Media

Romanian child rights experts comment on child welfare reform

Press release

Statement by group of independent Romanian child right experts, issued in response to an interview on RTE (Radio Television Eire) with John Mulligan.

Bucharest, August 3rd 2006

FACTS:

-  Romania’s population is almost 23.000.000 inhabitants;
-  In December 2004 Romania had 82,918 children in the child care system;
- 50,239 of these children live with their families (including 15,834 in foster families and 27,036 within the extended family);
- 32,679 of these children are in residential placement centres (institutions) including 5,460 in private-run centres.
-  In the mid 1990s Romania had over 100.000 children in institutions.
-  In 2001 Romania adopted a moratorium suspending international adoptions.
- The new Romanian legislation which came into force in 2005 has banned international adoptions.
-  There are 668 legally adoptable children in Romania
-  There are currently 1715 Romanian families wishing to adopt a child registered in the National Adoption Register.
-  UNICEF Romania released in 2005 a report on child abandonment in Romania presenting alarming figures.
Some of these facts may appear to justify the bleak image Romania has in the international media in respect to its child protection system. We wish to present a different view, based on these facts, but placing them in context, with an independent unbiased analysis, rather than attempting to extract sensationalism or support a partisan interest.

It is true that Romania has, currently, over 30.000 children in institutions, four out of five or which are teenagers.
However, this figure does not mean much on its own, and needs to be set in context. In 1990, Romania had almost 100.000 children in institutions, and in 15 years this number has been cut down to a third, which anyone must acknowledge as a significant progress. Many of these institutions have been reconfigured into family-type homes and modular centres with a family-like environment.

In a comparative perspective, we can note that in 2002 The Czech Republic had 19.000 children in institutions, and Bulgaria 12.100, both figures representing rates much higher than Romania’s in respect to the total population of children in the country. Yet, these situations are not presented in the media. One can only wonder why Romania receives such a special treatment.

In 2003, France and Finland had similar rates to Romania regarding the number of children under 3 years of age spending more than 3 months in institutions; the numbers are 6,143 for France, 466 for Finland and 2,915 for Romania. In 2005, Romania had none, while in the other countries the tendency was quite different: as an example, that the number of children aged 0-3 in institutions has increased with 31% in Czech Republic between 2001 and 2003 (from 1,244 to 1,630). In Estonia, the growth of institutionalisation among young children has been of 75% over 1989-1997, followed by Latvia with a rise of two thirds.

In France the number of children in public care has remained constant since 1989 at approximately 135,000; compared to Romania’s 82.000, this represents a similar rate in the general population.

Romania has made huge progress in creating alternative child care services. At the end of March 2005, there were almost 16,000 foster parents in Romania, looking after a total of 16,360 children. According to the data in the UNICEF Social Monitor in 2002 41.7% of the children in public care were placed with foster parents; according to Government statistics, in January 2005 60.5% of the children are placed in a substitute family (foster care, extended family or national adoption). Comparatively, in 1997 26,5% of the children in public care in Spain were in foster care and the remainder in residential institutions and in 1999 in Italy 26,6% were placed with foster parents – two countries that are generally considered to have managed successful deinstitutionalization processes.

As to the question of infant abandonment, a recent UNICEF report has produced very controversial figures: the reader may understand that 4000 children are abandoned every year in Romania, or just as well that 9000 children are abandoned, depending on the interpretation of the reader. But the methods used in this study are not a matter of interpretation, and have been challenged by several independent Romanian and European specialists. First of all, the definition of “abandonment” is at least unusual in this study: it does not take into account the duration (if the child is without parental care for a day, a week or 5 years), or the intention of the parents (did they intend to abandon the child, were they solving other problems at home, were they in need of social services or were they, as in 37% of the cases quoted by the study itself, not allowed by the medical staff to visit their child in the hospital?).  Secondly, the study does not mention the counties in which the analysis was performed (12 out of Romania’s 42) - element which, as we can see in the paragraph below, can seriously skew the generalisation of the results.

As to the outcome, it is worth noting that out of the 4,614 children temporarily left in Romanian hospitals in 2004, a total of 2,389 were returned to their natural families. A further 947 children were placed with substitute families, including foster and extended families. Only 768 of these children were sent to residential centres in 2004.

During the first 5 months of 2005 a total of 869 children were left in Romanian hospitals (according to NAPCR and the local health and social services), with great regional differences: one country registers 101 cases of abandonment (all but 12 of which were resolved by May 2005) and several of the poorest counties record none.

A very common confusion needs to be cleared out: the children in institutions are not abandoned children. They have parents and families, who are economically unable to care for them on a full time basis, and efforts are being made to support and strengthen these families in view of reintegrating the child in his/her own family environment. In all cases, this figure has no relevance for the adoption process, be it national or international, since these children are not considered adoptable under Romanian law, either nationally or internationally. The number of prospective adoptive families in Romania is indeed, in the past years, higher than the number of adoptable children available. Therefore, the international adoption, seen by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a last resort option, cannot be considered applicable or needed. There are more and more countries introducing, lately, similar bans on international adoption.
 
Moreover, on the sensitive issue of international adoptions, several shocking facts can be quoted to explain the current policy and legal reforms in Romania. The corruption of the system (referred to recently as “the child market” by a Romanian official in the European Parliament) has been pointed out by officials and by the media on numerous occasions. The tragic stories of children having lost their identity through adoption and having been shipped back to Romania with no valid papers by their former foreign adopters are also easy to find. As a simple observation, if international adoption would have represented a useful solution for Romania, then the situation should have become worse and the number of children in difficulty should have risen since 2001, when the first moratorium was imposed. It can be very easily seen that no such “decline” took place – quite the contrary.

There is, interestingly enough, according to international studies, a significant variation between EU countries (EU-15) and accession countries in the causes of institutionalization. In the EU countries 69% were placed in institutions due to abuse and neglect (4% due to abandonment, 4% disability, 23% social reasons), whereas in the accession countries the main reason is still represented by social and economical problems, with only 14% for abuse and neglect. How can we therefore claim that a child would be better off with a “richer” “more-caring” foreign adoptive family? Such a misguided conclusion shows little or no understanding of the child’s developmental needs.

Evidently more remains still to be done for child protection, in Romania as well as in most countries of the world. Horror stories have always existed and will always exist in every country; Romania does not have a monopole on this. It suffices to mention as an example the rates in the USA in 1998 (according to a 2001 study by the International Foster Care Organisation, Stakeholders in foster care): “(…) every day, 6 children commit suicide and 13 are murdered, (…) yearly 2883 children drop out of school and (…) 8493 are reported as being abused or neglected while 100.000 children do not have a place to live”.

However, the concept proposed by Mr. John Mulligan, of “unofficial institutions” in which “hundreds of children are being hidden” belongs more in a Sci-Fi movie than anywhere else: “a few days ago another well respected international human rights body discovered 60 children hidden in an unofficial institution”. Such a provocative statement would require a lot more detail as to the international body mentioned and the “unofficial” institution, in order to begin to be credible and not ranked as a strange side-effect of the CIA-secret prisons scandal.

Mr. John Mulligan and other militants for the cause of international adoptions take too often the risk of putting words in people’s mouths, such as the fictitious statement attributed to a senior official in Romania’s adoption board (that abandoned children would be better off adopted internationally). It is difficult to imagine that a Governmental official would have made a statement against the Government’s policy and in favour of international adoptions without mentioning at least the other priority options – foster placements, national adoption etc.

The reform process in Romania is far from being completed, but the efforts and progress made so far have been recognised by the international community, at least at the level of professionals and officials. The high-level International Conference on Child Rights held in Bucharest on 2-4 February 2006 has acknowledged this progress and recommended the Romanian model as in many ways revolutionary and interesting to follow even for some Western European States.  It is quite unfortunate that the media continues to obstinately feed on the bleak perspective of the former decades, consciously or unconsciously serving a different purpose than fairness and the well-being of the Romanian children.
AUTHORS

Ana Radulescu, University lecturer on social work, writer and trainer on child rights in EU projects
Catalina Florea, NGO representative
Cristiana Vlad, B.Hons.(Ed), MA, trainer in EU projects and independent consultant
Adrian Ballai, trainer in EU projects and independent consultant
Marinela Buttu, NGO representative and trainer in EU projects
Mihai Serban, Representative of the International Federation for Children and Families, MA (UK&US), child therapist & independent trainer
Oana Dutescu, independent consultant and trainer, graduate of the French National School of Administration, training coordinator for the EU educational campaign on family advisory issues and child rights
 
USEFUL CONTACTS

The National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights
www.copii.ro
Secretary of State Bogdan Adrian Panait bodgan.adrian.panait@anpca.ro

The Romanian Office for Adoptions
www.adoptiiromania.ro
Secretary of State Theodora Bertzi, Theodora.bertzi@adoptiiromania.ro

The Toll-Free Line for Child Protection (08008200200)
+40-21-2123344
Catalina Florea, Catalina_florea@yahoo.com, +40 740 111 468

Ana Radulescu, ana.radulescu@gmail.com, +40 745 139 747

Adrian Ballai, adiballai@gmail.com, +40 744 797 997

Cristiana Vlad, arunecris@yahoo.com, +40 722 903 634

Marinela Buttu, office@hraniti-copiii.ro, +40 744 888 856

Mihai Serban, consil@mailbox.ro, 0744 344 882

Oana Dutescu, oanadutescu@gmail.com, +40 740 596 992