IN RECENT weeks, the political and security crisis in Haiti has escalated.  We sat down with Georgette Mulheir, a spokesperson for Defend Haiti’s Democracy, who explained the current crisis and outlined a roadmap to restore democracy.

Haiti has an unusual history.  In modern consciousness, it is most remembered for the devastating magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010, that killed an estimated 200,000 people and the outpouring of assistance intended to help the country recover.  The efficacy of the aid programme was repeatedly questioned, with allegations of corruption and inefficiency.  More devastating still was the Oxfam scandal, where the charity was found to have covered up serious sexual abuse of vulnerable women and children by senior members of its Haiti team.

In 2014, Georgette Mulheir started working in Haiti, to help the country build a new system of protection and support services for the most vulnerable children and families.  She discovered a new form of child-trafficking that had exploded in Haiti since the earthquake, where fake orphanages were established, coercing and deceiving poor families to give up their children, so the orphanages could rake in massive donations from well-meaning churches and volunteers in the USA.

But more recently, Mulheir has become concerned that development work – including fighting child-trafficking – is on hold in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, due to a political and security crisis that has been building for two years. “The world cannot stand by and watch”, says Mulheir, “while peaceful protesters are beaten off the streets, or shot dead by police, as the country slides into dictatorship”.

An International Forum in Washington, D.C.

Participants from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C. (April 14-16) to celebrate 55 years of intercountry adoption at the International Forum, sponsored by Holt International and Adoptees for Children. The conference was an unprecedented examination of international adoption and child welfare through the lens of adult adoptees.

Since the environment for international child welfare and adoption is influenced by global concerns and challenges more than ever, Washington D.C. was selected as the conference site so national and international policy makers could participate. Notable presenters from various countries presented during the conference. This was the first significant conference to highlight the unique personal perspective of adoption professionals who also happen to be adult adoptees. Too often the influence and voices of those who have lived the experience are not represented. As the organization that pioneered intercountry adoption, Holt International benefits from the experiences of three generations of adult adoptees.

Many of these adult adoptees attended the International Forum and represented the critical importance of adoption in the lives of children. The adoptees met with government officials, international guests, child welfare experts and Members of Congress and their staff.

Behind the Scenes Observations of the Child Welfare Apparatus:

1. Observation #1: Rigid Timelines Harm Families
   The ASFA clock doesn’t always reflect real-life complexities. FFPSA’s approach acknowledges that parents often need more time and resources to address systemic or personal challenges.
2. Observation #2: Funding Decides Policy
   When the federal government pays solely for foster care placements, that’s exactly what states will use. By paying for in-home parenting support and counseling, FFPSA shifts the paradigm.
3. Observation #3: Scrutiny Breeds Accountability
   As more eyes focus on CPS, prosecutors, and family courts, expect changes in how quickly agencies move to remove children. The question is whether that scrutiny will result in meaningful reform or superficial compliance.

By Samuel A. Lopez, USA Herald

[CALIFORNIA] – Samuel Lopez here, reporting for the USA Herald. I’ve seen firsthand how child protective policies can shape, uplift, or dismantle families in crisis. Today, I’m bringing you an in-depth legal analysis contrasting two major federal child welfare statutes: The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, and the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), signed by President Donald Trump on February 9, 2018.

In light of President Trump’s re-election and his stated commitment to keeping families intact, scrutiny of ASFA is intensifying. Many argue that ASFA is inconsistent with modern societal values, particularly regarding parental rights. Below, I’ll explain why critics say it must be abolished or radically reworked, and how FFPSA’s family-centered approach offers a compelling alternative.

Charity finds ‘inhumane’ system is forcing women to defend themselves in court, sometimes from their hospital beds, while in fear of having their newborn child taken from them

Ella* gave birth to her daughter in a London hospital last week. Days later, still in the same busy ­hospital, she appeared via a laptop in a court hearing, challenging an application for an emergency order by the council, which wants to take her baby into care.

“I’m not eating properly. I can’t sleep because I’m terrified. I just want to go home with my baby,” she told the Observer this weekend. “I don’t feel they are giving me a chance.”

Eurochild is partnering with UNICEF Regional Office for Europe & Central Asia to coordinate a 12-month study aimed at mapping data collection systems on child protection across 27 EU Member States.

There is an unacceptable lack of data on children without or at risk of losing parental care in Europe today. What data is available is typically not disaggregated, for example by age, gender, disability. Where data is available, monitoring continues to be haphazard and often relies on the work of NGOs to fill in the gaps, such as what we have tried to accomplish with our partners in the Opening Doors for Europe’s children campaign country factsheets in recent years.

For over a decade now, Eurochild has been working on addressing these gaps around data for children in alternative care. In 2009, we carried out a survey of the situation of children in alternative care in Europe through its member organisations. 30 European countries participated, including the 4 nations of the UK and Moldova. The survey was not intended to be a scientifically rigorous research exercise but rather to identify what information is readily available and to note some common trends across Europe. However, we are both pleased and worried that this survey remains relevant today.

In brief, the lack of recent quantitative data on children without or at risk of losing parental care is a major obstacle in the development and implementation of comprehensive deinstitutionalisation strategies. Indeed, the systematic collection of accurate data on the numbers and characteristics of children in care, the root causes of institutionalisation and the function of the child protection system as a whole is crucial and can help ensure better policies, improve the state’s ability to protect and promote children’s rights and lead to sustainable reforms. With these challenges in mind, in 2020 Eurochild, in partnership with UNICEF, will map the child protection data collection systems across 27 EU Member States.

The study will build on the findings of a feasibility phase, which mapped the systems and corresponding data available in 4 EU countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, France and Ireland). Importantly, this research is expected to take an advantage of the window of opportunity offered by a new EU legislature, as well as the Child Guarantee Initiative, which the incoming European Commission (2020-2024) has identified as one of its political priorities.

WEBARCHIVE - No Longer Online

Our news and views

Lumos endorses stance of the European Expert Group

11 May 2012

https://web.archive.org/web/20120717071403im_/http:/www.lumos.org.uk/img.php?f=/data/images/photoadvocacypiece.jpg&p=toWidth&o=jpg&a%5bwidth%5d=400

From: TROST Jana (REGIO)

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 6:33 PM

To: GAUGGEL-ROBINSON Gisela (ELARG); DE LOBKOWICZ Wenceslas (ELARG); DESMEDT Julien (ELARG)

Cc: MANDMETS Renaldo (REGIO); RASMUSSEN Carsten (REGIO); VELIKOV Tsvyatko (REGIO); DE LETTER Liesbet (REGIO); URMOS Andor (REGIO)

Subject: Seminar on de institutionalisation - DG Enlargement

. 

. 

.