For two decades, Dutch youth care institutions funneled millions in public funding into a private “family home” in Spain, where children with complex behavioral issues were subjected to what experts describe as structural abuse and, in some cases, child torture. An extensive investigation by the Dutch news outlet Nieuwsuur reveals that major care providers, municipalities, and youth protection agencies were aware of the harsh conditions at “Huize Soria” yet continued to place vulnerable minors in the facility.
A Pattern of Coercion and Confinement
The facility, which operated under the umbrella of the large Dutch care organization Driestroom, housed approximately ten young people at a time, overseen by a Dutch couple. According to testimony from sixteen former clients—the first time these individuals have spoken publicly—the reality inside the home stood in stark contrast to standard pedagogical practices. Former residents described being locked behind electric fencing as punishment, denied food for days, and forced to endure winter temperatures while wearing only their underwear.
The alleged abuses extended to psychological manipulation. Former residents reported that the couple frequently designated “scapegoats” within the group, forcing the other children to participate in humiliation rituals, such as throwing manure at their peers, under the threat of becoming targets themselves. Trauma expert Leony Coppens characterized these accounts as consistent with international definitions of child torture, noting that the forced participation of other children creates profound, lasting trauma.
Dutch Youth Care System Fails to Protect Children
The systemic failure to protect these children highlights a significant oversight in the Dutch youth care infrastructure. While strict legal conditions govern the use of freedom-restricting measures in the Netherlands, these practices are entirely prohibited in international placements. Despite this, documents obtained by Nieuwsuur confirm that Huize Soria’s own “treatment methodology” explicitly included physical containment, the monitoring of private emails, and the restriction of contact with family members.
Entities responsible for these placements, including Driestroom and the organization Levvel, reportedly maintained knowledge of these methods. When questioned, a spokesperson for Driestroom described the situation as a struggle to balance “freedom, protection, treatment, and safety” for youth with complex needs. However, Bart Tromp, a researcher in youth law and a judge for children’s cases at the University of Groningen, rejected this justification. “In a constitutional state, everyone is equal,” Tromp stated. “A ‘difficult’ youth has the right to the same protection as an ‘easy’ youth.”
The Limits of Oversight and Accountability
The timeline of reported abuse spans nearly twenty years, yet formal action was repeatedly stalled or ignored. Reports reached the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) as early as 2016, and in 2019, one former resident filed a formal police report regarding his treatment. Despite these red flags and investigations by the Amsterdam Children’s Ombudsman, the flow of children and public money continued. The Dutch Inspectorate cited an inability to exercise direct oversight on foreign soil as a primary reason for the lack of intervention.
It was only after the recent media coverage that the Spanish authorities intervened, forcing the immediate closure of the facility in late September due to a lack of valid permits. In a statement, Huize Soria categorically denied all allegations of abuse and humiliation, asserting that their house rules were vetted by legal counsel and coordinated with the Dutch municipalities and agencies involved. The facility maintained that privacy requirements prevented them from discussing individual cases, arguing that their silence should not be interpreted as a lack of defense.
The Cost of Outsourcing Care
The case of Huize Soria raises urgent questions about the financial and ethical oversight of the Dutch youth care system, which has spent tens of millions of euros on foreign placements over the last two decades. While the facility is now closed, the long-term impact on the sixteen former clients who shared their stories remains a haunting reminder of the consequences when institutional accountability is outsourced beyond national borders.
