there can be state intervention . Under one category , if a parent is unfit or incapacitated in exercising over her or his child , then such a child is in need for care and protection . Any Police officer , Public Servant , social worker , “ Public spirited person ” or voluntary organization can produce a child before the child welfare committee , constituted under the act stating that it is in need of care and protection . The child Welfare Committee may then pass an order to send the child to a children ’ s home for speedy enquiry or child welfare officer .
Geeta Ramaseshan , A practicing lawyer in Madras High Court , reveals – Once child is caught in the system , it becomes a long arduous task for the parents to get them out . Often , they are unable to prove their identity as parents . Proceedings before the committee are not considered litigious in nature . Hence parents do not get any legal assistance during such proceedings ; thus migrants who come in search of livelihood due to internal displacement in their states become doubly discriminated .
The committees constituted under the act are required to complete an enquiry within four months . But the pendency of enquiries beyond stipulated period is common . This is because the committees have no means to determine who the parents are and try to establish contact with committee of other states from which the children originate and then try to send them “ home ”. The problem becomes compounded as some states and districts do not have such committees . The lack of interstate coordination results in ordinate delays .”
Ms Geeta Ramaseshan asks – How does one determine that a parent is unfit to keep the child and cannot give ostensible support ? The determination of “ best interests ” under the Act is complex as it has to be considered with the need of the child to be with apparent and the lack of adequate facilities and resources . And what is the kind of rehabilitation that the state can offer ? The purpose of asking this question is not to justify exploitation of children by parents . But neglect cannot be determined on the basis of poverty , as is sought to be done by some who set the law in motion .
The Act is highly interventionist . She argues , “ But as it is used on the impoverished , who have no access to justice , its application is invisible . This is compounded by the fact that to protect the privacy of children , proceedings under it are not open to public disclosure , a great scrutiny is needed for us to understand its implications on children .”
Marianne Haslev Skànland – professor Emeritus , Bergen Norway , Writing in The Hindu on Norwegian Child Protection Services ( CPS ), Prof Skánland writes “ CPS lives by depriving children of their parents . It is an industry , which pays incredible amounts , especially psychologists , for “ reports ” and to foster “ parents ” ( they advertise for people to be foster parents and announce a yearly pay of , say , NOK 430,000 (€ 30,000 ) plus paid holidays and regular time-offs from foster children plus allowances for building their house or buying an extra car plus pension entitlement . The business also , of course , provides extra income and extra jobs for social workers .