A draft law recently submitted to parliament, proposing amendments to certain provisions of Child Law No. 126 of 2008 and Penal Code No. 58 of 1937, has sparked rights concerns and criticism for its proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility for children to 10 years and raise the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment to 20 years in crimes carrying the death penalty, under the pretext of addressing early cognitive maturity and closing gaps that allow children to be exploited in organized crime.
Child Law No. 12 of 1996, as amended by No. 126 of 2008, sets the age of criminal responsibility at twelve full years at the time the offense is committed, such that a child is not criminally liable before reaching this age, while the legal definition of childhood extends to the age of eighteen, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Children between 12 and 18 are subject to the juvenile justice system, which relies on corrective and rehabilitative measures, and the law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty or hard labor on any person who had not reached the age of eighteen at the time of committing the offense.
The law divides the stages of responsibility according to age: criminal responsibility is entirely absent for those under seven due to incomplete discernment; incidents committed by those between 7 and under 12 are treated as misdemeanors or felonies heard by the children’s court, with measures such as rebuke, handover to guardians, or placement in care institutions; those between 12 and under 15 are considered criminally responsible but within a framework of precautionary and educational measures without applying traditional penalties; and those between 15 and 18 are held accountable as juveniles, with the possibility of reduced sentences in felony cases.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility contradicts the philosophy of the Egyptian Child Law and the principles of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. The existing legal framework sets the age of criminal responsibility at 12, with a graduated approach in criminal treatment that takes age differences into account and focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment, as affirmed by lawyer Ahmed Massilhi, Chairman of the Child Defense Network.
Massilhi warns that imposing aggravated penalties on children, such as imprisonment for periods that could reach 20 years, is liable to produce criminals rather than reintegrate them into society, particularly given the incomplete state of their psychological and intellectual maturity. He points to a conflict with the principles of civil law, which considers those under the age of majority to be of incomplete discernment, raising legal problems in holding them criminally accountable in this way.
He told Zawia3: “A child who commits a crime is fundamentally a victim of an environment that has failed to protect them. Genuine prevention begins with activating an integrated system encompassing the family, the school, cultural and sports institutions, the media, and religious institutions, guaranteeing a balanced upbringing that reduces the likelihood of delinquency.”
The Network Chairman criticizes the rising societal discourse built on revenge and punishment, which leads to a retreat in rights values and reproduces deeper crises rather than addressing them, stressing that law alone is insufficient to reduce crime or regulate relations within society, and that placing sole responsibility on legislation for these shortcomings represents a form of escape from institutional and societal responsibilities toward child protection. Any legislative reform must proceed from a comprehensive vision for child protection, not from immediate reactions to individual incidents or social pressures.
Researcher Zeinab Khair, member of the board of the Egyptian Coalition for Children’s Rights, affirms that lowering the age of criminal responsibility and toughening penalties for children explicitly contradicts Egypt’s international commitments, foremost among them the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obliges states to treat those under 18 as children in need of protection, not punishment. She notes that the philosophy of child justice is fundamentally grounded in viewing the child as a victim of social or family circumstances, which justifies the move toward alternatives to custodial sentences rather than their intensification.
She warns that amending the age of criminal responsibility cannot be confined to specific offenses, as it legally extends to all acts, opening the door to punishing children for a wide range of behaviors contrary to the law. She also points to a legislative contradiction in the event of lowering this age, given that the age of legal capacity in other matters, such as personal status, remains at higher levels.
She told Zawia3: “Egypt’s judicial system is already moving toward child-friendly justice through mechanisms including the use of psychological experts and the designation of specialized chambers. The new proposals do not represent an addition so much as a reversal of this trajectory,” pointing to a rising, undisciplined societal and media discourse that justifies violations of children’s rights, particularly in the context of economic and social crises.
Lawyer and rights researcher Abd El-Razek Mostafa warns of the legal and humanitarian consequences of the proposals to amend the Child Law and the Penal Code, affirming that the trend toward toughening penalties and lowering the age of criminal responsibility raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of these amendments with the Egyptian constitution and international commitments, particularly given reservations expressed by rights experts and international institutions concerned with children.
He told Zawia3: “This approach rests on the premise of early maturity, which is not supported by the scientific literature and neuroscience studies that confirm the brain’s decision-making centers are not complete before adulthood. Introducing children into the criminal justice system at this age threatens to stigmatize them early and undermines the prospects for their reform.”
He also criticizes the proposal to raise the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for minors to 20 years, considering it a shift from the philosophy of restorative justice to punitive justice, in violation of international standards, foremost among them the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that deprivation of a child’s liberty must be kept to the minimum. Extended sentences may in practice lead to the social and professional exclusion of the child, and turn punitive institutions into environments of isolation rather than rehabilitation.
The rights researcher expresses reservations about the trend toward mandatory placement in closed institutions for certain offenses, with the abolition of alternatives such as handing the child over to their family, due to the restriction of the judge’s discretionary authority and the disregard for individual differences between cases. He affirms that the family environment may, in some cases, be more effective in rehabilitation than detention institutions, which may contribute to entrenching criminal behavior rather than addressing it.
He adds: “Developing the child justice system must proceed from a comprehensive approach that balances protection and accountability. Specialized courts must be activated, the independence of psychological assessments must be guaranteed, and alternative measures to custodial sentences, such as rehabilitation programs and community service, must be expanded as more effective tools in reducing recidivism.”
Regarding the proposal for the criminal accountability of guardians, he argues for the need to distinguish between deliberate neglect and coercive economic and social circumstances, warning that custodial sentences against parents could lead to family breakdown and leave children without care, compounding the likelihood of delinquency.
Recommended Reading: By Ruling of the Supreme Constitutional Court: Has Custody Ended? Leave the Apartment Immediately!
Rights Criticism and Parliamentary Division
The proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility, submitted by MP Nevin Al-Kateb, a House of Representatives member from the Mostaqbal Watan Party, and other MPs, coincides with a draft law submitted by the Justice Party that includes Article 52, stipulating the termination of custody rights upon the child reaching the age of nine, a return to the pre-1985 situation, which sparked a storm of controversy and discontent among custodial mothers and advocates for women’s and children’s rights.
The proposal is part of the first personal status law draft submitted by MP Fatima Adel, a member of the Youth Parties and Politicians Coordination and the Justice Party, on April 21, after being signed by 60 MPs. It included lowering the custody age to nine years, placing the father second in custody order, and the right of the non-custodial party to host the child for 24 hours per week. This came just days after President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi directed the government to quickly submit bills relating to the Egyptian family and refer them to parliament.
In this context, Hani Hilal, Chairman of the Egyptian Foundation for the Advancement of Childhood, affirms that the ongoing discussions around amendments to laws related to children, whether concerning custody or criminal responsibility, partly reflect chronic problems in the ordering of priorities, given the father’s late ranking in custody, alongside the necessity of verifying the physical capacity of custodians, particularly grandparents, to care for the child. At the same time, he warns against adopting legislative paths that represent a retreat from the scientific and rights-based foundations governing children’s issues.
He told Zawia3: “We reject lowering the custody age, as a child remaining in the mother’s custody until the age of 15 is a natural state for forming their personality, with exceptions in cases where the mother’s unfitness is proven. The current visitation system must be replaced with a regulated hosting system, because the existing visitation environments often witness tensions and conflicts that negatively affect the child, and to guarantee a more balanced relationship with the extended family, while putting in place strict legal controls and deterrent penalties to guarantee against child abduction.”
He stresses that the best interests of the child must be the primary frame of reference in any legislative amendment, not the interests of the disputing parties, noting that some demands for lowering the custody age are linked to financial disputes, such as reclaiming the marital residence. He also points to a specific problem related to children with disabilities requiring legal flexibility to ensure the continuity of their care and housing.
The Foundation Chairman rejects lowering the age of criminal responsibility, which Egyptian law set at 12 in the 2008 amendments, defining childhood until the age of 18, based on scientific considerations related to psychological and intellectual developmental maturity and international commitments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
He adds: “Placing full criminal responsibility on a child overlooks the role of the family. Primary responsibility lies with those overseeing the child’s upbringing, so legislation must be developed to hold guardians accountable in cases of neglect or dereliction.” He notes that the majority of children’s crimes in Egypt fall into simple or moderate categories, while serious crimes remain individual cases that do not justify a sweeping legislative amendment.
Parliamentarily, MP Dr. Irene Said, Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Bloc of the Reform and Development Party, expresses her categorical rejection of the proposals under discussion to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years, and likewise of the calls related to lowering the custody age, arguing that these orientations are inappropriate and represent a danger to children’s rights.
She told Zawia3 that children’s possession of technological skills or early exposure does not necessarily mean the completion of their awareness or understanding, as they are still in a formative stage of discovering the world and cannot be burdened with legal responsibilities that exceed their psychological and social capacity. She argues that addressing behavioral deviations among some minors must focus on rehabilitation and reform mechanisms, not punishment.
She says: “The family and the state bear responsibility for any shortcoming in raising children, resulting from economic pressures, weak communication with children, and the decline of the school’s role in building the child’s character, with the school confined to the educational aspect without cultural, artistic, and sports activities, limiting children’s ability to channel their energies in a healthy way.”
The MP rejects lowering the custody age, but calls for developing the current visitation system and establishing more flexible mechanisms that allow the father to participate actively in his children’s lives, with strict guarantees and controls protecting the child’s best interests and balancing the rights of both parties.
For her part, parliamentary MP Dr. Nashwa Akl explains that the parliamentary proposals to amend laws governing children’s issues, whether relating to custody age or criminal responsibility, fall within the MPs’ right to present their visions, but do not necessarily mean they are applicable in their current form without being subjected to broad discussions within parliament that take into account various opinions and potential consequences before reaching a final legislative formulation.
She affirms that any amendment must proceed from a fundamental principle of achieving the child’s best interests, away from bias toward one party at the expense of another, explaining that personal status issues are by nature complex and cannot be addressed through general rulings, and that the discussion must remain open to the opinions of specialists to arrive at a balanced formulation that achieves family stability.
She told Zawia3: “I do not support lowering the custody age, because a child at the age of seven or nine is still at an age that primarily requires the mother’s care, given the emotional and nurturing support she provides that is difficult to compensate for.”
The MP believes that any move to lower the age of criminal responsibility must not occur in isolation from an integrated package of measures, including community awareness, a study of the real causes of the phenomenon, and confronting factors such as the spread of drugs and the negative influences of some digital content.
She adds that dealing with juvenile crimes must not be limited to toughening punishments, but requires a comprehensive approach involving multiple institutions, including education, the media, and experts in sociology and technology, to ensure that the roots of the problem are addressed and not just its consequences.
She stresses, however, the necessity of toughening penalties in crimes committed against children, arguing that child protection requires the development of legal frameworks guaranteeing deterrence of perpetrators, alongside the strengthening of prevention and protection mechanisms.
Recommended Reading: Society Outside Government Priorities: Why Were Personal Status Law Amendments Delayed?
A Public Debate
The latest parliamentary proposals to lower the custody age came in the wake of a broad public debate over amending personal status law, sparked by the airing of the series “A Father, But…” last March, which sheds light on problems of visitation and custody, and calls for lowering the custody age to 7 years for boys and 9 for girls, with the elimination of the child’s right to choose and the direct transfer of custody to the father after the mother.
However, analysis of social media data revealed a mix of genuine digital activity and organized electronic activities aimed at amplifying the public debate around the issue of lowering the custody age. Data gathered by Zawia3 via the “Brand Mentions” tool, with the support of the Arab Fact-Checkers Community (AFH), during the period from March 23 to April 22, 2026, indicates that out of 1,394 users, 23 accounts were classified as rudimentary bots and spam, at a rate of 1.65%, while the number of suspicious accounts reached 208, at a rate of 14.9%.
Analysis of the data via Python, a high-level, open-source programming language, reveals that 16.6% of the electronic accounts calling for lowering the custody age do not meet the criteria for explicit bots but display abnormal posting patterns, such as repetition, synchronization, or high similarity in content, indicating that these accounts operate within networks of coordination or systematic reposting, rather than being explicit bots that are easy to detect.
The temporal analysis shows that the electronic campaign calling for lowering the custody age passed through three main phases: a limited start with low engagement, then gradual growth, reaching a sharp peak in mid-April, with its highest point on April 13 at 644 mentions, before entering a phase of relative stabilization with a gradual decline in the volume of the debate. This pattern reveals an event-driven nature, with the peak linked to recent legislative developments or media statements related to personal status law amendments and the proposal submitted by the Justice Party.
Analysis of the network structure of the debate, via Python, reveals indicators of coordinated electronic activity: cluster data showed that approximately 31% of the content consisted of identical or near-identical texts, reflecting reliance on ready-made templates widely reposted, while accounts with abnormal activity emerged, including one account that posted 512 posts, indicating near-automated behavior.
The initial spark came from mid-influence digital accounts, before major media platforms took over amplifying the debate and driving it to its peak, in a pattern reflecting interaction between grassroots initiatives and media coverage. Detailed temporal analysis reveals synchronized “posting bursts” in short periods, a pattern typically associated with organized campaigns aimed at increasing visibility and influencing platform algorithms.
In terms of platform distribution, the discussions were concentrated primarily on Facebook at approximately 56%, reflecting a broad popular character, while the platform X played a smaller but influential role in shaping the debate at the elite level. By contrast, the presence of institutional platforms and traditional media remained limited.
Regarding the volume of engagement, 5,051 mentions were recorded, a medium to high level reflecting a sustained presence of the issue in the public sphere without reaching an “explosive trend” pattern. Sentiment analysis shows a clear dominance of neutral discourse at 69%, compared to 21% negative and 10% positive.
The data analysis indicates that the debate around the custody age issue combines broad societal interest with organized electronic interventions that use digital tools to direct and amplify discourse, calling for caution when measuring actual public opinion trends.
In this context, Dr. Saeed Sadek, Professor of Political Sociology, explains the escalating controversy around custody issues through the occurrence of unequal social transformations within society, and the fact that patterns of thinking and attitudes differ according to class, region, and educational level, leading to sharp divergences in opinions and orientations. He points to the fact that part of the discourse supporting the removal of children from their mothers is linked to a traditional masculine culture, in addition to being an extension of divorce conflicts and the desire to pressure or take revenge, with children sometimes used as a tool in disputes between the parties rather than out of genuine concern for their interests or actual readiness to bear the responsibility of upbringing.
He told Zawia3: “There is a rise of conservative currents in society, supported by the interweaving of customs and traditions with religious interpretations, alongside political considerations that influence the formulation of legislation. This climate explains the emergence of proposals that may be understood as a retreat from earlier achievements in the fields of women’s and children’s rights.”
The sociology professor proposes an alternative approach based on expanding the scope of prior agreements within marriage contracts, such that they include clear provisions regarding financial responsibilities and child care in the event of separation, reducing the intensity of prolonged court disputes. He affirms that any legislative reform must account for the diversity of Egyptian society and must possess a degree of flexibility that allows adaptation to different social contexts, rather than imposing uniform solutions that may not respond to the needs of all groups.
Between legislative proposals that do not take the child’s best interests into account and a public debate through digital space where genuine engagement mixes with orchestrated campaigns, the need emerges for a legislative formulation that balances the rights of the various parties and guarantees protection and care for the child, while respecting international conventions, so that the anticipated legislation does not become a step backward in the path toward justice for children.
