the relation with the host family, that they were going to school and felt integrated. At the same time, both their statements, the statements of guardians and the consultation of files showed that their purpose was to stay abroad forever. Some of the contacted people did not answer their phones: neither the beneficiary, nor the host family. The statement of a family taking care of a beneficiary for study purposes: “If they want to, they can stay here all their lives. They only go to Romania to prepare their documents.” It was found that some of the beneficiaries began their visits to Italy more than 10 years before, and they understood and spoke Romanian with some difficulty.Therefore, the visit team concluded that this was not a strict school/study programme, where they would go back to the centre during their holidays. Some of the beneficiaries came back for a few days, only in order to renew their identity documents issued by the Romanian state. Other folders included statements of families stipulating that the beneficiaries did not go back to the Centre during their holidays. Some of the folders included the approval for spending the holiday abroad from the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection of Prahova. Thus, the statements of the representatives of the centre, that they are involved in strict study programmes, are unsupported. Moreover, though the beneficiaries had a protection measure at the “Casa Sperantei” Association, their representatives were unable to provide information on the regular monitoring of beneficiaries during their stay abroad, such as their health, the activities and programme during summer, the existence of any personal issues, with no precise monitoring and knowledge of their date of return at the centre.Divergences were found between the consulted documents, the statements of the beneficiaries, of the representatives of the centre and the actual situation. Thus, several beneficiaries had their latest Detailed Assessment Reports drawn up in March 2018; according to the documents provided based on their phone statements, the beneficiary had been abroad since 2017 and had not come back to Romania, so the assessment report was drawn up in the beneficiary’s absence. Since the received information was unclear, after the visit, the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC) of Prahova 52