Authority for Children’s Rights Protection and Adoption (ANPDCA). Thus, ANPDCA informed the People’s Advocate Institution that checks of the shown issues were decided, so that information could be sent regarding the obtained results and, as the case may be, measures could be decided according to the attributions of the institution, established through the normative acts in force. The visit team requested information on their study stay in Italy and France, on holidays, their state of health, their school progress, the coverage of their personal, social, cultural needs, but the representatives of the centre could not provide full information on every case. Considering these aspects, the visit team asked the management of the Centre to provide contact details of the beneficiaries or of the families where they lived in Italy and France, so as to contact them by phone during the visit; some beneficiaries and guardians thereof were selected and contacted. All beneficiaries contacted by phone stated they were happy with their stay abroad, with 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, we consider 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 141