Age assessment practices: a literature review & annotated ... - Unicef

Despite almost universal ratification, childhood continues to be understood in different ways
by different societies, and for many societies, a child‟s age or date of birth is rarely recorded.
Many children in different parts of the world do not know their date of birth or their age, yet
documentation of a person‟s age is seen as an important aspect for securing protection.
Any enforcement of minimum-age legislation depends upon an official record of children‟s
ages, whether it is to protect them from illegal recruitment by armed forces or armed groups,
from early marriage or from hazardous forms of work. In such instances establishing a
child‟s age becomes an essential component in their protection.
This paper has highlighted that in the absence of official documentation, age assessment is
a complex issue that has significant and often detrimental consequences for the children
concerned. It is particularly concerning that in practice many age assessments are ad hoc,
impromptu rushed judgements that are undertaken by those with no or limited expertise or
training and lacking an insight into relevant cultural factors. Evidence shows that where
assessments of age are carried out, there is too great a focus on attempts to determine a
child‟s exact age even though age assessment is not an exact science and most involved
commentators would acknowledge that whatever the method employed a significant margin
of error must always be allowed. This search for certainty is often at the expense of
assessing the child‟s psychological and developmental well-being as well as an indication of
their age.
In practice, physical determinations based on sight, often carried out by ill-qualified officials,
have formed the majority of age assessment practices. Where a more involved procedure is
applied it is clear that, to date, medical assessments have been given undue weight in
making final decisions about a child‟s age and are perceived as the most reliable and
accurate way of assessing age. Yet evidence presented above supports the conclusion
reached by Eizenberger (2003:44) that „neither a medical doctor nor other professionals,
can accurately determine.... age‟, and that „taking into account the various internal and
external factors, age can only be assessed but never determined (Eizenberger, 2003:44).‟
Evidence on children‟s evolving capacities indicates that even among children from similar
ethnic backgrounds who grow up in the same social and economic environment there are
significant physical and emotional differences, as well as differences in needs and
vulnerability, between children of the same age. This is likely to be exacerbated for the
many children facing adversity in terms of coming into conflict with the law, migrating alone
or witnessing and taking part in wars or organised violence – the very group whose age is
questioned and who are subject to an age assessment procedure. Thus the task of making
a reasonably accurate assessment of age is further challenged, and evidence shows that it
is extremely rare that the child‟s unique characteristics and needs are appropriately
accommodated within the procedure.
Perhaps a way forward would be to give greater weighting to the assessment of a child‟s
maturity and their coping skills when undertaking an age assessment. This could be
supported by addressing the need for more specific international guidance on how these
should be carried out, and the weighting they should be given as part of a holistic age
41