The President of Latvia drew the attention of the Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee of the Saeima to potential non-compliance of the regulation supported in the second reading with the Satversme (Constitution of Latvia) and the international obligations of Latvia. In his letter, Raimonds Vējonis indicated that defining such exceptions in law was objectionable which were contrary to their essence to a child's best interests and might induce preconditions for infringements of the child’s fundamental rights.
“I have concluded that one intended to strengthen a principle by the arm of the law that, in some cases, growing at a childcare institution and not growing in a family environment is in the best interests of a child,” stated the head of state in his letter. He emphasised that, according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there is a well-established principle that a family is the most favourable environment for the full and harmonious development of the child.
The President of Latvia also pointed out that the provisions of the Children's Rights Protection Law already stipulated that a child was primarily provided with an opportunity to grow up with a guardian or in a foster family care and that the care in a child care institution was provided only when the care of a guardian or in a foster family was not appropriate for a particular child.
“The situation of every child is different, and it should be evaluated as such by finding the best solutions for the full development of a child on case by case basis,” proposed Raimonds Vējonis.
The President has called for doing their best so that the principle included in the first sentence part 31, Article 27 of the Children's Rights Protection Law would be fully embodied. One should find such solutions in the provisions of draft law, which accelerated the full application of that provision in practice, rather than alienated it.