Who will protect children from OSPOD? Juchelka defends the officials, ignores the failure of the system

The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs strongly defended OSPOD workers and filed a criminal complaint due to personal attacks on social networks. Of course, threats, intimidation or actual harassment cannot be excused. But with this step, Minister Aleš Juchelka avoided a much more unpleasant question: who will stand up for children and parents when OSPOD itself harms them?

Who files a criminal complaint for inaction? Who will stand up for the parent who warns for months or years that he is losing his relationship with his child while the office records, forwards, recommends and waits? Who is responsible when the worker fails to use legal tools, fails to work with the family, ignores warning signs or proceeds in a formalistic manner until the child's relationship with one parent is effectively destroyed?

In family matters, time is not an administrative item. Time is the relationship of a child to a parent. And that cannot be reversed after years of inaction by a retroactive decision or an apology from the office.

OSPOD is not an authority. It is not a body created to instruct, punish or dictate how parents should live. It is a public service paid by citizens, the purpose of which is to protect children, help families and actively prevent the breakdown of family ties. If somewhere they are not fulfilling this role, it must be possible to say so publicly, concretely and harshly.

It is here that the ministry's response is dangerously one-sided. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is sending a very loud signal: watch out for our workers, the state will protect them. But where is the equally loud message in the opposite direction? Where does the ministry say: if an OSPOD worker makes a mistake, we will protect the child and parents equally consistently? If the authority fails, do we conduct an audit, find personal responsibility, repair the damage and change the methodology?

Such a message cannot be heard.

And that is precisely why desperate internet polls, lists, public statements by parents and sharp comments are created. Not all of them have to be fair. Some may be excessive or unacceptable. But the Labor Minister should have enough political judgment to ask why thousands of people feel the need to judge the bodies they are supposed to be helping in such a way.

Maybe it's not just an "attack on officials". Perhaps it is also a symptom of a deep distrust of the system.

And if the same reservations appear in Prague, Brno, Teplice, Nymburk, Ostrava and other cities, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications should not resort primarily to criminal law. It should take that map of complaints in hand and start to see if the same mistakes are repeated: formalism, passivity, uncritical acceptance of the claims of one parent, insufficient work with the causes of conflict, ignoring parental alienation, poor knowledge of case law, refusal of active measures or simply waiting for the problem to be "solved by the court".

That would be the real work of the ministry.

At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court have long emphasized that the state should not just sit idly by in matters of family relations. He has a positive duty to take effective measures to preserve and restore the relationship between the child and the parent. So if the public authority just registers that the child stops seeing the parents without actually looking for an effective solution, it may not be just an unpleasant experience for the parent. It may be a failure of the state itself.

All the more absurd is the situation when the state begins to play the role of victim.

Of course, the official has the right to be protected from threats. However, he is not entitled to protection from public scrutiny.Public office is not personal immunity.

If someone labels a specific official procedure as incompetent, inactive or illegal and can substantiate his claim, it is not an attack on democracy. It is democracy in action. A citizen has the right to criticize the exercise of public power, especially if this power interferes with his family and the life of his child.

Therefore, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications missed the opportunity. Instead of using the public criticism as a huge unpaid audit of OSPOD's functioning, it filed a criminal complaint. Instead of asking "where is our system failing?" was mainly "who is attacking our workers?".

This is exactly the reverse logic of public service.

The Ministry is supposed to analyze complaints, publicize type of misconduct, compare individual regions, evaluate recurring problems, review methodology and educate workers in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, ECtHR and the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And where someone fails long-term or seriously, real responsibility should come.

Not a carpet of silence protected by fear of criminal charges.

A democratic state must not function according to the principle: the citizen must fear the official, but the official does not have to fear responsibility.

OSPOD workers deserve protection from violence and threats. However, children and parents deserve something at least as important: protection from inaction, formalism, incompetence and the illegal exercise of public authority.

And it is precisely in their defense that no such loud press conference of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has been held so far

Source:

1. Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (2026). The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications rejects personal attacks on OSPOD workers and files a criminal complaint.Prague: Ministry of the Interior, 20 August 2026. Available from:Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications - press release[cit. 21. 8. 2026].

2. Act No. 359/1999 Coll., on social and legal protection of children, as amended.Prague: Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic. Available from:Act No. 359/1999 Coll.

3. Constitutional Court (2025). Finding sp. stamp II. ÚS 1938/25 of August 26, 2025.Brno: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Available from:Finding II. ÚS 1938/25  

4. European Court of Human Rights (2026). Contact Rights: Key Theme – Rights of the Child.Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Available from:ECtHR – Contact Rights  

5. United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.New York: United Nations. Available from:Convention on the Rights of the Child - full text.
   It is particularly importantArticle 3– the best interest of the child as a primary consideration – aArticle 9, paragraph 3, according to which a child separated from one or both parents has the right to maintain regular personal relations and direct contact with them, if this is not contrary to his best interests.