An important issue has arisen from the emotionally charged case of a small migrant girl and the Maltese woman who practically brought her up. The two had suddenly to be separated because the child had to join her biological parents leaving for resettlement in another country.
When talking about children separated from their families, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses that the reunification of children and their parents should be dealt with in a “positive, humane and expeditious manner”.
It is therefore no wonder that all are in agreement, even the migrant child’s carer, that the child had to go with her parents. The best interests of the child should always take priority.
What is of concern is that the child – and the woman who brought her up – were not well prepared for the big change that was about to take place so soon in their relationship and their lives. Indeed, the presiding judge in the legal tangle that emerged in this case criticised the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), the International Organisation for Migration and the Swiss and Maltese authorities for failing to examine the situation in detail and make the necessary arrangements for the child to be prepared for the transition.
The UNHCR’s crucial and much appreciated role in resettlement cases is to identify and refer potential candidates. It said it had conducted extensive interviews with all family members to recommend them for possible relocation, adding that it considered family unity to be in the best interest of the child in line with international legal principles.
Yet, in spite of the extensive interviews and all the other deliberations by the other organisations involved in the process, none of them seems to have become aware early enough that the family included a small girl brought up by a Maltese woman. Or that this state of affairs required prompt and proper action.
The woman’s lawyer claimed it was she who informed the agency about the girl’s circumstances when the carer was told, a mere two weeks before the biological family’s scheduled departure from Malta, that the family was being relocated and the child would have to be uprooted too.
Family unity and reunification feature prominently in the UNHCR’s Resettlement Handbook. Its documentation on the fundamental principle of family reunion reaffirms the coordinating role it has with a view to promoting the reunion of separated refugee families through appropriate interventions with governments and non-governmental organisations.
Moreover, the agency’s handbook states that if one family member is being considered for resettlement, the UNHCR will seek to ensure, where possible and in line with the principle of family unity, that all of the refugee’s family members, including dependent non-nuclear family members, are resettled together.
It is therefore difficult to understand how and why the UNHCR, primarily, but also all the other actors involved, failed to identify the special circumstances of the child concerned and to respond in an expeditious manner.
Part of the answer must surely lie in the informal nature of the relationship between the child and the Maltese woman. While the woman’s altruistic intentions in taking the child under her wing and giving her a loving upbringing must be praised, it is far from ideal for a blind eye to be turned to fostering regulations. The fostering should not have taken place in the shadows, so to speak.
If similar cases exist, it is incumbent on the authorities to find ways to regulate them as soon as possible.