By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to assist faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship in their efforts to strengthen American families, promote work and self-sufficiency, and protect religious liberty, it is hereby ordered:

     Section 1.  Policy.  Faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship have tremendous ability to serve individuals, families, and communities through means that are different from those of government and with capacity and effectiveness that often exceeds that of government.  These organizations lift people up, keep families strong, and solve problems at the local level.  The executive branch wants faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to compete on a level playing field for grants, contracts, programs, and other Federal funding opportunities.  The efforts of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship are essential to strengthening families and revitalizing communities, and the Federal Government welcomes opportunities to partner with such organizations through innovative, measurable, and outcome-driven initiatives.
The executive branch is committed to ensuring that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) honor and enforce the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty and to ending any form of religious discrimination by the Federal Government.

     Sec. 2.  Amendments to Executive Orders.  (a)  Executive Order 13198 of January 29, 2001 (Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), as amended by Executive Order 13559 of November 17, 2010 (Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations); Executive Order 13280 of December 12, 2002 (Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and the Agency for International Development With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); Executive Order 13342 of June 1, 2004 (Responsibilities of the Departments of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives); and Executive Order 13397 of March 7, 2006 (Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), are hereby amended by:
          (i)   substituting “White House Faith Office” for “White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” or “White House OFBCI” each time it appears in those orders; and
          (ii)  substituting “Center for Faith” for “Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives,” and “Centers for Faith” for “Centers for Faith-based and Community Initiatives” each time they appear in those orders.
          (b)  Executive Order 13279, as amended by Executive Order 13559, is further amended by striking section 2(h) and redesignating sections 2(i) and 2(j) as sections 2(h) and 2(i), respectively.
     
     Sec. 3.  Establishment of the White House Faith Office.  (a)  There is established within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) the White House Faith Office (Office).  The Office shall have lead responsibility in the executive branch to empower faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities.
(b)  The Office shall be housed in the Domestic Policy Council and headed by a Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office, and supported by other positions as the President considers appropriate.  In carrying out this order, the Office shall work with the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Public Liaison, and the Centers for Faith established by Executive Order 13198, Executive Order 13280, Executive Order 13342, and Executive Order 13397, as amended by section 2(a)(ii) of this order.

     Sec. 4.  White House Faith Office Functions.  (a)  To the extent permitted by law, the Office shall:
     (i)     from time to time, consult with and seek information from experts and various faith and community leaders identified by the White House Faith Office and other EOP components, including those from outside the Federal Government and those from State, local, and Tribal governments.  These experts and leaders shall be identified based on their expertise in a broad range of areas in which faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship operate, including protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities; providing wholesome and effective education; preventing and reducing crime and facilitating prisoner reentry; promoting recovery from substance use disorder; and fostering flourishing minds;
     (ii)    make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, regarding changes to policies, programs, and practices, and aspects of my Administration’s policy agenda, that affect the ability of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities;
     (iii)   convene meetings with representatives from the Centers for Faith and other representatives from across agencies as appropriate;
     (iv)    advise on the implementation throughout the Federal Government of those aspects of my Administration’s policy agenda aimed at enabling faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to better serve families and communities;
     (v)     showcase innovative initiatives by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship that serve and strengthen individuals, families, and communities throughout the United States;
     (vi)    coordinate with all agencies to implement training and education throughout the country for faith-based entity grantees to build their capacity to procure grants;
     (vii)   support agencies in developing and implementing training and education regarding religious liberty exceptions, accommodations, or exemptions;
     (viii)  consult with public and private businesses regarding their policies for employee volunteerism, charitable giving, and payroll deductions;
     (ix)    coordinate with agencies on identifying and promoting grant opportunities for non-profit faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship, especially those inexperienced with public funding but that operate effective programs;
     (x)     work in collaboration with the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, to identify concerns raised by faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship about any failures of the executive branch to enforce constitutional and Federal statutory protections for religious liberty; and
     (xi)    identify and propose means to reduce burdens on the free exercise of religion, including legislative, regulatory, and other barriers to the full and active participation of faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship in government-funded or government-conducted activities and programs.
     (b)  Agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide such information, support, and assistance to the Office as may assist the Office in fulfilling this order.  
     (c)  The Directors of each Center of Faith shall oversee their respective agency’s efforts to assist the Office in carrying out this order, and shall report on such efforts to agency leadership and the Office.  Agencies that lack a Center for Faith shall designate or appoint a Faith Liaison within the agency to oversee the agency’s efforts to assist the Office in carrying out this order and to report on such efforts to agency leadership and the Office.  All such agencies shall designate or appoint such a Faith Liaison within 90 days of the date of this order.

     Sec. 5.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

     Sec. 6. General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
 
 
 
 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    February 7, 2025.

ONE GIRL’S QUEST TO FIND HER ROOTS

Popi with sev­eral vil­lagers in Ram­bo­dawatta area.

Georgette Mulheir, the leading global expert on transforming systems of care and protection for children visited Republican Pedagogical-Psychological Center on December 5th.

The aim of this visit was to get acquainted with the works and activities carried out by Armenian partners.

RPPC director Lilit Mnatsakanyan presented the process of organizing total inclusive education in Armenia, as well as the process and features of assessment of SEN and provision of pedagogic-psychological support.

The partners of the “European Disability Forum” spoke about the challenges of the deinstitutionalization process. Questions related to the process of organizing the education of children in need of 3rd and 4th level of support, particularly for children in establishments for caring, were discussed. The participants of the meeting emphasized the importance of sharing experience and the need to develop further joint strategies as well.

At the end of the meeting, the guests took a tour in the Center and got acquainted with the activities of RPPC departments.

On the eleventh anniversary of Haiti’s devastating earthquake, another disaster looms. But this one is preventable

Georgette Mulheir is a global expert in children’s rights and was the chief executive of Lumos. She coordinates the Defend Haiti’s Democracy coalition of international human rights defenders

Democracy is precious, but fragile.

Last Wednesday, at the same time the United Nations Security Council met to discuss peace and security in fragile contexts, protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol building. A stark reminder that even the most established of democracies can be threatened by the erosion of checks and balances.

On the eleventh anniversary of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake that killed 200,000 people in Haiti, there is little global awareness that the country is facing a deep political crisis with profound implications for human rights.

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