52 Care Homes. And Children Still Begging | Delhi News

New Delhi: At a busy intersection, a seven-year-old boy darts between cars with a plastic bottle in hand. Nearby, a little girl sits outside a closed shop, rocking an empty bottle like a toy. No adult is around. People glance, hesitate, and walk away, unsure whom to call or whether help would come. Scenes like these are common across the city, and many such children never enter the childcare system.Yet behind the visible vulnerability lies an equally complex institutional picture. An RTI reply on the city’s 52 childcare institutions, including observation homes, Nirmal Chhaya, places of safety, aftercare centres and open shelters, reveals 11 homes are full or overcrowded, 38 have very few children — some with over 80% vacancy — while three have none at all.

One reason is that the system now gives more importance to sending children back to families and keeping them in institutions only for short periods. This is helpful in many cases. But going home does not always guarantee a better life.Reema (name changed) was 11 when her mother died; her father was too ill to care for her, and her sister struggled. Police rescued her and placed her in a childcare institution, where she discovered stitching and slowly gained confidence. But when she turned 18 this March, instead of being moved to an aftercare home, which has nearly 92% vacancy, she was sent back to her sister’s house. Domestic responsibilities soon replaced the progress she had started to make.Amod Kant of Prayas said the cycle is long-standing. “Over three decades, we have institutionalised nearly 3 lakh children. After restoration, many come back again.”District-wise, low-occupancy homes include 13 in West Delhi, eight in South East, seven in North, six in Central, four in Shahdara, two in South West and one in New Delhi.The legal pathway is structured: any rescued or found child must be produced before the child welfare committee (CWC) within 24 hours. The CWC checks immediate needs and may order temporary placement. After medical tests and paperwork, the child is placed in the appropriate home and given an individual care plan. Periodic reviews decide whether the child stays, is restored to the family, or is moved to foster care or aftercare.According to NGOs, however, there can be operational gaps. The shift of Childline (1098) service under govt oversight created uncertainty and slowed rescues because coordination now involves multiple agencies, they said.“Every day, we see children working at traffic signals, forced into begging, or quietly suffering abuse,” says Sanjay Gupta, director, Chetna NGO. “It is heartbreaking that many beds remain vacant, when children across west, south and south-east Delhi are still waiting for care and protection. Awareness about 1098 is low, and even aftercare homes staying empty is concerning.”“Every child must know about Childline,” stressed Kant. “Living with intoxicated or abusive parents qualifies as a child in need of care. But rescue operations are still long and complicated, involving police, SDMs and the CWC. Children rarely call us themselves — we often have to find them.” Low awareness and weak referrals mean many children never reach the CWC at all, he said.A CWC insider described the inconsistency: “At New Delhi Railway Station, on a normal day, we got about 10 cases. But during a special drive, suddenly we got 50 a day. How is that possible? Identification spikes only during such drives. That itself shows the gap.”He added that while de-institutionalisation is good in principle, some children return to childcare institutions after restoration. “Who follows up after they go home?”Society’s role is equally important, said a govt official. “When people see a child in distress, how many actually call Childline? Awareness and training help, but gaps remain.”“We prioritise family-based care — restoration, foster care, counselling — before institutionalisation. And there are success stories too,” he added.One such case is Seema (name changed), forced into child marriage and now being restored under the care of her grandmother, who has assured authorities she will not be sent back.But there is a grey zone, said social activist Sunil Kumar Aledia. “One point in the Juvenile Justice Act defines a ‘child in need of care and protection’ as one whose parents or guardians are found unfit. This is subjective. A child isn’t removed because parents beg, but because basic care is missing. When begging involves risk, no food, schooling or safety, the child is clearly in need of care and protection. Yet, in practice, children are often sent back even when the home environment hasn’t changed, pulling them back into the same vulnerabilities — begging and a lack of education.“For instance, Manu (name changed) was taken from outside Hanuman Mandir four-five months ago. At the time, he was out of school and spending time with gamblers. He stayed in a childcare institution for about three months, but his parents insisted he be sent back. Under pressure, he was restored.When TOI met Manu recently and asked if he is happy at home, he nodded quickly. But asked whether he goes to school now, the answer is still ‘no’. And asked what he might have learned had he stayed, he simply makes a face and runs off.