Violence against children: the 20 key measures unveiled by Sarah El Haïry, High Commissioner for Childhood
In Brief
- On July 15, 2026, Sarah El Haïry, High Commissioner for Childhood, presented to the Prime Minister a report with 20 key measures to strengthen child protection against violence towards children.
- The package targets four operational areas: earlier prevention, faster detection, immediate protection, long-term support (including enhanced support for victims).
- Among the notable proposals: a single background check service for people in contact with minors, a national training foundation, and a national reporting application.
- Digital is treated as a distinct field of violence: detection, control, dissemination of illicit content, exploitation, with responses designed for schools and families.
- Legal developments are planned: specialized prosecution office, reflection on statute of limitations, national register of persons implicated, and offense of glorifying pedocriminality.
On July 15, 2026, Sarah El Haïry, High Commissioner for Childhood, presented to the Prime Minister a report titled “For comprehensive child protection,” following the Lyhanna case which highlighted real coordination and follow-up failures. The document sets a clear objective: to make the child protection chain continuous, from the first suspicion to reconstruction, with governmental actions tackling both administrative blind spots and everyday situations. The approach is a “field” response, with measures that can be quickly activated (training, reporting tools, controls) and others requiring legislative action (judicial organization, new registers, principles with constitutional value).
Within this framework, violence against children is approached as a continuum: intrafamily violence, sexual assaults, harassment, cyberbullying, online predation, as well as institutional failures when information gets lost between services. The report emphasizes a simple idea verifiable on the ground: when several adults “know a little bit,” the child does not have a “modular” protection. The 20 key measures therefore seek to equip professionals, make reports more accessible, secure victims’ journeys, and better enforce children’s rights without turning families into amateur investigators.
Background checks and professional controls: the core of the key measures
One of the pillars of the report presented on July 15 focuses on a very concrete question: how to prevent a person already identified for serious offenses from continuing to work with minors, simply because checks are scattered, irregular, or too late. The text proposes creating a single service responsible for verifying the judicial and administrative backgrounds of persons working with children. In practice, this would target education, sports, recreation, medico-social professions, but also activities where the adult is in a position of authority or direct access (internships, supervision, transportation, external interventions).
The issue is less “technical” than it seems: when an organization urgently hires to replace a recreational leader, it needs a clear, fast, and enforceable channel to verify backgrounds, not an obstacle course. The report speaks of judicial and administrative verification, which implies a cross-checking of several registers and signals available. In parents’ daily life, it’s the difference between “we hope it’s okay” and “we have a protocol.” Even if it doesn’t eliminate risk, it reduces opportunities to slip through the cracks.
Interministerial inspection and governance: avoiding gray areas
Another structuring proposal: establishing an interministerial inspection group to prevent violence and oversee its handling. The value of such a system is to move beyond the typical scenario where each actor “does their part” (school, local authorities, justice, health, association) with different methods and alert thresholds. The report stresses the need to limit information loss, especially when a child changes structures or when a professional involved moves from one environment to another.
A very simple example: a report arrives at an establishment, then the student changes academies, or the educator changes employers. If transmission is hesitant, the risk resets to zero. An interministerial inspection group can set control standards, verify their application, and spot the gaps. It’s not glamorous, but it’s exactly the kind of administrative plumbing that prevents damage.
Mandatory training: from “common sense” to competence
The report mentions a compulsory national training foundation for all professionals in contact with children. The stated objective is to better identify, better welcome speech, and better guide. It is not only about learning legal definitions but understanding behavioral signals, conduct to follow, and useful contacts. National training also serves to harmonize practices: a child should not have to “run into” the right person on the right day to be protected.
In the same spirit, teachers would be further trained in the education program on affective, relational, and sexual life (EVARS) starting in the 2026 school year. The report explicitly links this skill development to violence prevention, as better naming of consent, limits, intimacy, and control mechanisms helps children identify what is abnormal. It also helps better detection, as a student with words can alert earlier. This articulation between violence prevention and professional training is among the most actionable proposals.
Facilitated reporting: national application, ENT, and family information
The report places reporting at the center, with a strong idea: make alerting simpler for children and families without requiring them to already know the right entry point. Specifically, it proposes creating a free and secure national application gathering listening and emergency services for minors. In real life, “free” and “secure” are not slogans: it involves technical accessibility, data protection, and ergonomics designed for teenagers who type fast, sometimes secretly, sometimes with a shared phone.
The report also foresees integrating a reporting space directly into the Digital Work Environment (ENT) of middle and high schools. The interest is obvious: the ENT is already a familiar tool, less intimidating than a phone call, and it can allow a first written step. This first step matters, as speaking about violence towards children rarely happens “cleanly,” in one go, with a perfect timeline. It is often fragmented, hesitant, with back and forth, and a simple tool can prevent disengagement.
The alert pathway: reducing friction, not vigilance
A classic difficulty with alert systems is balancing accessibility and filtering. The report assumes the idea that the signal must be captured, then qualified, and that this qualification must be done by trained people. Within families, this changes a reflex: instead of “waiting to be sure,” one can transmit a concerning fact or feeling and let professionals decide on the follow-up. The text insists on coordination between actors precisely to prevent information from diluting between school, social services, medical, and judicial sectors.
A common case: a child tells an adult “I don’t like it when X touches me,” with no further details. If the reaction is an improvised investigation, the child may shut down. If the reaction is “thank you, we believe you, we will help you, and here is what we will do now,” what follows becomes possible. The report seeks to standardize this response so that welcoming speech does not depend solely on the personality of one adult.
Informing families: transparency when a professional is implicated
Among the proposed measures is a sensitive principle: families would be informed when a child has been in contact with a professional implicated in a violence case. The report does not present this as a “panic alert,” but as necessary transparency in child protection. For parents, the issue is twofold: being able to monitor signs of distress and knowing whom to turn to if a child starts to speak.
The framework must also be measured: “implicated” does not mean “convicted,” and implementation must avoid rumor and vigilantism. The report, as presented, targets controlled information, with a logic of risk prevention and support for potential victims. In real life, this can also avoid absurd situations where parents discover afterward that a report already existed but wasn’t shared. This “reporting + information” block forms a coherent whole: making alerting possible, then making families actors without forcing them to bear the burden of proof.
This type of educational content helps understand the difference between a report, a worrying information, and a complaint. They are useful to establish a common vocabulary at school, for families, and adolescents.
Support for victims and care pathways: UAPED, psychotrauma, and justice designed for minors
The report puts forward a point often less visible than the alert phase: what happens afterward. It recommends guaranteeing each child victim psychological support, with the idea of addressing trauma consequences over time. On the ground, this avoids the scenario where the child must “get better quickly” because the adult filed a report and symbolically “it’s settled.” Filing a complaint or initiating procedures does not automatically repair impacts on sleep, concentration, confidence, schooling, or relationships.
The text also stresses developing Pediatric Reception Units for Children in Danger (UAPED). These units have a precise role: enable listening and care in an adapted environment, avoiding humiliating or overly fragmented pathways. The logic is to reduce narrative repetition, better coordinate care and procedure, and limit retraumatization linked to procedures. From a child’s rights perspective, this is a practical evolution: making access to justice and care compatible with age, without requiring a child to function as a miniature adult.
Ad hoc administrator: representing the minor’s interest without patchwork
The report mentions creating a national status for ad hoc administrators, responsible for representing minors’ interests during judicial proceedings. In cases of intrafamily violence or conflicts of interest, representing minors becomes a standalone issue. Without a clear framework, situations can become incoherent: who authorizes what, who follows the file, who explains the steps to the child, who liaises with the lawyer, who validates a medico-legal exam.
A national status aims to harmonize missions, training, and intervention conditions. For families, this is not an administrative triviality: it is often the difference between an incomprehensible procedure and a supported procedure, where the child is not a parcel passed from office to office.
“Child-friendly” courts: reducing institutional violence
The report mentions creating “child-friendly” courts designed to better welcome young victims. Behind the phrase lie concrete choices: adapted hearing rooms, respected speaking time, explanation of roles, rhythm compatible with age, presence of professionals trained in hearing minors. The aim is also to limit multiple hearings and unnecessary confrontations.
An observable example: a child who must recount serious facts to several interlocutors, in different places, ends up contradicting themselves on peripheral details. These variations are often linked to stress and traumatic memory, but they can weaken perceived credibility. A justice designed for minors can reduce these effects without “facilitating” the case, simply by making the framework more suitable. This “victim support” aspect is not about superficial compassion; it structures reconstruction and procedural robustness.
| Device / measure | Field concerned | Measurable objective | Example of expected result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development of UAPED | Health + judicial | Reduce the number of interlocutors during testimony collection | Fewer narrative repetitions, better coordination of care/procedures |
| Guaranteed psychological support | Mental health | Effective access to post-trauma follow-up | Faster management of symptoms (anxiety, sleep disorders) |
| National status for ad hoc administrators | Justice | Clarify minor’s representation | Better explained and followed procedural decisions |
| “Child-friendly” courts | Justice | Adapt hearing spaces and practices | Less anxiety-inducing framework, more stable and better understood hearings |
An explanatory video on UAPED helps understand how hearing, examination, and orientation combine, with a framework designed to reduce pressure on the child.
Legal and digital evolutions: specialized prosecution, national registers, and online violence prevention
The report proposes several legal developments aimed at strengthening the fight against abuse and pedocriminality. Among the avenues mentioned is creating a national specialized prosecution office for pedocriminality, or a specialized unit within an existing prosecution office. The idea is to consolidate expertise, unify investigative practices, and better handle complex cases crossing multiple territories, several victims, and digital evidence. For the general public, this translates into a very concrete promise: fewer jurisdiction disparities and enhanced capacity to track networks.
The report also mentions the non-prescriptibility of sexual crimes committed against minors, as well as creating a national register listing persons involved in investigations for sexual violence against minors. These proposals are significant and require a precise framework: the statute of limitations concerns the balance of criminal law, and a national register raises issues of governance, registration criteria, retention period, and rights of persons. The interest, from the child protection viewpoint, is better detecting risks of repeat offenses or mobility, especially when individuals change sectors or regions.
Glorifying pedocriminality: considering a specific offense
The text also mentions creating a specific offense of glorifying pedocriminality. The targeted point refers to dynamics observed online: trivialization, legitimizing discourse, communities that produce control or normalize the unacceptable. Without entering sordid details, the approach is to tackle the circulation of discourses facilitating passing to act or exploitation. A clear offense can also provide platforms and investigators with a more operational legal reference.
The report also proposes enshrining the best interests of the child in the Constitution and, ultimately, creating a Childhood Code to group the main texts related to children’s rights and protection. This idea responds to a known problem: the rule exists but is scattered. For professionals, legal clarity often conditions speed of action.
Online violence: the report treats digital as a living space
The digital aspect is explicit: social networks, messaging, and platforms are described as spaces where predators spot victims, build control, distribute pedocriminal content, or organize sexual exploitation of minors. This description places violence prevention in the right place: the teenager’s room with a smartphone is a social space, not a “side issue.” This justifies actions combining education, reporting, and investigation.
From a very practical parental approach, this means not treating the issue as a “teen vs parent” duel but as a security hygiene, on par with wearing a seatbelt in a car. Reporting tools in the ENT, EVARS training at school, and inter-institution coordination form a coherent triptych: children learn landmarks, know how to alert, and adults know what to do next. The report quotes a formula attributed to Sarah El Haïry, in which she emphasizes that no signal should be ignored, no information lost, and no institution should act alone; the statement summarizes the ambition of administrative continuity and immediate protection.
- Prevent: EVARS training from the 2026 school year and national training foundation for professionals.
- Detect: single background check service and strengthened inspections.
- Protect: reporting spaces via national application and ENT, informing families in case a professional is implicated.
- Rebuild: psychological support, development of UAPED, and adapted judicial devices.
- Handle complex cases: reflection on specialized prosecution and national monitoring tools.
What Do We Say About It?
This package of 20 key measures hits the mark on a decisive point: child protection depends on a continuous chain, not an isolated “good reflex.” The most immediately useful proposals are those that reduce the friction of reporting and standardize training because they change everyday life starting at school and in out-of-school supervision. The support and UAPED aspect responds to a reality often underestimated: without long-term support for victims, procedures pile up but reconstruction stalls. Legal evolutions and national registers will be judged on their ability to be precise, controllable, and protective, failing which they risk creating noise rather than security.
What would a national reporting application for minors be concretely used for?
It would combine listening and emergency services into a single, free, and secure tool to prevent the child from having to search for “the right number” or the right site when hesitating to speak. The interest is also to allow a first written alert, simpler when a phone call is impossible, then to direct to the appropriate contacts.
What does a single background check service for people in contact with children change?
It aims to make control more systematic and faster by avoiding information being scattered among administrations. For employers (school, sport, recreation, medico-social), it clarifies the procedure and limits the risk that a person already reported keeps working with minors due to lack of uniform verification.
What are UAPED, and why does the report want to develop them?
Pediatric Reception Units for Children in Danger are places where the child’s testimony can be collected and where they can be directed in an adapted setting, in connection with health and justice. The development of this network seeks to reduce story repetitions, better coordinate steps, and limit stress linked to fragmented procedures.
Why does the report emphasize training and EVARS from the 2026 school year?
Because violence prevention also relies on clear markers: consent, limits, intimacy, control mechanisms. Enhanced teacher training and a mandatory foundation for professionals improve both detection and reception of testimony, with more uniform conduct guidelines when a danger sign appears.
