Literature Review
The
phenomenon of the migration of minors (children, young people and adolescents)
who migrate alone, without their families and regardless of the established
laws and administrative procedures, has gained intensity in recent decades,
both in Europe and abroad (Chase, 2013, pp.864).
The
European Union has not yet succeeded in passing a specific and mandatory norm
for all the Member States that makes it possible to address this phenomenon
globally, coherently and satisfactorily for the rights of the minor (Eide, and
Hjern, 2013, pp.667). So far there are only well-intentioned legal instruments but without direct legal
effectiveness. As it is observed, in little more than a decade that the societyestablishments have faced the question
from the legal point of view, the few binding provisions for the member
statesare part of normative
instruments approved for foreigners in general, and are not aware of the
specificities of the migratory situation of unaccompanied foreign minors or of
the needs derived from their situation, particularly vulnerable, within the
immigrant population (Majumder, O’Reilly, Karim, and Vostanis, 2015, pp.134). In
addition, these are minimum standards that in many cases do not meet or comply
with the universal basic principles of child protection, responding more to
management logic of relocation movements.
Home Office development perceptions demonstrate that, in 2011, there were 19,804 refuge applications made and, of those, 1,277 were Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) (Bradby, Humphris, Newall, and Phillimore, 2015). Eighty-two per cent of UASC candidates were male and Afghanistan remained the nation of birthplace for the biggest figure of shelter for children, representing 30 per cent of UASC applications. The top five nationalities of unaccompanied children were Afghani, Iranian, Eritrean, Albanian and Vietnamese (Sirriyeh, 2013, pp.9).
In
the event that the Home Office choose that an unaccompanied minor’s claim does
not fulfil the criteria for guarantee under the 1951 Refugee Convention or
Humanitarian Protection, the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) has an
obligation to allow a time of Discretionary Leave until the point that the minor
turns seventeen and a half years old (Humphris, and Sigona, 2016). This is
typically represented, if in case, it is considered that there are no ‘acceptable
and safe meeting areas’ in the child’s view of their returning point. Once a
UASC with Discretionary Leave achieves seventeen and a half, they are qualified
to apply
for an extension of leave to stay (Linton, Griffin, and Shapiro, 2017).
Since
the start of 2010, social consultants supporting UASC have seen that there has been
a huge change in the selections made by
the Home Office in regards to extensions of leave to stay (Allsopp, Sigona, and
Phillimore, 2014). This regularly results in numerous asylums looking for children
being refused approval to remain in the UK after they achieve their eighteenth
birthday celebration. Once a youngster with Discretionary Leave achieves
seventeen and a half years old, the Home Office will advise them that they must
return back to their country of origin, once they have reached a particular age
(Snyder, 2016).
Previously,
numerous children have been successful in applying for extensions of stay even
after reaching the age of 18[1]. It would not be wrong to
state that presently, the attention on the aspect of sending minors back to
their country of origin once they have reached a particular age is highlighted
because as Rigby, and Whyte (2013, pp.42) states that UKBA is focused on
managing the migration intensity and on saving money of the care costs for
children that are in high need of it.
Reason for unaccompanied minors entering the UK
Consistently,
an obscure number of UASC enter the UK, as numbers are available for each
individual that fulfils the refugee
application. UASC are characterised as children younger than eighteen who land
in the UK, insist on having asylum and who are without close grown-up relatives
either going with them or effectively show in the UK whom they can join
(Stretmo, 2014).
The
Refugee Council carried out research to explore the influencing variables and
reasons why asylum seekers go to the UK. It inspected the choices made by asylum
seekers and inferred that, in the dominant part of cases, the reason they land
in the UK, instead of other European nations, is frequently because they
believe they might be able to live in UK for a longer period or even whole life (Vervliet, Rousseau, Broekaert, and Derluyn,
2015, pp.477). A report was carried out which comprised of a survey of the
current situation and carried out semi-structured meetings which 43 individuals
who were looking to be asylum seekers in the UK. From these 43 individuals, 10
were children who had entered the UK unaccompanied[2].
The
most pervasive motivation behind why these asylum seekers had landed in the UK
was on the grounds that the choice to bring them here had been made by others. Human
traffickers assume a huge part in the
association and usage of plans orchestrated to empower asylum seekers to
wrongfully leave their nations of the source
and travel crosswise over mainland to a position of wellbeing (Masocha, 2013,
pp.1627). Contingent upon the professional and the cost paid, these human
traffickers are only concerned with the travel issues and ensuring the asylum
seeker reaches the destination, and not opting to enter the UK with the
individual (Smith-Pastrana, 2016, p.251). Huge numbers of the UASC met just
wound up mindful that they were going to the UK in the wake of leaving their
nations of origin and a few children landed in the UK having no idea where they
have landed.
The
essential purpose behind UASC leaving their nations of inception and flying out
to Western countries contrasts incredibly relying upon their race, nationality,
religion, political belief or sexuality (Wilding, 2017, pp.288). Research
recommends that, in the larger part of cases, UASC look for political reassurance
as opposed to financial riches. Many have suffered or anticipate abuse because
of their government or local social groups[3]. This can include physical
discipline or dangers to their life because of different reasons, for example,
having their religious practices limited, being named in criminal groups, being
trafficked to some other country or even sold in the sex industry, and so on
(Bhabha, 2014).
Allsopp,
Chase, and Mitchell, (2014, pp.178) features how the groups of UASC seem to
‘volunteer’ their children in the care
of other nations as they have an ulterior goal that the other nations would
provide them with the life that they cannot provide themselves. Such encounters
up to and including the trip itself make UASC helpless in particular ways while
testing their flexibility and ability to survive. Accordingly, UASC require
deliberately arranged norms of help with a specific end goal to assist them
with overcoming huge calamity and disease[4].
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: numbers, trends and the asylum process
Following
various years in which asylum applications by UASC diminished, there have been
outstanding increments in applications in the years 2014 and 2015 as shown in Figure
1 (Guentner, Lukes, Stanton, Vollmer, and Wilding, 2016, pp.402).
The
ascent in UASC applications is somewhat determined by developing quantities of
UASC meeting point from Eritrea and Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that
quantities of UASC expanded from all the main eight UASC nations of the starting point, barring Albania. Definitely, rises
in amounts of UASC and variances in their countries of origin expose more
extensive worldwide possibilities and alteration (Smyth, 2014). Be that as it
may, an emotional gender bias in UASC has stayed consistent. In 2015, 90% of
UASC were male, a tantamount figures to earlier years. Hansson, Ghazinour, and
Wimelius, (2015, pp.108) has recommended conceivable explanations behind the predominance
of males, including the more serious peril presented to males in locales of conflict
and the discernment that there are fewer risks
to young men when travelling[5].
Essentially,
it has dependably been the situation that majority of UASC are matured sixteen
or over when they arrive in the UK. The figures for 2015 exhibit that 62% of
UASC were matured sixteen or over, with 88% of UASC matured more than fourteen
(Pacione, Measham, and Rousseau, 2013, p.341). On entry in the UK, UASC will
experience an asylum procedure which is the focal point underneath in Figure 1.
Children looking for asylum may show at ports of passage on landing in the UK
or present ‘in the nation’ at different
areas, now and then introducing to the local authority as opposed to the Home
Office.
As
exhibited in Figure 2, UASC may have their age questioned when they land in the
UK as they might not have proper documentation to affirm their age (Davidson,
2013, p.497). Their age will then be surveyed by the Local Authority (LA) in
which they at first exhibited. De Graeve, (2017, pp.80), utilising Home Office
figures, report a 141% increase from 2014 to 2015 in the quantity of
age-questioned UASCs. This is a dubious practice, condemned for the poor
quality of appraisals and the inaccurate policies utilised. Concerns have been
raised that social work professionals might be required to do the evaluations.
The focus between these practices mainly feeds into a prevalent “culture of
belief” and the supposed paramountacy of child welfare[6].
Pobjoy,
(2013) positions the exercise of age assessment in wider social procedures,
connecting it with both a shift concerning gradually preventive asylum and
immigration strategies in addition to extensive social queries about what it
necessitates to be ‘a child’ in society. Undoubtedly, the debate of age
appraisal reflects two essential strategy issues. To start with, the imbalance
between the arrangement of supervisions for children and grown-ups which comes
from the generally defended status conceded to children by their universally
and broadly perceived secured status in law (Sundqvist, Hansson, Ghazinour,
Ögren, and Padyab, 2015, p.215). Also, and relatedly, age evaluation indicates
the ways in which normative western concepts of childhood defined mainly by
legal and sequential age and related with susceptibility and inactiveness can
be employed to eliminate children and young people from vital necessities and
defences[7].
Once
the candidate has been acknowledged as a child an underlying choice will be
made on their claim. Straightforwardly, there are two conceivable results; the
claim might be acknowledged and refugee status allowed or the claim will be
unsuccessful and exile status eliminated (O’Donnell, 2013). Nonetheless, on
account of refusal, the lawful position of UASC can turn out to be more
confused. As Figure 3 (underneath) illustrates, an generous number of UASC will
be offered transitory periods of leave to stay in the UK following the refusal
of their refuge guarantee, frequently using the ‘UASC Leave’ group that
pertains when the only aim for permitting an episode of provisional leave is
that the claimant is a child who cannot be securely reverted to their country
of basis (Liefaard, and Sloth-Nielsen, 2016). Figure 3 clarifies all the
diverse conceivable results of a UASC’s shelter claim, and subtle elements the
numbers who acquired each outcome in the years 2014 and 2015, exhibiting how
pervasive the utilisation of brief types of leave are for UASC.
The
figures in Figure 3 apply just to UASC who get a choice on their asylum
guarantee before they turn eighteen. Those matured eighteen at the season of
the choice will not be conceded UASC Leave and are probably not going to get
Discretionary Leave to Remain (just three such candidates got optional leave in
2014 and 2015 consolidated) (Parusel, 2017). For these children, the main
outcome would likely result is that their claim will be rejected inside and
out, as happened in 82% of these cases in 2015. In any case, as showed in
Figure 3, the majority of UASC claims settled before the candidate turns
eighteen will result in the allow of some type of impermanent leave to remain,
which terminates when the youngster approaches adulthood (Echavez, Bagaporo,
Pilongo, and Azadmanesh, 2014). Over a portion
of UASC claims were settled along these lines in 2015. The same is valid for
all years since 2010, except for 2014 (Figure 3).
Temporary
grants of leave to UASC are made on the premise that the UASC does not meet the
criteria for Refugee Status or Humanitarian Protection, however, cannot be sent back to their country. Axford, (2013, pp.65)
reflects that these procedures of temporary leave are settled in ‘compassionate
conditions’, the universal dependence on UASC Leave has come under rising
inspection and disapproval. The incidence of surrendering temporary statuses
emphasised above has been belittled as a comprehensive policy that does not
reflect the separate wants of children (Jones, and Welch, 2018). Specifically,
questions have developed about how much such choices assess the ‘best
advantages of the children’.
The
‘best benefits of the child’ standard are
cherished in universal law as an essential consideration when settling on
choices that influence children and in the national
enactment in the UK Border Authority’s (UKBA) obligation to protect and advance
the welfare of children (Braye, and Preston-Shoot, 2016). A series of studies
have inferred that the UKBA does not assemble adequate data on the youngster’s
best advantages to achieve educated choices on shelter claims, needs worry for
setting up the child’s best advantages and neglects to finish formal ‘best
advantages of the child evaluations’ when settling on choices on whether to
allow UASC take off (Tipton, and Furmanek, 2016).
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and children’s social care services
Once
in the past acknowledged as UASC, unaccompanied children’ privileges are the
same as native children and they will be accommodated as a ‘taken care of
youngster’ under the Children Act 1989. Previously, some local authorities gave
supervisions to UASC as ‘children in require’ (under Section 17 of the Children
Act 1989 which puts an obligation on the LA to protect and advance the welfare
of children) (Linton, Kennedy, Shapiro, and Griffin, 2018). Offering services
under this area of the Children Act, as opposed to the more complete
arrangement for cared for children in Section 20 (which puts an obligation on
the LA to help the child), had the impact of prohibiting UASC from
qualifications to Leaving Care benefits under the Children Leaving Care Act
(2000), which is just accessible to children who have been formally ‘taken care
of’ (under Section 20, Children Act 1989) (Chase, 2013, pp.866).
Eide,
and Hjern, (2013, pp.666) noticed that under these practices some unaccompanied
young people were removed from full access to services and were probably going
to get poorer services than their national companions. Nonetheless, recent
researches and case laws has changed this position and the assumption are present
that unaccompanied young people will be accommodated under Section 20 and
therefore qualified for full help under the CLCA 2000, irrespective of the area
of the Children Act benefits they have attained (Majumder, et.al, 2015, pp.134).
This speaks to a critical progression in the treatment and assembling of UASC
and has guaranteed that their qualification to the full scope of children’ services
is guaranteed in law.
Under
Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, UASC and are owed specific obligations
from the local authority. The local authority has an obligation to help and
suit UASC and also a broader obligation to defend and advance their welfare. An
appraisal of their needs will be directed utilising the ‘System for the
evaluation of children in requiring and
their families’, albeit some consider that this structure is not completely
versatile for the evaluation of UASC (Bradby, et.al, 2015). Following the
appraisal, a care plan will be made which assesses settlement, financial
aspects and more extensive help needs. The larger part of UASC is presently
suited in child care. Figures for 2014 demonstrate that 61% 5 of UASC was put in child care, while 25% were set in free-living and 11% were put in private care
(Sirriyeh, 2013, pp.12).
Nonetheless,
there is proof that development is benefited mainly for UASC who reach below
the age of sixteen, and that the difference that are above this age will not be
located in temporary care. Temporary care is usually measured to be an optimistic
settlement selection which aids incorporation, mental health and scholastic
attainment. Humphris, and Sigona, (2016) thorough review of temporary care for
UASC emphasised its transformative possibility, but likewise elevated worries
regarding the influence of contemporary funding cuts on UASC’s admittance to
high quality situations.
While
there have been some remarkable gains in the assurance of UASC over late years,
and the legislature has emphasized its position that migration status ought not to influence the nature of help given to children, some disturbing variables
remain. Linton, et.al, (2017) pointed out uncertainties 10 years ago regarding the
rise of a two-tier scheme in which UASC were alienated from citizen young
people. Regardless of the on-going legalised advances plan, there is as yet
steady tension that the migration framework keeps on abrogating youngster
welfare concerns. The privileges of children (specifically uprooted and
displaced person children) are set up inside the UK and universal law and supported by worldwide children’ rights
talks and the expert estimations of the professionals who execute strategies to
ensure the welfare of children (Allsopp, et.al, 2014).
Nonetheless, UK immigration policy gradually follows a limiting securitisation outline. UASC, located at the connection of these two extremely dissimilar policy areas, become an unavoidable location of disagreement in which the privilege of children to be secured conflicts with the aim of restricting relocation jointly and calculating migrants separately (Snyder, 2016). The consequence of such a disagreement could be an arrangement of separated access to qualifications for UK national children and evacuee/shelter looking for children. This has shown in the UK approach influencing UASC in an assortment of ways. Rigby, and Whyte, (2013, pp.44) call attention to those children without affirmed legitimate status have not been incorporated into Child Poverty targets set by progressive governments.
An
investigation of 59 unaccompanied children and 67 experts and arrangement
creators by Stretmo, (2014) found that some UASC still had difficulties
retrieving health facilities and education, frequently owing to the absence of
a helpful adult to support them with retrieving amenities, or because of misunderstanding
on the portion of services and establishments regarding their powers and privileges
as asylum seekers. Vervliet, et.al, (2015, pp.474) revealed worries about an
absence of proper psychological well-being amenities to address UASC’s issues,
and that general levels of help and care from children’ social care amenities remained
contradictory all over local authority territories. This proposes there are a
few regions in which UASC may think that it is hard to completely practice
their lawful rights qualifications notwithstanding full access being guaranteed
in legitimate terms.
Theoretical Perspective
The Migration System Theory can be used to explain the increase in the number of UASC in the United Kingdom. The migration movement is a result of the interaction between macro, micro, and mesostructures (Migliarini, 2018). The microsystem theory aims to understand the individual motivation for another country. The example involves the personal decision to seek protection in another country. On the other side, the macro level factors have based migration on economic and political aspects. According to this aspect, migration takes place because of the interaction of political relationships between countries (Coddou, 2017).
According to Pereira, Snel, and Hart (2015), the Transnational Theory is another theory that explains the migration of children. The theory explains that migration takes place because of the presence of better economic opportunities and social networks. This theory has highlighted that individuals are in perpetual motion. They tend to move to places that have cultural similarities (Mayblin, 2014). The Transnational Theory has highlighted the significance of conserving the national identity of individuals. According to this theory, children who belong to transnational families face several challenges when they move from one place to another. The most important challenge faced by them is related to the development of social networks (Sirriyeh, 2008).
The Push and Pull Theory also gives an explanation of why people choose to leave their country of residence and choose a specific location. According to the theory, push factors urge people to leave their current residence and pull factors urge people to choose a specific destination. The push factors include the low living standard, war, lack of economic opportunities, political repression, and others. On the other side, pull factors include political freedom, economic opportunities, and others. The theory states that push and pulls factors are present in all migratory movements (Sundqvist, Padyab, Hurtig, and Ghazinour, 2018).
References
Allsopp,
J., Chase, E. and Mitchell, M., 2014. The tactics of time and status: Young
people’s experiences of building futures while subject to immigration control
in Britain. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(2),
pp.163-182.
Allsopp,
J., Sigona, N. and Phillimore, J., 2014. Poverty among refugees and
asylum seekers in the UK: An evidence and policy review. University of
Birmingham, Institute for Research into Superdiversity.
Axford,
N., 2013. Exploring the influence of international governmental organisations
on domestic child welfare policy and practice. Adoption & Fostering, 37(1),
pp.57-70.
Bhabha,
J., 2014. Child migration and human rights in a global age (Vol.
22). Princeton University Press.
Bradby,
H., Humphris, R., Newall, D. and Phillimore, J., 2015. Public health
aspects of migrant health: a review of the evidence on health status for
refugees and asylum seekers in the European Region.
Braye,
S. and Preston-Shoot, M., 2016. Practising social work law.
Macmillan International Higher Education.
Chase,
E., 2013. Security and subjective wellbeing: the experiences of unaccompanied
young people seeking asylum in the UK. Sociology of health &
illness, 35(6), pp.858-872.
Coddou, M., 2017. Sanctified Mobilization: How
Political Activists Manage Institutional Boundaries in Faith-Based Organizing
for Immigrant Rights, in Barbara Wejnert , Paolo Parigi (ed.) On the Cross Road
of Polity, Political Elites and Mobilization (Research in Political Sociology,
Volume 24) Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp.25 – 65
Connolly,
H., 2015. Seeing the relationship between the UNCRC and the asylum system
through the eyes of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young
people. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23(1),
pp.52-77.
Davidson,
H., 2013. Does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Make a
Difference. Mich. St. Int’l L. Rev., 22, p.497.
De
Graeve, K., 2017. Classed landscapes of care and belonging: Guardianships of
unaccompanied minors. Journal of Refugee Studies, 30(1),
pp.71-88.
Echavez,
C.R., Bagaporo, J.L.L., Pilongo, L.W.R. and Azadmanesh, S., 2014. Why do
children undertake the unaccompanied journey?. Motivations for
departure to Europe and other industrialised countries from the perspective of
children, families and residents of sending communities in Afghanistan.
Eide,
K. and Hjern, A., 2013. Unaccompanied refugee children–vulnerability and
agency. Acta paediatrica, 102(7), pp.666-668.
Guentner,
S., Lukes, S., Stanton, R., Vollmer, B.A. and Wilding, J., 2016. Bordering
practices in the UK welfare system. Critical Social Policy, 36(3),
pp.391-411.
Hansson,
J., Ghazinour, M. and Wimelius, M.E., 2015. Police Officers’ Use of Discretion
in Forced Repatriations of Unaccompanied, Asylum-seeking Refugee
Children—Balancing Efficiency and Dignity. International Journal of
Social Work and Human Services Practice, 3(3), pp.101-108.
Humphris,
R. and Sigona, N., 2016. Mapping unaccompanied asylum seeking children in
England. Becoming Adult Research Brief, (1).
Jones,
P. and Welch, S., 2018. Rethinking children’s rights: Attitudes in
contemporary society. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Liefaard,
T. and Sloth-Nielsen, J. eds., 2016. The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child: taking stock after 25 years and looking ahead.
Brill.
Linton,
J.M., Griffin, M. and Shapiro, A.J., 2017. Detention of immigrant
children. Pediatrics, p.e20170483.
Linton,
J.M., Kennedy, E., Shapiro, A. and Griffin, M., 2018. Unaccompanied children
seeking safe haven: Providing care and supporting well-being of a vulnerable
population. Children and Youth Services Review.
Majumder,
P., O’Reilly, M., Karim, K. and Vostanis, P., 2015. ‘This doctor, I not trust
him, I’m not safe’: The perceptions of mental health and services by
unaccompanied refugee adolescents. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 61(2), pp.129-136.
Masocha,
S., 2013. We do the best we can: Accounting practices in social work discourses
of asylum seekers. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6),
pp.1621-1636.
Mayblin, L., 2014. Asylum, welfare, and work:
reflections on research in asylum and refugee studies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 4 (5/6),
pp.375-391
Migliarini, V., 2018. Colour-evasiveness’ and
racism without race: the disablement of asylum-seeking children at the edge of
fortress Europe. Race, Ethnicity &
Education, 21(4), 438-457.
Nelson,
D., Price, E. and Zubrzycki, J., 2017. Critical social work with unaccompanied
asylum-seeking young people: Restoring hope, agency and meaning for the client
and worker. International social work, 60(3),
pp.601-613.
O’Donnell,
R., 2013, December. The role of the EU legal and policy framework in
strengthening child friendly justice. In ERA Forum (Vol. 14,
No. 4, pp. 507-521). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Pacione,
L., Measham, T. and Rousseau, C., 2013. Refugee children: Mental health and
effective interventions. Current psychiatry reports, 15(2),
p.341.
Parusel,
B., 2017. Unaccompanied minors in the European Union–definitions, trends and
policy overview. Social Work & Society, 15(1).
Pereira, S. Snel, E. and Hart, M., 2015.
Economic Progress, Stagnation, or Decline? Occupational Mobility of Non-Eu
Immigrants in Europe, in Jody Agius Vallejo (ed.) Immigration and Work
(Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 27) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.129 – 165
Pobjoy,
J.M., 2013. A child rights framework for assessing the status of refugee
children.
Rigby,
P. and Whyte, B., 2013. Children’s narrative within a multi-centred, dynamic
ecological framework of assessment and planning for child trafficking. British
journal of social work, 45(1), pp.34-51.
Sirriyeh, A., 2008. Young Asylum Seekers’
Conceptions of ‘Home’ at a Time of Transition to Adulthood. International Journal of Migration, Health
and Social Care, 4 (1), pp.12-27
Sirriyeh,
A., 2013. Hosting strangers: Hospitality and family practices in fostering
unaccompanied refugee young people. Child & Family Social Work, 18(1),
pp.5-14.
Smith-Pastrana,
M., 2016. In Search of Refuge: The United States’ Domestic and International
Obligations to Protect Unaccompanied Immigrant Children. Ind. Int’l
& Comp. L. Rev., 26, p.251.
Smyth,
C., 2014. European asylum law and the rights of the child.
Routledge.
Snyder,
S., 2016. Asylum-seeking, migration and church. Routledge.
Stretmo,
L., 2014. Governing the unaccompanied child–media, policy and practice.
Sundqvist, J. Padyab, M. Hurtig, A. and
Ghazinour, M., 2018. The association between social support and the mental health
of social workers and police officers who work with unaccompanied
asylum-seeking refugee children’s forced repatriation: A Swedish experience. International Journal Of Mental Health,
47(1), 3-25.
Sundqvist,
J., Hansson, J., Ghazinour, M., Ögren, K. and Padyab, M., 2015. Unaccompanied
asylum-seeking refugee children’s forced repatriation: Social workers’ and
police officers’ health and job characteristics. Global journal of
health science, 7(6), p.215.
Tipton,
R. and Furmanek, O., 2016. Dialogue interpreting: A guide to
interpreting in public services and the community. Routledge.
Vervliet,
M., Rousseau, C., Broekaert, E. and Derluyn, I., 2015. Multilayered ethics in
research involving unaccompanied refugee minors. Journal of Refugee
Studies, 28(4), pp.468-485.
Wilding,
J., 2017. Unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the UK: From centres of
concentration to a better holding environment. International Journal of
Refugee Law, 29(2), pp.270-291.
[1] Allsopp,
J., Sigona, N. and Phillimore, J., 2014. Poverty among refugees and
asylum seekers in the UK: An evidence and policy review. University of
Birmingham, Institute for Research into Superdiversity.
[2] Bhabha,
J., 2014. Child migration and human rights in a global age (Vol.
22). Princeton University Press.
[3] Braye,
S. and Preston-Shoot, M., 2016. Practising social work law.
Macmillan International Higher Education.
[4] Jones,
P. and Welch, S., 2018. Rethinking children’s rights: Attitudes in
contemporary society. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[5] Pobjoy,
J.M., 2013. A child rights framework for assessing the status of refugee
children.
[6] Smyth,
C., 2014. European asylum law and the rights of the child.
Routledge.
[7] Stretmo,
L., 2014. Governing the unaccompanied child–media, policy and practice.
