Hosted by www.ijjo.org

Chapter 7 | Accommodation and Care of Unaccompanied or Separated Children
and alcohol. 19 In another, an unaccompanied or
separated child was placed with a private landlord
who physically assaulted him. 20 There are also girls
with children of their own left unsupervised in bed
and breakfast accommodation. 21
“You are often dealing with very vulnerable kids.
Just sticking them together [in accommodation]
isn’t really enough.” 22
“A 14-year-old boy was placed in bed and breakfast
accommodation and given TV dinners and
luncheon vouchers. He spoke no English and
had to fend for himself. Local authorities don’t
see their role as protection. They are just servicing
[unaccompanied or separated children] during
the determination of their claims.” 23
The reluctance to accommodate unaccompanied
or separated children under section 20 arises
in part from the fact that once an unaccompanied
or separated child (between the ages of 14 and 18)
has been accommodated for a 13-week period, the
local authority becomes responsible for providing
accommodation and some financial support once
the child turns 18. This responsibility can last until
21 or even 24 in certain circumstances, if the young
person is still in education or needs accommodation
to make the transition into employment. 25
This reluctance is very detrimental to a large
number of children, who typically have multiple
needs. A survey 26 conducted in 2000, into the dispersal
of families around the U.K., provides some useful
comparative data.
Even where some local authorities acknowledge that
they owe a duty under section 20 to accommodate
an unaccompanied or separated child, they seek to
discharge this duty by placing the unaccompanied
or separated child in another local authority’s area
where accommodation is cheaper. For example, unaccompanied
or separated children accommodated by
certain Central London local authorities place children
in sea side towns in East Anglia or the South
of England. The physical distance between the child
and his or her social worker makes meaningful
supervision and support very difficult. This has an
adverse effect on the child’s ability to comply with
the many requirements of the asylum determination
process. On a more positive note, Kent County
Council, an authority that provides quality support
to unaccompanied or separated children but which
is supporting many hundreds of such children, has
entered into a Safe Case Transfer Scheme with
Manchester 24 under which responsibility for the
unaccompanied or separated children is not delegated
by default but rather formally transferred.
It reveals that although asylum seeking and
refugee children have multiple needs because of
their experiences of separation, loss, and dislocation,
many are not in receipt of the same standard
of care routinely afforded to indigenous children
in need with whom they shared identical rights.
When a child is not only dislocated but also separated
from his or her family the child’s needs are
even more pronounced and the effect of not meeting
those needs can be profound.
“People were so unhelpful. They could see easily
that I was someone who needed help, but I was
not given any. It was as if everyone wanted me to
go back to where I started and not be a problem.
It was difficult to get an interpreter. It was difficult
to get a hostel. Everything was so much trouble
and I felt as if I was giving people a lot of hard
work and that is not a nice feeling. If they are
there to help people, why make them feel bad
about getting that help?” 27 81
Hosted by www.ijjo.org