Late Intervention and Early Punishment: Insights from 193 Family Court Cases in Chile

Original article: Llegamos tarde a cuidar y temprano a castigar: Lo que muestran 193 causas de Tribunales de Familia

Dr. Daniela Zúñiga Silva, Researcher at the Institute of Psychological Studies, Universidad Austral de Chile

As Chile debates lowering the age of criminal responsibility and increasing penalties for adolescents, one question remains largely unasked: What do we know, supported by evidence, about children who commit actions that would be considered crimes if performed by adults before the age of 14?

I have spent the last two and a half years investigating this question, funded by ANID, through the Fondecyt project No. 11240951, which analyzed 193 Family Court records from 2022 to 2024.

The first conclusion should shift the tone of the discussion: when a child appears in court for such behavior, it is highly likely that they have previously been a victim of violence in various forms: domestic violence, negligence, mistreatment, or abuse.

The behavior leading to judicial intervention often arises after their rights have been violated, rather than being an initial point of concern.

The numbers confirm this: 51.3% had experienced or witnessed domestic violence, 42.5% were victims of physical or psychological neglect, 42% had an unreliable parent during their upbringing, and 40.4% experienced school bullying.

Moreover, when considering the nine types of victimization recorded in the cases, 83.9% of the instances, or 162 out of 193, showed at least one form of victimization. Two out of three had two or more forms; nearly half experienced three or more.

It is important to specify: the court records accurately document the motivations for state intervention, so these figures reflect the population that is actually brought to court, not all children with behavioral issues; and the records indicate a baseline, not an exhaustive measure of their experiences.

Despite this caveat, the pattern is too consistent to overlook. The issue is not inherent to the child; it lies within their developmental context and the institutions responsible for their care.

Nevertheless, narratives continue to emerge blaming children for a social problem tied to structural violence, which remains unaddressed with the urgency and effectiveness it requires.

Territorial segregation, the precarious situation of caregivers, and the weakening of schools are conditions that the state either produces or tolerates, and then it responds to the consequences with penal tools directed at children.

Not a Homogeneous Block

A second finding should weigh even more heavily in the design of any policy: this population is not homogeneous. The study identifies at least three distinct groups.

42% exhibit moderate risk and need for protection, reflecting limited family and social adversity. Another 42% demonstrate high risk and need for protection, facing cumulative adversities across nearly all developmental areas: family, school, mental health, territorial vulnerability, with intensities in some indicators exceeding 90% of cases.

The third profile is minority and significantly different from the others: 16% marked by victimization occurring outside the home—such as sexual abuse, community violence, or being victims of common crimes—with no familial harm as characteristic of the previous group. This trajectory predominantly includes girls.

This is not a trait exclusively pertaining to girls but a specific pathway that a non-gender-focused perspective might overlook; ignoring it means designing policies blindly.

Research That Fails to Influence Policy

The State of Chile finances quality scientific research every year. It is essential that those of us producing this information be consulted through a stable mechanism, beyond scientific publications, before pushing initiatives crafted in reaction rather than response. Otherwise, the evidence remains like a treasured book in a library.

Additionally, there is a problem of judicial management that public discourse overlooks: there are no integrated databases for children that allow for characterizing this population beyond the logic of case files, which are designed to resolve the case, not to inform public policy.

Overburdened Courts, Undermanned Teams

In my fieldwork, I observed the conditions of the Family Courts: their professionals handle extremely diverse and complex cases, almost all linked to violence. They are overwhelmed with cases and lack sufficient resources.

They also lack common guidelines for addressing early transgressive behavior cases differently or specialized programs that allow for timely responses to the diverse complexities of these cases.

And behind those courts are critically under-resourced teams: professionals working with children on unstable contracts, often on a fee-for-service basis, without training opportunities or policies to safeguard their well-being while addressing issues of violence.

In my region of Los Ríos, I’ve witnessed how they must travel without adequate resources to assist children, families, and communities in very remote areas. There is a lack of relevant territorial policies in public service, which could potentially be developed in collaboration with work teams, scientists, and organizations that focus on children, paying attention to their needs.

Intervene Early

In summary: most of these children had their rights violated before reaching the courts, and they do not constitute a unique group; rather, they have distinct trajectories based on gender and the type of adversity faced. Given this, increasing penalties and lowering the age of criminal responsibility merely address the symptom rather than the cause: it is a response to a poorly diagnosed problem.

The evidence supports something different: early, differentiated intervention based on experiences of adversity and gender, with genuine coordination among family, school, health, and justice systems, along with an institutional framework that supports both children and their caregivers.

Therefore, the question should not only be how to penalize but also why we continue to arrive too late.

Dr. Daniela Zúñiga Silva, U. Austral de Chile