EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY 
 
Directorate C : Civil justice, rights and citizenship 
  Unit C1 : Civil Justice 
 
Brussels, 6 October 2005 
JLS.C.1/ME/ic – D/05/10685 
 
 
MISSION REPORT  
 
Object: 
Special  Commission  concerning  the  Hague  Convention  of  29  May  1993  on 
co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption  
 
The Hague, 17-23 September 2005   
 
I attended the Special Commission concerning the application of the 1993 Hague Convention 
on inter-country adoption which took place in the Hague 17-23 September. Approximately 
230  participants from 66 States attended the conference. To date,  67 States have ratified or 
acceded  to the  Convention (all EU Member States except Greece). The seminar was highly 
interesting and the role of the European Commission with regard to the new Romanian law 
on adoption was invoked on several occasions.  
 
1. 
Introduction 
The  Special  Commission,  which  was  organised  by  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International  Law,  was  devoted  to  the functioning and implementation of the 1993 Convention 
on  Protection  of  Children  and  Cooperation  in  respect  of  Inter-country  Adoption  (“the  1993 
Hague  Convention”).  The  Convention,  which  been  in  force  for  ten  years,  is  ratified  by  67 
States. China, which has the largest number of inter-country adoption (over 11.000 children in 
2003),  deposited  its  instrument  of  ratification  on  the  eve  of  the  meeting.  The  discussions  took 
place  on  the  basis  of  a  Draft  Practice  Guide  drawn  up  by  the  Secretariat  of  the  Hague 
Conference on Private International Law.   
Statistics presented at the Special Commission showed that  inter-country adoption is steadily 
increasing at a global level. The U.S., which adopts an increasing number of children (21.000 
children  in  2003)  have  signed  but  not  yet  ratified  the  Convention.  Although  inter-country 
adoption predominantly remains a movement of children from poorer to richer countries, cultural 
differences  remain.  Hence,  no  Islamic  State  has  ratified  the  Convention  since  the  notion  of 
“adoption”  is  not  recognised  in  Islam.  Moreover,  very  few  African  States  have  ratified  the 
Convention, since there is little or no inter-country adoption in Africa due to cultural factors.    
2.  
General structure and objectives of the 1993 Hague Convention 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  does  not  intend  to  serve  as  a  uniform  law  on  adoption,  but  to 
establish general principles and minimum standards. The over-riding principle is that inter-
 
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. 
Office: LX46 1/26. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 295.13.67. Fax: (32-2) 299.64.57. 
 
country adoption shall take place “in the best interests of the child” with respect for his or 
her fundamental rights. The purpose of the Convention is to define substantive principles for the 
protection  of  children,  establish  a  legal  framework  of  co-operation  between  authorities  in  the 
Sending States and the Receiving States and, to a certain extent, unify private international law 
rules on inter-country adoption. However, the fact that many questions are regulated by national 
law has led to divergent interpretations of certain key concepts under the Convention, such as 
“improper financial gain”. This led certain delegations to call for unification or clear guidelines 
with respect to e.g. fees and accreditation. 
Another  inherent  weakness  of  the  Convention  seems  to  be  that  it  does  not  require  acceding 
States  to  present  an  implementation  plan  how  they  intend  to  fulfil  the  obligations  enshrined  in 
the  Convention.  As  an  example,  Guatemala  acceded  to  the  Convention  in  2002,  despite 
objections of several States, although it was clear that the situation in Guatemala was such that 
the Convention could not be applied properly.  Another example is Turkey, which acceded to the 
Convention  in  2004,  but  had  not  yet  designated  a  central  authority  as  required  by  the 
Convention. 
The 1993 Hague Convention refers only to “Contracting State” without making any distinction 
between  “Sending  States”  and  “Receiving  States”.  However,  these  concepts  are  commonly 
used  and  influenced  the  discussions.  Hence,  the  Receiving  States  had  a  certain  tendency  to 
approach  a  question  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  adoptive  parents.  This  perspective  did  not 
necessarily coincide with the perspective of the Sending States.  
3. 
Inter-country adoption within the European Union 
3.1.   
The role of the European Community  
Interestingly,  the  European  Union  comprises  now  both  “Sending  States”  and  “Receiving 
States”.  The  Eastern  European  States  are  all  Sending  States  (except  Romania,  see  point  3.2.) 
whereas the “old” Member States are all Receiving States.  Within the European Union, France, 
Italy,  Spain  and  Sweden  have  the  highest  number  inter-country  adoptions.  Inter-country 
adoptions  have  doubled  in  Spain  during  the  recent  years (4.000 children in 2004). Sweden has 
the  highest  number  of  inter-country  adoptions  per  capita  (approximately  1.000  children  per 
year). 
There is currently no Community instrument dealing with inter-country adoption. Adoption is 
for  example  explicitly  excluded  from  the  scope  of Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 on parental 
responsibility. The subject is therefore a matter of national competence. All EU Member States, 
except Greece, have ratified or acceded to the 1993 Hague Convention. 
At  a  general  level,  I  explained  that  child  protection  is  a  key  priority  for  the  European 
Commission  and  Vice  President  Frattini.  In  this  context,  I  informed  the  participants  of  the 
future Commission Communication on Children’s Rights which will be presented at the end 
of 2005 or beginning of 2006. This was met with interest and I discussed with several NGO’s, 
UNICEF and the Hague Conference of Private International Law on their possible involvement 
in this project. 
In  the  context  of  enlargement,  I  mentioned  that  children’s  rights  form  part  of  the  political 
criteria  that  all  candidate  countries  must  fulfil.  I  recalled  that  the  Community  acquis  in  the 
form  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  1989  UN  Convention  on  Children’s 
Rights  (UNCRC)  constitute  crucial  references  and  benchmarks  for  the  Commission  in  the 
assessment  of  the  situation  in  candidate  countries.  This  implies  that  all  Member  States,  in  line 
with  the  UNCRC,  are  bound  to  have  sufficient  protection  in  place  for  children  who  are 
temporarily or permanently deprived of parental care. 
 
2 
3.2   
The new Romanian law on inter-country adoption: 
Although not being an item on the agenda, the new Romanian law on inter-country adoption 
was frequently invoked during the meeting. The new law, which entered into force on 1 January 
2005, limits inter-country adoption from Romania to grandparents living abroad.   
I explained that the Commission has actively encouraged the Romanian reform of its child care 
sector by financial assistance (the PHARE programme) and that Bulgaria has been given similar 
support. The Commission has supported the efforts made by the Romanian government to 
reform  its  child  protection  policy  by  closing  down  large,  old-style  residential  institutions 
and replacing them with alternative measures, including smaller homes and foster homes, and 
large  awareness-raising  campaign.  I  explained  that  the  Commission  and  the  Romanian 
government had been advised on the reform by an Independent Panel of Family law expert from 
different Member States.  
I  underlined  that  the  Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  Romanian  authorities  in  their 
efforts  and  that  the  new  Romanian  law  on  inter-country  adoption  brings  it  into  line  with  the 
practice  of  EU  Member  States.  The  new  law  is  also  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity 
enshrined in the 1993 Hague Convention and Article 21 of the UNCRC,  which implies that 
inter-country  adoption  can  only  be  the  last  resort  after  all  other  solutions  have  been 
exhausted, i.e. not only national adoption but also e.g. foster care. Inter-country adoption 
shall  thus  be  based  solely  on  the  best  interests  of  the  child  and  scrupulously  respect  the 
principle of subsidiarity. I finally assured that the Commission will continue to support current 
and future candidate countries in their efforts to respect the rights of the child. 
Following my intervention, certain participants (e.g. Nordic Adoption Forum) took the floor and 
advocated  a  broader  interpretation  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  implying  that  inter-
country  adoption  should  not  be the last resort, but a possibility whenever the biological family 
cannot take care of the child in the State of origin. A permanent home in a receiving State would 
always  be  preferable  to  a  provisional  home  in  the  State  of  origin.  Some  Receiving  States  also 
argued that the Sending States did not have the necessary resources to take care of their children 
and that such efforts must not be at the expense of the welfare of the children.   
Although  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  and  other  participants  were 
generally very supportive of action of the European Commission with regard to Romania, 
which has led to considerable progress, certain people voiced concerns that the new Romanian 
law was “too strict” and not sufficiently flexible.  
I  was  later  told  by  the  Romanian  delegation  that  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International  Law  has  expressed  some  doubts  on  the  compatibility  of  the  new  Romanian 
law  with  the  1993  Convention.  However,  as  is  stated  in  the  Draft  Practice  Guide,  the 
ratification of the Convention does not in itself entail a duty to organise inter-country adoption.  
3.3.   
The so-called Romanian “pipe-line” cases 
During  the  conference,  certain  delegations,  notably  Germany,  Austria  and  Israel,  openly 
requested  the  Romanian  authorities  to  clear  so-called  “pipeline”  cases  where  applications 
had been introduced during the moratorium 2001-2004. The U.S. delegation emphasised the risk 
of letting children wait too long as a result of “pipe-line” cases.  
To Romanian delegation explained that the moratorium on international adoptions which was 
in place between October 2001 and December 2004, was introduced to tackle the wide-spread 
abuse and corruption that took place in Romania during the 1990’s. During the moratorium, the 
Romanian  government  approved  the  international  adoption  for  the  cases  registered  before  the 
moratorium. Despite the fact that Romania had no legal framework for processing new cases of 
international adoptions during the time of the moratorium, foreign families continued to file 
3 
requests  to  adopt  Romanian  children  based  on  false  expectations  that  the  ban  on 
international  adoptions  would  be  lifted.  These  applications  were  pure  administrative  acts 
and did not signify approval of the request since no decision on “matching” had taken place as 
prescribed  by  the  1993  Hague  Convention.  To  clarify  the  situation  of  these  cases,  a  Working 
Group  of  Romanian  specialists  has  been  set  up  which  will  analyse  each  file  to  assess  the 
situation of each child. The Group will publish its final report before the end of this year.  
4.   
Other issues  
  Fees and charges 
 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  allows  Receiving  and  Sending  States  to  charge  “reasonable  fees 
and  charges”  for  services  provided.  Concerns  arise  when  fees  and  payments  are  not  properly 
regulated and/or adoptive parents pay families of origin directly. In certain States, it is common 
practice  that  adoptive  parents  are  asked  for  high “donations”. It was generally called for clear 
and harmonised criteria to tackle the problem of corruption, falsified documents and the sale of 
children.  It was also recognised that financial aid, if not correctly channelled, may lead to abuse 
and  pressure  on  Sending  States  to  accept  more  applications.  As  an  example,  the  Estonian 
delegation  explained  that  Estonia  does  not  accept  monetary  help  from  accredited  bodies,  since 
“they want our children in return”. Certain countries would offer babies and healthy children to 
applicants who offer the higher fees or even sell children using falsified documents.  
  Accreditation   
 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  allows  designated  bodies,  and  in  some  cases,  non-accredited 
persons  to  perform  some  of  the  functions  of  the  Central  Authority.  All  bodies  must  meet  the 
standards  set  out  in  the  Convention,  e.g.  only  pursue  non-profit  objectives  and  be  subject  to 
supervision  by  competent  authorities.  The  great  majority  of  States  use  accredited  bodies  to 
perform certain tasks. However, the U.S. consistently uses non-accredited bodies for the purpose 
of  inter-country  adoptions.  Certain  States,  e.g.  Austria,  Australia  and  Malta,  do  not  use 
accredited bodies at all, but work only through central authorities.  
  The “right” to adopt    
 
The representative of UNICEF stressed that the term “applicant” used in the 1993 Convention 
and the Draft Practice Guide is misleading, since it gives the impression that a couple who have 
submitted an application to register as potential adoptive parents have an unconditional right to 
adopt. The applications should be treated merely as an offer to receive a child. UNICEF stressed 
also that the concept of the “child best interests” should not be seen in isolation from the child’s 
fundamental rights, e.g. the right to identity and the right to be cared for by one’s parents. 
  The right to information concerning “available adoptive children”    
 
Many Receiving States emphasised the rights of adoptive parents and their need to have reliable 
information on the number of “available adoptive children” and their profile (e.g. whether they 
are young and healthy) from the receiving States so that prospective adoptive parents would not 
have “false hope” on the “availability of children”. 
However,  as  e.g.  Slovakia  pointed  out,  such  information  would  not  only  be  impossible  to 
provide,  but  it  would  be  problematic  from  an  ethical  point  of  view,  since  it  would  convey  the 
misleading  message  to  prospective  parents  that they have an unconditional right to adopt these 
children. The Sending States explained that they could only give an estimate on the number of 
applications that their central authorities can handle. 
 
4 
  The right to post-adoption reports 
 
The practice of sending a report on the situation of the adoptive child to the Sending Country is 
not  regulated  in  the  1993  Hague  Convention.  However,  it  is  wide-spread  practice  in  many 
Sending  States  to  request  adoptive  parents  to  present  such  reports,  sometimes  several  times  a 
year until the child reaches the age of majority. The representative of UNICEF pointed out the 
risk that post-adoption reports replace a careful control before the adoption.  
This question caused a certain tension between Sending and Receiving States. Certain Receiving 
States, e.g. Austria, Germany, Finland and the U.S., emphasised the adoptive parents’ right to 
private life and argued that they could not be legally obliged to submit a report.  The Sending 
States tried to explain the reasons why they ask for such reports. Lithuania explained that they 
may  help  to  change  the  very  negative  attitude  of  the  general  public  towards  inter-country 
adoption.  Kazakhstan  argued  that  they  wanted  such  reports  in  view  of  their  experiences  when 
children had gone missing and been abused after inter-country adoption. Also Brazil mentioned 
the  risk  of  sexual  abuse  as  an  objective  reason  for  these  reports.  There  are  also  differences  of 
national law, since the laws of several Sending States require post-adoption reports whereas such 
reports are unknown under the laws of Receiving States.  
5. 
Conclusion 
It was very useful that a COM representative attended the 5-days meeting, which treated topics 
that  are  highly  relevant  for  the  Commission’s  current  and  future  activities  in  the  field  of 
children’s  rights.  The  question  of  inter-country  adoption  is  also  very  topical  in  the  context  of 
Romania’s accession. In view of the sensitive political nature of the latter question, it would be 
useful  that  a  representative  from  DG  ELARG  attend  meetings  of  this  kind.  The  meeting 
also  allowed  for  very  interesting  discussions  and  contacts  concerning  the  Commission’s  future 
Communication on Children’s Rights.  
 
(Signed) 
Monika Ekström 
 
 
Copy:   Unit  C1,  Mr  Tenreiro,  Mr  Fonseca  Morillo,  Mr  Nielsen,  Mr  Trousson,  Ms  Knudsen,  
Ms Zwaenpoel (DG JLS) 
 
Ms Schmitt (CAB)  
 
Mr De Lobkowicz, Mr Summa, Mr Wild, Ms Tuominen, Ms Post (DG ELARG)   
Ms Neagu (DG RELEX), Delegation of the European Commission in Bucharest 
5 

.

Rapist nun led team to Romanian orphanage.

AN Irish nun, who helped rape and terrify a 10-year-old girl, was later allowed to lead a cross-border mercy mission to a Romanian orphanage.

And evil Nora Wall - dubbed Sister Anti-Christ by her helpless victim - made a major impression on members of the British government funded Belfast Action Team which organised the trip.

They provided her with a glowing testimonial saying they would have "no hesitation whatsoever" in involving her in any of their future programmes.

Now a full investigation is expected to be launched.

The Sister of No Mercy

Published 12/06/1999 | 00:11

Share?

?

?

David Bryant and Anna Elish from the United States adopted the girl from Basundhara Childcare home in Cuttack after the completion of all the requisite formalities. Cuttack Collector Bhabani Shankar Chayani handed over the baby to her foster parents.

An orphaned four-year-old divyang baby girl in Cuttack got a new lease of life after an American couple adopted her on Friday.

As per reports, David Bryant and Anna Elish from the United States adopted the girl from Basundhara Childcare home in Cuttack after the completion of all the requisite formalities. Cuttack Collector Bhabani Shankar Chayani handed over the baby to her foster parents.

It is worthwhile to mention here that both Anna and David already have three biological daughters and this girl from Cuttack will be the fourth addition to their family.

Speaking on the adoption, Anna said, “We love her and are too excited to get her back to America. We are grateful to everybody here who allowed us to adopt her. We feel so honoured. We will continue to teach her about India and its culture.”

Out of the 997 adoption cases that had been pending before courts as on September 12, 2022, a total of 858 adoption orders have now been issued by DMs.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development on Tuesday revealed that the highest pendency in adoption cases in the country is in Maharashtra with as many as 329 cases pending till date. There are 174 cases awaiting adoption orders as of September 2022, and another 35 fresh cases which are pending with District Magistrates in the state.

However 329 cases are pending at either Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) or District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) level, ministry sources have said.

Ministry sources have indicated that the pendency is due to the uncertainty created by the Bombay High Court’s January order, granting an interim stay on the transfer of pending adoption cases from courts to DMs.

On January 11, the Bombay HC directed the state governments not to transfer pending adoption proceedings to DMs, as mandated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021. The directive came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by advocates and Kandivli residents Nisha Pandya and Pradeep Pandya that challenged the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment.

Among the adopted, eight were boys and four were girls; except for two children aged one year and two years, the rest were just months old

Twelve children have been adopted in Ernakulam district in the nine months since the introduction of the amended adoption rules aimed at speedy completion of adoption procedures.

Under the new adoption rules, as per Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, District Magistrates are authorised to issue adoption orders. The amendment was aimed at avoiding the inordinate delay when adoption process was executed through courts. The amendments came into effect on September 1, 2022.

Among the adopted, eight were boys and four were girls. Except for two children aged one year and two years, the rest were just months old. Five other adoptions are being processed by the district magistrate.

“Adoption is lot quicker now since District Magistrates are required to issue orders within two months of submission of files by the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU). There was no such time frame when the adoption process was carried out through courts,” said Sini K.S., District Child Protection Officer, Ernakulam.

Intercountry adoption has been under discussion for years. Why does the Flemish government spend 1 million euros on 29 adopted children from abroad?

It is May 19, 2014. Chairman Luc Broes and treasurer Adelain Vandenbrouck of the adoption service FIAC are on their way to a conversation with Ariane Van den Berghe, head of the Flemish Center for Adoption (VCA). FIAC had been experiencing financial problems for several years at that time. The two directors turn to the Flemish adoption officer for additional resources, in the hope of saving their service.

The number of intercountry adoptions has been declining sharply for several years: from 244 in 2009 to 61 in 2014, a drop of 75 percent in five years. Not only FIAC, but also the two other intercountry adoption services - Ray of Hope and Het Kleine Mirakel - write in their annual reports that they feel the impact of the declining number of adoptions on their operations and income. Het Kleine Mirakel is experiencing difficulties due to the loss of adoptions from Kazakhstan, while at FIAC adoptions from Ethiopia are disappearing. The financial impact is greatest at Ray of Hope: at that moment it is heading for a deficit of 70,000 euros.

FIAC is being heard: adoption officer Van den Berghe promises to adjust the subsidy scheme in favor of the services. And while intercountry adoption is increasingly being discussed. What convinced the policy to still stand up for the three adoption services?

A vacation bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Manoj Misra of the Supreme Court passed an interim order staying the high court direction and issued notice on the appeal filed by Shahnaz Khanam which has now been posted for hearing on July 28

Weighing the child’s interest over that of her biological parents, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order passed by the Orissa high court directing the transfer of custody of a 12-year-old girl from her adoptive parents to her biological parents.

The Orissa high court order was passed on April 3 on a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s biological father – Nesar Ahmed Khan who accused his elder sister of kidnapping his daughter in 2015 from Rourkela, where he currently resides.

In its order, the high court had directed Ahmed Khan’s elder sister Shahnaz Khanam and her husband (the adoptive parents of the child) to hand over the custody by June 30 failing which a formal order will be passed to hand over the custody of the child to her biological parents.

Nagpur: “Social Worker?!! Please don’t call me that – I consider ‘social work’ as minding other people’s business – that’s not my cup of tea! I run Shradhanand Anathalaya because I promised my late mother in law that I would do it.” “She passed away in 1989, I became a Trustee in 1990 but became Secretary only later – when the Orphange had really fallen into bad hands and lots of illegal things were going on. I had to set matters right.” “The Anathalaya land belongs to my (Buty) family, we built the building, so I feel a responsibility to keep it running – but I often ask in frustration ‘ couldn’t the family have started something else?”

You realize 5 minutes into the chat that Nisha does not mince words, she expresses what she feels without hesitation, but rather eloquently! She is a D Litt in English Literature after all and an Author of two books and an Academician/ Researcher to the core. Being point blank and straight forward also comes to her from being an Army child. The middle daughter of Brigadier Moghe , Nisha’s mother Vimal was a ‘princess’ of the Jamkhandi Principalty near Belgaum. Her elder sister, younger brother and she were all sent to various Boarding Schools from the age of 5 to 15. Nisha and her sister went to St. Joseph’s Convent in Panchgani. It was one of the best schools of the country at that time. Till 1948, it was run completely by English, German and French sisters but Indians took over after that. “From 48 onwards we had Goan sisters who were very into Music, Art, Sports, Gymnastics and games like Hockey. For picnics we walked from Panchgani to neighboring Hill station Mahabaleshwar and back. Discipline was everything, there was no mollycoddling.” And if you think it must have been a very luxurious life in the lap of all creature comforts think again! When Nisha joined, it was War time (second world war was on which ended only in 1949) so food was often scarce. They had to make do with what was available – it taught them to be non fussy and be thankful of what was put before them. Boarding school was also a necessity since her father was in the Army and was always getting transferred. There was no transfer allowance then and the children could often visit their parents just once a year during summer holidays – travelling by themselves and changing trains 2-3 times.

Their Army dad too took them on long treks in forests and mountains on his free days – so physical fitness is something ingrained into them right from childhood. “Moping, sulking, making demands of parents… were absolutely not known to kids then! I observe it in children only now – even in the Orphanage kids.” College was partly in Loretto Calcutta and then Delhi where Nisha had to be a Home Scholar despite getting admission in Miranda House since her mark list did not arrive in time. When she got married into the Buty family of Nagpur both her husband and she were still students. He a Medical student and she English Literature. Her mother in law was fully into running of the Anathalaya. Nisha, who was busy raising her family and reading and writing her books was given just one instruction by Sasuma. “Keep this Anathalaya for orphans and destitute women going after I am gone.” Nisha first joined as a Trustee.She was at first just an observer and did not believe in rocking the boat. Also meetings were held just 3 – 4 times an year. But she could sense something was wrong – very wrong. Though lots of funds were supposed to be coming in from foreigners the children looked malnourished and had rickets. Then she heard rumours of children/ babies being sold to foreigners without proper adoption proceedings. Sumatibai Dhanwatey was the President and Mrs. Abrol was Secretary. The racket that was being run by these two finally came out in the open and created a scandal. The shit hit the fan. Yeshwantrao Chavan, who was C.M. at that time had to mediate and a High Court Committee was set up to supervise the running. Meanwhile, Basantlal Shaw, whose NECO was new to Nagpur that time and the family was “just coming up” according to Nisha, was made President. He gave donation of Rs. 5000/ for which he never got a receipt! That was the state of affairs. Finally in 1999 Nisha reluctantly took over as Secretary. “Only because I had promised to do so.” She then realized how beset with problems the Anathalaya was. Women and children did not have enough to eat. There was sickness and unhappiness all around. At the first opportunity girls to run away. Unwed pregnant females came in from the ages of 13 to 40 – sometime widows even.“If a girl/ woman came in at the beginning of her pregnancy we looked after her nourishment well and babies were born healthy. But when women came late in their pregnancies they gave birth to babies who were often just one Kg in weight and had heart problems too. The mothers did not want them and refused to feed them or look after them. We had to depute ‘ayas’ and ‘dayis’ to accompany the babies and women to GMC and back all the time. But some of these babies grew to be strong and healthy despite all problems – they got adopted and are now studying in schools like Bhawans! When this happens you think it was all worth it!” When Nisha took over, and people heard about the change in management, many donors came with funds and help on their own. She and Mr. Shaw pulled the orphanage out of the mess. “We get only Rs. 950/ per child from the Government which is hardly enough. We have to feed them, clothe them, send them to school and most importantly chaperone them all the time. Even if one child goes missing ( read – runs away) we hear no end from the Police. 

Margaret Tuite

Margaret Tuite has joined the Keeping Children Safe’s Independent Review Committee in a personal capacity.

Margaret was the European Commission coordinator for rights of the child from 1 November 2011 until 31 August 2018 in the unit responsible for fundamental rights policy in DG Justice and Consumers.