An Eritrean family of refugees is about to be resettled to Switzerland, to a new life. A joyful event, usually. Only this relocation takes place at the cost of a child’s happiness and peace of mind and, at least in the short-term, her well-being.
The case of Clarissa* has been well publicised and there is no need to go into detail, other than to say that, after being brought up for five years by Jane*, Clarissa was abruptly taken away from her home, school, friends and the life she has virtually always known.
The process was shockingly mishandled and the parting extremely painful for the child, who was clearly devastated to learn the “good news” of a family she hasn’t lived with for years so much so that she doesn’t even speak their native language. The last time she saw Jane, her mother in deed if not in fact, Clarissa had to be dragged away from her at a police station, kicking and screaming. Wonderful new start for a child, wouldn’t you say?
And, yet, things would have been far less traumatic, perhaps not at all, had the matter been sensitively and professionally handled by the agencies involved. They did not cover themselves with glory.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees conducted an assessment without social work input and proved insensitive to pleas on the child’s behalf. In its judgement, the court found yesterday that the UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration and the Maltese and Swiss authorities had failed to assess Clarissa’s situation meticulously enough and that appropriate arrangements were not made to prepare her properly for the transition.
The social work agency Appoġġ said it could not get involved at this late stage because there was no officially sanctioned fostering or other agreement between Jane and the child’s family. This is very worrying given the open secret that immigrant children are sometimes given to Maltese people, without anyone to ensure that this arrangement is in the best interests of the child – exactly what social workers should be doing.
The court dealt with the matter admirably, ordering a psychologist’s assessment of the child, which had been deemed “unnecessary” until then. It also recommended the involvement of social workers and psychologists in future cases to avoid unnecessary heartbreak. But the court’s hands were tied because Jane had no legal rights of care and custody and because resettlement was presented as a “now or never” opportunity.
Some might say Jane had no business raising Clarissa in this irregular manner. Jane’s only sin was to love a child not her own without legal blessing, albeit with the parents’ full consent, and she has paid a high price for this. But she was well intentioned and meant Clarissa only good. Can the same be said of all those others who seek out immigrant children at the open centres?
Others may well wonder how the migrants can bear to part with their children. We cannot judge their reasons or actions – unfortunately, it does boil down to “us and them” here – especially given the poverty they face and the scant resources they have to bring up their families in dignity.
They deserve all the solidarity that we, as government and as a community, can offer. But giving their children to others is certainly not the answer.
The only silver lining to this awful affair is that, perhaps, the authorities will now wake up and smell the coffee and actually put a stop to this potentially harmful practice in the best interests of the children.
This is what the case was about here, not about Jane’s rights versus those of the “natural parents” but looking out for the best interests of the child. Sadly, those interests were totally ignored by many involved in the process.
*Not their real names.