Shelter Crisis in Panama: Systemic Failure in Child Protection

When a child's word is not credible, the system fails to protect them and reproduces the conditions that allow violence to perpetuate. Institutionalizing poverty is not protection. One of the most critical points of the current model is the widespread use of institutionalization as a response. This is not about isolated incidents or the sum of individual cases, but a manifestation of structural violence. In today's society, and despite a historic milestone such as the approval of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by the United Nations General Assembly (1989), as well as its ratification by Panama through Law No. 15 of 1990, childhood continues to be exposed to multiple forms of violence and vulnerability. The figures reveal a system that intervenes late, listens little, and in too many cases, fails to effectively protect against rights violations. The crisis of shelters in Panama is evident and is supported by countless complaints, fragmented institutional responses, and a worrying politicization of the issue. A society that does not listen to its children not only fails to protect them: it legitimizes the conditions that allow violence to perpetuate. However, the problem is not the absence of norms, but the lack of political will to make them effective. Childhood, far from being a priority, remains trapped in a media culture that looks without acting, denounces without repairing, or is silent out of convenience and complicity. This article proposes a reflection on the protection of the human rights of childhood and adolescence, taking into account empirical data, theoretical arguments, and interdisciplinary contributions that allow us to understand the complexity of the problem, as well as the accumulated experience in processes of human rights protection for childhood and women. The crisis that questions In Panama, more than 29,000 girls and boys have gone through judicial processes related to abuse, abandonment, or rights violations in recent years (INEC, 2025). Symbolic violence More than three decades after the ratification of the CRC, in Panama the recognition of children as rights-holders remains incomplete. This approach, instead of addressing the causes of violence, displaces the problem towards punitive responses without strengthening the social conditions that prevent it. The lack of sustained political backing, limitations in administrative capacity, weak judicial effectiveness, and insufficient budgets — in a context where social issues lose priority — turn legal frameworks into formal declarations with no impact on groups living in a situation of vulnerability. Conclusion The crisis of shelters should mark a turning point. In Panama, many children enter shelters not for a lack of family, but due to poverty, violence, or lack of state support. More than 29,000 children have gone through judicial processes related to abuse, abandonment, or rights violations in Panama. The right to family, a pending debt The right to grow up in a family is not an aspirational ideal. When the State responds to poverty by separating children from their families, it is not solving the problem: it is displacing it. To this reality is added an inescapable structural fact: children and adolescents represent a significant proportion of the population living in poverty in the country. While the public debate shifts towards political confrontation and institutional and personal accusations, the essential is lost: childhood and adolescence as a present and a condition of the future. This crisis is not new. The institutional architecture that supports them is fragmented, weak in its coordination, and limited in its financial capacity to sustain programs and projects effectively. The idea that hardening the system can solve problems persists, as evidenced by proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility for adolescents. Deinstitutionalization does not mean reducing state protection, but transforming it. It means investing in family strengthening programs, mental health, education, and community networks that allow preventing the breakdown of bonds. From control to prevention Progress in guaranteeing and protecting the human rights of childhood has not yet sufficiently impacted institutional responses, which remain reactive, fragmented, and little innovative. Panama has been the scene of serious facts that show failures in the state protection of childhood, such as the fire at the Tocumen Compliance Center (2011), where several adolescents died under state custody. This is not a recent failure or an isolated episode: it is the expression of a historical debt of the State in its essential function of protection. The absence of deep structural reforms has allowed vulnerability to reproduce, moving from one scenario to another without being resolved in depth. The problem, exceptional or structural The crisis of shelters uncovers child abuse within centers established for protection. When the State does not fulfill its protective function, it not only fails in its duty but also compromises the very basis of democracy. This crisis is characterized by a structural failure: the inability to place the best interest of the child at the center of public policies. According to World Bank and ECLAC estimates, poverty in Latin America disproportionately affects the child population, which evidences a profound inequality in access to well-being conditions. The right to family, a pending debt The right to grow up in a family is not an aspirational ideal. When the State responds to poverty by separating children from their families, it is not solving the problem: it is displacing it. To this reality is added an inescapable structural fact: children and adolescents represent a significant proportion of the population living in poverty in the country. While the public debate shifts towards political confrontation and institutional and personal accusations, the essential is lost: childhood and adolescence as a present and a condition of the future. This crisis is not new. The institutional architecture that supports them is fragmented, weak in its coordination, and limited in its financial capacity to sustain programs and projects effectively. The idea that hardening the system can solve problems persists, as evidenced by proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility for adolescents. Deinstitutionalization does not mean reducing state protection, but transforming it. It means investing in family strengthening programs, mental health, education, and community networks that allow preventing the breakdown of bonds. From control to prevention Progress in guaranteeing and protecting the human rights of childhood has not yet sufficiently impacted institutional responses, which remain reactive, fragmented, and little innovative. Panama has been the scene of serious facts that show failures in the state protection of childhood, such as the fire at the Tocumen Compliance Center (2011), where several adolescents died under state custody. This is not a recent failure or an isolated episode: it is the expression of a historical debt of the State in its essential function of protection. The absence of deep structural reforms has allowed vulnerability to reproduce, moving from one scenario to another without being resolved in depth. The problem, exceptional or structural The crisis of shelters uncovers child abuse within centers established for protection. This requires a change of approach: moving from intervening on the damage to intervening on its causes. Panama has normative frameworks that respond to international commitments. In cases of abuse against sexual integrity, these occur mostly in close environments and remain hidden. (*) Article taken from the Pensamiento Social (PESOC) page. These facts, far from marking a sustained turning point, seem to repeat themselves in new forms. The international evidence is clear: organizations such as UNICEF and Better Care Network have documented the negative effects of prolonged institutionalization on child development.