Short answer. Yes. Article 356 of the Civil Code gives every child the right to live in an atmosphere conducive to their physical, moral, and intellectual development, alongside separate rights to parental care, at least elementary education, and moral and civic training — development, not just material support, is written into the law.
What the law says
Every child: (1) Is entitled to parental care; (2) Shall receive at least elementary education; (3) Shall be given moral and civic training by the parents or guardian; (4) Has a right to live in an atmosphere conducive to his physical, moral and intellectual development.
Civil Code, Article 356 — Rights of Every Child. Read the full provision →
The four rights Article 356 gives every child
Article 356 of the Civil Code names four things every child is entitled to: parental care; at least an elementary education; moral and civic training from parents or guardian; and the right to live in an atmosphere conducive to their physical, moral, and intellectual development. The fourth right is the broadest of the four — it isn't limited to a specific service like education or care, but describes the overall environment the child grows up in.
What 'conducive to development' means in practice
This right reaches beyond basic material needs like food, clothing, and shelter. An atmosphere conducive to a child's physical, moral, and intellectual development can be affected by exposure to violence or substance abuse in the home, by a chaotic or neglectful household, or by an environment that stifles a child's schooling or moral formation, even where the child is adequately fed and housed. The Civil Code frames development broadly, covering the child's whole growth, not only survival.
Where this right becomes legally relevant
This provision is most often invoked alongside disputes over parental authority, custody, or guardianship, where a court has to weigh which environment better serves a child's development. It works together with the parent's corresponding duty to provide that atmosphere, and with the state's broader interest in child welfare. It is not, by itself, a basis for a separate lawsuit for money damages — its practical weight comes from how courts and agencies apply it when deciding who should have custody or authority over a child.
This is different from a right against pollution or environmental harm
It's worth being precise about scope: Article 356 speaks of the child's immediate atmosphere — the home and family environment — rather than environmental protection in the sense of clean air, water, or natural resources. If your concern is broader environmental harm to children rather than the home environment a parent or guardian provides, that is a different area of law entirely, and Article 356 alone would not be the basis for it.