Deinstitutionalisation is one of the major changes Montenegro faces in reforming its social welfare sector. While the reform was launched in 2001, the current system of social services is still insufficiently developed and mainly relies on financial benefits and institutional care. Therefore, the primary focus of the reform of services for vulnerable children and families must be to shift from a system that relies on institutional placements to one that will provide responses individually tailored to the needs and circumstances of each child and their family.

Since 2010, Lumos has worked together with the Montenegrin government and UNICEF to develop a National Action Plan for the Reform of Health, Education and Social Services. In 2010, Lumos led a Strategic Review of the system of looking after vulnerable children. On the basis of this review, in March 2011, Lumos facilitated an inter-ministerial planning session, where representatives from all three ministries participated in the drafting of the plan.

The draft National Action Plan (NAP) envisages the develoment of a broad range of services across Montenegro, such as inclusive education, family support services and community health nurses. The NAP also calls for an overhaul of the legislative and regulatory framework, covering issues such as: safeguarding children and child protection; quality assurance - standards and monitoring; financiang mechanisms; judicial review; the introduction of new services; data collection. It outlines the steps needed to strengthen frontline social work provision and suggests ways in which resources from institutions could be transferred to community based services.

Lumos hopes to assist the Montenegrin government towards the implementation of the NAP, thereby assisting the country in fulfilling some of the criteria it must meet on its road to EU accession.

.

Comment: Date not sure...

The “Childhood for All” project aims to close 28 institutions for children with severe and complex disabilities and create 194 replacement services. This is a large-scale and complex undertaking and from the outset, the project team have been supported by Lumos. Initially, we supplied additional resources and methodology to make the first detailed assessment of each child’s needs. We then interviewed the childrens’ parents to assess the level to which they were willing and able to reestablish and maintain contact with their child. We are now in the process of assisting with the second assessment of each child to determine whether they should be placed with their family, relatives, in foster care or in one of the new community-based services being established around the country. Eventually Lumos will be involved in preparing each for their new placement.

As this process continues, we are advising the Bulgarian government on the additional steps necessary for deinstitutionalisation to be successful. Creating new services is just a first step. The eventual aim must be to develop these new community-based centres into loving and secure environments where children with disabilities can reach their full potential and participate in the life of the community.

We have now also begun work on “Direction: Family”, the National Action Plan’s second project, which aims to transform eight out of 32 “baby institutions” for children aged 0 to 3 years.

.

Much of today’s debate is connected
to two important instruments of international law: the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption10 (the “Hague
Convention” or the “Convention”). These two documents disagree over the proper
role of intercountry adoption in addressing the needs of children and their families.
The CRC condones but does not demand adoptive placement for a child who is
deprived of his or her “family environment.”11 Adoption is merely one alternative for
such a child. Other alternatives include foster care or a “suitable institution.”12 Properly interpreted, the CRC does appear to favor adoption, or at least foster care
over institutionalization.13 However, the CRC’s mild approval of adoption is mainly
for adoption within a child’s nation of origin. The CRC endorses intercountry
adoption only if the child cannot be placed in “any suitable manner” in the child’s
nation of origin.14 According to some interpretations, “suitable” placement within the
nation of origin might include an institution or an undefined form of foster care.15
The CRC’s preference for any “suitable” local placement over intercountry adoption
is sometimes referred to as the “principle of subsidiarity.”16 The strict view of
subsidiarity is that intercountry adoption is the last resort for a child for whom there
is no “suitable” local placement.17 The other major international adoption law, the Hague Convention, adopts a
modified version of subsidiarity that moves the rank of intercountry adoption up one
notch, at least for a limited number of nations that have signed the Convention. The
Preamble states that “intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent
family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of
origin.”18 In other words, family placement (adoptive or foster; local or intercountry)
is favored over institutionalization in most cases, but “suitable” local family placement
(foster or adoptive) trumps intercountry adoption. The Hague Convention’s
endorsement of adoption is not as powerful as one might expect given the Convention’s
principle purpose of facilitating intercountry adoption by a set of international rules
and procedures.19 Naturally, a blanket endorsement of adoption for all children in all
situations of need would be inappropriate. Still, the Hague Convention falls short of
speaking clearly to the issues of what constitutes suitable local family placement or
when efforts at local adoption should be abandoned in favor of intercountry
adoption.20 These two documents—the CRC and the Hague Convention—frame the debate:
Does international law fail children by improperly encouraging, discouraging, or
ranking intercountry adoption, and is the law sufficiently protective of children and
other parties involved in adoption? The major participants in the debate can be divided roughly into three groups: cynical critics of intercountry adoption, moderate
critics of intercountry adoption, and vigorous advocates for intercountry adoption.

Govt amends inter-country adoption process

KOSH RAJ KOIRALA

KATHMANDU, Dec 31: Amidst serious concern in the international community that inter-country adoption from Nepal was subject to widespread abuse, the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare (MoWCSW) has amended the conditions and procedures relating to inter-country adoption.

The amendment that came into effect recently adopts new measures to ensure that children being approved for inter-country adoption are genuinely ´orphan´ or ´destitute´.

The amendment published in the Nepal Gazette makes it mandatory for any children´s home, orphanage or children´s organization facilitating inter-country adoption to submit details of each orphan child to a Probe and Recommendation Committee (PRC) within seven days and to a Family Selection Committee (FSC) under the ministry within 14 days after the concerned District Administration Office (DAO) verifies that the child in question is an ´orphan´ or a ´destitute´ seeking foster parents.

Jean-Marie Cavada a démissionné, à quand Christine Lagarde ?

Vie municipale - Lien permanent

Conseil de Paris Lagarde

Je change de sujet et reviens à un thème que j’ai à cœur depuis près de trois ans maintenant : l’absentéisme systématique des Conseillers de Paris de droite du 12e (M. Cavada et Mme. Lagarde), qui pourtant sont indemnisés pour siéger. Les lecteurs réguliers de ce blog, et les habitants du 12e, connaissent cette affaire.

M. Jean-Marie Cavada qui avait conduit la liste UMP-Nouveau Centre lors des élections municipales de 2008 dans le 12e arrondissement a décidé de démissionner de son mandat de Conseiller de Paris il y a quelques jours. Il s’est aperçu qu’il ne pouvait être Député européen et Conseiller de Paris en même temps. A la bonne heure, mais il a mis du temps à ouvrir les yeux devant l’évidence. Depuis un an et demi, je ne l’avais jamais revu aux séances du Conseil d’arrondissement du 12e. Lors de la campagne électorale, il avait pourtant déclaré qu’il resterait même si il était battu. Le 13 mars 2008, entre les deux tours de l’élection, dans le journal gratuit 20 Minutes , il avait déclaré : « Je veux être un Conseiller de Paris ou d’arrondissement actif, que ce soit dans l’opposition ou dans la majorité bien entendu ! ». Chacun appréciera.

Haitian orphans beat red tape

By John Lichfield 5:30 AM Friday Dec 24, 2010 Share Email

Expand Delphine Riviere holds Erika on her arrival in France for adoption. Photo / AP.More than 100 Haitian orphans arrived in France yesterday to spend Christmas with their new families, ending nearly a year of intense diplomacy.

The children, from 18 months to two years old, flew to Paris after the French Government chartered an aircraft to deliver them to their new homes in time for Christmas.

Delphine Riviere, an English teacher from Lyon, held sleeping 20-month-old Erika and said: "I haven't even heard her speak yet. This is a moment of pure joy."