This brief has been prepared based on documented cases by LegalHub to clarify how the legal rules on children put in socially dangerous situations (SDS) are formulated and how they are applied in practice.
The system of recognizing children as being in SDS has existed in Belarus since the end of 2006. State authorities can recognize a child as being put in a SDS, if his/her parents (or legal representatives) do not ensure adequate care, upbringing, or safety. This status may lead to exercising additional control over the family, and, in extreme cases, removal of the child and subsequent termination of parental rights. Initially, this procedure was regulated by the presidential decree No. 18 of 24 November 2006 “On additional measures of state protection of children in troubled families.” Later, the rules of the Decree were incorporated into the Family Code – namely, Articles 85-1 to 85-3.
According to the Minister of Labor and Social Protection Natalia Pavlyuchenko the key reason for designating children as being in SDS is the parents’ alcoholism, amounting to 60% of all SDS designations. However, what remains unmentioned is the routine application of SDS status to the dissidents’ families.
In the build-up to the 2025 presidential election, recognized as neither free nor fair by international actors, the atmosphere of fear and intimidation was stirred by the visits of law enforcement representatives to schools. During one of such visits in Orsha, the officers prohibited students “gathering in large groups” and shouting “extremist slogans,” highlighting that such actions are criminal and threatening to designate students’ families as being in SDS, if they are caught engaged in “extremist activities.” Meanwhile, according to the Prosecutor General, 22 500 criminal cases on “anti-extremism” grounds have been initiated by the authorities since 2020.
The tragic Iryna Syrygina’s case is illustrative of the state’s inhumane anti-extremism and SDS policies. Iryna, a mother of three, was detained, sentenced to administrative arrest, and fined for participating in peaceful protests at least three times. Her family was subsequently designated as SDS, while her three children were routinely threatened that their mother would be put in prison and they would be taken to orphanage. On 18 April 2024, Iryna, aged 39, died of a heart attack.
Her case is not isolated – the legislative amendments of acts, regulating SDS designation, inter alia, now permit to apply such status to families, where parents committed notoriously politicized “extremist” offenses. Punishment for “extremism” amid Belarus’s human rights crisis is almost exclusively politically motivated and serves as a tool to suppress dissent. Such arbitrary use of laws, initially aimed at protecting children, turning them into yet another instrument of pressure against dissenters is alarming.
Since the beginning of the political and human rights crisis in Belarus in 2020, SDS legislation has been gradually tightened in two main ways – first, expansion of the grounds of recognizing a child as SDS, and, second, amending the procedure of recognizing a child as SDS. The cases and commentary below provide an overview of these worrisome tendencies.
Expansion of the grounds of recognizing a child as SDS
The criteria and indicators for SDS recognition have been expanding gradually.
1.1. Since 3 September 2021, the lack of parental control over the child’s behavior and location, leading to his/her leaving the house, vagrancy, suicide attempts became a ground for SDS designation
para. 1.7 of the Council of Ministers Act No. 493 of 30 August 2021 “On amending Council of Ministers acts”
Example from practice: teenage girl left the house after a minor fight with her parents and was not returning calls. The parents informed the police. The girl’s location was promptly identified. The police immediately opened an investigation that led to granting the family the SDS status.
1.2. Since 4 August 2022, after the new edition of the Education Code entered into force, stipulating the obligation to provide general secondary education in the country, preventing the child from receiving education became a separate ground for SDS status, including not just primary but secondary education.
para. 1.5 of the Council of Ministers Act No. 502 of 29 July 2022 “On amending Council of Ministers acts”
Example from practice: a teenager from a family of many children did not want to continue his studies at school after 9th year, wishing to take a job instead. The school was threatening to designate the family as SDS.
Since 1 September 2025, parents of minors, living in Belarus, are obliged to create conditions for children to receive general secondary education specifically in Belarus (under the Law “On amending the education codes” No. 46-З adopted on 5 December 2024). Therefore, families where parents have sent their children to receive secondary education abroad to shield them from propaganda spread in Belarusian schools may be recognized as SDS. The question of the government’s dissatisfaction with parents who moved abroad with children remains open.
1.3. Since 8 December 2023, SDS status may be given to children in the following situations:
para. 1 of the Council of Ministers Act No. 856 of 1 December 2023 “On amending Council of Ministers acts
of 15 January 2019 No. 22”
1.3.1. both parents or the single parent of whom do not work or do not engage in other activities, not prohibited by law and/or misuse pensions, government benefits for families, one-time benefits for children, material support, targeted social support, thus not satisfying the basic needs of the children, allowing the absence of food, clothing, footwear, recreational and educational activities.
Context: Active protesters, as well as persons persecuted on administrative/criminal grounds for their political opinion face immense difficulties with employment. For instance, they are refused jobs due to unfavorable references from prior places of work or as a result of unfavorable conclusions of the ideological unit’s screening at the prospective place of work.
Examples from practice: A father who was fired for “unreliability” and was looking for a job for a long time sought our help as he was worried about being designated as SDS. Amendments in the domain of undue use of social benefits and other payments caused heightened interest from parents who live away from their children and pay alimony. It turned out that the “undue use of social benefits” grounds can be exploited as an excuse for revenge. After making these amendments husbands who wished to further exert control over their ex-wives’ lives who were getting social benefits for children contacted us asking how they can create interest from the guardianship authorities, if they suspect that the ex-wives are unduly using the funds.
1.3.2. children who, due to inadequate control from parents, sustained severe injuries as a result of external factors and threats, including as a result of fire, falling from heights, poisoning with psychoactive substances.
Context: Based on our practices, when a decision on designating a child as SDS is made, state authorities do not establish a causal link between the injuries sustained and the parents’ behavior. It is possible to conclude that the parents are presumed to be exercising “inadequate control.
1.3.3. children who due to the parents’ [presumed – see 1.3.2 above] inadequate control committed an offense and against whom individual preventative work is performed according to the Law No. 200-З of 31 May 2003 “On the systems of preventing neglect and juvenile delinquency.”
This SDS criterion was initially used only in respect of children over 14 years of age, who were held administrative or criminal responsibility. The age limit stopped being applied – it is now sufficient that preventative work is conducted in respect of the minor. At the same time, such preventative work (conducted under Article 5 of the Law No. 200-З of 31 May 2003 “On the systems of preventing neglect and juvenile delinquency”) may be done in respect of persons who are not yet of age to be held administratively or criminally liable or who cannot realize the factual character or danger of their actions due to psychological problems. Therefore, the categories of children who could be recognized as SDS has significantly expanded.
1.3.4. The list of administrative articles the conviction under which may signify to the authorities that the parents are leading an immoral lifestyle and are susceptible to SDS designation is expanding. Namely, the list was supplemented by Article 19.10 (Propaganda or public display, making, distributing Nazi symbols or attributes), Article 19.11 (Distributing, making, storing, transporting informational materials containing calls to extremist activities or promoting such activities), and Article 25.11 (Non-compliance with conditions of preventative review or preventative monitoring) of the Code of Administrative Offenses (COA). From 1 January 2025, under the new Council of Ministers Act No. 1055 of 30 December 2024 “On the recognition of children as being in a SDS and in need of state protection,” it became possible to grant SDS status in cases when the child’s parents were exempt from administrative liability under the said article.
Context: In Belarus, a significant number of independent media outlets, human rights organizations, social media pages, and messaging channels have been recognized as “extremist” for spreading information criticizing the actions of government bodies or the policies of the current authorities. Subscribing to a specific Telegram channel, liking a Facebook page, or reposting a YouTube video from an “extremist” organization may be recognized by Belarusian courts as distribution of extremist materials. As a result, Article 19.11 of (distribution of extremist materials) is one of the most frequently applied CAO articles. It is important to note that for liability, it does not matter when the aforementioned actions were committed, even if they took place retroactively – at a time when the organization had not yet been recognized as extremist.
The expansion of the criteria for the SDS leads to the risk of unlawful state interference in the affairs of families, particularly those whose views do not align with the policies of the ruling regime.
Changes in the procedure for recognizing children as SDS
Unlike the grounds for SDS designation, the exact procedure for recognizing children as being SDS has undergone fewer changes. The most significant of these took place on 1 January 2025, when the procedure for recognizing children as being SDS and in need of state protection was revised under the new Council of Ministers Act No. 1055 of 30 December 2024 “On the recognition of children as being in SDS and in need of state protection.” Namely:
2.1. The authority responsible for making decisions on recognizing a child as being шт SDS has changed. Instead of the previously functioning coordination councils, which included representatives from various agencies and structural units of district executive committees, this function has been transferred to the juvenile affairs commissions, which have a more established and formalized structure. This may lead to a reduction in interagency discussions and a decrease in the opportunities to consider alternative viewpoints when making decisions.
2.2. The concept of parents, whose actions (or inaction) can result in a child being recognized as being in SDS, has been clarified. It has been established that, as a general rule (unless otherwise specified), the presence of SDS criteria from one parent is sufficient.
Example from practice: A child lives with the mother after the parents’ divorce. The father is not involved in the upbringing or support of the child. The mother does not maintain contact with him and does not know where he is or how he is living. Unexpectedly, a social investigation is initiated regarding the recognition of the child as being in SDS. It turns out that the cause is the father’s involvement in an administrative offense for petty hooliganism.
2.3. Previously, the activities of any “other organizations” not specifically named in the legislation among entities dealing with identifying SDS and recognizing children as being in SDS were limited to their competence and strictly related to identifying SDS. Now, any “other organization” can participate at any stage of this process (conducting a social investigation, monitoring the living and upbringing conditions of a child after SDS designation, etc.), without strict limitations on its activities within its competence. In other words, the authority to carry out activities related to SDS is now granted to an effectively undefined range of organizations.
Example from practice: A social investigation into the recognition of a child as being in SDS was initiated based on a mailman’s report, who, after delivering a registered letter to an apartment, thought that “something was wrong in the house.”
Changes in the procedure for recognizing children as being in SDS lead to the lack of transparency in this practice and a decrease in the opportunities for an objective examination of the circumstances of each specific famly, which increases the risk of subjective decisions and unlawful interference in citizens’ private lives, who are effectively deprived of effective mechanisms for protection.
