World Congress on Adult Capacity (WCAC) 2026
The Vrije Universiteit hosted the 8th World Congress on Adult Capacity ‘Maximising autonomy and tailoring safeguards for adults in need of support’ in Amsterdam on 8, 9 and 10 July 2026. The congress was convened by Kees Blankman and Rieneke Stelma-Roorda.
I had the opportunity to give a poster presentation and to contribute to the parallel session on Ethical and Cultural Aspects. My core message: the Netherlands still has work to do to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Without a real sense of urgency, society continues to place less value on the autonomy of people with disabilities. If we truly want an inclusive society, guardians must speak out against ableism.
Below you will find the contribution and toolbox referenced at the World Congress on Adult Capacity.
Opinion
Autonomy for people with disabilities is not a privilege; it is a human right
The government must address the systemic marginalization of people with physical, intellectual, or mental disabilities and finally grant them the right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
When guardianship cases make the headlines, they often involve abuses by professional guardians. “Guardian buys client’s home: this is a conflict of interest,” following yet another ruling by Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court). Everyone agrees on such cases: this should not happen. But where is the outrage over a structural problem—the failure to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protects the human rights of people with disabilities, has been in effect in the Netherlands since 2016. Article 12 guarantees their equality before the law. People with disabilities should not be “protected” through exclusion, but rather supported in exercising their rights themselves. Yet that equality is often forgotten as soon as someone is placed under guardianship.
Guardianship
Under guardianship, someone temporarily takes over financial management for individuals who are not (fully) able to manage their own finances, often due to a disability. If their autonomy is restricted more than necessary, this violates the convention and their dignity. Everyone has the right to make mistakes, to learn, and to make their own choices—including regarding their finances—even when under guardianship.
Courts emphasize that guardians must respect the autonomy of those involved. For example, the Rechtbank Gelderland ruled that promoting autonomy must be a guiding principle in the administration of guardianship under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Rechtbank Limburg stated that the intrusion that guardianship represents in private life must be kept to a minimum. A guardian who has had no personal contact with the person concerned for years is acting in violation of these principles.
Overprotection
The question now is whether this lack of respect for autonomy stems from ignorance or from a systemic flaw. It seems that we live in a culture of overprotection: safety and risk management take precedence over participation and self-determination. Overprotection deprives people of the opportunity to learn, undermines their self-confidence, and increases isolation.
Overprotection may seem to offer safety, but it leads to discrimination. Banks, energy providers, and landlords sometimes unilaterally restrict the options available to people under guardianship. The Netherlands ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but did so with reservations. The UN Committee therefore expressed concerns: the Netherlands still does not recognize people with disabilities as equal before the law as long as substitute decision-making remains the norm.
Looking the Other Way
Supported decision-making offers an alternative. In this approach, a person receives help in making decisions, without those decisions being made for them. Yet the legislature allocates only three hours per year to promoting self-reliance in cases of legal guardianship. In doing so, the government itself creates a structural barrier to autonomy. The legislature still considers substitute decision-making to be permissible. Instead of strengthening autonomy and promoting inclusion, the system makes exclusion the norm. That is not protection; it is looking the other way about widespread societal inaccessibility. This approach assumes that a disability is essentially a defect and must be corrected by, for example, a guardian.
Governmental Responsibility
The Netherlands must work hard to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Without a sense of urgency, society places less value on the autonomy of people with disabilities. If we strive for a truly inclusive society, then guardians must speak out against ableism—the unnecessary restriction of people under guardianship—and against ineffective guardians. A person under guardianship should not be dependent on the guardian’s willingness or abilities. Autonomy is not a favor; it is a human right.
The Dutch House of Representatives faces a choice: will the guardianship system remain focused on overprotection and exclusion, or will it move toward equality and inclusion? Only if autonomy becomes the starting point can the Netherlands claim to truly comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The challenge lies in finding the right balance between protection, trust, and autonomy.
Three hours a year to promote self-reliance is not protection, but a systemic form of exclusion. As long as legislation allows this, ableism will remain ingrained in our governance.
This article was previously published in de Volkskrant on December 3, 2025, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Author: Nelis van Steenoven
Toolbox
No overprotection, but inclusive decision-making. The more people and administrators participate, the easier it becomes for everyone to make decisions with support.
Who am I?
I am Nelis van Steenoven, a professional guardian and the founder of Inversie Bewind.
As a guardian, I see every day how people struggle with financial matters. Guardianship is often associated with problematic debt, but this is unfounded: 77% of people are under guardianship due to a physical and/or mental disability—a disability in the broadest sense of the word. Only 23% are under guardianship because of debt.
At my firm, Inversie Bewind, this percentage is even higher: 87% are under guardianship due to a disability, of whom 79% are currently dealing with or have dealt with debt. This says a lot about the inaccessibility of our society.
According to the social model of disability, everyone should be able to participate in society. But the reality is that people with disabilities are often excluded. As a result of this lack of accessibility, people find themselves in debt. When it comes to debt, the focus is often on payment behavior, whereas I believe structural exclusion and inaccessible policies are the real causes.
This is why I am committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Only by making society accessible to everyone can we truly call it an inclusive society. We should stand up against every form of ableism — discrimination and social prejudice against people with physical or mental disabilities.