Return of separeted and unaccompanied children to institutional reception or family

2. Return of separetedandunaccompaniedchildrentoinstitutionalreception or family The current state of affairs The perspective of states The perspective of children Return to family Return toinstitutionalreception UNICEF approach Recommendations

3. Current state • A significant number of unaccompanied children in the EU • States invest heavily in increasing the number of returns • Yet, return hardly takes place • Asylum is in many cases not granted • Consequences: long periods of uncertainty, illegality when approaching 18, ageing out then return, voluntary return (as a result of pressure or not)

4. The perspective of states Return of rejected asylum cases is desired. The only options are: • Return to family • Return to ‘adequate reception’

5. The perspective of children Upon rejection of an asylum claim: • Facing pressure from the state to return • Facing the future of turning 18 • For a part of them - facing pressure from the family to achieve the goals they left for • For a part of them – fear for the consequences of actually returning

6. Return to family • Family tracing as an area of investment: • methodology and safeguards are undefined, emerging from practice • Consent of and/or information to the child? • Which actors to use for tracing? • Safeguards when tracing? • Moment to start the trace? • Is the goal re-establishing contact in search of a durable solution or establishing that a child is not unaccompanied

7. Return toinstitutionalreception • Is it happening? • Only real frame of reference with return houses: the Netherlands – Angola, 2003-2005 (and inactive –present). • Facts: • None arrived, only 3 to 6 went between 2003 and 2005 • Voluntary return went up (several hundreds of Angolan minors), illegality increased • Intimidating effects were assumed, but the facts hardly support this (attribution). • No monitoring, incidental information on their well-being (from good to very bad) More recently it emerged as a policy goal several times

8. Return toinstitutionalreception • Is return to institutional reception choice as a result of a best interest determination? • When is reception adequate? • What are ‘local standards’ and how are those defined? • What is the long-term perspective upon return? • Are effects monitored?

9. UNICEF approach • International obligations should be central in the approach • Turn priorities: prioritize a durable solution and best interest determination over the focus on an actual return • A changed perspective: durable solutions are not reached for the target group, instead of the number of returns is too low

10. Recommendations • Assess the security situation carefully, on a country and local basis and specifically for children • Carry out a BID to identify a durable solution for every separated child • Develop and use child rights-based procedures for tracing and contacting families • Respect the best interests of children in returning to families • Work on possibilities for long-term development and durable solutions • Conduct public consultations now on policy provisions needed to accompany emerging practices • Do not return children tot institutional reception unless the recommended safeguards are in pace

11. Sources & contact • Upcoming report: Children’s rights in return policy and practice;The return of separated and unaccompanied children to institutional reception or family (UNICEF & UNICEF National Committees) Jmurk@unicef.nl 0031 6 10687626