Security Risk for CIA: Anthony Lake's Dubious past WRITTEN BY WILLIAM F. JASPER MONDAY, 20 JANUARY 1997 00:00 It may have been that the Good Lord was telling America something recently when He called hence the soul of Alger Hiss. It may be that that call to judgment on November 15th of one of our country's most notorious traitors was providentially timed as a reminder of the terrible cost of betrayal and a grim portent concerning high national security appointments soon to follow. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and the leadership of both parties in Congress, repeatedly ignored the hard evidence indicating that Alger Hiss was a dangerous traitor. Their failure to expose and prosecute him earlier in his sordid career resulted in untold harm to America's security and immeasurable tragedy for billions of people worldwide. Just two of his signal "accomplishments" — the Yalta agreement and the UN founding conference — condemned over a billion souls to communist tyranny and established the nascent world government structure that now threatens to destroy all national sovereignty. Unfortunately, Hiss was not alone; he had many comrades in high office who were never exposed or prosecuted. And he had numerous prominent patrons who praised, protected, and promoted him even after his treason was overwhelmingly apparent to all but the willfully blind. That willful blindness was recently displayed by Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser and the President's designee to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Speaking on the November 24th edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Lake denied that the evidence of Alger Hiss' treason was "conclusive." In the same program, Lake minimized current Russian espionage efforts against the United States, stating that "they apparently are spying on us to a degree that we don't like." In brief, the would- be head of America's intelligence community sought to rehabilitate a traitor and displayed a remarkably high threshold of tolerance for the KGB's activities within this country. Unfit Appointment As we shall see, President Clinton's nomination of Anthony Lake on December 3rd, so soon on the heels of Hiss' departure, is an outrage matched only by the lack of outrage expressed by members of Congress, public policy "experts," and the "mainstream" media. Considering Lake's activities, allegiances, and associations over the past three decades, it is incredible that he would be considered for any federal government appointment, let alone for a position as incredibly sensitive and vital to our national security as director of the CIA. It is for certain that if background security checks worthy of the name were still being conducted, Tony Lake would not be able to obtain a clearance necessary for even a washroom attendant position at the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters. Inasmuch as his appointment as Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser did not require Senate approval, Anthony Lake was spared the bruising confirmation hearings that deep-sixed his fellow New Left comrade, Morton Halperin, in Halperin's 1993 quest to claim an Assistant Secretary of Defense post. Halperin's radical, subversive record * proved too odious for what was then an even more liberal Senate than we have today. Which means there's hope for stopping Lake's potentially disastrous appointment. It was with some small sense of relief that we observed the December 11th testimony of retiring CIA Director John Deutch before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) aggressively grilled Deutch for his apparent defense of Anthony Lake's role in deceiving Congress, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the American people concerning the Clinton regime's secret policy of tacit approval for illegal Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia. Deutch backpedaled under the assault and tried to put a wholesome face on the Administration's dangerous subterfuge. Although he is stepping down as chairman of the committee, Senator Specter pledged that he would hold Lake accountable for that deception when the confirmation vote comes up in the 105th Congress. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is replacing Specter as chairman, has indicated that he also will be scrutinizing Lake's activities and duplicity in the "Iran- Bosnia" affair. Deceptive Dealing Syndicated columnist William Safire summarized the affair, and Lake's part in it: "Returning on Air Force One from Richard Nixon's funeral, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott told National Security Adviser Tony Lake that Croatia had asked for approval to smuggle Iranian arms into Bosnia — thereby breaking the embargo foolishly agreed to by the United States and its allies. "This was a deniable double-cross, kept secret from the oversight committees of Congress: Give the Croats a green light, and never mind the influence Iran would gain in Europe. "Lake circumvented the Defense Department and CIA by going into the president's cabin and getting Clinton's personal approval to instruct our ambassador to pretend he had 'no instructions.' This put the president in the position of telling the public that we could not break the embargo for fear of endangering the lives of our British and French allies — while encouraging a third party to endanger their lives" — not to mention encouraging that same Iranian third party to endanger the lives of American servicemen in Bosnia. Understandably, this has a few senators upset. Others have voiced their concern over a possible mini- Whitewater scandal involving Lake's failure to follow instructions to divest himself and his wife of an energy stock portfolio which could leave him vulnerable to conflict-of-interest charges. Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) expressed misgivings over Lake's ability to "show independence from the White House" as head of the CIA after having served in the Administration's policy formulating sphere, while others worried that he did not have the experience necessary to manage a large organization like CIA. That's all well and good; the Bosnian arms gambit, the Lakes' personal financial dealings, and the nominee's "independence" and management talents are all areas deserving of senatorial attention. But it is a lot like preferring jaywalking and littering charges against a gang of vicious bank robbers because the notorious banditti failed to use the crosswalk and dropped some of their ill-gotten loot while running to their getaway car. Yet what critical attention has been directed at the Lake nomination has been almost entirely focused on concerns of the jaywalking variety. The Washington Post reported on December 15th that Mr. Lake is now contrite for his misdeeds and "has told key senators that it was a mistake not to have told Congress about the presidential decision to wink diplomatically in 1994 when Croatia allowed Iranian arms to be shipped through its territory to Bosnia." According to the Post, "Lake's concession, which he made in phone calls over the last 10 days, is designed to make the hearings go more easily." In that much, at least, the Post may be telling the truth. Scarface Tony will be more than happy to cop a plea to jaywalking and littering, promise never to transgress again, and throw himself to the tender mercies of the Senate. And if the loyal opposition doesn't start soon to kick up a huge fuss about the real issues, the culprit likely will get away with it. That would be the real crime. Tony Lake's "rap sheet" is a mile long. Like so many others of his ilk, he had a "rough" upbringing on the "mean streets" of foreign policy: Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton. Poor, deprived lad! Lake also matriculated through the usual proving grounds for Establishment radicals: the State Department, Defense Department, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, Institute for Policy Studies, Center for International Policy, Fund For Peace, etc., etc. Crucial Questions Any serious, credible confirmation hearings will have to rise above the farcical focus on jaywalking and littering and demand answers to the real questions at the heart of this nomination, such as: • What was Anthony Lake's role in the infamous Pentagon Papers heist which so seriously damaged America's security? • What was, and is, the extent of Lake's involvement with militant Marxist activists of the subversive nexus at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Fund For Peace (FFP)? • What was, and is, the full story on Lake's activities with the radical one-worlders and Establishment Marxists at Alger Hiss' old haunt, the Carnegie Endowment? • What is Lake's relationship with IPS extremist Morton Halperin, and why did they cochair a radical conference panel for the anti-American, pro-Soviet Center for National Security Studies (CNSS)? • What was Lake's connection to Orlando Letelier, the notorious Chilean agent of the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI in Washington? • Why would Lake, who has spent his entire career associating with those who are attacking and undermining America's security, want to head our nation's premier intelligence agency, and why would any U.S. senator who takes his oath of office seriously even contemplate for a moment confirming such a nominee to head the CIA? And these are just starter questions; many more are begging to be asked. A brief survey of some of Lake's career "highlights" should provide ample stimulus for many hours of intensive Senate interrogation. Although it would be worthwhile to examine Anthony Lake's college student days and early Foreign Service career, for our purposes it will suffice to begin with an inquiry into his role in the illegal and sensational release of the Pentagon Papers, one of the most far- reaching security breaches in our nation's history. That one act had a dramatic global impact, contributing mightily to America's first military defeat, the resignation of a U.S. President, the radicalization of legions of students, and the demoralization of America's Armed Services. It was also an incredible intelligence coup and propaganda windfall for the Soviets and all of America's enemies. Destructive "Leak" Commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (CFR) in 1967 to assemble official records on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers study team had access to many top-secret documents. Lake, together with Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb, was one of the Vietnam Task Force leaders on the project, which was under the supervision of Paul Warnke, an Assistant Secretary of Defense. All members of that quartet were, or would become, (and remain today) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), otherwise known as the "Park Avenue State Department." Gelb and Lake signed off on the release of the Pentagon Papers to Daniel Ellsberg (CFR), who, in turn, leaked them to comrades at the subversive Institute for Policy Studies and, eventually, to the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of these players — Lake, Halperin, Gelb, Warnke, and Ellsberg — soon became activists in the IPS network. After quitting Nixon's national security staff in protest over the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, Lake went to work on the 1972 presidential campaign of Maine's liberal-left Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie. When Muskie dropped out, Lake migrated even further leftward, joining the national campaign committee staff of Senator George McGovern's run for the White House. Thus it was that he first met fellow McGovernites Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton, who had taken time off from Yale Law School to run the McGovern campaign in Texas. But, alas, American voters nixed McGovern's Oval Office hopes — and Tony Lake's chance to be Secretary of State. What more natural place to go from the staff of the peacenik presidential campaign than the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace? Problem is, most Americans would have a tough time reconciling to the Carnegie folks' idea of "peace." When investigators for the Reece Committee were looking into the Endowment's subversive funding trends back in 1954, they were shocked to find in the minutes of the foundation's trustee meetings the most blatant of warmongering intentions. It was clear that the Carnegie trustees viewed war as the most effective means "to alter the life of an entire people," and they asked, "How do we involve the United States in a war?" That was in 1911, a few short years before World War I. Toward the end of that war, the trustees dispatched a telegram to President Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly. After the war, the Endowment used its huge resources to fund a stable of "scholars" who would debunk critics of the Wilson war agenda, his diplomatic deception, and the League of Nations. War was going to be an essential instrument for teaching the peoples of the world the need for world government, a "new world order." By 1917 the Endowment could proudly report that it had begun "wide distribution of books, pamphlets and periodicals" that were proving effective as a "means of developing the international mind." This program would grow into an International Mind Alcove of books in libraries, including many books by notorious communists, socialists, and internationalists. Hiss' Playground Following his treachery in the State Department and at the founding of the UN in San Francisco, Soviet spy Alger Hiss (CFR) was hired to serve as president of the Carnegie Endowment. The man who hired him was John Foster Dulles, chairman of the Endowment, a founder of the CFR, and an inveterate internationalist who epitomized what Admiral Chester Ward called the CFR's "lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States." "Ever since its creation in 1910," wrote William H. McIlhany in his authoritative study The Tax-Exempt Foundations, "the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, second of five philanthropic legacies left by the Scottish entrepreneur, has remained the most outspoken and one of the most influential tax-exempt foundations promoting world government." In 1965, this "peace" endowment drew up an incredible document entitled, Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures, An Analysis. It was a complete military plan for an actual UN-led war of aggression against South Africa. When Tony Lake joined the Carnegie staff as boss of the Endowment's Project on Rhodesia, he helped put together a slightly softer version of that plan for the UN campaign against Rhodesia. He did not propose an actual UN military invasion force, but the toppling of the Rhodesian government through economic and diplomatic sanctions — which is exactly what happened. "Many believe that the future of the United Nations itself is very closely tied to the future of the sanctions program against southern Africa," Lake argued. Indeed, he claimed that Rhodesia's human rights abuses were so atrocious that it was in America's interest to boycott Rhodesian chrome and buy that strategic mineral so essential to our survival from that paragon of human rights virtue, the Soviet Union — which was only too willing to sell us inferior ore at a higher price. The Senate will surely want to closely scrutinize Lake's involvement with the Center for International Policy (CIP) in Washington, DC. As an official consultant for the CIP during the 1970s, Lake was an associate of Orlando Letelier, who served on the CIP's board of directors. Letelier and Lake were also connected through their mutual involvement in the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist think tank with numerous ties to communist intelligence agencies. When Letelier was killed by a car bomb, incriminating documents found in his briefcase pointed to many highly placed people. One of those was Richard Feinberg. Feinberg resigned from the Treasury Department to avoid investigation into his own involvement with the Letelier network. Also among the briefcase contents was a letter from radical activist Elizabeth Farnsworth cautioning Letelier against mentioning Feinberg's name because that might jeopardize his reputation and career at Treasury and his usefulness to the cause. Yet Anthony Lake, who at that time was serving as director of President Carter's State Department Policy Planning Staff, hired Feinberg on at State. Ms. Farnsworth also wrote admiringly to Letelier of the good work that "Bill Goodfellow" was accomplishing for the revolution. She was referring, of course, to William Goodfellow, the CIP director, who is a very bad fellow. How bad? Bad enough to stubbornly defend the murderous Khmer Rouge communists in Cambodia long after most leftists had decided the genocidal slaughter was just too obvious to deny anymore. Still another sterling staff member with Lake at CIP was Susan Weber, a former editor of Soviet Life, the official propaganda organ published at the Soviet embassy for American consumption. In that communist endeavor, Ms. Weber was forced to register as an agent of a "foreign power." At CIP, she could carry out essentially the same task without the inconvenience of registering. Another CIP consultant was Edwin Martin, who was identified to intelligence authorities in 1947 as a member of a Soviet spy ring. When you start tugging on the CIP thread, you end up at the Fund For Peace (FFP), long one of the most openly pro-communist outfits in the country. The CIP was founded by, and is funded by, the FFP. A longtime trustee of the Fund was Louise R. Berman. And who is she? A longtime Red and hard-core Stalinist, Berman was the subject of extensive congressional investigation into communist activities during the 1940s and 50s. She was a contact and a courier for Stalin's NKVD (precursor to the KGB) and GRU (military intelligence) agents in the U.S. and worked with J. Peters, the Kremlin's top Comintern representative on the central committee of the Communist Party, USA. Berman is only one of many notorious communists and subversives involved with the CIP/FFP network in which Lake operated for many years. Then there is the matter of Anthony Lake's relationship with the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), one of many groups which have spun off from the Institute for Policy Studies. On September 13, 1974, Lake and Morton Halperin cochaired a panel on "Covert Operations and Decision Making" at the CNSS' first conference on national security. This confab brought together a full rogues' gallery of the most militant leftists who had been attacking the FBI, CIA, local police, and all internal security measures for years. Halperin went on to lead the CNSS' sustained assault on federal, state, and local police and intelligence organizations tasked with legitimate internal security responsibilities. It is thanks to the success of these subversive efforts that America is now so vulnerable to terrorist attacks and is facing repressive police-state measures to deal with these threats. Lake's longtime IPS/CNSS comrade Morton Halperin was also thickly involved for many years with infamous CIA traitor Philip Agee. It was Halperin who flew to London to testify in Agee's behalf when he was being deported as a security risk. And it was Halperin who wrote an apologia in the Washington Post defending the actions of Agee and his rabidly pro-communist publication, CounterSpy, after they had contributed to the assassination of Richard Welch by revealing the Athens CIA bureau chief's identity and home address. Working with Agee at his Soviet- and Cuban-backed Organizing Committee for a Fifth Estate were other prominent confreres of Lake's IPS/CNSS fellowship, including Robert Borosage, Nicole Szulc, and Victor Marchetti. Marchetti, another "defector" from the CIA to the Marxist IPS agenda, was also a cochair of an anti-intelligence panel at the same September 1974 CNSS "Covert Operations" conference mentioned above that featured Lake and Halperin. It was this aspect of Halperin's vita which provided the main evidence to scotch his confirmation to the Defense post. Shouldn't these same troubling connections be a major bone of contention in considering the suitability of an aspirant to the highest intelligence post in the land? Lake's vexing associations become all the more troubling when considering some of his activities as President Clinton's National Security Adviser. Take, for instance, Lake's secretive trip, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili (CFR) and others, to Cuba last year. What was the purpose of that trip and what precisely transpired? A videotape of meetings between these U.S. officials and top Castro officials was obtained by Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL). According to the congressman, distraught Cuban refugees meeting with Lake and Shalikashvili at Guantánamo "are shown being informed that they are to be returned to Castro's Security Forces." Cuban General Perez Perez is shown being honored by the U.S. team and "a detailed U.S. military map of the Guantánamo Base is given to Perez Perez." Clinton's new commander of Guantánamo tenderly greets Castro's henchman Perez Perez as "my General." And retiring base commander Admiral Haskins states that a plaque given to him by Perez Perez shall be placed in "a place of honor." Diaz-Balart charges that this video footage "reflects the private coziness of the Clinton Administration with the Castro regime." But considering Lake's numerous connections to Orlando Letelier, Philip Agee, and other Cuban agents-of- influence, the Guantánamo meeting may reflect something far more serious and sinister than "coziness." According to Time magazine, on the day after he won re-election, Bill Clinton made a point of phoning Lake to thank him for his help in the campaign. Described in the Time article by a Clinton aide as "the 'heart and soul' of Clinton's foreign policy team," Lake is credited with orchestrating the strategy and writing the speeches that neutralized voters' concerns about Governor Clinton's lack of experience in the international arena. Under Lake's tutelage, Mr. Clinton emphasized centrist-sounding policy themes intended to allay fears of a Jimmy Carter replay. This is more than a little ironic considering that maestro Lake was the director of policy planning in Carter's State Department. In Clinton's first term we can see clearly the policies of Jimmy Carter, carried out by most of the same revolutionary hacks from the Carter Administration. But this time — with the hand of Anthony Lake clearly visible — they have dressed their revolution in more moderate garb. But don't expect to see anything overly critical of Mr. Lake emanating from Establishment media or political circles. They all have their sheet music from the same source and are chirping the same tune. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland (CFR) coos that Lake "sparkles in intelligence and affability." According to Catherine Kelleher (CFR), a defense and foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, Lake is "a creative and imaginative thinker." Another Brookings scholar, Helmut Sonnenfeldt (CFR), a Kissinger protégé, is also quoted singing praises of the Clinton designee. Repeating Dark History That a man who has worked so assiduously to undermine our intelligence agencies and national security could even be seriously considered to head our premiere foreign intelligence and counterintelligence organization is mind-boggling. Have we learned nothing from the terrible, world- shattering consequences which resulted in decades past from our leaders' failures to heed the evidence concerning Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins, Victor Perlo, Harry Dexter White, Harold Ware, Armand Hammer, and other proven Soviet agents? Or the more recent cases of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, and Harold Nicholson? Equally devastating have been the numerous cases of treason and treachery that have been made possible by those in high office who were "merely" dupes, sympathizers, fellow travelers, ambitious climbers, and fuzzy thinkers. Wherever Anthony Lake may fall on this spectrum of possibilities, he is unfit to lead the CIA. But it is not likely that the U.S. Senate will thoroughly investigate and air his record, and then reject his nomination, unless the American public demands that Congress do its duty. For those readers who wish to contact their senators regarding the Lake nomination, the address is: Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 * * * Anthony Lake's Biography in Brief Born: April 2, 1939, New York City. Education: Bachelor's degree from Harvard College, 1961; studied international economics for two years at Trinity College, Cambridge University in England; Doctoral degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, 1974. Government Service: 1962-70, Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. State Department; Early career included assignments as U.S. Vice Consul in Saigon (1963), U.S. Vice Consul in Hue (1964-65), and Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on Henry Kissinger's staff (1969-70); 1970, quit government to protest the U.S. bombing of Cambodia; 1976, international affairs adviser during Carter transition; 1977-81, Director of Policy Planning Staff for the Carter State Department; 1993-present, National Security Advisor to President Clinton. Non-Governmental Career: Advisor to the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign; Staff member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he ran the pro-communist, pro-Soviet Project on Rhodesia and helped launch the world-government-promoting journal, Foreign Policy; Cochair of a 1974 anti-intelligence panel for the Center for National Security Studies, a project of the Marxist and KGB-linked Institute for Policy Studies (IPS); Consultant for the ultra left-wing Center for International Policy (also called the Institute for International Policy), a project of the pro-communist Fund For Peace (FFP); Director of the pacifist, pro- communist International Voluntary Services; Professor of international relations at Amherst College and Mount Holyoke College; Member, Council on Foreign Relations. Writings: The "Tar Baby" Option: American Policy Toward Southern Rhodesia (1976); Legacy of Vietnam: The War, American Society, and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy (contributing editor, 1976); Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of American Foreign Policy (coauthor, 1984); Third World Radical Regimes: U.S. Policy Under Carter and Reagan (1985); Somoza Falling: A Case Study of Washington at Work (1990); After the Wars (editor, 1990).

.

Adoptie uit Afrikaanse landen onder de loep

Istoria tranzi?iei de la "lag?rele de copii" la problemele de ast?zi - GALERIE FOTO

• ?tire
• Foto (11)
• Comentarii (12)

Deficitul de personal, lipsa calific?rii sau fondurile insuficiente sunt probleme cu care se confrunt? sistemul de protec?ie a copilului dup? 15 ani de func?ionare a DGASPC, îns? neajunsurile de azi ?i "lag?rele" în care erau crescu?i copiii cu ani în urm? nu suport? termen de compara?ie.

• SOCIAL

  • Fiul pre?edintelui Academiei "Gheorghe Hagi", r?nit grav într-o alterca?ie pe strad? 15:35
  • Dosar penal pentru evaziune fiscal?, dup? controlul la cimitirul de?inut de mama Oanei Z?voranu15:02
  • Hunedoreanul acuzat de pornografie infantil? ?i violarea unei fete de 13 ani a fost arestat 13:32
  • Ap? potabil? transportat? cu cisterna pentru gospod?rii din Dâmbovi?a, unde fântânile au secat11:42
  • Dolj: Veste antiglon?, scuturi ?i caschete insuficiente pentru lupt?torii DPIR al Poli?iei 11:18

Istoria tranzi?iei de la "lag?rele de copii" la problemele de ast?zi (Imagine: Funda?ia Sera România)

În iunie 1997, în Prahova, se înfiin?a prima direc?ie pentru protec?ia copilului. Un an mai târziu, fiecare jude? al ??rii ?i fiecare sector al Capitalei aveau o astfel de institu?ie, creat? s? vegheze interesele copiilor în general, vie?ile celor institu?ionaliza?i în mod special.

GALERIE FOTO

Imediat dup? c?derea comunismului, România a devenit celebr? în întrega lume pentru felul în care î?i trata copiii. Imagini cu "lag?rele de copii" au circulat cu repeziciune ?i au atras aten?ia întregii lumi asupra condi?iilor inumane în care cei mici, r?ma?i în grija statului, erau l?sa?i s? moar?.

"Orfanii români, copiii de care nu îi pas? nim?nui", "Copii instrui?i s? cer?easc? ?i trimi?i în Italia ?i Spania, prostituate minore oferite turi?tilor în moteluri, nou-n?scu?i vîndu?i în Ocident", "Copii ra?i în cap, care fac baie în urin? ?i se leag?n? ore întregi pentru a adormi", sunt doar câteva dintre aprecierile f?cute la vremea respectiv? în presa interna?ional?.

Protec?ia copilului a devenit în scurt timp condi?ie pentru integrarea în UE, iar m?surile nu au mai putut fi întârziate. Înfiin?area unor institu?ii care s? "guverneze" acest domeniu a fost un prim pas în ceea ce a însemnat schimbarea condi?iilor de via?? a celor mici ?i a mentalit??ii adul?ilor care îi îngrijeau.

Direc?ia pentru Protec?ia Copilului din Ministerul Muncii precizeaz? c? în iunie 1997, când a început reforma în domeniul protec?iei drepturilor copilului, existau 287 de institu?ii, dintre care 207 case de copii, 22 de case de copii cu alte servicii ?i 58 de leag?ne.

În perioada 2000 - 2001, au fost preluate în sistemul de protec?ie a copilului 250 de institu?ii (29 de protec?ie special? a copiilor cu handicap, 39 de unit??i sau sec?ii de spital ?i 182 de unit??i care îngrijesc copii în regim reziden?ial ?i care func?ioneaz? în cadrul unit??ilor de înv???mânt special), toate fiind reorganizate în cadrul serviciilor publice specializate.

"Urmare aplic?rii politicii de dezinstitu?ionalizare a copiilor, fie prin reintegrarea lor în familia natural? sau extins?, fie prin înlocuirea m?surii de protec?ie de tip reziden?ial cu una de tip familial, s-a ajuns în prezent la 1.201 servicii de tip reziden?ial, din care numai 183 centre de plasament. Într-un deceniu ?i jum?tate, sistemul protec?iei copilului s-a transformat dintr-un sistem închis ?i ignorant fa?? de nevoile reale ale copiilor într-unul flexibil, modern ?i în concordan?? cu normele ?i principiile statuate pe plan interna?ional, România fiind ast?zi în pozi?ia de a reprezenta un exemplu de bun? practic? pentru alte state europene", precizeaz? direc?ia de specialitate din cadrul MMFPS.

Dup? 15 ani de la începerea reformei în protec?ia copilului, Gabriela Coman, fost secretar de stat la Autoritatea Na?ional? pentru Protec?ia Copilului, î?i aminte?te c? adev?ratul început al reformei a fost în 1997, pân? în acel moment neexistând o organizare institu?ional?.

"Ministerele î?i puneau amprenta în îngrijirea copilului educa?ional sau medicalizat. La nivel de teritoriu nu exista niciun serviciu specializat. Din 1995 au existat ONG-uri, precum Sera România, care au pus bazele primelor servicii specializate la nivel de jude?e. Pe scheletul acestora, în 1997 a venit Ordonan?a care a pus bazele unui sistem institu?ional, printre care direc?iile erau cele mai importante. Ele s-au dezvoltat ca singura institu?ie cu aceste atribu?ii ?i ca singurul ?i cel mai mare furnizor de servicii destinate copilului ?i familiei", spune fostul secretar de stat.

Gabriela Coman recunoa?te c? de-a lungul celor 15 ani "au fost urcu?uri ?i coborâ?uri", din cauza faptului c? transferul de atribu?ii nu a fost completat ?i de transfer financiar.

În opinia sa, Direc?iile Generale de Asisten?? Social? ?i Protec?ia Copilului (DGASPC) s-au dezvoltat beneficiind de aportul organiza?iilor neguvernamentale care le-au fost partenere în crearea de centre de plasament sau pentru copii cu handicap.

"Direc?iile ?i-au f?cut treaba de-a lungul timpului. A venit momentul 2001 - 2004, când protec?ia copilului a constituit punct de interes pentru UE ?i a fost un puseu de interes c?tre aceste direc?ii, puseu de fonduri UE pentru direc?ii, proiecte importante ca bani pentru închiderea institu?iilor mari ?i crearea de servicii alternative. Este adev?rat c? presiunea interesului privind închiderea de institu?ii nu a fost întotdeaua rezultatul cel mai bun pentru cazuri concrete de copii. Viteza ?i interesul de închidere a institu?iilor nu a coincis cu o evaluare corect? în fiecare caz în parte", spune fostul secretar de stat.

Din punctul s?u de vedere, în prezent, r?mâne problema personalului, care a fost fluctuant, sistemul confruntându-se acum cu un deficit numeric dar ?i de competen??.

"E greu de f?cut compara?ie cu ce era atunci. Atunci nu aveam nici m?car o construc?ie institu?ional?. Acum sunt actori institu?ionali bine defini?i, prestatori de servicii (DGASPC) ?i o mul?ime de servicii alternative pentru copil", mai spune Gabriela Coman.

Bogdan Panait, secretar de stat la Autoritatea Na?ional? pentru Protec?ia Copilului în perioada 2005 - 2007, spune c? reforma din protec?ia copilului a fost prima în domeniul institu?iilor publice ?i a adus elemente de inspira?ie pentru toate celelalte institu?ii. În opinia sa, ele au ap?rut din necesitatea ca serviciile oferite s? se apropie cât mai mult de copii ?i s? se g?seasc? solu?ii unitare ?i servicii multiple pentru nevoile lor, direc?iile oferind în prezent o protec?ie multidisciplinar?.

"Nu a fost u?or, pentru c? au fost multe jude?e reticente ?i, de?i a început în 1997, reforma a fost finalizat? abia în anul 2000, la cererea Uniunii Europene, deci putem spune c? aceast? reform? a durat foarte mult, comparativ cu alte ??ri în care acest lucru s-a realizat în câteva zile, cum ar fi Ungaria. Cred c? direc?iile ?i-au ar?tat calit??ile prin serviciile mult mai diversificate pe care le ofer?. În perioada 1997 - 2004 au fost înfiin?ate foarte multe servicii, iar progresele au fost vizibile ?i recunoscute ?i pe plan interna?ional", precizeaz? Panait.

Din punctul s?u de vedere, exist? ?i aspecte negative, în sensul c? reforma sistemului nu a inclus ?i o reform? privind preg?tirea personalului, ?i acest lucru s-a v?zut de-a lungul timpului.

Un alt aspect negativ semnalat de Bogdan Panait se refer? la num?rul de copii din sistem, care, în ciuda tuturor schimb?rilor, a r?mas aproape acela?i.

"Din acest punct de vedere, nu a fost foarte eficient. ?i perioada de ?edere în sistem este înc? foarte lung?, în medie de vreo ?ase ani. Se pierde leg?tura cu familia", adaug? Panait, amintind ?i de dificult??ile care apar inclusiv în momentul în care copilul a ajuns la maturitate ?i trebuie s? p?r?seasc? sistemul.

Importan?a func?ion?rii DGASPC-urilor este recunoscut? ?i de c?tre organiza?iile neguvernamentale din domeniu.

"Activitatea Asocia?iei Telefonul Copilului este strâns legat? de cea a Direc?iilor Generale de Asisten?? Social? ?i Protec?ia Copilului înc? din anul 2001. Am gestionat împreun? 37.810 cazuri de înc?lcare a drepturilor copilului, cu prec?dere în ultimii ani, afecta?i de fenomenul crizei financiare ?i apreciem eficien?a interven?iei, cu atât mai mult cu cât aceast? institu?ie a suferit restructur?ri majore tocmai atunci când aveam mai mult ca oricând nevoie de ea", declar? directorul executiv de la Telefonul Copilului, C?t?lina Florea.

În opinia sa, DGASPC este institu?ia care a avut ?i are multe de spus în asisten?a social?, apreciind c? extinderea capacit??ii umane ?i logistice a acesteia este vital? atât în mediul urban, cât ?i în rural.

"Existen?a asisten?ilor sociali, nu a lucr?torilor sociali, în mediul rural ar reprezenta un sprijin real nu numai pentru comunitate, ci ?i pentru personalul DGASPC", spune C?t?lina Florea.

Bogdan Simion, pre?edintele Funda?iei Sera România dar ?i al Federa?iei Organiza?iilor Neguvernamentale pentru Copil, a explicat c? direc?iile au fost create ca organisme specializate ale Consiliilor Jude?ene cu scopul de a reforma ?i dezvolta domeniul protec?iei copilului.

"Mul?i ani, direc?iile au fost cele mai ofensive servicii specializate ale statului în reforma sistemului de protec?ie a copilului, contribuind astfel, al?turi de ONG-uri, la îndeplinirea criteriului politic impus de Uniunea European? referitor la rezolvarea situa?iei copiilor institu?ionaliza?i. Create ca ?i servicii tehnice, profesioniste, apolitice, dedicate copilului ?i familiei, au suferit prima «politizare» la începutul anilor 2000, când au fost trecute în subordinea pre?edin?ilor de Consilii Jude?ene, considerându-se c? influen?a acestor ale?i va fi benefic? sistemului", spune Bogdan Simion.

În opinia sa, influen?a CJ a fost benefic? doar în unele cazuri, de cele mai multe ori direc?iile au fost considerate de prioritate secundar?, beneficiind de resurse din ce în ce mai mici.

"Criza economic? început? în 2008, lipsa de perspectiv? a problematicii sociale a Guvernului în aceea?i perioad?, precum ?i lipsa în?elegerii ?i a strategiei unui minister învechit - Ministerul Muncii - au f?cut ca, pe fondul unui dezinteres politic general, constituit dup? aderarea la Uniunea European?, sistemul de protec?ie a copilului s? regreseze vizibil în ultimii patru ani. În 2012, la 15 ani de la creare, Direc?iile de Protec?ia Copilului încep s? se destructureze, au o lips? acut? de personal (cel pu?in 1/3 din posturile necesare sunt neocupate sau defiin?ate), sunt reactive fa?? de orice fel de probleme ale copiilor, nu mai au niciun fel de coordonare na?ional?, sunt neadecvate fa?? de problematic? ?i, din cauza m?surilor haotice luate de Ministerul Muncii, în unele cazuri au devenit nocive chiar pentru copiii pe care ar trebui s? îi protejeze", consider? pre?edintele FONPC.

Bogdan Simion atrage îns? aten?ia c? DGASPC-urile beneficiaz? de o experien?? inestimabil? în domeniu, reprezint? comunitatea local? din care provin copiii ?i ar trebui revigorate ?i utilizate pentru a continua ce s-a început în urm? cu 15 ani.

Despre o regresie a sistemului de protec?ie a copilului în ultimii ani vorbe?te ?i directorul Direc?iei Generale de Asisten?? Social? ?i Protec?ia Copilului Sector 1, D?nu? Fleac?.

"Ultimii trei ani au însemnat o pr?bu?ire a sistemului. (...) Oamenii care lucreaz? în sistem sunt desconsidera?i. Cel mai mare regret al meu este c? pentru personal nu s-a f?cut nimic", spune D?nu? Fleac?, care coordoneaz? de zece DGASPC Sector 1.

El precizeaz? îns? c? a fost nevoie de DGASPC-uri, pentru c? fostele case de copii din subordinea Ministerului Educa?iei ?i leag?nele din subordinea Ministerului S?n?t??ii trebuiau restructurate.

"Ce se întâmpla acolo a fost la nivel de «valea plângerii». Numai la leag?nul «Sfânta Ecaterina» erau 450 de copii. Sistemul reziden?ial cu sute de copii a fost o tragdie. Clar a fost nevoie de o astfel de organizare ?i, în primii ?ase, ?apte ani, to?i colegii ?i-au f?cut temele", consider? D?nu? Fleac?.

Din punctul s?u de vedere, demedicalizarea sistemului ?i faptul c? au oferit alternative viabile, de tip familial, pentru copii ?i un anumit tip de afectivitate sunt principalele reu?ite ale reformei.

"Chiar dac? nu era afectivitatea p?rin?ilor, era altceva. A fost o alt? calitate a serviciilor. În mod clar au fost alte standarde de calitate. Putem spune c? sistemul de asisten?? social? este singurul sistem cu descentralizare real?. (...) Evolu?ia este colosal?. Nu ?tiu dac? la nivel european exist? vreun stat care s? fi f?cut eforturile României. Sunt probleme pentru c? niciodat? nu ai bani destui. Dar realizarea la nivel na?ional cred c? este unic? în Europa", mai spune directorul DGASPC Sector 1.

De?i diferen?ele sunt uria?e, imaginile fostelor case de copii nu pot fi ?terse nici m?car dup? un deceniu de normalitate. De?i au trecut 15 ani de când direc?iile generale de asisten?? social? ?i protec?ia copilului func?ioneaz?, de?i lucrurile s-au schimbat radical în acest timp, înc? este greu chiar ?i pentru oamenii din sistem s? î?i aminteasc? de condi?iile trecute, de teama de a nu redeschide un subiect care pare s? nu se mai termine.

(Material realizat de Aurelia Alexa, aurelia.alexa@mediafax.ro)

 

From Cache: 

As a result of the following demonstration of illegal activity on the part of Reece's Rainbow, the government of Bulgaria has installed a block on adoptions associated with Reece's Rainbow.

In addition, the entities in Bulgaria, working with Reece's Rainbow, are no longer allowed to process adoptions.

#############


** IMPORTANT ADOPTION ANNOUNCEMENT **

The following agencies are now banned from doing adoptions in Russia:

Hand in Hand, Christian World Adoption, Homestudies and Placement Services, Creative Adoptions and Small World Adoption Foundation.

All have been tied into the illegal posting of photographs and medical charts of orphans.

Here is a letter from the director of Hand in Hand:

From: "handinh...@hihiadopt.org" <handinh...@hihiadopt.org>
Date: June 6, 2012 1:20:00 AM CDT
Subject: Reeces Rainbow and St. Petersburg
Reply-To: "handinh...@hihiadopt.org" <handinh...@hihiadopt.org>
Dear Hand in Hand Families:
We are all indebted to Reece's Rainbow for providing an avenue in bringing the needs of these special children to our attention, there are not enough words to express our gratitude.  However, RR should not be mentioned in your documents, home study, on the Internet or to anyone while in Russia, because your child's medical condition and availability is extremely private and can be only legally displayed on the Russian data bank website.
Any information provided by Elena, Alyona or a volunteer about your adoptive child is absolutely unofficial, only after you've been registered is it permissible for Elena or Alyona to obtain information on the child's health status and location.  If "The Committee" in St. Petersburg or the "Moscow Department of Education" were to get wind of what they are doing they would not only shut them down but worst case scenario face criminal charges. I don't mean to scare you, but you need to be aware of the situation and I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't mention this to you from time to time. Remember that we need to uphold and respect Russia's customs and laws while undergoing the adoption process and while we are visitors in their country. These are their precious children that they are allowing us to take halfway around the world never be seen again, and when considering the "alleged" scandals and atrocities perpetrated against Russian adoptees that have occurred here in
this country, they are justified in their skepticism and in the demands that they place upon us no matter how nonsensical they may seem to us as Americans.
By know you've all heard about the problems that we are dealing with in St. Petersburg.
I've been dealing with this for two days now and it's been very difficult.  Somehow the Russian's found out about Reeces Rainbow through a Russian chat group (the details are very convoluted) and knew that a family was coming to visit their adoptive child due to the FSB button on their sponsorship page which I understand takes you directly to the child's RR listing. This is against everything that I've been telling our families, the rule of thumb is that if you can locate a child on the Russian data bank through information that is listed on your blog, then according to the Russian government you are breaking the law and will not be allowed to adopt.
Elena has a meeting at the end of the week with the City Social Worker with whom until now Elena has worked very hard to foster a good relationship.  So depending upon the SW's attitude during the meeting Elena has no idea if she will be allowed to assist us with adoptions in St. Petersburg, her advise is to lay low and wait until after the treaty is ratified, and to please make your yahoo chat groups and blogs private. RR has already obliged us and removed many children from their website.
I will be going for a short vacation this coming Thursday through Sunday, I will bring my computer with me and will let you know if I hear anything further.
Please keep Elena in your prayers.
Susan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Johnson
Director of Russia Program Families
Hand in Hand International Adoptions
handinh...@hihiadopt.org
Ph: (520) 745-1322
Fax: (520) 745-1343
visit our website at: www.hihiadopt.org

So far the director of Reece's Rainbow, Andrea Roberts has tried to remove all traces of Russia and Bulgaria from their web site.

It seems their illegal practices are now causing them to be excluded from Bulgarian adoptions as well.

New reports from Russia suggest that the US must enact specific legislation concerning such practices or Russia may institute yet another moratorium on adoptions by Americans.

"What I see here is criminal activity, just like murder" said newly reinstated Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, to a group of journalists.

Lavrov worked with the US to draft the adoption agreement. Lavrov indicated that it was the Foreign Ministry's position that the agreement will not pass in its present form.

"Due to continued shows of bad faith in America, that document is now worthless" concluded Lavrov.

County Council might associate with a controversial foundation


    



Objective


Tulcea County Council prepares to approve Wednesday the association with the foundation for the joint SERA Recovery and Rehabilitation Centre for Children with Disabilities Tulcea
Tumultuous past of a controversial foundations
Financial scandals public money
A combination hurry

Foundations of a tumultuous past controversial

SERA Foundation was founded by Francois de Combret in 1990, raising funds and helping abandoned children in Romania in various ways. Long time, SERA Foundation functioned as intermediary for international adoptions, until  the EU accession of Romania to stop this process.

By various spokesmen foundation SERA always ruled in favor of resuming international adoptions, pressing the Romanian authorities to facilitate this type of adoption. In support of his theories, the foundation often used false and inaccurate stories promoted, knowingly exaggerating both the number of children abandoned annually in Romania and conditions in which they live. In the process of decentralization of the child protection system, when attempting to quit mammoth orphanages and transition to the care of abandoned children as a "foster care" SERA Foundation organized a campaign in the French press, denigrate the child care system in Romania and further claiming that the best solution for abandoned children as international adoptions. The campaign was not only biased, but using photographic images made in the early '90s, no real connection with what is happening at the onset of the campaign. In fact, the founder of the foundation, Francois de Combret, was an adversary of the foster care system, arguing that instead of being paid so many foster parents, better children are allowed to go abroad, even if they are losing ago.

Financial scandals public money

 

A combination hurry

The association between Tulcea County - General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection Foundation Tulcea SERA, even if done in terms of the law, we raise a question mark because of the foundation's troubled past. Although at first glance it seems extremely advantageous in terms of the county, the haste with which it is done is unnatural. Foundation proposes Council on 13 April 2011, a joint venture for the construction of a joint recovery and rehabilitation center, Asuman-go and bear costs up to a maximum of 250,000 euro and rushes County Council to approve this association on April 27, 2011. The basis for this decision was not - at least not among the documents accompanying the decision of the County Council - no opportunity study, no project and no cost estimate. It is true that, in theory, the foundation undertakes to bear the costs of construction, but only up to 250,000 euros, while Tulcea County provides not only land. But this is only theoretical. Basically, the County Council is harnessed to a work whose details are not known, and if the foundation feels hindered in any way to make the subject cotractului Association may require from CJ twice the amount spent. As we believe that the amount of 250,000 euros is not enough for building-tion and equipment recovery center, ask the County Council to postpone making a hasty decision, analyzing history properly so SERA Foundation, and the possible implications of an association with it, avoiding to leave drew a landlocked story under pretxtul of good deeds.Beyond hostility to the Romanian legislation and national strategy on child protection and adoption, SERA Foundation has been involved over time, and some smaller financial scandals or major. In February 2006, a business daily reported thought of ROL 36 billion (£ 3.6 million, approximately one million euros at the rate of time) from public funds of the Department for Child Protection County, the SERA was accused works as prices doubled using a co-contractor for the construction of buildings for Dolj CPD activity.
SERA against Roman rule

Debate emerged in the period 2002-2006 around international adoptions revealed that the Romanian state has lost track of more than 20,000 children adopted overseas, their fate is unknown. Much has been speculated that some children, especially those with various handicaps, was adopted only organ trafficking hypothesis, however, he remained a speculation, never proven. It is certain, however, that the fact that the fate of these children still remained unknown weighed greatly in maintaining the ban to allow adoptions abroad. Francois de Combret conducted a less-TERN lobby during 2004-2006, using the positions they occupy when in the interests of large French companies with major investments in Romania.

=====================================================================================================================

Consiliul Judetean s-ar putea asocia cu o fundatie controversata

    

Obiectiv

Consiliul Judetean Tulcea se pregateste sa aprobe miercuri asocierea cu fundatia SERA pentru realizarea in comun a Centrului de Recuperare si Reabilitare pentru Copilul cu Handicap Tulcea
Trecutul tumultuos al unei fundatii controversate
Scandaluri financiare pe bani publici
O asociere grabita

Trecut tumultuos al unei fundatii controversate
Fundatia SERA a fost infiintata de catre Francois de Combret in 1990, strangand fonduri si ajutand copii abandonati din Romania in diverse moduri. Multa vreme, Fundatia SERA a functionat si ca inter-mediar pentru adoptiile internationale, pana in momentul
in care aderarea la UE a Romaniei a oprit acest proces. Prin diversi purtatori de cuvant ai fundatiei, SERA s-a pronuntat mereu in favoarea reluarii adoptiilor internationale, presand autoritatile romane sa faciliteze acest gen de adoptii. In sprijinul teoriilor sale, fundatia a folosit deseori informatii false si a promovat stiri inexacte, exagerand cu buna stiinta atat numarul copiilor abandonati anual in Romania, cat si conditiile in care acestia traiesc. In plin proces de descentralizare a sistemului de protectie a copilului, cand se incerca renuntarea la orfelinatele mamut si trecerea la ingrijirea copiilor abandonati in sistem "foster care", Fundatia SERA a organizat o campanie in presa franceza, denigrand sistemul de asistenta a copilului din Romania si sustinand in continuare ca cea mai buna solutie pentru copiii abandonati ar fi adoptiile interna-tionale. Campania nu era doar tendentioasa, dar folosea imagini fotografice realizate la inceputul anilor '90, fara legatura reala cu ceea ce se intampla in momentul declansarii campaniei. De altfel, fondatorul fundatiei, Francois de Combret, a fost un adversar declarat al sistemului de asistenta maternala, sustinand ca in loc sa fie platiti atatia asistenti maternali, mai bine copiii sunt lasati sa plece in strainatate, chiar daca li se pierde urma.
SERA impotriva statului roman
Polemica iscata in perioada 2002-2006 in jurul adoptiilor internationale a scos la iveala faptul ca statul roman a pierdut urma a peste 20.000 de copii adoptati in strainatate, soarta acestora fiind necunoscuta. S-a speculat mult ca unii dintre copii, in special cei cu diverse handicapuri, ar fi fost adoptati doar pentru trafic de organe, ipoteza, insa, ce a ramas la stadiul de speculatie, nefiind niciodata dovedita. Cert este, insa, ca faptul ca soarta acestor copii a ramas in continuare necunoscuta a cantarit extrem de mult in mentinerea interdictiei de a se permite adoptiile in strainatate. Francois de Combreta desfasurat un pu-ternic lobby in perioada 2004-2006, folosindu-se de pozitiile pe care le ocupa atunci in cadrul unor mari companii franceze cu interese majore de investitii in Romania.
Scandaluri financiare pe bani publici
Dincolo de aceasta atitudine ostila legislatiei romanesti in vigoare si strategiei nationale privind protectia copilului si adoptiile, Fundatia SERA a mai fost implicata, de-a lungul timpului, si in unele scandaluri financiare de mai mica sau mare amploare. In februarie 2006, cotidianul Gandul relata o afacere de 36 de miliarde de lei vechi (3,6 milioane de lei noi, aproximativ 1.000.000 de euro la cursul BNR de atunci) din bani publici ai Directiei pentru Protectia Copilului Dolj, in care SERA era acuzata ca ar fi dublat preturile lucrarilor, folosind un co-contractor pentru construirea unor cladiri destinate activitatii DPC Dolj.
O asociere grabita
Asocierea dintre CJ Tulcea - Directia Generala de Asistenta Sociala si Protectia Copilului Tulcea si Fundatia SERA, chiar daca se face in termenii legii, ne ridica un semn de intrebare tocmai din cauza trecutului zbuciumat al fundatiei. Chiar daca la prima vedere totul pare extrem de avantajos din punct de vedere al judetului, graba cu care se realizeaza totul este nefireasca. Fundatia propune Consiliului, in 13 aprilie 2011, o asociere in vederea construirii in comun a unui centru de recuperare si reabilitare, asuman-du-si sa suporte costuri de pana la 250.000 de euro maxim, iar Consiliul Judetean se grabeste sa aprobe aceasta asociere pe data de 27 aprilie 2011. La baza acestei hotarari nu se afla - sau cel putin nu se afla printre actele ce insotesc hotararea de Consiliu Judetean - niciun studiu de oportunitate, niciun proiect si nicio estimare a costurilor. E drept ca, teoretic, fundatia isi asuma sa suporte costurile constructiei, dar numai in limita a 250.000 de euro, in timp ce CJ Tulcea nu pune la dispozitie decat terenul. Dar asta este doar teoretic. Practic, Consiliul Judetean se inhama la o lucrare ale carei detalii nu le cunoaste, iar daca fundatia se simte impiedicata in vreun fel sa realizeze obiectul cotractului de asociere poate cere de la CJ dublul sumei cheltuite. Cum noi consideram ca suma de 250.000 de euro este insuficienta pentru constru-irea si dotarea centrului de recuperare, solicitam Consiliului Judetean sa amane luarea unei hotarari pripite, analizand cum se cuvine atat istoricul Fundatiei SERA, cat si posibilele implicatii ale unei asocieri cu aceasta, evitand astfel sa se lase atras intr-o poveste fara iesire, sub pretxtul unor fapte bune.

Scandal public-privat pe banii destinati copiilor Oana Craciun