implementing the core standards for guardians of separated ... · report; joseph varughese, andria...

Take Time

Bea Friend

takethe

lead ! ! !

Behonest Be

kind

Understandchildren

Listenand Tell

takeaction

BESURE

ASK!! ! ! !

Fight4U !!!

Take Time !!!!

Take time !! Take Time.

Take Time

TAKE T IME

Imp

lem

en

ting

the

Co

re S

tan

da

rds fo

r gu

ard

ian

s of se

pa

rate

d ch

ildre

n in

Eu

rop

e

Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe:

Standard 1 The guardian advocates for all decisions to be taken in the best interests of the child, aimed at the protection and development of the child.

Standard 2 The guardian ensures the child’s participation in every decision which affects the child.

Standard 3 The guardian protects the safety of the child.

Standard 4 The guardian acts as an advocate for the rights of the child.

Standard 5 The guardian is a bridge between and focal point for the child and other actors involved.

Standard 6 of a durable solution.

Standard 7 The guardian treats the child with respect and dignity.

Standard 8 The guardian forms a relationship with the child built on mutual

Standard 9 The guardian is accessible.

Standard 10 The guardian is equipped with relevant professional knowledge and competences.

Implementing the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in EuropeCountry Assessment: Cyprus

Rafaela Camassa

www.corestandardsforguardians.com

“A guardian is someone who takes care of you from a distance.”a separated child

IMPLEMENTING THE CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS OF SEPARATED CHILDREN IN EUROPE

Country Assessment: Cyprus

Rafaela Camassa

HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center

All rights reserved.Copyright © 2014 HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy CenterNo portion may be reproduced without permission ofHFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy CenterImage cover: separated children in The Netherlands summarized in a coupleof words what every Core Standard means for guardians in practice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. SUMMARY CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO GUARDIANSHIP AND MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1. Legislative and policy framework guardianship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2. Description of the guardianship organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3. Appointment of a guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.4. Legal responsibilities and tasks of the guardian (on paper and in practice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.5. Education, status and training of the guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.6. Methodology of guardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.7. Caseload and remuneration of guardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.8. Monitoring and accountability of guardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. BENCHMARK OF THE CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS OF SEPARATED

CHILDREN AGAINST THE NATIONAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CORE STANDARDS

ON NATIONAL LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Α. Core Standards for Guardians of Separated Children in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Β. Glossary and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. General Recommendations from the first project Closing a Protection Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

9

11

13

16

16

17

18

18

19

19

20

20

21

21

25

27

32

35

37

40

43

45

47

49

50

53

56

56

62

63

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center would like to thank the separated and former separated children for their valuable contribution and insightful views on how we can take the next steps for better implementation of the Core Standards in Cyprus. Their active participation was an integral part in this process from which we have gained more knowledge on how to best accommodate their needs and wishes. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the Social Welfare Services, the guardianship institution in Cyprus, for their cooperation and openness. We share their commitment to improve the status quo and we appreciate their perseverance for shaping a better future for separated children who arrive and live in Cyprus.

We would also like to thank the partners of the project Closing a Protection Gap 2.0, especially Defence for Children- ECPAT The Netherlands for the coordination, the Daphne III Programme, and Ms. Marina Efthymiadou for being the contact person on behalf of the Social Welfare Services. Special thanks go to our dear colleagues and friends who supported the process leading up to this report; Joseph Varughese, Andria Neokleous, Andria Takkidou, Elpida Demetriou and Louna Hamad, who supported the effort to ensure that the situation pictured in this report reflects accurately the real lives of separated children.

“We are the flowers and they are the butterflies. Whatever they do comes on us, positive or negative.They affect us with their actions” - Former Separated child, Cyprus

IMPLEMENTING THE CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS OF SEPARATED CHILDREN IN EUROPE 6

1. INTRODUCTION

“The report Closing a protection gap provides core standards that should inspire policies at national and European level in order to improve the protection of separated children in our continent. It also highlights the need for harmonizing the quality of guardianship systems all over Europe and within countries, where huge differences still persist. The goals set for guardians and policy makers are ambitious, but not impossible to attain. It is all about applying systematically these standards in all policies on separated children and using them holistically.” From the preface of the report ‘Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe: Goals for guardians and authorities’ by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg.

“Now we are going to promote the standards for guardians everywhere when it comes to separated children. However, more needs to be done. There have to be European rules on the qualifications of guardians.” Member of the European Parliament at the launch of the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe, November 2011 in Brussels.

These quotes highlight the support and the need to increase the awareness, implementation and extend the scope of the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe developed in the project ‘Closing a protection gap for separated children in Europe’. From December 2012 untill December 2014 nine project partners1 will work on the project ‘Closing a protection gap 2.0: Implementing the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe in practice, feeding into policy and legislative instruments on guardianship’. The objective of this large-scale and ground breaking follow up project is to take the next important steps to further close the protection gap by working with the Core Standards in practice and taking the work further on towards policy and legislative initiatives at the national and the European level. The overall aim of this endeavour is to provide the strongly needed framework for responsibilities of guardianship systems in order for all separated children in Europe to get the protection to which they are entitled. The specific objectives of the project are: 1. Raising awareness of the Core Standards, tailor them to the situation in every EU country

participating in the project and empower guardians; 2. The national implementation of the Core Standards in practice and advocate for provisions in

national legislation; 3. The development of a European initiative/instrument for harmonisation of appropriate

guardianship inspired by the Core Standards; 4. Enlarging the scope of the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe in

nine other EU countries.

1 The project partners are: Defence for Children-ECPAT The Netherlands (coordinator), Asylkoordination Österreich, Bureau d'accueil et de défense des jeunes (service droit des jeunes), HFC "Hope For Children" UNCRC Policy Center, Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.v., Irish Refugee Council Ltd., Defence for Children International Italia, Conselho Português para os Refugiados, Slovenska filantropija.


In the country assessments the nine project partners analyze the implementation of the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in the various countries based on the input from workshops with separated children and guardians and a desk research of the existing laws, policies and methodologies. Promising practices as well as challenges will be discussed in every country assessment. The objective of the country assessment is to get a status quo picture in relation to every Core Standard.

An important source for the country assessments are the outcomes from the workshops with separated children and guardians. For the workshops a former separated child acted as an advisor. Because the former separated child is not dependent on his or her guardian anymore he or she can speak freely and provide essential suggestions to the implementation of the Core Standards in practice. Defence for Children- the Netherlands worked with Foundation Alexander (an organization specialized in the participation of children) to draft a programme for the workshop with separated children that could be used as a guideline by all project partners. Every project partner involved at least five separated children who still have a guardian. Their participation is essential for the sustainability of the Core Standards. The children were actively involved and asked to give their opinion on the implementation of the Core Standards, as well as think about tools guardians could use (for instance child friendly information on their rights) and to provide suggestions to implement the Core Standards.

During a training session for guardians (which focused on Core Standards 1 to 6 because they specify the responsibilities of the guardian), the project partners worked together with the guardians on practical tools and ideas for the implementation of the Core Standards in practice.

During a project partners meeting in Nicosia in Cyprus from the 26th until the 28th of June 2013 the preliminary results of the country assessments were discussed and guidelines to continue the work on national level were established.

More to come The country assessments are the basis for the development of a toolkit for practioners to work on the implementation of the Core Standards for guardians in practice. National and European changes in policy and legislation will be advocated during (expert) meetings. Consultations with Members of the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and (international) stakeholders will lead to a draft European initiative/instrument. To enlarge the scope of the project new partners are included in this follow up project and nine organizations from other countries will be trained. All information about the project will be made available on the project website.

National methodology

The country assessment report has been a result of a threefold process. Firstly, a desk research was conducted which involved the preparation and dissemination of a questionnaire to the Social Welfare Services of Cyprus and discussions/consultation via phone and a personal meeting at the organisation’s offices. After the analysis of gathered data in relation to the country assessment questions prepared by the project partners, there was a planning for the forthcoming workshops with (former) separated children and guardians (social workers of the Social Welfare Services).

Secondly, consultations were held with NGO staff members again via phone and personal meetings and the information collected was included in the drafting of the report. Finally, the two workshops took place, the one with the (former) separated children in June 2013 in a park close to the organisation’s offices and the one with the social workers at the University of Nicosia, in Nicosia.Both workshops followed a non-formal, participatory approach in introducing and discussing the Core Standards while the participants were encouraged to share worries, recommendations for improvement and whatever issue they thought was pertinent to the discussion. The data gathered from both workshops formed the basis for the transcription of the practical aspect of the implementation of the Core Standards in the Cypriot context.


Gender Age Country of origin Housing

1 M 21 Nigeria Rented house

2 F 21 Cameroon Rented house

3 M 16 Cameroon Youth hostel for boys

4 M 17 Cameroon Youth hostel for boys

5 F 16 Cameroon Youth hostel for girls

6 F 17 Cameroon Youth hostel for girls

Gender Age Years of experience Location

1 F 51 10 Nicosia

2 F 33 6 Nicosia

3 F 36 2 Nicosia

4 F 34 1 Limassol

5 F 34 2 Limassol

6 F 52 20 Nicosia

7 F 51 2 Limassol

8 F 46 2 Pafos

9 F 33 - Paralimni

10 F 33 1 Nicosia

11 F 39 1 ½ Larnaca

Table 1: (Former) Separated children who participated in the workshop2

Table 2: Social workers/guardians who participated in the workshop who all work with separated children

2 The ages and countries of origin of (former) separated children are representative of Cyprus; most separated children are originally from Cameroon and Nigeria and are teenagers when they arrive in Cyprus, often a step before reaching adulthood.


2. BACKGROUND

In December 2009 the first ‘Closing a protection gap for separated children in Europe’ project started, financed by the EU Daphne III Programme, as a response to the differences in the level of protection separated children3 receive in European countries. There are approximately 100.000 separated children in Europe.4 Separated children have the right to a guardian who protects their rights and best interests. Not only do separated children have to live without their parents in a country they don’t know, but in some countries, they also run the risk of being detained because of their residence status or run the risk of being exploited by traffickers.5 Separated children can face risks in their country of origin, during their journey and in the host country. The type of protection and care a separated child receives from a guardian depends upon the country which the separated child has (often randomly) entered and it can differ depending on whether or not a separated child asks for asylum. These differences are not acceptable. All European countries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and have the obligation to take into account the special needs of separated children. Proper guardianship systems are essential to assist in finding a durable solution for separated children, whether that be integration into the host country, transfer to another country or return to the country of origin.

The first ‘Closing a protection gap for separated children in Europe’ project aimed to harmonize the protection separated children receive from their guardian by focusing on the qualifications of the guardian. The mission of this project was to improve the situation for separated children by means of: closing a protection gap for separated children in Europe by developing core standards on qualifications of guardians based on the views of separated children in relation to their rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Separated children in Europe should get the guardian they are entitled to irrespective of which EU country they entered. The assumption is that when all guardians have sufficient qualifications and mandates to work in the best interest of the child, the level of protection children receive in the different European countries will harmonize. From December 2009 until December 2011, the project partners developed the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe based on interviews and workshops with 127 separated and former separated children, 68 guardians and 39 other experts (for instance; foster parents, lawyers, social workers). The views have been measured against the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General comment No. 6 (treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin) and General comment No. 12 (the Right of the child to be heard) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Statement of Good Practice of the Separated Children in Europe Programme.6 The Core Standards for guardians have been inspired by the Quality 4

3 In this country assessment the term separated child is used, as described in the Statement of Good Practice of the Separated Children in Europe Programme: separated children are under eighteen years of age, outside their country of origin, and separated from both parents, or their previous legal, or customary primary caregiver. Some authorities and organizations use a different terminology: the unaccompanied minor asylum seeker or unaccompanied minor foreigner.

4 In 2011 over 12.000 unaccompanied children seeking asylum entered the EU (Data from the Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010-2014), European Commission, COM(2010) 213). The number of children on the move is most probably even higher, because not all children apply for asylum, see: Ruxton, 2003 Separated Children and EU Asylum and Immigration Policy. According to the Separated Children in Europe Programme there are approximately 100.000 separated children in Europe, see: Ruxton, 2000 Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Europe: A Programme for Action. Comparing statistics and gathering of data remains a challenge, see: European Migration Network, Unaccompanied Minors-an EU comparative study, (May 2010), p. 74, available at: www.emn.fi/files/288/0._EMN_Synthesis_Report_Unaccompanied_Minors_Publication_(Sept10)_1_.pdf.

5 See also: United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin”, General Comment No.6, (2005), CRC/GC/2005/6, available at www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/GC6.pdf, paragraph 3.

6 Available at: www.separated-children-europe-programme.org/.


7 Available at: www.quality4children.info/navigation/show.php3?id=2&_language=en. 8 See: United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin”, Op. Cit., paragraph 12.

9 See also: United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin”, Op. Cit., paragraph 13.

Children standards for Out-of-Home Child Care in Europe.7 54 members of the national advisory councils in the eight research countries were consulted and shared their expertise. The Core Standards and indicators are written from the perspective of separated children and guardians. The Standards reflect the ideal standard of care for separated children and are formulated to address the role of guardians. The Core Standards should empower all guardians in Europe to work towards common goals and they should inspire State authorities to provide the guardian with the work environment and mandates needed to meet the Core Standards. The first six Core Standards focus on the role and responsibilities of the guardian. Core Standards seven, eight and nine focus on the relationship between the guardian and the separated child. Core Standard ten addresses the professional knowledge and competences of the guardian.

Core Standards as inspiration and goal for guardiansThe Core Standards are a tool for guardians in practice. The Core Standards aim to inspire the guardians in their daily work and they offer a goal to work towards. The project partners, however, recognize the challenges a guardian faces. Due to the current guardianship systems in some countries there are a lot of hurdles to overcome for guardians in order to successfully implement the Core Standards. Guardians with a very high caseload are also confronted with multiple dilemmas. The guardians in these countries should not get frustrated when they cannot fulfill all the Standards immediately. Guardians can incorporate the Core Standards as a guideline for their work irrespective of the guardianship system and legislative framework. The Core Standards can be used as a checklist to monitor their current practice. Where there are Core Standards that are unfulfilled the guardian should feel empowered to advocate for change. Core Standards as inspiration and goal for State authorities and guardianship institutionsThe enjoyment of rights stipulated in the CRC is not limited to children who are citizens of a State party but must be available to all children, including asylum-seeking, refugee and migrant children, irrespective of their nationality, immigration status or statelessness.8 The positive aspect of protection obligations for separated children also extends to requiring States to take all necessary measures to identify children as being unaccompanied or separated at the earliest possible stage.9


3. SUMMARY CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS

The role and responsibilities of the guardian:

Standard 1: The guardian advocates for all decisions to be taken in the best interests of the child, aimed at the protection and development of the child.

The guardian is able to advocate, assess and adjust the best interest of the child on a regular basis, involves all relevant actors and ensures that the assessment of the best interest of the child is based on the views of the child and the individual circumstances. Standard 2: The guardian ensures the child’s participation in every decision which affects the child.

The guardian provides information in a child friendly way and checks if the child understands and recalls the information, listens carefully to the child and ensures plans are based on the views of the child and shared with the child, is open to feedback and manages expectations. Standard 3: The guardian protects the safety of the child. The guardian gives the highest possible priority to the child’s safety, knows the signals of child abuse and trafficking, acts and reports upon signals of any harm or danger, ensures the child knows he is welcome to voice anything concerning his/her safety, only breaks the confidentially norm when a child is at risk, ensures victims get appropriate treatment and is open to being monitored on own behaviour. Standard 4: The guardian acts as an advocate for the rights of the child. The guardian is an assertive, committed watchdog, dedicated to defending the rights of the child, shows emotional strength, opposes decisions which are not taken in the best interests of the child and pursues fair procedures concerning the child. Standard 5: The guardian is a bridge between and focal point for the child and other actors involved.

The guardian keeps in contact with all relevant actors, ensures to be informed about all decisions which have an impact on the child and is where necessary present at meetings, assists in establishing links with the child’s community and developing relationships that gives the child a sense of belonging to a family or group.

Standard 6: The guardian ensures the timely identification and implementation of a durable solution. The guardian ensures the identification of a durable and safe solution and challenges others to prove that their proposed solutions take the best interest of the child as a primary consideration, supports the reunification of the child with his/her family and supports the integration of the child in the host country when this is in the best interest of the child, defends safety guarantees when a child is returned and prepares the child for all predictable changes which will occur after turning eighteen. The guardian and the separated child:

Standard 7: The guardian treats the child with respect and dignity. The guardian demonstrates appropriate behavior, treats the child unprejudiced with respect to the child’s identity, privacy and cultural differences, supports the child in developing peer relationships and shows a flexible approach tailored to the individual needs of the child.


Standard 8: The guardian forms a relationship with the child built on mutual trust, openness & confidentiality. The guardian is always honest with the child, keeps his/her promises and keeps all information confidential unless it is necessary to break confidentiality to keep a child safe, pays attention to verbal and nonverbal communication, is empathic towards the child and gives moral support and makes clear to the child that a child who disappears isalways welcome to return.

Standard 9: The guardian is accessible.

The guardian can be reached easily, lives near enough of the child to be able to respond quickly to difficulties, sees the child as soon as possible after his/her appointment and pays visits to the child on a frequent basis and communicates in a way which fits the age and development of the child, making use of interpreters whenever necessary and contacts the child to keep in touch also when there is no specific need to do so.

The qualifications of the guardian:

Standard 10: The guardian is equipped with relevant professional knowledge and competences. The guardian is proactive in identifying learning and development needs, manages his/her caseload and available resources, is accountable, works according to a set methodology, knows personal and professional limits, seeks support and counselling whenever necessary and is open to supervision and monitoring.


4. DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO GUARDIANSHIP AND MIGRATION

The role and responsibilities of the guardian:

Austerity measuresA recent development in Cyprus is the newly elected government in February 2013 and this country assessment offers a great opportunity to initiate a dialogue on these issues, inform policy decisions and review existing legislation as well as to lobby for amendments in existing practices. However, given the new policy measures imposed in light of the banking sector’s collapse, joined with the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) and European Central Bank’s (ECB) lending requirements, stricter migration policies gradually entered the political arena. The rise of right extremism in Europe has reached and affected sociopolitical trends and attitudes in Cyprus as well, especially with regards to the fraternal tie between Golden Dawn in Greece and the political party E.LA.M (translated as National Popular Front) in Cyprus. Such trends have exacerbated racist attitudes and have resulted, at a minimum, in a state of discontent for migrant populations. Recently, the Council of Ministers has reached a decision regarding the welfare benefit for third country nationals who are either asylum seekers or have a temporary residence permit for humanitarian reasons. Before this decision the welfare benefit amount provided to one person was 678 Euros per month, whereas now the amount has decreased to 320 Euros per month from which 150 Euros will be given in the form of coupons for food and clothing (although coupons do not prove practical according to communication with (former) separated children), 100 Euros for rent and 70 Euros for electricity, water and other expenses.11 The monthly benefit is increased according to the number of individuals living in a household, e.g. for two individuals it rises up to 420 Euros per month (including the amount in the form of coupons etc.), for three individuals up to 580 Euros and for four up to 735 Euros. The above provisions, as announced by the Press and Information Office (PIO), apply to persons above 14 years of age,12 encompassing therefore unaccompanied minors (UMs).

Legal Amendments

Children’s Law of 1956The outdated colonial statute, the Children’s Law of 1956, is currently undergoing revision and modernisation. The new Children’s Bill contains clauses to facilitate compliance with internationally ratified instruments and to adjust to current approaches to children’s rights that do not attest to paternalism. For example, while the Children’s Law of 1956 allows corporal punishment, if it is in the best interests of the minor, the amended law will specify the prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment. There is a move, therefore, from protectionist interventions towards a more liberal view of children’s rights, retaining their autonomy to choose according to their level of capacity.

Year Number of asylum seeking separated children in Cyprus

2010 33

2011 13

2012 27

Table 3: Number of separated children, all asylum seekers, arriving at the Republic of Cyprus10

10 According to the statistical data of the Asylum Service of the Republic of Cyprus, given to the organization “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center.

11 Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus, ‘The Council of Ministers determined the benefits received by third-country nationals in Cyprus’, (18/07/2012), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/FA212328DD38094FC2257BAC0045C6A2?OpenDocument

12 Ibid.


The Refugee Law of 2000Recent amendments to the Refugee Law of 2000, communicated informally during the desk research, will enter new provisions to regulate the free movement of asylum seekers in order to address the issue of movement to and from the areas not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus. Irregular migrants are increasingly more likely to enter the Republic from the Northern part, not under the effective control of the Cyprus Republic, for which reason it is difficult to document the numbers and types of resulted migration. Similarly, unaccompanied minors can and do take the easier route of entering the Republic as well as leaving the island by crossing to and from the Northern part,13 which is outside the exercise of the Cypriot law enforcement authorities. Consequently, persons remain untraceable and a number of security and protection issues are at stake. The amendments to the Refugee Law of 2000 have not been officially carried out yet so it is to be seen if they will propose any, and to what degree, effective solutions to the problem herein.

Legal representationFurthermore, the Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus recently decided to amend the legal representation provision during the examination phase of the asylum application by the Asylum Service. This comes as the result of a series of complaints by Cypriot NGOs, notably KISA (Action for Support, Equality and Antiracism) and Future Worlds Centre, which offer legal advice to asylum seekers, as well as by “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center (HFC) and the Commissioner for Children’s Rights. Although the Commissioner for Children’s Rights was prescribed by law to act as legal representative of separated children since the establishment of her office in 2007 she has not been able to act upon it since she does not have the capacity of a lawyer. The Commissioner, Mrs Leda Koursoumba, was not able to sub-contract lawyers on behalf of her office to represent separated children since sub-contracting could not be read into the interpretation and meaning of the legal representation of separated children under Cypriot law (see also the comments under Standard 4 below). This conflict between law and practice led to nonexistent procedures; no asylum application outcome has been recorded for a separated child to date. Therefore, as a result of the abovementioned amendment, minors lack formal legal representation but their responsible officer from the Social Welfare Services (SWS) can now accompany them during their interview, on behalf of the Director,14 while they can ask for legal assistance from the Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus.

Legal aidIn relation to the legal assistance to persons in return proceedings, the Legal Aid Law of 200215 was amended in 201216 to include the Article 13.4 of the Returns Directive which provides for free legal assistance to persons in return procedures (Article 6Γ of the Legal Aid Law). The amendment provides for the right to have access to legal aid in cases of return decision, removal decision and entry ban. However, in cases of detention no legal aid is available. Furthermore, the Law only refers to legal representation but not to the provision of legal counseling, which means that without legal advice/counseling the claimant cannot support his/her case in order to be granted legal aid. The Returns Directive (2008/115/EC) was adopted into the national Aliens and Immigration Law on the 25th of November 2011 (Articles 18OΓ up to 18ΠΘ).17 Article18Π (6) of the said law states that the Ministerial Council, after the recommendation from the Minister of Interior, assigns to an independent body the establishment and operation of an effective returns monitoring system. However, this system has not yet been established.

13 When crossing from the Northern part (areas not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus) to the Southern part (Republic of Cyprus) of the island and vice versa there is passport control at checkpoints. However, it has often been documented that checkpoints are not always effective as the irregular flow of migrants from the Northern part is a common phenomenon. 14 Who is from now the ‘representative’ as stipulated in S.10(1B) of the Refugee (Amendment) Law of 2013, Law 9(I), www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/2000_1_6/full.html

15 Legal Aid Law of 2002, N.165(I)/2002, available at: www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/0/67415D83F3797961C2256E5A002FAF24/$file/Legal%20Assistance%20Law%202002.pdf?OpenElement

16 Legal Aid (Amendment) Law of 2012, N. 8(I)/2012, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2012_1_8.pdf

17 Aliens and Immigration (Amendment) Law of 2012, N.100(I)/2012, cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2012_1_100.pdf


DetentionIn relation to the detention of migrants, a recent report of Amnesty International states: “Testimonies collected from detainees, lawyers, the office of the Commissioner for Administration and NGOs appeared to confirm that the Cypriot authorities do not consider less restrictive measures before resorting to detention. Rather, detention orders are routinely issued alongside deportation orders. As a result, individuals are transferred to detention facilities without any prior examination of less restrictive measures”.18 In December 2012, the Ombudsman published her position regarding the context of the report of the Committee of the Council of Europe for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) which was submitted to the Republic of Cyprus in 2008 but published only recently. The Ombudsman indicates that the State, so far, has not considered the indications and recommendations expressed both by her Office and the CPT in regards to the inappropriate situation of detention of migrants in prison and detention centers.19 The main reception centre for migrants is the one in Kofinou20 and a relatively new detention centre was established, Menoyia. Several protests and hunger strikes in combination with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in July 2013, M.A. v. Cyprus,21 which found a violation of the right of an effective remedy in relation to deportation and unlawful detention of a Syrian national in Cyprus, points to the existence of detention problems. This is evident also by the establishment of the Menoyia complaints committee whose role is to uphold human rights in the Menoyia detention centre.22 National Action Plans 2010-2012 It is also worth noting the setting up of a Multidisciplinary Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons,23 presided over by the Ministry of Interior, which was established in accordance with Section 47 of The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law (N.8(I)/2007). The Group revises the National Action Plan, evaluates the national reporting mechanism for victims, gathers and exchanges information and good practices, and submits recommendations for amending relevant legislation. The National Action Plan 2010-2012 against Trafficking in Human Beings (THB) consisted of 9 areas of intervention24 framed in general language and did not include age-specific provisions nor did it mention separated children as a high risk group for THB. The National Action Plan for the integration of immigrants who are legally residing in Cyprus 2010-201225 again does not make reference to UMs but rather gives special attention to the needs of children; it is also problematic since irregular migrant children are not covered by the Action Plan.

18 Amnesty International, Punishment without a crime. Detention of migrants and asylum-seekers in Cyprus, (2012), available at: www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR17/001/2012/en/36f06387-9ce6-43df-9734-a4550fa413d6/eur170012012en.pdf, p.13

19 Ombudsman’s Office, “Public statement the Ombudsman of Administration and Human Rights as an Independent Authority for the Prevention of Torture for the content of the Report of the Commission of the Council of Europe for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)”, (2012), available here www.ombudsman.gov.cy/Ombudsman/Ombudsman.nsf/All/497CE8DC28E64796C2257AD0003ACDB6?OpenDocument 20 Guidelines for this can be found in the ‘Guide for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Cyprus’, (2011), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/asylum/asylum.nsf/All/E3C438ECC1B2210BC22578400052F169/$file/Guide%20for%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20beneficiaries%20of%20international%20protection%20in%20Cyprus.pdf

21 M.A. v. Cyprus, application no. 41872/10, hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4438172-5338448

22 Cyprus Mail, ‘Nicolaou meets Menoyia complaints committee’, cyprus-mail.com/2013/07/26/nicolaou-meets-menoyia-complaints-committee/

23 The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007,N.87(I)/2007, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/All/66FEA10FB43FE8E0C22574190038CFD7/$file/nomos%20emporias%20prosopon.pdf?OpenElement

24 ‘Coordination’, ‘Prevention’, ‘Tracing and Recognition of victims’, ‘Protection and Support of Victims’, ‘Repression and Prosecution’, ‘Data-gathering’, ‘Training’, ‘International Cooperation’, ‘Evaluation’; www.moi.gov.cy/moi/moi.nsf/All/69112946E6B4D271C2257AA900261168 25 National Action Plan for the integration of immigrants who are legally residing in Cyprus 2010-2012, www.moi.gov.cy/moi/crmd/crmd.nsf/All/29C2B8DB3A5D19B1C225798B00410F8F/$file/Action%20Plan%202010-2012%20-3-ENGL%20fin%20WEB.pdf


26 The Refugee Law of 2000, N.6(I)/2000, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/2000_1_6/full.html

27 The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, N.87(I)/2007, Op.Cit.

28 Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ratification) Law of 1990, N.243/1990, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/0/EFA941CBE41740E3C2256E5B00295F40/$file/Convention%20on%20the%20Rights%20of%20Children.pdf?OpenElement

29 European Convention on the Exercise of the Rights of the Child (Ratification) Law οf 2005, Ν. 23(ΙΙΙ)/2005

30 The Refugee (Conditions of Reception of Asylum-seekers) Regulations, (K.Δ.Π. 598/2005), www.cylaw.org/nomothesia/par_3/meros_1/2005/4774.pdf. According to the Council Directive 2003/9/EC, which lays down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:031:0018:0025:EN:PDF

31 Committee on the Rights of the Child, “Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin”, General Comment No.6, Op. Cit. 32 The Children’s Law of 1956, Chapter 352, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_352/full.html

5. A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM

5.1. Legislative and policy framework guardianshipThe national legal framework which includes the relevant provisions in relation to the guardianship of unaccompanied minors consists of: the consolidated Refugee Law of 2000,26 The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law (N.8(I)/2007),27 as well as the ratified United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,28 the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights29 and general laws for the protection of children, such as the Children’s Law of 1956 (even if this law is perceived as outdated). Additionally, ‘soft law’ instruments like the Refugee Regulations (conditions of reception of asylum seekers) of 200530 and the General Comment No.6 (2005) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child offer non-binding guidance on the topic.

Definition of ‘unaccompanied minor’ and ‘guardian’Under national legislation, there are specific provisions referring to ‘unaccompanied minors’ and to their ‘guardian’, although the latter definition applies equally to both national and non-national children.

Section 2 of The Refugee Law of 2000 interprets an ‘unaccompanied minor’ as “a person below the age of 18 who arrives in the Republic unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him whether by law or custom and for as long as he is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult person and includes a minor left unaccompanied after his entry unto the territory of the Republic”. Section 2 of The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007 follows a similar interpretation stating that an “unaccompanied minor means a child being a third country national or a stateless person who arrives on the territory being under the control of the Republic, unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him, whether by law or custom and for as long as he is not effectively taken into care of such a person and includes a child who is left unaccompanied after he had entered the territory being under the control of the Government of the Republic”. The same wording is used in the Aliens and Immigration Law, S.18ΚΘ after being amended by Aliens and Immigration Law, N.8(I)/2007.

Section 2 of the Children’s Law of 1956,32 defines a ‘guardian’ as “a person appointed by a will or by order of a Court of competent jurisdiction to be guardian of a child”.

Main legal provisions in relation to unaccompanied minors The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007 states in Section 37(1) that “The provisions of this section as well as of sections 28, 29, 30(1), 34 and 35 of this Law, shall apply to all unaccompanied minors subject to the provisions


of the Refugee Law, as amended for the time being, relating to unaccompanied minors seeking or presumed to seek asylum”. As soon as an unaccompanied minor is identified at an entry point or within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, with or without documentation shall, according to S.37(3) “be taken immediately into the care of the Director of the Social Welfare Services pursuant to the provisions of the Children Law, who shall represent the unaccompanied minor and shall act for his benefit”. Furthermore, Section 38 lists the social rights33 of unaccompanied minors while S.39 sets out the law in relation to the return of unaccompanied children.

The Refugee Law of 2000The Refugee Law of 2000 governs the guardianship system, including the role of guardians of unaccompanied asylum seekers as well as their legal representation. Once a UM is located within the territory of the Republic, the minor in question is referred to the Social Welfare Services, which is under the authority of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurances. Under S.10(1) of the Refugee Law, the Director of the Department of the Social Welfare Services “shall act as the guardian of the said minor and shall take all the necessary measures under this Law and its implementing Regulations on his [the minor] behalf and in his [the minor’s] interest”. The office of the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child was established in 2007, pursuant to the Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights Law, 2007 (N.74(I)/2007), as an “independent institution which deals exclusively with the rights of the child and whose competences and obligations are prescribed by law”.34 As specified before, the Commissioner was the legal representative by law but could not exercise this capacity in practice. The Refugee Law 9(I) of 2013 amended S.10(1B) by replacing the legal representative from ‘Commissioner for Children’s Rights’ to ‘the Director of the Social Welfare Services’. The section now reads as “the Director of the Social Welfare Services acts the soonest possible, either in person or through an officer of her Office, as a representative of the unaccompanied minor during the examination of the minors’ application”.

Moreover, S.10(1B) to S.10(1I) describe the process and the rights that unaccompanied minors are entitled to regarding the personal interview and age assessment procedures; inter alia, the representative (now the Director of the SWS, although social workers are expected to act on her behalf) should inform the UM regarding the potential outcome of the interview; the Asylum service should allow the representative of the minor to be present and pose questions or comment; the officer of the Asylum Service should have sufficient knowledge with regards to the needs of minors; and medical examination can take place to determine the age of a minor. In practice, it has been noted that persons might be detained until further determination of their case if the age of the individual is uncertain. NGOs and the UNHCR have intervened on several occasions to demand the immediate release of individuals who are thought to be minors. No proper age assessment takes place; it is rather a check of the documentation proving the age of the minor in question, according to what SWS officers have communicated during the drafting of this report. Since no asylum application has been processed with regards to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers (UMASs), their application was pending examination until they turned 18, while the impending anxiety for deportation and repatriation was part of daily life for minors soon to turn 18.

5.2. Description of the guardianship organisationThe Social Welfare Services (SWS) of Cyprus is a governmental department operating under the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance. The Social Welfare Services’ mission is to “safeguard social cohesion and social solidarity; to provide social protection, achieve social inclusion and promote equal opportunities for all citizens in the Republic of Cyprus; to combat poverty and social exclusion and to promote the interests of individuals, families and communities”.35 It has a wide remit of

33 Namely, “access to the general educational facilities under the same conditions as the citizens of the Republic, or alternatively, shall have access to appropriate special educational facilities, depending on the status of the unaccompanied minor” and the “free medical care, as well as to special medical or other assistance”.

34 The Commissioner for the Rights of the Child website, www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/DMLcommissioner_en/DMLcommissioner_en?OpenDocument

35 The mission is defined on the website of the Social Welfare Services of the Republic of Cyprus, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/dmlmission_en/dmlmission_en?OpenDocument


work36 and legal obligations, amongst which is the guardianship of unaccompanied minors. The guardians of unaccompanied children are also responsible for national children whose physical and psychological integrity is at risk, therefore there is one unified system of guardianship in Cyprus. The SWS must act on behalf of the minors and must transpose the legal apparatus of protection, care and welfare into a practical reality.

The Social Welfare Services personnel, as listed on the official website, consists of 257 Social Welfare Services Officers and 149 Residential Officers who occupy posts at all levels of the Services hierarchy. The Secretarial personnel, consists of 8 Secretarial Officers and 41 Assistant Secretarial Officers. The number of the State Institution’s hourly wage personnel is 360. The welfare officers are placed at the Central Office of the Social Welfare Services in Nicosia and at the six Social Welfare Services District Offices. They operate 28 State institutions in total, of them 14 child-specific. These include 4 State institutions for children in the main districts (Nicosia, Larnaca, Limassol and Pafos), 1 Youth hostel for Boys in Nicosia, 1 Youth hostel for teenage girls, 7 Day Care Centres for pre-school age children and 1 State Institution for Teenage Boys in Larnaca.37

5.3. Appointment of a guardianAs soon as a UM is identified, usually by the police, at an entry point or within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus he/she is put officially under the care of the Director of the Social Welfare Services according to S.37(3) of The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007 and S.10(1) of The Refugee Law of 2000.

Every separated child is appointed with a ‘practical’ guardian38 of the Social Welfare Services, who is unofficially mandated by the Director of SWS (and therefore cannot sign on behalf of the child), as soon as he/she is recognised as an unaccompanied minor, usually upon the submission of their asylum application at the Aliens and Migration Department. The Social Welfare Services are immediately informed and take the minor under their custody and place them in the State institutions, usually on the same day that the minor is identified. Therefore, the fact that minors might be without a guardian until they become known to the Aliens and Migration Departments is a contentious issue, since not all minors are documented or submit an asylum application from the moment they enter the country.

5.4. Legal responsibilities and tasks of the guardian The tasks of the guardian are described under national law in general terms, that is, to take care of the needs and safeguard the rights of UMs. The guardian shall take all necessary measures under the Refugee Law of 2000 and its implementing Regulations on the minor’s behalf and interest (S.10(1A)). Under S.20J of the Refugee Law “during the period of temporary protection, the Director of Social Welfare Services, by establishing where necessary the agreement of an adult person and taking into account the views of the child in accordance with his age, shall provide for the care of the unaccompanied minor to be placed: (a) with adult relatives; (b) with a foster family; (c) in reception centers with special provisions for minors or in other accommodation suitable for minors; (d) with the person who looked after the child when fleeing”.

Section 25A(2) of The Refugee Law of 2000 as amended by Law 112(I) of 2007 provides for siblings to be kept together as far as possible taking into account the best interest, the age and degree of maturity of the minor concerned while subsection (3) states that the authorities “shall endeavour to trace the members of the minor’s family as soon as possible”, but having in mind the potential threat to the life and integrity of the minor or his/her relatives. Moreover, S.25A(4) sets out the necessity for appropriate training for guardians.

36 Under the section of families and children the SWS deal with preventive services, domestic violence, custody, adoption, delinquency, trafficking, family guidance etc. Other sectors of work include public assistance, old persons and persons with disabilities and community work. More about their areas of work can be found at www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/dmlsitemap_en/dmlsitemap_en?opendocument

37 Information derived from the website of the Social Welfare Services department under the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurances, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/dmlindex_gr/dmlindex_gr?OpenDocument

38 Not defined legally as found in s.10(1) of the Refugee Law of 2000, that is the Director of the Social Welfare Services, but in practical terms the Social Welfare Services officer who is responsible for the overall care of a separated child.


Under The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Section 37(3) the Director of the Social Welfare Services “shall represent the unaccompanied minor and shall act for his benefit”. The social rights of unaccompanied minors to be guarded by the Director of the SWS are listed in S.38(1), namely, the “access to the general educational facilities under the same conditions as the citizens of the Republic, or alternatively, shall have access to appropriate special educational facilities, depending on the status of the unaccompanied minor” and the “free medical care, as well as to special medical or other assistance” (S.38(2)). In addition, the Director of the SWS shall express his/her opinions to the Immigration Officer regarding a potential return of an unaccompanied minor to his/her country of origin or to a third country for the aim of family reunification (S.39(1)). The predominant law regarding the welfare of children, the Children’s Law of 1956, although soon to be repealed, includes provisions (S.3) for the intervention of the Social Welfare Department in the interests of the child’s welfare, if the child does not have either a parent or a guardian.

The Social Welfare Services have, therefore, the sole legal responsibility to take care for an unaccompanied minor by providing him/her with shelter (in one of the already defined settings/institutions), to hold regular meetings between the minor and the social welfare officer in charge of his/her case and to assure that the social rights of the child are upheld. The State’s institutions, where the majority of the unaccompanied minors are accommodated, are staffed with permanent officers and officers on-call while the desk support staff usually take up the immigration procedures for an unaccompanied minor rather than have a personal interaction with them. The desk officers responsible for the cases of UMs are in contact with the officers at the shelters but they can also at times get in touch with children themselves.

In the country assessment, the term ‘practical’ guardians refers to the social workers of the SWS department, appointed and answerable to the Director of the SWS. Therefore, guardians are civil servants belonging to the organizational structure of the SWS. However, it is often the case that NGO staff will assume the role of an assistant to the legally ordained guardians and can facilitate the efforts in securing the rights of an unaccompanied child and advance policy changes and/or change in practices. In this sense, even if NGO staff cannot be appointed as guardians, support workers from NGOs can be labeled as ‘unofficial’ guardians.39

5.5. Education, status and training of the guardianThe legal guardian of UMs, the Director of the SWS, is answerable to the government. The present legal guardian of unaccompanied minors is Mrs Toulla Kouloumou, a psychologist, who was permanently appointed as the SWS Director in 2005. As mentioned above, usually a social welfare officer is appointed to take responsibility of a particular UM. The officers pro the Director exercise a professionalised guardianship service as they are university graduates often equipped with social work or psychology diplomas. The procedure for appointing SWS officers, as described by an officer of the Social Welfare Services, is firstly the submission of an application following the announcement of a governmental vacancy at the SWS office; secondly, if successfully shortlisted, applicants are required to take governmental examinations; and lastly a number of candidates which succeeded in the exams, are interviewed by both members of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the SWS. The social welfare officers, after being employed, go through different kinds of training regarding issues dealt by the SWS. However, they don’t receive any specialised training on issues related to the guardianship of unaccompanied minors.

5.6. Methodology of guardiansConcerning accommodation, the SWS guardians “make efforts to locate foster families for unaccompanied children and preferably in a culturally viable environment first”, a social worker has explicitly mentioned during a meeting. “If such an option is not possible”, she said, “then another foster family is sought. As a matter of ‘last resort’40 the children are placed in shelters together with

39 Nikta Akasereh, “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Centre, Voice of Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers on Guardianship: A study on Guardians of Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers in Cyprus, (2011), www.uncrcpc.org/pdfs/research.pdf, p.18

40 Although this was the claim by an SWS officer, in practice it appears that allocation of unaccompanied minors in shelters is favoured.


other children, often victims of violence and abuse or orphans”. The social welfare officers, who are the guardians in practice, hold informal private sessions with the minors, within office hours and depending on the UM’s needs. In the case of a return of an unaccompanied minor, they make the “necessary steps for family reunification but if this is not feasible, they return the children to their country of origin through the International Social Service (ISS)”,41 an officer has stated during a phone consultation. Nonetheless, no consistent methodology has been identified to deal with cases in a systematic manner, implying that the method can vary and depends on the specific officer/guardian at the time.

5.7. Caseload and remuneration of guardiansThe ‘practical’ guardians, social workers/officers of the Social Welfare Services, often have a large caseload as they do not exclusively deal with unaccompanied minors and their care. Thus, each officer is handling a variety of cases including cases of domestic abuse, child abuse and assumes the care of children in shelters for which it has been deemed necessary to separate them from their family. There is no limit to the amount of cases dealt by each social welfare officer, therefore, the caseload varies. The SWS were not in a position to determine the exact number of cases dealt with by each officer.

The remuneration of guardians is subjected to the general payment scheme according to the governmental payroll of the public sector. Social workers, ‘practical guardians’, fall under the A8 scale (€16,151 – €29,347 for the years 2012-2015) while the Director of any public service, thus SWS too, falls under the A10-A11 scale (€25,112 – €37,122 for the years 2012-2015). There has been an overall 10% reduction in starting basic salary for employees hired after the 1st of January 2012 and the salaries are currently under review, coinciding with the State budget adjustments required by the IMF, ECB and the European Commission (EC).

5.8. Monitoring and accountability of guardiansThe SWS officers are monitored by their direct supervisor in their respective District Offices and are accountable to the Head of the Department for Family and Children and ultimately the Director of the Social Welfare Services. The monitoring takes place according to the internal regulations set by the Social Welfare Services.42 In turn, the Director of the SWS is accountable to the Minister of Labour and Social Insurances. Since monitoring and supervision has only an internal dimension it is unknown whether guardians receive useful feedback to enable them to improve their role, apart from the regularised procedural checks. The fact that all the tasks of the guardians, including accountability and supervision, take place within a single governmental structure may cause a conflict of interest (See also the analysis for Standard 1 and Standard 4).

41 As stated by a SWS officer during a phone consultation.

42 Sajid Alikhan and Malika Floor, UNHCR-The UN Refugee Agency, Guardianship Provision Systems for Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Europe: Initial Mapping, www.defenceforchildren.nl/images/42/658.pdf, p.57


6. BENCHMARK OF THE CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS OF SEPARATED CHILDREN AGAINST THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

STANDARD 1

The guardian advocates for all decisions to be taken in the best interests of the child, aimed at the protection and development of the child.

Indicators: The guardian:

A) Makes an assessment on the best interests of the child, for example before decisions are taken about:

• Legal procedures, • The choice of a lawyer, • Housing accommodation and placement, • Education, • (Health)care, • Leisure activities. B) Other support. Makes sure that an assessment on the best interest of the child is based on the views and

opinions of the child and on individual circumstances.C) Involves all relevant actors in the determination of the best interest of the child in decisions

impacting upon the child to ensure a multi-disciplinary approach.D) Avoids having a conflict of interest concerning the child and works independently from

other actors who make decisions about the welfare and status of the child.E) Adjusts the assessment of the best interests of the child regularly, while taking at a

minimum into account: • The child’s personal background and past experience in the country of origin and journey, • His/her development, • Family situation, • Duration of stay in the host country, • Phase of residence procedure or immigration status.


The best interests of the child principle is safeguarded in Section 10(1A) of the Refugee Law of 2000 (as amended in 2007) which states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration when implementing the provisions of this Law that involve international protection and minors”. Under S.10(1) of the Refugee Law of 2000, the Director of the Department of the Social Welfare Services is obliged to act according to the child’s best interest and according to The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Section 37, the guardian should “take duly into account the best interests of the child”.43 The Reception Condition Regulations of 200544 state that “the best interests of the child shall be the primary concern of the Social Welfare Services when implementing the provisions of these Regulations relating to minors”.45 This is in accordance with the views of the social workers during the workshop, since they listed Standard 1 as the most important one, having a primary role in relation to the other Standards, and the one which provides the basis for a holistic approach to determining the needs of a child and the different factors influencing a child’s life. A social worker notably stated that Standard 1 “forms the framework within which the other Standards operate”.

Standard 1’s importance according to the participating guardians in the workshop

The guardian should look after the needs of the child, take their views into account considering their age and level of maturity46 and guard their social rights,47 i.e. education, healthcare, welfare allowance. Whether the views of the child are taken into account or not depends on the officer’s discretion. As data on the existence of a Best Interests Assessment (BIA) and Best Interests Determination (BID) is scarce, any likely adjustments and updates as well as their frequency remain unidentified. The Social Welfare Services are improving in taking decisions according to the best interests of the child. It used to be the case that minors were sometimes placed in apartments with fellow asylum seekers who were not their legal guardians,48 which raised a number of issues and concerns, whereas now the placement in the State institutions is preferred. An NGO representative stated “SWS officers are handling cases of unaccompanied children, family violence, divorce cases, disabled children... how can they have sufficient time to examine what the best interests of the child are? Sometimes they don’t even know the basic story of the child”. Currently, the assessment, including an assessment of the

43 S.37(2), The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Op. Cit.

44 Transposing the Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (“the Reception Directive”), eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:031:0018:0025:EN:PDF 45 Article 27(2), Reception Condition Regulations of 2005, Op. Cit.

46 S.25A(1), The Refugee Law of 2000, Op. Cit.

47 S.38, The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Op. Cit.

48 European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Save the Children, Comparative Study on Practices in the Field of Return of Minors, (December 2011), ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/studies/Return_of_children-final.pdf, p. 230


possibility of smuggling/trafficking, might take place during the examination of the application of the minor by the Asylum Service, which recently took place only after separated children turned 18 because of the inability of legal representation.

Recently, changes in the legislation which clarify the representation of the minor during the asylum interview will allow for the examination to take place. Since, nevertheless, such an assessment has not been documented so far, there are no records of formal consultation during this process and we cannot know what factors the examination entails. There is no collection of information for BIA to be facilitated nor an established method for a BID in order to seek a durable solution. An ex-UNHCR officer mentioned during a phone consultation that the UNHCR has delivered trainings to relevant stakeholders on the UNHCR/UNICEF Best Interest of the Child Determination Handbook but since then it is unclear whether further promotion of the Handbook has been carried out. Furthermore, there is no proper age assessment procedure, but the age determination is solely based on verifying existing documentation. Age assessment should take place holistically and not relying on biometric information, but taking into consideration different social factors influencing the maturity level of the child.

In the Reception Condition Regulations, the Director of SWS is obliged to ensure that the housing facility where the minor is placed is according to their best interest, in particular their age and maturity level,49 while it is in their interest not to be relocated or separated from their siblings. If the minor notifies their guardian that there is a problem with their care facility, the school or other aspects of daily life, the guardian will usually consult with the appropriate institutions and urge them to take into account the minor’s wishes and needs. This is illustrated through the example of an unaccompanied minor (who is in regular contact with the NGO “Hope For Children”) who dealt with abuse issues with her peers at school, which she believed was incited by discrimination and favouritism. During this case, the guardian was in contact with “Hope For Children” and they jointly addressed the school’s Director as well as the Ministry of Education with a formal letter and informal contacts. Furthermore, the responsible officer/guardian for the UM escorted her to the police station to file a report. However, during the workshop guardians mentioned that they have not attended court hearings since there was not a case where this was deemed necessary and also legal and judicial proceedings is a responsibility attributed to the Asylum Service and not the Social Welfare Services.

The role of the guardians, as they are appointed and paid by the government, is neither de jure nor de facto independent. The guardians may be dealing with a variety of issues within the remit of the SWS’ work; therefore, a general stance held by the government may affect the role of the guardians in relation to the services offered to separated children. A prominent example which received great media attention was when four unaccompanied children reached North Cyprus in May-June 2012. In this particular case, the unaccompanied children were perceived to be victims of trafficking, who wished to submit their application for asylum in the Republic while detained in the North. The Republic of Cyprus, however, did not accept the transferring of the children to the territory controlled by the Republic of Cyprus because of the absence of procedures regarding unaccompanied minors entering from the North. Despite it being the responsibility of the State to enact protective measures in accordance with international obligations, such as non-refoulement, so that unaccompanied minors have recourse to effective treatment regardless of procedural issues, such responsibility was not demonstrated in this case. This led to the deportation of children and their repatriation from the North, without examining the risk or threat faced in their country of origin or a BID for seeking a durable solution in the form of family tracing and reunification.50 A conflict of interest can also be an issue where the position of the government on migration rules might potentially undermine the security of socio-economic rights for separated children, e.g. diminution of welfare allowance. As the Guardians Against Child Trafficking and Exploitation

49 Art.28(2a), Reception Condition Regulations of 2005, Op. Cit. 50 The case was labelled as the “first resounding denial of the Ministry [of Interior], which was condemned by national and international organizations… when the authorities refused to allow access to children from Sierra Leone who were unaccompanied and potential victims of trafficking”. The following press release by Future Worlds Centre’s ‘Strengthening Asylum’ describes three more cases with similar conclusion; Strengthening Asylum Legal Portal, Future Worlds Centre strengtheningasylum.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/iiiiiifii/, para.6


(GATE) field research showed, “[SWS officers] have to work on the edges of the system, balancing between their obligations as social carers and as public employees who cannot skip or interpret under a different perspective the current legislation”.51

The workload factor, stemming from the fact that they exercise a multitude of duties as both public officers and social carers, significantly affects the effective determination of the child’s best interest. The limited working hours in relation to the cases the guardians are handling renders the chance of a viable interests’ assessment miniscule. Moreover, although there is coordination between different government departments such as the Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare Services, Cyprus Police etc, the lack of a concrete coordination path can threaten the possibility of swift action when the minor is facing a situation which requires immediate intervention. For significant interventions to take place on behalf of the social workers of the SWS, authorisation has to be granted by the Director of the SWS, a usually rather arduous and lengthy procedure. Additionally, it is unclear whether the BIA and BID procedures, if carried out at all, are taking place in a multidisciplinary and comprehensive environment considering all factors involved. ConclusionsWhile acknowledging the system’s inefficiencies, the social workers during the workshop perceived that there is an adequate standard of implementation of Standard 1 and the best interests principle on a personal level. However, the inability to directly identify what the best interests concept entails calls for guidelines to further interpret this concept. This also extends to the lack of a methodology and time to assess and determine the best interests of a child and a notable inconsistency in practices between different social workers. Recommendations drawn from the workshops:• Improvement of accommodation facility to respond to UMs needs or development of new options for housing, e.g. a reception centre specifically for unaccompanied migrant minors.• BIA and BID guidelines/toolkit should be developed, also with regards to the placement of an UM in a foster family. The guardians during the feedback session reflected on the need for better preparation and reflection regarding a child’s needs before handling the case.• Important to have tools in place to assess the age of a person who claims to be a UM, which are not intrusive but holistically identify the vulnerability of a child in relation to the child’s age.

51 GATE (Guardians Against Child Trafficking and Exploitation),“National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, (October 2012), available at www.gate-eu.org/files/Gate%20EU%20report%20e-version.pdf, p.46


“Generally no written information is provided to the child, except for the guidelines for asylum seekers”, stated an NGO representative. These guidelines52 are available in different languages and are given to both adults and minors alike - thus, their content is not child-friendly. There is no other written information or set methodology for giving information to the child. Additionally, in practice there are rarely discussions to obtain the views of the child during the decision-making process. Even if the law stipulates for the consideration of the minor’s views, during the workshop with separated children they disproved this, stating that they are rarely involved in decisions that affect them in contrast with the social workers’ views during the workshop held with them. When arriving at decisions, the ‘practical’ guardians confer with their supervisors and their superior officers; gradually the guardians involve also other actors within the SWS and NGO officers.

With regards to education, there is an inadequacy of special introductory or integration programmes for minor asylum seekers in public schools; usually UMs attend technical schools which confer more practical skills in comparison to the public and private schools. Greek language is provided as an extra class, but normally UMs attend secondary school in a class with younger peers since the information provided is in Greek, which may lead to high drop out rates at times.53 There are however after-school Greek language classes in some schools with co-financing from the European Refugee Fund,54 which can be considered a good practice in general. This practice is also endorsed

STANDARD 2

• The guardian ensures the child’s participation in every decision which affects the child.

Indicators:The guardian:

A) Provides the child with all relevant information concerning his/her rights and information needed for his/her participation in a language the child understands and in a child friendly way, repeats this information as often as necessary and checks if the child understands and recalls the information.

B) Listens carefully to the child and takes his/her views into account in the most appropriate way in accordance with his/her age, development and evolving capacities.

C) Informs the child of the outcome of the decision making process and explains how his/her views were considered.

D) Manages expectations of the participation of the child.E) Makes sure that action or development plans are based on the views of the child and shared

with the child.F) Ensures that appointments are made with the informed consent of the child.G) Informs the child about complaint procedures concerning the guardianship and is open to

feedback from the child. H) Uses creative tools, like visual materials, where necessary to ensure participation.

52 Ministry of Interior, Asylum Service, ‘Guide for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Cyprus’, (2011), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/asylum/asylum.nsf/All/E3C438ECC1B2210BC22578400052F169/$file/Guide%20for%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20beneficiaries%20of%20international%20protection%20in%20Cyprus.pdf 53 KISA- Action for Equality, Support and Antiracism, “Reception Conditions of Asylum Seekers”, (2008), p.4

54 Ministry of Interior, Asylum Service, ‘Guide for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Cyprus’, Op. Cit., p. 39


and promoted by the Action Plan for TCNs for 2010-2012.55 Nonetheless, classes are contingent on available funding and are provided only after the children are enrolled in the school system. As their guardians mentioned during the workshop, they often try to place them in the Adult Education Centres56 for extra Greek classes or in a private institute.

The main challenge regarding verbal communication is the fact that unaccompanied minors may not speak English which can be used as an intermediary language. Interpreters can be called based on a list of approved interpreters by Press and Information Office (PIO) on a case-by-case basis, in order to facilitate the communication between the welfare officer and the minor. This is not a regular practice, however, since interpreters are not very accessible as guardians mentioned during the workshop. The Social Welfare Services has associates, including psychologists and psycho-therapists, but, since they are not permanent staff of the SWS their use is limited.

The social welfare officers of the SWS stressed the importance of interpretation to ensure children’s participation

Conclusions It stems from the above that children feel the need of receiving more information and their level of participation to be increased. The social workers should increase efforts to take into account the needs and wishes of the child when deciding on behalf of them, in a language and format that the children understand. Social workers noted that there is scope for introducing the use of different tools to increase participation and to draw the children’s views, moving beyond the traditional method of merely asking questions etc.

Recommendations drawn from the workshops:• Better and increased use and access to interpretation.• Development of child-friendly informative materials, also in other languages, and creative

techniques in exchanging information.• Need for training on intercultural dialogue and on problematic issues that need attention.• Social workers proposed fast track courses for learning the Greek language provided by the

Ministry of Education and Culture, so that UMs can learn the language before entering school and thus be active participants and not as ‘observers’.

55 Action 3.1.4, C1, “Greek language courses for adult and minor asylum seekers”, www.moi.gov.cy/moi/crmd/crmd.nsf/All/29C2B8DB3A5D19B1C225798B00410F8F/$file/Action%20Plan%202010-2012%20-3-ENGL%20fin%20WEB.pdf 56 Ministry of Education and Culture, ‘Adult Education Centres’, www.moec.gov.cy/en/adult_education.html


57 Christalla Yakinthou, Öncel Polili, Reconciliation through a common purpose: Third Party Human Rights in Cyprus, (December 2010), www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/20e288e0-900d-4d84-8553-8d7854488bc2/TESEV_Reconciliation_through_a_common_purpose.pdf, p.54

58 GRETA (Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings), “Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Cyprus”, (September 2011), www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/docs/Reports/GRETA_2011_8_FGR_CYP_en_final.pdf, para.114

STANDARD 3

••

The guardian protects the safety of the child.


A) Gives the highest possible priority to the child’s safety and ensures that his/her own conduct does not put the child at risk.

B) Makes sure the child knows he/she is welcome to voice anything concerning his/her safety or any danger that he/she feels.

C) Keeps all information about and from the child confidential unless it is necessary to break confidentiality to keep the child or another child safe and informs the child, when possible, about a confidentiality breach.

D) Can identify the signals of child abuse and trafficking, acts upon signals of any harm or danger to the child and reports those signals to the relevant child protection authorities.

E) Is aware of the additional pressure, dangers and risks presented by those who facilitated the child’s journey.

F) Ensures that if a child is a victim of violence, abuse or trafficking the child gets appropriate treatment.

G) Always reports the disappearance of a child.H) Is open about being monitored on his/her own behaviour.

A few years ago, unaccompanied minors were not accommodated in the government-controlled shelters but in houses with adult asylum seekers which led to an increased risk of victimization, as stated above. Although it has been noted that there “needs to be a focus on housing (to avoid institutionalisation) and education/integration/language support”,57 UMs are placed into the State institutions/special houses/shelters together with national children and with no integration programmes in relation to education, as mentioned previously. Additionally, experience shows that accommodation in a family with the same nationality as the child should not be the sole criterion and might not be the best solution. A social worker during the workshop declared the failure of the SWS to conduct a proper assessment of a foster family, which resulted in the abusive treatment of a minor placed in that setting, despite them being of the same nationality.

In 2010, the Cypriot authorities reported that the first two recognised child victims of trafficking in Cyprus were identified.58 This was the result of an identification and advocacy process by HFC for the recognition of one female minor and one male minor as victims of trafficking for sexual purposes and for labour purposes respectively. The Commissioner for Children’s Rights indicated following the report that asylum seeking unaccompanied children represent a potentially high-risk vulnerable group for THB. Unaccompanied trafficked children are generally granted renewable residence permits until the child can be repatriated, although some victims have been granted refugee status. “Hope For Children”, the national focal point for the Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP), has offered protection, in the form of socio-economic assistance


and lobbying to government, to child victims both of economic/labour exploitation and victims of sex trafficking according to the database of unaccompanied minors kept at the organisation. The national response to trafficking and exploitation has been considerably tardy in relation to other EU countries since legal recognition of labour exploitation was channeled through the law of 2007 while sexual exploitation had been addressed through the penalization of transnational trafficking in the Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Young Persons Law of 2000.59 In effect, development of the application of this protection mechanism and safety clauses are relatively incomplete, especially with regards to the acknowledgment of labour exploitation.60

There is no explicit reference in legislation as regards the protective role of the guardian, however, entitlement to social rights in S.38 of The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007 indirectly refers to the responsibility of the guardians in ensuring “free medical care, as well as to special medical or other assistance, and, in particular, where they have been the subject of any form of neglect, exploitation or ill-treatment, torture, or of any form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment they have suffered as a result of armed conflicts”.61 Even though it is mentioned that victims of torture, exploitation and abuse can be identified during their interview at the Asylum Service and be referred to a doctor,62 this is problematic as no such interview has been recorded up to date due to the aforementioned representation problems. As a social welfare officer declared: “We cannot be sure how much they are protected, because we have seen many cases where for example young women got pregnant. They are supposed to be protected by the state, but sometimes the control of the state may not be enough. This is a way of protection. I can think of another way, when they are given financial help, they rent a house, but with whom? With adults? With children?” 63

Protection should not merely end at the provision of financial assistance but should more importantly extend to substantial guidance on potential dangers, threats and risks. This issue was pointed out during the workshop with UMs, who considered Standard 3 to be the most important in relation to the other nine Standards. A minor noted that “more practical assistance is needed, advice and guidance on what we can do if we find ourselves in an uncomfortable situation”. The minors noted that safety should extend to emotional security in all environments as this Standard should not only focus on the absence of abuse and exploitation but also on positive interventions. The guardians who participated in the workshop believe that Standard 3 is the first factor examined by them, as it concerns a central part for securing Standard 1. They placed Standard 3 as a priority in their daily practices since it is “the first stage which needs to be fulfilled in order to be able to continue with the implementation of other Standards”, as one stated. When explaining their relationship with the children they felt strongly about the responsibility they have in terms of their protective role towards UMs.

59 The Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Young Persons Law of 2000, N.31(1)/2000

60 This is demonstrated through the research conducted by Constantina Christodoulou et al., Trafficking for Labour in Cyprus-Prepared in the frame of the project: Combating trafficking in human beings-going beyond coordinated by CCME, Re-Integration Centre for Migrant Workers, (February 2011), ec.europa.eu/antitrafficking/download.action;jsessionid=1c32TmQbgtvxSvhnv6r1GQcsdlsTT9P6v2QSykTY7Jhzjv5WgJVT!741669820?nodeId=cf63dc6a-3215-460d-9a4d-4dcd111958a7&fileName=2011-03- Cyprus+Report+GOING+BEYOND.pdf

61 S.38(2), The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Op. Cit.

62 Ministry of Interior, Asylum Service, ‘Guide for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Cyprus’, Op. Cit., page 38 63 GATE, “National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, Op. Cit., p.48


Standard 3 was rated of very high importance both amongst separated children and guardians at the respective workshops (left: children, right: guardians)

The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007 stipulates that the Social Welfare Services should let a possible victim of exploitation/trafficking know about their rights and possibilities, which happens ex post facto the victim’s recognition, and in a language that they can understand, and they should refer them to the police.64

Information, where appropriate also in writing, should include at least: “(a) the name of the government services or non governmental organisations to which they can turn for support; (b) the type of support which they can obtain; (c) the procedure relating to the bringing of charge before the prosecution authorities, the procedure for trying such cases as well as their role in connection with such procedures; (d) the terms and procedure under which they can obtain support and protection; (e) to what extent and on what terms they have access to legal advice or/and legal aid; (f) requirements for them to be entitled to compensation pursuant to section 22 of this Law; and (g) appropriate mechanisms enabling them to defend their rights in the event of residing in other state or in the event of their repatriation”.65 In reality, the guardians give some basic guidance to children and warn them of dangers, for example staying outside the house until late at night, as it became known during consultations with social workers. The challenge for guardians, nevertheless, is to be able to build a relationship of trust with the child in a setting where children can freely discuss such issues with them. There is a possibility for making action plans to ensure the safety of a child but this is again decided by individual guardians in a piecemeal fashion.

When it comes to specialised training for SWS workers on learning to recognise abuse/trafficking/exploitation signs, we were unable to retrieve any relevant data - recognition and identification of such threats is – again – a matter of the individual guardian and the relationship he has developed with the minor in question. The need for “greater priority placed on the training of medical professionals as well as counselors regarding identifying and treating victims of torture and degrading treatment” is clear.66 In practice, anyone who becomes aware of a sign of abuse and/or trafficking can refer the potential victim to the Social Welfare Services. When NGOs suspect a case of abuse, exploitation or trafficking they notify the allocated guardian of the child, who in turn can forward the case to the police as the responsible body for recognising victims. The police and specifically the Unit for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings will compile a report if it concludes that the minor is a victim of trafficking, after examining the case and carrying out an interview with the minor. If the case constitutes an offence in breach of the Penal Code, i.e. rape, the police will refer the case to the district court. Given that the person is recognised as a trafficking victim “the case is referred to the Migration Officer (The Head of the Civil Registry and Migration Department, Ministry of Interior) that carries the responsibility for granting renewable residence permits for the period that will be needed for [the unaccompanied trafficked children’s] repatriation to their state

64 Section 29- Identification and Providing Information to Victims, The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Op.Cit.

65 S.29(2), The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007, Op.Cit. 66 Christalla Yakinthou, Öncel Polili, Reconciliation through a common purpose: Third Party Human Rights in Cyprus, Op. Cit., p.25


of origin given that there are people that can provide care and residence for the child in the specific country”.67 In one case known to HFC, the trafficked minor eventually received refugee status after reaching adulthood.

Furthermore, the disappearance of minors is most commonly reported first to the police and at the same time it is communicated to interested parties that the minor maintained relationship with, e.g. NGO psychologist or social worker. The law enforcement authorities will take the necessary steps in investigating the disappearance and tracing the child within national boundaries and outside the territory of the Republic if they have reasonable belief that the minor had left the country, with the assistance of Interpol in the latter case. The police will notify the SWS if and once the minor in question is traced. The European Hotline for Missing Children in Cyprus, corresponding to the European harmonised number 116 000, is also a tool for reporting child disappearances, including disappearances of unaccompanied migrant minors. The Hotline is useful among others for follow-up actions since it has the capacity for cross-border procedures and thus cooperation with transnational authorities.68

Although the Hotline has not yet received a call for the disappearance of an unaccompanied minor, the NGO Consortium – “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center and Association for the Prevention and Handing of Violence in the Family - operating the Hotline has “informally handled cases of at least two missing unaccompanied minors, one of which was traced in another European country shortly after”, said one of the 116 000 team operators. The Hotline has so far dealt with three disappearances of missing migrant minors, since May 2012, in an informal manner since there were no direct calls to report the case but instead they were communicated by the police, the SWS or through the media. The guardian of the missing minor and the NGO Consortium operating the Hotline cooperate with law enforcement in order to give and receive information regarding the development of the disappearance.

ConclusionsThe participating guardians conceptualised Standard 3 as the platform on which the rest of the Standards are built. On the other hand, unaccompanied minors often need to feel an emotional safety in addition to protection against abuse/exploitation etc. The nourishment of a relationship based on trust and honesty has a crucial role in allowing a minor to express their concerns. Importantly, insufficient cooperation between authorities, unawareness of signals of abuse/trafficking and procedures, and the lack of specialised training have proved to be at times halting factors in determining such cases.

67 Constantina Christodoulou et al., Trafficking for Labour in Cyprus—Prepared in the frame of the project: Combating trafficking in human beings-going beyond coordinated by CCME, Op. Cit., p.26

68 Information derived from the Hotline’s website, www.call116000.org

Discussing Standard 3 with the participants of the workshop for (former) separated children


Recommendations drawn from the workshop with guardians:• Delineation of a coordinated path and exchange of information regarding cases of abuse/

trafficking/exploitation between competent authorities.• Training is required for social workers on the identification of abuse/trafficking/exploitation

signs and actions to take thereafter.• A concrete recommendation addressed to the guardianship system as a whole is the necessity of

the existence of a sensitised approach towards victims and their needs, which should be taken into account when deciding about their education, accommodation, health care etc.

• There is a need for an improved methodology for assessing the suitability of foster families, to avoid abuse within the foster family setting.


STANDARD 4

••• The guardian acts as an advocate for the rights of the child.


A) Is an assertive, committed and brave watchdog, dedicated to defending the rights of the child.

B) Is not afraid of taking different points of view from the authorities and acts independently, solely based on the best interests of the child.

C) Opposes decisions which are not taken in the best interests of the child and pursues fair procedures concerning the child.

D) Shows emotional strength to deal with wearing situations, frustrations and hostility or pressure through third parties.

E) Is present during the determination of the best interest of the child at important decisions.

“The school environment is an important area when following Standard 4”, a guardian said during the workshop. The understanding of Standard 4 by the guardians and how it relates to the social welfare officers’ work refers more to issues encountered at the school premises, such as bullying, or decisions imposed by the school’s Director which affect a UM. In one case, the punishment imposed on a UM by the school management was considered disproportionate by the SWS officer responsible for the minor, who intervened to promote the rights of the child.

The guardians during the workshop were divided into groups to discuss more closely the implementation of the Standards, including Standard 4, and then provided feedback to the whole group


On the other hand, there are no distinct guidelines on the support offered by guardians during legal procedures. In a case dealt with by an associate lawyer of “Hope For Children”, the unaccompanied minor was detained and charged with fraud and misuse of the national system. During the legal proceedings, no kind of support, written or otherwise, was given by the guardian, who claimed that the matter was entirely within the jurisdiction of the police. During this case, the NGO staff mentioned that they maintained close cooperation with the police after the police realised that the minor was an ‘innocent agent’. The minor had been misled fraudulently to arrive in Cyprus with a job contract but he was instead exploited for carrying out the job while retaining irregular status in the country. This demonstrated the potential conflict of interest for the guardians, since their role, as an independent entity, can be undermined when the State persecutes or otherwise criminalises the minor.

As mentioned briefly above, the legal representative of separated children in the Republic of Cyprus was until recently the Commissioner for Children’s Rights who could also be represented through one of his/her officers during the minor’s asylum application examination. Up to now, there had been no examinations due to the fact that the Ministry of Interior would not interpret the law in such a way as to allow of other actors to act on behalf of the Commissioner. Minors, eventually, reached maturity and were deprived of the possibility to have legal representation by the Commissioner;69 until today separated children live as asylum seekers until they become 18 years old and only then the examination of their application is conducted. The change in the law came after the Ombudsman suggested to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Interior to proceed to the amendment of the legal instruments regulating this issue the soonest possible so that the legal representation of the unaccompanied minor asylum seekers is fully secured.70 She further highlighted that this practice meant non-compliance of Cyprus to EU law and the non-discrimination principle. The recent developments, aforementioned, replaced the requirement of legal representation during the examination of the asylum application with the presence of the guardian at this phase. During the workshop with guardians, they mentioned that there had been a possibility of cooperating with a Legal Advisor generally mandated for the work of the SWS but that position was abandoned recently after budget cuts. In a case of a UM who had an accident, the Law Office of the Republic provided free legal aid, which is the option most likely to be used now by the social workers.

When it comes to the examination of asylum applications, applicants are entitled to appeal against a negative decision regarding their asylum claim to the Review Authority for Refugees, and re-appeal against a negative decision of the Review Authority to the Supreme Court. The Reviewing Authority’s independence is governed by law,71 as an independent body which decides either to uphold the Asylum Service’s decision or to decide against it. Free interpretation is provided during the appearance before the Review Authority and the Supreme Court, however concerns have been raised that the right to an effective remedy is not guaranteed since the “Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is limited to a review of the lawfulness and not the merits of a case”.72

ConclusionsThe legal aspect of Standard 4 is more relevant for the work remit of other institutions rather than the responsibility of the social workers of the SWS. However, social workers are now able to be present during the asylum application interview. When it comes to other facets of a minor’s life, the guardians have a clear and significant role to intervene to protect their rights, e.g. in school, where the Standard becomes more applicable, or in relation to their discussions with the Asylum Service regarding a specific child.

69 Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights, “Report of the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Cyprus to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Supplementary Report to the 3rd and 4th Periodic Report of Cyprus”, (2011), www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/0/1EC6DD6A03DF57C0C225791B003A0A30/$file/UNREPORT12Bonline.pdf

70 Ombudsman, Report of the Anti-Discrimination Body regarding the complaint of UNHCR on the issue of the legal representation of unaccompanied minors asylum seekers, (2012), www.non-discrimination.net/content/media/CY-88-FR%20unaccompanied%20minors.pdf

71 S.28(3), The Refugee Law of 2000, Op.Cit.

72 Amnesty International Report on Cyprus 2010, www.amnesty.org/en/region/cyprus/report-2010#


Recommendations drawn from the workshop with guardians:• Clear legal reference needs to be provided to guardians when dealing with cases of a legal/judicial

nature, such as a list of relevant experienced contacts.• An official cooperation of the SWS with the Law Office of the Republic needs to be established to

achieve coherent handling of UMs legal issues, such as legal aid and representation.


STANDARD 5

•••• The guardian is a bridge between and a focal point for the child and other actors involved.


A) Keeps in contact with and is the focal point for:• The lawyer,• Reception and social workers (mentors),• (Psycho)social and medical care givers,• Migration authorities,• School teachers,• Foster parents,• Social Services,• (Extended) family members in the host country and/or the country of origin,• Other relevant actors.

B) Informs the child about his/her rights and obligations in relation to the other actors. C) Assists in establishing links with the child’s community and developing key one on one

relationships that gives the child a sense of belonging to a family or group.D) Ensures that he/she is informed about decisions which have an impact on the child and is

present at key meetings and interviews where decisions are made.

There seems to be a fragmentation in the services offered to separated children and a lack of coherence in administration tasks between different institutions. There are no formal routes, Protocols or Memoranda, to govern the relationship of the governmental authorities responsible for cases of UMs except for the exchange of some formal letters. Consequently, “the service users fall through bureaucratic ambiguities. Relevant departments of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance and the Ministry of Interior have different approaches on the issue. A lack of a formal established communication system was observed”73 and the main communication is based on informal means. During the workshop, the officers stated that they provide other institutions with information related to their duties and tasks initially and throughout their cooperation they notify them about what steps they can take or how they can facilitate other institutions’ work through their role as a guardian. Therefore, the participant guardians at the workshop claimed to fulfil to a considerable degree Standard 5.

Informal links have been established between the Social Welfare Services and NGOs active in the field of migration and unaccompanied minors, such as “Hope For Children”. In order to assess the best interest of the child in specific situations, such as voluntary return, the SWS social workers will contact HFC staff to seek advice. This contact will be done unofficially at a first stage and officially later on, by written correspondence, for data-collection and monitoring purposes. It is important that a transversal method for discovering a long-term durable solution for the minor is established where the interested stakeholders examine the situation according to the history before and after migration, the views of the child, the views of parents and the views of the person who will be responsible for potential alternative care arrangement background of the child in question.74 The guardian can accompany children during meetings with other authorities, but it is unclear whether these authorities proceed with any, and if so joint, BIA.

73 GATE, “National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, Op. Cit., p.34

74 These are some of the factors listed in the Save the Children UK, ‘Best Interest Assessment Form for Temporary Care Arrangements and Durable Solution’, (2010), resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/best-interest-assessment-form-temporary-care-arrangements-durable-solution


ConclusionsEven though the guardians at the workshop reached the conclusion that Standard 5 is fulfilled in a great degree in Cyprus, given the good relationships developed between the different actors in a UM’s life, there is still large scope for improvement. There are some unavoidable difficulties, such as the inability to be fully informed about what happens in the school environment or the lack of full cooperation of other institutions.

Recommendations drawn from the workshop with guardians:• Better information on the role and the tasks for the guardians needs to be provided to a range of

actors such as the police, NGOs, schools etc., perhaps through awareness-raising meetings and roundtable discussions.

• A common platform through which to discuss and share/exchange information should be established; this could be an online-based private platform or it could be done by periodic meetings.

If we visualise each of the different actors in a separated children’s environment holding an end of a spider-web, then the guardian should be in the middle where the threads intersect.


STANDARD 6

••••• The guardian ensures the timely identification and implementation of a durable solution.


A) Challenges others to prove their proposed solutions and implementation plan take the best interest as a primary consideration, while taking at least the following into account:• The child’s family situation,• The situation in the country of origin,• The adequacy of concrete care arrangements to ensure a safe and secure environment,• The safety and risks the child is exposed to,• The level of integration in the host country,• The mental and physical health of the child,• The possibilities of development in the various options.

B) Supports the reunification of the child with his/her family when this is in the best interest of the child taking into account any danger related to the exile grounds for the child or his/her family.• The guardian has personal contact with family members and organizations in the

country of origin after consent of the child, and checks their abilities to take care of the child in a safe and appropriate way,

• The guardian considers the signals of trafficking related to the role of family members.C) Supports the integration of the child in the host country when this is in the best interests of

the child, giving particular consideration to:• Language,• Social contacts,• Education and employment.

D) Supports a safe return to the home country when this is in the best interest of the child.• Depending upon the wishes of the child the guardian accompanies the returning child or

he/she arranges somebody else to do this. • The guardian oversees the preparation and monitoring of a life project/reintegration

plan before and after the return.• The guardian tries to be informed about the well-being of the child after he/she is

returned to the home country. E) Prepares the child for all predictable changes which will occur after he/she turns eighteen.

A UNHCR report states that there are no specific provisions for the “identification of durable solution/return/repatriation/integration”,75 although the safe return of unaccompanied minors is granted through S.39 of The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law of 2007. Cypriot authorities had never facilitated a voluntary return and thus conducted a risk assessment before 2012, consequently there is still no formal methodology or protocol in place to guarantee a minor’s safe return to their home country.

It is important to note that the first case where the decision for a minor to be returned to their country of origin was taken in October 2012. The Social Welfare Services of Cyprus, in cooperation

75 Sajid Alikhan and Malika Floor, UNHCR-The UN Refugee Agency, Guardianship Provision Systems for Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Europe: Initial Mapping, Op. Cit., p.40


with the non-governmental organization “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Centre took the necessary steps in the attempt to trace the family of the minor in question, although it was not proved fruitful on their part. Cooperation between international entities was observed, nonetheless, for the first time in facilitating family tracing. In another case in April 2013, “Hope For Children”, after being consulted by the Social Welfare Services for another case of voluntary return of an unaccompanied minor, made the necessary communication to validate the family reunification. This included contacting competent authorities in the destination country as well as relatives who would take the UM under their care. Authorities in the return country were also asked to cross-examine and investigate the validity of the family relationship and capability of accommodating the UM while the same actions were carried out jointly by the SWS and HFC in Cyprus.

The social welfare officers/guardians verify through the relevant authorities, and/or directly with the minor, if they wish to be contacted, that the minor has arrived safely to their country of origin, and/or reunited with their family (as demonstrated by the two abovementioned cases). The same assurances are requested by involved NGOs. Both cases marked the beginning of successful safe returns (where assurances were requested also after the return) and could form the basis for a good practice model.

Regarding the timely identification of a solution, an HFC representative stated that “there should be support mechanisms in place for when the child turns 18 as their position might continue to be vulnerable or they might be in need of further assistance; for example it is common that children attend secondary education after they turn 18 so problems may arise in the school environment”. NGO social workers/psychologists, maintain a relationship throughout the adolescence of the person continuing to its adulthood. “It is very important not to break the relationship of trust, respect and support after the minor turns 18”, as mentioned by an NGO psychologist . The services provided both by CSOs and SWS are offered even when the age of the person is in dispute, assuming that the person is a minor until the opposite is proven. During the transition period, the young person might continue to receive support for some months after they turn 18 but more support is needed until the young person is able to self-sustain and is smoothly integrated into society; in practice only the financial support continues in the form of public allowance for asylum seekers.

Standard 6 was thought to be encapsulated in Standard 1 by participating guardians of the workshop


ConclusionsThere seems to be a general unawareness of the concept of ‘durable solution’ and what that entails. Practices that result in timely reunification/integration/safe return are sporadic while it is common practice to achieve only short-term solutions. This inadequacy becomes more apparent when the minors turn 18 where there is limited support structure during their early adulthood.

Recommendations drawn from the workshop with guardians:• There is a need for forming an implementation plan for a durable solution in consultation with

the minor in question, the Asylum Service and other stakeholders involved.• A resolution on the issues of finding employment, with an emphasis on UMs who are out of

education, perhaps with the provision of work permit for separated children above 16 years old and for ex-separated children.

• Guidelines are to be formulated that will facilitate the work of the guardians during the transition between the life in the State institution and the (re)integration into society after UMs turn 18.


There is no theme-specific code of conduct outlining the principles for the relationship developed between guardians and children, based on trust, openness, mutual respect and dignity. Moreover, there are no official monitoring means of the substantial relationship cultivated between guardians and children, apart from the generic supervision principles applying to the SWS personnel. Children can raise formal complaints through the Commissioner for Children’s Rights76 and through NGOs but it is doubtful whether this route is known to the majority of children.

During the workshop with UMs and former UMs, Standard 7 was ranked second in importance, signifying the role of ‘practical’ guardians in demonstrating sensitivity of the cultural, religious and other identity of the children under their care. A UM tried to explain the attitude of guardians, in relation to national children living in the same care facility, by stating: “Maybe sometimes they act in a certain way because of our skin colour, of our difference”, while a former UM challenged this point stating in response: “Our skin colour is not an excuse for them to treat us in a certain way.” In the legislation there is no role difference between guardians of unaccompanied minors and guardians of national children as the SWS officers represent this dual capacity. However, in practical terms disparity in the two-sided roles is observed; “professionals represent and express [the] weakness of the general society to comprehend cultural and ethnic diversity”77. According to a GATE research, it was stressed that in practice unaccompanied minors cannot exercise their rights in the same way national children can which constitutes an example of poor compliance with the CRC. “There is a difference between these two. A foreign child is forced to live in a host centre that may not satisfy him… a Cypriot child can live in a family and have the right to live in a family, but a foreign child cannot have this right”.78

STANDARD 7

•••••• The guardian treats the child with respect and dignity.


A) Treats the child with an unprejudiced, open attitude.B) Listens to the child’s views and concerns and takes them seriously.C) Demonstrates the appropriate behaviour and attitude he/she expects from the child too.D) Shows interest in the child’s life by asking questions without being too obtrusive.E) Is sensible to cultural and/or religious differences.F) Respects the child’s right to privacy and informs the child about the possibility to see other

professionals on his/her own.G) Supports the child in maintaining and/or creating his/her identity and self-esteem. H) Shows a flexible approach tailored to individual needs of the child.I) Does not breach the right of the child to maintain his/her physical and mental integrity.

76 There is a complaint form on the website of the Commissioner’s office: www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/DMLcomplaintsForm_en?OpenForm

77 GATE, “National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, Op. Cit, p.48 78 GATE, “National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, Op. Cit., p.52


The guardians mentioned during the workshop that they keep an open-minded attitude towards the culture, traditions and beliefs of children under their care but they also expressed the concern that children sometimes internalise their contextual differences; for example, UMs might believe that officers take preference of national children over them when living in the State institutions. As SWS officers stated, sometimes UMs will internalise this difference as a negative aspect and will conceive behaviours as unfair and discriminatory. The SWS officers do believe, however, that there is room for improvement on their behalf and in assuring that children are respected in their interactions with other actors.

Standard 7 and Standard 8 were considered to be interlinked by the guardians. They were also of the view that their implementation level is indicative of the relationship between the guardian and the UMs under their care. Guardians attested that they need to have better insight in the culture and background of a child in order to be able to develop a bond of respect. What is common in the perceptions of children and guardians is that the guardians should be able to demonstrate their sensitivity by creating a fun and learning environment where the child can discuss about their country of origin, their religion, their customs and lifestyle, and vice versa. This process can, in turn, assist the child to be accustomed more easily in the country of residence.

ConclusionsGuardians believe that Standard 7 is fulfilled to a large extent, apart form the communication difficulties that arise, while the former separated children perceive that there are shortcomings in the implementation of this Standard. Consequently, guardians need to develop their interaction with separated children in order to ensure that children know they are respected, as well as their identity and cultural backgrounds.

Recommendations drawn from the workshop with guardians:• Develop opportunities for cross-cultural exchange as independent activities or as a

mainstreaming option, e.g. ‘information exchange evenings’, world café method, cultural kitchen, or even the organisation of multicultural camps.79

• Need for training on cultural awareness, sensitivity and cross-cultural non-formal communication for guardians.

Standard 7 in the workshop with (former) separated children

79 The Action Plan for TCNs 2010-2012 mentions this at Action 6.1.2: “Organisation of campings with participation of local children and children who are third-country nationals”, www.moi.gov.cy/moi/crmd/crmd.nsf/All/29C2B8DB3A5D19B1C225798B00410F8F/$file/Action%20Plan%202010-2012%20-3-ENGL%20fin%20WEB.pdf


A series of postcards selected by (former) separated children to signify their relationship with their guardians, in terms of respect, trust and openness, encompassing thus Standard 7 and 8. Some of the ones picked up reflected a more negative perspective of their

experience; disappointment (middle) and isolation (top).


STANDARD 8

••••••• The guardian forms a relationship with the child built on mutual trust, openness & confidentiality.


A) Knows the child personally.B) Keeps all information about and from the child confidential unless it is necessary to break

confidentiality to keep the child or another child safe and informs the child, when possible, about a confidentiality breach.

C) Does not judge the child’s reasons for exile or allow this to effect his/her relationship with the child.

D) Is always honest with the child and keeps his/her promises.E) Gives clear information about his role and limitations in a way that the child understands

and can recall. F) Demonstrates to the child that he/she really cares for the child – that he/she works from the

heart – and that he/she feels responsible for the child.G) Makes clear to the child that a child who disappears is always welcome to return to the

guardian.H) Pays attention to verbal, nonverbal and emotional communication. I) Is empathic towards the child and gives moral and emotional support.

The SWS officers are mandated to keep information confidential based on the general Code of Conduct of the SWS. This standard was evaluated in practice taking into account the views of both guardians and UMs during the respective workshops. During the workshop with children, they mentioned that they do not feel they can genuinely trust their guardians, as they often do not fulfil promises. “They present something but they give something different, they show that they love you but when you need them they are not there for you”, said a separated child. Moreover, UMs are not open in sharing their thoughts with their guardians, because they do not get the response they would wish and there is no timely identification and solution in problems they might share with them. This is directly linked to Standard 9, as the limited working hours severely impact on the possibility to develop a healthy relationship with the child based on the Standard 8 principles.

A social worker during the workshop stated “they do not trust us but in the long run their inner thoughts come out”. The SWS officers expressed that the biggest obstacle in the formation of a close relationship with UMs is the language barrier. Although they have access to interpreters, access is limited and time-bound. Nevertheless, SWS officers recognised the fact that they need to devote quality time with the UMs under their care to ensure that the minors would perceive them as a trustworthy figure, to which they turn to express their feelings and worries.

The confidentiality principle is implemented to the full extent, unless it is in the best interests of the child to share information with interested parties (depends on individual case). However, difficulties in communication render transparency and trust a trickier task to accomplish. Therefore, the exchange and relationship-building between guardians and separated children is restricted by the available communication tools, sometimes in relation to cultural understanding, in combination with the limited working hours of the social workers.


ConclusionsThe highest obstacle in fully implementing Standard 8 is the poor means of communication which restrict trust and openness in the guardian-child relationship. Moreover, the main problem as viewed by minors was the non-fulfilment of promises on behalf of the guardians. This could be improved by identifying better communication techniques and by setting realistic goals having in mind the time and options available.

Recommendations drawn from the workshops:• Interpretation should be directly available at the guardians’ request. This issue can be resolved

through hiring permanent interpreters (French interpreters since the great majority of children are French speaking) at the SWS central offices and at the State institutions where the children are accommodated. Alternatively, the guardians may receive basic language courses.

• There is also a need for expert and trained interpreters on issues specific to UMs, e.g. trafficking/smuggling and cultural understanding.


STANDARD 9

•••••••• The guardian is accessible.


A) Sees the child as soon as possible after his/her appointment in a face to face talk.B) Pays visits to the child on a frequent basis.C) Can be reached easily by the child by phone or E-mail.D) Communicates in a way which fits the age and development of the child.E) Should make use of interpreters when necessary.F) The guardian lives near enough to the child to be able to respond quickly to difficulties. G) Informs the child where and when they can meet. H) Contacts the child from time to time to keep in touch also when there is no specific need

to do so.

The accessibility of social workers/guardians is generally determined by their position in the SWS work structure; at the State institutions, where children under care are accommodated, the Director, permanent officers, and officers on call of the institution are there to respond to the needs of children. The ‘practical’ guardians as mentioned above work during normal office hours so it is up to the individual guardian to decide the accessibility level after office hours. During the workshop, the SWS officers said that they have to draw limits since UMs might feel the need to call during inappropriate hours. Additionally, they found that communication is facilitated in the case of teenagers who own a mobile phone and can contact their social workers at any time they wish.

In practice, the minor can request, usually by making a phone call, to see his/her guardian and take the ordinary route of booking an appointment and vice versa. This ‘impersonal’ procedure at times is in a sense the result of the workload and limited time of the guardians. However, the child might still attempt to call the guardian at any time and meet them. If the meeting enquiry on behalf of the minor is related to urgency, the guardian may choose to see the child out of regular office hours, but this solely relies on the individual guardian at the time. UMs showed their discontent on this issue and even stated that this standard does not apply in any way in their experience. Some children declared that even if you call guardians they might not pick up while one mentioned: “they don’t call to see if we are ok. They are only interested in the negative side, for example, if I am absent from school”. Another one stated that “nothing moves fast…they may do a favour for me but it will take a long time”, while on an incident requiring medical examination, the delay was up to a month. Some expressed their wish to be contacted regularly on a daily basis so as to feel that guardians are interested in their well-being and safety.

ConclusionsAccessibility could be improved, especially with regards to the initial stages of the appointment of the guardian. The implementation of Standard 9 depends on the type of care facility, foster home/State institution, and working hours of the guardian. The social workers thought that the lack of access to interpreters could impede the overall accessibility of the guardian since accessibility is not only decided by quantity but also quality.


Recommendations drawn from the workshops:• There should be mutual agreement on visiting days, structure of a schedule for standard

meetings to complement ad hoc meetings.• One recommendation by a social worker during the workshop was for children to be allowed to

attend the internal meetings (once annually) between the different officers handling their case, which nevertheless has to be in a language that they understand. This way, the minors can have coordinated access to interested actors, and in relation to Standard 2, be informed about their case and partake in decisions.


STANDARD 10

•••••••••

The guardian is equipped with relevant professional knowledge and competences.


A) Has working knowledge about:• Children’s rights,• Migration and asylum law, • Child developmental psychology, • Trauma, • Trafficking, • Intercultural communication, • Child abuse and protection,• Social welfare,• The situation and life in the home country of the child.

B) Knows his/her personal and professional limits and is open to improve his/her knowledge, methodology and attitude.

C) Is proactive in identifying learning and development needs and requests training when necessary.

D) Manages his/her caseload to give due attention to all the children he/she works with.E) Is well organized, keeps records and is accountable.F) Can manage costs and available resources.G) Works according to a set methodology.H) Seeks support and counselling whenever necessary and exchanges experiences with his/her

colleagues on a regular basis.I) Is open to supervision and monitoring.J) Reflects on his/her actions, role and motivation.

The SWS recruits graduates in a work-related field, usually social work. SWS officers “receive general, practical training”80 but special training on issues related to minors, particularly UMs and child victims of trafficking/exploitation is absent at present. The trainings provided are harmonised, delivered in different regions island-wide on legal issues, adoption and the application of specific legislation e.g. on migration, domestic violence issues and welfare benefits. The officers mentioned during the workshop, when discussing the qualities needed for one to be a competent guardian, that the knowledge of two foreign languages would be an additional asset, especially the French language, as well as hands-on experience with working and interacting in a multicultural setting.

As cited previously, professional support and supervision to assist the role of guardians is taken up by the supervisor responsible for them within the internal structure of the SWS. Guardians exchange information and brainstorm amongst them but since monitoring is limited to procedural checks and not to substantial supervision to discuss cases, this might lead to the burnout of social workers. In addition, it is uncertain how effective the communication of the minor’s concern to the supervisor and/or through their social worker is. There is no difference detected in the monitoring of guardians in relation to other SWS officers; there is no independent or specific inspectorate for SWS

80 Sajid Alikhan and Malika Floor, UNHCR-The UN Refugee Agency, Guardianship Provision Systems for Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Europe: Initial Mapping, Op. Cit., p.53


officers dealing with cases of UMs, since SWS officers are responsible for both national, out of home care, children and unaccompanied children interchangeably. There should be specialised training offered to social workers who are responsible for separated children and cross-thematic training on issues tied up with children on the move, like trafficking and exploitation. This applies equally to supervisors allocated to guardians; they should have extensive knowledge on unaccompanied minor issues to offer appropriate and effective supervision to guardians.

The significance placed on Standard 10 by guardians points to the need of further training and development of professional skills

ConclusionsStandard 10 was generally found to be one of the three most important standards for the guardians, in terms of frequent support and supervision. At the moment there is a lack of specialised training on issues of trafficking, exploitation, intercultural exchange and dialogue, which can negatively affect the preparation and organisation of a guardian’s action plan, if there is any, with regards to the case of a UM.

Recommendations drawn from the workshops:• Guardians expressed the need for more training, and specialised training, and for the

establishment of systematic supervision and monitoring.• A method for exchanging information, experience and views with other Services, such as the

Asylum Service and the Immigration department, would be an advantage to the guardians’ professional capacities and development.


7. CONCLUSIONS

“Love is not material things; it is to know that the other person is there for you” - Separated child, Cyprus

Drawing from the report and the findings, it can be concluded that there is a discrepancy in the practical application of standards for guardians since there is a lack of methodologies and working plans, a matter left to the discretion of individual guardians. Although there might be individual willingness for improvement of the status quo, there needs to be a supportive system established but also the political will to establish one. A more holistic approach in dealing with issues encountered by unaccompanied minors should be endorsed, instead of dealing with issues sporadically. It is crucial that a suitable framework for UMs is put in place, as the numbers of separated children arriving at the territory of the Republic of Cyprus increase year by year. Additionally, considering the conflicts in the surrounding Middle-Eastern zone, Cyprus might need to accommodate fleeing children from neighbouring areas.

Examining other situations abroad it can be recommended that ideas such as mentorship, peer-to-peer support and information-exchange evenings can be beneficial if introduced in the Cypriot context. Since the guardians have a variety of tasks, volunteers or NGO staff may complement their role when it comes to ensuring the protection/safety, BIA/BID assessment, identification of a durable solution, and development of a relationship of mutual trust, respect and dignity. Although the Core Standards form the benchmark for practices, policies and legislation in relation to the legal guardians of the child, they can also perform a vital role for other stakeholders involved with separated children, such as carers, health care workers, educators, psychologists, immigration officers etc.

In conclusion, it is important to employ the Core Standards in a sustainable manner, even upon completion of the project, to build on the momentum of improving existing practices and policies. The Core Standards can inform specific and detailed action plans for this vulnerable group of minors, which will require the coordination of all stakeholders to take positive steps in ensuring their best interests. They could also be used as a reference point for developing guidelines or tools regarding the practice of social workers and also with regards to material specifically designed for unaccompanied minors, including their rights and obligations, asylum procedures and safety precautions. The adoption and implementation of the Core Standards in the Cypriot guardianship system could certainly be a step towards realising a better response to separated children issues - for separated children themselves, their guardians and society in general.


8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CORE STANDARDS ON NATIONAL LEVEL

Guardianship System in general • The discrepancy between legislation and practice as to the person exercising the guardianship needs to be amended; at present both case managing and per sonal adviser roles are exercised by the SWS officers while the SWS Director holds the formal decisions and authorisations. • A system for workload management needs to be put in place, so that the cases al located for each guardian are addressed more efficiently and effectively. Perhaps there needs to be improved delegation internally in the SWS to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of tasks.

• Clear and coherent methodology and guidelines are required for SWS officers acting as guardians of UMs. Such methodology would include, inter alia, early identification of abuse/exploitation/trafficking signs, a best interests assessment and determination, family tracing and return procedures, age assessment where it is deemed necessary and not as “a standard or routine practice”.81

• A target group-specific Code of Conduct in relation to working with UMs needs to be constructed, consisting of ethical dilemmas and moral issues which may arise taking the best interests of the child as a paramount concern.

• A multidisciplinary approach in cross-cutting issues that affect separated children could be addressed through the establishment of a working group which will produce recommendations and further promote the rights of unaccompanied minors in the country.

• There is a need for introducing a specific Action Plan for unaccompanied minors, recognising thus the distinct and multiple issues faced by this population group. Alternatively, a section of other Action Plans, such as the Action Plan against Trafficking in Human Beings 2010-2012, could be dedicated to the special cir cumstances of UMs.

Standard 1

• Alternative options for schooling should be considered, according the capacities and wishes of the individual minor. The possibility of schooling within public and private schools (e.g. French speaking school), instead of technical schools, should be an option for the minors.

• The government should take steps to initiate de-institutionalisation and seek alternative accommodation; in a specialised house for unaccompanied minors, in foster families or in a ‘homo-cultural’ type82 of guardianship, with trained and competent volunteers as happens in other European countries.

• Placement in care facility institutions should be selected as a last resort option, unless it is the minor’s preference, and shall ensure the healthy psychosocial development of minors, taking into account the complexity of their social history. At the same time, the feasibility of minors to be accommodated with national, out of home care, children should be examined and handled accordingly.

81 Separated Children in Europe Programme, Statement of Good Practice, (2009), p.25

82 Where foreign residents are appointed as guardians of the minor.


Standard 2

• An all-encompassing approach should be endorsed regarding the information provided to the child as to the asylum procedures and options with regards to the schooling system, as stated in the Action Plan 2010-2012 for TCNs.83

• There should be more availabe use of interpretation methods, either through the list of associates of the SWS or through specialised staff working directly for the SWS. Standard 3

• There is a growing need for more effective and timely mechanisms to monitor the safety of the children and the timely identification of threats and risks of abuse/ exploitation, both for prevention but also for the protection of the victims; the growing number of disappearances signifies the need for deterrence in this sector also.

Standard 4

• The asylum applications of UMs need to be reviewed to produce an apt outcome since the legal representation interpretation issue has been solved recently. The option of appointing a guardian ad litem should be considered when the minor needs to attend court hearings.

Standard 5

• The government should ensure that all involved and interested stakeholders are consulted when important decisions affecting a child’s best interests are taken. Such actors should include the MoI, MoL, and NGO representatives.

Standard 6

• The state should provide introductory programmes in schools in order to prepare the child for entering the school environment and to facilitate the learning process using need-adapted materials. Greek language classes should be offered pre-entering the school curriculum for free as well as an extra after school.

• There is an immediate need for preparation and continuous support during the transition before and after 18, with the long-term aim of integrating (former) separated children into the host society.

• There should be procedures in place for initiating investigations for family tracing and an assessment regarding the possibility of family reunification and/or the safe voluntary return of UMs.

Standard 7 and 8

• The guardians should display commitment to nurture a relationship based on mutual respect and dignity, by making constant efforts to understand and empathise with the minor(s) under their care and become familiar with their cultural background and identity.

Standard 9

• The frequency of visits and face-to-face contact must be improved to enable the open exchange of information and concerns.

83 Action 1.1.2.: “Publishing of Information material in various languages on the Cyprus educational system, on perspectives and educational choices of children, on the students’ rights and obligations and other useful information”, www.moi.gov.cy/moi/crmd/crmd.nsf/All/29C2B8DB3A5D19B1C225798B00410F8F/$file/Action%20Plan%202010-2012%20-3-ENGL%20fin%20WEB.pdf


Standard 10

• There should be more frequent internal supervision, monitoring & evaluation on substantial grounds and by proficient individuals in the field, trained on the multiplicity of issues faced by UMs.

• A specialised training methodology must be developed to increase competency on separated children issues, not only on migration policy and legislative knowledge but also on inter-personal skills and self-development.


9. REFERENCES

Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010-2014), European Commission, COM(2010) 213, eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0213:FIN:EN:PDF

Aliens and Immigration (Amendment) Law, N.100(I)/2012, cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2012_1_100.pdf

Amnesty International Report on Cyprus 2010, www.amnesty.org/en/region/cyprus/report-2010#

Amnesty International, Punishment without a crime. Detention of migrants and asylum-seekers in Cyprus, (2012), www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR17/001/2012/en/36f06387-9ce6-43df-9734-a4550fa413d6/eur170012012en.pdf

Children’s Law, Chapter 352, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_352/full.html

Christalla Yakinthou, Öncel Polili, Reconciliation through a common purpose: Third Party Human Rights in Cyprus, (December 2010), www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/20e288e0-900d-4d84-8553-8d7854488bc2/TESEV_Reconciliation_through_a_common_purpose.pdf

Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights, “Report of the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Cyprus to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child”, Supplementary Report to the 3rd and 4th Periodic Report of Cyprus, (2011), www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/0/1EC6DD6A03DF57C0C225791B003A0A30/$file/UNREPORT12Bonline.pdf

Commissioner for the Rights of the Child website, www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/DMLcommissioner_en/DMLcommissioner_en?OpenDocument

Constantina Christodoulou et al., Re-Integration Centre for Migrant Workers, Trafficking for Labour in Cyprus, Prepared in the frame of the project: Combating trafficking in human beings-going beyond coordinated by CCME, (February 2011), ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action;jsessionid=040bRZLSLGXL37c1H3TdVv6Djn6vL3hJjvRYfhWhJMzxq2ryyQqh!-656776111?nodePath=%2FEU+Projects%2F2011-03-Cyprus+Report+GOING+BEYOND.pdf&fileName=2011-03-Cyprus+Report+GOING+BEYOND.pdf

Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ratification) Law, N. 243/1990, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/0/EFA941CBE41740E3C2256E5B00295F40/$file/Convention%20on%20the%20Rights%20of%20Children.pdf?OpenElement

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:031:0018:0025:EN:PDF

Cyprus Mail, ‘Nicolaou meets Menoyia complaints committee’, http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/07/26/nicolaou-meets-menoyia-complaints-committee/

European Convention on the Exercise of the Rights of the Child (Ratification) Law οf 2005, Ν. 23(ΙΙΙ)/2005

European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Save the Children, Comparative Study on Practices in the Field of Return of Minors, (December 2011), ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/studies/Return_of_children-final.pdf

European Hotline for Missing Children Cyprus website, www.call116000.org

European Migration Network, Unaccompanied Minors-an EU comparative study, (May 2010), www.emn.fi/files/288/0._EMN_Synthesis_Report_Unaccompanied_Minors_Publication_(Sept10)_1_.pdf.

European Migration Network, Unaccompanied Minors-an EU comparative study, (May 2010)


GATE (Guardians Against Child Trafficking and Exploitation),”National Report CARDET-Cyprus”, (October 2012), www.gate-eu.org/files/Gate%20EU%20report%20e-version.pdf

GRETA (Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings), “Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Cyprus”, (September 2011), www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/docs/Reports/GRETA_2011_8_FGR_CYP_en_final.pdf

KISA- Action for Equality, Support and Antiracism, “Reception Conditions of Asylum Seekers”, (2008)

Legal Aid (Amendment) Law, N. 8(I)/2012, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2012_1_8.pdf

Legal Aid Law, N.165(I)/2002, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/0/67415D83F3797961C2256E5A002FAF24/$file/Legal%20Assistance%20Law%202002.pdf?OpenElement

M.A. v. Cyprus, application no. 41872/10, hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4438172-5338448

Ministry of Education and Culture, ‘Adult Education Centres’, www.moec.gov.cy/en/adult_education.html

Ministry of Interior, Asylum Service, “Guide for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection in Cyprus”, (2011), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/asylum/asylum.nsf/All/E3C438ECC1B2210BC22578400052F169/$file/Guide%20for%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20beneficiaries%20of%20international%20protection%20in%20Cyprus.pdf

National Action Plan 2010-2012 against Trafficking in Human Beings (THB), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/moi.nsf/All/69112946E6B4D271C2257AA900261168

National Action Plan for the integration of immigrants who are legally residing in Cyprus 2010-2012, www.moi.gov.cy/moi/crmd/crmd.nsf/All/29C2B8DB3A5D19B1C225798B00410F8F/$file/Action%20Plan%202010-2012%20-3-ENGL%20fin%20WEB.pdf

Nikta Akasereh, “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Centre, Voice of Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers on Guardianship: A study on Guardians of Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers in Cyprus, (2011), www.uncrcpc.org/pdfs/research.pdf

Ombudsman, “Report of the Anti-Discrimination Body regarding the complaint of UNHCR on the issue of the legal representation of unaccompanied minors asylum seekers”, (2012), www.non-discrimination.net/content/media/CY-88-FR%20unaccompanied%20minors.pdf

Ombudsman’s Office, “Public statement the Ombudsman of Administration and Human Rights as an Independent Authority for the Prevention of Torture for the content of the Report of the Commission of the Council of Europe for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)”, (2012), www.ombudsman.gov.cy/Ombudsman/Ombudsman.nsf/All/497CE8DC28E64796C2257AD0003ACDB6?OpenDocument

Press and Information Office, ‘The Council of Ministers determined the benefits received by third-country nationals in Cyprus’, (18/07/2012), www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/FA212328DD38094FC2257BAC0045C6A2?OpenDocument

Quality 4 Children Standards, www.quality4children.info/navigation/show.php3?id=2&_language=en.

Sajid Alikhan and Malika Floor, UNHCR-The UN Refugee Agency, Guardianship Provision Systems for Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Europe: Initial Mapping, www.defenceforchildren.nl/images/42/658.pdf


Save the Children UK, ‘Best Interest Assessment Form for Temporary Care Arrangements and Durable Solution’, (2010), resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/best-interest-assessment-form-temporary-care-arrangements-durable-solution

Separated Children in Europe Programme, Statement of Good Practice, (2009), www.acnur.org/biblioteca/pdf/7989.pdf?view=1

Separated Children in Europe Programme, www.separated-children-europe-programme.org/

Social Welfare Services of the Republic of Cyprus website, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/dmlmission_en/dmlmission_en?OpenDocument

Strengthening Asylum Legal Portal, Future Worlds Centre, strengtheningasylum.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/iiiiiifii/

The Combating of Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings and the Protection of Victims Law, N.87(I)/2007, www.mlsi.gov.cy/mlsi/sws/sws.nsf/All/66FEA10FB43FE8E0C22574190038CFD7/$file/nomos%20emporias%20prosopon.pdf?OpenElement

The Refugee Law of 2000, N.6(I)/2000, www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/2000_1_6/full.html

The Refugees (Conditions of Reception of Asylum-seekers) Regulations, (K.Δ.Π. 598/2005), www.cylaw.org/nomothesia/par_3/meros_1/2005/4774.pdf

The Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation of Young Persons Law, 2000, N.31(1)/2000

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, “General Comment no. 6, on the Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin”, (2005), CRC/GC/2005/6, www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/GC6.pdf www.emn.fi/files/288/0._EMN_Synthesis_Report_Unaccompanied_Minors_Publication_(Sept10)_1_.pdf.


10. ANNEXES

A. CORE STANDARDS FOR GUARDIANS OF SEPARATED CHILDREN IN EUROPE

STANDARD 1The guardian advocates for all decisions to be taken in the best interests of the child, aimed at the protection and development of the child.

Indicators:

The guardian: A) Makes an assessment on the best interests of the child, for example before decisions are taken about: a. Legal procedures, b. The choice of a lawyer, c. Housing accommodation and placement, d. Education, e. (Health)care, f. Leisure activities, g. Other support.

B) Makes sure that an assessment on the best interest of the child is based on the views and opinions of the child and on individual circumstances.

C) Involves all relevant actors in the determination of the best interest of the child in decisions impacting upon the child to ensure a multi disciplinary approach.

D) Avoids having a conflict of interest concerning the child and works independently from other actors who make decisions about the welfare and status of the child.

E) Adjusts the assessment of the best interests of the child regularly, while taking at a minimum into account:

a. The child’s personal background and past experience in the country of origin and journey, b. His/her development, c. Family situation, d. Duration of stay in the host country, e. Phase of residence procedure or immigration status.

STANDARD 2The guardian ensures the child’s participation in every decision which affects the child. Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Provides the child with all relevant information concerning his/her rights and information needed for his/her participation in a language the child understands and in a child friendly way, repeats this information as often as necessary and checks if the child understands and recalls the information.

B) Listens carefully to the child and takes his/her views into account in the most appropriate way in accordance with his/her age, development and evolving capacities.


C) Informs the child of the outcome of the decision making process and explains how his/ her views were considered.

D) Manages expectations of the participation of the child.

E) Makes sure that action or development plans are based on the views of the child and shared with the child.

F) Ensures that appointments are made with the informed consent of the child.

G) Informs the child about complaint procedures concerning the guardianship and is open to feedback from the child.

H) Uses creative tools, like visual materials, where necessary to ensure participation.

STANDARD 3The guardian protects the safety of the child.

Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Gives the highest possible priority to the child’s safety and ensures that his/her own conduct does not put the child at risk.

B) Makes sure the child knows he/she is welcome to voice anything concerning his/her safety or any danger that he/she feels.

C) Keeps all information about and from the child confidential unless it is necessary to break confidentiality to keep the child or another child safe and informs the child, when possible, about a confidentiality breach.

D) Can identify the signals of child abuse and trafficking, acts upon signals of any harm or danger to the child and reports those signals to the relevant child protection authorities. E) Is aware of the additional pressure, dangers and risks presented by those who facilitated the child’s journey.

F) Ensures that if a child is a victim of violence, abuse or trafficking the child gets appropriate treatment.

G) Always reports the disappearance of a child.

H) Is open about being monitored on his/her own behaviour.

STANDARD 4The guardian acts as an advocate for the rights of the child.

Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Is an assertive, committed and brave watchdog, dedicated to defending the rights of the child.

B) Is not afraid of taking different points of view from the authorities and acts independently, solely based on the best interests of the child.

C) Opposes decisions which are not taken in the best interests of the child and pursues fair procedures concerning the child.


D) Shows emotional strength to deal with wearing situations, frustrations and hostility or pressure through third parties.

E) Is present during the determination of the best interest of the child at important decisions.

STANDARD 5The guardian is a bridge between and a focal point for the child and other actors involved. Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Keeps in contact with and is the focal point for: a. The lawyer, b. Reception and social workers (mentors), c. (Psycho)social and medical care givers, d. Migration authorities, e. School teachers, f. Foster parents, g. Social Services, h. (Extended) family members in the host country and/or the country of origin, i. Other relevant actors.

B) Informs the child about his/her rights and obligations in relation to the other actors.

C) Assists in establishing links with the child’s community and developing key one on one relationships that gives the child a sense of belonging to a family or group.

D) Ensures that he/she is informed about decisions which have an impact on the child and is present at key meetings and interviews where decisions are made.

STANDARD 6The guardian ensures the timely identification and implementation of a durable solution. Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Challenges others to prove their proposed solutions and implementation plan take the best interest as a primary consideration, while taking at least the following into account:

a. The child’s family situation, b. The situation in the country of origin, c. The adequacy of concrete care arrangements to ensure a safe and secure environment, d. The safety and risks the child is exposed to, e. The level of integration in the host country, f. The mental and physical health of the child, g. The possibilities of development in the various options.

B) Supports the reunification of the child with his/her family when this is in the best interest of the child taking into account any danger related to the exile grounds for the child or his/her family.

a. The guardian has personal contact with family members and organizations in the country of origin after consent of the child, and checks their abilities to take care of the child in a safe and appropriate way,


b. The guardian considers the signals of trafficking related to the role of family members. C) Supports the integration of the child in the host country when this is in the best interests of the child, giving particular consideration to:

a. Language, b. Social contacts, c. Education and employment.

D) Supports a safe return to the home country when this is in the best interest of the child.

a. Depending upon the wishes of the child the guardian accompanies the returning child or he/she arranges somebody else to do this.

b. The guardian oversees the preparation and monitoring of a life project/reintegration plan before and after the return.

c. The guardian tries to be informed about the well being of the child after he/she is returned to the home country.

E) Prepares the child for all predictable changes which will occur after he/she turns eighteen.

STANDARD 7The guardian treats the child with respect and dignity.

Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Treats the child with an unprejudiced, open attitude.

B) Listens to the child’s views and concerns and takes them seriously.

C) Demonstrates the appropriate behaviour and attitude he/she expects from the child too.

D) Shows interest in the child’s life by asking questions without being too obtrusive.

E) Is sensible to cultural and/or religious differences.

F) Respects the child’s right to privacy and informs the child about the possibility to see other professionals on his/her own.

G) Supports the child in maintaining and/or creating his/her identity and self-esteem.

H) Shows a flexible approach tailored to individual needs of the child.

I) Does not breach the right of the child to maintain his/her physical and mental integrity.

STANDARD 8The guardian forms a relationship with the child built on mutual trust, openness & confidentiality.

Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Knows the child personally.


B) Keeps all information about and from the child confidential unless it is necessary to break confidentiality to keep the child or another child safe and informs the child, when possible, about a confidentiality breach. C) Does not judge the child’s reasons for exile or allow this to effect his/her relationship with the child.

D) Is always honest with the child and keeps his/her promises.

E) Gives clear information about his role and limitations in a way that the child understands and can recall.

F) Demonstrates to the child that he/she really cares for the child – that he/she works from the heart – and that he/she feels responsible for the child.

G) Makes clear to the child that a child who disappears is always welcome to return to the guardian.

H) Pays attention to verbal, nonverbal and emotional communication.

I) Is empathic towards the child and gives moral and emotional support. STANDARD 9The guardian is accessible.

Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Sees the child as soon as possible after his/her appointment in a face to face talk.

B) Pays visits to the child on a frequent basis.

C) Can be reached easily by the child by phone or E-mail.

D) Communicates in a way which fits the age and development of the child.

E) Should make use of interpreters when necessary.

F) The guardian lives near enough to the child to be able to respond quickly to difficulties. G) Informs the child where and when they can meet.

H) Contacts the child from time to time to keep in touch also when there is no specific need to do so.

STANDARD 10The guardian is equipped with relevant professional knowledge and competences. Indicators:

The guardian:

A) Has working knowledge about: a. Children’s rights, b. Migration and asylum law, c. Child developmental psychology, d. Trauma, e. Trafficking, f. Intercultural communication, g. Child abuse and protection,


h. Social welfare, i. The situation and life in the home country of the child.

B) Knows his/her personal and professional limits and is open to improve his/her knowledge, methodology and attitude.

C) Is proactive in identifying learning and development needs and requests training when necessary.

D) Manages his/her caseload to give due attention to all the children he/she works with.

E) Is well organized, keeps records and is accountable.

F) Can manage costs and available resources.

G) Works according to a set methodology.

H) Seeks support and counselling whenever necessary and exchanges experiences with his/ her colleagues on a regular basis.

I) Is open to supervision and monitoring.

J) Reflects on his/her actions, role and motivation.


. GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

BIA: Best interests assessment

BID: Best interests determination CPT: Committee of the Council of Europe for the Prevention of Torture CRC: See UNCRC

EC: European Commission

ECB: European Central Bank

ECtHR: European Court of Human Rights GATE: Guardians Against Child Trafficking and Exploitation

HFC: Hope For Children

IMF: International Monetary Fund ISS: International Social Services

MoI: Ministry of Interior

MoL: Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance

NGo: Non-governmental organisation

PIo: Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus SCEP: Separated Children in Europe Programme

SWS: Social Welfare Services

TCN: Third Country National

THB: Trafficking in Human Being

UM: Unaccompanied minor

UMAS: Unaccompanied minor asylum seeker

UNCRC: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

B


GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FIRST PROJECT CLOSING A PROTECTION GAP Based on the information received from separated children and guardians, the project partners call upon State authorities to ensure that:

1. Every separated child should have a guardian upon his/her arrival in the host country.

2. The opinion of the child should be taken into account before the appointment of a guardian.

3. Guardians should be appointed before an age assessment is carried out or a pre-phase guardianship system should be in place.

4. A legal basis for guardianship should exist.

5. All separated children should be entitled to the same level of protection, it should not make any difference what age the child has, if the child seeks asylum or not, is documented or not, is an EU citizen or not (non-discrimination principle).

6. Every separated child should have a lawyer in addition to a guardian. This lawyer supports the child and guardian in taking decisions about legal affairs.

7. External monitoring of the guardian should be in place, children should be enabled to contribute to this monitoring and special attention should be given to signals of abuse by the guardian.

8. Guardians should be at least compensated for the costs they make to fulfill their duties. 9. The caseload of guardians should be reasonable and maximum levels of caseloads should be set.

10. The guardians should be enabled to act independently from authorities who take decisions in order to promote the best interests of the child. Guardians should not be allowed to have different roles that can cause a conflict of interest.

11. The guardianship system and practice (including training) should be harmonized throughout the entire country.

12. Procedures affecting separated children should be treated with priority.

13. It should be promoted that a team of guardians consists of people with different cultural backgrounds.

14. Avoid as much as possible changes in guardians and moving of the children.

15. No separated child should be detained on migration grounds.

16. There should be an exchange of information between States and guardians about returnees and agreements should be made with local authorities and partners.

17. Family reunification in the country of origin or other European States should only be practiced when it is safe and with the help of an organization that is working in the best interests of the child.

18. If support from a guardian or Youth Care is provided for nationals above eighteen years old it should be available to separated children too.

C.


All rights reserved. Copyright © 2014 HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center No portion may be reproduced without permission of HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center.

DesignDesignink.nl, The Hague, The Netherlands Adaptation of Cyprus version: Savvas Thoma

The nine country assessments are available at: www.corestandardsforguardians.com

Published byHFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center 75 Limassol Avenue, Office 2012121 NicosiaCyprus Phone: + 357 22103234 Fax: + 357 22104021 E-mail: [email protected]

www.uncrcpc.org

Project partners: Country:Defence for Children-ECPAT The Netherlands The Netherlands Asylkoordination Österreich Austria Bureau d’accueil et de défense des jeunes (service droit des jeunes) Belgium HFC “Hope For Children” UNCRC Policy Center Cyprus Bundesfachverband Unbegleitete Minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.v., Germany Irish Refugee Council Ltd. Ireland Defence for Children International Italia Italy Conselho Português para os Refugiados Portugal Slovenska filantropija Slovenia

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Daphne III Programme of the European Commission. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.

Take Time

Bea Friend

takethe

lead ! ! !

Behonest Be

kind

Understandchildren

Listenand Tell

takeaction

BESURE

ASK!! ! ! !

Fight4U !!!

Take Time !!!!

Take time !! Take Time.

Take Time

TAKE T IME

Imp

lem

en

ting

the

Co

re S

tan

da

rds fo

r gu

ard

ian

s of se

pa

rate

d ch

ildre

n in

Eu

rop

e

Core Standards for guardians of separated children in Europe:

Standard 1 The guardian advocates for all decisions to be taken in the best interests of the child, aimed at the protection and development of the child.

Standard 2 The guardian ensures the child’s participation in every decision which affects the child.

Standard 3 The guardian protects the safety of the child.

Standard 4 The guardian acts as an advocate for the rights of the child.

Standard 5 The guardian is a bridge between and focal point for the child and other actors involved.

Standard 6 of a durable solution.

Standard 7 The guardian treats the child with respect and dignity.

Standard 8 The guardian forms a relationship with the child built on mutual

Standard 9 The guardian is accessible.

Standard 10 The guardian is equipped with relevant professional knowledge and competences.

Implementing the Core Standards for guardians of separated children in EuropeCountry Assessment: Cyprus

Rafaela Camassa

www.corestandardsforguardians.com

“A guardian is someone who takes care of you from a distance.”a separated child

implementing the core standards for guardians of separated ... · report; joseph varughese, andria...

Documents