azatutyun.am
Armenian Family Denied Benefits Despite Nine Years of Calculation
In Armenia, Gayane Opyan's family is owed over 3.5 million drams in benefits for their adopted daughter, who turned 18 three months ago. The benefits were calculated for nine years but are now withheld due to unclear reasons and contradictory information from government agencies.
- Why is the Armenian government refusing to pay a benefit to an adopted child who has received it for nine years, despite the benefit being calculated each month?
- Gayane Opyan, a Vanadzor resident, has been trying for three months to understand why the state has not provided her adopted daughter with a benefit after she turned 18, despite receiving it for nine years. The family is owed over 3.5 million drams, and repeated requests for an explanation have been unsuccessful. The older sister received her accumulated benefits without issue.
- What procedural flaws or bureaucratic inefficiencies within the Armenian social welfare system caused a three-month delay in benefit payments, impacting the family's financial stability?
- The family adopted two sisters nine years ago. While the older sister received her benefits upon turning 18, the younger sister's application has been denied for three months due to contradictory statements from government agencies, who claim there is no legal basis to pay despite calculating the benefit for nine years. The family has appealed to numerous authorities, including the prime minister's office.
- What systemic changes are needed in Armenia's social welfare system to prevent similar situations where bureaucratic delays and contradictory information from state agencies prevent eligible recipients from receiving benefits?
- This case highlights systemic issues in Armenia's social welfare system. The lack of clear communication and bureaucratic hurdles prevent eligible individuals from accessing benefits. The delayed payment, despite calculated amounts, may indicate flaws in benefit distribution procedures, leaving vulnerable families in financial distress and affecting the child's education plans. The family is struggling to pay for their daughter's education.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative is framed to evoke sympathy for the family. The headline (while not provided) would likely highlight the family's plight and the government's inaction. The emphasis is on the family's emotional distress and the bureaucratic hurdles they face, potentially influencing the reader to view the government negatively.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language like "dռնեդռռ ընկած" (desperately trying), "արցունքն աչքերին" (tears in her eyes), and "վախեցած նայում են" (looking scared). These words evoke strong emotions and create a negative perception of the government officials. Neutral alternatives could include "actively seeking," "concerned," and "cautious.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the family's struggle to receive the funds, but omits details about the specific regulations governing the disbursement of these funds after a child leaves foster care. It also doesn't explore potential procedural errors that may have contributed to the delay. While acknowledging space limitations, the lack of this context limits the reader's ability to fully understand the situation and assess the government's response.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as either the family receiving the funds or not, without exploring the possibility of alternative solutions or compromises. There's no discussion of whether the family could appeal the decision or seek legal counsel.
Gender Bias
The article focuses on Gayane Opyan's emotional response and personal experiences, which is understandable given her central role in the story. However, it does not explicitly focus on the daughter's experience, perspective or aspirations beyond her dream to become a doctor. This could be balanced by including more direct quotes from the daughter expressing her feelings and ambitions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a case where a family is denied access to social benefits owed to a child they have cared for for nine years. This delays the child