Best Practice in Determining and Implementing Durable Solutions for Separated Children in Europe
Durable solution in the context of separated children is often considered in terms of return and reintegration. However, a durable solution assessment is not only an integral step in determining if a child should return to their country of origin, but is also important in determining whether it is in the best interest of the child to apply for international protection, trafficking protection or to make an application to stay in the country of arrival on immigration or human rights and children’s rights grounds.
Children need support and consistency in order to overcome traumatic experiences, including those experienced in the country of origin, in transit and in the country of arrival. Children also have the right to be heard and have their views taken into account to determine their best interests in respect of assessing and implementing a durable solution. It is therefore crucial that European Member States have adequate procedures in place to develop a care plan that incorporates a durable solution. This care plan should take into account the views of the child and assess any risk factors at the outset and continually review this plan as the child matures and their circumstances change.
The framework for interpreting the durable solution itself can be divided into the following categories:
1. Family reunification in the country of arrival (which may include parents, aunts and uncles or other family members)
2. Family reunification in the country of origin (or country of first transit, ie Dublin Regulation transfers)
3. Application to remain in the country on protection, human rights or immigration grounds
All three categories require care planning considering the durable solution for a variety of eventualities. This must include the provision for monitoring family reunifications in Europe and abroad and ensuring that a plan for the child’s integration (including educational and psychosocial supports) is put in place in the country of residence (whether in Europe or abroad). The Council of Europe’s Life Projects for Unaccompanied Migrant Minors act as an integrated policy tool relating to the social integration of minors, personal development, cultural development, housing, health, education and vocational training, and employment. They aim to provide a long-term response to the needs of the minors and other parties concerned; the member states’ implementation of and experience with this tool will provide a useful framework. Furthermore, the Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) has been working with The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Guidelines on Formal Determination of the Best Interests of the Child in order to provide more modern and European-focused guidance. Upon publication, this will contribute substantially to the available best practices. This document should be published during the lifetime of this project.
Children need support and consistency in order to overcome traumatic experiences, including those experienced in the country of origin, in transit and in the country of arrival. Children also have the right to be heard and have their views taken into account to determine their best interests in respect of assessing and implementing a durable solution. It is therefore crucial that European Member States have adequate procedures in place to develop a care plan that incorporates a durable solution. This care plan should take into account the views of the child and assess any risk factors at the outset and continually review this plan as the child matures and their circumstances change.
The framework for interpreting the durable solution itself can be divided into the following categories:
1. Family reunification in the country of arrival (which may include parents, aunts and uncles or other family members)
2. Family reunification in the country of origin (or country of first transit, ie Dublin Regulation transfers)
3. Application to remain in the country on protection, human rights or immigration grounds
All three categories require care planning considering the durable solution for a variety of eventualities. This must include the provision for monitoring family reunifications in Europe and abroad and ensuring that a plan for the child’s integration (including educational and psychosocial supports) is put in place in the country of residence (whether in Europe or abroad). The Council of Europe’s Life Projects for Unaccompanied Migrant Minors act as an integrated policy tool relating to the social integration of minors, personal development, cultural development, housing, health, education and vocational training, and employment. They aim to provide a long-term response to the needs of the minors and other parties concerned; the member states’ implementation of and experience with this tool will provide a useful framework. Furthermore, the Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) has been working with The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Guidelines on Formal Determination of the Best Interests of the Child in order to provide more modern and European-focused guidance. Upon publication, this will contribute substantially to the available best practices. This document should be published during the lifetime of this project.
Project Objectives
Although the main objectives of the research focus on the methodology behind the durable solution, through this process, the researchers will explore the following topics with the stakeholders (including separated children) in the context of putting in place a durable solution for the child:
1. What do the fundamentals of the durable solution look like in each country, eg: appointment of guardian, introductory best interest assessment and long-term durable solution planning, etc.
2. How do the guardians and authorities set out to identify vulnerabilities relating to trafficking, exploitation of going missing and how do they put prevention mechanisms in place? How does this inform the durable solution process?
3. How do the guardians and authorities assess, implement and follow-up on returns decisions?
4. How do the guardians and authorities decide if the applicant is in need of international protection and how does this inform the durable solution process?
5. Do reception facilities differ depending on the determined durable solution? How are their best interests assessed, with a long-term durable solution in mind, to determine their accommodation needs?
Each step involves assessing the country practice and identifying examples of good practice.
1. What do the fundamentals of the durable solution look like in each country, eg: appointment of guardian, introductory best interest assessment and long-term durable solution planning, etc.
2. How do the guardians and authorities set out to identify vulnerabilities relating to trafficking, exploitation of going missing and how do they put prevention mechanisms in place? How does this inform the durable solution process?
3. How do the guardians and authorities assess, implement and follow-up on returns decisions?
4. How do the guardians and authorities decide if the applicant is in need of international protection and how does this inform the durable solution process?
5. Do reception facilities differ depending on the determined durable solution? How are their best interests assessed, with a long-term durable solution in mind, to determine their accommodation needs?
Each step involves assessing the country practice and identifying examples of good practice.
Partner Organizations
Irish Refugee Council, Ireland (Lead partner)
Defence for Children-ECPAT, The Netherlands
Human Rights League, Slovak Republic
HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center, Cyprus
Service Droit des Jeunes, Belgium
Greek Council for Refugees, Greece
The People for Change Foundation, Malta
Children's Society, the United Kingdom (UK)
Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge, Germany
Defence for Children-ECPAT, The Netherlands
Human Rights League, Slovak Republic
HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center, Cyprus
Service Droit des Jeunes, Belgium
Greek Council for Refugees, Greece
The People for Change Foundation, Malta
Children's Society, the United Kingdom (UK)
Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge, Germany
This project is co-funded by the PPUAM 2013 (Pilot Project - Analysis of reception, protection and integration for unaccompanied minors in the EU) of the European Union
