What does Hamza’s death reveal about recognising and reporting child abuse in Belgium?

Het Nieuwsblad reported that a passer-by found Hamza wandering alone in central Merchtem on the Wednesday before his death and contacted the police. Officers established where he was staying and returned him to the apartment of his uncle. The child was found unresponsive hours later, and resuscitation was unsuccessful.

The newspaper reported, citing the Halle-Vilvoorde public prosecutor’s office, that Hamza had been living there with his mother after their home in Denderleeuw was declared uninhabitable. His uncle’s lawyer said his client was cooperating but disputed the murder allegation. The precise sequence of events, what each adult saw, and whether any authority possessed earlier information indicating that Hamza was unsafe have not been publicly established.

That distinction matters. A child being temporarily housed with relatives, living in poor accommodation or wandering away is not by itself proof of abuse. Each can nevertheless be a signal requiring calm questions about supervision, living conditions and safety. The judicial investigation must determine what was knowable in this particular case and whether opportunities to protect Hamza were missed.

Tim Stroobants, director of the Vlaams Expertisecentrum Kindermishandeling, told Het Nieuwsblad after Hamza’s death that Belgium must genuinely improve. His intervention places the case within a recurring child-protection problem: warning signs are often incomplete, spread among different people or services, and understandable only when information is brought together.

The scale is substantial without allowing simple conclusions about individual cases. VRT NWS reported that the Flemish child-abuse centres recorded 7,501 notifications involving 10,913 children in 2024. Emotional abuse or neglect was the most frequently registered category. The Vlaams Expertisecentrum Kindermishandeling cautioned that rising registrations can reflect both more harm and better recognition or reporting.

Opgroeien, the Flemish agency responsible for youth and family policy, says a Vertrouwenscentrum Kindermishandeling operates in every Flemish province and in bilingual Brussels. These centres receive concerns, advise professionals and can investigate whether help is socially necessary. When necessary help is refused, a centre can send a report to the public prosecutor, which may ask a juvenile judge to intervene.

This is not a single national system with one doorway. In Flanders and Dutch-speaking Brussels, residents will encounter 1712, Opgroeien, Kind en Gezin, a school’s Centrum voor Leerlingenbegeleiding or CLB, and the Vertrouwenscentra Kindermishandeling. French-speaking families may encounter Équipes SOS Enfants, the Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance, a school’s centre psycho-médico-social or CPMS, and the French-language side of 1712. A huisarts or médecin généraliste, hospital, commune or gemeente social service, and local police can also help someone reach the appropriate channel.

Start by recording concrete observations rather than interpretations: when the child was seen alone, the words used, recurring injuries, marked changes in behaviour, persistent hunger or fear of going home. Do not interrogate the child or promise absolute secrecy. Listen without suggesting answers, say that speaking was the right thing to do, and explain that you may need to find someone who can help keep them safe.

A neighbour or relative can contact 1712 anonymously for help weighing the concern. Children and teenagers can also use Nupraatikerover.be for an anonymous conversation, while Awel provides a broader Dutch-language youth helpline. A teacher should follow the school’s safeguarding procedure and involve its care team and CLB; a French-language school will generally work through its CPMS and the relevant youth-protection services. Professionals can contact a Vertrouwenscentrum Kindermishandeling directly.

Language should not become a reason to wait. Ask explicitly for Dutch or French support when calling a service, and request an interpreter where one is needed. In bilingual Brussels, the correct route may depend on the language network of the school or service rather than simply on the commune where the family lives.

Belgium still lacked an explicit nationwide prohibition of corporal punishment in every setting, including the home, in the EU Council’s 2025 survey. That legal gap should not be mistaken for permission to injure a child: assault and abuse remain punishable. Child-rights organisations favour an explicit civil-law ban because it would remove the misleading grey zone surrounding the expression “educational slap”. Some family and political constituencies have argued that an isolated minor slap should be distinguished from systematic abuse. Hamza’s death cannot resolve that legislative debate, and the uncle’s reported description of his conduct must not be treated as an established account.

The next formal developments belong to the courts. Investigators must reconstruct Hamza’s final hours, assess the forensic evidence and determine the individual responsibility, if any, of each suspect. Separate scrutiny may ask how police and child-protection services respond when a young child is found alone and whether information can be shared more effectively without turning every troubling incident into an automatic accusation. Until those facts emerge, the responsible conclusion is narrower but actionable: notice concrete signals, seek professional advice early, and use 101 or 112 when delay could leave a child in danger.