WILLEMSTAD – The Ombudsman of Curaçao has rejected a complaint filed by a mother against an unnamed youth-care foundation, concluding that the organization did not act against the interests of her minor son during a parental mediation process.
The ruling followed an investigation into three central complaints: that the foundation allowed the child's father to bring him to its office without first consulting the mother, that it refused the mother access to the mediation file, and that it failed to formally close the assistance process.
The mother, who has sole parental authority over the child, approached the Ombudsman on June 10, 2025. She argued that the foundation's handling of her earlier complaint violated both her parental rights and, by extension, the rights of her son.
The parents had entered a voluntary mediation process aimed at reaching structural agreements on contact between the father and the child. The process also sought to establish financial arrangements covering the child's maintenance, clothing, after-school activities and other necessary expenses.
According to the report, the mother served as the foundation's primary contact person during the mediation. The foundation follows a process in which a social worker first speaks separately with both parents before preparing a draft visitation agreement, known as an “areglo di bishita.” Parents may withdraw at any time, and the agreement is signed only if both sides accept its contents.
The conflict escalated after the father brought the child to an introductory meeting at the foundation's office. The child was staying with the father at the time, and the visit reportedly occurred without prior notice to either the mother or the foundation.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that a specialized and government-subsidized youth-care organization has a duty to protect calm and safety within its premises. That responsibility was particularly important in this case because the foundation knew that the child had an autism spectrum disorder.
The report states that structure and the avoidance of unpredictable or potentially conflict-filled situations are especially important for a child with such a diagnosis. The foundation could therefore not simply argue that bringing the child to the office was solely the father's decision.
However, the Ombudsman also considered the risk of escalation at the moment the father and child arrived. Refusing them entry could have increased tensions and placed the child under greater stress. The foundation informed the mother of the child's presence by WhatsApp immediately after the visit.
Under those exceptional circumstances, allowing the meeting to proceed was considered a form of necessary damage limitation rather than a violation of the child's interests.
The mother also challenged the foundation's refusal to provide access to the mediation file. She argued that without the information, she could not adequately protect her son's interests or use the material in a new process she had begun with another organization.
The foundation maintained a strict policy under which neither parents nor outside organizations are allowed to examine mediation files unless a court orders their release. It also argued that the requested file contained only information supplied by the mother herself.
The Ombudsman found that mediation records result from a confidential process between parties in conflict. Participants agree in advance that information shared during the process will remain confidential and will not later be requested or used outside that process.
According to the report, established case law allows confidentiality to be broken only in exceptional circumstances, such as an urgent emergency, criminal activity or a situation in which secrecy would harm a vulnerable person, including in cases of child abuse.
No such exceptional circumstances were established in this case. The foundation's refusal was therefore not considered improper or contrary to the child's interests. The report added that the mother had been referred to Protehami and had already started a new mediation process elsewhere, where a separate file could be created for the child's current needs.
The Ombudsman also rejected the claim that the foundation had failed to formally close the process.
An email dated May 27, 2025, explicitly informed the mother that the case had been closed. The foundation repeated this position on June 2 and offered to provide a physical letter confirming the end of the mediation.
The Ombudsman noted that the mother herself had already ended the mediation because she was dissatisfied with the foundation. The later messages from the organization therefore amounted to formal confirmation of an existing situation.
The final ruling, dated June 19, 2026, concluded that the foundation's decision on the mother's complaint was not contrary to the interests of the child and declared the Ombudsman complaint unfounded.