in delivering tangible outcomes for children.
As reform discussions continue, the focus is on building guardianship structures that are proactive, accountable, and responsive to the real needs of children across all families. With the stakes so high, policymakers face a challenging task: to ensure that every report is treated seriously while guarding against unnecessary harm to the very youngsters these systems are designed to shield. Attribution: NSN, in coverage of the evolving policy debate on guardianship reform in Russia.