Get documents about "Guardianship provision for unaccompanied and separated children
Document Sample
Guardianship Provision Systems for
Unaccompanied and Separated Children
Seeking Asylum in Europe
Initial Mapping
Sajid Alikhan and Malika Floor
Bureau for Europe
GUARDIANSHIP PROVISION SYSTEMS
FOR UNACCOMPANIED AND SEPARATED CHILDREN
SEEKING ASYLUM IN EUROPE
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The present overview of European countries documents the guardianship systems, legislation and
practices for unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) seeking asylum in the 42 countries
covered by UNHCR’s Bureau for Europe.1 This overview was initiated and undertaken jointly by the
Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) and the Bureau for Europe in recognition of the
lack of information regarding guardianships in Europe and the crucial role that guardians are
expected to play in ensuring appropriate and adequate protection and care of UASC. In a number
of countries, including Belarus, Ireland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, guardians play a key
role in the asylum procedure. In these countries, it is the guardians who decide and initiate the
asylum application on behalf of the minor since, without a guardian, the child cannot apply for
asylum. In countries where the guardian is primarily the child’s legal representative and adviser, the
lack of access to guardianship would leave the UASC unassisted and unrepresented in legal
asylum proceedings.
The aim of the overview is to draw attention to the particularly vulnerable situation of the UASC
and, through a protection gaps analysis, to flag areas of guardianship provision that may need
further regularization and standardization, based on the relevant international and regional
standards of protection and care for asylum-seeker and refugee children and adolescents. The
review of the national legal frameworks and practices was undertaken as part of UNHCR’s
protection monitoring and collection of data for evidence-based advocacy to ensure appropriate
treatment and care of asylum-seeking and refugee children who have been separated from their
parents and customary care givers. In addition to reviewing legal frameworks and their
implementation practices, information was collected through a regional survey questionnaire on
national standards and procedures for the selection and appointment of guardians, including their
required competencies. Other issues mapped in this exercise comprise the guardians’ tasks and
duties, monitoring the guardians, and the support and guidance provided to guardians.
The initial mapping of guardianships was done through a survey questionnaire, with replies mainly
from UNHCR’s country offices in Europe as well as national non-governmental organization (NGO)
partners of the SCEP network. In a number of countries, the respondents were government
agencies, such as child ombudsmen or authorities in charge of guardianship issues and provision.
The survey questionnaire is attached as Annex A to this report.
1These countries include Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation (including Chechnya and Ingushetia), Serbia, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
2
The main limitation of the survey is that its results do not provide any assessment of the quality of
guardianship or how the different systems and standards impact on the well-being, protection and
care of UASC. To bridge this gap, this initial mapping exercise will be complemented by interviews
with key stakeholders in selected European countries. The interviews and focus group discussions
are meant to obtain feedback and collect the views of the children and their guardians, as well as
of children who have not been provided with a guardian. Asylum and childcare authorities, and
NGOs specialized in this field, will also be included in the qualitative assessments. The focus
groups and interviews will be held in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom
(UK), where SCEP national partners have agreed to cooperate with this study. Although this small
sample of countries may not be sufficient to draw far-reaching or general conclusions for all of
Europe, the outcomes of the qualitative assessments will provide further insights and indications of
the impact of different guardianship systems through the views and opinions of key stakeholders,
and help identify areas in need of regularization and improvement.
The preliminary view among UNHCR and its SCEP partners of the significant variations in
guardianship systems, both among and within countries, was confirmed by this survey. In all areas
of the study, country policies and practices varied widely. Starting with the different understandings
of the functions of guardians, the latter were—in about half of the countries—primarily legal
representatives and counsellors of the children, whose main responsibility was to assist their wards
in asylum applications and procedures during the process of refugee status determination. In some
cases, these guardians were also expected to arrange for the child’s education, accommodation
and health. Again, in about half of the countries, the guardians—as the main adults in the child’s
life—were expected primarily to ensure the child’s physical and psychosocial well-being. This
ambiguity in the role of the guardians exists among national actors too. In a number of countries, it
was not uncommon for a legal representative to be expected to ensure appropriate schooling for
the child, or for a social worker to assist the child legally in the asylum procedure. Interestingly, the
participation of guardians in the best interests determination, identification of durable solutions and
integration support were the areas in which they were least involved.
Another area of great difference is that of professionalized, as opposed to benevolent or voluntary,
guardianship systems. In a few countries, such as Belgium or Germany, both types of systems
exist in parallel. Professionalized guardians are employees of government agencies and NGOs
who work in the social and legal sectors, while benevolent guardians are private persons who
volunteer to become guardians. The question of which arrangement is best for the child could not
be conclusively answered in this mapping exercise, and will depend greatly on the child’s specific
needs, as well as the competencies and motivation of the guardians. It is noteworthy that
professionalized guardians had much better access to guidance and training, and were more
systematically monitored, than private guardians. However, the professionalized—as well as
institutional—guardians had less personal contact with their wards, and usually more limited
functions and time, than private persons.
The difference between professionalized and benevolent—or voluntary—guardianship systems,
and the ambiguity of the guardians’ role, also influences the competency requirements of the
guardians. For professionals, the educational requirements are well-defined, whereas for
benevolent and private volunteer guardians, the requirements are linked more to personal
attributes and character. Whether the competencies of volunteer guardians need to be further
regulated and standardized is a controversial issue, in the sense that the strictly defined
3
competencies and attributes of guardians may exclude from guardianship those persons who are
not professionals but who, for other reasons, are suitable and have a genuine commitment, and
perhaps an existing relationship, with the ward. On the basis of the responses from the European
countries, the tendency is perceptibly in favour of professionalized, rather than personalized,
guardianships. In only six countries of the region was any weight given explicitly to the quality of
the relationship between the child and the guardian, and whether the guardian and the ward could
get along with each other. In professionalized guardianships, the emphasis is on educational
qualifications, either in the social or legal fields. In personalized guardianships, the competencies
of the guardians are related mainly to their personal characteristics and ―suitability‖, and their
competencies and suitability are often defined negatively, that is, who as a guardian would not be
suitable (because of a conflict of interest, immorality, substance abuse, and so on).
In a number of countries, the guardianship provision systems for national and non-national children
were different. In these countries, it was common either for managers of refugee reception centres
and their staff to be delegated guardianship functions by the local child welfare agency, or for the
guardians to be selected from among the refugee and asylum-seeker community. In Central and
Eastern European countries, in particular, the role of the NGOs in providing guardianship to
asylum-seeking and refugee minors was common, while national children were placed in the care
of government institutions. Among the key constraints in providing guardianship for asylum-seeking
and refugee children were the lack of guidance and training for guardians on asylum, as well as on
cultural and psychosocial issues of displaced children. A shortage of guardians with relevant
language skills was also identified as a constraint in the newer asylum countries of Eastern and
Central Europe.
A lack of training for guardians was a major constraint and obstacle for ensuring appropriate
standards of care and protection for children and adolescents, and the necessary guidance and
support for guardians. In only five of the countries surveyed were guardians required to participate
in compulsory training prior to taking up guardianship. Some respondents indicated that, in their
view, training was inadequate and of poor quality. An even smaller number of countries (7 per cent)
provided access to continuous training for the guardians, or organized regular workshops,
seminars and discussions where guardians could meet and obtain support and advice for the
proper execution of their duties.
An area with a clear need for improvement is the monitoring, reporting and supervision of
guardians. There is an almost total absence of any involvement of children and adolescents under
guardianship, and the children do not, in any country, have channels for their feedback and views.
The most regular monitoring mechanism is the mainly financial reporting that is required of
guardians annually. In only 20 countries were guardians required to monitor and report on the
situation of the child, according to the answers to the questionnaire. Where the guardianship was
provided by a professional institution or agency, the monitoring and reporting on—and by—the
guardians was nearly always a part of the standard supervision of staff in the office, and had little
to do, specifically, in regard to the well-being or the quality of guardianship of an individual child.
Finally, in response to whether the guardianship system was working well in the 42 European
countries covered by this survey, 17 per cent of the respondents described the system as working
well; 10 per cent replied that the system worked adequately; while a majority—26 per cent—
indicated that it was inadequate. For further details, please see Annex B, Table I: Does the
4
guardianship system work well? Please also note that the figures, percentages and other
information in the five tables in the paper and nine tables in the annex (which are derived from the
survey questionnaire in Annex A), are based on a 100 per cent response rate to the survey while,
in fact, the overall average response rate to the questionnaire is only 79 per cent.
2. ASYLUM-SEEKING AND REFUGEE UASC IN EUROPE
Addressing the separation of children from their care givers is one of UNHCR’s global priorities for
refugee children. In situations of displacement, conflict and persecution, families often break-up,
and children and adults become separated from each other. Family separation puts children at
heightened risk of exploitation and abuse, usually entails disruption of education, and requires
children to take up responsibilities for themselves, their siblings and other family members. Asylum-
seeking and refugee children are in a more vulnerable position without a responsible adult, often
unable to understand the language, culture and way of life of the new country. Without access to
appropriate reception and legal assistance, they are at further risk of exploitation, marginalization
and discrimination.
The overall number of asylum-seekers in all the European countries has dropped dramatically
since the beginning of 2000. The reduction in the numbers of asylum applications is believed to
intersect with the restrictive asylum and migration policies of Europe, and the growing global
economic inequalities that contribute to conflict, lack of livelihood and displacement. The mixed and
irregular movements of populations—for reasons of persecution, human rights violations,
inadequate protection in the countries of origin and transit, environmental degradation and lack of
livelihood—are composed of economic migrants and refugees. Not only are the populations
sometimes mixed, but the ―irregular movers‖ may have a mixed motivation for displacement that
are linked to both economic and persecutory reasons. With the emphasis on border control and the
containment of irregular migration, it is increasingly difficult to reach Europe without the assistance
of smugglers and traffickers. The lack of access to territory and asylum impact disproportionately
on children. The fees and bribes for assisted travel and entry into Europe are less costly for
children than for adults. The chances of a child being allowed to stay in Europe are better than for
an adult asylum applicant or irregular migrant. It is easier for children to engage undetected in
street-based activities and petty crimes, and criminal prosecution and charges are less likely, and
lower, than for adults. The lifetime capacity to earn a living and provide remittances to family
members in the countries of origin is higher than for adult migrants. The exploitation of children for
labour and subversive activities particularly affects young boys who are sent abroad by their
families or other adults, and is based on gender-differentiated perceptions of income-earning
capacity and vulnerability. Boys are perceived to be generally better earners, and less vulnerable,
than girls. This has resulted in a situation where most asylum-seeking UASC arriving in Europe
today are adolescent boys. The above factors are likely to explain why the number of asylum-
seeking children has not dropped as dramatically as the number of adult applicants.
According to the available data, the number of asylum claims lodged by UASC in the 42 European
countries between 2001 and 2003 was 12,8002. While the total number of asylum applications by
2United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees. Trends in Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking
Asylum in Industrialized Countries, 2001-2003. Population Data Unit, in consultation with the Bureau For Europe.
Geneva. July 2004. http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/40f646444.pdf
5
adults was halved between 2002 and 2005, the number of applications by UASC in 2005 had only
dropped by one-quarter, to a total of 9,800. Despite this seemingly large number, the proportion of
asylum applications lodged by UASC remains small, averaging about 3-4 per cent of all asylum
applications. There are considerable country differences, and the countries that receive a majority
of the child applicants are Sweden and the UK. When countries are compared for the share of
UASC applications as a proportion of all asylum claims, the largest share of UASC is in Bulgaria,
where children seeking asylum alone make up ten per cent of all asylum-seekers.
The most common countries of origin for child applicants are Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Sierra
Leone and Somalia, followed by China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Nigeria and
Serbia and Montenegro. The countries of origin for UASC arriving in Europe have changed
remarkably, with a shift in arrivals from other European—as well as Asian and Middle Eastern—
countries to an increase in those arriving (increasingly) from Sub-Saharan Africa. In 2005, Sub-
Saharan African children and adolescents comprised an estimated 45 per cent of all UASC in
Europe, with most applications in Europe coming from adolescent boys aged 16–17 years.
One of the main constraints of UNHCR and other organizations in monitoring the protection of
UASC is the pervasive lack of data. Most Western European countries do not produce age- and
sex-segregated statistics on asylum applications and decisions. To the extent that it is possible to
draw conclusions on the basis of scarce data, recognition rates for UASC are generally much lower
than those for adult applicants. In the absence of guidance and clearly instated policies to assess
asylum claims child-sensitively, most UASC are granted humanitarian or other complementary
protection status. For example, in 2004, a total of 2,990 UASC sought asylum in the UK. While the
majority of the children (72 per cent) were granted the right to remain in the UK, only two per cent
were recognized as refugees and one per cent on humanitarian grounds. Since 2005, most child
applicants are subject to age assessment, of which the results are not available to UNHCR. If the
UASC are found to be over 18 years of age, they may not be admitted to the territory or the asylum
procedure, or the refugee status determination decision may be linked to the results of the age
assessment. In this way, the authorities do not need to pay attention to the international and
regional standards of protection and care that would be applicable to minors.
3. STANDARDS ON GUARDIANSHIP PROVISION FOR UASC
3.1 INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The relevant international legislative framework is based on the 1989 United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that provides for children’s fundamental rights in the areas of civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights. The CRC is the most widely ratified Convention and,
in Europe, all countries are states parties to it. However, some of the countries, including Germany
and the UK, have entered specific reservations in relation to age, nationality, immigration status
and application of the CRC domestically. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has provided
further authoritative guidance for states parties on to how to apply the CRC’s standards to asylum-
seeking and refugee children.
6
On the issue of legal guardians, enshrined in several articles of the CRC, states are required to
create a legal framework and ensure proper representation of the UASC’s best interests. General
Comment 6 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child requires that states appoint a guardian or
adviser as soon as the UASC is identified. The Committee further stipulates that the guardian
should be involved in all actions taken in regard to the child. It specifically mentions the importance
of the participation of the guardian in asylum proceedings, the identification of durable solutions,
and the education and care arrangements for the child, and also for the guardian to have the
necessary expertise and authority for these functions. If in some areas the guardian does not have
the necessary expertise, supplementary measures, including the appointment of an adviser or legal
representative, should be secured. Moreover, the Committee requires that states parties have
review mechanisms in place to monitor the quality of the guardians to ensure that the best interests
of the child are being represented, and to prevent abuse.3
While the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is mostly silent on children, its
standards apply to children in the same way as they do to adults. Article 22 of the Convention sets
standards that are of special importance to children: refugees must receive the same treatment as
nationals with respect to primary education, and treatment at least ―as favourable as possible‖ as
that given to non-refugee aliens in secondary education.4
3.2 EUROPEAN LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The Council of Europe has set several regional standards which are derived from the international
instruments and standards related to children. Among them, the European Parliament Resolution
of 1992 on a European Charter of Rights of the Child requests, among other things, that
―Every child has the right to life. If the parents or persons responsible for the child
are not in a position to ensure his survival and development, the State must
guarantee him the necessary protection and care and a decent minimum of
resources and take steps to encourage and facilitate the provision of this care by
individuals or families willing to do so, or if this is impossible, via direct intervention
by the authorities‖5.
The Resolution also states that a child in the territory of a Community state cannot be the subject
of any discrimination based on the parents’ nationality, family background, sexual orientation, race,
colour, sex, language, social origin, religion, belief, state of health or other circumstance6.
Particularly in regard to refugee children, the European Parliament states that
3 Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of unaccompanied and separated
children outside their country of origin. Thirty-ninth session. Crc/Gc/2005/6. Geneva. 17 May-3 June 2005.
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/532769d21fcd8302c1257020002b65d9?Opendocument
4 United Nations. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations
Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly
resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950. Entered into force on 22 April 1954, in accordance with article 43.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm
5 European Parliament. Resolution on a European Charter of Rights of the Child. 8 July 1992. Article 8.8.
6 Idem, Article 8.5.
7
“Children from third countries who apply for refugee status in a Member State must
be given due protection and assistance in that State whilst their application is being
considered”.7
On the issues of best interests, children’s participation and parental role, the European Convention
on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (1996)—building on the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe Recommendation 1121 (1990) on the rights of children—states as follows:
Convinced that the rights and best interests of children should be promoted and to
that end children should have the opportunity to exercise their rights, in particular in
family proceedings affecting them;
Recognizing that children should be provided with relevant information to enable
such rights and best interests to be promoted and that due weight should be given to
the views of children;
Recognizing the importance of the parental role in protecting and promoting the
rights and best interests of the children and considering that, where necessary,
States should also engage in such protection and promotion.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued in 2005 its Recommendation 1703 on
asylum-seeking and separated children.8 Although not legally-binding, the standard in its Article 5
on guardianships is clearly defined, and advises that:
As they are without their parents or legal or customary primary care-givers,
separated children seeking asylum should benefit from the prompt appointment of a
legal guardian to defend their interests and ensure their well-being and they should
also be placed in care and reception structures in keeping with their age and
maturity. By contrast, the legislation of Council of Europe member states often does
not provide for an appropriate system of guardianship on behalf of foreign children.
Even when an adequate legal framework is in place, administrative delays pose a
serious threat to the safety of children, leaving them more exposed to a risk of
trafficking or other abuses. Furthermore, the detention of separated children in the
asylum process is a widespread practice in the vast majority of Council of Europe
member states, in open disregard of the obligation to provide care and reception in
structures suitable for children and in violation of Article 37 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that detention shall only be used
as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.
The recommendation further instructs the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and its
member states to:
7 Idem, Article 8.44.
8 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Recommendation 1703 (2005) on the protection and assistance
for separated children seeking asylum. Strasbourg. 28 April 2005.
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta05/EREC1703.htm
8
[A]mend their legislation and remove any administrative obstacle so as to ensure
that separated children can have a legal guardian and a legal representative
appointed as a matter of urgency and not later than two weeks of their presence
coming to the knowledge of the authorities9.
3.2.1 The European Union Law
Two asylum-related European Union (EU) directives—addressing the reception of asylum-seekers
and the processing of asylum claims—make specific reference to guardianships for UASC where
the European Commission requires its member states to appoint, as soon as possible, a legal
guardian to ensure the care and well-being of asylum-seeking children, and the appropriate legal
representation and assistance for children to articulate their asylum claim.
In practice, as verified by the regional survey questionnaire, there are considerable delays and
gaps in the appointment of guardians and legal representatives. In some countries, asylum-seeking
children are denied both guardians and legal representatives. It is not uncommon for a legal
representative to be expected to provide for the care and well-being of the child, or for a social
worker to be the main representative of the child in the asylum procedure. For example, in Poland,
it is the NGOs and law students who—with UNHCR’s financial support—represent and assist the
child asylum-seekers in legal proceedings. The social institutions in charge of accommodation and
care of the child and social workers are uninformed about asylum procedures, although they are
expected to assist the child in the asylum application.10
On unaccompanied minors, Article 19 of the EU Reception Directive11 legislates that
―Member States shall as soon as possible take measures to ensure the necessary
representation of unaccompanied minors by legal guardianship or, where necessary,
representation by an organisation which is responsible for the care and well-being of
minors, or by any other appropriate representation. Regular assessments shall be
made by the appropriate authorities.‖
And, in accordance with Article 17 (a) of the EU Procedures Directive12, Member States shall:
“as soon as possible take measures to ensure that a representative represents
and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the examination of the
application. This representative can also be the representative referred to in Article
19 of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for
the reception of asylum seekers‖.
9 Idem.
10 Menon, Rekha and Floor, Malika. Profiling of Unaccompanied and Separated Children. United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, Bureau for Europe. Unpublished research paper. Geneva. 2007.
11 Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers. (Reception Directive).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0009:EN:NOT
12 Council of the European Union. Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in
Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005L0085:EN:NOT
9
3.2.2 The SCEP-UNHCR Statement of Good Practice
The SCEP-UNHCR Statement of Good Practice13 provides a comprehensive policy framework and
good practice standard for the protection and care of UASC in Europe. The good practices are
directly informed by the work of SCEP partners and UNHCR country offices in Europe, and its third
edition was updated in 2004 to reflect the current protection issues of UASC in the rapidly
developing area of European asylum and migration policies. The Statement of Good Practice is
also informed by, and based on, the international and European instruments and standards on the
rights of the child and on the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers, and draws especially on the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU directives on reception and asylum procedures, and
UNHCR guidelines related to refugee children.
Section C6 of the Statement on the appointment of a guardian or adviser recommends that:
As soon as a separated child is identified, an independent guardian or adviser
should be appointed—in a long-term perspective—to advise and protect separated
children. Regardless of the legal status of this person (e.g. legal guardian, NGO
worker) their responsibilities should be as follows:
to ensure that all decisions taken are in the child’s best interests
to ensure that a separated child has suitable care, accommodation, education,
language support and health care provision
to ensure that the child has suitable legal representation to deal with her or his
immigration status or asylum claim
to consult with and advise the child
to contribute to a durable solution in the child’s best interests
to provide a link between the child and various organizations who may provide
services to the child
to advocate on the child’s behalf where necessary
to explore the possibility of family tracing and reunification with the child
to help the child keep in touch with his / her family.
In order to ensure necessary protection for separated children, appointments of
guardians / advisers should be made within one month of a child being notified to the
relevant authorities.
The individuals carrying out these responsibilities may be drawn from a range of
specialist backgrounds. However, in order to carry out their role effectively, advisers
or guardians should have relevant childcare expertise and an understanding of the
special and cultural needs of separated children. They should receive training and
professional support, and undergo police reference checks.
4. TYPES OF GUARDIANSHIP, APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES AND REMUNERATION
13Separated Children In Europe Programme. Statement Of Good Practice. Third Edition, 2004. http://www.separated-
children-europe-programme.org/separated_children/good_practice/index.html
10
The types of guardianship and appointment procedures vary widely from one country to another.
Usually, it is either the government institutions in charge of child welfare and social services, or
specialized NGOs, that serve as guardians for UASC seeking asylum in Europe. The actual care
can be further delegated to a specialized organization or to a private person whose activities are
monitored by governmental or non-governmental agencies.
In the survey questionnaire, respondents were asked to describe the guardianship system as either
professionalized, benevolent (or voluntary), or remunerated but reliant on individuals who are not
professionals. If the guardians were remunerated, the questionnaire asked that the amount of
remuneration be specified.
The results show that in one half of the countries, guardianship systems were described by the
respondents as professionalized, and in the other half as voluntary. In a number of countries, the
system was a combination of both professional and voluntary guardianships, as the nominal
guardian was usually a governmental institution, which then delegated the practical care of the
child to a specialized NGO or private individual.
Some remuneration for the guardians is provided in about a quarter of the European countries.
However, it is not possible to draw far-reaching conclusions about remuneration on the basis of the
data collected. When institutions or childcare authorities serve as guardians, there is no additional
remuneration, although their guardianship work is part of their usual duties. Remuneration is more
common among the specialized NGOs or private individuals. Often, the remuneration is a nominal
compensation for the guardian, and the guardian can, in addition, request for further compensation
for tasks that entail costs or that are particularly demanding in terms of time or expertise.
Guardians are remunerated in 24 per cent of the countries, with their remuneration or nominal fee
being paid by the state. This is usually the case where guardians are remunerated as employees of
administrative or professional service providers. In a number of countries, especially where the
guardians are primarily the legal representatives of the child in the asylum procedure, the
remuneration, salary or fee is paid by the courts. For example, in Germany, the courts may pay the
professional guardians (who are lawyers or social workers), an hourly wage. In Belgium, Finland,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, the guardianship
system is remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals. In Finland, guardians
work independently and receive a fee, not a salary. In Croatia, in accordance with the Croatian
Family Law, guardians have a right to monthly compensation for their duties, which is paid on
request.
The system of guardianship is professionalized in 31 per cent of the countries in this review. In
Germany, the system of guardianship is partly professionalized and partly voluntary, with four types
of guardians. The system is professionalized in Austria as well, but only in cases where youth
welfare agencies are appointed as guardians. In Croatia, the legal framework provides for a
professionalized guardianship system, although there are gaps in current practice. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, as well as Switzerland, have all three categories of guardianship, depending on the
municipality or canton. In the Swiss cantons of Geneva or Zurich, however, the system is
professionalized and remunerated. The professionalization of guardianship in Spain does not
extend to foreign UASC seeking asylum, since guardians are not trained on specific rights of non-
national UASC and, in addition, rarely speak foreign languages. And in Greece, legal provisions—
11
especially for UASC not seeking asylum—are inadequate, as is the implementation of the already
existing legal framework.
Guardianship systems are voluntary or benevolent in 31 per cent of the countries, and guardians or
custodians take on their responsibility free of charge, as in Belarus, for example. In Luxembourg,
guardians are professionals working for the refugee service, Caritas, and do not receive any
special allowance for their work. For further details, please see Annex B, Table II: Types of
guardianship.
4.1 TYPES OF GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEMS
4.1.1 Institutional guardianship
Most countries included in this survey have systems of guardianship. The guardians are either
individual persons or institutions. Although the names of institutions may vary, guardians are
appointed by local courts or tribunals in 29 per cent of the countries under review and by centres
for social or child welfare in 12 per cent of the countries, mainly in Southeastern Europe (including
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and
Slovenia). In Spain, the Protection of Minors Department of the corresponding autonomous
community or city is responsible for the appointment of a legal guardian, while in the UK no real
system of guardianship exists. In Greece, because of a lack of appropriate reception facilities,
UASC asylum-seekers are lodged in private institutions and, in Romania, guardians can be
appointed from the staff of authorized private institutions when cleared by the Directorate for Child
Protection. Meanwhile, in Slovenia, a new family law is being prepared that will empower courts to
appoint guardians. In a number of countries where institutions serve as guardians, the practical
care of the children is delegated to NGOs (for example, in Spain).
4.1.2 Private guardianship
Private, independent persons act as guardians in Belgium, Finland, Germany and Luxembourg.
Private families can also accept UASC—as in Finland—at the behest of local social authorities. In
the UK, despite the absence of a formal guardianship system, private fostering arrangements exist
for UASC, in accordance with the Children Act of 1989. However, to ensure local authority
oversight of such arrangements, it has been suggested that ―a mandatory registration scheme for
privately fostered children should be introduced‖14.
4.1.3 Non-governmental organizations
Individual guardians work for NGOs in Belgium, Luxembourg (Caritas/le Service pour Réfugiés);
Slovenia (Slovene Philanthropy, which is also an implementing partner of UNHCR); and
Switzerland outside of the canton of Geneva. An independent and competent guardianship of
NGOs exists in Germany. Legal and social counsellors from NGOs in the Czech Republic, such as
the Organization for Aid to Refugees, assume guardianship for UASC for the duration of the
14
Bhabha, Jacqueline and Finch, Nadine. Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and
Refugee Protection in the U.K. 2006. http://www.humanrights.harvard.edu/conference/SAA_UK.pdf
12
asylum procedure. In Norway, the Norwegian People’s Aid is developing a pilot project to improve
the recruitment and training of guardians which is to be implemented nationwide.
4.2 APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES AND AFFILIATION OF GUARDIANS
As in the other attributes of guardianship systems, the appointment and affiliation of guardians
varies in the European countries. In the case of asylum-seeking children and adolescents, the
guardians, legal representatives and legal counsellors in a number of countries are sometimes the
same institution or individual. It is assumed that where guardians are affiliated, or under the
supervision of childcare or social welfare authorities, their tasks are more closely linked with the
care and overall well-being of the child. Where the guardians are affiliated with asylum authorities,
they are better equipped to provide legal support for the asylum application of the minor and less
concerned with the day-to-day care and coordination of different stakeholders and actors. In some
countries, there is a multi-sectoral guardianship system in place—for example, in Germany—with
the appointment of both legal representatives and advisers, as well as guardians concerned with
the child’s care arrangements, coordination and ensuring that the child’s best interests are met.
The information on types of guardianship and their affiliation were not available for Denmark,
France, Iceland, Latvia and Montenegro. Information on the affiliation of guardians was not
available for Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Russian Federation, Ukraine
and the UK. For further details, please see Annex B, Table III: Appointment of guardians and their
institutional affiliation.
5. DUTIES OF GUARDIANS
5.1 DUTIES
While a guardian is expected to fulfil a key role in the overall well-being of the child, there is
considerable variation in practice in the areas of care and the extent of the guardian’s involvement.
The most common duties of guardians are summarized in the synopsis in Table 1, below. In a
majority of the countries, the most common duties relate to care arrangements, accommodation,
education and health. The least common duties of guardians are the identification of durable
solutions and participation in decisions concerning the Dublin II Regulation transfers. Interestingly,
only in 20 of the 42 countries surveyed were guardians expected to assist the minor to integrate
into the new country and environment. As discussed earlier—and depending on how guardianship
is contextualized—guardians in a number of countries serve mainly as legal representatives or
counsellors to the children. In 57 per cent of the European countries, guardians are legal
representatives whose role is to advise, support and represent the child in the asylum procedure.
In these cases, guardianship is usually limited to the duration of the asylum procedure.
The duties of guardians may also vary for other reasons, according to the duration of the
guardianship. Where there is a system of temporary guardianships, the temporary guardian is
usually the person or institution in charge of the initial reception and care of the child. For example,
in countries where newly arrived asylum-seeking UASC are accommodated in a temporary facility
or detained, they may be assigned a temporary guardian. Upon identification of a municipality
where the child will be living during the asylum procedure, the municipal childcare or asylum
13
authorities, such as the reception centre management, takes over the guardianship of the child. In
some countries, if the child is granted asylum or a permit to stay in the country, the guardianship
may change again, especially in cases where the guardian is a legal representative, or an authority
linked to asylum. For further details, please see Annex B, Table IV: Duties of guardians; and also
Annex C, Chart I: Duties of guardians.
Table 1: Guardians’ duties, a synopsis
GUARDIANS’ DUTIES IMPLEMENTED IN AS
NO. OF COUNTRIES PERCENTAGE
1. Accommodation 24 57
2. Care arrangements 28 67
3. Education 28 67
4. Integration support 20 48
5. Health services 27 64
6. Monitoring / reporting on the situation of the child 20 48
7. Best Interests of the Child (Best Interests Determination) 24 57
8. Family tracing and reunification 21 50
9. Dublin II Regulation transfers 18 43
10. Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures 24 57
11. Access to legal counselling 22 52
12. Legal representation 24 57
13. Identification of durable solutions: voluntary repatriation / 18 43
local integration / resettlement
The duties of guardians are often defined in law in a general manner. It may not be feasible to
determine at the legislative level the precise functions to allow for sufficient flexibility to meet the
needs of the child and the requirements of the situation. However, in only a few countries are the
duties of guardians defined at all.
In Finland and Slovenia, there are no clear or precise guidelines that define a guardian’s duties.
Swedish legislation, too, does not exhaustively define the duties of a guardian (or ―custodian‖),
although these are sometimes developed in more detail in general principles concerning parental
responsibility. As a result, the role of a guardian varies considerably with each individual guardian.
In Austria, certain duties, such as care and education, are legally defined in the Civil Code (or,
Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch / ABGB). In practice, the agency dealing with
guardianship—the youth welfare agency, or Organization des Jugendamtes—determines in more
detail the duties it needs to perform in its general role of guardianship. In Ireland, duties such as
monitoring or reporting on the situation of the child are carried out by a guardian, but only to the
extent that resources are available. Moreover, as the guardian is a governmental body (Executive
Health Service) and has, at the same time, the role of applying for asylum on behalf of the child, it
needs to undertake duties related to both care and asylum.
14
Croatia’s Family Law does not specify the expected duties of a guardian. These are generally
determined by the Centre for Social Welfare (CSW), which is a locally-based state-run social care
institution. The duties include, but are not limited to, all the 13 duties listed in the survey
questionnaire. In Greece, the refugee law specifies that a guardian’s duties are to assist UASC
only for the duration of the asylum process. In reality, very few UASC asylum-seekers have a
guardian appointed. According to the replies to the questionnaire, the Public Prosecutor for Minors
plays a cursory role and does not work toward the protection and care of UASC. The legislative
framework governing the protection of UASC, including guardianship issues, is in need of
substantial overhaul in Greece.
5.1.1 Best interest of the child
Despite the fundamental principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interest of
the child is an explicit duty of a guardian in 24 European countries (57per cent of those surveyed).
The best interest principle extends to all areas of a guardian’s duties and competencies, and
provides a guide to all important decisions that affect the child. Best interest assessment and / or
determination is ideally a multi-sectorally based conclusion that entails the joint assessment and
decision-making by all actors who are in some way linked to the issue at stake. The decision
should be informed by the child’s best interests, and not by the interests, incapacity or lack of
resources of the actors. The best interest determination should, therefore, be made independently
of other considerations. To the extent that the children’s maturity allows, they should be heard and
their views taken into account in decisions that affect them.
The questionnaire’s respondents put forward a view that many guardians lack appropriate
expertise in ensuring the child’s best interests. There is, in general, insufficient research and
training for professionals and, in many countries of Europe, the best interest principle is enshrined
usually in child welfare legislation, but practical procedures for its implementation may not be in
place. For example, in the Czech Republic, the principle of the interest and welfare of minors is
outlined in the Family Act and the Law on Social and Legal Protection of Children. In reality,
however, this principle is neither adequately defined nor reflected in legislation, court decisions or
specific policies related to children in the country. In Romania, a child’s interests are not formally
safeguarded in practice, due to a narrow interpretation of Article 73 of the Law on the Protection
and Promotion of the Rights of the Child. In Ukraine, in cases where a guardian is assigned to
asylum-seeking UASC, the duties do not include protection of a child’s best interests. In the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the best interest principle, although mandatory and enshrined in
law, is not applied in the case of refugee children.
A practical example of the impact of limiting duties of guardians, or not resourcing guardians to
professionally carry out their required duties, comes from the Czech Republic. Because of the
conflicting positions of local departments in the Czech Republic for the social and legal protection
of children and the role of guardians, the involvement of guardians in asylum proceedings and
refugee status determination remains limited. The guardians refuse to exercise their role of
guardianship for the entire administrative proceedings of the asylum procedure, and only
participate in asylum interviews. Hence, NGO legal counsellors continue to assume a de facto legal
representation of the child in the asylum procedure by working closely with the resident guardians
assigned to each asylum-seeking UASC.
15
Finally, as a good practice example, the Refugee Council Children’s Panel (RCCP)—a SCEP
partner—has played a key role in the UK in assisting some UASC to access legal and social
services. However, it is widely acknowledged that the RCCP does not have sufficient resources or
powers to be considered ―a guardian‖. Unlike in asylum proceedings, the role of a guardian does
exist in family court proceedings. However, the guardianship role of the Children and Family Court
Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) is limited only to family court proceedings and does not
deal with non-national UASC, except in the context of family law matters.
5.1.2 Durable solutions for voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement
Durable solutions for refugees can take three basic forms, entailing the re-establishment of the
refugee and providing a normal way of life, either in the country of origin or asylum, or in a third
country through resettlement. Resettlement is a durable solutions option when, for reasons of
protection or individual needs, it is not feasible for the refugee to return home or to stay on in the
country of asylum. When the need for international protection ceases, the refugee returns
voluntarily to the country of origin or usual habitation. By local integration is meant that the refugee
stays in the country of asylum and integrates locally into the host society. The identification of a
suitable durable solution is thus essential for the regularization of the status of a refugee, and as a
long-term solution to involuntary displacement.
The responses to the survey questionnaire point to difficulties in defining the duties and tasks of
guardians that are similar to the difficulties in defining legal representation. The children whose
guardianships were surveyed are both minors and refugees. Depending on the country, there
seems to a mixed approach to the children and a lack of clarity as to whether they should, for the
most part, be considered and treated as minors, or whether they should be seen primarily as
asylum-seekers with limited rights. This incoherent approach—and the delinking of asylum-seeking
children from their rights that would otherwise be applicable to all children in a particular country—
is reproduced in national legislation. In asylum-related legislation, there is a lack of child-sensitivity,
and few provisions for the specific needs of child asylum-seekers. Consequently, the service
providers are not sufficiently guided by their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, including whether—in the case
of asylum-seeking children—to apply the national asylum law or child welfare law.
For example, there are no specific procedures identified in the national laws of Cyprus for asylum-
seeking children. In Cyprus, the draft law on asylum and refugees provides for integration support
to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, regardless of their age. However, no
specific provisions for the integration support of other groups of minors are provided for in the
national laws. In Bulgaria, no special arrangements exist in the country’s legislation in respect of
asylum-seeking and non-national UASC. In Italy, guardians have no obligation to assist in seeking
durable solutions.
The German model—where a guardian is part of the planning process for durable solutions and
required to approve measures taken by the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt)—represents one of
the good practices in the involvement of the guardian, thus, making it a more independent and
multi-sectoral decision-making process, with a check on the government’s actions and motivations.
5.1.3 Family tracing and reunification
16
Only in one half of the 42 European countries are guardians expected to play any role in family
tracing and reunification, and there is no unified system or procedure on how it should be pursued.
This situation has to be seen against the background of the family reunification rights for refugees
that are being curtailed in Europe, where those with even a complimentary protection status are
usually not entitled to apply for family reunification at all. Even refugees, recognized under the
1951 Convention, are increasingly required to produce proof of family links through documentation
and DNA testing, and the process of family reunification can take several months, if not years. In
some countries, the right to family reunification is restricted to nuclear family members (parents,
under-age siblings) while, in others, children over a certain age (15-16 years) are not entitled to
family reunification. Among the EU member states that are part of the Dublin II Regulation, family
reunification would be allowed less restrictively.
Although according to international standards, family tracing and reunification for UASC is to be
initiated as soon as possible, without the involvement of guardians, it continues to face delays and
problems due to inadequate mechanisms for best interest determination, lack of clarity about who
has the duty to trace the family, and an absence of rights awareness among the children. In
practice, family tracing is primarily undertaken when children are being returned to their countries
of origin.
6. COMPETENCIES OF GUARDIANS
Following from the differences in the duties of the guardians, and especially from the differences in
the conceptualization of their role in the case of asylum-seeking and refugee children, the
competency requirements vary widely across Europe. Should the guardians have a comprehensive
role to ensure the well-being of the child, or should the role of the guardian be primarily to assist
the child in the asylum procedure?
The required competencies also differ between professionalized and benevolent—or voluntary—
guardianship systems. For professionals, the educational requirements are well-defined. But for
benevolent and private volunteer guardians, the requirements are linked more to personal
attributes and character, with the characteristics of suitable guardians being usually negatively
defined, that is, in terms of those who cannot qualify as guardians because of a lack of morals,
substance abuse, and so on. Whether the competencies of volunteer guardians should be further
regulated and standardized is an issue that needs to be balanced. The competency requirements
should not exclude from guardianships persons who are not professional but who, for other
reasons, are suitable and can support and take care of the child adequately. Among such persons
could be, for example, extended family members of the child, or members of community groups to
which the child belongs. In approximately half of the countries surveyed, the competency
requirements refer to the suitability of the person, giving flexibility in determining the one most
suitable, regardless of professional or personal qualifications. Only five countries of Southeastern
Europe or 12 per cent of all countries surveyed, specifically refer to the relationship between the
child and the guardian as a criterion of suitability. Only in one country, Armenia, was the attitude of
the guardian toward the child considered an important factor, worth specifying.
17
Perhaps the most apparent gap in the selection of guardians, and the definition of their
competencies, is the lack of children’s participation in the guardians’ appointment, monitoring and
evaluation. In most countries, the views of children and their relationship with the guardian are—
noticeably—not generally taken into account, nor given much weight when appointing guardians.
None of the countries studied had any formal channel or mechanism for hearing the child’s
opinions on either the appointment of a guardian, or the periodic reporting and evaluation of the
guardian. The less regulation there is of the competencies and role of guardians, the better the
monitoring and evaluation systems will be, and the better they will be implemented. The results of
the survey are summarized in Table 2, below. For further details, please see Annex B, Table V:
Competencies of guardians; Annex B, Table VI: Required competencies of guardians; and Annex
C, Chart II: Competencies or attributes of guardians.
Table 2: Competencies or attributes of guardians
COMPETENCIES / ATTRIBUTES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES AS PERCENTAGE
1. Capability or suitability 18 43
2. Level of conduct 14 33
3. Education (social work) 10 24
4. No specific competencies 9 21
5. Avoiding conflicts of interest 8 19
6. Education (law) 6 14
7. Family relationship 6 14
8. Guardian-ward relation 5 12
9. Child’s opinion of potential guardian 4 10
10. Education not a consideration 4 10
11. Consent 3 7
12. Specific training 3 7
13. Heads of institutions 2 5
14. Attitude toward child 1 2
15. Independence 1 2
16. Proximity 1 2
6.1 FORMAL AND EDUCATIONAL COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS
As regards the competencies of guardians there is, again, much variation. In 21 per cent of the
countries surveyed—Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland,
Greece, Norway, Spain and Ukraine—there were either no standard criteria on competencies, or
they were not clearly defined or available (as in the Czech Republic).
6.1.1 Social workers or lawyers?
In 24 per cent of the countries, including Austria, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland (in the cantons of Geneva and Zurich only) and the UK, a
formal qualification or background in social work was among the key competencies for guardians.
18
In 14 per cent of the countries, a legal background, or a legal understanding of asylum procedures
was required. In Ireland, formal training in social work—with a degree recognized by the National
Social Work Qualifications Board—was an essential requirement for guardians or social workers. In
the UK, advisers of the Refugee Council Children’s Panel had competencies in social, legal and
youth work, and advocacy, and were expected to have the qualifications set out by the Office of the
Immigration Services Commissioner.
In Belgium, it was not necessary to have had any specific education to be appointed as a guardian.
However, guardians were required to participate in special training, organized by the Belgian
Service des Tutelles, prior to appointment, to cope with the particular issues of asylum-seeking and
refugee UASC and to establish a relationship of trust with the minor.
6.1.2 Independence and conflict of interest
A key criterion in selecting guardians is the absence of any conflict of interest between the potential
guardian and ward. Belgium, for example, emphasizes a guardian’s ―independence‖ from the
asylum authorities, since such a link could pose a possible conflict of interest. Similarly, persons
who have financial interests in regard to the minor are usually excluded from guardianship.
Also in Belgium, individuals who decide on the residence of the minor (that is, the staff of the
Aliens’ Office), or individuals engaged in judicial procedures against the minor, are not eligible to
be guardians. As a result, there has been concern regarding the handling of guardianships of non-
national UASC by those without appropriate competencies in law or social work and who,
therefore, may not be familiar with the issues with which they are required to deal. Some NGOs
have, therefore, suggested the idea of a professional guardianship.
6.1.3 Suitability and personal attributes of guardians
Meanwhile, a majority of the countries (43 per cent) emphasized ―suitability‖ and ―capability‖ as key
competencies required for the performance of guardianship duties although, in most countries,
including Norway, there is no definition or guideline as to what ―suitable‖ means.
Regarding codes of conduct, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in concert with 13 other
countries, highlighted competencies such as ―personal characteristics‖ or standards of ethics,
propriety, and integrity, as well as the need for a certificate of good conduct. The absence of these
qualities is enough grounds to deny or revoke guardianship, as is the presence of a criminal
record, or the addiction to drugs or alcohol. Persons who have previously lost custody of a child will
also equally not qualify to assume guardianship. Table 3 summarizes the main reasons for the
denial or withdrawal of guardianship. For further details, please also see Annex B, Table VII:
Reasons for denying or revoking guardianship; and Annex C, Chart III: Reasons for denyng or
revoking guardianship.
Table 3: Reasons for guardianship denial
REASONS FOR GUARDIANSHIP DENIAL NUMBER OF COUNTRIES AS PERCENTAGE
1. Previous guardianship revoked 9 21
2. Chronic substance abuse 5 12
19
3. Minor (below 18) 5 12
4. ll-health 4 10
5. Criminal record 3 7
6. No legal capacity 3 7
7. No income-generating capacity 1 2
8. Impropriety 1 2
7. TRAINING OF GUARDIANS
Again, the training of guardians, in practice, varies widely among the 42 countries, as Table 4
shows. Training, whether prior to assuming guardianship or during guardianship, is not provided in
one-third, or 31 percent, of the countries, nor is there any special training, as in Austria and
Croatia, on issues concerning the specific needs of non-national UASC.
In Germany, training is voluntary for private guardians, and ―not very effective‖, according to the
respondents. In Austria, guardians who are not affiliated with the ―authority‖, or are not part of the
youth welfare agency, do not at any time receive formalized training. While the importance of
appropriate training in children’s protection, cultural, religious and linguistic needs, and in childcare
in general, has become increasingly apparent in Spain, no specific training is provided, including
on the rights and situation of non-national UASC who are seeking asylum.
In 14 per cent of the countries, specific training is compulsory, prior to taking up guardianship as in
Belgium, where the training is organized by the Service des Tutelles. In a further seven per cent of
the countries, continued training is compulsory during guardianship as well. In Belgium, ongoing
training is a key condition for the approval of guardians. Training includes aliens’ law, youth law,
teaching skills, psychology and multicultural reception. In this context, guardians are also invited by
the Commissariat Général aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides to familiarize themselves with asylum
procedures. In addition, guardians are encouraged to attend conferences and seminars on UASC-
related issues.
As a way of sharing of good practice, the Belgian Service droit des jeunes (an NGO) has created
an Internet forum on UASC to encourage networking among guardians, specialized lawyers, and
NGOs. The forum is administered by NGOs as well as guardians.
In many countries, training is provided by competent NGOs. In Slovenia, both theoretical and
practical training is obligatory prior to guardianship, and is organized by Slovene Philanthropy. This
NGO also recruits guardians and trains them in cooperation with other NGOs involved in the
assistance and protection of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees. Potential guardians acquire
knowledge of issues regarding asylum, refugee and separated children, childcare, and on the
duties and responsibilities of guardians. During guardianship, Slovene Philanthropy regularly
informs guardians about new documents, laws and recommendations. In Finland, training is
voluntary, and provided mainly by NGOs, such as the Central Union for Child Welfare and the
Refugee Advice Centre.
20
Often, NGOs and international organizations, such as UNHCR, work in concert with government
ministries and offices to train guardians. In Bulgaria, the State Agency for Refugees collaborates
with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, the Bulgarian Red Cross and UNHCR to provide training
aimed at the special needs of UASC. In Croatia, training for guardians of non-national UASC was
provided in 2005 by the Centre for Social Policy Initiatives (an NGO), together with UNHCR and the
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and, in 2006, with the Office for Human Rights of the
Government of Croatia. For further details, please see Annex B, Table VIIII: Training of guardians;
and Annex C: Charts IV, V and VI on the training of guardians, including by country and
percentage.
Table 4: Training of guardians
TRAINING PROVIDED PRIOR TO GUARDIANSHIP DURING GUARDIANSHIP
(by country and percentage) (by country and percentage)
None 13 countries / 31 per cent 13 countries / 31 per cent
Albania, Armenia, Austria (except for Albania, Armenia, Austria (except for
youth welfare agency workers), youth welfare agency workers),
Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and
Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav
Macedonia, Georgia (not for guardians Republic of Macedonia, Georgia (only
or custodians), Greece, Italy, Spain, for foster families), Greece, Italy, Spain,
Turkey, Ukraine (except for foster Turkey, Ukraine (except for foster
families) families)
Not uniformly implemented 3 countries / 7 per cent 5 countries / 12 per cent
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland (except in Hungary, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden,
Geneva and Zurich) Switzerland (except in Geneva and
Zurich)
Voluntary 1 country / 2 per cent 4 countries / 10 per cent
Finland Finland, Germany (only for private
guardians), Luxembourg, Slovenia
Compulsory 6 countries / 14 per cent 3 countries / 7 per cent
Belgium (Service des Tutelle), Former Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (only
for foster families), Hungary, Ireland
(education in social work), Netherlands
(education in social or legal services),
Slovenia (implemented by an NGO)
Implemented by 5 countries / 12 per cent 7 countries / 17 per cent
government ministries; Belarus (SGD), Georgia (for foster Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
human rights offices, families), Lithuania (not for close Republic, Finland, Poland, Serbia
municipalities) relatives), Poland, Serbia
Implemented by NGOs 1 country / 2 per cent 5 countries / 12 per cent
Romania Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany,
Romania
Implemented by international 1 country / 2 per cent 1 country / 2 per cent
organizations Slovak Republic (UNHCR) Slovak Republic (UNHCR)
8. SUPERVISION AND MONITORING
21
The supervision and monitoring of guardians, too, varies widely across European countries. One of
the most striking gaps in the monitoring and oversight is the nearly complete absence of the views
of children under guardianship. While one method of monitoring and supervision in a number of
countries is the visit to the home, there seems to be a clear lack of systematic and confidential
communication with the ward.
In a very few countries only are monitoring and supervision explicitly included in legislation and
organized as part of the usual monitoring and reporting by an agency. For example, NGOs which
implement guardianship activities on behalf of a government agency, report to the donor, or a
government social worker in charge of a minor, with supervision and monitoring by the appropriate
municipal department for social services and child welfare. The monitoring and supervision in most
countries lack an independent oversight. In about six of the 42 countries surveyed, the courts are
responsible for the supervision and monitoring but, as in the case of Albania, there is no
established procedure on how the courts are expected to monitor the guardians or how guardians
(and wards) are supposed to report to the courts. The most common method of supervision and
monitoring are the annual or biennial reports by the guardian where emphasis is on financial
reporting. In none of the countries studied were the respondents able to provide information on the
written report formats and contents, so it is assumed that there is no standardized reporting in
place.
Many countries also reported on the lack of sufficient staff and financial resources to establish and
ensure adequate monitoring and reporting on guardianships.
Regular written reports from guardians are relied on by 29 per cent of the countries, while seven
countries declared that supervision was conducted through home visits. Only in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was there a combination of methods in use, including
conversations and interviews—whether separate or joint is unclear, however—with the guardian
and ward, and visits to schools, medical institutions, neighbours and the community at large.
Some type of reporting obligations exist in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus,
Norway, Serbia, Slovak Republic and the UK, but details of the monitoring and supervisory bodies,
methods of monitoring, and frequency were not provided by the survey respondents. No
information was provided by respondents on France, Italy, Moldova, Montenegro, Russian
Federation and Spain.
In 19 percent of the countries (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland and Georgia), there
is no monitoring and reporting procedure in place for guardians. While guardians are not monitored
in Finland, social workers in the reception centres meet with guardians to maintain or re-establish
contact, and exchange information. In Azerbaijan, monitoring is not established by law, while in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, where monitoring is the responsibility of the Centre for Social Welfare, it
was reportedly poor and not standardized among the regional offices of the Centre. In the case of
Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no special system of supervision, other than the
general monitoring by the reception centre management, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Women’s
Initiative (an NGO), government social workers, and UNHCR. The CSW has neither sufficient staff,
nor funds, nor an established system, to monitor guardians in Mostar.
22
In Ukraine, guardianship agencies do not have the staff to adequately monitor the activities of the
guardians or trustees under their supervision on a regular basis. Consequently, in some districts,
this is done through home visits and other methods by social services that are established in all the
Ukrainian districts which work under the supervision of local authorities. The dealings of the social
services with guardianship agencies is not regulated, and is based more on an individual approach
in each given district.
In Austria, where the monitoring of guardians comes under the purview of the district courts,
regional variations also exist in both reporting requirements and monitoring. In Norway, guardians
are monitored and supervised by the public trustee’s office although, in practice, the quality of this
supervision also varies.
In common with Austria (and 17 per cent of the countries), guardians in Germany and Switzerland
are monitored by the courts. The functions are entrusted to the civil courts in the case of the Swiss
cantons of Geneva and Zurich, and local guardianship courts in the case of Germany. However,
guardians are also monitored by (among others) NGO managers, guardianship committees and
departments, government ministries (such as the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands), public
trustees, the Service des Tutelles and juges de paix (in Belgium), and independent inspection
bodies, such as the Inspection on Youth Care (Inspectie Jeugdzorg), also in the Netherlands.
Often, it is the NGOs that carry out the tasks of supervision and monitoring. For example, in
Slovenia, the Centre for Social Welfare—which is part of the Slovenian Ministry of Labour, Family
and Social Affairs, and which appoints guardians—is required to monitor the work of guardians. In
practice, however, there is no real supervision by the (CSW) and, although guardians are bound by
law to write reports, this remains a mere formality. As a result, the supervision of the work of the
guardians in Slovenia is conducted by the NGO Slovene Philanthropy. In Azerbaijan as well,
guardians are monitored by UNHCR’s implementing partner NGOs, such as the United Methodist
Committee on Relief, and Hayat (the national humanitarian organization), as well as the national
network of lawyers of Azerbaijan. The questionnaire did not address the issue of non-reporting and
its possible consequences, but some respondents stated that the established reporting and
monitoring procedures are not strictly adhered to, as the examples from Slovenia and Azerbaijan
indicate. According to the responses summarized in Table 5, such a lack of commitment could also
exist in Georgia and the Slovak Republic.
As for the monitoring and oversight systems and methods, the differences in frequency of reporting
were significant between the countries. Annual reporting is required in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Serbia. Biannual reporting is required in Belarus, Croatia,
Germany and Switzerland. According to the questionnaire’s respondents, more frequent reporting
and monitoring, usually monthly or bi-monthly, is required in Armenia, Belgium, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. In the case that
the guardianship was provided through a governmental or non-governmental agency, more regular
reporting and supervision was ensured through the immediate supervisor of the social worker or
legal representative. While this did not necessarily entail specific reporting or monitoring on the
well-being of the child in care, it did involve a more general supervision of the staff member of the
agency. In some countries, where the guardianship functions are primarily exercised by municipal
authorities, the frequency of reporting and monitoring varies from one regional department to
another. This is the case, in particular, in Austria, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey.
23
No information on the frequency of reporting was available for Albania, Czech Republic, Finland,
Greece, Norway, Romania, Slovak Republic and Ukraine. For further details, please also see
Annex B, Table IX: Supervision and monitoring of guardians.
Table 5: Supervision and monitoring of guardians
COUNTRY SUPERVISION AND BY WHOM ? FREQUENCY METHODS
MONITORING
1 Albania The court No established No established
procedures procedures
2 Armenia District guardianship Monthly Home visits
committee
3 Austria District courts Regional variations Legal procedure
4 Azerbaijan No monitoring NGOs; national Monthly Home visits
procedure network of lawyers
5 Belarus State Guardianship Biannually (SGD); Home visits; reports,
Department (SGD); daily (school teachers) including accounting
school teachers for child’s state
allowance
6 Belgium Service des Tutelles; Daily (service des Reports
juge de paix Tutelles); biannually
(juge de paix)
7 Bosnia and Poor monitoring CSW Annually (guardians); Reports
Herzegovina occasionally (CSW)
8 Bulgaria No system in place
9 Croatia CSW Biannually Reports
10 Cyprus Supervisor
11 Czech Republic No information NGO legal counsellors
and social workers
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland No monitoring Social workers
(contact; information
exchange)
15 Former CSW Monthly; often weekly Home visits; school;
Yugoslav medical institutions;
Republic of neighbours;
Macedonia community at large
16 France
17 Georgia No monitoring Resource Centres of
Ministry of Education
and Science
(theoretically, but not
in practice)
18 Germany Local guardianship Annually (at least) Written reports
courts
19 Greece Guardianship
committee; court
20 Hungary Guardianship court Periodical (six Written reports
24
months); ad hoc;
special checks
21 Iceland
22 Ireland Principal social Monthly; daily informal Clinical supervision;
workers supervision audits of files
23 Italy No information
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania Municipal Children’s Annually (permanent Home visits
Rights Protection guardianships);
Agency biannually (temporary
guardianships)
26 Luxembourg Supervisor ―regularly, and as Meetings; discussions
often as necessary‖
27 Moldova
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Guardians (regional Monthly (regional Meetings; detailed
managers); Nidos managers); ad hoc reports
(Inspection on Youth (Inspection of Youth
Care) Care); annually
(Ministry of Justice)
30 Norway Public trustee’s office
(in principle)
31 Poland Office for Repatriation Annually
and Aliens
32 Romania Directorate for Child Not available Not available
Protection and
National Refugee
Office
33 Russian
Federation
(including
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia CSW Annually Written reports; home
visits; interviews
35 Slovak Republic Supervisor / director No feedback (in
(in principle); Ministry practice)
of Labour, Social
Affairs and Family
36 Slovenia CSW (in principle); CSW (at end of CSW (reports);
Slovene Philanthropy guardianship); Slovene Philanthropy
(in practice) Slovene Philanthropy (monthly reports,
(monthly) meetings)
37 Spain Not available
38 Sweden Chief guardian Varies with Custodian to submit
municipality information, on
request; financial
reports
39 Switzerland Civil Court (Geneva Biennial
25
and Zurich)
40 Turkey Guardian Authority / Regular intervals Reports
Civil Court of Peace
41 Ukraine Guardianship Home visits; individual
agencies approach
42 United Kingdom Monthly
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
UNHCR and the Croatian Centre for Social Policy Initiatives (CSPI) recommends that the
appointment of guardians from among adult members of a group accompanying the UASC be
made only on an exceptional basis, after careful assessment of the relationship between the child
and the adult, and when it is determined that this would be in the best interests of the child.
UNHCR and CSPI are concerned that such guardians would likely be underqualified.
The Orphans’ Court works with the municipal social services and migration institutions in Latvia to
ensure the implementation of family tracing. However, the capacity of the Orphans’ Court to
facilitate family tracing is a cause for concern, and UNHCR recommends that the Latvian Red
Cross be responsible for the tracing. If family tracing is unsuccessful, then refugee children would
at least be ensured protection and assistance under Latvian law.
Considering the vulnerability of the group within the charge of foster carers in the United Kingdom,
a mandatory registration scheme for privately fostered children should be introduced to ensure
local authority oversight of private foster placements.
In cooperation and coordination with various specialised agencies and bodies, and their adopted
recommendations and guidelines, such as SCEP’s Statement of Good Practice, every UASC—
irrespective of status—should benefit from the prompt appointment of a statutory guardian of
proven reliability, who is effective and able to provide (a) support during the asylum procedure and
(b) advice in the child’s best interests.
Finally, in accordance with Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
states should consider giving primacy and binding character to the principle of the best interests of
the child, making this explicit in all laws, regulations or administrative guidelines concerning UASC.
Since a legal base is not in itself a panacea, effective implementation at national and local levels of
the relevant legislation remains essential.
10. FURTHER READING
Action for the Rights of Children. Separated Children. Briefing notes for facilitators. 2004.
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3f82dadf4.pdf
An Agenda for the Future. Belgrade, Child Rights Centre. 2001. (Serbian and English.)
http://www.cpd.org.yu/dokumenti/agenda_engleski.pdf
Bhabha, Jacqueline and Finch, Nadine. Seeking Asylum Alone: Unaccompanied and Separated Children and Refugee
Protection in the U.K. 2006. http://www.humanrights.harvard.edu/conference/SAA_UK.pdf
26
Brkic, M., Cucic, V., Dejanovic, V., et al. Child Rights in Serbia 1996-2002. Belgrade, Child Rights Centre. 2003.
(Serbian and English.) http://www.cpd.org.yu/english/e_index.htm
Child Trafficking in Serbia - Threats and Reality. Framework for the Promotion of Professional practice in the Protection
of Children from Human Trafficking. Belgrade, Child Rights Centre. 2005. (Serbian, English.)
http://www.cpd.org.yu/dokumenti/trafficking_compilation_english.pdf
Crawley, Heaven. Child first, migrant second: Ensuring that every child matters.
Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association policy paper. February 2006. (The paper includes a chapter on separated
asylum seeking children and on guardianship.) http://www.ilpa.org.uk/publications/ilpa_child_first.pdf
European Council on Refugees and Exiles. Position on Refugee Children. Brussels. 1996.
http://www.ecre.org/files/children.pdf
European Union legislation:
Communication from the Commission: Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child. Brussels. 2006.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0367en01.pdf
Council Resolution of 26 June 1997 on unaccompanied minors who are nationals of third countries.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997Y0719(02):EN:NOT
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the
event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between
Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0055:EN:NOT
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of
asylum seekers. (Reception Directive). http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0009:EN:NOT (In reference to this Directive,
please also see: UK Refugee Council response to the Home Office consultation: Implementation of Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 “Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum
Seekers”. December 2004. (The paper contains a section on Articles 18 and 19—on minors and
unaccompanied minors—of the Reception Directive and reference to the Refugee Council Children’s Panel
and its shortcoming.)
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=126373C5-
B649-4674-BEFF-444A6C8B614A&mode=link&guid=76ce3c9f686b494aaf432af3d06ad699
Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third
country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international
protection and the content of the protection granted. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0083:EN:NOT
Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and
withdrawing refugee status. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52000PC0578:EN:NOT
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States
for granting and withdrawing refugee status. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005L0085:EN:NOT
General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm
27
The Hague Conference on Private International Law. Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition,
Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. 19
October 1996. Entry into force 1 January 2002. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=70
The Hague Conference on Private International Law. Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Inter-country Adoption. The Hague. 29 May 1993. Entry into force 1 May 1995.
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69
Hume, Frances and Morran, Richard. Future Scots: Pre-five services for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Glasgow.
Save the Children. February 2006.
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Rescue Committee, Save the Children UK, United Nations
Children’s Fund, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, World Vision International. Inter-Agency Guiding
Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children. 2004. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id=4098b3172
International Save the Children Alliance. So you want to consult with children? A toolkit of good practice. November
2003. http://www.womenchildrenhiv.org/pdf/p09-of/of-04-00.pdf
Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations Children’s Fund. Child protection: A handbook for parliamentarians.
2004. http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Guide_Enfants_OK.pdf
Kunder, James. The Needs of Internally Displaced Women and Children: Guiding Principles and Considerations. Office
of Emergency Programmes, United Nations Children’s Fund. NICEF. New York. September 1998.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900SID/VONN-5G8JWG/$FILE/UNICEF.pdf?OpenElement
Legal Framework Relating to Refugee Children and Other Children of Concern to UNHCR in Countries of Eastern
Europe and Turkey. 2000. [No URL]
Lorey, Mark. Child Soldiers. Care & Protection of Children in Emergencies: A Field Guide. Save the Children
Federation. 2001. http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/technical-resources/emergencies-
protection/YouthFieldGuide.pdf
Mooten, N. Making Separated Children Visible: The Need for a Child-Centred Approach. Irish Refugee Council. 2006.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/pub06/children.pdf
National Albanian Center for Social Studies. Assessment of the Child Care Services and the Institutions for Children
Without Parental Care. Research Report sponsored by UNICEF, Albania. October 2005.
http://www.unicef.org/albania/Residential_Care_Assessment.pdf
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Recommendation 1596 (2003) on the situation of young migrants in
Europe. Strasbourg. 31 January 2003.
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta03/EREC1596.htm
Pesic, M., Brankovic, B., Tomanovic-Mihajlovic, S., et al. Children’s participation in focus. Belgrade, Child Rights
Centre. 1999, (Serbian; summary in English.) http://www.cpd.org.yu/dokumenti/childrens_participation_con.doc
Petrovic, M., Vuckovic Sahovic, N., Stevanovic, I. Child Rights in Serbia 2005. Belgrade, Child Rights Centre. 2006.
(Serbian; summary in English.) http://www.cpd.org.yu/dokumenti/Child_Rights_in_Serbia_summary_2005.pdf
Separated Children In Europe Programme. Statement Of Good Practice. Third Edition, 2004. http://www.separated-
children-europe-programme.org/separated_children/good_practice/index.html
The Situation Of Children In Institutions Of Social Care In Serbia. Belgrade, Child Rights Centre. 2001. (Serbian and
English.) [No URL]
28
Tolfree, David K. Community Based Care for Separated Children. Save the Children Sweden. 2003.
http://www.rb.se/NR/rdonlyres/A9FFDB70-57BD-474F-B14E-
60783D17881D/0/Communitybasedcareforseparatedchildren.pdf
UK Refugee Council response to the Home Office consultation: Implementation of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27
January 2003 “Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers”. December 2004. (The paper
contains a section on Articles 18 and 19—on minors and unaccompanied minors—of the Reception Directive and
reference to the Refugee Council Children’s Panel and its shortcoming.)
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=126373C5-B649-4674-
BEFF-444A6C8B614A&mode=link&guid=76ce3c9f686b494aaf432af3d06ad699
Uncertain futures: children seeking asylum in Wales. 2005. (Part Three: Implications for Policy and Practice, written by
Save the Children.) Pp. 75-77,
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/scuk_cache/scuk/cache/cmsattach/3854_Uncertain_futures.Eng..pdf
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession
by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. Entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with
article 49. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
United Nations Children’s Fund. Creating A Protective Environment For Children. Child Protection Seminar, Almaty,
Kazakhstan. 29-30 September 2003. http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/RMT_REPORT_FINAL_1_March_04.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees publications of relevance:
Agenda for Protection. UN document (EC/52/SC/CRP.9/Rev.1). 26 June 2002.
http://www.unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/3d12f1982.pdf
Global Consultations On International Protection. Report Of The Meetings Within The Framework Of The
Standing Committee (Third Track), including the 4th Meeting (22-24 May 2002) on the Search For
Protection-Based Solutions; Protection Of Refugee Women; Protection Of Refugee Children. UN document
(A/AC.96/961), 27 June 2002. http://www.unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/3d3fb35a4.pdf
Guidelines on Formal Determination of the Best Interests of the Child. Provisional Release, May 2006.
http://www.crin.org/docs/UNHCR%20best%20interests%20determination.pdf
Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum. Geneva.
February 1997. http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d4f91cf4.pdf
Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the
1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. UN document (HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1). Geneva. January
1992. http://www.unhcr.org/home/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf
Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care. 1994.
http://www.asylumsupport.info/publications/unhcr/refugeechildren.pdf
Strategy Concerning Refugee Children. Five Priorities for Girls and Boys of Concern to UNHCR. Geneva.
October 2005. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RSDLEGAL&id=439841784
Vitté, Sylvain. Unaccompanied Minors in Switzerland. Regional Conference on Migration of Unaccompanied Minors:
Acting in the Best Interests of the Child. Torremolinos, Málaga (Spain). 27-28 October 2005.
http://www.coe.int/t/f/coh%E9sion_sociale/migrations/Source/MG-RCONF_2005_4_Report_Switzerland_en.pdf
Website resource for custodians at http://www.scholar.se/godman, set up by the Swedish Refugee Aid.
Wojciech, Trojan. Legal situation of unaccompanied minors independently applying for a refugee status in Poland.
(Work paper.) World Jurist Association. 2001. [No URL]
29
ANNEX A
REGIONAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Improving Guardianship for Separated Children in Europe: Regional survey on current
legislation and practices
1. Please provide the latest available statistics on UAMs/ SCs, (indicating the period) and where
possible breakdowns by sex, age and legal status (refugee, asylum-seeker, IDP, rejected asylum-
seekers, subsidiary protection).
2. Are guardians provided to all UAMs/ SCs?
3. Who or what institution/s appoints guardians?
4. On whom or which institution/s do guardians depend/are affiliated with?
5. Who or what institution/s are guardians responsible to?
6. Are guardians appointed both to minors seeking asylum and foreign minors who do not apply for
asylum? Are there differences in procedures
7. Are the guardianship provision procedures different between nationals and non-nationals?
8. In addition to guardians, are legal representatives provided for UAMs/SCs? If not, do UAMs/SCs
have access to professional legal counselling?
9. Does the appointment of a guardian have legal implications on the residence/stay of the minor in
the country? If yes, please explain how?
10. What are the methods used to identify guardians?
11. What are the required competencies to become a guardian?
12. What are the expected duties or roles of the guardian?
Accommodation
Care arrangements
Education
Integration support
Health services
Monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child:
Best Interests of the Child (BID)
Family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers
Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures
Access to legal counselling/legal representation
Identification of durable solutions/return/repatriation/integration
30
13. Would you describe the guardianship system as
Professionalized
Benevolent or voluntary
Remunerated but reliant on individuals who are not professionals
14. If guardians are remunerated for their duties, what is the remuneration?
15. Are guardians monitored?
If yes:
By whom?
Frequency?
Methods of monitoring?
16. How many minors does a guardian care for:
Standard in law (where applicable)?
Standard in practice?
17. What training is provided to guardians?
Before taking up guardianship?
During guardianship?
18. Is the guardian involved during the WHOLE asylum procedure of the minor?
19. Does the guardian have an obligation of confidentiality regarding the minor’s asylum case? If
yes, what are the limitations/guidelines?
20. In the event that the minor is detained, is he or she entitled to have a guardian?
21. Are there any children denied guardianship on the basis of legal status, age, accommodation/
geographical location, nationality or any other factor (please specify)?
22. How is the guardian involved in the identification and implementation of a durable solution for
the minor?
23. In your view, does the guardianship system in your country work well?
Please describe 3 advantages and 3 disadvantages of the current system.
24. Please list any country studies or reports on guardianship.
25. Please list the main stakeholders for asylum-seekers, refugees and IDP childcare and asylum
procedures at the:
Local level
Central government
NGOs involved
31
ANNEX B
TABLES
Table I: Does the guardianship system work well?
COUNTRY WELL ADEQUATELY INADEQUATELY
1 Albania No (UNHCR)
2 Armenia
3 Austria
4 Azerbaijan No
5 Belarus Too early to conclude
whether system works
smoothly, despite
successfully solving the few
cases in the past
6 Belgium Guardianship system for
foreign UASC ran more
smoothly in 2005 and 2006
than in 2004, despite
problems (SCEP partner)
7 Bosnia and Guardianship system
Herzegovina suffers from a lack of
uniformity, lack of staff and
funds needed to function
well in respect of all
children, both nationals and
non-nationals (UNHCR)
8 Bulgaria Very little practice. Not
currently possible to asses
the functioning of the
system (UNHCR / SCEP)
9 Croatia
10 Cyprus
11 Czech Guardianship system in the
Republic Czech Republic cannot be
described as fully
functional and effective
(UNHCR)
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland
15 Former Functioning of guardianship
Yugoslav system is average (UNHCR)
Republic of
Macedonia
16 France
17 Georgia No, the system is not
32
effective
18 Germany
19 Greece No (UNHCR, Athens)
20 Hungary Yes (Menedék, the ―So-so‖ (UNHCR)
Hungarian Association for
Migrants)
21 Iceland
22 Ireland In Dublin, generally the
system works quite well
(Irish Refugee Council and
UNHCR)
23 Italy
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania
26 Luxembourg Yes, for asylum seekers
(Caritas)
27 Moldova
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Professional and advanced
system, but no reliable
picture on implementation
(UNHCR)
30 Norway Guardianship system does
not work properly in
Norway for UASC
(European Network of
Ombudspersons for
Children / ENOC)
31 Poland
32 Romania
33 Russian
Federation
(including
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia Yes (UNHCR)
35 Slovak
Republic
36 Slovenia No sustainable system of
providing guardianship to
UASC in Slovenia (SCEP)
37 Spain
38 Sweden Yes, ―more or less‖. New
legislation has been
introduced in this field. The
changes, however, have not
yet been fully implemented
(Save the Children,
33
Sweden)
39 Switzerland Very well in Geneva. ―Quite‖ ―Not at all‖ in several
well in Zurich and other big cantons (INTERNATIONAL
cantons (INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE Swiss
SOCIAL SERVICE Swiss Foundation)
Foundation)
40 Turkey
41 Ukraine
42 United UNHCR is of the opinion
Kingdom that the present system of
support does not
adequately safeguard the
best interests of all
separated asylum seeking
children.
Total 7 4 11
responses
As percentage 17 10 26
Table II:Types of guardianship
COUNTRY GUARDIANS: PROFESSIONAL, VOLUNTARY OR REMUNERATED?
1 Albania Benevolent or voluntary
2 Armenia Benevolent or voluntary
3 Austria Professionalized, in cases where youth welfare agencies are appointed. Only a few
UASC have guardians
4 Azerbaijan Benevolent or voluntary. Guardian receives nominal payment by State for support of
minor, according to Article 141.6 of the Family Code
5 Belarus Benevolent or voluntary. Guardians take on their responsibility free of charge
6 Belgium Professionalized, and either independent or employed by an NGO. For many, it is
remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals
7 Bosnia and All three categories, depending on the canton / municipality
Herzegovina
8 Bulgaria Not remunerated
9 Croatia While the legal framework provides for a professionalized guardianship system, the
current practice is lacking. According to the Family Law, guardians have the right to
monthly compensation for their duties, which is paid upon their request
10 Cyprus Professionalized
11 Czech Republic None of these. Workers from local department for social and legal protection of children
who are appointed resident guardians are paid staff of the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland Remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals. Guardians work
independently and are paid a fee, not a salary
34
15 Former Benevolent or voluntary. Remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not
Yugoslav professionals, although Centres for Social Welfare staff would prefer it if they were
Republic of professionalized
Macedonia
16 France
17 Georgia Benevolent or voluntary. Guardians/custodians are not paid for their work
18 Germany Partly professionalized, partly voluntary. Remuneration does not exceed 350 € a year.
Four types of guardians: (1) private guardians remunerated at a ―symbolic‖ rate; (2)
professional guardian (lawyer / social worker) paid by the court on hourly base; (3)
guardianship associations (specialised NGOs), whose payment varies from nothing to
70% of actual costs
19 Greece None of the above. Inadequacy of legal provisions, especially for UASC not seeking
asylum, and inadequate implementation of the already existing legal framework
20 Hungary Professionalized. Guardians are contracted by the municipality. Their remuneration is
calculated on the basis of the salary scale applicable to civil servants or lawyers fees
(per hour)
21 Iceland
22 Ireland Professionalized
23 Italy Not remunerated, unless the minor has considerable property to administer. In this case
the remuneration is calculated on the basis of the amount of work required.
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania Benevolent or voluntary
26 Luxembourg Professionalized; and benevolent or voluntary. Guardians are professionals working for
Caritas, and do not receive a special allowance for the job
27 Moldova
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Professionalized
30 Norway Professionalized. Some guardians are compensated, but this varies with the
municipality
31 Poland Benevolent or voluntary. Custodians and legal guardians are not remunerated
32 Romania Professionalized. Guardians are remunerated as employees of the Directorate for Child
Protection. Their work does not include UASC seeking asylum, or duties related to child
protection in general
33 Russian In Ingushetia, guardians/trustees work free of charge (in principle), although in practice
Federation they receive a monthly allowance
(including
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia
35 Slovak Republic Professionalized, with a regular salary from the District Office, as their employees
36 Slovenia Voluntary. Guardianship system based on volunteers who get small refunds for costs
connected with providing guardianship
37 Spain Professionalized, but not for non-national UASC, since guardians are not trained on
specific rights and situation of foreign UASC seeking asylum. They very rarely speak
foreign languages. Autonomous Communities staffed with civil officers whose payments
follow civil servants’ scales. Custodians remunerated by private organizations with their
own standards
38 Sweden Remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals. Remuneration is
35
low, although legally it is required to be ―reasonable‖
39 Switzerland Professionalized in Geneva and Zurich; voluntary or benevolent in many other cantons;
remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals in some cantons
40 Turkey Remunerated, but reliant on individuals who are not professionals. If the child cannot
provide the compensation, the treasury will cover the costs. The amount for each term
is determined by the Guardian Authority / Civil Court of Peace.
41 Ukraine Voluntary. Guardians are not remunerated for their work
42 United Kingdom
Table III: Appointment of guardians and their institutional affiliation
COUNTRY GUARDIANS APPOINTED BY GUARDIANS AFFILIATED WITH
Albania Court n/a
Armenia Guardianship committees Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Austria District court (Bezirksgericht) Federal state (Bundesländer) and youth
welfare agency (Organization des
Jugendamtes)
Azerbaijan Local executive Committee bodies n/a
Belarus Local executive and administrative authorities n/a
Belgium Service des Tutelles, the official guardianship Ministry of Justice (for independent guardians,
service of the Ministry of Justice who are also supervised by the Service des
Tutelles and justice of peace); NGOs (for
guardians recruited by NGOs, and also
supervised by the Service des Tutelles and
justice of peace)
Bosnia- Centres for Social Welfare (CSW) in Centres for Social Welfare
Herzegovina Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Republika Srpska. In cantons without a CSW,
there is a municipal service (FBH), or
municipal administrative body (RS)
Bulgaria A municipality mayor or an official designated n/a
by the mayor, is the guardianship/tutor
Croatia Centre for Social Welfare in the region of Centres for Social Welfare
residence
Cyprus Director of the Social Welfare Services acts as n/a
guardian. When a foreign UASC applies for
asylum, authorities notify head of Asylum
Service, who notify the Director
Czech Courts, according to place of residence of Local department of social and legal
Republic child, appoint guardian for asylum proceedings protection whose workers are affiliated with
and for stay of UASC seeking asylum the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; or
NGOs, such as the Organization for Aid to
Refugees, whose legal and social councillors
assume guardianship for UASC for the
duration of the asylum proceedings
Estonia UASC represented by Head of reception n/a
centre or social welfare institution (run by the
36
Ministry of Social Affairs) during asylum
proceedings
Finland Local court, based on proposal by reception Ministry of Labour and reception centres
centre where child is registered. Guardian is where children are registered
independent; does not work for any
organization
Former Centres for Social Work appoint guardians / Centres for Social Welfare
Yugoslav foster families
Republic of
Macedonia
Georgia Government guardianship bodies appoint Ministry of Education and Science (MES)
guardian / custodian
Germany Local Guardianship Court. Four types of Guardianship Court
guardians: (1) private, responsible to the court;
(2) professional (lawyer / social worker), paid
on hourly basis by the court, and supervised by
the court; (3) guardians’ associations
(specialized NGOs, requiring a licence),
reporting to the court, and supervised by their
director; (4) government guardians (in charge
of majority of all cases) and controlled by their
administration
Greece Courts. For non-national UASC asylum- Court and guardianship committee
seekers, a provisional guardian represents
them during refugee status determination.
Different procedures for nationals and non-
nationals
Hungary Local Guardianship Court Guardianship office, which is part of the local
municipality
Ireland Health Service hires qualified social workers Health Service Executive and the courts
who also have the duty to represent the
UASC’s in asylum procedure by deciding on
application for asylum. Differences in
appointment for nationals and non-nationals.
Italy Tribunal for Minors which nominates guardian Tutelary judge
for UASC
Lithuania Director of Municipal Administration for
temporary guardians; the court for permanent
guardians
Luxembourg Caritas (le Service pour Réfugiés) for UASC, Youth judge
or other guardian acceptable to Ministry of
Family
Moldova Director of the Refugee Directorate Child protection authority under the local
public administration
Netherlands Cantonal court, or in the case of UASC, by the NIDOS, funded by the Ministry of Justice:
court at the request of the child protection
agency NIDOS (funded by the Ministry of
Justice). All minors (national and non-national)
are required to have a guardian
Norway The ―upper‖ (or chief) guardian (or Appropriate child welfare authority or non-
―overformynderiet‖, similar to office of public governmental organisation. A nationwide
37
trustee) in all 431 municipalities institution or organisation does not exist. The
Norwegian People’s Aid is developing a pilot
project to focus on improving recruitment and
training of guardians, to be implemented
nationwide
Poland Regional family court where UASC resides; or Office for Repatriation and Aliens
Office for Repatriation and Aliens (custodians); institutions/ NGOs in charge of
UASC (legal guardians)
Romania Local Directorate for Child Protection Local Directorate for Child Protection, of
which guardians are members (graduates of
faculties of law or social assistance).
Russian State body or education department in charge n/a
Federation of guardianship issues in the regional
administration
Serbia Centre for Social Welfare, and its branches in Centres for Social Welfare
each municipality in Serbia, under the direct
control of the Ministry of Labour, Employment
and Social Policy
Slovak Court District Office of Labour, Social Affairs and
Republic Family
Slovenia Centres for social work (governmental Slovene Philanthropy
institutions within the Ministry of Labour,
Family and Social Affairs), on the proposal of
the centre where a child is accommodated
(Centre for foreigners or Asylum Home).
Slovene Philanthropy, an NGO and UNHCR
implementing partner, has an informal
agreement with the centres for social work to
provide guardians to UASC. A new family law
being prepared stipulates that courts will be
responsible for appointing guardians
Spain Protection of Minors Department of the NGOs or religious institutions
corresponding Autonomous Community or
City. Non-national UASC are under the
competency of each Autonomous Community,
which is the legal guardian
Sweden Chief guardianship authorities, the Chief Guardian, and also the Migration Board
―Överförmyndarnämnden‖, in all of Sweden’s and municipal social services
290 municipalities
Switzerland Civil Court in Geneva; Social Welfare Service Department of Justice and Department of
or NGOs in other cantons Education (Geneva / Zurich)
Turkey Guardian Authority/Civil Court of Peace Civil Court of Peace
Ukraine Specialized departments (services for minors) n/a
in the local state administration at district level
and in executive committees of local districts’
and cities’ councils. In the villages, the
executive committees of the village councils
deal directly with guardianship issues. c)
Special Guardianship committees are
established to support the work of the Services
for Minors. New reforms plan to assign these
38
issues to the Ministry of Family, Youth and
Sports, specifically under its specialized
division of State Department for Adoption and
Child Rights
United No guardianship system; UASC seeking n/a
Kingdom asylum are not appointed guardians
Table IV: Duties of guardians
COUNTRY DUTIES / ROLE OF GUARDIANS
1 Albania All the listed duties, except accommodation: care arrangements; education; integration
support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child; Best Interests
of the Child (BID); family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers;
Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal counselling/legal
representation; identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration
2 Armenia Only the following duties: accommodation; care arrangements; education; integration
support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child
3 Austria A guardian’s duties are care and education, and are legally defined in the Civil Code of
Austria (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch / ABGB). Duties also include health,
direct supervision, all-round development and accommodation arrangements. Duties
regularly performed by guardians include Best Interests of the Child (BID) and
monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child; responsibilities delegated third parties
include all the duties listed: accommodation, care arrangements; education; integration
support; health services; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation
transfers; Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal
counselling/legal representation; and identification of durable solutions / return /
repatriation / integration. In practice, the youth welfare agency (Organisation des
Jugendamtes) fails—or performs inefficiently—its duties as a guardian.
4 Azerbaijan Accommodation; care arrangements; education; and health services
5 Belarus Accommodation; care arrangements; education; integration support; health services;
Best Interests of the Child (BID); Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures;
access to legal counselling / legal representation; identification of durable
solutions/return /repatriation/integration
6 Belgium The duties of a guardian are clearly stated in the sixth chapter of the Programme-Law
(Loi-programme) of 24 December 2002 on guardianship of UASC: ―The guardian is
responsible for representing the separated child in all legal acts and procedures related
to entry into the territory and residence, as well as any other administrative or judicial
procedure. The guardian is to ask, without delay, the assistance of a solicitor, take care
of the separated child in person, ensure that s/he is given adequate accommodation,
ensure his/her social, mental, medical and developmental well-being, as well as respect
for his/her fundamental rights such as access to education. The guardian must
administer the minor’s assets, take responsibility for the tracing of family members and
for identifying a durable solution‖. Guardians make sure that the following are ensured
for every UASC in their best interest: accommodation; care arrangements; education;
integration support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child;
family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers; Refugee Status
Determination (RSD) procedures: DII and RSD conducted by Aliens’ Office (l'Office des
Étrangers), but guardian must be present in decision-making / interviews; access to
legal counselling / legal representation; identification of durable solutions / return /
39
repatriation / integration.
7 Bosnia and All the listed duties, in accordance with the best interest of the child. Guardians report to
Herzegovina the Center for Social Welfare and, in many cases, a member of the CSW staff performs
guardianship duties: accommodation; care arrangements; education; integration
support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child; Best Interests
of the Child (BID); family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers;
Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal counselling/legal
representation; identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration
8 Bulgaria Accommodation: minor lives with guardian, or state institution; care arrangements;
education; integration support: no; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation
of the child: no; Best Interests of the Child (BID): no; family tracing, family reunification,
Dublin II Regulation transfers: n/a; Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures;
access to legal counselling/legal representation; identification of durable solutions /
return / repatriation / integration: n/a. No special arrangement concerning guardianship
in respect to asylum seeking and non-national children
9 Croatia Croatian Family Law does not specify the expected duties of a guardian. The Center for
Social Welfare (CSW)—a locally-based state-run social care institution—determines the
duties of the guardian (taking into account the particular needs of the child) which
include, but are not limited to: accommodation and care arrangements (a process in
which the guardian, appointed by the CSW, participates); education and integration
support: these are among the duties of the guardian although, in practice, this is ―not
evident‖; health services: non-national UASC only entitled to emergency health
services; monitoring / reporting on the situation of the child: guardian expected to report
on UASC’s situation every six months (or more frequently, if requested by CSW); and
taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the guardian should assist in the
other listed duties, although no evidence is provided that it occurs in practice
10 Cyprus According to the Children Law where a child, regardless of nationality or legal status, is
in the care of the guardian, who is the Director of Social Welfare Services (SWS), it
shall be the duty of the director to exercise any powers with respect to the child so as to
further the child’s best interests. Accommodation: UASC—both those who have and
those who have not filed for asylum—may be accommodated with a foster family;
relatives; or a foster home, at the discretion of the director of SWS; care arrangements,
including provision of welfare allowance to minors in need; education: UASC asylum-
seekers have access to public educational institutions (primary and high school
education is free and compulsory) under the same conditions as nationals. Additionally,
the SWS, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Culture, has overall
responsibility for education of UASC asylum seekers; integration support: while the draft
law on asylum and refugees provides for integration support to refugees and
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, regardless of their age, no specific
provisions for the integration support of other groups of minors are provided in the
national laws; health services: free for UASC under 16 who are not asylum seekers or
refugees, and are in the care of the SWS; monitoring / reporting on the situation of the
child; best interests of the child; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation
transfers; refugee status determination procedures; access to legal counselling/legal
representation arranged by director of SWS for UASC; identification of durable solutions
/ return / repatriation/integration: No specific procedures are identified in the national
laws
11 Czech Republic According to Department of Asylum and Migration Policy (OAMP) of the Interior
Ministry, guardians’ duties include monitoring social and medical care provided to
UASC; living requirements; access to education; and ensuring that minors’ interests are
met in all 11 areas. However, the prevailing practice remains short of the expected
duties and roles by the resident guardians, and their focus remains mainly on areas
related to institutional care and treatment. Care arrangements; education; health
services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child; Best Interests of the Child
40
(BID): the principle of the ―interest and welfare‖ of the minor is outlined in the Act on the
Family and in the Law on Social and Legal Protection of Children. But, in practice, the
principle of primary consideration for the best interests of the child is still not adequately
defined and reflected in all legislation, court decisions and policies affecting children.
There is also insufficient research and training for professionals in this respect Many
guardians lack appropriate expertise in dealing with stay of UASC, particularly
upholding the best interests of the child. Family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II
Regulation transfers: Office for International Legal Protection of Children under Ministry
of Labour and Social Affairs undertakes tracing of family members of UASC, pursuant to
Art. 35(2)j of the Act on the Social and Legal Protection of Children. However, tracing
mechanisms in the Czech Republic are not functioning. The few reported cases of
family reunification involving UASC are usually dealt with by NGOs and the Ministry of
Education, which manages special facilities where UASCs are accommodated. Refugee
Status Determination (RSD) procedures: Because of conflicting positions of local
departments for social and legal protection of children regarding appointment of
guardians, the involvement of resident guardian for UASC asylum proceedings remains
limited. Consequently, resident guardians refuse to exercise role of guardianship for the
entire administrative proceedings, and only participate in asylum interviews. Hence,
NGO legal counsellors continue to assume a de facto guardian role for the asylum
procedure by working closely with the resident guardians assigned to each asylum
seeking UASC
12 Denmark
13 Estonia A guardian is the legal representative of a minor, and is required to attend to the raising
and maintenance of a child
14 Finland In Finland, a guardian’s duties are not precisely defined and, usually, it is up to the
guardians themselves to define their own duties. According to Law on Integration of
Immigrants and Reception of Asylum Seekers (No. 493) of 9 April 1999 (Integration
Act), a representative may be appointed for UASC who has been given temporary
shelter or who has applied for asylum, and with no guardian. Representative’s duty is to
supervise the interests of the child, having regard to the child’s national, linguistic,
religious and educational background. Other functions include the right to speak on
matters concerning the child and to decide (in practice, with other social workers) on
matters pertaining to the child’s accommodation. The representative is not responsible
for the daily upbringing and care of the child. That duty is left to group homes
established in association with reception centres. Principal practical duties of
representative are to supervise the interests of the child before public authorities and
courts of law. Accommodation: in accordance with the Integration Act, the
representative decides where the child will be placed; care arrangements; education: no
instructions or guidelines on this. However, state reception centres take care of
arrangements concerning education of UASC during asylum process, as well as
integration support and health services for UASC. Best Interests of the Child (BID):
Although the Integration Act refers to protecting the ―child’s interests‖, there is no
formal best interests determination; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II
Regulation transfers: family tracing is undertaken by Red Cross. With the new Aliens
Act (301/2004), the Directorate of Immigration will be responsible for family tracing
(finding parents, etc) to ―further the interest‖ of UASC, and also have access to
confidential information about UASC from staff of reception centres, as stipulated by
Sections 42 and 43 of the Integration Act (493/1999). NGOs are critical of this change,
since it would jeopardize the quality of care of UASC by making staff report private
matters against the will of UASC. This change would make role of guardians more
sensitive (ie, would they be able to betray obligations of trust and confidentiality?). As
regards family reunification, the duty of the guardian is to complete the application. If
reunification occurs, the guardian’s duty is over, and the guardian is no longer paid.
Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures: in practice, a guardian is to be
41
present at asylum interview, and ensure that a minor gets the necessary legal help as
well as access to legal counselling/legal representation, including from lawyers at the
Refugee Advice Centre, or from other lawyers. Identification of durable solutions / return
/ repatriation / integration: duties include negotiating with social workers and possible
relatives, and listening to the child’s views about the best DS for the child.
15 Former The social protection system for children in Macedonia includes both institutional and
Yugoslav non-institutional aspects. Institutional protection activities are carried out by the Centers
Republic of for Social Welfare (CSW, under the Department for Social Protection, within the Ministry
Macedonia of Labour and Social Policy) in each municipality, while non-institutional social
protection may take the form of placement of UASC with foster families. Guardianship
duties are performed by the CSW, either directly or through a guardian. Furthermore,
Article 209 of the Law on Family provides that while appointing a guardian, the CSW
shall determine the scope of the duties and rights of the guardian, depending on the
circumstances of each individual case. Accommodation, care arrangements, and
education are provided by both guardians (including the CSW, if it is a direct guardian)
and foster families; integration support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the
situation of the child: guardian obliged to report annually to CSW. For foster families,
this is not a legal obligation; Best Interests of the Child (BID): although mandatory, it is
not carried out regularly for refugee children; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II
Regulation transfers: undertaken by CSWs, in coordination with UNHCR. No Dublin II
Regulation transfers, since this Regulation is not yet binding for Macedonia; Refugee
Status Determination (RSD) procedures: both guardians and foster parents actively
protect the interests of the child, together with legal representatives throughout RSD;
access to legal counselling / legal representation: guardians and foster parents in
constant touch with legal representatives who are lawyers of UNHCR-supported legal
NGO network. No legal counselling/legal representation provided by the state;
identification of durable solutions/return/repatriation/integration: CSWs undertake DS, in
consultation with the guardian (to a much lesser extent with a foster parents), and
coordinates these activities with UNHCR
16 France UASC have no single guardian or adviser to ensure access to accommodation, care
arrangements, education, health services, etc. Guardians are UASC’s legal
representatives, and have a general role. A narrower role is assigned by law to ad hoc
administrators (l’administrateur ad hoc / AAH). The AAH assist UASC who do not have
legal representation during their stay in the ―waiting zone‖ and also ensure
representation in all administrative and judicial procedures, including RSD and asylum
registration. UASC can also request competent NGOs for legal assistance. NGOs—
such as the Service social d’aide aux émigrants (SSAE) or France Terre d’Asile—can
also help UASC with access to social care, legal representation and RSD
17 Georgia According to Article 1289 on ―Duties of Guardian and Curator‖ of the Georgia Civil
Code, a guardian / curator is obliged to support a child under guardianship
(curatorship), ―create essential living conditions, provide him/her with care and medical
treatment, safeguard his/her rights and interests‖. The duties of a guardian and a
curator are performed free of charge (Article 1288).
18 Germany A guardian’s duties include clarifying a minor’s identity, checking opportunities for family
reunification, clarifying reasons for leaving, etc., in cooperation with responsible
authorities, such as the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the Aliens
Authority (Ausländerbehörde) and the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt). Guardian’s
views taken into account regarding decisions on accommodation: in the case of a
UASC under 16 entering Germany, the guardian has to find an appropriate youth
welfare center for accommodation of the minor. In the case of a UASC over 16, the
placement is in an initial accommodation centre with adult asylum seekers; care
arrangements provided by (special) accommodation centres, children’s homes or
refugee children’s hostels according to welfare needs of UASC; education: selection of
local school and registration of minor at the school; integration support: includes mainly
42
provision of accommodation and education (prior to granting of permanent residence
permit); health services: monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child: guardian to
report annually to guardianship court. Care institutions report to guardian on situation of
minor, esp in emergency-situations (health, crime, school problems, etc); Best Interests
of the Child (Best Interests Determination/BID): guiding principle in all decisions taken
by the guardian on behalf of the minor; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II
Regulation transfers; Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures: guardian
applies for asylum or subsidiary protection for minors under 16. Without guardian,
application cannot be registered. Guardian may also engage a lawyer to support asylum
case. Access to legal counselling / legal representation: usually organizes legal
representation for child. In the Federal State of Hesse the guardianship court names a
lawyer to represent the minor, who is financed by the Hesse Ministry of justice;
identification of durable solutions/return/repatriation/integration: a guardian is part of the
planning process for DS, and has to approve measures taken by the Youth Welfare
Office. Major obstacle to DS is lack of legal perspective: only a toleration permit
(Duldung) is given, rather than a residence permit
19 Greece Greek refugee law specifies that the guardians’ duties are only to assist UASC for the
duration of the asylum process. In reality, very few UASC asylum-seekers have a
guardian appointed. The Public Prosecutor for Minors play only a cursory role and does
not work toward the best protection and care of UASC. The legislative framework
governing the protection of UASC, including guardianship issues, needs substantial
improvement in Greece.
20 Hungary Accommodation: Not the expected duty of a guardian, but of the RSD officer (asylum-
seekers) and Guardianship Office (recognized refugees). Care arrangements: for
asylum seekers and recognized refugees; Education: only for refugees; Health services:
for refugees; Monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child: only for refugees; Best
Interests of the Child (BID): for asylum seekers and refugees; family tracing, family
reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers; Refugee Status Determination (RSD)
procedures; access to legal counselling/legal representation; identification of durable
solutions / return / repatriation / integration
21 Iceland
22 Ireland Guardian/social worker expected to fulfil a role in relation to all of the listed duties.
However, in practice the role and involvement may vary. Accommodation: Typically,
majority of children stay in privately managed hostel accommodation (rather than
childcare centres), without sufficient adult supervision or necessary contact with social
worker/guardian; care arrangements; education; integration support; health services;
monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child: carried out to the extent there are
resources available; Best Interests of the Child (BID); family tracing, family reunification,
Dublin II Regulation transfers: little is done in the area of family tracing abroad. Family
reunification is mainly in relation to family in Ireland; Refugee Status Determination
(RSD) procedures: The role of the Health Executive Service/social worker in RSD
procedures includes taking decision to lodge an application in the first place. Social
worker present during interviews at both first instance and appeal, but are not involved
in judicial review procedures before courts. Social worker may sometimes takes over
duties of guardian, including supporting UASC during RSD; access to legal
counselling/legal representation; identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation
/ integration
23 Italy Guardians can request legal counselling / representation. They represent UASC in legal
and administrative procedures. Must be informed of, and involved in, every step of
asylum procedure. Be present during all interviews with UASC for RSD. Manage
minor’s properties, if any, and ensure all decisions are taken in the best interests of the
child. Accommodation and care are under the family / person or social services whom
the minor is granted into custody. Guardian must be informed and involved in all stages
of the RSD. No obligation for durable solutions.
43
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania Duties of the guardian/curator include ensuring the child’s care, education, best
interests determination, family tracing and family reunification
26 Luxembourg In addition to assisting in the asylum procedure, and in the daily life of the minor, a
guardian’s duty includes assistance with accommodation; care arrangements;
education; integration support; health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of
the child; Best Interests of the Child (BID); family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II
Regulation transfers; Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal
counselling / legal representation; identification of durable solutions / return /
repatriation / integration
27 Moldova The guardian’s duty is to represent the minor. Legal counselling available to all UASC
asylum seekers.
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Accommodation: a guardian’s duty is to ensure UASC receive appropriate
accommodation. However, the reception of asylum-seeking UASC is the duty of the
Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA), an independent
administrative body funded by the Ministry of Justice. COA reception centres
accommodate UASC during the asylum procedure. UASC under 15 are generally
lodged with foster families by the Nidos Foundation (a guardianship institution
subsidized by the Ministry of Justice). The role of the guardian also includes ensuring
appropriate care arrangements; education; integration support; health services; and
monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child; the Best Interests of the Child (BID);
family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers; Refugee Status
Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal counselling/legal representation; and
identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration.
30 Norway A guardian’s duty includes ensuring that the child’s rights are met when it comes to
accommodation, care arrangements, education, integration support, health services,
monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child, Best Interests of the Child (BID), family
tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers, Refugee Status
Determination (RSD) procedures, access to legal counselling / legal representation, and
identification of durable solutions (DS) / return / repatriation / integration. The guardian
is not responsible for daily care, as this the responsibility of the immigration authority.
Considerable variation, in practice, in the quality of guardianship. The guardian can
have an important role in helping UASC to provide more background information to
immigration authorities, which again can have impact on the outcome of the child’s
application
31 Poland Accommodation: obligation of Office for Repatriation and Aliens (ORA) and custodian;
care arrangements: custodian; education: custodian; integration support: orphanages;
health services: ORA, custodian; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child: legal
guardian, custodian; best interests of the child (BID): legal guardian and custodian;
family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers: ORA, custodian;
refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedure: legal guardian; access to legal
counselling/legal representation: legal guardian; identification of durable solutions /
return / repatriation / integration: orphanages
32 Romania Accommodation: for UASC over 16, accommodation in National Refugee Office (NRO)
reception / accommodation centres; for UASC under 16, accommodation in shelters of
local Directorates for Child Protection (manager of shelter is usually the legal guardian);
care arrangements: staff (case manager, psychologist, doctor) of local shelter of
Directorate for Child Protection) or staff (social worker, doctor) of NRO Reception
Centres; education: NRO and/or NGO Save the Children Romania; integration support;
health services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child: in practice, by
UNHCR-funded NGO staff who assist UASC and report to UNHCR; Best Interests of
the Child (BID): not formally safeguarded in practice due to a narrow interpretation of
44
article 73 of the ―Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child
(272/2004)‖; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers: initiated
by NRO, with involvement of the Authority for Aliens, according to Law on Asylum.
Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures: duties of legal guardians (appointed
within/for duration of RSD procedures) is strictly limited, in practice, to these
procedures. Guardian submits asylum application (if child is under 14) and (if over 14)
assists with asylum application, accompanying child through RSD. The role of this legal
guardian ceases when the RSD is finalized. Access to legal counselling / legal
representation: acc. to protocols concluded between NGOs and NRO, NGO lawyer with
UNHCR-funded project has access to NRO Reception Centres to identify UASC for
legal counselling and representation; identification of durable solutions / return /
repatriation / integration: Authority for Aliens deals with return and repatriation while
NRO deals with integration.
33 Russian Chechnya: The role of the state body in charge of guardianship issues includes
Federation accommodation, education, health services and access to legal counselling / legal
(including representation arrangements
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia A guardian has the right and the duty to act as legal representative, and have a say in
all proceedings beyond the child’s business and procedural ability. The protection
system for children revolves around the guardianship body known as Centre for Social
Welfare (CSW) which has branches in each municipality in Serbia and is under the
direct control of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy. If it is in the best
interest of a child, the CSW can decide not to appoint a guardian for the child, but to
perform the role directly. Guardians have a duty to report to the CSW annually and,
when their guardianship is over, prepare a final report, which may also be requested at
any time by the CSW
35 Slovak Republic
36 Slovenia Accommodation; care arrangements; education; integration support; health services;
family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation; and Refugee Status
Determination (RSD) procedures are not the expected duties of guardians, although
they may assist authorities, in the best interests of the UASC. Asylum-seeking and non-
national UASC are not entitled to secondary education or vocational training, and may
only receive emergency health care. Duties of guardians include: monitoring/reporting
on the situation of the child; the best interests of the child (BID); access to legal
counselling/legal representation; and identification of durable solutions / return /
repatriation / integration. No guidelines exist where a guardian’s role is defined more
clearly
37 Spain The Child Protection Service takes responsibility in promoting the child’s best interests,
ensuring proper care; education; legal assistance when necessary; and family tracing,
which is one of the first tasks of the Child Protection Services
38 Sweden The role and involvement of a guardian varies with each individual. In Sweden, a
custodian basically fulfils the duties that a parent/primary caregiver would in terms of
decision-making about personal, financial and judicial matters. The duties and roles of
the custodian and legal counsel are not exhaustively defined in legislation, but
sometimes elaborated on in preparatory works and in general principles concerning
parental responsibility. Accommodation: duty of municipality to ensure that minor has
accommodation and support, but it is the custodian who decides whether minor should
remain in a particular accommodation; custodian assists in care arrangements;
education; integration support (although this duty is not clearly defined); health services;
monitoring / reporting on the situation of the child: it is implicit in role of custodian that
the well-being of a child is monitored, as are the Best Interests of the Child (BID); family
tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers; Refugee Status
45
Determination (RSD) procedures; access to legal counselling/legal representation: in
custodian’s absence, a legal counsel submits application for asylum on behalf of child;
identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration
39 Switzerland The Swiss Federal Asylum Act, 1998, stipulates that each canton has to appoint a
―person of confidence/trust‖ whose duty it is to represent the child’s best interests
throughout asylum proceedings. Accommodation; care arrangements; education: with a
special effort to integrate UASC in normal school classes; integration support; health
services; monitoring/reporting on the situation of the child to a competent court; best
interests of the child; family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation transfers;
refugee status determination by mandating a legal representative for the asylum
procedure ; and identification of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration
40 Turkey Accommodation, care, education, integration, health, best interests of the child, family
tracing/family reunification, RSD, access to legal representation, DS, financial
management. Duties also include submission of reports on execution of their duties to
the Guardian Authority / Civil Court of Peace
41 Ukraine Accommodation: guardian / trustee shares accommodation with minor. For minors
under State care, only temporary hostel accommodation provided by State. Care
arrangements: guardian’s duties relate to protection of property / financial assets of
minor. Education: children in State care have equal access to pre-school, basic,
secondary and extracurricular education, and are free to engage in community-service
or other socially beneficial work. Integration support: only in cases where an asylum-
seeking UASC is assigned a guardian for RSD and recognized as a refugee. However,
no UASC has been granted refugee status as yet by the authorities (therefore, no
integration). Health services: provided for children under State care (who are
accommodated with foster families or shelters for children) by medical institutions under
local authorities and councils. In those ―rare cases‖ when a guardian is assigned to
asylum-seeking UASC, the guardian’s duties do not include the Best Interests of the
Child (BID); family tracing, family reunification, Dublin II Regulation (the latter regulation
is not applicable to the Ukraine); Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures
(RSD is limited to representing UASC asylum-seekers during process of submission of
asylum application); access to legal counselling/legal representation (this is available to
UASCs through NGOs working as UNHCR implementing partners who provide legal
services for asylum-seekers and refugees in different regions of Ukraine); identification
of durable solutions / return / repatriation / integration.
42 United Kingdom The Refugee Council Children’s Panel (RCCP), a SCEP partner, works directly with
UASC, giving advice to those involved in their support. RCCP—the only national service
of its kind—employs fully supported advisers, many of whom speak the languages of
the UASC they are working with. The RCCP advisers assist UASC through RSD, and
work with them to ensure that they access services to which they are entitled. This may
mean ensuring that the UASC has the child has access to legal representation, as well
as to social services departments or with health services professionals. It is often the
case that the only adult who plays a consistent role in the UASC’s asylum process is
the legal representative, who may be potentially in a conflict of interest as neither social
services nor the foster parent (when there is one) acquire parental responsibility or the
right to act and give instruction on the child’s behalf in legal proceedings. The solicitor
therefore has only the child to obtain instruction from even though the child is often not
mature enough and does not always have the capacity, either mentally, legally or
intellectually, to give full instructions. While the RCCP has played an important role in
assisting some UASC to access services, it is widely acknowledged that the RCCP
does not have sufficient resources or powers to be considered a ―guardian‖. Unlike in
asylum proceedings, the function of a guardian does exist in family court proceedings.
However, the guardianship role of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service (CAFCASS)—formed as a statutory body in 2001 to act as a guardian for
children going through the family court system—is limited to family court proceedings,
46
and does not deal with non-national UASC, except in the context of family law matters.
Table V: Competencies of guardians
COMPETENCIES / ATTRIBUTES COUNTRIES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES /
PERCENTAGE
No specific competencies Armenia, BiH, Bulgaria, Czech 9 countries / 21 per cent
No standard criteria on competencies; no Republic, Finland, Greece,
clear provision of required competencies; Norway, Spain, Ukraine,
competencies not defined, or not available
Level of conduct Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 14 countries / 33 per cent
Personal qualities, standards or codes of Belgium, Former Yugolsav
ethics, propriety, integrity; certificate of Republic of Macedonia,
good character Georgia, Greece, Italy,
Lithuania, Moldova, Serbia,
Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey
Relationship Albania, Former Yugolsav 6 countries / 14 per cent
Guardian is a family member; close Republic of Macedonia,
relative; family friend; neighbour; foster Greece, Italy, Serbia, Ukraine
parent
Heads of institutions Albania, Ukraine 2 countries / 5 per cent
Guardians chosen from among heads of
orphanages or child-care institutions
Capability or suitability Armenia, Austria, Belarus, 18 countries / 43 per cent
Suitability, capability, competence; capacity Croatia, Czech Republic,
to perform guardianship duties, including Finland, Former Yugolsav
expertise in child care and safeguarding Republic of Macedonia, France,
child’s rights and best interests Georgia, Greece, Italy,
Lithuania, Moldova,
Netherlands, Norway,
Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey
Guardian-ward relation Armenia, Belarus, Former 5 countries / 12 per cent
Appropriate relationship between potential Yugolsav Republic of
guardian and minor Macedonia, Georgia, Lithuania
Child’s opinion of potential guardian Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, 4 countries / 10 per cent
Ingushetia (Russian
Federation),
Independence Belgium 1 country / 2 per cent
Guardian not employed by government or
working in a reception capacity for UASC,
as this is presumed to be in conflict of
interest with minor
Attitude toward child Armenia 1 country / 2 per cent
Attitude of guardian’s family toward child
Education (social work) Austria, Germany, Ireland, 10 countries / 24 per cent
Background, education or formal training in Luxembourg, Netherlands,
social work; social competency Poland, Romania, Spain,
47
Switzerland (Geneva/Zurich),
United Kingdom
Education (in law) Austria, Germany, Russian 6 countries / 14 per cent
Background, education or formal training in Federation, Switzerland
law; legal understanding of asylum (Geneva/Zurich), Ukraine,
procedures; legal welfare officers United Kingdom
Avoiding conflicts of interest Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, 8 countries / 19 per cent
No conflict of interest between potential Lithuania, Serbia, Slovenia,
guardian and minor; interests not contrary Turkey, Ukraine
to those of the child; not engaged in judicial
procedure against the child
Education not a consideration Belgium, Finland, Italy, Spain 4 countries / 10 per cent
No special education, formal qualifications
or training
Specific training Austria, Belgium, Ukraine 3 countries / 7 per cent
Trained guardians; specific training (for
foster parents) to cope with particular
problems of asylum-seeking UASC
Consent Croatia, Ingushetia (Russian 3 countries / 7 per cent
Consenting to be a guardian and carrying Federation), Slovenia
out guardianship duties
Proximity France 1 country / 2 per cent
Living near minor
Table VI: Required competencies of guardians
COUNTRY REQUIRED COMPETENCIES
1 Albania The only requirement is blood affiliation, which is an advantage. Guardianship is also
automatically given to persons who are heads of institutions where minors stay, such as
orphanages
2 Armenia No specific competencies provided for by law. Emphasis on standards of morality.
Article 135 of the Family Code of the Republic of Armenia provides that only ―capable‖
persons can be appointed guardians of children, with their consent. Key considerations
include ethical and other personal features; ability to fulfil obligations; relations between
the child and guardian; attitude of the guardian’s family members toward the child; as
well as the child’s will, if possible. Those not acceptable as guardians include persons
with alcohol or drug addictions; criminals; those excluded from guardianship duties or
parental rights; and those who cannot fulfil their duties due to weak health
3 Austria Federal states are obliged to provide suitable and trained staff for purposes of
guardianship, including a legal welfare officer (rechtsfürsorger), as guaranteed in the
Asylum Law for legal and financial matters; and a social worker to secure adequate
care and education. If private persons are appointed to guardianship by the court,
factors such as family and personal relationship, integrity, and life experience are taken
into account.
4 Azerbaijan According to Article 137 of the Family Code, adults with appropriate moral values; and
without alcoholic or drug addictions.
5 Belarus According to Article 152 of the Family Code, personal qualities and the ability to fulfil
guardianship duties are to be taken into account, as well as relations between the
48
potential guardian and child, and the UASC’s opinion in regard of the former
6 Belgium Anyone may apply to become a guardian, providing they can show a certificate of good
character and demonstrate that no conflict of interest exists between applicant and
minor. To be appointed as guardian, it is not necessary to have had any special
education. However, prior to appointment as guardian, specific training—organized by
the ―Service des Tutelles‖—is required to cope with the particular problems of UASC
and to establish a relationship of trust with the minor. A guardian should also be
independent and not employed by the Federal Public Service of the Ministry of the
Interior; the Aliens’ Office; the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless
Persons / Commissariat Général aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides (CGRA); or the
Permanent Appeals Commission for Refugees / Commission permanente de recours
des réfugiés (CPRR), as these offices are presumed to be in a conflict of interest with
the minor. Also, individuals who help decide on the residence of the minor (that is, the
staff of the Aliens’ Office or CGRA), or individuals engaged in judicial procedures
against the minor, are not eligible to become guardians. As a result, there has been
concern regarding the handling of guardianships of non-national UASC by those without
appropriate backgrounds and competencies in law or social work and who, therefore,
may not be familiar with the issues with which they are required to deal. NGOs have
therefore suggested the idea of professional guardianship, which has received the
support of UNHCR. Guardians also cannot be designated to a particular minor if they
work in any reception capacity in respect of the UASC concerned
7 Bosnia and Those (usually relatives) who meet local conditions to become guardians. However, no
Herzegovina standard criteria on competencies. According to BiH Family Law, the opinions of UASC
or relatives shall be taken into consideration. Also according to this law, guardians are
not chosen among those deprived of parental rights or income-generating capacity; or
whose interests are contrary to the child’s; or who show inappropriate personal
attributes
8 Bulgaria No clear provision of required competencies. The Bulgarian Family Code sets down
conditions under which a person cannot be a member of the Guardians’ Council, or a
tutor. These are: alcoholism, sickness, immorality, and interests contrary to those of the
child
9 Croatia Croatian Family Law provides for a guardian with qualities and capacities for carrying
out guardianship duties, and who accepts those duties. A guardian is obliged to look
after the child, as well as the child’s rights and interests. In the Family Law, a guardian
cannot be someone who is deprived of parenting duties or earning capacity; whose
interests are contrary to those of the child; or whose behaviour suggests that
guardianship duties would not be suitably carried out. Also, UNHCR and Centre for
Social Policy Initiatives consider that guardians should have necessary expertise in
child care to ensure that the child’s interests are safeguarded; that the child’s needs are
appropriately covered during the stay in a foreign country; and until the best durable
solution for the child has been identified and implemented.
10 Cyprus UNHCR: Not relevant
11 Czech Republic Concrete information as to the required competencies to become a guardian is not
available. However, these competencies are necessary to carry out the duties of a
residence guardian in protecting the rights of asylum seekers under 18 years, as well as
their ―legally protected interests‖, in accordance with Article 89 of the Asylum Act. The
Department of Asylum and Migration Policy (OAMP) of the Interior states that ―the
guardian must be able to create or arrange for the child optimum living conditions, fulfil
his/her needs and protect/enforce the implementation of the child’s best interests‖.
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland The law sets the requirements at a very general level. No formal qualifications, except
49
that the guardian has to be suitable, and able to carry out the duties in the child’s best
interests. Some guardians have a good deal of experience in working with young
people and/or children with immigrant backgrounds; others have a long career in child
welfare. There are also guardians with limited experience, and varied educational
backgrounds. No formal qualifications are required, nor is any training.
15 Former The Law on Family regulates guardianship competencies. It stipulates that a guardian
Yugoslav should primarily be a close relative of the ward, but does not exclude neighbours or
Republic of family friends from being appointed as guardians. Other required competencies include
Macedonia having appropriate personal traits and skills to perform guardianship duties; consenting
to being a guardian; not being deprived of parental rights or the capacity to act; not
having interests contrary to those of the ward; being morally eligible for the job; and
having a suitable relationship with the ward, and the ward’s parents. In regard to foster
families, care is taken to observe criteria in relation to age, education, health status,
moral eligibility, material conditions, and housing conditions.
16 France The ad hoc administrator (l’administrateur ad hoc / AAH) requires a competent person
between 35-70 years, who has consistently shown an interest in child issues, lives near
the minor and has no criminal record.
17 Georgia In selecting a guardian or curator—according to Article 1282 of the country’s Civil
Code—the following shall be taken into consideration: personal qualities, ability to
perform the task assigned, relations with the subject of curatorship (guardianship) and,
where applicable, the wish of the subject of curatorship (guardianship). According to
Article 1283, persons not eligible to be guardian or curator include the following
persons: minors (under 18); without active legal capacity, or with restricted legal
capacity; deprived of parental rights; those for whom adoption has been invalidated
because of inadequate performance of duties; those who have been relieved of the
performance of duties of a guardian or curator due to inadequate performance of the
duties thereof.
18 Germany While private guardians do not need special competencies in law, they must prove to
have social competencies in the exercise of their duties. In practice, however, they also
need a legal understanding of the asylum procedure. Guardianship associations may
help them to fulfil their duties. These associations have also to pass a licensing
process. The central youth welfare administration requires associations to employ
social workers as guardians, and the guardianship associations are responsible for the
adequate training of their staff.
19 Greece No specific competencies. Guardian should be a moral person, and even a close
relative of the minor, who is suitable to perform a guardian’s duties, specifically, the
refugee status determination (RSD)
20 Hungary While different forms of guardianship are stipulated by law (eg., parental guardianship,
guardianship by relatives, guardianship by other appropriate persons, etc.), a guardian
must be over 18, a citizen of Hungary, and not excluded by law (that is, not be under
guardianship, punished by court, excluded by testament, or by the Guardianship Office,
according to the Act on Family and Guardianship)
21 Iceland
22 Ireland Formal training required for guardian / social worker, recognized by the National Social
Work Qualifications Board (NSWQB), which usually means a degree in social work.
23 Italy The guardian should be ―suitable‖ and of certified good behaviour, and give guarantee
of sufficient educational capacity. Judge may appoint person possibly indicated by
parents or, in lack of such indication, preference is given to close relative of minor
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania In theory, a child’s guardian (or curator) is selected on the basis of personal qualities,
state of health, abilities to function as a guardian / curator, relations with the UASC, and
the interests of the child.
50
26 Luxembourg Guardian needs to be a social worker
27 Moldova According to the Moldovan Family Code, a guardian should be personally and morally
eligible, and be capable of carrying out a guardian’s duties
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Guardians are trained professional social workers with certificates (Hoger Beroeps
Onderwijs / HBO) from an institute of higher education in social work, and social and
legal services. More specifically, they have been trained as ―youth protectors‖
(Jeugdbeschermer). Special pedagogical training is not required. Assistance from
specialized organizations is requested when necessary.
30 Norway While a guardian has to be ―suitable‖ for the task, according to the Guardianship Act,
the term ―suitable‖ is not defined. Except for ―suitability‖, there appear to be no other
formal requirements. Asking to see a certificate of good conduct is not permitted. An
act specifically on guardianship for UASC is reportedly under consideration by group
appointed by the Minister of Justice
31 Poland Custodian required to fulfil the criteria for social workers, according to Article 116 of the
Social Assistance Act, and obtain appropriate academic qualifications (in pedagogy,
psychology, social politics, sociology or family studies). The legal guardian is required
to be over 18, and exercise full civil rights
32 Romania By law, a guardian’s competencies should include a university degree in law or social
assistance
33 Russian Ingushetia: According to Russian legislation (Articles 35 and 36 of the Civil Code of the
Federation Russian Federation and Article 146 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation), only
(including legally capable persons can become guardians. They are appointed on the basis of
Chechnya and their consent, and of their specific characteristics; capacity to perform their duties; the
Ingushetia) relationship between the potential guardian and the minor, and—if possible—also the
consent of the minor. The law also specifically mentions possible causes of exclusion,
such as chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, other health-related impediments or
previous dismissal from guardianship duties
34 Serbia Serbian Family Law stipulates that a guardian requires personal qualities and abilities
needed for that function. In taking up guardianship, priority is given to family members,
relatives and foster parents. This Law also stipulates that a guardian should not be
someone who is fully or partially deprived of civil capacity or parental rights; whose
interests are in collision with those of the child; whose personal relations with the child,
the child’s parents, or other relatives, is such as to prevent the guardian’s duties being
carried out in an acceptable manner.
35 Slovak Republic Competencies stipulated in Act No. 195/1998 on Social Assistance. Appointed guardian
is the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family (as an institution), responsible for
professional care for minors through its employees, according to Act No. 305/2005 on
Social-Legal Protection of Children and Social Custody
36 Slovenia Guardian should have personal characteristics and abilities to carry out guardianship
duties, and should consent to becoming a guardian. Excluded from guardianship are
those who are deprived of parental rights or active legal capacity; and whose interests
differ from those of the ward
37 Spain No competencies required. Many child care professionals have studied social work.
Beyond that, it is difficult to offer a general description of the background and
competencies of individuals working with UASC in Spain. No specific training is
provided
38 Sweden Legally, a custodian is required to be honest / upright, experienced and suitable. When
determining whether or not a custodian is suitable, particular consideration should be
given to the vulnerable position of the child.
39 Switzerland In Geneva or Zurich, competencies are required in law, social education and knowledge
51
of children in migration
40 Turkey Guardian should be over 18, capable of carrying out guardianship duties, and not in
custody, or deprived of civil or political rights; should have a good character, with
interests similar to those of the minor; and should not be a judge in the guardianship
department
41 Ukraine Guardian usually appointed from among child’s relatives, therefore no specific
competencies / qualifications are involved. Not appointed guardian if under 18; or if
disabled, addicted to drugs or alcohol, deprived of guardianship duties or parental
rights; if interests contradict those of minor; or if sentenced for a grave crime. Foster
parents expected to undergo special training prior to accepting children into their
families. State-run child care institutions—the heads of which could, under certain
circumstances, act as a guardian—are staffed by pedagogical, medical, administrative
and technical personnel, as well as lawyers, psychologists, and librarians in child care
shelters
42 United Kingdom Fully supported advisers of the Refugee Council Children’s Panel represent
backgrounds that include social, legal and youth work, and advocacy. Advisers are
expected to have qualifications laid down by the Office of the Immigration Services
Commissioner
Table VII: Reasons for denying or revoking guardianship
REASONS FOR DENYING COUNTRIES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES /
GUARDIANSHIP PERCENTAGE
Substance abuse Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, 5 countries / 12 per cent
Chronic alcohol or drug addiction Ingushetia (Russian
Federation), Ukraine
Previous guardianship revoked Armenia, Croatia, Former 9 countries / 21 per cent
Full or partial exclusion from guardianship Yugolsav Republic of
or parenting rights Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary,
Ingushetia (Russian
Federation), Serbia, Slovenia,
Ukraine
Ill health Armenia, Bulgaria, Ingushetia 4 countries / 10 per cent
Ill health or other disability (Russian Federation), Ukraine
No income-generating capacity Former Yugolsav Republic of 1 country / 2 per cent
Macedonia
Impropriety Bulgaria 1 country / 2 per cent
Disqualified by prior conduct
Criminal record Armenia, France, Ukraine 3 countries / 7 per cent
Minor Georgia, Hungary, Poland, 5 countries / 12 per cent
Guardian cannot be under 18 years of age Turkey, Ukraine
No legal capacity Georgia, Slovenia, Turkey 3 countries / 7 per cent
Without active legal capacity, or with
restricted legal capacity
52
Table VIII: Training of guardians
COUNTRY TRAINING
1 Albania No training
2 Armenia No training
3 Austria Guardians who are not provided by the ―authority‖, or are not part of the youth welfare
agency, do not at any time receive formalized training, whether basic or advanced.
There is no special training on UASC issues.
4 Azerbaijan No training is available
5 Belarus Before taking up guardianship: the State Guardianship Department (SGD) and special
pedagogical centres provide training for future guardians. During guardianship: there is
no regular training for guardians. However, the SGD organises periodic seminars and
workshops on guardianship issues and invites guardians to take part
6 Belgium Before taking up guardianship: formal education is not required of a guardian. However,
prior to taking up guardianship duties, it is mandatory to obtain specific training
organized by the Service des Tutelles. During guardianship On-going training is one of
the conditions for the approval of guardians The training of newly-appointed guardians
should, at least, comprise aliens’ law, youth law, teaching skills, psychology, and
multicultural reception. In this context, guardians are also invited by the Commissariat
Général aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides (CGRA) to familiarize themselves with the
asylum procedures. Guardians are also encouraged to attend conferences and
seminars in regard to the issue of UASC. The Service droit des jeunes (an NGO) has
created an Internet forum on UASC to enable guardians, specialized lawyers and NGOs
to exchange information daily. The forum is administered by NGOs as well as
guardians.
7 Bosnia and There are no uniform standards. These vary with each Centre for Social Welfare
Herzegovina (CSW). Article 184 of the Republika Srpska Family Law and Article 168 of the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) Family Law regulate only that CSWs
familiarize guardians with their rights and obligations, as well as their role. At the entity
level, there is no uniform training developed to use at lower levels. In FBiH, there are no
brochures or information leaflets
8 Bulgaria In the case of asylum seeking and refugee children, the State Agency for Refugees, the
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, the Bulgarian Red Cross, and UNHCR provided training
aimed at the special needs of UASC. In 2004, the training was intended for guardians in
the village of Banya—following the introduction in the village of a system of
guardianship—where a registration and reception centre was set up to operate only for
asylum seeking UASC.
9 Croatia Before taking up guardianship: None. During guardianship: The only training for
guardians of non-national UASC in Croatia was provided by the Centre for Social Policy
Initiatives (an NGO), together with UNHCR and the Ministry of Health and Social
Welfare in 2005, and with the Office for Human Rights of the Government of Croatia in
2006. The training consisted of information-sharing and carrying out practical exercises
on children’s rights, applicable laws, (inter)national documents, issues related to
trafficking of children and conditions of accommodation in the institutions where UASC
live. Social workers appointed as guardians do not receive regular training on issues
related to guardianship, including the specific needs of non-national UASC
10 Cyprus Welfare officers are already qualified because the Social Welfare Services (SWS) in
Nicosia recruits university graduates in a field relevant to its work, which is mostly social
work. SWS officers, however, receive general, practical training. Special training will
soon be provided to officers on issues related to minors.
11 Czech Republic With a background in family law and social work, resident guardians receive regular
training on issues related to asylum procedure, residence permit issuance, the situation
53
of minors, and the solving of individual cases, according to the Ministry of the Interior
(OAMP)
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland Before taking up guardianship: No formal qualifications or training is required (the
offered training is voluntary). During guardianship: Training is on a voluntary basis,
provided by the Ministry of Labour, or by NGOs in Finland, such as the Central Union
for Child Welfare and the Refugee Advice Centre. The Ministry of Labour is planning to
provide training more regularly each year
15 Former Before taking up guardianship: guardians are not trained, but informed of their rights
Yugoslav and duties. The successful completion of training—implemented by an expert team from
Republic of the Center for Social Welfare—is obligatory by law for a foster family as a criterion for
Macedonia selection. During guardianship: Not provided by law, either for guardians or for foster
families
16 France
17 Georgia Before taking up guardianship: no training for guardians or custodians. Foster families
receive training within the framework of the programme conducted by the Ministry of
Education. During guardianship: foster family members are provided with training
18 Germany Training is on a voluntary basis for private guardians, and not very effective. The youth
welfare offices and guardianship NGOs have a duty to counsel individual guardians. In
some regions, there are NGOs that focus on recruiting suitable guardians, and on
counselling and training them. Individuals also receive a leaflet and instruction from the
guardianship court. Professional guardians from both NGOs and youth welfare offices
are being qualified and trained by their organizations
19 Greece Practically none.
20 Hungary Before guardianship: Legal and pedagogical training is provided prior to taking up
guardianship. During guardianship: provision of training varies with each office
21 Iceland
22 Ireland An education in social work is necessary
23 Italy No specific training foreseen by law.
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania Before taking up guardianship: the Municipal Child Rights Protection Agency organizes
training courses for guardians (except close family relatives). During guardianship,
guardians are assisted by specialists with the Municipal Child Rights Protection Agency.
There is no uniform system of training for guardians
26 Luxembourg During guardianship: training on issues related to UASC
27 Moldova
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands Before taking up guardianship: guardians are trained professional social workers with
certificates (Hoger Beroeps Onderwijs / HBO) from an institute of higher education in
social work, and social and legal services. More specifically, they have been trained as
―youth protectors‖ (Jeugdbeschermer). Special pedagogical training is not required.
Assistance from specialized organizations is requested when necessary. During
guardianship: courses on specific themes
30 Norway Before taking up guardianship: although the public trustee’s office is required to provide
the necessary training, this does not always occur in practice. During guardianship:
while guardians are to have guidance during their work, this again depends again on
the trustee’s office. Their training varies from municipality to municipality. One
organisation, the Norwegian People’s Aid, has a pilot project focusing on improving the
54
training of guardians which they would like to see implemented nationwide
31 Poland The Office for Repatriation and Aliens provides prior training for UASC custodians on a
regular basis. Follow-up training is organized for social workers and custodians
whenever required.
32 Romania Under a UNHCR-funded project, Save the Children Romania organizes training for
guardians before and during guardianship, with trainers from UNHCR, the National
Refugee Office and NGOs, all of whom work with refugees and are experienced in
dealing with UASC
33 Russian
Federation
(including
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia Before taking up guardianship: guardians are provided with preparation and training at a
center for social welfare (CSW). During guardianship: guardians can approach CSW for
professional assistance and support in matters related to fostering / guardianship
35 Slovak Republic UNHCR had initiated and supported development of a training for UASC guardians. The
training is a continuous education process that compasses legal and socio-
psychological aspects of care of UASC
36 Slovenia Prior to guardianship, training—obligatory for all guardians—is both theoretical and
practical, and is organized by the NGO Slovene Philanthropy (which recruits and trains
guardians), in cooperation with other NGOs involved in the assistance and protection of
migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees. Potential guardians acquire knowledge of
issues regarding asylum, refugee and separated children, child care, the SCEP
Statement of Good Practice, and duties and responsibilities of guardians. During
guardianship, Slovene Philanthropy regularly informs guardians on new documents,
laws and recommendations
37 Spain No specific training is provided, including on the rights and situation of non-national
asylum-seeking UASC. The importance of proper training—in children’s cultural,
religious and linguistic needs, and in child care in general—has become increasingly
apparent. Legal training in the current application of laws concerning children is also
lacking. Child Protection Services have no expertise on asylum
38 Sweden Before taking up guardianship: varies with each municipality; During guardianship: also
varies with each municipality. There is a large reliance on the work of NGOs, such the
Swedish Refugee Aid, which trains custodians
39 Switzerland Before guardianship: while guardians should have the most important skills in order to
fulfil their role, this is not the case in many cantons.
During guardianship, permanent training is provided in Geneva and Zurich
40 Turkey No systematic training
41 Ukraine Foster families are expected to undergo special training prior to accepting children into
their families. They are also expected to receive regular specialized training, at least
once in two years, with the support of the State Institute for Family and Youth Problems.
This is aimed at building the educational capacity of the foster parents. However, there
are no state curriculums for such courses. NGOs, such as the Christian Children’s
Fund, EveryChild, and the European Union’s Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of
Independent States (TACIS) Project are currently developing these programmes. State
child care institutions, whose heads could act as guardians, have qualified professional
staff. All professional staff undergo certification.
42 United Kingdom The Refugee Council Children’s Panel (RCCP) advisers are provided training in asylum
law, child protection, child care legislation and care requirements. They are also
provided extra support in management training
55
Table IX: Supervision and monitoring of guardians
COUNTRY SUPERVISION AND MONITORING OF GUARDIANS
1 Albania By whom: by the court. Guardians are responsible before the court.
Frequency and Methods of monitoring: no established procedures or methods of
reporting and monitoring
2 Armenia Are guardians monitored: yes.
By whom: guardianship committee at the district level.
Frequency: monthly.
Methods of monitoring: home visits by the committee
3 Austria By whom: district courts (Bezirksgerichte).
Frequency: there are regional variations in reporting requirements and monitoring.
Also, there is no automatic monitoring, but minors are entitled to complain to a legal
authority, according to paragraph 217 of the civil code (Allgemeine Bürgerliche
Gesetzbuch / ABGB). In case the non-observance of obligations becomes a criminal
liability on the part of the youth welfare institution, the appropriate paragraphs on the
neglect of minors, or on the neglect of care, education and supervision—paragraph 92,
absätze 2; or paragraph 199, of the Austrian penal code (Strafgesetzbuch / StGB)—
may be invoked.
Methods of monitoring: through legal procedure
4 Azerbaijan Are guardians monitored: there is no monitoring or reporting procedure for guardians
established by law in the Azerbaijani Republic.
By whom: UASC are monitored by project staff and the staff of UNHCR. Guardians are
monitored by UNHCR’s implementing partners, especially NGOs such as the United
Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), Hayat (the national humanitarian
organization), and the national network of lawyers.
Frequency: on a monthly basis.
Methods of monitoring: home visits
5 Belarus Are guardians monitored: yes.
By whom: by the State Guardianship Department (SGD), on a regular basis, and by
teachers at school.
Frequency: SGD staff members visit families no less then twice a year. School
teachers observe the situation on a daily basis and, in case of problems, contact and
inform the SGD.
Methods of monitoring: SGD visits the families; checks housing conditions; meets
child and guardian; and submits a report at the end. The guardian also reports on how
the child’s state benefits have been spent
6 Belgium Are guardians monitored: Yes.
By whom: by the Service des Tutelles and the juge de paix
Frequency: according to the Programme-Law (Loi-programme) of 24 December 2002
on guardianship, the Service des Tutelles exercises daily supervision over the
guardian’s substantial work. Twice a year, the juge de paix receives the guardian’s
report on the minor’s assets and personal situation and, especially, on the minor’s
residency status, the tracing of family members, or the reception infrastructure in the
country of origin of the minor, and the minor’s education. The report also refers to work
accomplished, and to problems encountered by the minor. A copy of the report is sent
to the Service des Tutelles. Within two weeks of ceasing duty, the guardian sends the
juge de paix a final report on guardianship. A copy is transmitted to the Service des
Tutelles, as well as to the minor. The juge de paix makes a report recording that the
guardianship has been accounted for and approved, and discharging the guardian from
56
further duties. Also, the juge de paix settles conflicts between the guardian and the
minor in matters related to the minor’s person or assets. In the same way, the juge de
paix may bring a guardian’s assignment to an end when the guardian fails to
accomplish the duties with diligence, or in the event of serious differences of opinion
with the minor. At any time, the juge de paix may ask the public prosecutor (procureur
du roi) to hold an investigation into the minor’s social situation.
Methods of monitoring: through reports
7 Bosnia and Monitoring—primarily the responsibility of the Centre for Social Welfare (CSW)—is
Herzegovina poor, and varies greatly with each CSW. In Mostar, for example, there is no special
system of supervision, other than general monitoring by the reception centre
management; the Bosnia and Herzegovina Women’s Initiative (BHWI, an NGO); social
workers; and UNHCR. The CSW has neither sufficient staff nor funds, nor an
established system, to monitor guardians in Mostar. One social worker is responsible
for appointing guardians in the entire city.
Methods of monitoring: Guardians report to the CSW annually, or when requested.
The CSW is obliged occasionally to monitor the work of the guardian, according to
Article 180 of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Family Law and Article 195 of
the Republika Srpska Family Law
8 Bulgaria They are responsible to the body that appoints them. No system to monitor guardians is
in place
9 Croatia By whom: guardians are monitored by the Centers for Social Welfare (CSW).
Frequency: guardians are obliged to report every six months to the CSW, and the CSW
can request more frequent reports on a specific case.
Methods of monitoring: CSW analyses the report by guardians and, if needed,
undertakes necessary measures to protect the interests of the child.
10 Cyprus The Social Welfare Office (SWO) employs qualified welfare offices who are monitored
by their supervisor. The monitoring takes place in accordance with the internal
regulations of the SWO
11 Czech Republic No information on monitoring of guardians. However, NGO legal counsellors as well as
social workers—because they work closely with resident guardians in UASC asylum
proceedings—observe the guardians’ performance on a regular basis
12 Denmark
13 Estonia
14 Finland Guardians are not monitored. Social workers in reception centres meet with a guardian
to maintain contact and exchange information about the ward, rather than to monitor
15 Former By whom: Centres for Social Work.
Yugoslav Frequency: at least once a month but, very often, even once a week.
Republic of Methods of monitoring: CSW visits the guardian, or foster family, and the child. It also
Macedonia speaks with the school, medical institutions, neighbours or community at large. Foster
families are more closely monitored than guardians
16 France
17 Georgia Theoretically, guardians should be monitored by the Resource Centres of the Ministry of
Education and Science (MES) but, in practice, there is no monitoring of their
performance
18 Germany By whom: local guardianship courts control and supervise private and professional
guardians. Associations for guardians (which are specialised NGOs) report to the courts
but are supervised by their directors. Government guardians, who are part of the youth
welfare office or Jugendamt (and are in charge of the majority of all cases) are not
supervised by the courts, but by their administration.
Frequency: at least once a year.
Methods of monitoring: written reports
57
19 Greece By whom: Committee of Guardianship and the Court
20 Hungary Yes, guardians are monitored.
By whom: the Guardianship Court.
Frequency: Periodical (6 months); ad hoc; and special checks, also before any
decisions which affect the financial situation of the minor. Methods of monitoring:
Regular written reports are required
21 Iceland
22 Ireland By whom: social work team leaders and principal social workers. Frequency: monthly
one-on-one supervision, in addition to daily informal supervision.
Methods of monitoring: clinical supervision and audits of files
23 Italy No information available on monitoring
24 Latvia
25 Lithuania By whom: The Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Agency, or its authorized social
partners, evaluate the quality of guardianships.
Methods of monitoring: they also visit the foster child to determine if the child’s rights
and interests are being adequately addressed.
Frequency: once a year for permanent guardianships; twice a year for temporary
guardianships
26 Luxembourg By whom: by their supervisor.
Frequency: ―regularly, and as often as necessary‖.
Methods of monitoring: through meetings and discussions
27 Moldova No answer
28 Montenegro
29 Netherlands By whom: guardians are monitored by their regional managers. Nidos (the organization
responsible for guardianship of UASC in the Netherlands) is monitored by an
independent inspection body—the Inspection on Youth Care (Inspectie Jeugdzorg)—
and the Ministry of Justice.
Frequency: monitoring by regional managers through monthly meetings and reports; by
Inspection of Youth Care through ad hoc inspections, investigations and reports; by
Ministry of Justice at least once a year.
Methods of monitoring: meetings, and detailed reports on all aspects of guardianship
activities
30 Norway By whom: in principle, they are monitored and supervised by the public trustee’s office,
but the quality of supervision may vary.
Methods of monitoring: some offices provide training and guidance
31 Poland By whom: custodians are monitored by the Office for Repatriation and Aliens.
Methods of monitoring: legal guardians are obliged to report to the regional court
which appointed them at least once a year. The court may establish different period of
reporting
32 Romania By whom: guardians are monitored by the Directorate for Child Protection and by the
National Refugee Office. If guardianship duties are not fulfilled, the Directorate for Child
Protection can request that the guardian be replaced, in accordance with the Law on
Child Protection.
Frequency: not available.
Methods of monitoring: not available
33 Russian
Federation
(including
Chechnya and
Ingushetia)
34 Serbia Are guardians monitored: yes.
58
By whom: guardians are monitored and constantly supervised by the Centers for Social
Work (CSWs) that appoint the guardians.
Frequency: guardians are obliged to provide CSW with annual report on progress, as
well as other issues, and also with mid-term reports, as requested.
Methods of monitoring: CSW monitors guardians through the guardians’ written
reports, as well as visits and interviews with the guardian and child
35 Slovak Republic In principle, they are monitored by the supervisor / director. Overall supervision is
conducted by Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. In practice, there is no
feedback on how guardians are monitored in their duties in respect to UASC
36 Slovenia By whom: in principle, the centres for social work (CSWs)—which are part of the
Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs, and which appoint guardians—should
monitor the work of the guardians. In practice, there is no real supervision by the CSWs,
and although guardians are bound by law to write reports, this remains a formality.
However, it is an NGO (Slovene Philanthropy) that supervises the work of guardians.
Frequency: most CSWs require a report at the end of the guardianship. Slovene
Philanthropy requires regular monthly reports on each case, and meets often with
guardians.
Methods of monitoring: CSWs, through reports; Slovene Philanthropy, through
monthly reports, regular conversations and meetings
37 Spain Not available
38 Sweden By whom: chief guardian.
Frequency: differs with each municipality.
Methods of monitoring: custodian is required to submit any information the chief
guardian requires. Financial reports are to be filed regularly
39 Switzerland By whom: Geneva and Zurich: they are monitored by the Civil Court.
Frequency: guardians have to report at least once in two years in case they are no
relevant problems
40 Turkey By whom: Guardians are under the control of the Guardian Authority / Civil Court of
Peace.
Frequency: at regular intervals.
Methods of monitoring: guardians are required to submit reports on execution of
duties and accounts to the Guardian Authority / Civil Court of Peace. The latter also
approves all important decisions. If the Guardian Authority / Civil Court of Peace
suspects maladministration with regard to the guardianship, an ex officio inspection is
initiated
41 Ukraine By whom: guardianship agencies analyse annual reports of guardian or trustee
concerning the fulfilment of duties and, based on these reports, formulate their
decisions, conclusions and proposals.
Frequency: in a specific situation, the guardianship agency can request guardians or
trustees to report more frequently
Methods of monitoring: guardianship agencies do not have the staff to monitor the
activities of guardians or trustees under their supervision on a regular basis. In some
districts, this is done through home visits and other methods by social services that are
established in all districts of Ukraine and work under the supervision of local authorities.
Their dealings with guardianship agencies is not regulated, and is based more on an
individual approach in each given district
42 United Kingdom Frequency: Information from the Refugee Council suggests that the Refugee Council
Children’s Panel (RCCP) advisers are supervised on a monthly basis. The workloads
are monitored regularly
59
ANNEX C
CHARTS
60
Related docs
