Former residents of Biel children’s home describe weeks of isolation

Former residents of the Ferme du Soleil children’s home in Biel have accused its former management of repeated isolation and emotional pressure. In accounts made public on 23 October, they describe daily life in which challenging mistreatment was difficult. Former staff criticised its methods in August. Bern’s cantonal youth office is investigating; those responsible reject the allegations, saying the measures served educational purposes.

Central to the allegations is Adam, now 19. Placed at Ferme du Soleil aged four, he lived there for around ten years. One image captures his memories: lying on his bed crying, alone in his room. He left in 2022. Today he works and says he is rebuilding his life.

A room that defined his childhood

Adam says he was frequently punished by being sent to his room. He could leave for school and the toilet, but had to eat alone there and was denied second helpings. Even as a small child, he sometimes spent entire weekends in his room. One later punishment lasted three weeks.

“I wasn’t the best or the best-behaved child, but the punishments were very harsh and very strict,” Adam says. If he looked out of the window, the shutters were sometimes closed. Standing at the door to listen to sounds in the corridor was also forbidden.

Before rejoining the group, he says, he had to write an apology to the home’s management. He would then be reprimanded for 30 to 45 minutes, with his guilt impressed upon him and demands that he apologise and show gratitude. The frequent punishments shaped his experience of the entire placement.

Several carers considered these sanctions excessive and raised concerns with the co-management, Adam recalls. Nothing changed. He had hardly anyone to confide in; visits from his mother gave him support.

Accounts of pressure and humiliation

A former resident who lived at the home alongside Adam confirms that he was repeatedly punished. She describes her own experience differently: preferential treatment accompanied by emotional blackmail. She recalls a controlling relationship of dependency on the co-management.

After school, and once she began vocational training, she sought refuge in sport and work to return to the home as late as possible. The fear of returning nevertheless remained.

Thomas, who undertook civilian service at Ferme du Soleil, also describes distressing scenes. Daily shouting and verbal violence left their mark on him. He says young children were humiliated and belittled in front of others. When they cried, they were reprimanded again.

One point recurs in accounts from former residents, some parents and former staff: reporting problematic behaviour was difficult or impossible. Their descriptions suggest the disputed practices may have begun well before the first internal report last year. Whether, and to what extent, the allegations are substantiated remains the subject of the investigation.

When a time-out becomes isolation

Nadine Aebischer, deputy managing director of Child Protection Switzerland, does not comment on Adam’s individual case. In general, however, she draws a clear distinction between an educational time-out and punitive isolation. A time-out intended to calm a crisis must serve an educational purpose and take place within a framework established beforehand.

Punitive isolation, by contrast, is more than a temporary change of surroundings. The child is genuinely alone, without support or a relationship that provides security. “That is a form of psychological violence,” Aebischer explains.

For child protection in Switzerland, the Biel case therefore raises questions beyond individual punishments. It also concerns how complaints are handled in institutions where children depend on those caring for them. Investigators must establish what the measures involved and how objections were addressed.

Management defends its approach

The former co-director says he always acted in the children’s interests. He denies enforced isolation, saying withdrawal measures always served educational purposes. He acknowledges occasionally raising his voice, but distinguishes between sometimes strict educational authority and conduct intended to humiliate, belittle or intimidate children.

He says different treatment occurred in certain situations, always with explanations. He does not address the allegation of emotional blackmail. The co-director still in post refers questions to the Arboa Foundation, which runs the home and two other houses.

Its board chair, Pierre-Yves Moeschler, explicitly backs the management teams. He says children’s welfare was never compromised. He calls Adam’s account painful but one-sided. A specific response would require disclosure of information from Adam’s file, which data protection rules prevent him from providing. He also says such measures were always agreed in consultation with specialist bodies, psychiatric and psychological services, and guardians.

These responses leave a gap between the former residents’ descriptions and management’s assessment. The investigation remains open, with the nature of the measures and the response to concerns still to be clarified.

Changes have been introduced gradually since an initial report in 2025. A new educational framework is due to be completed by the end of 2026, while prevention measures and reporting procedures are also being developed further. Staff felt these steps did not go far enough and approached Bern’s cantonal youth office in the spring. Its investigation has yet to conclude.