According to Relocation, it is important for Ukrainian families living in EU countries to be aware of local child protection regulations: social services may initiate an investigation into living conditions if they receive reports of a potential threat to a child, and in serious cases, may temporarily remove the child from the family until the circumstances are clarified or a court decision is made.
As reported by Ukrainian media, citing materials for families abroad, social services do not intervene automatically due to a single domestic conflict, a bruise from a fall, or being late for school. However, repeated reports, complaints from the school, or concerns raised by neighbors, doctors, or the police can serve as grounds for an investigation into the family.
In different countries, these services have different names: Jugendamt in Germany, Aide Sociale à l’Enfance in France, and child protection services in Poland, the Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and other countries. Their underlying logic is similar: the state is obligated to intervene if it believes a child may be in danger or that the child’s interests are being violated.
Reasons for an investigation may include suspicions of physical or psychological abuse, systematic neglect of the child’s needs, lack of medical care, leaving a young child unsupervised, inadequate living conditions, truancy, aggressive behavior by the child, family conflicts, or parental failure to fulfill their duties.
For Ukrainian families, differences in legal systems remain a particular risk. What might be perceived in Ukraine as a domestic conflict or a “parenting method” may be considered unacceptable behavior in EU countries. Physical punishment, shouting, threats, leaving children home alone, or lack of contact with the school can lead to intervention by social services.
According to the 2023 annual report of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, as of December 31, 2023, the competent authorities of host countries had removed 255 Ukrainian children from their parents or legal guardians abroad. Of these, 64 were orphans or children deprived of parental care, and 191 were children with parents.
The highest number of such cases was recorded in Germany—71 children—followed by Poland—33, Italy—25, the Czech Republic—24, and Sweden—17. Cases were also recorded in the Netherlands, France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, and other countries.
Among the most common reasons for the removal of Ukrainian children abroad, the Ukrainian ombudsman cited the failure of local authorities to recognize Ukrainian documents issued to guardians and adoptive parents, inadequate fulfillment of parental responsibilities, low levels of material and living standards, truancy, aggressive behavior by children, as well as the consequences of psychological trauma suffered by parents and children due to the war.
European statistics show that intervention by social services is a widespread and systematic practice, but reporting methods vary by country. In Germany in 2024, youth welfare authorities temporarily took approximately 69,500 children and adolescents into protective custody. Of these, 44% of such measures were related to the arrival of unaccompanied minors from abroad, 42% to an immediate threat to the child’s well-being, and 13% to children seeking help on their own.
In Poland, as of the end of 2024, 77,300 children were in the foster care system, of whom 59,800 were in family-based care and 17,500 were in institutional care. In Italy, as of the end of 2023, 42,000 children were in alternative care: 15,992 in foster care and 26,010 in residential care. In Sweden, according to Socialstyrelsen, 3,486 children were placed in compulsory care under the LVU Act in 2020.
These figures cannot be directly compared with one another as “removed children” because countries use different categories: temporary removal, foster care, institutional care, emergency protection, voluntary placement, compulsory placement, and care for unaccompanied minors. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the scale of the work carried out by European child protection systems.
There are no separate pan-European statistics available in an open, comparable format on how many children are removed specifically from families based on the parents’ “ethnic origin.” Some countries publish data on citizenship, migration status, ethnicity, or unaccompanied children, but these indicators vary in methodology and often do not allow for distinguishing family cases from migration and guardianship cases.
For Ukrainians, the most specific publicly available statistics are data from the Ukrainian Ombudsman’s Office on 255 children removed abroad as of the end of 2023. More recent comparable data for all EU countries is currently limited in open access.
Lawyers and human rights advocates advise Ukrainian parents abroad to carefully study the rules of their country of residence, not to ignore requests from schools, doctors, and social services, keep documents regarding the child’s legal representation, have translations of custody or adoption decisions, contact the Ukrainian consulate in a timely manner, and not attempt to “resolve” the conflict with child protection authorities on their own without legal assistance.
If social services initiate an investigation, it is important to cooperate, provide explanations, submit documents, engage an interpreter, and document all communications in writing. In most countries, the goal of initial intervention is not the automatic removal of the child, but rather a risk assessment and the search for a solution that will be considered safe for the child.
The widespread use of unmanned systems in Russia’s war against Ukraine represents not just a technological evolution, but a profound change in the logic of warfare, for which most European countries are not yet prepared, according to participants in the panel discussion “The Russia–Ukraine Drone War: Innovation on the Front Line and Beyond. What Can We Learn for Our Own Defense?” at the Ukraine Recovery Forum in Bucharest.
Panel VIa was moderated by Greg Melcher, Chief Operating Officer of the New Generation Warfare Centre (USA). The discussion was attended by Andriy Sirko-Galushchenko, an expert in the development of UAVs for military applications; Terry Jamison, International Director of Boeing’s Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft Division; Mustafa Nayem, Director of Public Communications at GTX; former Prime Minister of Romania, retired General Nicolae Ciucă, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, Lieutenant General Julian Berdila.
According to the speakers, what until recently was perceived as a “distant technological horizon” has already become an everyday operational reality. The development of unmanned systems, open architectures, and the rapid integration of new capabilities indicate that the “future of warfare” has arrived much sooner than many Western players expected. Ukraine’s combat experience has shown that accelerated innovation cycles are leading to a structural transformation in the planning of air, ground, and joint operations.
Participants emphasized that the combined use of manned and unmanned platforms, as well as immediate technical interoperability between them, are becoming a basic requirement for the adaptation of modern armed forces. Drones are already being used systematically for reconnaissance, high-precision strikes, logistics, mining and demining, artillery fire correction, and special operations support. Massive coordinated attacks on critical infrastructure have demonstrated the limitations of purely reactive defense and highlighted the need to neutralize threats “at the source.”
At the same time, counter-drone systems are rapidly developing, combining existing surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities with new solutions to counter large numbers of small, low-altitude targets. “This is no longer an episodic tool, but a full-fledged layer of the modern battlefield that requires a separate doctrine, forces, and means,” Berdila noted.
A separate emphasis in the discussion was placed on Europe’s vulnerability to hybrid forms of aggression. According to experts, traditional threat assessments do not correspond to the realities in which the enemy acts mainly with asymmetric, scattered, and difficult-to-attribute methods. Incidents involving the appearance of unknown drones near critical infrastructure in various European countries, they said, expose the gap between public perception, the level of institutional preparedness, and the actual nature of the risks.
Following the discussion, the participants concluded that “drone” warfare is not only a technical issue but also a challenge for institutional capacity and defense planning. Adapting to the new operational environment requires flexible institutions, short innovation cycles, coordinated investments, and a doctrine capable of quickly integrating the lessons learned from Ukraine’s experience. Modern warfare, they emphasized, has become a space where speed of adaptation, integration of systems, and simultaneous readiness for offensive and defensive actions are key elements of strategic resilience.
The forum “Rebuilding Ukraine: Security, Opportunities, Investments” is being held on December 11-12 in Bucharest under the auspices of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and organized by the New Strategy Center. According to the organizers, more than 30 panel discussions and parallel sessions are planned over two days with the participation of representatives of governments, international organizations, the private sector, financial institutions, and experts from Europe, North America, and Asia. The topics of the panels cover security and defense, infrastructure, financing and investment, green energy, digitalization, human capital, and cross-border cooperation.
Business disruption is a serious threat to food and beverage companies, according to the Global Food and Beverage Risk Outlook 2024 by global consulting and brokerage firm WTW.
According to its website, nearly half (48%) of food and beverage companies cited business interruption as the biggest internal risk to their success.
This was followed by supply chain risk, cited by 40% of companies. Managing turbulence and potential disruption has become standard practice in the food and beverage sector, aided by global instability, conflict, climate change and the cost of living crisis. As a result, companies are cautious about their future.
More than 41% of food and beverage companies cited improving liquidity as the top strategic goal for the next two years, ensuring they have the financial resources to weather further shocks. Other key priorities include cost reduction, which 38% of companies focus on, and business stabilization (a goal for 35% of companies).
In addition, companies are increasingly questioning their ability to keep up with rapidly changing consumer tastes and preferences: 36% see this as a risk. However, this challenge also represents an area of opportunity, as companies can capitalize on the latest consumer trends.
Despite the challenges, food and beverage companies are actively working to improve resilience. Nearly half (47%) review their business continuity plans every six months and 31% do so quarterly.
However, more than a quarter 29% of these businesses reported that their insurance policies only cover property damage in the event of extreme weather, not including business interruption coverage, which is necessary for recovery and resilience.
The State Emergency Service warns of a significant avalanche danger in the mountains of Zakarpattia region.
“According to the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Center, on January 9, the highlands of the eastern part of Zakarpattia region will experience a significant avalanche danger (level 3),” the message on the State Emergency Service website said on Saturday morning.
