Unaccompanied Children in Sweden

7/27/2019 Unaccompanied Children in Sweden

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unaccompanied-children-in-sweden 1/22

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN SEEKING

ASYLUM IN SWEDEN:

LIVING CONDITIONS FROM A CHILD-CENTRED

PERSPECTIVE

Anna Lundberg and Lisa Dahlquist*

The article presents unaccompanied refugee children’s current situation in Sweden from a child-centred perspective. Interviews were conducted with 26 children. A key finding was that the way individuals perceived their situation was highly dependent on the status of their asylum application. In cases where all instances of the Swedishasylum process had been involved, the children described their situation as signifi-cantly difficult. At first, the children seemed satisfied with the fact that they had their human rights to housing, food, and support fulfilled. But on closer analysis of the interview answers it was revealed that many of the children’s existences were completely overshadowed by concern for the future and an underlying need of support.They described the asylum process as extremely worrying. Some children were not able to go to school, some felt offended when officials doubted their stories, and several children became sick after having their asylum application rejected. They emphasised

that information from the authorities must be clear. Possible improvements in current practices are: continued information from authorities about the asylum case, more therapeutic care, and every day contact with supportive adults and friends.

Keywords : children asylum-seekers, child-centred research, children’s human rights, asylum

1. Introduction

Children sometimes flee their country of origin with their parents, other rela-tives, or unaccompanied, from fear of persecution or war or to escape fromabusive environments or extreme poverty. Some children also flee trafficking or sexual or labour exploitation. Among these children, those separated fromboth parents or from their previous legal or primary care-giver are particularly vulnerable because besides suffering as other refugees from the loss of home,school, friends, language, and everyday context, they have also lost their family.

* Anna Lundberg, LLM and PhD, is a senior lecturer in Human Rights at the department of Global PoliticalStudies, Malmo University, Sweden and responsible for the Swedish part of the International Organizationfor Migration (IOM) SEPAC project in 2009. Lisa Dahlquist, BSc in Human Rights, was employed forfive months in the SEPAC project as project assistant at Malmo Institute for Studies of Migration Diversity and Welfare. We wish to express our gratitude to Jim Dawe for his constructive comments on the language.

Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 54–75 ß Author(s) [2012]. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

DOI:10.1093/rsq/hds003 Advance Access publication 27 April 2012



Over the years, there has been a significant increase in the number of unaccom-panied and separated children seeking asylum in western European countries.1 InSweden, 2,393 unaccompanied children arrived seeking refuge in 2010.2

Compared to 2005, when 398 children arrived, this was a large increase.3 The

number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2008 was 1,510, 1,264 in2007, and 820 in 2006.4

In this article, the most significant aspect is that unaccompanied children

seeking refuge in Sweden have been asked to identify and describe their ownsituation, their experiences, perceptions, and hopes. The article is based on ma-terial collected for the study Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children in EU Member States: An Examination of Living Conditions, Provisions and Decision-making Procedures in Sweden through Child Centred Participatory Research, carriedout in 12 countries on behalf of the IOM.5 The study was conducted over threemonths beginning in the second week of April 2009 by researchers at the MalmoInstitute for Studies of Migration, Diversity, and Welfare, Malmo University.6

Lisa Dahlquist, BSc in Human Rights, recruited and interviewed 26 unaccom-panied asylum-seeking children or children staying irregularly in Sweden. Therecorded interviews were transcribed and analysed collaboratively with Anna Lundberg, LLM and PhD in Ethnicity. In accordance with Swedish legislation,the study has undergone an ethical trial by the local Ethical Vetting Board.7 Afterthe approval from the board, contacts were established with key people around

unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Sweden. Through these people, thechildren were recruited.

1 L. Feijen, “Challenges of Ensuring Protection”, Refugee Survey Quarterly , 27(4), 2009, 65.2 A ˚ . Broman, De osynliga barnen. Rapport om ensamkommande barn och deras boende under asylprocessen,

Stockholm, Unicef, 2010, 7.3 Ibid.4 Ibid. In 2008, 54 per cent of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Sweden were granted a residence

permit. This can be compared with 80 per cent in 2007. Among the children that were granted a residencepermit in 2008, 7 per cent were refugees, 54 per cent in need of protection on other grounds ( skyddsbeho vande i o vrigt ), and 39 per cent were granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds ( synnerligen o mmande omsta ndigheter ), see European Migration Network, National Report for SWEDEN. Policies on Reception, Returnand Integration Arrangements for, and Numbers of, Unaccompanied Minors – An EU Comparative Study , Study 2008(III), European Migration Network, 4 Jun. 2009.

5 The results from the Swedish part of the project, presented in this article, have not been published before. A summary of the study is available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/projects/finalised_projects/proj_separated-asylum_en.htm (last visited 10 Mar. 2012). The aim of the study was to provide EuropeanUnion (EU) and national policy-makers, agencies, and services with valuable insight into unaccompaniedasylum-seeking children’s views and perspectives that will assist them in improving the quality of asylumconditions, as well as the legal procedures and relevant support structures for asylum-seeking children. Theviews of these children regarding their conditions of life and asylum procedures were investigated and inaddition it also examined the views, experiences, and perspectives of relevant officials and other staff involvedwith these children. The fieldwork research and analysis for the project was conducted by the IOM in 12 EUMember States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain,Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

6 Available at: www.mah.se/mim (last visited 20 Mar. 2012).7 The Act Concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans [Lag om etikprov ning av forskning som

avser ma nniskor ], 2003, 460. The translation of the title of the Act comes from the Swedish Research Council,available at: www.vr.se (last visited 20 Mar. 2012).

Refugee Survey Quarterly 55



The purpose of this article is to describe children asylum-seekers’ own viewsand experiences with the Swedish reception system. What do the children them-selves perceive as important for them to feel good in this pending situation? A situation where they get their application for asylum assessed by the authorities

and therefore do not know if they will get a residence permit in Sweden or willbe expected to return to their country of origin. Which people are important tothe children? What can be done to improve current practices?

Below, an introduction to the Swedish reception system is presented, fol-lowed by an account of the study’s methodological considerations. Thereafter,the result of the interviews conducted with the children is presented. The fol-lowing themes are brought up: the judicial process and treatment by officials,living conditions in general, health and access to health care, school, socialsupport, family tracing and family reunification, and plans for the future. Inthe end, the lessons learned are presented as well as some reflections on possibleimprovements to current practices.

2. The reception system in Sweden

When an unaccompanied child arrives in Sweden to seek asylum, the MigrationBoard is responsible for the child being placed in one of the nine receiving municipalities. These are municipalities that are in geographical proximity to

the main cities of arrival, namely Malmo, Stockholm, and Gothenburg. Here thechildren live in temporary housing, commonly referred to as transit housing.The child stays in the transit housing until a place has been found in one of theassigned municipalities that the Swedish Migration Board has entered into anagreement with on longer term housing.8

While the Swedish Migration Board is responsible for processing the child’sasylum application, and for questions concerning financial aid and return, themunicipality is responsible for the children’s wellbeing during their waiting period. This means that the Migration Board is the executing authority withinthe framework of the Aliens Act9 and Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others

Act.10 The municipalities perform their duties on the basis of the Social Services Act, in particular.11

8 In Sep. 2011, the Migration Board had an agreement with approximately 265 municipalities on the recep-tion of unaccompanied migrants. The municipalities have either started or decided to expand receiving children. The division of the responsibility for unaccompanied children seeking asylum, between theGovernment and the municipalities, entered into force on 1 Jul. 2006 through a legislative change. Themunicipalities that have reached an agreement with the Swedish Migration Board on the reception of unaccompanied children are responsible for the child’s housing and care and receive financial compensation

from the Government. The Swedish Migration Board’s assignment includes the signing of agreements withmunicipalities on the reception of unaccompanied children.

9 Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS) [Utla nningslag ], 2005, 716.10 SFS, 1994, 137 [Lagen om mottagande av asylso kande m.fl .].11 SFS, 2001, 453 [Socialtja nstlagen] (There are no official translations of the legal documents referred to in this

article, aside from the Aliens Act. The translations made in the text are made by officials at “LanguageServices” in the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (e-mail 5 Oct. 2011)).

56 Anna Lundberg and Lisa Dahlquist j Children Seeking Asylum in Sweden



2.1. The judicial process The Migration Board registers an application for asylum as soon as it is handedin by a child seeking refuge in Sweden. When the municipality where the boy orgirl resides has appointed the child with a legal guardian (

god man), the assess-

ment of the asylum claim can begin, and now legal council is also appointed by the Swedish Migration Board in most cases.

When an asylum-seeking child, together with the public council and aninterpreter, meets the handling official at the Migration Board, the child is askedabout his/her life prior to arrival in Sweden and the need for protection. Theinvestigation at the Migration Board should be adjusted after the child’s age,health, and other circumstances are recorded. The idea is that the Principle of the best interest of the child , which is included in the Aliens Act, should permeate the

entire process, i.e. a combination of a number of circumstances that appear inthe investigation should be analysed in a child-sensitive way. In the Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others Act there are a few provisions about unaccompaniedchildren although this law does not provide that the best interest of the childmust determine the reception.

The Aliens Act contains a number of provisions focusing in particular onthe rights of the child based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).12 First, there is the introductory provision on the best interestof the child, which states that in cases involving a child, particular attention must

be given to what is required with regard to the child’s health and developmentand the best interest of the child in general.13 Second, there is a provisionrequiring that the child be heard, unless this is inappropriate.14 Third, the Actcontains a special paragraph in the provision on exemption concerning excep-tionally distressing circumstances, which prescribes that the circumstancesreferred to in the case of a child do not need to have the same seriousnessand gravity that is required for a residence permit to be granted to adults onthe same grounds.15 All of these provisions aim to strengthen the protection of children. However, according to the Government, the provisions cannot be given

so broad an interpretation that the sole fact of being a child represents a criterionfor being granted a residence permit. Each child must, and has the right to, beassessed individually. A balance must therefore always be struck between thevarious interests in the individual case.16

In the Swedish asylum process, cases concerning unaccompanied childrenhave priority, in order for the waiting time to be as short as possible. During 2011, a new strategy was implemented at the Migration Board called “shorterwaiting”, where already at the registration of the asylum application it is decided

12 CRC, 1577 UNTS 3, 20 Nov. 1989 (entry into force: 2 Sep. 1990).13 Aliens Act, ch.1, s.10.14 Ibid., ch.1, s.11.15 Ibid., ch.5, s.6.16 A. Lundberg, “The Best Interests Principle in Swedish Asylum Cases – Marginalisation of Children’s

Rights”, Journal of Human Rights in Practice , 2(1), 2011, 49–70.




if a public council is to be appointed. The right to public council does not apply if the application is deemed to be manifestly unfounded, that is, if it is obviousthat the applicant is entitled to a residence permit, or if the application according to the Dublin Convention and the Principle of the First Country of Asylum should

be handled by another State.17 If the matter needs further investigation, a publiccouncil is appointed. With this new routine, the asylum case decision can bemade within three months from the date of filing.

In cases where the Swedish Migration Board rejects an asylum application,the Board’s decision can be appealed to one of the migration courts located at thecounty administrative courts in Gothenburg, Malmo, and Stockholm. Thecourt’s decision can be appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal, located atthe Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm. A review permit is needed forthe Migration Court of Appeal to try an appeal of the Migration Court’s deci-sion. This permit is in principle only granted if it is of weight and if it is in thepublic interest that the case is re-examined or if the Migration Court has com-mitted a severe procedural error. The Migration Court of Appeal’s decisioncannot be appealed.18 Before an unaccompanied child is deported an investiga-tion should be conducted regarding who will accept responsibility for the childupon arrival in the country of return. During the return, the child is accom-panied by a person that should make sure that a relative or someone else thataccepts responsibility for the child’s care in the country of origin receives the

child (a so called orderly arrival).

2.2. The role of municipalities

During the waiting period in Sweden, the municipality where the child is resid-ing is responsible for investigating and making decisions on what is best for thechild, for example where the child shall stay, if there are relatives in Sweden thatthe child can live with, and if the child needs special treatment and care. In theabsent parents’ place, an appointed legal guardian shall act as both guardian and

custodian for the child, sometimes described as a “deputy parent”.

19

The aim of this function is to secure a comprehensive safeguard of the child’s interests inSweden and work for the best interests of the child. However, it is not the legalguardian who maintains the daily care and supervision of the child nor does thelegal guardian have a maintenance obligation vis-a `-vis the child. When the childturns 18 years old and reaches the age of majority according to Swedish law, thelegal guardian’s assignment ends.20

17

J. Vested–Hansen, Europe’s Response to the Arrival of Asylum Seekers: Refugee Protection and ImmigrationControl , New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 6, Geneva, UNHCR, May 1999, availableat: http://www.unhcr.org/3ae6a0c54.html (last visited 20 Mar. 2012).

18 Aliens Act, ch.16, s.9, 3.19 Migration Board [ Migrationsverket ], Ensamkommande barn och ungdomar – ett gemensamt ansvar.

Kartla ggning och a tga rdsplan. 2010, 29, available at: www.migrationsverket.se (last visited 20 Mar. 2012).20 Migration Board [ Migrationsverket ], Ett gemensamt ansvar (information folder), 2009.




If the child is granted a residence permit, the Social Welfare Board in themunicipality where the child is staying shall take action, or report the need for a specially appointed custodial guardian from the district court (Tingsra tten). If thechild will soon reach age of majority, the legal guardian can remain until the date

of majority or longer if there are more exceptional circumstances at hand.21

2.3. Right to school and health care Younger children have a right to participate in the municipality’s pre-schoolactivities, children of compulsory school attendance age to attend elementary school, and children over the age of 16 years are offered the opportunity toattend upper secondary school or similar. The educational responsibility restswith the municipality where the child is staying and shall be carried out with

respect to the individual’s needs and abilities. Unaccompanied children seeking asylum are not obliged to attend school, as Swedish citizens are, but education is

considered to be a right of the child.22

All children asylum-seekers have the same right to health, dental, and med-ical care as other children living in Sweden. The county councils (Landstingen)receive financial compensation from the Government to provide care as needed.

2.4. Right to housing

The Social Welfare Board in the municipality where the child is staying isresponsible for investigating the child’s needs for housing and decides on whatan appropriate solution would be. This could be a family home or a so calledhome for care or housing (Hem fo r va rd eller boende – HBV-hem). Such specialhousing for unaccompanied children asylum-seekers or children who have beengranted a residence permit exists today in several municipalities. The housing

size varies, but housing with seven to 10 places is found in Sweden as well aslarger housing. Only unaccompanied children stay at the housing. Some un-accompanied children also stay with relatives or other close persons who are

already in Sweden.23

The housing shall follow the regulations for this type of accommodationthat are defined in the Social Services Act and in the Social Services Decree24 aswell as the National Board of Health and Welfare’s Regulations and GeneralGuidelines.25 This means that the housing should be adapted to specific criteria as concerns staff, documentation, etc. Housing is also under the supervision of the County Administrative Board.

21

Act on Special Representatives for Unaccompanied Children (SFS, 2005, 429) s. 5 and 10 Act on SpecialRepresentatives for Unaccompanied Children [Lag om god man fo r ensamkommande barn].22 School Act (SFS, 1985, 111) [Skollagen], ch.3, s.1–3.23 See above footnote 2.24 SFS, 2001, 937 [Socialtja nstfo rordningen].25 National Board of Health and Welfare’s [Socialstyrelsens ] Regulations and General Guidelines (SOSFS,

2003, 20).




In situations of large numbers of unaccompanied children arriving, theremay be a lack of available reception places in the municipalities where theSwedish Migration Board have an agreement on the reception and housing of the children. Instead, the child remains in the reception municipality where he/

she first made his/her need known to the authorities. Then it is up to themunicipality to investigate the child’s need for support according to the SocialServices Act and to decide on appropriate housing for the child.26 This meansthat unaccompanied children sometimes stay longer than initially planned inso-called transit housing.27

2.5. DetentionThe Aliens Act provides limited possibilities for placing a child in detention. A

child can only be taken into custody if it is likely that he or she will be forced toleave the country immediately or if there is an obvious risk that the child other-

wise will hide if a decision on supervision is insufficient. A child cannot be keptin detention for more than 72 hours, and if there are exceptional reasons, for anadditional 72 hours. A child without a legal guardian in Sweden may only beplaced in detention if exceptional reasons prevail.28 Children who are being heldin detention may not be placed in a correctional institution, remand centre, orpolice arrest facility.29 In accordance with Directive 2008/115/EG of theEuropean Parliament and the Council,30 unaccompanied children are kept in

detention only as a last resort.31 In Sweden, no unaccompanied children wereplaced in detention in 2008.32

2.6. Right to family reunification When a person has been granted a residence permit in Sweden according to the1951 Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (RefugeeConvention),33 family members may come to Sweden for reunification purposes.Family members that fall into one of the following categories have a right to

family reunification: spouse or cohabiting partner, unmarried children under theage of 20, and parents and siblings assuming the refugee is under 18 years old.Furthermore, the family members must have been granted residence permits andhave valid passports.

26 Migration Board [ Migrationsverket ], Aktuellt om ensamkommande banr och ungdomar Juni – Augusti 2011,2011, available at: migrationsverket.se (last visited 20 Mar. 2012).

27 See above footnote 20, at 3.28 Aliens Act, ch.10, s.2, 3, 5.29

Ibid ., s.20.30 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common

standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third–country nationals, OJ L 348/98, 24 Dec. 2008.

31 Aliens Act, Art.17, s.1.32 See above footnote 4.33 Refugee Convention, 189 UNTS 150, 28 Jul. 1951 (entry into force: 22 Apr. 1954), Art. 1A(2).




Swedish authorities have a responsibility to locate an unaccompanied child’sparents or legal guardian. In cases where it is established that there is no risk of persecution or where no other protection needs exist, it is the main principle thatthe child should return to the country of origin as soon as possible. During the

assessment of the asylum application, it is a task of the Migration Board to locatethe child’s family members.34

If a residence permit is granted, it is considered the Social Welfare Board’s

obligation to trace the child’s family members.35 It is also common practice toturn to the Red Cross to receive assistance with tracing family members.36

3. Method and interview setting

The study was based on child-centred methodological considerations. Thismeans that the children’s own ideas and perceptions about their needs andrights were the core issue. Some topics were highlighted by most of the partici-pating children, such as the asylum process, contacts with friends, staff in thehousing, and activities with the Red Cross. The interviews were semi-structuredand started with open questions around everyday activities. The children werealso asked if they wanted to draw a picture to describe important places andpeople in their current life. If the child did not want to, he/she was instead asked

to describe his/her life at the housing (or alternatively in the town), what a normal day is like, and what and who is important to him/her. The answersto these questions then formed the core of the entire interview. This already allowed the child from the start to control the interview to a larger extent than is

usually the case. Initially, in all of the interviews a drawing was shown to explainwho conducted the study and what the aim of it was. The children were alsoinformed about the fact that their participation was voluntary and that the childwould be completely anonymous in the following publications.

In most cases, the beginning of the interview centred on school and hous-

ing, followed by statements on support and resources. Subjects that could beperceived as difficult for the child to speak about, such as possible abuse orfamily reunification, were brought up carefully after a while if the childrenthemselves had not mentioned it earlier. At the end of the interviews, subjectsof a less difficult/complicated nature were brought up in order for the children tofeel comfortable after the interview session.

Most interviews took place at the group-housing where the children resided.This was the case for all of the children staying in group-housing that wereinterviewed. In cases where the children were living in their own housing or

34 See above footnote 20.35 See above footnote 21.36 See International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Restoring Family Links Strategy , Geneva, ICRC,

2009, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/publication/p0967.htm (last visited 20Mar. 2012).




with their family, we also met in a church, in the offices of social services, andoutside in a city park.

3.1. The children

The 26 children who participated in the study were boys between 13 and 17 yearsold.37 Out of all the participants, 16 had a residence permit in Sweden, five werein the asylum process, and five had had their application rejected in all threestages of the process, i.e. the Swedish Migration Board, the Migration Court, andthe Migration Court of Appeal. The majority of children participating in thestudy lived in group-homes, two lived in a family home, two others with personsclose to them, and one in so-called temporary apartments.

The majority of children in the study came from Afghanistan and Iraq, the

countries where the two largest groups of children asylum-seekers came from in2008. When the interviews were conducted, the children had been in Swedenbetween six months and one year and 11 months. During the interviews, it wasimportant to strive for a safe and calm atmosphere. This was done, amongstother things, by having an informal chat with the children before the actualinterview and also afterwards. In almost all of the interviews the atmosphere feltcalm and relaxed, even though the children sometimes seemed a bit nervous atthe outset of the interview. The fact that the interviews were taking place inlocations that the children themselves had selected contributed to a calmer

atmosphere.

3.2. The selection

Children were recruited to the study through individuals working for NGOs ormunicipalities. The selection of participants was made with the ambition of having a group that was as representative as possible regarding sex, age, nation-ality, regional differences, type of residence permit, housing, and time in Sweden.

As far as possible we wanted to reflect the variation of unaccompanied childrenin Sweden and their different living conditions. It was important for the study atall stages that the children themselves wanted to participate. Themes mainly discussed with the children during the interviews were as mentioned: the legalprocedure and treatment by officials, living conditions and care, schooling andvocational training, the relationship with the legal guardian, health care, nutri-tion, psychosocial support and other resources, and family tracing and family reunification. In the following section, the results are presented thematically.

4. ResultsThe children participating in the study have many different thoughts about theirlives. The following presentation is structured along the recurrent themes

37 We did not find any girls who wanted to participate. In 2008, 78 per cent of unaccompanied childrenseeking refuge in Sweden were boys (Migration Board [ Migrationsverket ], Arsredovisning 2009 , 18).




referred to by the children; i.e. things that in light of the study as a whole aremost important, such as the assessment of their application for a residencepermit and the need for social support, are presented first. As an introductionto the children’s views, a short excerpt is first given of what the children like the

best about being in Sweden: “[. . .

] there is freedom and laws”; “the health care”;“to get to school and to get food”; “you can receive so much help”; “freedom andsecurity”; “the legislation”; “that you can continue to study and that there isdemocracy”; “the school and to play football”; “my best friend”; “to get to startschool and to learn English and computer science”; “to get the possibility toreceive an education and become something”; “school is the best in Sweden –that is the best point!”; “everything is really good – my room, my TV, my bed – Ihave everything”; “the staff is also really good; they are like parents and that feels

good”; “Sweden is probably the best country you can come to”; “the best thing that has happened to me in Sweden is a teacher. Sometimes it feels as if she is my mother”; “the best about being in Sweden is that they take care of us the way they do. All that come to Sweden have a reason to come, so when they arereceived this way that is really good.”

4.1. Authorities and the legal procedure The children’s experience with the asylum process is strongly attached to whethertheir asylum application has been rejected or they have been granted a residence

permit. Not knowing whether one will get to stay or not is what foremost isexperienced as difficult. Some of the children that are still in the asylum processalso describe it as difficult being doubted by the officials. One boy says: “Allchildren that come to Sweden without their parents have a reason for it.” He alsofeels that the handling officials asked him questions about geographical distancesin his country of origin and historical facts about his hometown that he wasunable to answer. He thought the questions were strange.

Three of the children with residence permits say that they have felt mentally ill during the waiting period and therefore have received treatment by a psych-ologist. One child describes the 10 months before he got a residence permit assomething that “almost made me mentally ill”. Once he received the residencepermit, many other thoughts beyond the asylum decisions appeared. He startedto think a lot about his family in his country of origin and about the future.

One boy, who today has a residence permit, describes the asylum period asso difficult that he still has difficulties speaking about that time. He says: “My pulse was at 120 beats per minute all the time and it gets that way again now when we talk about it.” The fear of being returned to Greece under the Dublin

Convention is something that both he and another boy say was a big worry during the waiting time.

One boy explains that the asylum process made him feel extremely low. Ittook a year and 10 months before he received a residence permit and he hopesthat no one else has to go through what he did. During this time he often stayedhome from school because he worried so much. He finds it strange that he at




first received a rejection from the Swedish Migration Board when he later got a positive decision in the Migration Court. He thinks that this shows that theSwedish Migration Board has misjudged his asylum grounds.

Although several of the children with a residence permit describe that

they did not feel well during the time in the asylum process, they also pointout that they are satisfied with the treatment they received from officials. Mostof the children call attention to the fact that they wish they could have a decisionon whether or not they were allowed to stay in Sweden sooner. For a few of the boys it only took about three months and for others it took considerably more time than that. One boy says that he has good experiences from themeeting with the Swedish Migration Board, but that he considers it far toolong a time to have to wait 10 months for a decision about the residencepermit. The large majority of children with a residence permit also find that

they received sufficient amount of information during the asylum process. All of them, including those who had their application rejected or are still in theasylum process, have had their legal guardian, a public council, and an inter-preter with them during the investigations at the Swedish Migration Board. Thisgave them a feeling of security.

Among the children who had their application rejected in all instances of the Swedish asylum process, they all feel that the asylum process has been badfor them and they are furthermore not satisfied with the treatment they received from officials. One boy, who has been in Sweden for a year, says:“First they welcome you. And then they say, after you have spent a long timein Sweden, that you are not welcome.” He does not think he received enoughinformation about the fact that he could also have his asylum applicationrejected.

When it comes to possible improvements, one boy says: “It is difficult tothink of changes of any kind when you do not have a residence permit.” In a similar way, another boy says that he no longer wishes anything: “I have lost themotivation.” He has been in Sweden for 11 months and does not think that one

should have to wait that long and then be sent back. He says: “The time I havespent here has gone to waste.” Another boy says that his friends who have thesame asylum grounds as himself were granted residence permits, whilst he wasnot. “What did the others do that I didn’t?” he asks himself.

Another boy who now has been in Sweden for one and a half years says thatwhen he first came they said at the Swedish Migration Board that it would takethree months and that he most likely would be allowed to stay. He finds that theinformation from the Swedish Migration Board should be clearer and morecoherent from the start about the fact that you may get a rejection as well as

a residence permit.It clearly emerges that the children’s experience of the asylum process is

directly related to the decision from the migration authorities. The waiting timeand the unpredictability are tough in many ways for the children. They areobviously in great need of support and information about what happens inthe asylum process.




4.2. Living conditions An overall conclusion from the interviews is that the children have varying thoughts concerning their living conditions and their housing, but that in

most cases they are satisfied with the form of housing as such. The childrenthat have been granted a residence permit generally perceive their living condi-tions as more positive, even if there are also some exceptions within this group.

Children living in group-homes have thought about eventually getting anapartment or moving to a larger city. Children who live together with relatives orother close persons in their own accommodations are generally satisfied withtheir living conditions. Also the majority of the other children who are living ingroup-homes are under the circumstances satisfied with their housing. All butone child highly appreciates the staff that work there. “It feels as if they listen to

us when we need it and comfort us when we are sad”, says one child who hasbeen living in Sweden for eight months and who stays at a group-home witheight places in a smaller town. Most of the group-homes have between fiveand 10 places and there is staff working around the clock in all of them. Thechildren all have their own rooms, and in most cases share toilets and showerareas as well as the kitchen. One boy says that he would prefer to stay in a moreapartment-like type of housing and that he eventually would rather like to livealone. Another child expresses that he would like to live in an apartment in thefuture, but then preferably together with others.

Many of the children say that communion with others is important forthem to feel good in their everyday lives and the majority like their housing assuch. However, the fact that it tends to get loud is at times frustrating, somechildren explain. One boy says that it is difficult to live together with otherchildren as arguments easily occur and it gets noisy. He thinks this sometimesaffects his ability to do homework. Another boy says: “There is always happening so much here, it’s always crowded.” That it becomes noisy in the housing is alsosomething that a few other children say. One boy explains that he thinks the

arguments may be due to cultural clashes between the children, while anotherboy instead highlights that he is surprised by how little arguments/fights thereare, as children of so many nationalities and language groups live together.

All of the children describe the time in the transit housing, i.e. the housing where they stayed prior to arriving to the assigned municipality, as good, apartfrom a few of the children who brought up that it was a worrisome time sincethey did not know if they would be allowed to stay in Sweden or not. Severalchildren say that they even found it better at the transit housing than where they are currently staying because there were so many children to spend time with in

transit and because there were many activities to participate in. They also men-tion that the staff was supportive.

To participate in decision-making about food and cooking with the staff give the children a feeling of being included. Overall the children are positiveabout the food they receive in the group-homes, in their own accommodation,and in the family homes. In most of the group-homes, the children are also




involved in the cooking in one way or another, either by helping to decide whatfood should be cooked or by helping to cook it. The children in housing wherethey are not allowed to be involved in deciding on the food or cooking their ownfood have the most negative attitude towards the food they receive. A number of

children also say that, even if they like the food at the housing, they miss certaindishes from their country of origin. To adjust the food somewhat and to some-times let the children cook food from their home countries seems to be a goodsolution that the children themselves are satisfied with.

It appears in the interviews that meetings with friends and peers are im-portant to the children and opportunities for activities and meetings are greaterin the cities than in the countryside. The children that have been placed inhousing or family homes located in the countryside or in small towns are nottoo happy with this. In almost all cases, they express that they would rather livein a larger city such as Gothenburg, Malmo, or Stockholm. Several of them alsohave friends living in these cities. In most cases where the children do not enjoy rural living they think it has been difficult to get to know people living there.They also find that there are not enough activities.

To sum up, children arriving unaccompanied in Sweden to seek refugeneed, as other children, to do things in their spare time and to feel that they have an active social life. As many of the children do not attend school more thana few hours a day, it becomes even more important that they have people to meet

with and things to do in their spare time. Cities appear, in light of the children’sviews, to be more attractive as a place to stay.

Further, the children seem to develop a feeling of belonging as they get toparticipate in decisions regarding themselves, for example deciding on the menuor taking part in cooking. Finally, being in contact with the staff at the housing gives the children a feeling of having supportive adults around.

4.3. Access to healthcare and well-being Regarding access to health and medical care in Sweden, and the treatment thatthe children get when they seek care, the system appears to be working well. Butdespite the fact that they are satisfied with the Swedish health-care system, thelimited life situation and unpredictable future have an influence on the children’shealth. The most common health conditions that the children talk about arestomach aches or sleeping difficulties.

One boy was depressed during the asylum process. In all, it took one yearand 10 months before he received his final permission to stay in Sweden. During that time, and currently, the boy has been treated by a psychologist. He says that

it is because of a certificate from the psychologist that he ultimately received a residence permit in Sweden. Another boy who also stays in a group-home says hethinks a lot about his family and he often has stomach aches. The staff at hisgroup-home said they would help him with contacting barn-och ungdomspsy-kiatrin (BUP) (the psychiatric services for children), but that in the end they

have not done so. One boy who finds himself in the asylum process says that he




called the hospital and complained of headaches and sleeping difficulties andthat they then told him to visit the pharmacy and buy painkillers. He alsoexpresses that he would like to have someone to just talk to.

All but one child has at some point visited a health centre or physician in

Sweden and many of the children have done so on repeated occasions. Several of the children also underwent a health check in the arrival municipality. Thechildren residing in group-homes also think that the staff takes good care of

them when they get sick. Repeatedly, the children talk about how importantcontact with the staff at the homes are for their well-being.

In some cases, the children have sought help from a physician or psycholo-gist during their time in the asylum process because of difficulties with sleeping and worrying, and they feel that they have received the help they needed. A couple of the children say that they have contact with BUP and a few of theothers see psychologists.

Regarding access to health care there is no difference in the answers fromthe children that have received a residence permit compared with those who havenot, both groups apparently feel that their basic health-care needs are cared forand that they are well received within the health-care services. The children’ssense of well-being in general is however highly dependent on whether or notthey had their asylum application rejected. Children whose application had beenassessed in all instances of the asylum process feel the worst.

A reasonable conclusion in several cases is that a residence permit appears tobe a prerequisite for health. Another determining factor for a healthy life thatemerges from the children’s stories is having access to supportive friends andadults in everyday life.

4.4. To educate oneself In the interviews the children talk about school as something very important tothem, for several reasons. It appears to be an investment for the future in thesense that, for them, education means knowledge and a possibility to developone’s capabilities. School is also important as a place for learning Swedish.Finally, it offers an opportunity to get structure in an abnormal situation andto meet with supportive adults.

All children participating in the study attend school at different levels andthe majority of them are satisfied with their education. Some of the children whohad their asylum application rejected no longer view school in the same positiveway. One child says that nothing feels important to him anymore, including school. Another boy reflects on his feelings after having his application for a

residence permit rejected, now he feels like “a visitor there [in school]”. Somechildren also experience difficulty attending school during their time in theasylum process, as they are waiting for the decision from the migration autho-rities. This makes them worried and nervous. Some of the children say that they can hardly go to school at all since they are just sitting at home, thinking andworrying. As one child describes it: “It feels as if my head is about to explode!”




Some of the children attending upper secondary school say that they think it is bad that there are only immigrant children in their class, they would also liketo attend class with Swedish children. Some of those who attend school togetherwith Swedish children on the other hand find it difficult to get to know Swedish

children, as they do not seem to want to spend time with them. As one child,aware of his position as a migrant expresses it, the school is good, but what “feelsin the heart” is that the Swedish children in his class do not want to spend timewith him. A few children say that it becomes more difficult to learn the languagesince they only spend time with other immigrant children.

Several children are aware of the fact that they have limited access to schoolcompared to other children in Sweden. A couple of the children are afraid of losing the knowledge they brought with them from their countries of origin sincethey hardly study anything but Swedish today. One boy describes in the inter-view that when he lived at the transit home the school was much better, since hehad a teacher there who spoke his mother tongue. He found that this really facilitated the learning process.

One conclusion from the interviews is that school is a key to the chil-dren, both when it works and when it does not work so well. It also ap-pears that for many of the children who have had their application for asylumrejected, or who are still in the asylum process, school is viewed differ-ently compared to children who have received a residence permit. From a

human rights perspective, it is clearly important to invest in education for un-accompanied children, partly because it is their right and partly because theknowledge that they gain during their education in Sweden is of importancewherever they are going to live in the future. Still they feel a little better attend-ing school than they do sitting at home since it “eats one’s heart out”, as onechild describes it.

To summarise, the children show an awareness of their position as migrantswith a conditional right to residence and limited access to school. At the sametime, school is an aspect of building a future. It also helps in getting structure in

everyday life and it is a place for meeting with friends and supportive adults.

4.5. Getting social support The needs and thoughts around social support vary although this seems to bevery important for all of the interviewed children. Some children feel that thereare no important people around, whereas others feel that there are several. Thepeople or things that the children often point out as most important for them areprimarily friends, but also their legal guardian, their own family in the country of

origin, staff in the housing, school and teachers, as well as sports and activities.One boy wishes that they had more activities at the housing so that his stomach

ache would go away. Another child describes how one of his teachers feels like a mother to him and that the family he lives with is also very important. Activitiesthat a volunteer organization in one town arranges with a group of children whohave come alone to Sweden are mentioned as important to dispel thoughts.




As one child explains: “When you think a lot the meetings makes the thoughtsfall back in to your head.”

All of the children in the study have had their legal guardians with themduring the meetings/interviews at the Swedish Migration Board. Many of them

think it is good to have the legal guardian present. As one child expresses it, “it isnice having someone there on your side”. The large majority also feel that they have a good relationship with their legal guardian. Some reveal that they canspeak with their legal guardians about anything and that they have contactalmost every day, while others mainly contact their legal guardian when thereis something they need assistance with. The most common is that they meetbetween once a week and once a month. One child, who is yet to receive a decision, exclaims when speaking about his legal guardian: “She is really, really,really good!” He highly appreciates that she helps him with bus money and buys

him clothes. They meet about once a month and the only thing that can be a bitdifficult is that they sometimes have problems understanding each other becauseof the language, a difficulty that a few others also mention. Another child saysthat his legal guardian means a lot to him since he does not have any parents. Hesometimes goes to visit her and she cooks him dinner. She also tells him that it isimportant to go to school and to “stay strong and not give up”. Several of thechildren with a residence permit say that they are now receiving assistance fromthe legal guardian to trace their families.

One child who lives in a family home feels that on the one hand he has allthe material things around him that he could wish for and people and friends tospeak with. However, on the other hand, he considers the town that he lives intoo small and that there are not enough things to do. The fact that there are notenough opportunities for activities in small towns is something that all of thechildren who live in small towns or in the countryside bring up. One boy wholives in group-housing in the countryside says that most often they just comehome from school and then stay there. The children living in group-homes inthe countryside or in small localities express that they have difficulties making

friends. They generally wish that there were more possibilities to practice dif-ferent sports and meet more people. The majority say that they would prefer tolive in a bigger city.

In some of the housing the children think that the staff arrange too few activities with them, whereas in other places they find that they get to do a lot,such as going to the movies and on excursions. It clearly emerges that the staff and care-givers in the housing are important to the children. One child in a group-home feels that he has a lot of support around him, and he says: “To bewith the staff and with friends makes me happy.”

All of the children say that they enjoy participating in different activities.Spending time in school and with their friends at school are also described asimportant. The answers from the children with a rejection in all instances differfrom the other children in the sense that they perceive their overall situation asmore negative. A couple of them say that all days look the same and that they find this boring. However, in most cases they feel that friends, legal guardians,




and staff at the housing are supportive. One boy who practices dancing severaltimes a week thinks that this is the greatest support for him. Another boy highly appreciates when the Red Cross comes and organizes activities and he also thinksthat boxing and weight lifting gives him physical and mental strength.

To summarise, for the children, relationships with friends, staff, legal guard-ians, as well as going to school and doing activities in their spare time constituteimportant social support. In cases where the children have family members leftin their countries of origin, contact with their parents or siblings is also import-ant for them.

4.6. Being without family members It becomes obvious in the interviews that family is both an important and

sensitive topic, at moments painfully difficult to talk about for the children. Italso emerges that there seems to exist some unclearness around family reunifi-cation and family tracing and that several children want more information con-cerning this, including where to turn for help and whose responsibility it actually is to trace their family members. In one case, a boy with a residence permit askswhether this can actually be done and if so, where he should turn for furtherinformation and follow-up.

There are also large differences concerning the amount of help they receivewith family tracing and family reunification and from whom. One boy, who has

given the Red Cross the task of tracing his family, is now waiting for a reply. “It isnot easy to wait”, he says. In five cases, the children have contacted the Red Crossto receive assistance with tracing their families. It is often the legal guardian whohelps to facilitate the contact. In a few cases the legal guardian is now alsoassisting with arranging the papers in order to apply for family reunification.“Then it is up to the Migration Board to decide if they can come or not”, oneboy says. In all but one case, where the child has family in the country of originor another country, the children say that they want to be reunited with theirfamily in Sweden.

4.7. Plans for the future The children’s thoughts about the future vary, but for those with residencepermits it becomes clear that it is important to finish school and to learngood Swedish. To first and foremost learn the language is something thatalmost all point out to be of great importance. A few children also want tocontinue studying and one dreams about working as a psychologist, another as a businessman, and yet another as a hairdresser. They describe it as important for

them to get an education so that they can support themselves in the future. Oneboy says: “I want to be able to support myself and to show everyone that here Iam, I am also an individual.”

Some of the children think about their parents when we speak about thefuture and hope to be able to reunite with them. One boy says that he dreamsabout a house, a family, two cars, and to be able to make people happy. Someone




also speaks about moving to his own apartment or to a bigger city. One boy witha residence permit says that he does not want to think about the future at all.

For the children that are still in the asylum process the thoughts are partly different from those who have received a residence permit. One boy says that

when he thinks about the future he is mostly worried about his family in hiscountry of origin and when he will get to meet them again. Another boy says thatwhen he first came to Sweden he could not think about the future because heworried so much about his family. Now he is thinking about maybe becoming a pizza baker in the future and to opening his own restaurant. Another child saysthat what he mostly hopes for is to get to stay in Sweden, to find his family, andto become a football player. One boy wants to go on to study at the university and another does not know at all what his plans for the future are.

It is completely different to speak about the future with the children who

have received a rejection in all instances of the asylum process. A couple of themsay that they do not want to speak about the future at all, but that they areworried about what will happen to them. One boy says that you cannot think about the future if you do not have a residence permit.

How the children view their future is strongly connected to whether or notthey have been granted a residence permit. It becomes clear in the answers abovethat the boys who have had their asylum application rejected in all instances feelgreat insecurity about the future and that the future is a sensitive topic for them

to discuss. For the children who have not yet received a decision on their asylumcase or those with a residence permit the thoughts about the future vary, but it ispossible to see that what they first and foremost think about is learning thelanguage, getting an education, and eventually finding work. The family in thecountry of origin is also present in the children’s thoughts about the future.

5. Lessons learned

What most clearly emerges when meeting with the children participating in the

study presented above, is that they are all individuals with different experiencesand views that in varying ways affect each one of them. Still, their commonexperiences are important to grasp when trying to improve the current receptionsystem. The children’s statements provide knowledge about whether the effortsundertaken in the reception system serve their intended function, thereby alsoraising awareness of other actors. Groups of children as the one at hand tend tobe invisible because they are not yet recognized.

There is always, on the other hand, a risk in characterising a group of people after certain expected needs, especially when the people involved are

outside the ‘normal models’ of perspectives. This often has a stigmatising effect and therefore it needs to be borne in mind that a particular child’s owncapabilities and experiences is an important starting point when that child’s bestinterests are to be fulfilled.

One thing that the children have in common, even though their back-ground and life experiences vary, is that they find themselves far away from




home without their family and their normal social context. As unaccompanied,or separated from persons close to them, the children are easily put in exposedand vulnerable situations. It can be assumed that these children are in need of extra support and tailored interventions in the new society. Having access to

adapted support and resources is also their human right according to Article 22of the CRC, which sets out an obligation for the authorities in the receiving Stateto ensure that the children get appropriate assistance in the enjoyment of therights in the CRC and other documents of Public International Law. How thenshould assistance be designed?

5.1. Information, relations, and activities The children interviewed in the above study generally think that relations and

activities that keep them occupied are important for their wellbeing. Several of the children see advantages to living in a group-home where they find supportand companionship among the other children who are in a similar situation asthemselves. A general idea among the participating children is that cities providemore activities and more options to meet with friends.

Further it emerges in the study that it is important for the children toreceive correct and clear information about the asylum process and their case. Itis probably not enough to provide the children with information on one occa-sion; rather this is something they need to receive repeatedly. The interviewed

children in this study have to a greater or lesser extent described the time in theasylum process as difficult. Overall their perception of living conditions inSweden is influenced to a large extent by whether or not they have a residencepermit. As an asylum-seeker they find it hard to cope with the uncertainty of notknowing whether they will receive a residence permit or not. Before that they cannot make any plans for the future. More meetings and continuous informationabout what is happening in the involved child’s asylum case might facilitate theprocess.

5.2. Housing, school, and health care It appears in the study that it is important to have continued flexibility when itcomes to different types of housing . What is important in this context is that themunicipalities look at each person’s individual situation and needs, before decid-ing which placement and housing form is most suitable. The majority of chil-dren who participated in this study lived in group-housing, and even if the largemajority are satisfied with their housing, some of them have thoughts aboutliving in a family home or in their own apartment in a bigger city. To live in the

countryside or in small localities is something that most of the children describeas difficult, partly because they find that there are not enough things to do andpartly because, as several of them have experienced, it is hard to get to know people.

School gives some structure in everyday life and is also a place where thechildren invest in their future. From the perspective of receiving municipalities,




organizing good education appears to be a good investment – partly for thechildren’s personal development but also from the perspective of equality andsocial contact. A well functioning, resource strong school creates betterpre-conditions for the individuals in the future. School at its best is a forum

for people to unite and feel included. To let the children attend ordinary school together with Swedish pupils can possibly further increase a sense of belonging. The study also shows that the children were eager to attend schoolas much as possible and that school has two important functions – it is both a forum for learning as well as a social platform. The time in school is thusimportant and to give these children the same time in school as other pupilsbecomes desirable.

When it comes to health care it appears necessary to have more resourcesand expert competency within the field of refugee psychiatry. Several of thechildren in the above study were in need of professional therapy, and increasedresources to reduce the waiting times for BUP and psychiatry can reasonably beargued as a prerequisite for health. By offering more professional support anabnormal, unpredictable situation can possibly be de-dramatized. Consequently,it is important to give the children the possibility to talk about their experiencesin different forms.

The children also emphasised that everyday conversations are important fortheir well-being. A larger number of staff in the housing and greater possibilities

for the legal guardian to spend time with the children is desirable.

5.3. Family reunificationSeveral of the children brought to light that they lack information on family tracing. In some cases, their legal guardians were helping them, but several lackedinformation about how tracing and family reunification is done and who canassist them with this. That the Red Cross is one of the main actors in the field isclear in the interviews with the children, but the children are not aware of thefact that it is also the responsibility of the municipality to trace the children’sfamilies after the children have received a residence permit. When it comes totracing and family reunification there is a need for increased clarity about whoseresponsibility it is to trace the family and to provide information about whathelp is available.

The family as such and the need for contact with their parents are otherimportant matters to point out. Several of the children said in the interviews thatcontact with their parents is important and also that longing for family memberssometimes is difficult to cope with. If there are parents or other family left in the

country of origin or somewhere else it is of utmost importance that the child andparents have contact with each other. It however emerges that the children many

times do not want to speak about their parents or their family because the subjectis so connected with whether or not they can receive a residence permit inSweden. Their earlier life, including family life, is restricted to the parts of their life that may allow them to stay in Sweden.




This confirms results from earlier research, that refugee children are com-pelled to squeeze their stories into the narrow channels acceptable to asylumgivers in the country of asylum.38 If the children should want, and dare, to talk more about their relatives, in the country of origin or elsewhere, it seems neces-

sary to see that this subject is not as closely linked to the assessment of the asylumapplication as it is today. Whether or not one has a family should not affect theright to apply for asylum or having their asylum grounds tested.

5.4. “Trusted companionship” and “spaces of inclusion”

While this study does not reflect unaccompanied refugee children’s past lives buttheir views of current life in Sweden, a significant aspect to keep in mind is whatcontentment and submissiveness, or silence, represents. During the project we

often asked ourselves why the children appeared so content, as they apparently were also feeling very worried and at times traumatised.

In earlier research analysing unaccompanied children’s silence, this has beenunderstood as a measure of protection for the child.39 The fear of being returnedto a country where one is denied access to fundamental human rights makes thechildren squeeze their stories into what was expected from them, or they justturn quiet. Kohli shows in his research with social workers that the children’ssilence can sometimes become a burden as it can lead to scepticism and by extension to suspicion from the authorities.40 He concludes from an interview

study with social workers that:

[. . .] scepticism could build up into suspicion, and that suspicion could leadto cynicism. For example, they reported instances of other social servicespersonnel becoming cynical about claims made by young African andKosovan men, claiming to be younger than they appeared, and worrying that their services were being exploited and their resources drained.

Similarly, some practitioners were concerned that, on the basis of becoming familiar with asylum stories which all sounded the same, some of their

colleagues had became hostile over time, and rudimentary in terms of.41

The above is probably the most important ethical aspect that needs to be takeninto consideration in the reception system, especially for the migration autho-

rities to make correct assessments of applications for residence permits.In order for a correct handling procedure where the children can tell their

complete stories, and for healthy relations to develop in the new country, weneed to make sure that the children feel comfortable talking. In Kohli’s study, he

38

P. Anderson, “ ‘You Don’t Belong Here in Germany . . .

.’ On the Social Situation of Children in Germany”, Journal of Refugee Studies , 14(2), 2001, 196; W. Ayotte, Separated Children Coming To Western Europe. Why They Travel and How They Arrive , London, Save the Children, 2000.

39 R.K.S. Kohli, “The Sound of Silence: Listening to What Unaccompanied Asylum–seeking Children Say andDo Not Say”, British Journal of Social Work , 36(5), 2006, 710.

40 Ibid., 710, 717.41 Ibid.




found that the social workers that aimed to become the young people’s “trustedcompanions over time” succeeded in the sense that they made the children feelsafe.42 These social workers tried to be practical helpers, therapeutically mindedlisteners, and companionable people. This ultimately led to an understanding of

the children’s situation as a whole and a constructive response to the unspokenworlds that the children carried with them in their search for asylum, “they saw that wanting to get away from poverty, and get an education or making money could co-exist with asylum stories and be legitimate reasons for departure”.43 Forthe children the approach led to a feeling of being welcome and being allowed torepresent “multidimensional people, not just asylum-seekers and refugees”.44

Besides the importance of offering long-term companionship in the recep-tion system, well-functioning reception of unaccompanied children also needs tomake room for reflections regarding non-discrimination and equality. Are un-

accompanied children treated as equal rights-bearers, or is their treatment in factbased on an idea of mercy? The political consciousness that appears in theinterview answers above leads us to conclude that the reception system is char-acterized by the idea of mercy and not based on a rights-based perspective. Thelimited access to schools for refugee children is just one manifestation of this. Insum, this leads to a situation where a sense of belonging takes a backseat to a feeling of not belonging for temporary residing asylum-seekers.

If the children are to take the lead and open up, they need to feel safe. Thisis a pre-condition for a correct asylum process. To be open to the children’s ownneeds and to see them as children primarily and asylum-seekers or refugeessecondly is as vital in each individual conversation as it is when it comes tothe way unaccompanied children are viewed and treated in general.45 A goodstart is to ask ourselves, as researchers as well as citizens in a reception State, how the children can be met as right-holders.

The amount of unaccompanied children applying for asylum in Swedendoes not appear to be decreasing but rather increasing. Studies where children areheard are therefore necessary, first because it gives insight into the everyday lives

of the children as well as their views on what is important for their healthconditions, and second because it contributes to an understanding of whetherhuman rights protect those that they were developed to protect, the ones with noother protection.

Future studies need to overcome the methodological and ethical challengespresented above. With the aim to further analyse unaccompanied children’semotions, attitudes, etc., emphasis should be placed on the length of such ob-servation studies. That way each individual child’s opinions and perceptions canbe taken into account in the best possible way.

42 Ibid., 218.43 Ibid., 718.44 Ibid., 720.45 See above footnote 40; A. Macdonald, “Protection Responses to Unaccompanied and Separated Refugee

Children in Mixed Migration Situations”, Refugee Survey Quarterly , 27(4), 2008, 48–62.


Unaccompanied Children in Sweden

Documents