by Robyn Wolfson Vorster | Dec 21, 2023 | Adoption, Child and Youth Care Centres
It’s Christmas time, a time of joy, celebration and family. But in a country with tens of thousands of forgotten children in institutional care, what do an 11-year-old, abandoned at his school in Grade one, a 7-year-old living in a child and youth care centre while the only parents he has ever known fight a desperate legal battle to adopt him, and an 18-year-old made homeless when she finished her final matric exam have to celebrate this Christmas?
James*, Sky* and Ezekiel*, three children from different provinces, of different ages, genders and races, whose stories show that even the best institutions can never replace family care.
The preamble of the Hague Convention to which South Africa has acceded prioritises permanent family solutions over any other form of care.
It states that “for the full and harmonious development of [their] personality”, every child “should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”.
It further states that “national adoption or other permanent family care is generally preferable, but if there is a lack of suitable national adoptive families or carers, it is…not preferable to keep children waiting in institutions when the possibility exists of a suitable permanent family placement abroad. Institutionalisation as an option for permanent care, while appropriate in special circumstances, is not…in the best interests of the child.”
But despite our signature on the document, South Africa seems very far from prioritising permanent family care. Department of Social Development (DSD) practice guidelines have recently been declared unconstitutional in court and the department was sanctioned for elevating them over the Children’s Act, the Hague Convention and the best interests of the child, which in the case of adoption should be “paramount”.
CASE 1
James — the authority also forgot about the boy forgotten at school
Starting Grade 1 was exciting for little James. He loved the kind teachers, the school meals and the excitement of learning to read, write and do maths. He was clever and quick to grasp new concepts. But while other children looked forward to the weekends, he dreaded them. His mother was never home, and his granny, who had been forced into caring for James and his little sister Sarah*, was increasingly frustrated and angry.
Nothing prepared him for that rainy Friday in May during his second term at primary school though.
When the bell rang for the end of the day, James watched as his friends were collected. But there was no one there to fetch him. As the afternoon wore on and extra murals finished, still no one came. By the time the principal found him when he did his rounds of the school before heading home for the weekend, James was all alone in the rain, huddled in a corner clutching his school bag, eyes focused on the gate so he didn’t miss his lift when it came.
Alarmed, the principal called his family. When he finally got through, he was told that no one would be fetching James, his family no longer wanted him. They’d left the 7-year-old at school to “figure out his life”.
Shocked and heartbroken, the principal began trying to find a social worker, but no one was available on a late Friday afternoon. Eventually, he contacted Isiaiah 54 Children’s Sanctuary who offered to look after James until social workers could make a permanent plan for his care.
At a loss about what else to do, James’ principal raided the lost property storeroom for a clean uniform for the little boy to wear to school on Monday, then went to collect James’ meagre belongings before driving him to the sanctuary in the pouring rain.
Visibly moved, he delivered James, sodden and devastated, still clutching his school bag and an empty lunch box. Along with a black dustbin bag with old clothes and shoes, it was all this tiny boy had left of the first seven years of his life.
After his principal left, Youandi Gilain from the sanctuary said James came to her and said, “thank you auntie for keeping me, I don’t belong anywhere”.
James spent the weekend at Isiaiah 54 and then on Monday, social workers began looking for a permanent solution for him. His family was adamant that they didn’t want him back, but rather than finding a foster care placement for him, he was inexplicably placed in a Child and Youth Care Centre (CYCC). Despite its caring assistants, with 80 children and dormitory accommodation, the CYCC they chose for him could not have been further from a family environment.
Then it seems that those in authority also forgot about the boy who was abandonned at school.
That was in 2019.
Youandi didn’t forget James though. She says she thought about him often and wondered how he was doing. Then in 2022, while doing a series of talks to boys in institutional care about puberty and manhood, she recognised James. 10 at the time, James told her how lonely he was and that no one ever visited. Despite only having spent a week at the sanctuary, he told her that he missed them and his time there.
Heartbreakingly, he begged her to let him “come home” and “promised to be a good boy if he could just go home with her”. Explaining that she couldn’t take him was one of the hardest things that Youandi has ever had to do.
She didn’t see him again that year. Then in October 2023, his social worker contacted her to say that despite excelling at school, James was not doing well emotionally. Confirming how lonely he was, she said that when the other children in the CYCC went home for holidays and weekends, he was left on his own. He was desperate for her and Glynnis, the head of Isiaiah 54, to visit. The following month when they went to see him, taking along some treat sweets and cooldrink, he was overjoyed. They also invited him for Christmas. So have the family fostering his younger sister Sarah. They didn’t want James, but were happy for him to spend Christmas with Sarah. James’ social worker told him he has to choose.
This Christmas, the lonely little boy has the prospect of being with one of the few people who love him. But, four and a half years since that fateful Friday, and there is still no permanent plan for his life. Barring a family coming forward to look after him, he will languish in care for the remaining seven years of his childhood.
CASE 2
Sky – being punished for her ‘unlucky behaviour’
That was Sky’s fate. Like James, she entered a CYCC when she was in foundation phase at school. She turned 18 this year and was given notice that as soon as her matric exams were finished, she had to move out, to a shelter if necessary. There would be no exit strategy for her.
Now an adult, Sky’s story is her own to tell. But, CYCCs have a legislative and moral prerogative to develop an aftercare programme for all children exiting the home to avoid them becoming one of the horror statistics of previously institutionalised young adults left homeless, addicted, pregnant, living in poverty or making a living through prostitution after exiting a CYCC. So, the reason for the CYCC’s lack of aftercare is noteworthy.
It seems that Sky is being punished for her “unlucky behaviour”.
Veteran child protection activist Luke Lamprecht explains that children respond to trauma in different ways. Many children respond through sadness, tears, depression and by becoming more dependent on adult care and support. Lamprecht describes how adults tend to feel sympathetic and caring towards those children. But others respond to trauma with anger, substance abuse, self-harm, promiscuity and disrespect of authority. Not surprisingly, Lamprecht says that adults don’t feel quite as sympathetic towards children who spit in their faces, scream, throw rocks at their cars or flagrantly disobey rules.
Extensive research shows that these children have been overwhelmed by their circumstances beyond their ability to cope, and their nervous system takes over with one of the well-known “f” responses: “fight, flight, fawn, freeze or flop.” Psychologist Dr Stephen Porges says that when a child’s nervous system has been compromised through trauma, it “replaces patterns of connection with patterns of protection.”
Children with unlucky behaviours typically respond to perceived threats with a fight response. It’s no more conscious than freeze, fawn or flop, but adults, even those trained in childcare, often perceive it as deliberate defiance, rudeness, disrespect and self-destruction.
Those in authority at the CYCC seemed to have little appreciation of the genesis of Sky’s behaviour, despite “unlucky behaviours” being common for institutionalised children (especially those who have spent their teen years in care, and who have been let down by their families and those in authority). If, unlike other children from the same CYCC, there is no exit strategy for Sky, it will be life-defining.
Mercifully, caring adults from her local church have intervened so she won’t end up homeless or without options. But her road will be much harder than it could have been, and she may end up paying for her behaviour for years to come.
CASE 3
Ezekiel — a glimmer of hope that come Christmas 2024, he will finally have a family
Sky isn’t the only child paying for decisions made by adults on her behalf. Not far away from her, little Ezekiel is about to spend his 7th Christmas in institutional care.
Unlike Sky and James, Ezekiel is very happy in the busy CYCC that has been his home since he was two months old. He has lots of friends and loves the care workers. But, given that he was orphaned in 2020, and that there is a family desperate to adopt him, it seems inexplicable that he will be spending another Christmas in care.
Ezekiel’s story isn’t unusual. He was two months old when he was deemed in need of care, and removed from his mom whose mental illness and substance abuse led to her neglecting him. He was placed in a CYCC in December 2016, four days before Christmas. At the time, the home was short-staffed because of the Christmas holidays, so they asked one of their volunteers if she and her family could look after Ezekiel over that period.
The Thomas* family, foreign nationals from Europe who were resident in South Africa at the time, were happy to help. They fell in love with Ezekiel and since his biological father was unknown, none of his mother’s relatives stepped forward to assist while his mother was working on her health. The family hosted Ezekiel over weekends and holidays and helped with the costs of his schooling, clothes and medical needs. As foreign nationals without permanent residency, they were not permitted to foster him, but they were nonetheless screened and deemed a safe place for Ezekiel to spend extended periods of time.
They also helped Ezekiel’s mom visit her son. She was hopeful that she would be reunited with her Ezekiel, but was happy for him to spend time with the Thomases because she knew that they loved him.
Then in January 2020, the Thomas family’s work commitments ended, and they left South Africa. They visited again shortly thereafter and while in the country, they discussed if it would be best for Ezekiel to be adopted. His mother, still certain that she would be reunited with her son, denied the request.
But a month later, she contacted the Thomas family asking them if, when they returned to South Africa, they could “take” Ezekiel. She wanted him to be in their care.
Sadly, less than a month after the message, Ezekiel’s mother passed away.
Things weren’t so simple though. Despite Ezekiel’s mother’s wish for her three-year-old son to be raised by the couple and their desire to adopt him, they were blocked by authorities who told them that adopting him wasn’t possible.
In the interim, the Thomases proceeded with adoption screening in their home country, completing their requirements. Their local Central Authority then communicated with its South African counterpart which stated that Ezekiel was not adoptable and there was no working agreement with the country. They thus rejected all possible cooperation.
On a local level, the DSD also excluded the option of the Thomases adopting Ezekiel. It argued that according to DSD practice guidelines, the “subsidiarity principle” applied, and that an impermanent foster care placement in Ezekiel’s extended family or even placement with a stranger in his home country would always be preferable to permanent placement in another country.
In addition, frustratingly for the Thomases, their relationship with Ezekiel and the years of love and care with no intention of adopting Ezekiel precluded them from consideration. Authorities stated that their prior relationship with him amounted to “pre-identification” of a child, pre-selecting a child from a CYCC for the purpose of adoption, which is labelled “baby shopping”.
The matter dragged on for two years and finally in 2022, after the Thomases’ attorneys wrote to the various authorities, including the Children’s Court, authorities finally acted. Intent on placing Ezekiel in foster care with his mother’s aunt, he was taken to visit her several times.
However, the potential placement was opposed by two uncles of Ezekiel’s mother who had supported her when she was alive. Their view was that the aunt had rejected Ezekiel’s mother when she gave birth to him, and had absolutely no interest in the child. They believed that she wanted to foster Ezekiel because of the foster care grant.
Inexplicably, despite the extended family’s reservations, the DSD advised the social worker that she was to proceed with the placement, and that they would flag the matter with social workers in the aunt’s location in case things went wrong: “They suggested that we continue with the transfer and inform the new social worker about the allegations so that we can follow up on them.”
Litigation and legal proceedings
Concerned for Ezekiel, the Thomases took the matter to court to overcome the bureaucratic hurdles preventing them from even applying to adopt him.
In the judgement which was handed down on Ezekiel’s 7th birthday, the judge explained South Africa’s dilemma regarding intercountry adoptions.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and African Charter (AC) to which South Africa is a signatory prioritise national forms of care including foster care and institutionalisation over intercountry adoptions. These values are also reflected in the DSD practice guidelines for adoption.
As she pointed out, however, according to the Hague Convention, subsidiarity doesn’t mean that intercountry adoption is a “last resort”. Instead, while “due consideration” should be given to adoption in the state of origin, “national solutions for children such as remaining permanently in an institution, or having many temporary foster homes, cannot…be considered as preferred solutions ahead of intercountry adoption. Finding a home for a child in the country of origin is a positive step, but a temporary home in the country of origin in most cases is not preferable to a permanent home elsewhere.”
It further states that “permanent care by an extended family member may be preferable, but not if the carers are wrongly motivated, unsuitable, or unable to meet the needs (including the medical needs) of the particular child.”
Where there is variance between treaties, the Hague Convention takes precedence because, as the judge noted, the Children’s Act was enacted to give effect to the Hague Convention and section 256(2) of the Act states that “where there is conflict between the ordinary law of the Republic and the Convention, the Convention prevails”.
She concluded that the Convention accepts that “ensuring that a child grows up in a loving, permanent home is the ultimate form of care a country can bestow upon a child, even if that result is achieved through an intercountry adoption. It follows that children’s need for a permanent home and family can in certain circumstances be greater than their need to remain in the country of their birth.”
Citing a constitutional court ruling, she explained that in insisting on its interpretation of the subsidiarity principle, the DSD had: “failed to heed the constitutional imperative of the best interests of the child”, and “ignored the child-centred, case-by-case approach the Constitutional Court has prescribed should be adopted in considering international adoptions.”
For this reason, “the subsidiarity principle itself must be seen as subsidiary to the paramountcy principle. This means that each child must be looked at as an individual, not as an abstraction.”
The judge also stated that throughout the adoption provisions in the law, preference is given to those with a prior relationship with the child because it is clearly in the child’s best interests. The exception is intercountry adoption where DSD’s Guidelines state that “prospective adoptive parents who have ‘pre-identified’ a child will be precluded from adopting that child. These Guidelines are applied in all circumstances, irrespective of whether the prior relationship between the foreign prospective adoptive parents and the child makes them eminently best suited to adopt the child as it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed in their care.”
The judge said that “the DSD explained in its answering affidavit that these rules were designed to prevent child trafficking and ‘baby shopping’.” However, she stated, “they make absolutely no sense in the present context where there can be no question at all that the applicants will traffic [Ezekiel] and their prior relationship can never be regarded as their having pre-identified him as a suitable baby to adopt as it arose at a time when they had no intention at all of adopting [him]”.
Explaining that the Children’s Act gives preference to family members who want to adopt a child, but doesn’t specify that a child must always be placed with biological family, the judge stated that foster care would have made sense when Ezekiel’s mother was alive and reunification possible. But, after she died, adoption, which “offers permanent care and creates lifelong bonds between the adopted child and his adoptive family, carrying with it the duty of support and the benefit of possible succession… must in virtually all circumstances be preferable to foster care.”
Critically, the judge affirmed that there is nothing in Chapter 16, the intercountry adoption chapter of the Act, “that stipulates that where a local placement is available for a child, that child may not be declared ‘adoptable’ for the purpose of an intercountry adoption or would prohibit prospective adoptive parents who have had prior contact with an adoptable child from adopting that child.”
The DSD practice guidelines however specify that intercountry adoption is a last resort, and precluded if there is a prior non-biological relationship with the child. They also specify that for a child’s best interests, “priority must be given to adoption by the family of origin” or where this is not an option, to adoption within the child’s community or own culture before another culture or race can be considered. It further states that “adoption of a child outside his own family shall be considered only if no appropriate placement or adoption within the extended family is possible,” and that “as a priority, a child shall be adopted within his own community and State of origin”.
The National Guidelines further state that “language, culture, race and religion should always be respected and taken into consideration in the matching and placement of the child.” The judge expounded that the national adoption policy of the DSD, already ruled unconstitutional by Dippenaar J in the TT judgement, but still used in practice, reflects an aversion to cross-cultural adoptions, irrespective of the best interests of the child.
The judge ordered that bureaucratic hurdles be removed, allowing the Thomases to apply to the Children’s Court for Ezekiel’s adoption. This included the DSD appointing an intercountry adoption agency to work with the Thomases in their home country to consider the adoption. She further ordered that the Thomases appoint a local social worker to decide if Ezekiel is adoptable, and that neither pre-association nor local placement options should prevent his adoption. The Children’s Court must consider what is in Ezekiel’s best interests on an expedited basis, and in the interim, the Thomases can maintain contact and Ezekiel may not be removed from the CYCC without a court order.
Ezekiel will spend another Christmas in the CYCC which has been his home for seven years. Unlike James and Sky though, he has the promise of a visit from the Thomases and a glimmer of hope that next Christmas he will finally have a family.
But until the DSD sets its rigid, authoritarian stance on adoption aside, and regards the best interests of each child as paramount, those tasked with the well-being of SA’s most vulnerable children will continue to be the “grinch that stole Christmas”.
First published in the Daily Maverick 21.12.23
* names changed to protect their identities.
by Robyn Wolfson Vorster | Jun 6, 2023 | Child Abuse, Child Protection Legislation & Child Rights, Health and Hunger
It’s the end of another Child Protection Week, proof positive of a government without a cohesive funded strategy for child protection, or anything related to children, and one seemingly unaware of the extent of the crisis.
Listen to this article: BeyondWords
If you recognised the name of government’s 2023 Child Protection Week campaign: “Let’s all protect children through Covid-19 and beyond”, it’s because it was the title of the 2022 campaign, and the 2021 one, and the 2020 one. The content on the official government website is also a copy and paste from the last three years.
It’s why when asked in an eNCA interview at the launch of the week if Covid was the most critical challenge for children, the Minister of Social Development, Lindiwe Zulu accurately replied that the campaign was developed while Covid was still a factor.
She did stress however that the “and beyond” allowed room for the week to address all the many ills our children are currently facing.
While that’s apposite, the department could have steered clear of any Covid references, given that government missed many vital opportunities to protect children during the pandemic and that children continue to be affected.
The psycho-social impact of the pandemic is still largely unmanaged. Government has also been slow to acknowledge its role in the mass closure of early childhood development centres and its failure to recognise increases in the numbers of orphans and abandoned children, or respond meaningfully to escalations in teen pregnancies, violence and exploitation, or those suffering from malnutrition and stunting.
Consequently, it might have been opportune for the Department of Social Development (DSD) to revert to its pre-Covid campaign title: “Let’s protect children to move South Africa forwards”, notable because it links the well-being of children to the future of the country.
According to activists and academics, who stress the importance of extending child protection to the prevention of a myriad of adverse childhood experiences such as hunger, poverty, poor housing, inadequate early childhood development and schooling, abandonment, deprivation of family care, violence, homicide, and a lack of opportunity, economic mobility and social capital, the picture is a bleak one.
How big is the problem?
The shadow report submitted to the African Union by the South African National Child Rights Coalition (SANCRC) and statistics and analysis compiled by the Children’s Institute, both drawing from multiple global and local studies, reveal how dire our children’s situation is.
In 2020, 62.1% of South African children lived in multiple deprivation poverty, measured by their access to combined services and support: income support, health, nutrition, water and sanitation, education, and protection.
Historically marginalised children experience much higher deprivations. In 2022, more than a third of children in South Africa lived below the food poverty line of R663 per month. This has been exacerbated by below-inflation increases for the Child Support Grant (CSG), leaving families poorer and children hungrier.
The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity Group found that in May 2023 the CSG (R500) was 25% below the food poverty line (R663) and 45% below the average cost to secure a basic nutritious diet for a child (R901,19).
Of every 1,000 children born in South Africa, 28 die before their fifth birthday. Half of all child deaths in hospitals are associated with malnutrition. Only 23% of children between six and 23 months receive a minimum acceptable diet.
Further, 30% of boy children and 25% of girl children under the age of five are stunted, meaning that they cannot reach their full growth and development potential because of the irreversible physical and cognitive damage caused by persistent nutritional deprivation. Stunted children are more vulnerable to disease and cannot learn effectively, are more likely to drop out of school, struggle with unemployment and live in poverty as adults. Stunting exacerbates the triple challenge of unemployment, poverty and inequality that the government keeps promising to eradicate.
The Thrive by Five Index indicated that 57% of children attending an Early Learning Programme (ELP) were not on track for cognitive and, or physical development.
The World Bank’s Human Capital Index from 2021 showed that children born in South Africa today will only develop to 43% of their potential, compared to a global average of 56%. A 2015 study by Save the Children South Africa estimated that this loss of human capital equated to roughly R238-billion (about 6% of that year’s GDP).
In 2016, only 51% of 20–24-year-olds had completed matric or its equivalent. Less than 20% of children in no-fee schools achieved above the lowest international benchmark in maths.
Further, the quality of this schooling is so poor. Children who received 10.2 years of schooling have effectively only received an estimated 5.6 years. The recent Pirls report indicated that in 2021, 81% of Grade 4 learners could not read for meaning in any language. Accompanying analysis showed that many children lost up to a year of learning during the pandemic.
A year following the pandemic’s end, only the Western Cape has a learning catch-up plan.
A 2016 Optimus study found that 42% of children had experienced some form of maltreatment (whether sexual, physical, emotional or neglect), while 82% experienced victimisation (whether criminal or exposure to family or community violence).
Further, 34.4% of adolescents reported having been hit, beaten, kicked or physically hurt by an adult caregiver over their lifetime. Approximately one in every three adolescents (girls and boys) have experienced some form of sexual abuse. Community studies show far higher rates of exposure and trauma, 99% in Soweto, and 80% in Khayelitsha.
The Birth to Thirty study published in 2022 assessed a broad range of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) from physical and sexual abuse to exposure to community violence and poverty. Results indicate that 87% of children in the sample were exposed to four or more adverse childhood experiences, and that by age 18, only 9% of the sample hadn’t been exposed to a single ACE.
Some contributing factors to the problems
Civil society contends that historical challenges have been exacerbated by government’s evident failure to prioritise, plan or budget for the protection of children.
Despite government’s tacit acceptance that prioritising children is essential for the country, government’s Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2019–2025 which spotlights women, youth and those with disabilities, makes no mention of children.
In addition, the president’s 2023 State of the Nation Address (Sona) only included children in the context of early childhood development and gender-based violence (where violence against them is conflated with that against women, despite women often being the perpetrators).
Further, the president promised in Sona that grants would be increased to cushion the poor against inflation.
However, the national budget failed to respond to the increasing gap between the Food Poverty Line and the value of the CSG, especially as food inflation rates continue to be almost double the CPI inflation, increasing to 13.8% in January 2023. Treasury again only committed to below-inflation increases in the CSG and Foster Care Grants (FCG).
The budget made no further mention of children or their development.
While the under-resourced and inept DSD is “in the forefront” of child protection, children’s services collectively are fragmented across multiple government departments including health, home affairs, education, and justice, with an evident lack of coordination, oversight and planning from the presidency.
What can be done?
Activists suggest the following:
1 Elevate children to a strategic priority and plan, budget and resource the sector accordingly
Civil society recommends that the state, at the highest levels of the Presidency, premiers’ and mayors’ offices, acknowledge that to implement the country’s treaty responsibilities and uphold its Constitution, South Africa needs a national child rights governance system overseen by an effective and resourced Office on the Rights of the Child (ORC) located in the Presidency, but not in the Department of Women.
The achievement of children’s rights to equality, to survive and to develop to their full potential should be recognised as national development priority in the Medium-Term Strategic Framework and included in government’s Sona and Sopa addresses.
The Ministry of Finance should recognise children’s development as a national priority and budget accordingly.
Improving the outcomes for children should be monitored and authorities held accountable for failure to realise specific outcomes.
2 Eliminate ‘the slow violence of child hunger’
This requires government to recognise that it can no longer economise on the CSG or ignore the cost to the country of keeping the quantum of the grant, which studies have shown contributes to better health, nutrition and educational outcomes for children, below the food poverty line. This economising, according to Katherine Hall and Paula Proudlock of the Children’s Institute, is achieved by taking: “food from the mouths of children.”
Further, Dr Chantell Witten states that government needs to address its macro food policy. She says that in South Africa, retailers are making profits against the hunger curve. The Grow Great zero-stunting campaign has identified 10 nutritious foods for child development. To dramatically minimise stunting, it is campaigning to make these 10 foods (which include eggs, peanut butter, full cream milk, dried beans, tinned fish and bread) 20% cheaper by asking retailers to waive their markups and government to subsidise these products.
Moreover, government must take its constitutional duty to provide food for learners through the National School Nutritional Programme (NSNP) seriously. Global studies show how school feeding programmes can improve school attendance, and children’s ability to learn. The NSNP supplements the nutrition of half of all children in South Africa.
Following the closure and partial reinstatement of the NSNP during lockdown, the high court confirmed that the right to basic education and the child’s right to basic nutrition is an unqualified right, and asked for “the justice of eating”. It ordered the Department of Education to reinstitute the programme for all 9.6 million children regardless of if they’d returned to school.
Yet, in April and May 2023, more than a million children in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape went hungry after a change to the procurement system in KZN and failure to pay subsidies timeously in the EC.
Heart-breaking headlines reported children crying from hunger, schools closing early because children could not learn, and children begging for food on the streets. According to Section 27, these failures “pointed to broader problems with the funding and administration of the NSNP.”
Advocacy groups note that the executive and Parliament’s response holding the respective provincial departments of education accountable was heartening, but this was another graphic example of government indifference, resulting in what the high court judge called, “the obscenity of hunger”.
While the NSNP is a priority, food for children in early childhood development is not. The government subsidy to registered ECDs to prepare food for children is a paltry R6.80 per child per day. More troubling, only 33% of ECDs, 627,000 children, receive government subsidies, so most under-fives (the age when stunting occurs) don’t receive government subsidies for food. Both the registration requirements and quantum of the subsidy need urgent attention.
Another strategic intervention against stunting is to extend the CSG to pregnant women to ensure adequate nutrition during pregnancy. A 2021 Embrace, Grow Great, and Stellenbosch University study found that pregnant women in the poorest communities were going hungry, experiencing poor mental health and economic insecurity, which was negatively affecting their children’s development and extending intergenerational cycles of poverty.
The study showed that extending grants to pregnant women would increase the grant budget by a mere 1.5% and have a significant impact on infant health and development.
3 Focus on prevention of violence and child homicide
Extending the CSG to pregnant mothers is also critical to minimise the number of mothers abandoning their babies for financial reasons.
In addition, government needs to be held accountable for its unwillingness to legalise the safe relinquishment of babies through baby savers. Unsafe infant abandonment, often the only option in the absence of safe relinquishment, leads to psychological and physical scarring, ongoing trauma, and frequently results in death.
In 2021, civil society attempted to introduce amendments to the Children’s Act to legalise safe relinquishment, but was opposed by the DSD who considered the life-saving amendments “unconstitutional”. As government stonewalls, more children die.
Moreover, studies have shown that while government is pouring money into policing and the criminal justice system, less than 1% of the DSD’s annual budget is spent on violence prevention or early intervention despite evidence that preventing children from witnessing and experiencing violence stops the cycle of deprivation and disadvantage.
A redirection of funds to violence prevention and family strengthening initiatives is critical for children’s protection.
4 Facilitate safe family care
In 2020, South Africa had 2.9 million orphans and by December 2022, a further 168,200 had lost their primary caregiver to Covid. While many orphans are in safe family care, they are, by definition, at greater risk of poverty, abuse, and exploitation.
Yet, adoption rates declined to a paltry 849 in 2020/2021, a 65% drop in the last 10 years, the foster care system has been broken for more than a decade, and without sufficient alternative family care, plans to deinstitutionalise children present a real danger.
Further, while the department prioritises family care for children, it’s less willing to fund parenting programmes and other resources necessary to make those families a safe space. This, despite children emphasising the need for their parents to get skills and psychosocial support to parent them more effectively.
5 Consistently and adequately resource the helpers
Violence prevention for children requires the active and engaged presence of social workers in communities. But although the National Development Plan calls for 55,000 social workers by 2030, in March 2023, Minister Zulu reported that there were only 22,000 social workers employed in public service (across all sectors). The department aims to grow the number to 31,744 by 2030 at an estimated cost of R9-billion. It’s positive, but even if achieved, that’s still 23,256 social workers too few.
The situation for NGOs is even more desperate. In a Western Cape Child Protection Alliance press statement released for Child Protection Week 2023, 70% of the child protection services in the province claim that although NGOs in the Western Cape provide 55% of child protection services, their subsidies have remained stagnant for the last five years, despite inflation. The upshot is that funding has diminished by 20-25% during the period.
In Gauteng, analysis done by activist Lisa Vetten revealed that its 2023 budget contained a massive 31.4% drop in funding to social welfare services including a 21.1% budget cut to programmes working with families, and a 4.6% drop in funding to community care programmes. Child protection organisations were obligated to provide the same services to the same numbers of children with as much as a 60% cut in salaries.
The Gauteng premier walked back the changes following a national public outcry, but the drastic cuts are not unprecedented and NGOs hit the headlines complaining of late or non-payment of subsidies resulting in increasing risk of NGO closures at the beginning of every financial year.
Such closures are disastrous given government’s lack of resources and its cost structures, on average two to three times higher than those of non-profits. The effect would be increasing non-delivery of services to children, incomprehensible if child protection is indeed a priority.
6 Recognise the role of education in child protection
No one questions the role of education in lifting children out of poverty with its concomitant risks of exposure to violence and adverse childhood experiences. In addition, keeping children in school should be a critical priority since, “without the protection afforded by educational systems, including access to school feeding programmes, millions of children, particularly girls, are at higher risk of violence, exploitation, neglect, malnutrition and online abuse”.
Drop-out rates are therefore concerning. While the department lauded the 65% of learners who completed a matric or TVET national certificate in 2022, MPs paint a different picture. In Gauteng alone, 260,000 learners did not return to school in 2022. Parliamentarians believe that for children to stay in school, government needs to “build more schools, improve teaching and learning to a better quality, give schools and educators the best tools to make a success of our children’s future.” And, we could add, fix broken infrastructure in the existing schools.
But, although government allocated R22-billion to basic education in the most recent budget, statistics show that in real terms the percentage of GDP allocated to education has dropped from 20.5% of GDP in 2001 to 18.42% in 2023.
7 Elevate the voices of children
During Child Protection Week media briefings, the minister emphasised the importance of hearing children’s voices, which the department does primarily through the Nelson Mandela Children’s Parliament. While it’s progress for government to get feedback from children, there’s no process to ensure that input from the children’s parliament affects government policy or practices.
Nor is the children’s parliament representative. Conspicuous by their absence are the voices of the stunted children forced to drop out of school because they don’t have the cognitive ability to cope with the rigours of learning, and those whose caregivers can only afford to feed them one meal a day because the grant doesn’t stretch to the end of the month.
Nor do we hear from the children who left school to beg for food when the NSNP meals didn’t arrive, or those who go hungry every second day because their province’s NSNP meals are so small and insufficient that “stokvelling” them with a friend and only eating twice a week seems better than eating too little every day.
Absent are the stories of the physically or sexually abused or abandoned children who don’t always live to tell them.
Like the four-year-old toddler from Durban whose mother tied her hands with tape and then drowned her in a bucket full of water because she was “difficult and troubling her”, or the seven- and nine-year-old girls from Port Shepstone who were raped by their 19-year-old brother and step-father; the girls whose mother hit them and then bathed them repeatedly to remove the evidence after they told her about the abuse.
We’re lacking the voice of the Grade 10 pupil whose teacher asked her and other learners for sex to improve their marks, and the children, aged six and 14 who were murdered and left in a burning house by their mother’s ex-boyfriend.
And poignantly, we cannot hear the voice of a tiny newborn whose mother abandoned him in a pit latrine in an informal settlement in Pietermaritzburg shortly after his birth. His rescue by members of the community was heralded as a miracle, but he died in hospital the following day.
Responding to his death, a representative of the DSD inadvertently identified the root problem when he said that “the incident is extremely troubling, especially now during Child Protection Month. What is strange is some people in our communities are aware of what the department is capable of doing.” He then went on to tell women to take their unwanted children to “social workers, police stations and clinics so they can get assistance.”
It was said without irony, despite the department’s fierce opposition to safe relinquishment laws that would allow desperate women to relinquish their unwanted children without the consequence of being turned away or risking arrest, and despite the department reputedly often doing very little to help.
At the heart of the issue is that while it is “in our hands to stop the cycle of neglect, abuse, violence and exploitation of children”, government cannot be outraged when a tragedy occurs during Child Protection Week when it failed to acknowledge or use careful strategy, planning and resourcing to eliminate the root cause in the remainder of the year.
Nor, if it was honest, should the DSD’s messaging champion the Constitution or the rights of the child. While it is true that “children in South Africa live in a society with a Constitution that has the highest regard for their rights and for the equality and dignity of everyone” and that “protecting children from violence, exploitation and abuse is not only a basic value, but also an obligation clearly set out in Article 28 of the South African Constitution,” there is no dignity in children starving to death, or drowning in a pit latrine unacknowledged and unaided by the authorities whose job is to protect them.
Without effective support at the highest level, Child Protection Week is analogous to sweeping leaves in a cyclone.
Unquestionably it’s time to pack away the pins and campaign promises and instead build children’s rights into the country’s strategic plans, budgets and structures, and resource it accordingly. Only then should we really claim to be upholding children’s rights to protection from violence, their right to dignity, and claim that we are acting in their best interests. DM
First published in the Daily Maverick: 06.06.2023
To cite please use the author’s name, the year of publication, the title of the article, name of publication, date of publication.
by Robyn Wolfson Vorster | Feb 26, 2023 | Abandonment
It’s been four years since Namibia legalised ‘safe relinquishment’. This followed government, civil society and the ruling party’s youth and women’s leagues declaring child abandonment a national crisis when 13 babies were found dead every month. By contrast, despite South Africa’s exponentially bigger problem, its government opposes legislation to end unsafe abandonment. It begs the question, do South African authorities really believe that every child has a constitutional right to life, or are the lives of Namibian babies more important than ours?
Listen to this article: BeyondWords
Namibia began 2023 with a campaign to inform women of their right to safely relinquish a child that they cannot care for.
South Africa started 2023 the same way it ended 2022, with soaring numbers of abandonments, media reports indicating that for every child that survives abandonment, at least one, but as many as two, die, abandoning mothers being arrested despite being failed by authorities when they attempt to put their children into the child protection system, and no approved plan to minimise or mitigate the impact of unsafe abandonment.
By contrast, the Namibian campaign is a follow-up to its government declaring child abandonment a national crisis and a resultant 2019 change to legislation allowing for the safe relinquishment of a child that parents chose not to raise.
Safe relinquishment is defined as the safe, usually anonymous, surrender or placement of a child into a baby saver, or with a designated safe haven provider. Certain criteria must be met for the child to be safely relinquished, including that the child be below a certain age, and free from abuse, neglect or malnutrition.
The number of babies that were being abandoned prior to Namibia’s legislative change is unknown. But, in her 2021 article in the African Human Rights Law Journal on curbing unsafe baby abandonment, Dr Whitney Rosenberg, whose doctoral thesis is on global practices for the safe relinquishment of babies, described how in 2008 staff at the water works in Namibia’s capital Windhoek reported 13 babies were dumped or flushed down toilets every month.
Although Namibian abandonment statistics were hard to access, Rosenberg highlighted widespread concern expressed across the Namibian government and the ruling party about the prevalence and impact of child abandonment.
The need for intervention was voiced by the departments of Home Affairs, whose minister stressed children’s right to life as protected in article 6 of the Namibian constitution; Health, whose deputy minister emphasised the need to train health care workers to deal more sensitively with pregnant teens; and Gender Equality and Child Welfare, whose minister articulated the need to provide support and services for desperate pregnant women. Parliament, Women’s Action for Development (WAD), the SWAPO Party Women’s Council and the SWAPO Party Youth League all called for increased government action to combat unsafe abandonment.
Combined government and civil society pressure led to the 2019 promulgation of the country’s Child Care and Protection Act which included a clause prohibiting the prosecution of women who relinquish their babies safely at a prescribed location (such as a police station, hospital or place of safety), and whose baby shows no signs of harm.
Significantly, this law, which decriminalises the safe relinquishment of babies, was Namibia’s first departure from child-focused legislation that it inherited from South Africa, and was also driven by a need to decolonise its legislation and create child-related laws that are relevant in Africa.
Despite the change in law, the BBC reported that 140 babies were still abandoned unsafely across Namibia between 2018 and 2022. This prompted its government to initiate the 2023 awareness campaign encouraging women to make use of baby savers or relinquish their babies safely with authorities.
SA’s different approach
Although Namibia and South Africa are neighbours, South Africa’s approach to abandonment could not be more different.
During the 2021 and 2022 hearings for the Children’s Amendment Bill, South African civil society painted a bleak picture of unsafe abandonment in the country, and petitioned Parliament to include clauses into the Bill to allow safe relinquishment.
Its submissions included detailed changes to the wording of the Children’s Act and consequential amendments which would legalise the use of baby savers provided the baby was under one and showed no signs of abuse or neglect.
In the Gauteng hearings on the bill, the chairperson of the portfolio committee for social development who, along with many of her colleagues, was visibly moved by the stories of abandoned children who died or were maimed through unsafe abandonment, asked activists “to stop telling these sad stories, they are touching, I’m telling you”.
She and the committee then invited Dr Rosenberg to present on proposed safe relinquishment legislation in March 2022.
Within months, however, the committee had decided to reject most of the clauses in the Bill to focus exclusively on foster care. All discussions about safe relinquishment were also shelved, and despite commitments that the remainder of the clauses would become a committee bill, nine months later and the bill is yet to reappear on the committee’s agenda.
Even if Parliament does reopen discussions about ending unsafe abandonment, it probably won’t get any support from government.
Unlike Namibia, neither the executive, nor the ANC woman’s or youth leagues have made statements about the crisis of child abandonment or the need to save lives. Nor has it ever been on an agenda during Child Protection Week or the 16 Days of Activism for no violence against women and children.
Baby murder rate
This is despite South Africa reportedly having among the highest rates of neonaticide (murder of children within the first 28 days of life: 19.6 per 100,000 live births) and infanticide (murder of babies under one: 28.4 per every 100,000 live births).
The same Medical Research Council study found that children under 5 in South Africa were most likely to die of unnatural causes during the first six days of life as a result of unsafe abandonment.
Nevertheless, the Department of Social Development responded to questions posed by the committee in March 2022 about ending unsafe abandonment by stating that legalising life-saving interventions would be unconstitutional:
“The Children’s Amendment Bill did not make provision for safe abandonment of children nor does it seek to decriminalise safe abandonment. The matter arose as part of the public hearings. If it has to be considered; such consideration will be unconstitutional as it will be in contravention of Section 28 of the Constitution. According to the Constitution of the Republic; children must be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse and degradation which are also reiterated in the definition of care in the Principal Act (Children’s Act 38/2005) where a child must be protected from maltreatment, abuse, neglect, degradation, exploitation and any other physical, emotional or moral harm and hazards. Therefore decriminalisation of abandonment will continue to put children’s lives [at risk].”
In her presentation to the committee, Rosenberg countered this argument emphasising (as the Namibian government did) that the child’s constitutional right to life and dignity should trump all other rights, and further, per Section 28(2) of the constitution, that the best interests of the child are paramount in all decisions regarding the child.
She also refuted the department’s claim that legalising safe relinquishment amounts to legalising abandonment. Unsafe abandonment, which epitomises the maltreatment, neglect, abuse and degradation that the department wants to prevent, would remain a criminal offence. If however the mother could not raise the child and was not able to place it into the child protection system, her act of safely relinquishing the child into an accredited baby saver would no longer be a crime.
Legalising safe relinquishment is thus designed, wherever possible, to stop unsafe abandonment which could result in disfigurement and psychological harm, or death.
Prevention
Where Rosenberg and the DSD do agree is about the need to prevent abandonment.
According to the department, its position is to strengthen prevention and early intervention programmes to identify and support pregnant mothers and inform them of “alternatives to abandonment such as termination of pregnancy, giving a child up for adoption or placing a child in alternative care (foster care or child and youth care centres). Early identification of mother at risk upon delivery of the baby must be done and such mothers assessed for appropriate referrals and immediate counselling upon giving birth to avoid abandonment of babies. Communities at large must also be educated about dangers of abandonment and support required by mothers of newborn babies.”
Whilst concurring that prevention is critical to saving lives, activists contend that while the circumstances driving abandonment exist, such as poverty, unemployment, gender-based violence, patriarchy, rampant teen pregnancies, and the restrictive legislation that prevents under 18s and foreigners from placing their children into the child protection system, abandonment will never be eliminated.
They further argue that, across all levels, government has proved very poor at the early identification of at-risk women, providing counselling and support, and assisting mothers to exercise options other than raising their child. And, they argue, the situation has become worse over the last year since the department made this policy statement.
Case studies
The failure is painfully illustrated by the stories of four mothers from four provinces, all experiencing a crisis pregnancy and trying to seek help.
In October 2022, a 23-year-old mother from Veralum, KwaZulu Natal abandoned her three-month-old baby girl next to a stream. Her baby was clothed, and she was left with a nappy bag containing nappies, a dummy and a bottle of milk, along with a note explain why her mother abandoned her:
“Hi, You might be wondering why I dumped my baby, don’t wonder, just help her if you can or call authorities but don’t judge me. I have spoken twice with social workers they delaying to assist. I know this looks bad but I had no option. The system is fragile and we can’t even abort safely anymore. Hospitals have strict rules.” (sic)
Despite the child being in good health when found, her mother was arrested for child abandonment after she handed herself in to police following a furore that erupted on social media. She was charged and released on R500 bail.
In response, the KwaZulu-Natal MEC of social development Nonhlanhla Khoza, who cited the Veralum child’s story with two others in which babies narrowly survived unsafe abandonment: one where a newborn baby boy was left to drown in a pit latrine in northern KwaZulu-Natal, and another, in Newcastle, where a child was thrown out of a hospital window, said that it “was devastating to see such despicable incidents of dumping of children”.
The MEC then insisted that mothers have “a lot of options” when facing a crisis pregnancy: “We encourage parents who are unable to care for their children to seek help at a clinic, hospital or the department. We have a lot of options made available by our government to ensure that we safeguard the children and we want to urge parents not to resort to dumping children regardless of situations they face.”
She painstakingly detailed the process that authorities follow. A clinic refers a mom to a social worker, options counselling occurs, a safety and risk assessment is conducted for the child, followed by the child’s removal to temporary safe care in a family or child and youth care centre. Finally, a care plan for reunification is developed. Urging mothers to approach the department if they are in crisis, she threatened that abandoning mothers would “face the might of the law”.
It sounds constructive, except that the MEC was patently ignoring the mother’s protest that the system doesn’t work. It’s a depressingly common narrative.
In the Western Cape, Amanda Jones, a volunteer from the Helderberg, Baby Saver, had to threaten the Department Of Social Development with charges of culpable homicide if they did not allocate a social worker to a mother experiencing a crisis pregnancy who was at high risk of abandoning her baby.
Aphiwe* was adamant she did not want her baby. She told Jones that she was revolted by the child moving in her womb. She had tried to abort her baby three times over the course of the pregnancy, the final time at 37 weeks when she again failed, but her attempt resulted in an infection. Yet. at 39 weeks, regardless of the danger, she was still talking about trying to abort her child a fourth time.
The baby’s father told her he didn’t care what happened to the baby, and it was her problem. He threatened to block her if she kept contacting him.
When Aphiwe eventually went to the local clinic in her third trimester, she described being “chased away” by the nursing sister who told her that they didn’t have time for people like her who didn’t know what they wanted, and came so late in the pregnancy to get care. Aphiwe then sought help from a local GP who diagnosed a serious infection from the failed late-term abortion. He gave her medication, but although he said that the infection could be life threatening for the baby, did not book her into hospital.
After weeks of trying to get help for Aphiwe and her baby, it took Jones’s email begging the department to intervene and threatening to press charges if anything happened to Aphiwe’s baby, for it to get a child welfare social worker allocated to her case to help her book into hospital and place her baby into the child protection system.
Jones specifically requested that Aphiwe’s file contain a note stating that the hospital should not give the baby to her mother post-birth because she was at high risk for harming the child.
Despite this, in Aphiwe’s words, the child welfare social worker assigned to her case told her that, “I should not give the baby up for adoption because it’s going to haunt me for the rest of my life… If I do, I will never have peace and nothing will ever go according [to plan] with my life.”
The social worker then told her she may be bewitched and should visit her church for help.
Further, despite Aphiwe’s hospital admittance form stating the baby was to be adopted and the clear message given to the social worker that she may hurt her child, Aphiwe’s baby girl was handed to her after she was born. Aphiwe was placed on a chair outside the delivery room and instructed to breastfeed her child before they would allocate her a bed for her post-birth recovery.
Had she been discharged with her daughter, Aphiwe’s baby may have become another heartbreaking abandonment statistic or story. Mercifully though, Jones, dismayed at the child welfare social worker’s approach to the case, obtained help from another child protection organisation that removed the child. Aphiwe’s baby is now in the loving care of a temporary safe care parent.
The outcome could have been very different. In another troublingly similar story, a mother in Gauteng who also did not want her child was forced to breastfeed and care for her newborn in hospital for three days while the hospital blocked efforts from the temporary safe care parent to collect him. This was despite the mother also being deemed high risk for abandonment.
The safety parent’s relief at finally being handed the baby boy was short-lived. A medical checkup shortly after Thando* was placed in her care showed that the baby had a fractured skull.
The hospital’s insistence that his mother parent him almost cost Thando his life.
Shortly after the Veralum mom’s arrest for child abandonment, another safety parent, this time in the Eastern Cape, sat in a car with a young mother who had just confessed to abandoning her newborn daughter. The story of a baby girl left behind a fast-food restaurant at night had made it into the media in their hometown and Lorraine* had read it with dismay. She knew immediately that she had spoken to the abandoning mommy a week before.
During their discussion, Nkululeko* had told Lorraine that she had hidden her pregnancy and didn’t want anyone to know about the new baby. She was adamant that she would neither identify the birth father nor raise the child.
Lorraine is not a statutory social worker and cannot take a child into the child protection system. She therefore referred the mom to the local DSD, warning them that Nkululeko was terrified of anyone finding out about the pregnancy and that they should not ask questions until they had her baby in temporary safe care. Heedless, the DSD social workers pushed for details about Nkululeko, her family and the birth father. They then told Lorraine that she had disappeared and would no longer answer their calls.
The day after the referral, news broke that a baby girl had been abandoned the night before.
Although Nkululeko’s baby survived, Lorraine was appalled. Not only had Nkululeko felt she had no option but to abandon her baby after getting assistance from the DSD, but Lorraine knew she had to counsel her to turn herself in to police.
Nkululeko was arrested and charged with abandonment.
There is a small glimmer of hope in this story. At court, Nkululeko was released on her own recognisance, and after counselling, was reunited with her daughter who she has chosen to raise.
But she still faces criminal charges. She is back in court this month to see what the penalty will be for her crime.
All four stories have a common link, the singular lack of assistance for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy from hospitals, government social workers and the DSD. Without the intervention of volunteers and temporary safety parents, these babies could have died or been permanently estranged from their birth families.
The stories belie the MEC’s promise that birth mothers have a lot of options. Conversely, they show that government interventions often drive mothers to abandonment rather than preventing it.
And despite the promises and her threats, unsafe abandonment continues unabated, especially in KwaZulu Natal.
In January 2023, another baby was abandoned about 15km from where the Veralum baby was found in Phoenix, this time on the side of a highway, wrapped in a plastic bag. Babies were also found on an electrical box in Margate, outside a house, also in Margate, in a construction site in Port Shepstone, and at a clinic in Durban.
Nadene Grabham from Baby Savers SA says that in January and the first two days of February alone, there were 10 media reports of babies abandoned unsafely. Half of the babies were found dead: in stormwater drains, on dumping sites and on the street wrapped in plastic bags.
Although all forms of abandonment, including safe relinquishment, are still illegal in South Africa, Grabham says that 12 babies have been safely relinquished into baby savers so far this year. All survived and were immediately placed into the child protection system.
It’s hard to argue that there is no crisis. It is even harder to argue that government interventions are sufficient to end unsafe abandonment. It’s hardest to argue that it would be unconstitutional to pass legislation that saves the lives of unwanted babies and prevents the physical and psychological trauma of unsafe abandonment.
Bottom line is that safe relinquishment saves lives. But perhaps, as statistics and anecdotal evidence show, in South Africa, unlike Namibia, these little lives just aren’t that valuable.
*Names changed to protect their identities.
This article was first published in the Daily Maverick: 26.02.2023
To cite please use the author’s name, the year of publication, the title of the article, name of publication (Daily Maverick), date of publication.
