Status without content: the state formally recognizes children of war, but does not protect or help them

In the fourth year of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the question of not only the protection of children who suffered as a result of the armed conflict, but also the mechanism that should guarantee this protection remains open. People’s Deputy of Ukraine Pavlo Sushko publicly paid attention on the critical problems related to granting children the status of victims of hostilities or armed conflicts. In his post, the parliamentarian explained in detail how the system currently works — and why it cannot provide real help to those who need it. It is not only about bureaucratic conflicts, but the lack of logic, the substitution of concepts and the actual leveling of the meaning of the status, which should testify to the state’s concern for the most vulnerable citizens.

Dynamics of registration of status: statistics of Kharkiv Oblast

As of the beginning of June, 39,961 children in the Kharkiv region were officially recognized as having suffered as a result of hostilities or armed conflict. As Pavlo Sushko emphasized, the vast majority of these children were subjected to psychological violence. A total of 82 children received the status due to injuries — and these are only those cases where families applied for the appropriate procedure. Since the beginning of the year, 5,161 children have received this status, most of them in Kharkiv, where the largest number of children in the region is currently concentrated. Currently, about 300 children are waiting for this status.

At the same time, Kharkiv, as an administrative center, has the greatest load on the employees of the Children’s Service (SSD), and the resource of this service remains limited. In just one year, 1,488 children received the status in the city — that’s 30% of the total number in the region.

Why the system does not work: the logic of Resolution No. 585 and its consequences

The main problem, according to Sushka, is the regulatory obligation — after a family has applied for the status of a child affected by the war — to automatically register such a family as one in difficult life circumstances (SJHO). This follows from the provisions of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 585, which stipulates that all children with this status must be accompanied by social services as children with special needs.

As the deputy explains, if previously 10 families with objectively difficult life circumstances were conditionally registered in the children’s service (for example, due to problems with parental competence, alcohol abuse, cruel treatment), now every family where a child was affected by the war will automatically fall into this group. This means almost every family in Kharkiv region.

As a result, SSD workers will be forced to work not with specific families in need of urgent help, but with everyone indiscriminately. Each child will have to create an individual social protection plan, assemble an interdisciplinary team, monitor its implementation, and constantly review and correct documents. This is an overload that, according to the logic of the system, cannot be effectively implemented.

Motivation for refusal: fear of stigmatization and loss of meaning of status

According to Sushka, parents often don’t apply for status, even if their children have really suffered, because of the fear of being equated with families with low educational potential. From a formal point of view, children end up on the register, which de facto signals that the family is problematic, despite its stable social status. This scares away families and discredits the procedure itself.

The deputy emphasizes that the system does not distinguish between children who are really in a risky environment and those who suffered not because of the actions of their parents, but because of the war – bombing, occupation, death of loved ones. The approach laid down in Resolution No. 585 effectively deprives parents of a choice: either they receive the status, but are automatically included in the list of families of the SHO, or they refuse — even if the child is injured.

As Sushko emphasizes, another absurdity is the complete lack of real support for children who have received the status. Such a child does not receive any social benefits. The only bonus is free meals in educational institutions. Everything else is an empty account, formal plans and nothing in real life. Therefore, parents do not see the point in going through a complicated and unpleasant procedure, which does not give any profit, but imposes a social stigma.

According to Sushka, this is not just a bureaucratic error – it is a systemic injustice. Children who became victims of war turned out to be hostages of formalities and short-sighted logic. They are either left with no recognition of their trauma, or receive a status with additional stigmas and no support.

The deputy’s proposal: divide the functions and change the focus

Pavlo Sushko offers an alternative approach: families with children affected by the war should not be registered as those in difficult life circumstances. Instead, they should remain the focus of social service providers — those who can provide counseling, psychological support, individual support, without putting the stigma of a “disadvantaged” family.

This approach would preserve the meaning of the status of a war-affected child as evidence of the state’s recognition of trauma, support and willingness to help – without unnecessary paperwork and without offensive assumptions about the family.

In his post, Pavlo Sushko shows that modern state policy in the field of protecting children who have suffered as a result of the war remains declarative. Formally, the status exists and children can receive it, but the content of the status is zero, it does not guarantee payments, does not provide for separate assistance. Instead, it imposes obligations on the family that are unacceptable to most.

In this situation, both trust in the system and the very idea of ​​recognizing a child as a victim are lost. And worst of all, the main thing is lost: the real support that these children need right now. Not in shape. And in fact.