For a change of perspective on the child and the redefinition of their place in French society — Act 1 · Analysis and state of play

1️⃣ ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

An inherited perspective that considers the child through the family. The report starts from an observation: despite fifty years of progress in recognising rights and combating violence, the French assessment remains mixed (p. 5–6). It traces childhood as a shifting social construct, from the medieval “little adult” to the “precious” child of the 20th century (p. 7–11), then analyses five points of blockage: the predominance of the family over the child, a parenthood experienced as difficult, the asymmetry of adult-child relationships, the disappearance of children from collective spaces, and a participation in public policies that is almost ineffective. The common thread is the notion of adultism: a “verticalist” organisation where age establishes a hierarchy, and where the child is largely thought of as dependent, thus incapable of speech and action (p. 16, 21–23).

A quantified diagnosis, oriented towards public action. The document mobilises data to support each axis: parents feeling overwhelmed, the persistence of ordinary educational violence despite its recognition, a decline in children's mobility autonomy, the multiplication of “no kids” spaces, instability in childhood governance (p. 17–34). It sheds light on the French case through comparisons (Sweden, Finland, Quebec, Scotland, United States, Brazil). Its value for the field is analytical and argumentative rather than instrumental: it does not provide a method or a ready-made tool, but a foundation for understanding and advocacy, in advance of a “Act 2” dedicated to recommendations (p. 37).

2️⃣ KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1️⃣ The family is seen as solely responsible for the child, with the State taking a step back. 60% of parents believe that the 2019 law prohibiting physical and psychological violence is an intrusion of the State into the private sphere; a third believe that education should fully return to parents (p. 13, data reported by the document according to IFOP 2024 and OpinionWay 2025).

2️⃣ The voice of the child is unevenly heard in court. In front of the juvenile judge, the hearing of the minor capable of discernment conditions the validity of decisions (reaffirmed by a ruling from the Court of Cassation on 2 July 2025); before the family court judge, the child is not a party and must request to be heard (p. 16).

3️⃣ Children are disappearing from collective spaces. According to a cited ADEME 2025 study, the age of the first independent journey has risen to 11.6 years (compared to 10.6 for the parents' generation); in CM2, only 9% of children go to school alone, compared to 1 in 2 at 8 years old at the end of the 1980s (p. 25–26).

4️⃣ An 'anti-child' culture is developing. In May 2025, 54% of French people stated they supported the creation of child-free spaces (65% among 25-34 year olds); the report cites the removal of play equipment and bans on playgrounds ordered by the courts for noise disturbances (Bruges 2023, Maisons-Laffitte 2025) (p. 27–29).

5️⃣ The governance of childhood is unstable and fragmented. Disappearance of a ministry/state secretariat dedicated since 2024, absence of a meeting of the Interministerial Committee on Childhood since November 2023, attempt (not retained) to abolish consultation bodies in March 2025, and territorial fragmentation of competencies (p. 33–35).

3️⃣ ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

Framing (R4/R5). The document is a state of play, not a methodological guide: it does not propose operational tools. The paths below are therefore uses of the content, formulated as such, and not procedures that the report would provide.

1️⃣ Rely on the quantified diagnosis to build a sensitisation argument with parents, elected officials or partners: the data from pages 13, 17–20 and 25–29 allow for objectifying the gap between discourse and practices (e.g. knowledge of VEO vs persistence of their use, p. 20).

2️⃣ Question one's own professional posture in light of "adultism" described p. 21–23: to what extent is the child's voice actually solicited and taken into account in decisions concerning them, beyond a façade of listening.

3️⃣ Mobilise international comparisons as levers for collective reflection (Scotland "getting it right for every child" p. 15, Sweden p. 19 and 22, Quebec p. 15 and 24) to stimulate a team debate on other models of shared responsibility.

4️⃣ Identify and document locally the mechanisms of exclusion of children from public space (car park designs, mistrust in certain neighbourhoods, "no kids" spaces) described on pp. 26–30, to support advocacy with local authorities.

5️⃣ Support and honestly evaluate existing participation mechanisms (children's municipal councils, p. 36): the report highlights the limitations (representativeness, power of action, constrained scope) — one approach is to question these limitations rather than multiply symbolic instances.

6️⃣ Contribute to the "Act 2" : the report explicitly opens a call for participation (associations, professionals, children) via participation@fondation-enfance.org (p. 37) — an opportunity to raise unmet needs from the ground that are not covered by this first part.

Identified unmet needs: the document does not propose any tools for gathering opinions, nor intervention protocols, nor indicators. For these operational dimensions, one must turn to dedicated methodological resources (see section 4).

4️⃣ ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

In Health Practices - Gathering and taking into account the views of children from birth to 6 years old

Externally

1. CNCDH — Opinion on the exclusion of children from public space, or "no kids" (unanimously adopted on 2 July 2026). Extends and updates the section on "collective spaces" of the report with institutional recommendations. → https://www.cncdh.fr/publications/avis-sur-lexclusion-des-enfants-de-lespace-public-ou-no-kids
2. Defender of Rights — Annual report 2025 on children's rights: the right of children to appropriate justice. Clarifies the question of the child's voice in court (key point no. 2), based on the contribution of 1,600 children. → https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/rapport-annuel-sur-les-droits-de-lenfant-2025-le-droit-des-enfants-une-justice-adaptee-990

5️⃣ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1️⃣ What do we mean by a “change of perspective” on the child? A paradigm shift: to stop thinking of the child solely as a dependent being to be protected, and to recognise them as a full social and political subject (p. 6, 11). The report establishes this prerequisite before any reform.

2️⃣ What does the report say about the role of the State in relation to the family? That the French tradition assigns parents the almost exclusive responsibility for education and protection, with the State only intervening in cases of recognised failure. A significant number of parents perceive public intervention as an intrusion (p. 12–14).

3️⃣ How is the child's voice treated in judicial proceedings? Very unevenly depending on the interlocutor: central before the juvenile judge, not mandatory before the family court judge — even though the latter decides on the child's residence (p. 16).

4️⃣ Why are children “less present” in public spaces? The report puts forward several causes: a sense of insecurity, urban planning designed for cars, media coverage of various incidents, the development of indoor activities and digital technology (p. 25–27).

5️⃣ Does staying indoors protect children? No, according to the document: digital spaces have their own risks, particularly sexual exploitation. It cites a significant increase in reports of sexual extortion of minors between 2022 and 2024 (p. 27). (See the warning about this figure in section 8.)

6️⃣ What are the effects of this disappearance of collective spaces? Two major public health and societal issues: insufficient physical activity (p. 30–31) and the difficulty in "learning to build a society" in contact with a diversity of people (p. 31).

7️⃣ What does the report propose for the future? Nothing operational in this first part: it is a state of play. It announces a "Act 2" of recommendations and invites the ecosystem (associations, professionals, children) to contribute, looking towards 2027 (p. 37).

6️⃣ REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

The subject of the document

This document talks about children in France. It asks a simple question: what place does society give to children? It says that this place is not good enough.

What the document says

In France, children are often thought of through their family. It is forgotten that the child is a person in their own right. Little is listened to of what the child has to say.

Many parents feel tired and alone. They lack help to raise their children.

Children go out alone less than before. Before, many children went to school alone. Today, it is much rarer.

Some places prohibit entry to children. These places are called "no kids" spaces. These places are becoming more and more numerous.

The state does not take good enough care of children. The responsible parties change often. The work between services is poorly organised.

The important points

• The family is seen as solely responsible for the child.
• Children's voices are not listened to enough.
• Children have less freedom to go out.
• Many adults no longer want to see children in certain places.
• The state lacks organisation to help children.

Explained words

• Adultism : when adults have all the power over children.
• CRC : an international text that protects children's rights.
• ‘No kids’ spaces : places where children are not accepted.

7️⃣ CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy : the document does not provide tools suitable for different levels of understanding; there is no accessible version. However, it thematises the recognition of the child's voice (Article 12 of the CRC, p. 36).
• Empowerment : it advocates for recognising the child as a rights holder with ‘usage expertise’ (p. 36), but children are not involved in the design of this first part (participation announced for Act 2).
• Participation : central theme (section 5, p. 32–36), but treated descriptively; the report points out the limitations of existing systems (children's municipal councils) more than it co-constructs them.
• Community health : collective dimension presented and assumed — physical inactivity as a public health priority (WHO), the issue of 'learning to build society' (p. 30–31).
• Ethics : biases are identified and named (stereotypical representations of the child, adultism, security vision), with a perspective on scholarly discourses (psychoanalysis, p. 21–23).
• Human rights : approach based on the CRC and equity; the child is positioned as a subject of rights, including in the face of exclusionary logics (p. 11, 32).
• Intersectorality : the report notes the fragmentation between education, health, justice, and parenting (p. 34–35) and calls for transversality, without formalising the modalities.
• Partnership : foreign models of shared responsibility are valued (Scotland, Quebec, p. 15); in France, few formalised models are described.
• Fight against discrimination : adultism is presented as an age-related discrimination; 'no kids' spaces and increased mistrust in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are analysed as forms of exclusion (p. 28–30). The non-judgment of children's speech is an implicit thread.

8️⃣ EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Positioning to foreground (transparency). This document is a plea produced by an activist foundation (" recognised as being of public utility, independent and non-partisan " according to its presentation, p. 39), explicitly oriented towards a paradigm shift and the presidential deadline of 2027. This is not a neutral study: the selection of data and framing serve a thesis. This does not disqualify it, but it must be noted for any use in training or advocacy.

Scientific relevance. Good density of sourcing (38 footnotes), mixing solid institutional sources (CIIVISE, IGAS, UNICEF, ADEME, HCFEA, Defender of Rights, Council of State, Court of Cassation) and lighter or older sources (newspaper articles — Le Monde, The Conversation, TF1 Info ; ISSP 2012 survey). Two methodological reservations (R1):

• The figure "+2,347 %" of reports of sexual extortion of minors (p. 27) is spectacular but given without absolute values : a percentage increase from a very low base can be massively amplified. To be contextualised before any public reuse.
• Some findings are based on already dated data (IGAS 2019 for "1 child dies every 5 days" p. 5; ISSP 2012 p. 18); the relevance of these figures is not guaranteed by the document.

Operational relevance. Limited in direct use : neither a tool, nor a protocol, nor an indicator. Strong in indirect use : basis for argumentation, support for awareness and training, material for local advocacy. For operational use, it must be supplemented by dedicated methodological resources (section 4).

Analysis lock (reminder). Document after the horizon of reliable knowledge: analysed from the only file. The existence and publication date (14 January 2026) as well as the three complementary references have been confirmed by research; the internal data in the report has not been subject to independent verification.

9️⃣ STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#HealthPractices #ChildrensRights #ChildParticipation #Adultism #NoKids #ChildProtection #CommunityHealth #CRC

This article was developed in accordance with the Charter of the use of artificial intelligence of Health Practices. Click on the image