Dealing with External Environment

As movement was restricted during lockdown the concern for child care institutions surfaced in all circles.

The apex child rights body in India, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), had asked states to sensitize children housed at child care institutions about the importance of social distancing and staying indoors to protect themselves from coronavirus. The NCPCR had directed district child protection units to ensure that donors would not be allowed to go inside the premises of a CCI and a separate counter may be placed near the entrance of the home, where donations can be accepted. “The donors may be requested to provide dry ration/uncooked food material instead of cooked meals,” the NCPCR said. Also, The NCPCR had urged states to release pending funds to CCIs at the earliest. (Source: Business Standard, 30 March 2020). ‘

Later, in early September, there was another notification from the NCPCR, directing district magistrates and collectors of eight states- Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Mizoram, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Meghalaya to ensure that all children living in CCIs return to their families, preferably within a 100-day period. Those who could not be sent back to their families would be considered for adoption or placed in foster homes, it added. The eight states have 1.84 lakh (or nearly 72 per cent) children in CCIs out of a total of 2.56 lakh in the country and the decision was taken while keeping in view the alarming concerns over the safety and security of children residing in these institutions as well.

The court is suo moto monitoring the condition and welfare of children placed in care homes across the country during the pandemic. However, the court wondered whether the NCPCR could issue such general directions to the States without considering the education, health, safety of the children, the consent of their parents and their economic situation.

Amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal said the NCPCR direction violated the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015. Besides, he argued that the pandemic would make a child more vulnerable to domestic abuse. His note in the Supreme Court mentions the NCPCR letter to Karnataka in this regard. A Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao asked the NCPCR to respond why such repatriation of the children to their families should not be done on an individual basis. (Source: Indian Express, 26 Sept. 2020)

Initially in Hyderabad, there was no pressure from the concerned department to vacate the schools, however the number of children in the homes and number of children who had returned to their families because of this crisis had been communicated to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). Later in Anantapur, the line departments had teleconferences with all NGOs in which officials instructed teams to send children to their families provided the families were willing to take them back. The state team negotiated with CWC citing the family situations of 25 children and mentioned that parents were not ready to receive the children. After checking with few parents, they permitted the home teams to allow the children to remain.

Even in hyderabad city, the District Collector’s office asked home teams to collect details of children and the contact numbers of their parents in a prescribed format. A few of the parents received calls from the DC’s office. The officials were checking to see whether these children wanted to be in the homes or whether they had been forced to keep these children in these CCIs. They also wanted to know whether parents were capable of taking care of them or wanted to send the children back to RHP CCIs or other NGO-run CCIs.

The CRDS home which had 25 children at that time right had been instructed by the CWC to send all children back to their families as their parents were all single parents. But the parents were not ready to take the children back. The phone numbers of these parents were given to the WCD, so as to verify whether or not parents were

in a position to receive their children or simply unwilling to take back the children. The authorities also showed cooperation when the state team had sent a request to the DCPU office to spray disinfectant in all the CCIs in Hyderabad, which was approved and the order was released. Within a week, all the homes were disinfected.

With enforcement of the lockdown in Patna, there was a general instruction from the Bihar Government to close all educational institutions including shelter homes and hostels of children but there was no official letter to the Patna state office in this regard. So, the existing children continued in homes. However, to be on the safer side, the state team had given a detailed update to the School Education Department about the number of children in different homes in the city along with photographs of children practicing social distancing within homes. Thereafter, there was no pressure from the government to send children back

Later in April, after more than one month of the lockdown, the Block Education Office (BEO) called one of the boy’s homes asking about the functioning of the home. He also instructed to send letters to all the BEOs where different homes are located. The BEO also suggested sending a letter to the DM mentioning that children are staying in the home as they do not have families. The SPM, Patna mentioned that it was decided to meet BEOs personally to convince them about the children’s family situation and the precautionary measures being taken in all the homes. Again, a call was received from the Block Office to send a letter with an explanation as to why these children were being kept in the homes, the type of care being provided to them, the precautions and social distancing practiced, etc. Since the notification from the District Magistrate (DM) office was to send all children to their families, the Block Officer suggested calling DM. The DM gave instructions on how to keep children in the home, how to follow social distancing norms of not keeping more than 5 children in one room. The DM also promised to open more rooms, if required, and informed that officials will inspect all the homes.

In Ranchi, just after the imposition of the lockdown, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) office started sending orders to send the children to their parents and close the homes. Even some of the parents also wanted to take their children back but it did not seem ethical to send the children back as it would have made them more vulnerable. For this reason, it was decided not to send the children back. Hence, the state team kept delaying the adherence of the SSA order and initiated attempts to revoke the order. They met the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Ranchi and narrated the situation along with a written petition. Finally, with much persuasion, the DC was convinced and the state office got a written order to keep the children in homes provided the parents were not in a position to provide a protected environment to the children. Besides, the DC office reminded us to adhere to the Government guidelines. Later, the DC office also provided masks and sanitizers for the children and caregivers. After the letter came from DC, the SSA stopped asking to vacate the homes but instructed the teams not to bring any other children back to the homes.

“We got immense support from the Deputy Commissioner’s office and the letter from DC proved to be a shot in the arm to deal with the pressures to release the children”- SPM, Ranchi

The authorities in Pune were very cooperative during the lockdown. One good thing was that all the homes got additional rooms from Shiksha Mandal to maintain decongestion in homes. The Social Welfare department although sent notifications to buy masks, sanitizers, etc. for the children in the homes but did not force us to send back the children to their families, mentioned the SPM, Pune.

In order to check the adherence of guidelines, social workers from the PMC used to visit the city homes randomly to review functioning, take videos and shared the same with the state team and asked to share reports on the precautionary measures taken by us.

Another piece of evidence of their cooperation was visible when the written recommendation of the PMC Commissioner went to the department, recommending going ahead with the signed MOU and clearing the pending bills immediately along with standing instruction to clear bills on a monthly basis. So, when the PMC was going through a financial crunch and were auctioning their old assets, the State office received the long due payment of Rs.52 lakhs.

In Chennai, with the onset of the pandemic, the state government of Tamil Nadu instructed all Child Care Institutions to send as many children as possible back to their families, as a preventive measure. This was a setback as it could potentially risk the safety of the children if sent back to families in vulnerable situations. A lot of advocacy efforts were made with the District Child Protection Unit and officials at the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan to prevent this. Children at high risk of vulnerability were retained back at the homes through these efforts but more than 65 percent of the children were sent back to their families. State officials listed the contacts of parents and contacted those parents to instruct to take back their children from the homes.

In Delhi, the authorities were much more vigilant. There were regular visits of CWC and DCPU officials in the homes, besides video calls by them to interact with children for close monitoring of activities. Every day they interacted with 15 children to ask about hygiene and other practices. The state team had been sending daily updates about the status of children and the precautionary measures taken in all homes. Apart from this, the CWC was continuously making video calls to home staff members to get updates or to provide support and spoke to children advising them not to go out but to obey all safety rules. Sending daily updates added to the workload of home teams who were already working at half strength when non-resident staff were not able to contribute.

In Bengaluru, the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), the regulatory authority for CCIs, was concerned about the status of children in homes during the lockdown. The CWC had asked for a written justification for keeping children in the homes and details of what efforts had been taken by RHP to repatriate children with families during COVID crisis. The state office’s response was marked to the DCPO and were advised to directly connect with DCPO for any further permission. Later, in one of the girl’s homes, the CWC sent a notice asking to send children to their parents, if parents were coming to take back children. The home team ensured that none of the children were forcefully retained in the home, but that they were there with their parent’s consent and sent a letter to CWC explaining the same.

The CWC had been talking to the home team and looking at whether children were being forced to stay in homes, whether parents gave consent or not and whether they were genuinely in touch with their parents on a regular basis. They also conducted a video conference with ANC home to check the functioning of the home.

The state team also approached the CWC for movement passes for home staff referring to a similar order from CWC Delhi. The officials organized a meeting on this and assured support in this regard.

The homes in Kolkata did not face any pressure from the authorities to send the children back to parents but there was a suggestion from their end to release the children whose parents were willing to take them back. The Futures Programme Coordinator of Kolkata, mentioned that District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) in fact, organized an online orientation for the staff of CCIs on how to take care of the children in these centres, which was very helpful in enhancing the technical knowledge about Covid-19 among caregivers.