116 CONTENIDO ESENCIAL DE LOS DERECHOS

‘In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family’.214

‘States Parties shall promote awareness in the public at large, including children, through information by all appropriate means, education and training, about the preventive measures and harmful effects of the offences referred to in the present Protocol. In fulfilling their obligations under this article, States Parties shall encourage the participation of the community and, in particular, children and child victims, in such information and education and training programmes, including at the international level’.215

214 215

Timeframes

Children have a right to family life and where safe to do so, children should be supported to be reunited with family members. It was unclear from the field research as to how decisions were made in the different settings in regards to whether reunification should take place and who was involved in the decision making process. In some contexts there are legal requirements that mean that best interests determination procedures must be followed when making decisions on children’s care.216

As every situation is different and the circumstances surrounding exploitation vary greatly, it is impossible to give a timeframe for when reunification with family may be possible. In the field research, some service providers spoke about how it could take up to a year to identify a child’s family, especially where children do not know the name or location of their family home. There were mixed views concerning when children should be reunified with family members. Some felt that it was helpful for children to be reunited as quickly as possible, others felt that this transition should be gradual, and some felt this should only happen once the child was independent, had completed their education or training and could earn a living.

214 United Nations (2000), “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.” Art.10.1

215 Ibid Art 9.2.

216 Interagency group on children’s reintegration (2016),”Guidelines on children’s reintegration,” Family For Every Child/ Interagency group on children’s reintegration

“Fix family first and then bring the children to them. Children should not stay here long”. ( A mental health professional in the Philippines)

“At the initial period, children should not be sent to the family full time because children need a period of adjustment to adjust being with their family again. It would be good initially to send them overnight for 2-3 days”. (A girl in Thailand)

In some cases service provider respondents talked about using ‘reintegration checklists’ to help them assess when children were ready to leave the care of the service. Some service providers also organised for the child to visit the family before he or she was permanently reunited. In regards to government services, a few respondents mentioned that there was a set timeframe for reunification in place. They noted that after six months children were sent home regardless of whether they were ready. It was stated that in these cases that “Those children often get kicked out of their home soon after”. (A young woman in Nepal)

On the other hand, the same respondent said that some NGOs do not let survivors leave their care until they are “certain [that they are] able to live independently”.

Assessments

Respondents in the research spoke about the importance of working, where possible, with the child’s family from the very beginning. Service provider respondents noted that where children had family members, it was important to understand:

y

y The relationships between the child and family, y

y Their economic situation, y

y The ability and willingness of the family to keep the child safe, and y

y The family’s ability to access services for the child.

The interagency group’s guidelines on children’s reintegration give clear guidance surrounding reunification and the process for carrying out assessments with the child, family and community.217

The guidelines emphasise the need to carry out in-depth assessments to determine the readiness of the child, family and community for reunification. Such processes should assess whether the family understand the impact of the separation and harm to the child.

The use of assessments should also help to understand and address the causes for separation. The guidelines make clear that assessments should assess risks but also the resources that would influence the child’s wellbeing and development. The development of ‘context specific criteria for assessment’ is deemed crucial. This is particularly important as in some cases, as was noted in the field research, some foreign, well-funded care programmes provide children with a standard of living that is well above what the child’s family and community could ever offer. If these same organisations are assessing the family home in relation to such standards, it is unlikely that families would be assessed as being able to maintain these same high standards. This again, aligns to the lack of transparency over who makes the decision as to whether children will be reunited with family members or not.

217 Interagency group on children’s reintegration (2016), “Guidelines on children’s reintegration,” Family For Every Child/ Interagency group on children’s reintegration.

The guidelines on children’s reintegration emphasise the importance of family unity and note that the benefits of reunification often far outweigh the harm. They note that the existence of some risk should not be used as a reason not to reunify children. The guidelines state for example that the lack of quality education in home communities may be viewed as a ‘risk’ and therefore a barrier to children returning home. Rather than postponing reintegration, the guidelines suggest that other options should be explored to address what are essentially geographical barriers. For example encouraging the family to move closer so that children can access education or exploring whether, during the academic year, children could be safely placed with relatives.

The guidelines also note that children and families should be fully involved in all assessment processes. In order to reflect on the conclusions of the assessments, the guidelines suggest using ‘best interest determination’ procedures and bringing together panels to discuss reunification. Following the assessment process, an individualised plan should be developed to set out a strategy for addressing the child’s and family’s needs and building on their strengths.

Repatriation

Repatriation refers to the process whereby individuals who have crossed borders, are returned to their country of origin. Repatriation should be a voluntary process and should take place if, after thorough assessments, this is viewed to be in the best interests of the child.218

In the field research, only a few of the respondents had experience of the process of repatriation. Some respondents however used the term when talking about children returning to other regions within the same country.

Where repatriation over country borders did occur, some service provider respondents raised concerns over the process. Service providers often were not in a position to travel to another country to carry out assessments with the family and community for themselves and could not ensure children would receive prompt services on their return. There was recognition that Memorandums of Understanding needed to be put in place between organisations and that service providers had to trust that these organisations would be able to support the child on their return. Without this support, some service providers felt that children would simply end up in another situation of exploitation.

The importance of the child maintaining the relationship with their original service provider or caregiver was also highlighted by respondents. A service provider in Thailand noted that due to the time it takes to develop a trusting relationship it was important that that person is available to the child “no

matter where they are sent”. This was seen as particularly important during the transition “the period of building trust with the second social worker or caregiver”. Again, continuity and consistency were

deemed critical.

Safety during the process of repatriation was another issue that arose during the field research. Although survivors should be accompanied, one young woman in Nepal spoke of her experience of having to travel alone by bus saying, “…the staff are given number of the bus they are coming in [and]

then they go and receive them from the bus stop”. She added that, “If there is a staff along with them, they will feel very secure. Without a staff it would feel very helpless.”

218 Muraya, D. and Fry, D. (2015), “Aftercare services for child victims of sex trafficking: A systematic review of policy and practice,” Trauma, Violence and Abuse, Vol. 17(2), 204-220.

The service provider respondents in the field research had relatively little experience of repatriation. The concerns that were raised however echoed the need to ensure that children feel safe and have consistent care with the opportunity to develop trusting relationships with any new service providers who are involved in the care.