CRC/C/LVA/CO/2 page 8 Corporal punishment 30. The Committee welcomes the explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child, but remains concerned that corporal punishment and other degrading practices continue to be practised within schools and in other institutions. The Committee is also concerned that while regional inspectors are mandated to investigate cases of corporal punishment, the sanctions they impose may not always be adequate, and that it is difficult to suspend or dismiss the offenders. 31. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation to ban from practice corporal punishment and other degrading practices in all settings, and to encourage the State party to strengthen measures to promote alternative forms of discipline in schools and other institutions for children, inter alia, by strengthening sanctions and bringing offenders to justice, including through the suspension of offenders from schools and institutions. 4. Family environment and alternative care (arts. 5; 18, paras. 1-2; 9-11; 19-21; 25; 27, para. 4; and 39 of the Convention) Children deprived of family environment 32. The Committee notes with appreciation the increased emphasis the State party placed on the alternatives to institutional childcare, including foster families and adoption. The Committee is concerned that temporary or permanent suspension of parental rights has become a frequently applied measure, and that most of the children are sent to institutions. While recognizing that steps have been taken to increase the number of children in family-type care, the Committee is concerned that large numbers of children continue to remain in long-term residential care, including children who have been left behind by parents seeking employment outside the country. The Committee is concerned about the limited number of foster families and that the foster-care system is insufficiently regulated and resourced. It is further concerned that the necessity and appropriateness of institutional care is not subject to regular, periodic review, so that children who could return to their families remain in institutions. 33. In the light of articles 20 and 25 of the Convention, the Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure that care for children separated from their parents is provided with priority given to a family or a family-type setting, i.e. foster families, adoptive families or extended families; (b) Undertake a study on the consequences for children of parents leaving Latvia for reasons of employment abroad or for other reasons and, based on the outcome of the study, develop adequate mechanisms of support for children, where appropriate; (c) Ensure that the institutionalization of a child is a measure of last resort and only occurs when family-type measures are considered inadequate for a specific child, and that institutionalization is subject to regular review with a view to reassessing the possibility for reunification; and