Hosted by www.ijjo.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C H A P T E R 7 Accommodation and Care of Unaccompanied or Separated Children 7.1 Providing Accommodation Although the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office is responsible for deciding whether an unaccompanied or separated child should be granted asylum in the U.K., it has no power to provide the child with accommodation or financial support, whilst the asylum application is being processed and determined. This is because for the purposes of Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which established the National Asylum Support Service, an asylum seeker is defined as a person over 18. 1 Neither is the Secretary of State for the Home Department under a duty to provide an unaccompanied or separated child with accommodation or financial support. This duty is reserved to local authority social services departments, 2 who are under a duty 3 to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need and within their geographic jurisdiction irrespective of his or her immigration status. Therefore when an unaccompanied or separated child arrives alone at a port of entry, a local Immigration Service enforcement office, or an Asylum Screening Unit and makes a claim for asylum, the child is referred to a local authority social services department. 4 This does not happen if the child is accompanied by an adult who appears willing to care for the child. In this Hosted by www.ijjo.org 77
case, that adult is advised to inform social services 19.2 of the EU Council Directive laying down that an unaccompanied or separated child is living minimum standards for the reception of asylum with them. 5 seekers. 12 If, as is usually the case, the unaccompanied or This acceptance is a good example of the very high separated child has nowhere to live and there is standards of care usually provided for children in no one in the U.K. with parental responsibility for the care of public authorities in the U.K. and an them, the local authority is under a duty to assess indication of the lobby on the behalf of all children the child’s needs under section 17 of the Children which exists in many social services departments Act 1989 and to accommodate the child under and local authorities. The case of Behre itself partly section 20 of the Children Act 1989. arose from a concern on the part of the London Borough of Hillingdon itself that it was unlawfully The Department of Health 6 has issued Guidance 7 discriminating against former unaccompanied or to local authorities, stating that where an unaccom- separated children. panied or separated child has no parent or guardian in the U.K., there is a presumption that the child will Under Article 19.2 Member States can choose to be accommodated under section 20 of the Children place unaccompanied or separated children Act 1989. This presumption can only be rebutted if the unaccompanied or separated child states he or who ha[ve] made an application for asylum... she does not wish to be accommodated and the (a) with adult relatives; local authority believes the child is sufficiently com- (b) with a foster-family; petent to look after him or herself. This Guidance (c) in accommodation centres with special provision received judicial approval in the case of The Queen for minors; or on the application of Behre & Others v. the London (d) in other accommodation suitable for minors. Borough of Hillingdon 8 and was also adopted by SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGDOM 78 the Immigration Service. 9 Once a child is accommodated the local authority has further ongoing duties to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare and to provide him or her with the sort of services which a reasonable parent would offer. 10 It is also under a duty to conduct Looked After Reviews on a regular basis to ensure that the child’s needs are being met. 11 The U.K. Government’s acceptance that an unaccompanied or separated child has the same physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and developmental needs as any other child means that it is providing unaccompanied or separated children with a standard of care which exceeds that expected by Article The terms of the Directive open up the possibility of segregating unaccompanied or separated children from the child protection system to which other children have access by reason of their particular vulnerability as children merely as a result of their particular immigration status. It is clear from those interviewed for the purposes of this research that this would be unacceptable to child care and legal practitioners. Any such provision would also have to comply with other provisions of the EU Directive and, in particular, with Article 17.1 which states that “Member States shall take into account the specific situations of vulnerable persons such as unaccompanied minors...in national legislation implementing provisions relating to material recep- Hosted by www.ijjo.org
Page 1 and 2:
Unaccompanied and Separated Childre
Page 3 and 4:
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jacqueline Bhabha
Page 5 and 6:
Manchester City Council; Sue Fisher
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Chapter 1 | 9 Chapter 5 |
Page 9 and 10:
SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
Page 11 and 12:
Arriving in the U.K. 6 The Immigrat
Page 13 and 14:
ers often believe that although a p
Page 15 and 16:
fear of certain groups in society t
Page 17 and 18:
that unaccompanied minor children f
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
It then added that “although chil
Page 23 and 24:
2004 it rose to 8.8%. This was at a
Page 25 and 26:
2.3 Countries of Origin Unaccompani
Page 27 and 28: Recommendations ■ 1. If the U.K.
Page 29 and 30: There was no comparable age differe
Page 31 and 32: 2.7 Private Fostering Arrangements
Page 33 and 34: Endnotes 9 Statistics published by
Page 35 and 36: SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
Page 37 and 38: unfounded, thus depriving this subs
Page 39 and 40: Bill in Parliament which would have
Page 43 and 44: of someone who might be an unaccomp
Page 45 and 46: It is clear that the Rules are a po
Page 47 and 48: subsequently abducted by their form
Page 49 and 50: “G” was a 16-year-old Christian
Page 51 and 52: ■ 4. Article 4 of the European Co
Page 53 and 54: 17 A multi-agency task force establ
Page 57 and 58: of the asylum determination process
Page 59 and 60: as a group around the claimant laug
Page 61 and 62: with as being hostile. Nor did they
Page 63 and 64: purposes. 38 The Immigration and Na
Page 65 and 66: or local authority social services
Page 69 and 70: als from age disputed children deta
Page 71 and 72: and February 2005 when 75% of those
Page 73 and 74: accommodation which is separated fr
Page 75 and 76: e safe to let the child go and live
Page 77: SEEKING ASYLUM ALONE | UNITED KINGD
Page 81 and 82: The official justification for thes
Page 83 and 84: Asylum Support Team has a case load
Page 85 and 86: days and a second review after thre
Page 87 and 88: provides access to rehabilitation a
Page 91 and 92: who the child must try to relate to
Page 93 and 94: adult in their life to speak on the
Page 95 and 96: 8.3 Role of a Legal Guardian rights
Page 97 and 98: asylum application and monitor the
Page 101 and 102: do once I got to London. The pictur
Page 103 and 104: Some social services departments do
Page 105 and 106: ■ 5. The screening interview shou
Page 107 and 108: eturn to a country requiring servic
Page 109 and 110: ■ 6. The syllabus for the Accredi
Page 113 and 114: this research believe that it is no
Page 115 and 116: A recent White Paper 13 states that
Page 117 and 118: an important and distinct role to p
Page 119 and 120: for Determining Refugee Status. 30
Page 121 and 122: draws on a small number of other re
Page 123 and 124: ■ 3. UNHCR also states that the q
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
contact the child via social servic
Page 133 and 134:
It is not possible to ascertain the
Page 135 and 136:
leave to remain if it was unlikely
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
“Unaccompanied children are not g
Page 141 and 142:
5 IND. Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
until they turn 18, whichever is th
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
“There are some exceptionally goo
Page 153 and 154:
could have been allowed. In one of
Page 155 and 156:
esisting removal to their countries
Page 157 and 158:
■ 3. The Law Society and the Lega
Page 159 and 160:
determinations we analyzed this did
Page 161 and 162:
42 Interview with Laura Brownlees,
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
should resolve this difficulty. The
Page 167 and 168:
A number of legal representatives b
Page 169 and 170:
Department at appeals by unaccompan
Page 171 and 172:
Basis Upon Which Appeals Were Allow
Page 173 and 174:
Basis Upon Which Appeals Were Allow
Page 175 and 176:
Recommendations 14 Immigration Rule
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
concern the plethora of evidence of
Page 181 and 182:
As a consequence of these restricti
Page 183 and 184:
■ ■ accommodate unaccompanied o
Page 185 and 186:
that the vast majority of referrals
Page 187 and 188:
ecause of long waiting lists and be
Page 189 and 190:
which would have provided for a leg
Page 191 and 192:
screening interview and do not real
Page 193 and 194:
■ 9.9 The interviewer should alwa
Page 195 and 196:
excessive delay in reaching a decis
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
children, or anyone who had been re
Page 201 and 202:
appeal. The Asylum Policy Unit has
Page 203 and 204:
and adjudicators rarely prevented t
Page 205 and 206:
22 Information provided by Ailish K
Page 207 and 208:
A P P E N D I X 1 Glossary of Terms
Page 209 and 210:
Bibliography Amnesty International.
Page 211 and 212:
Immigration Advisory Service. Submi
Page 213 and 214:
FOR MORE INFORMATION PHOTOGRAPHY CR
show all

Hosted by www.ijjo.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?