74 11. Groups of persons deprived of their liberty at the places of detention absent for an extended period of time was not transparent. While capacities for children with special needs are scarce both locally and at the national level as well, there were only 24–25 children taken care of on a permanent basis in the home with an authorized capacity of 32, i.e., irrespective of the vacancies, many children in need could not get the care they are entitled to, or they had to wait for a long time. In the context of double registration children who were permanently absent and children who were away without permission were placed in a fictitious group. As a result, they were providing for more than eight children in the truly functioning three groups, which means that they exceeded the statutory capacity. It is unreasonable that, in the case of all newly arrived children, the provision of care started with an isolation period of one to two weeks. The placement of children in the reception room resulted in a serious restriction of the children’s personal liberty. If deprivation of liberty exceeded 48 hours, the head of the institution should have ordered educational supervision – it had never happened in the cases investigated. The form of isolation applied by the Home jeopardizes the enforcement of the rights to personal liberty and safety. In order to prevent such situations from recurring, I suggested that the Minister of Human Capacities should initiate the amendment of legal provisions on the restriction of the personal liberty of children placed in homes for children with special needs, special foster homes and in the special groups of any children’s home. Corridor in the reception unit of the Home for Children with Special Needs of the Károlyi István Children’s Center The provisions of the house rules providing fewer opportunities for communication than the Guardianship Office’s resolution and the absence of an adequate meeting room caused an impropriety in connection with the right to privacy. On the positive side, as far as the children’s right to complain is concerned, the children were familiar with the children’s rights representative and knew that they could put forward their complaints through him. However, there was no complaint box installed in the Home, and the Stakeholder Forum did not operate with the required intensity and frequency.