WILLEMSTAD – Curaçao's Ombudsman has established that privately organized youth-care foundations can fall under his supervisory authority, even when their services are voluntary and do not involve the exercise of formal government power.
The legal conclusion emerged from an investigation into a complaint against an unnamed foundation that provides assistance to children and families and receives structural financial support from the Curaçao government.
The foundation initially disputed the Ombudsman's authority to investigate the case. It argued that the parental mediation process at the center of the complaint was a private and voluntary arrangement and that the organization had not exercised any form of public authority.
In July 2025, the foundation informed the Ombudsman that it did not consider itself subject to his jurisdiction and was therefore not required to answer questions about its procedures. The Ombudsman responded by referring the organization to provisions in the National Ordinance on the Ombudsman supporting his authority.
The foundation later said it would not respond further under its internal procedures, although both parties eventually took part in a hearing held on March 26, 2026. During that hearing, the foundation again argued that the matter concerned mediation between two parents rather than the rights of their child.
The Ombudsman rejected that interpretation.
The report acknowledges that the mediation was not carried out under public authority and could not necessarily have been challenged before an administrative court. However, the Ombudsman's mandate is not limited to formal government decisions.
The National Ordinance defines conduct broadly as an action or failure to act by either a public administrative body or a private-law organization in a particular matter. The Ombudsman therefore found that his authority extends beyond legally binding acts performed under public power.
More importantly, the law expressly allows the Ombudsman to supervise private organizations working in education, youth care or other areas involving responsibilities toward minors.
The foundation's statutes and actual activities placed its central mission within the youth-care sector. Its work includes identifying and addressing problems involving minors in risky or threatening family environments before those problems become more serious.
The organization also manages the Advice and Reporting Center for Child Abuse, known as AMK, as well as the Children and Youth Helpline at number 918. It receives structural subsidies from the Curaçao government to carry out these responsibilities.
According to the Ombudsman, the specific method used by an organization does not determine whether it falls under his jurisdiction. In this case, the fact that assistance took the form of parental mediation did not remove it from the field of youth care.
The mediation was intended to regulate contact between the father and his child and establish financial obligations for the child's care and upbringing. It therefore directly affected the child's family circumstances, welfare and legal position.
The report referred to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires the child's best interests to be a primary consideration in decisions affecting children.
The Ombudsman said lawmakers deliberately used broad language when defining private organizations subject to oversight. The wording covers not only conventional youth-care institutions but also organizations otherwise entrusted with tasks involving young people. The purpose was to create a comprehensive system of protection regardless of the precise form of service being provided.
The ruling could have wider implications for foundations and other private entities carrying out publicly supported social responsibilities in Curaçao.
Organizations may be privately incorporated, but that status does not automatically place their conduct beyond independent scrutiny when their work directly affects children. Receiving government subsidies was not presented as the sole basis for jurisdiction, but it reinforced the public and social character of the foundation's responsibilities.
The Ombudsman's conclusion also makes clear that voluntary participation does not eliminate the need to respect children's rights. Even when parents voluntarily enter mediation, the organization facilitating the process still has responsibilities toward the child affected by the outcome.
The Ombudsman ultimately ruled in the foundation's favor on the substance of the mother's complaint. Nevertheless, the organization lost its preliminary argument that the investigation itself was outside the Ombudsman's authority.
That distinction is significant. The Ombudsman did not find that every action taken by the foundation was wrong, but he firmly established that its actions could be examined and assessed under Curaçao's child-rights oversight framework.
The decision sends a broader message that organizations performing youth-care functions cannot avoid external review simply by describing their services as private mediation.