Children at risk: when DIF is just an accessory to show off

By Sophia Huett

It was an ordinary morning. The school bustle was just beginning when a chilling discovery brought the routine to a halt: the lifeless body of a two-year-old girl, hidden in a suitcase . Her four-year-old sister had been left with her grandmother days before, and her mother, along with her partner, was missing. No one responded for her in time, no one intervened to save her.

Cases like this one force us to ask ourselves: Where were the institutions in charge of ensuring the safety of children? How is it possible that a girl who suffered constant violence ended up with such a tragic outcome? The answer points to a failed system where the entity in charge of protecting children at risk often becomes a bureaucratic body that prioritizes the delivery of food and blankets over real attention to children.

Most outrageously, this case had recently been taken care of by the municipality's Sistema de Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (DIF). In a hasty decision, the girl had been reintegrated into her family without a thorough analysis of all the variables that could put her well-being at risk. At best, the decision was made by a "multidisciplinary" team with insufficient information; at worst, it was the judgment of a single person with a psychology position within the DIF, without adequate training or supervision to make a determination of such magnitude.

When a mayor takes office, security is the star topic. There is talk of police, patrols and operations, while child protection is relegated to the background, often administered symbolically by the mayor's partner. But the DIF should not be an accessory to municipal policy; its management directly impacts the lives of thousands of children who depend on it to survive and develop in safe environments.

The inefficiency of the system is not a minor issue. In different municipalities, there have been cases of children who were separated from their families without sufficient evidence, just as the opposite has happened: minors who, despite being in dangerous environments, were not adequately protected. Stories of children who spend years in foster homes without follow-up, of children who are returned to violent environments due to lack of supervision, reflect the fact that decision making in the DIF is often improvised and lacks clear protocols.

Subscribe to read the full column. ..