“Lost childhood”

Research Design & Data Collection

In late April 2019, Xchange conducted in-depth interviews with Rohingya parents whose children were no longer living with them. The interviews were carried out with the use of a semi-structured interview guide which was informed by informal discussions with Rohingya refugees familiar with the topic of parent-child separation among their communities.

The sample comprised of ten Rohingya mothers and one Rohingya father of children who were either given up for adoption at a young age (three cases), given to another family for labour (seven cases), or had gone missing (one case). The sample included both ‘old’ Rohingya – those who arrived in Bangladesh prior to the 2017 military crackdown in Myanmar – and ‘new’ Rohingya – those who arrived in Bangladesh following the 2017 military crackdown. Those interviewed were between the ages of 27 and 55 and their children were 12 years old or under at the time the separation occurred. All participants’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms.

The interviews were carried out during a two-day period at an undisclosed location in Shamlapur, Cox’s Bazar. Participant recruitment was done with the help of a block majhi. The participants were informed in advance that a team of researchers was interested in understanding why their children were no longer living in their household. They were informed that participation in the interviews was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Before starting the interviews, participants gave their verbal consent for taking part in the study.

The data collection team was comprised of five people: two Xchange researchers, two Rohingya cultural mediators, and a videographer. The cultural mediators undertook a two-day ad-hoc training session, where they were trained in interviewing techniques, ethical considerations during research, and were instructed on how to address sensitive topics. Each interview was conducted by one researcher with the help of one or both interpreters; to achieve a higher level of rapport between researcher and participant, and facilitate more accurate interpretation, both cultural mediators were present for the majority of the interviews.

All interviews were carried out in Rohingya language and were audio recorded. Once the data collection was finished, the interviews were translated from Rohingya to English and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were subsequently coded and analysed thematically.

In addition to the written analysis, the research team aimed at providing awareness on the issue by filming the interviews and creating a short video-presentation of the findings. Verbal consent from participants was collected explicitly for the videos.

Limitations

With only a few days available to the research team to conduct all interviews, time constraint was the biggest limitation of the study. Moreover, questions and replies were quickly translated from English to Rohingya and from Rohingya to English during the interviews. Hence, maintaining the flow of the interview and building rapport with the interviewees was a challenge in some of the interviews.

None of the 11 participants withdrew from the study prematurely. However, a twelfth interview was initiated but stopped due to the participant’s challenge in understanding the purpose of the interview and the questions. Before that, another woman was turned away before the interview started as she did not fit the criteria of the target population.

Due to the nature of the study, some of the questions asked were highly sensitive and it is possible that social desirability bias was present as a way for the interviewees to preserve their own personal image or that of their community.

Family Situation

Most participants described their families loosely as single parent families, where the mother primarily took care of the children, did housework, and rarely worked outside the home. Some were still married at the time of the interview whilst others had been widowed. All families, however, shared a common characteristic: there was no active paternal figure engaged in employment in the family - either the father had died or was too old or sick to be able to financially contribute. The only male participant, father of eight daughters, was one of the latter cases.

Including Jafar Alam, seven participants had given at least one of their children – for the majority, the oldest one – to another family to work for a living either in Shamlapur or in another city in southern Bangladesh. According to their parents, these children had hoped for a bright future before being sent to work; they all wanted to go to school, study, and aspired to become tailors, teachers, or doctors. However, their families’ socio-economic and immigration status left these parents unable to fulfill their children’s dreams.

In both the adoption and the missing child cases, all the children involved had older siblings whom their birth mothers were already struggling to raise due to their economic circumstances.

Reasons behind separation

The restrictions in employment opportunities for Rohingya in Bangladesh, and the lack of financial stability that these restrictions bring, were a common source of distress for participants and their families. The inability to cover daily living costs was the reason that participants had considered giving away their children - either permanently through adoption or temporarily in child labour - in order to sustain their families. Displacement from Myanmar was identified as one of the root causes of the participants’ families’ situation. Jafar Alam, for example, explained how in Myanmar his family had had a consistent income that allowed him to provide for his family, but after arriving in Bangladesh, he lost everything, which meant his daughters had to work to save money for their own weddings. The ‘old’ Rohingya that were interviewed explained how the 'new’ Rohingya had helped them indirectly by bringing attention to their situation; some now received food relief, which they had not in the past. However, they reported the rations that they received were not enough to cover the needs of their families. Only three participants (Fatima, Jamila and Jafar Alam) reported receiving support in the form of food aid:

Gender norms and dynamics played a considerable role in all participants’ decisions: all participants considered a male family member – generally a husband in the case of mothers, and a brother in the case of daughters – as the primary breadwinner of the family. The family’s lack of resources and financial security were thereby identified as a direct consequence of having no male family member engaged in employment.

Shahidah’s and Rumana’s husbands were ill, which put a further strain on the mothers’ ability to provide for their children.

The three interviewees whose children were given up for adoption supported that they would have been unable to raise these children alongside the ones they already had without the help of another adult. Had their lives been different in any way, they all agreed that they would not have taken the same decision.

Baanu also explained that it was easier for her to give her daughter up for adoption when she still was only a few days old. She said she would not have been able to give her daughter up had she grown older, ‘because of [her] love for her’. Sameera had given birth to twins. Feeling unable to take care of both children alongside her elder one, she decided that in order to provide for them in the best way that she could, she had to give up one of them despite them being male.

Moreover, a belief all participants shared was that their children would have more opportunities in the future if they left the family home. This played a key role in the explanations they provided as to why their children were not with them anymore.

The perception that the interviewed parents would maintain regular communication with their children was an incentive for them. For some, like Jafar Alam and Khadija, knowing in advance and trusting the family for which their child would work, provided them with an extra level of assurance that their child would be taken care of. Those with a strong external locus of control called upon divinity to justify their own actions:

Marriage was frequently referred to as a motivation to send female children to work. With their children growing older, parents of girls approaching puberty thought of marriage as a means of releasing some of the financial burden placed on the family; this was the case for Khadija, Jafar Alam and Shahidah. However, as Khadija explains below, a wedding costs more than they could afford.

Separation process

None of the interviewees who gave their baby up for adoption had known the adoptive family in advance. After giving birth and making their intention of giving away their babies known, they were approached by individuals who were looking for a child to adopt. Fatima, Baanu, and Sameera gave their children to strangers, without any formal procedure taking place.

Two of the participants who had given their children away for labour (Hafsa and Khadija) were approached by their neighbours who asked for their daughters to help with housework, which included tasks such as washing clothes and preparing food. With their children living in their neighbourhood - and with Hafsa’s daughter working during the day and returning home in the evening - both mothers’ decisions were reportedly easier than having to give their daughters to someone they barely knew risking not seeing their children again. Unlike Hafsa and Khadija, participants took their children to the ‘master’’s house far from their home to give them up to work. In the remaining cases, the 'masters' came to the family home to take the children:

Four participants had discussed with their friends and neighbours their decision to give their child away in advance. They stated that their friends supported their decision as they had known about their complicated circumstances. Some even encouraged them; Fatima supported that her neighbours’ reactions played an important role at the time, as she was quite hesitant as to whether to go through with it or not.

Others, like Hafsa and Shahidah, decided to avoid influence over their decision by a third party, as well as the potential criticism and social stigma that might come with such a decision.

Moreover, most participants had not discussed anything with their children prior to sending them to work. What felt like a normal day to most of the children turned out to be the last day living with their younger siblings and parents; interviewees reported their children spent that day playing in the streets, doing chores or going to madrasah. Unsurprisingly, the children were not happy with their parents’ decision, but despite their opposition none of the participants mentioned this as a factor that made them reconsider their decisions.

For some interviewees’ children, proximity to their home and the ability to see their families was often perceived to have played a positive role in them accepting their parent’s decisions.

Contact after the separation

Communication after the parent-child separation between mothers and adoptive families had been non-existent in all three adoption cases, despite ongoing communication having been promised to the mothers by the adoptive families in advance.

In the child labour cases, participants (Khadija, Jamila, Hasina, Rumana, and Jafar Alam) stated they were in regular contact with their children at the time of the interviews. However, the frequency of communication was different in each case. Whereas Hasina reported speaking to her daughter every Friday, the rest did not have a set schedule. Both Jamila and Rumana had spoken to their children ten days before the interview took place.

With regards to talking to their children in person, the parent’s gender seemed to play a role in the visiting arrangements. Jafar Alam and Khadija’s husband were the ones to visit their children. Jafar Alam reported visiting his daughters the most:

On the other hand, some mothers reported being visited by their children. Hafsa’s case was the only where the child would come home in the evenings. Jamila reported that her daughter would visit her whenever there was an emergency.

Child’s current location and condition

None of the three mothers who gave their children up for adoption knew the current location or condition of their children, as communication between the families was non-existent. However, Fatima thought that her daughter might be in a good condition as she was adopted by a wealthy family. Sameera was told that her child was taken to some place in Teknaf but she did not know where her child currently was. All three participants, together with Halima whose child was still missing, mentioned this lack of communication and information as a source of pain.

All parents involved in child labour cases were aware of the current location of their children. At the time of the interviews, Hasina and Shahidah’s children were working in Chittagong, Rumana’s son was in Cox’s Bazar, Hafsa’s and Khadija’s children were in Shamlapur. Jafar Alam reported one of his daughters was working in Shamlapur and another one in Chittagong. In regards to the type of work, all parents believed their children spent their time carrying out mainly manual labour and household chores.

According to most parents who gave their children away for labour, their children were in good health at the time of the interviews. A few, however, reported knowing that their children suffered from a medical condition, most likely an outcome of the type of work they conducted. For instance, Hafsa’s daughter had been unable to go to work in the last few months due to gout, a type of arthritis-joint pain in the big toe. One of Jafar Alam’s daughters also suffered from arthritis caused by manual labour. Khadija reported that despite her daughter not having a detected illness, she was weak and had a low appetite. In the case of Jamila, both her daughter and son were originally sent to work. However, since her son developed ‘psychological problems’ she had to bring him back home and only her daughter was currently working. Nevertheless, Hafsa, Khadija, Hasina and Jafar Alam believed their children were in good conditions overall; their children had told them that their master allows them to ‘eat good food’;

On the other hand, Shahidah voiced concerns for her daughter’s wellbeing. Even though her daughter’s masters had attempted to reassure her that her daughter was ‘well’ and ‘happy’ over the phone, Shahidah’s daughter’s story was quite different.

Despite this, Shahidah did not contemplate bringing her daughter back to her house, as she relies on the money her daughter makes.

Both Jamila and Rumana reported not knowing exactly the conditions that their children were in. Jamila believed her daughter’s master does not let her eat the same food as them, a concern also shared by Rumana for her son:

Money

In the cases of separation through adoption, financial gain was not necessarily a driver. Two of the participants (Baanu and Sameera) reported giving their children up for adoption for no money in return, and when asked about financial compensation, they mentioned reasons other than money as drivers in their decision-making process. One birth mother (Fatima), however, reported being promised to be supported financially by the adoptive parents, together with her two older children. As explained in Case Study 1, continued support did not occur. Nonetheless, its promise played a decisive role in the adoption process.

Of all eight children (Jafar Alam had two daughters employed) who were involved in child labour at the time of the study, six were reported as receiving monthly salaries regularly. All salaries ranged from between 1000 to 2000 taka per month (11 to 21 euros). Although most children had been working for over a year, Hasina and Jafar Alam were the only ones that reported their children’s salaries increased after the first year of work. Jafar Alam’s oldest daughter received a 100% salary increase (from 1000 to 2000 taka, or 11 to 21 euros) after completing her first year of work, whereas Hasina got a 33% increase (from 1500 to 2000 taka, or 16 to 21 euros), in addition to a bonus of 3000 taka (or 32 euros) for Eid.

One of the participants (Hafsa) reported that her daughter was being paid irregularly, usually in a range of 1000 to 2000 taka (or 11 to 21 euros) ‘as wish of her [master]’. Another participant (Jamila) reported only being made a one-off payment of 2000 taka (or 21 euros) followed by an informal promise, which has resulted in her daughter working for free:

Overall, the money received from their child’s labour was considered to have contributed to the betterment of the family’s situation in all but one (Jamila) of the cases. Jafar Alam, for instance, indicated that his daughters’ salaries have had a positive impact on the family’s livelihood:

Reactions after the separation

All mothers who had given their children up for adoption reported speaking to their neighbours about it afterwards. In order to explore the social perceptions around these cases, participants were asked what their friends’ and neighbours’ reactions to them giving away their children were. Sameera reported being told:

Baanu also said that some of her neighbours agreed with her decision, arguing that she already found it hard to make ends meet with the two children she already had. However, she added that sometimes people tell her that it would have been better if she kept her daughter with her:

Parents involved in child labour situations also reported talking to their neighbours about their children. Often there was social stigma attached to their decisions; participants were mostly criticised for having given their children away. Jafar Alam preferred not talking to his neighbours about his situation as ‘[talking] to them about it will make it a problem for [him]’. Hafsa stated some of her neighbours believed that her daughter should have been married instead of sent to work as she was already a teenager. Neighbours of Khadija voiced similar opinions:

Khadija, Jamila, Shahidah, Rumana, and Hasina said their neighbours brought up the fact that they had sent their children to work during arguments.

Despite this, for some, sharing their concerns with their neighbours was a means of alleviating their pain. For instance, Shahidah relied on her neighbours for emotional support:

Though voluntary parent-child separation may be stigmatised by communities, there is also the fear of a trickle-down effect occurring in these circumstances. Most participants were familiar with other cases of parents who had sent their children for work after they did. Jamila, Jafar Alam, and Hasina knew of people who had followed in their footsteps.

Despite this, almost no participant recalled ever being asked for advice by others about sending their own child for labour, with Shahidah being the only one approached by others willing to follow in her footsteps six months prior to the interview:

In the case of adoption, both Baanu and Sameera said no third party had spoken to them about wanting to follow in their footsteps, though Sameera heard that other parents in similar situation to her had given their children for adoption.

Reporting and assistance

Most participants had never been approached by an NGO or government agent interested in learning about their situation; they had only spoken to neighbours or friends. This was also true of birthmothers who gave their children up for adoption, who reported that they did not contact authorities or NGOs even after communication with the adoptive families was stalled or prevented. Jamila was the only participant who had been visited by an IOM worker, who referred her to the Kutulapong MSF Hospital; her visit was not followed up. Halima reported attending a mental health center shortly after her son went missing, but she indicated this was a general informatory session, not specific to her case. No other attempt was made to offer her any help. Overall, interviewees had not received any sort of support specific to their case from official or unofficial actors.

Rethinking the decision

Overall, participants’ memories of the day they were separated from their children were vivid; they became emotional when asked to recall the process.

Sameera, Khadija, Hasina, and Rumana expressed that their ‘hearts were burning’. Some conveyed that their feelings of sorrow would get stronger when seeing other children the same age as their own children. They often stated that even ‘looking at their other children’ or ‘seeing children of their child’s age in the streets’ made them feel regretful and powerless.

Even though in general interviewees asserted feeling forced to act due to their circumstances, a few specifically disclosed knowing that their decisions were not ‘the best’ or ‘right thing to do’.

Regretful about giving away their children but simultaneously unable to revoke their actions due to their financial insecurity, some participants felt the need to call for support from the international community.