Closing Orphanages Is Not the Solution: Why Family Reunification Must Be the Priority
- communication016
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
The recent case of sexual abuse in an orphanage in Buleleng, Bali, has once again exposed the fragility of institutional child protection systems. The government’s response temporarily shutting down the orphanage and relocating the children may appear decisive and swift. But a deeper look raises an important question: does this actually solve the problem?
Unfortunately, it does not.
Closing an orphanage may stop the operations of one institution, but it does not address the root causes of the issue. Children who were previously in one high-risk environment are often moved into another institution with similar conditions. The system remains unchanged—group-based care, unequal power dynamics, and limited oversight. In such an environment, the risk of abuse does not disappear; it simply shifts location.
Too often, we rely on solutions that are quick but superficial. Relocating children to another orphanage is frequently framed as protection, when in reality, it is a transfer of risk. This approach fails to challenge the very structure that allows abuse to happen in the first place.
More concerning is the fact that this approach ignores a critical reality: most children in orphanages are not without families. They are not orphans in the true sense. Many are placed in institutions due to poverty, lack of access to education, or the belief that orphanages can provide a better life.
Even under the best conditions, orphanages cannot replace families. Children need more than shelter and food. They need consistent emotional bonds, individual attention, and a stable sense of belonging things that are inherently difficult to provide in institutional settings.
Instead of strengthening families, the system often separates children from their natural support networks. Children are placed in institutions, while the root causes such as poverty and social vulnerability remain unaddressed. Over time, this approach is not only ineffective, but potentially harmful.
Family reunification should be the primary solution, not a secondary option.
Reunification is not simply about returning a child home. It is a structured process that requires preparation and support: economic assistance, social services, and ongoing monitoring to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. When done properly, reunification provides a far stronger foundation than institutional care ever can.
In the Buleleng case, the fact that some parents have expressed a desire to take their children back should be seen as a critical opportunity. It demonstrates that families still exist and are willing. The real challenge is not the absence of families, but whether the state and society are willing to support them.
Unfortunately, family-based solutions are often seen as more complex and time-consuming compared to relocating children into other institutions. But that complexity is precisely where long-term solutions lie.
If we continue to take the easier route moving children from one institution to another we will remain trapped in the same cycle. Cases will emerge, institutions will be shut down, children will be relocated, and eventually, new cases will arise elsewhere.
Child protection cannot be reduced to providing physical safety alone. Children need emotional stability, consistent relationships, and a sense of belonging. These needs are far more likely to be met within a supported family environment than in any institution.
This means policy priorities must change. The focus should shift away from building and regulating orphanages, toward strengthening families and preventing separation in the first place. We must move from reactive responses to proactive prevention.
Concrete steps include redirecting resources toward social protection programs for vulnerable families, expanding access to education and healthcare, and developing family-based care alternatives such as kinship care and foster care. Equally important is educating donors and the public, so that support is no longer channeled into institutions, but directly into families.
Closing orphanages may feel like a strong and necessary response. But without systemic change, it remains a temporary fix. If we are serious about protecting children, we must be willing to rethink our approach. The solution does not lie in creating “better” institutions, but in building stronger families.
Family reunification is not just an alternative it is the key to ensuring that children grow up in safe, loving, and sustainable environments.
Comments