Either you've not read the definition and are guessing, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it. The definition requires any (not all, and not multiple) of several acts, and forcible removal of children is one of them. It also requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Both the Canadian and Australian governments have admitted this past intent. They recognise their own past genocides. The UN and ICJ don't need to issue a report into a genocide that's already been stopped domestically and is already being punished domestically as they're international organisations that enforce international law only after the nations concerned have failed to do so themselves.

You're using the word it as if you're forgetting we're in a thread talking about two different genocides, neither of which is against Uyghurs. As China isn't part of the ICJ, it's not within their jurisdiction to say whether or not there's a genocide, and would be just as silly to bring up as if someone said that the British Crown Prosecution Service never charged OJ Simpson with murder and tried to suggest that meant he was definitely innocent. I'm not sure whether it's as silly as thinking that Canada and Australia are one country, though, which is the other reason you might have said it.

The UN is notoriously susceptible to political pressure so it's really not surprising. Are you going to try to make the case that the CCP regime currently occupying the ROC's mainland territory has not exerted such pressure because the UN can't be corrupted, or will you be swift enough to realize that directly contradicts your other factory-preset talking points about America's history of shady influence on the UN?