Children have the right to grow up in a safe, nurturing family whenever possible. Poverty alone should not be a reason to separate parents and children. UNICEF is clear that most children in residential care worldwide are not orphans, and many retain living parents or relatives. That reality should change how donors think about helping a children’s home.
For some children, remaining in a particular household may not be safe. They may need urgent protection and carefully assessed alternative care. The goal should be a solution rooted in each child’s best interests, with qualified decision-making, safety checks and respect for relationships that can be preserved. A residential placement should not be treated as a shortcut to education or a fundraising strategy.
Organisations serving children should be able to explain how admissions are decided, how families and communities are involved, what oversight exists and how children can raise concerns. Confidential details cannot be made public, but safeguarding principles and accountability arrangements should be visible.
At MCH, the proposed donor model deliberately focuses on shared wellbeing rather than personal possession of an individual child. Supporters should encourage care that promotes safety, education and stability while asking how the home protects family contact where appropriate. The strongest support combines compassion with scrutiny, not a romanticised image of orphanages.
Frequently asked questions
What is this article about?
Supporting a residential home must never mean encouraging unnecessary separation.
What can readers do?
Donations go into a shared care budget. You cannot select or “adopt” a specific girl through this programme; support is allocated according to needs and the children’s best interests.
Where can I verify the context?
Read the linked references below. UNICEF: Children in alternative care; UNICEF Nepal: Child Protection
