Between hope and despair : how changes in family reunification procedures in Finland affect the unaccompanied minors in the application process

(1)

BETWEEN HOPE AND DESPAIR

-How Changes in Family Reunification Procedures in Finland

Affect the Unaccompanied Minors in the Application

(2)

1

Master Thesis

MSc Sociology

Migration and Ethnic Studies

Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

July 2015

Jonna Back

Student Number: 10861297

Supervisor: drs. Apostolos Andrikopoulos

Second Reader: dhr. dr. Sèbastien Chauvin

(3)

2

Abstract

Background Considering the recent changes in the Finnish Aliens Act, with the further effect

of modifications in the procedures surrounding family reunification, the aim of this study was to look further into how these changes affect the unaccompanied minors residing in Finland. The effects are looked upon both from a psychological perspective, showing the impact the application process have on the unaccompanied minors´ well-being, and further, from a more practical aspect, highlighting difficulties experienced in submitting an actual application. As the research advanced, the Convention of the Rights of the Child´s concept of Best Interest of the Child was uncovered as being a recommendation usually bypassed in the process, leading to the need to incorporate this perspective in the analyses.

Method The research was conducted through qualitative interviews with professionals

working with and around the unaccompanied minor population in Finland, for example representatives, social workers, and caseworkers. A total of 12 interviews were analyzed and used in this study. A case study describing a real ongoing case of family reunification is also presented to further picture the impact the process have on the minors.

Results The results show that the main impacts on well-being is the uncertain conditions

regarding both the process of waiting for decisions, as much as the whereabouts of the family if contact is disrupted. The pressure of being the main provider of both application fees and information regarding the application procedure, is also evident. The results also imply that the minors which either do not have a family to reunite with, or in the cases where the choice is made not to apply, are perceived as having greater chances of reconciling with the thought of being separated from the family and focusing on one’s own life and future.

Keywords: unaccompanied minor; family reunification; best interest of the child; well-being;

application

(4)

3

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Migri The Finnish Immigration Service

(7)

6

1. Background and introduction

In 2012 I became a social worker in a municipality of Finland, working exclusively with unaccompanied refugee minors (hereafter referred to as unaccompanied minors or simply minors) with residence permits in Finland. The job included everything that surrounded the minor, from paying benefits, psycho-social support, finding legal representatives, finding suitable schools, keeping them in school, and also helping out with family reunification. When I started in September I was informed that The Finnish Immigration Services (hereafter referred to as Migri) had put in place more stringent controls when handling family applications and that the families of resident minors were no longer eligible based solely on family ties. At that time, there had not been a family reunion since 2011, as can be seen in the statistics in the results section, and there were a lot of minors awaiting their families’ decisions from Migri.

As time went by, with many declined decisions and cancelled applications due to clients turning 18 and no longer being eligible to continue the process, it started to dawn on the minors that the chances of being reunited with their families were minimal. With the last case of reunification in 2011 still fresh in mind the hope was still there, but as time went by bringing no good news, I could see how the minors were struggling. Many of them were having a hard time concentrating in school, difficulties finding sleep at night, and were regularly chasing me to call Migri and find out the cause or reason for delay. Families filled with hope of a better life on one hand, and Migri apparently changing their policy on the other. New systems of application procedure seemed unfeasible and one realized how inaccessible and often impossible the system was made when having to explain them to the minors’ families. I found myself kindly implying that the chances are nonexistent at the time being, but they were free to make choice to apply if they so wished. The impact this had on the children was obvious to me; the stress of constant worry about their family's safety and well-being, and the lack of control over their own situation, often led to the above mentioned sleeping and concentration difficulties and subsequent effect on their ability to perform in school. This vicious cycle of stress, lack of energy, and a constant worrying, did take a toll on the children.

When the minors arrived as my clients it meant that they were under the care of the social welfare office I worked for, and had just received their residency permits. This was a relief to

(8)

7

most of them as it meant they could finally start a new life knowing they could stay in Finland and be safe. However, for many it was just the start of a new struggle if the decision was made to apply for family reunification. The moment when the difficulties surrounding the application process start to affect the minors, being the amendment in the Aliens Act, and further in the changes in application procedures, is a crucial moment when reviewing the matter of family reunification. These changes will be presented in chapter 3, under The

Finnish Aliens Act: The amendment in theory and practice. That being said, the aim of my

research is to shed some light on the family reunification procedures surrounding the children and its impact on their overall well-being in Finland. The aspects of well-being will mainly be looked upon from a psychological perspective. Hence the focus will be on factors possibly compromising the state of well-being, being impact of stress, pressures, uncertainty and afflictive feelings.

In 2014 I moved to Norway to work as a caregiver in a family group-home, housing for unaccompanied refugee minors with residence permits. It was only for 3 months, but during this time I experienced a different reality than what I was used to in Finland. The minors came across as more relaxed, they did not medicate for anxiety and depression, and neither did they seem to have the same sleeping difficulties as the minors I had previously worked with. There were problems and difficulties, of course, but it did not seem to reach the level of what I expected. I was puzzled, though the mode of operation between the countries were the same, with the same empowering approach and working toward a bright future, the well-being of the minors seemed to differ. Coming straight from a very intense case of a family reunion in Finland, I was very interested to know the situation of the minors residing in the housing I worked in. I was surprised to discover that no one had an ongoing application, family reunification was in general not discussed at all, since the minors’ residence permits did not entitle family reunification.

With regard to this, the differences in psychological distress in the two groups of minors, both in Finland and in Norway, cannot exclusively be explained by the lack of family and the more general difficulties of being novel to a new society. Given that the two groups of minors shared similar backgrounds, the explanation as to why the minors residing in Norway were perceived to have a higher level of well-being, could be explained by them not having to live through the very uncertain conditions and unfulfilled expectation the reunification process brings with it, nor having to experience their families' applications being rejected.

(9)

8

At a first glance, the situation of the minors in Norway is perceived as them experiencing a higher level of well-being. Thus the question lies in what the family reunification process look like in Finland, what effects the process has on the minors and their families, and further, if the choice not to apply is perceived as having its benefits when looking at it from the perspective of well-being. By gaining more understanding of the amendments of the Aliens Act, how the law is now implemented and how this affects families actually applying, my goal is to further highlight how this development has had an impact on the child with the residence permit. All the findings will thereafter be weighed against the concept of the best interest of the child, referring to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC is also used).

1.1 Problem Statement

Considering the difficulties experienced in the work field, and placing them against the changes in the Aliens Act, the aim is to see in which way procedures surrounding family reunification can be connected to experiencing difficulties regarding well-being, as a minor.

• In which ways do the changes in the Aliens Act concerning family reunification affect the well-being of the minors?

• What are the main difficulties experienced by the minors and their families during the application process?

The overall concept of well-being is operationalized into three (3) broad interpretations, as in level of psychosomatic problems, level of expectations in contrast to reality, and last, afflictive feelings. These are further divided in to sub-categories (see Annex II, Coding; Well-being/Expectations/Affliction).

1.2 Relevance to the field

One aspect of the field of social work is preventative work. How do we prevent people already being exposed to hardships and marginalization, from experiencing even more difficulties? With many studies showing how unaccompanied minors are considered a high risk group, the question is whether the process of family reunification is adding an additional

(10)

9

pressure on the minor. By exploring how the presumed added pressure of the reunification process and further how the unattainable reunion reveal itself, the goal is to be able to recognize the pressure the minors are under in order to be able to work from the perspective of the best interest of the child. Light needs to be shed on how the Finnish Immigration Services justify their decision making, claiming to acknowledge the best interest of the child, however considering not living with the parents being the best option. Moreover, is the often multi-year process with an almost non-existent rate of approval worth the psychological pressure these minors are exposed to? By looking at the literature available on psychopathology among unaccompanied minors, one can further investigate how this already exposed group is being additionally exposed to psychological distress, assessing the extended and tough family reunification processes.

2. Previous Research

The central concept of the research is the unfulfilled expectations many unaccompanied minors are experiencing, what kind of problems the uncertain conditions the family reunification process brings with it and how this is connected to the minors’ psychological well-being. The concerns aimed towards this specific group of refugees has started gaining recognition by a range of scholars. The research shows that minors have been proven to show higher levels of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety and PTSD, than their native counterparts in the host-country (Bean et al, 2007b). Tartakowsky´s study (2009) also proposes that their counterparts in the country of origin seem to have lower levels of mental health problems than the minors leaving their home country, in this case voluntary migrants. However, as will be stated further ahead in the text, the question is if a minor is ever a voluntary migrant. Nevertheless, the main cause is hence explained by the fact of them being separated from family members, since young refugees tend to be more distressed and at higher risk of mental health problems than their accompanied peers (Ehnholt & Yule, 2006).

An increasing literature of longitudinal studies aimed towards the well-being of unaccompanied minors has been published over the last few years, showing that a large percentage of the minors begin to develop psychological distress, such as sleeping difficulties, concentration disorders, and severe feeling of guilt, among others, and there is a consensus in the difficulties experienced in fully recovering from it. Even with time passing, the problems

(11)

10

will to some extent still remain (Tartakowsky, 2009, Bean, 2007a). The difficulties can be explained through two types of hazards; loss of habitual environment, such as social networks and mother tongue; and cognitive-emotional difficulties in adjustment, as mastering new behavioral patterns and feelings of helplessness (Tartakowsky, 2009), and can be connected to what Bean (2007a) explains to be a result of repeated exposure to traumatic experiences. The accumulation of problems, as mentioned earlier, springs from the separation from one's family, personal loss and the uncertainty surrounding the minor's future. Moreover, the presence of PTSD appears to be related to earlier war trauma and resettlement strain, while depression is linked to recent life difficulties or stressors (Ehnholt & Yule, 2006). Hence, the psychological distress has been recognized to more often be manifested after the arrival in the new country, as opposed to being subjected to mental health issues prior to migration. Lengthy application processes and practical and administrative obstacles are factors that enhance the risks of psychopathology (UNHCR, 2013).

2.1 Well-being of unaccompanied minors

The psychological perspective of being an unaccompanied minor is gaining more attention, and further, psychopathology has increasingly been recognized as a risk factor for young people when becoming a refugee or migrating to a new country (Lavik et al., 1996). The pattern of emotional distress has been widely recognized by scholars and professionals, stating problems such as sleeping difficulties, nightmares, concentration disorders, depression, PTSD, anxiety, grief reactions and sadness, aggression, severe feeling of guilt and substance abuse among others (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2008). Unaccompanied minors face difficulties more complex than just being unaccompanied in a new context and being separated from ones’ parents. This due to being exposed to different traumatic experiences, such as different kinds of abuse and misconduct. Derluyn & Broerkaert (2007) report on the mental health status of migrating minors in Belgium and recognize the severity of emotional problems within the unaccompanied refugee minor population, stating that the group were up to five times more likely to show severe or very severe anxiety, depression and PTSD. Moreover, between 37-47% of the minors are suffering from ”severe or very severe symptoms of anxiety,

depression and post-traumatic stress” (p. 141). This is in concurrence with the 50%

self-report rate of severe psychological distress observed in unaccompanied refugee minors in the Netherlands (Bean et al, 2007b). Furthermore, the severity and prevalence of psychological

(12)

11

distress are reported at a significantly higher score within the unaccompanied minor population, when comparing the well-being of minors coming to the host-country accompanied or their native counterparts (Bean et al, 2007b).

Researchers agree on the vulnerability of the group at the stage of the arrival in the new country (Vervliet et. al, 2014), but also how the difficulties remain and new problems manifest themselves (Bean et al, 2007a). The vulnerability to psychopathology persists for many years, and in comparison with native youth of the same age, as well as migrant and refugee youth accompanied with their family, the unaccompanied children are much more likely to suffer from psychological difficulties (Bean et al, 2007b). The prevalence of mental illness, lack of emotional well-being, and level of psychological distress have been disclosed in several studies, however the factors giving occasion to the prevalence is often only briefly mentioned. The causes to the distress the minors are experiencing are nevertheless not solely born out of incidents pre-arrival, leading to the necessity of examining which factors in the host-country that can be experienced as further adding to the already confined difficulties. This can be seen in studies showing how the pressure from the family outside of the host country can cause the minors a lot of stress and anxiety (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2007, Derluyn, 2005).

2.2 Family reunion

As agreed upon by EU Member States, the procedures for family reunification of people in need of international protection are governed by the Council Directive (from now on Directive) dated 22nd September 2003 on the right to family reunification (European Union: Council Directive 2003/86/EC), and moreover also indirectly by other legislations, such as the Dublin Regulation1. Guidelines have been published by the European Commission (European Commission, 2014) to support Member States to implement the Directive in a correct manner. The guidelines help to clarify some of the difficulties being mentioned when completing the Green Paper2 on this matter. The Family Reunification Directive, is advocating for more favorable rules for the specific group of people with international

1_{The Dublin Regulation determines the Member State responsible for processing an asylum claim lodged in the}

EU. Usually this will be the Member State through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU (ECRE, 2008)

2_{A Green Paper is a tentative report and consultation document of policy proposals. The Green Paper referred}

to here (Directive 2003/86/EC) is the Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (European Commission, 2011).

(13)

12

protection, to facilitate a chance for them to enjoy their right to family life, meaning that refugees applying for family reunification should receive exemptions and derogation to the rules set out in the Directive (ECRE & Red Cross, 2014). Article 5 in the Directive obligates Member States to pay due regard to the best interests of minor children when examining an application (European Commission, 2011). This mirrors article 3 in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which will be further mentioned in the next chapter.

Research shows that being separated from one's family, not specifically for minors, tends to be combined with poor mental health, which further impact people's ability to learn a language, go to school, and simply interact with others (McDonald-Wilmsen & Gifford, 2009). Blanco and Barou (2011), as stated in the ECRE & Red Cross publication; Disrupted Flight (2014), recognizes how a family reunion following a long separation, risks damaging the family structure and causing conflicts within the family. However, various studies report on the positive effects of reunifications, especially in association with people’s general well-being, but also concerning educational achievements (2014).

2.3 The law versus the best interest of the child

In many cases, the best interest of the child is put up against the best interest of the state, when dealing with decisions on family reunification. Engebrigtsen (2003), is calling attention to this matter in the Norwegian context, showing that when the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Norwegian law clash, priority is given to the latter. This can be recognized in the change of policy in the 1990´s, as a result of the increase in unaccompanied minors entering the country. The reason for this change was to prevent child migration, since it is not considered to be in the best interest of the child to be an unaccompanied migrant, and further, if there were to be a reunification, the best option is to repatriate and reunite in the home country. This leads to the crucial criterion being whether the home country is safe or not, the individual family’s situation and reasons for being reunited is not being considered. The effect of this kind of interpretation is that if the parents are deemed “good parents”, they will choose to reunite in the home country, if they are not considered “good parents” and have sent their children away with the purpose of gaining family residency through reunification, they are not welcome in to Norway. So the policy is stated to be in the best interest of the child, but in practice this is only considered when the state is gaining from it. Engebrigtsen further emphasizes the lack of knowledge of psychology and child care that the professionals

(14)

13

handling the applications hold. To be able to make decisions concerning well-being, from a psychological perspective, there is a need for expertise within the field.

(15)

14

3. Conceptual framework and categories

3.1 Best interest of the child

The Convention of the Rights of the Child, is a legally binding international agreement which states that children are individuals with their own rights, not parents' or other adults' possessions. As a whole it contains 54 articles which are all equally important, but there are four basic and guiding principles that should always be considered when dealing with issues concerning children, these being §1-4. In the case of family reunification, article 10 is however of utmost importance. These can be found in their entirety in the annex (see Annex I, Convention of the Rights of the Child), but will be explained briefly in the following paragraphs.

The first two articles (§1 and §2) recognize who is considered a child and how a non-discriminatory approach should be used when dealing with children and their parents, and further how States Parties should protect children against all forms of discrimination or punishment on behalf of their parents´ status. Article 3 and 4 acknowledge how the best interest of the child needs to be considered in all actions concerning children, such as welfare institutions, courts of law and legislative bodies. Moreover, States Parties shall undertake the child protection and care, as is considered necessary for its well-being. States Parties are also obliged to take measures to implement the Convention to the extent possible (United Nations Human Rights, OHCHR, 2015).

Article 10 refers to how to deal with the request for family reunification when children are involved; “family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and

expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.”

and further, “States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave

any country, including their own, and to enter their own country.” (Article 10, CRC).

Since Finland ratified the convention in 1991, meaning that the best interest of the child should always be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, article 10 further marks the importance of considering the well-being of the children in dealing with family reunification.

(16)

15

3.2 The legal category of unaccompanied minors

Unaccompanied minors and separated minors are two different terms which are defined as follows by the UNHCR, the former being “children under 18 years of age who have been separated from both parents and are not being cared for by any adult who, by law or custom, is responsible to do so” (UNHCR, 1994) and the latter as “children under 18 years of age who are separated from both parents or from the previous legal or customary primary caregiver” (UNHCR, 2002). The Finnish definitions used are yksintullut alaikäinen turvapaikanhakija or

ilman huoltajaa tullut turvapaikanhakijalapsi literally unaccompanied minor asylum seeker

or asylum seeking child without guardian (Pakolaisneuvonta, 2015). Although these definitions differ they all include the three components of being a refugee, minor and unaccompanied.

Refugee

Being defined as a refugee, one has to be outside of one's country of nationality or habitual residence; have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail oneself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution (UNHCR, 2002). The Geneva Convention is for most European and North American countries the framework and criteria to be followed when dealing with the positioning regarding asylum applications. Moreover, the Geneva definition help states differentiate between “voluntary” migration and refugees, with the latter being the involuntary migrants. However, regarding children it is more difficult to define whether the migration is voluntary or not, since they are unlikely to make an independent decision to migrate and to do so at their own expense (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2008). From the perspective of children being looked upon as involuntary migrants, they are commonly acknowledged as refugees, with them applying for asylum or not.

Minor

Even though the term minor is usually applied to every person under the age of 18, there are still exceptions to consider. The age limit of 18 is not a standard throughout the world, where different ages can be determining majority. The concept of childhood is also culturally defined, leading to the possibility that there could be a clash of the official age limit to

(17)

16

majority and the cultural definition of entering adulthood. Moreover, there is not always a very distinct separation between childhood and adulthood, what is considered to be adult tasks in some societies might not be in others. And finally, the individual majority and grown up process can differ a lot from child to child or adolescent to adolescent. The almost worldwide ratified Convention of the Right of the Child covers the protection of minors, and especially the unaccompanied refugee minors, which sometimes makes it more beneficial to be a minor when looking to obtain residence permits and care from welfare systems (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2008).

Unaccompanied

As we have seen above, the definitions of unaccompanied and separated are not always very clear, and are open to interpretation. As much as a strict interpretation work as a prevention against trafficking, it can sometimes lead to children being separated from their caregiver, when this adult is not a legal guardian or parent according to the western standards (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2008). The caregiver can in this case be an older sibling, or other relative.

The four biggest nationalities of unaccompanied minors applying for residence permits in Finland in 2014 were: Somalia, Afghanistan, Morocco and Iraq. 196 minors applied for residence permits in 2014, and with 98 applications within the first 4 months of 2015, the numbers are increasing. Most minors are being approved protection, only six (6) were declined permits in 2014, out of which three (3) were already registered in another EU state, making them so called Dublin cases. The primary justification for the permits are subsidiary protection, being the protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm (EDAL, 2015).

3.3 The Finnish Aliens Act: The amendment in theory and practice

In August 2010 a few amendments and changes were made in The Finnish Aliens Act concerning family reunification; regarding proof of age, turning 18 while the application is still being handled, and also how a residence permit can be denied if the alien can be seen as a

(18)

17

danger to public order and security, public health, or Finland’s international relations. In January 2012, another amendment was made, now as a consequence of the change in the EU Directive 380/2008 regarding the need for bio-metric identification for third country citizens applying for residence permit. The effect of this change meant that a sponsor residing in Finland could no longer apply for the reunification of a family, instead the family residing in a third country would need to apply in person at a Finnish Embassy so that they may provide fingerprints and photo identification to Embassy personnel. The requirement for a physical presence of each family member at an embassy or consulate is not something specific to Finland, but is an increasing trend among the EU member states (ECRE & Red Cross EU Office, 2014). This has been proven to be problematic, with Finland being a rather small country with a limited number of embassies, at this time 71, with the latest disclosures of consular being in Baghdad and Damascus (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, 2015). When considering the effect of closing down embassies in conflict-ridden countries and removing the possibility of submitting to honorary consulates, the procedure is made even more difficult. On The Finnish Immigration Service’s website, the following information is given, showing how the changes have affected the application process, the bold text being the most relevant changes.

A residence permit application on the basis of family ties can only be submitted by the

applicant living abroad. The family member resident in Finland, i.e. the sponsor, cannot

make the application on behalf of the applicant.

You must be in possession of a valid passport or other travel document, and you must be

legally residing in the country where you are submitting your residence permit application. If

you are not a citizen of the country where you submit your residence permit application, you must prove that your residence is legal under the legislation of the country in question.

Before you may be granted a residence permit, you must also meet the general requirements for entry into Finland. These requirements include the following: you may not have been refused entry into Finland, and you may not be a danger to public order and safety, national health, or Finland’s international relations.

(19)

18

As established, in the case of having to travel to a third country to hand in your application one also has to reside legally in that country, meaning that applications for visas has to be made to the country where the Finnish embassy is. Moreover, with the rule of bio-metric identification, this means that every family member applying has to do the journey to hand in the application in person. The applicants then have to decide if they stay in the third country while the application is being handled, since there is usually an interview at the embassy due to the lack of documents proving family ties, or if they travel back and forth.

Prior to the amendment, when an unaccompanied minor made an application for reunification the Finnish social services covered all costs. The change in the application system, now means that that there has been an increase in the fee and furthermore the government will no longer cover any of the costs. With the fees currently set at Euro 455 per adult and Euro 230 per minor, the application process becomes a very costly affair. As an example, being an Afghan family residing in Pakistan undocumented, they first have to travel to Kabul to apply for a visa to India, which is usually granted for a month. After traveling to New Delhi to hand in the application, the family has to return to Afghanistan to await the invitation to the interview at the embassy. A third visit might be necessary if DNA testing is also required. With translation fees, living costs and administrative fees on top of the traveling, this process might result in an overall cost of about 10 000€ (ECRE & Red Cross EU Office, 2014). This being said, if the sponsor in Finland has an international protection status, which is exceptional, there will be no fee for parents. Siblings are however still liable for payment, as the only family relationships considered are the ones between spouses and/or main caregiver and child, according to 37§ in the Aliens Act.

Moreover, the changes in law since 2010 made the application of applying through family ties far more time consuming. As a consequence of this, a huge bottleneck of applications now exists within the Finnish Immigration Service which had not been foreseen by government. The EU regulation stipulating a maximum processing time of 9 months has therefore not always been met.

3.4 Justifications

The application procedure is not the only thing that has changed. The interpretations and justifications stated in Migri's decisions concerning residence permits based on family-ties,

(20)

19

has become much more narrow during recent years. Since the changes in 2010, three (3) justifications are typically used when declining a permit. These are; (1) existence of a real family life cannot be proven, (2) the family life was voluntarily disrupted, and (3) by sending a minor to Finland with the intention of family reunion, one is guilty of bypassing the law (Raivio, 2014; Raivio, 2013). Pakolaisneuvonta, a Finnish non-governmental legal office, has further examined in which ways these justifications are opposing the best interest of the child and the findings indicate that the CRC agreements are not being considered. The report points out how the focus is on contradictions in the stories, opposed to conformations not being mentioned. Contradictions can be anything from how many hens the family has had, to details about family members' executions. Another alarming aspect is reported to be how the sponsor's international protection status, if mentioned in the decision, is again assessed by questioning the grounds which the protection status was taken upon. Pakolaisneuvonta suggest that an approved protection status for the minor, should by itself work as an indicator of the reasons of disruption in the family life, and therefore should the status not be used and reconsidered again during the family reunification process. Concerning the bypassing of the law, they further propose that parents are aware of the difficulties of continuing the family life after the minor has left the home country. However, in the rejected decisions it is interpreted as if the minor has been sent away with that purpose, posing it is bypassing the Finnish law. Since the minor's protection status is not being considered as an indicator of reasons of leaving the country, it is looked upon as the child being sent away with the reason of family reunion (ibid).

(21)

20

4. Methodology

In this section, the mode of data collection will be presented. This will be following my own background and understanding, alongside a reflection of the choice of method. Ethical considerations and limitations will also be reflected upon.

4.1 Personal aspects

As mentioned in the introduction, the choice of topic and research question was due to personal interest and experience in working in a field affected by the law change. With a bachelor's degree in international and intercultural social work, and experience working as a social worker for unaccompanied minors, the attachment to the specific migration group of youth is very close to me. Having experienced both sides of the same coin, I have seen both the will-power, strength and hope they possess on one day as well as the psychological distress, depression and everyday set-backs they suffer on the next day. Although being a diverse group, as youth in general are, the hopes and beliefs in good future prospects are abundant.

Since some time has passed since I worked in social welfare, and a lot of literature had been read about the difficulties the minors are suffering from, my presumption was that there was going to be a lot of problems. Entering the sphere again however, I realized why I loved my job so much and why the research is sometimes a bit one sided. Although difficulties exist, the whole system surrounding these youth, be they professionals or representatives, is such a positive and reaffirming one, that somehow one suddenly feels that everything is possible. It leaves you with a great feeling of hope and confirms that the world is a nice place with people who care about others.

From working experience within the field of unaccompanied minors, I possess an understanding and knowledge of the matters surrounding a family reunion through the exposure and contact I had when trying to help my own clients. Therefore, conducting this research, I would during the interviews use a line of open questions so that the respondents had a chance to steer the conversation into aspects they felt were out of importance and give new insights to occurrences I already thought I had the answer to.

(22)

21

4.2 Method

The data was retrieved through qualitative interviews with a handful of professionals working within close relationship with the unaccompanied minors. A mix between convenience and judgment sampling was used (Marshall, 1996), meaning the respondents were chosen out of relevance and convenience, mostly being old colleagues from my social work network, however some were new contacts. The choice of a qualitative approach was made with the problem formulation in focus, being that the professionals withhold the knowledge and information relevant for gaining further understanding about my subject. Other studies applying the same methodology of focusing on the network of professionals working around the minors (Derluyn & Broerkaert, 2007; Bean, Eurelings-Bontekoe & Spinhoven, 2007), shows that the reporting of professionals' interpretations of the well-being of the minors, and the self-reporting from the minors themselves, comport with each other. By recognizing, as Marshall (1996) states, the essence of the qualitative approach, real people in natural settings rather than in artificial isolation, one has to bear in mind the importance of context. By conducting all interviews at respondents' offices, except from two with the representatives which were carried out in their homes, the context of professionalism was maintained, leading to respondents often emphasizing when expressing own opinions which would not be in line with what the profession would ask them to. This might not have been the case in a home milieu, or not as evident.

Moreover, statistical data was retrieved from the website of Migri, regarding the number of applications and decisions, covering the last 4 years. The year of 2011 was however not available, and when asking about the reason behind this lack of data, the email conversation with Migri was intermitted.

Reception and care system

Within the Finnish welfare system, the unaccompanied minors live in so-called group homes, with the organizational setting of one manager, a supervisor and care workers working in shifts to provide around the clock care. Every municipality with asylum-seekers usually have an office for the specific purpose to help the newly arrived members of the Finnish society and everything that that brings with it. Municipalities having agreements to take on the unaccompanied minors usually have a specific department resigned only to working with

(23)

22

them. Staff working at this specific department of the municipal social welfare is what the focus will be on in this research. Being that many group homes are placed in small, rural municipalities, makes the professionals work very close to the minors. So with this in mind and also the fact that not many, if even any, of the minors have lived in Finland to experience the change in the law, the focus will be on the professionals.

4.3 Interviews

By using a semi-structured interview method, the objective was to be able to speak relatively freely but within already established frameworks. In-depth follow-up questions were prepared, and since most of the respondents are people which are to some degree already known to the interviewer, the transition to more profound and in-depth questions was possible, even considering the time limit. An advantage that can be seen in using qualitative interviews is the ability to make the complexity, which is usually connected to social phenomenon, visible (Johannesen, Tufte & Christoffersen 2010). The interviews were ranging from 40 minutes to 2h, and were all conducted within a time range of 9 days. The setting for the interviews were, as already mentioned, the interviewees' office, with the exception of two representatives.

4.4 Case Study

A case study with an unaccompanied minor was conducted with the aim of gaining further understanding of how it is to live through the process, and to get a more nuanced and just picture of the realities the minors and families who choose to go through with this process are exposed to. The subject was found through one of the social workers, and an interview was set up. Farhiyo, a 19 year old girl who arrived unaccompanied from Somalia, had the chance to describe the process she has been through, which has so far taken 4 years, in her own words. Her story is a good example of what the reality looks like for many of the unaccompanied minors, battling with emotions and asking themselves - is worth it. The waiting, the questioning of one's reliability, and further, questioning the real need of one´s family.

(24)

23

4.5 Analysis

All interviews were transcribed and a piece of software, Atlas.ti, was used to analyze the data, through a few themes relevant to the research questions. The different themed families were further divided into more specific underlying codes (see Annex II, Coding) according to what and how the respondents had talked about the topics of my questions. The data was then analyzed according to theme and relevance for the research question and the most dominant ones were thereafter selected to be presented in this paper, further highlighted by the most prominent quotes to further picture the findings.

4.6 Interviewees

During the first two weeks of April 2015, 11 interviews were conducted in Finland. The respondents are a mix of professionals, chosen with the intention of gaining access to multiple layers of the aspects of life and well-being of the minors. A short presentation of the professions and their role will follow, with more thorough information about the specific respondent in Table 1.

Social workers

Social workers have a very participatory role in the system, and therefore hold a lot of first-hand information about the minors. They are also involved at the various levels the research aims to investigate. They work close to the minors, recognize their successes and failures, give psychosocial support and empower them when needed.

The social workers interviewed in this research are Beatrice, Rebecca and Laura. All are women, who have a lot of experience and have worked in the field of refugees for many years.

Caseworker

Working next to the social worker is the case worker. This person deals a lot with the practicalities surrounding the minors, such as school placements, finding housing when they turn 18, helping out with forms and applications. As the co-pilot of the social worker, this professional also has access to valuable information.

(25)

24

Anna is the case worker represented in this paper. She has worked as a caregiver in group homes before she got the position as a caseworker.

Juridical representatives

Every minor residing in Finland without its legal guardian, is assigned a representative. This person has no other obligation than to handle the minor´s juridical paperwork and attend official meetings. As one of the first persons the minors get to know in the new country and a person who introduces the Finnish system, the bonds are sometimes strong. The representatives chosen to participate in this study, are ones that go beyond the minimum expectations and take this part-time assignment (in general 10h-15h/month) a step further and support their minors in more than juridical ways, often calling them just to check how they are, taking them out on activities, and in general have a very encouraging contact. By choosing representatives taking this informal approach, the research can address human aspect of the topic, which strictly professional individuals cannot.

Bo, Marjory and Kenny are the representatives that has been interviewed. They all have more or less 10 years' experience of being assigned as representative.

Lawyer

When the verdict of the application is made, the minor will get an appointment at the police station to be informed of the decision from Migri. If the permit is declined, the minor has an option of appealing. Even though it is the family applying, it is the minor appealing. Legal service for the minors is a social benefit, and it is very common to appeal, since it is a benefit and an extra chance of family reunification. The process, however, adds additional years which might not always be possible if the minor is close to turning 18. There are lawyers who work a lot with these appeals, and these were of particular interest.

Kenny, who is also a juridical representative, is the lawyer represented. Through his job he has worked a lot with migration cases due to his office’s close proximity to a refugee camp. One other lawyer, Piritta, and a legal information clerk, Sanna, was interviewed, but due to them not having any individual contact with the minors, the data collected during their

(26)

25

interviews is used as general data and is not considered in the chapter concerning the minors' well-being.

Group home supervisor

Every unaccompanied minor in Finland is residing in a group home and after receiving residence permits, are moved to a family group home. These are usually kept relatively small, to be able to keep up a feeling of an ordinary home. When turning 17 there is another option available, supportive housing, which basically means you get your own room and kitchen to encourage the minors to live more independently, knowing they have the support of 24h staff. Supervisors take charge of a group housing and are responsible for the minors living in their houses. Since supervisors work in the home, they usually have a very good insight into what is going on in the daily lives of the minors. They have insight into the symptoms of possible pathology.

Martha is the family group home supervisor represented, accompanied by Melissa which works as a caregiver. Martha has been working within group homes since the 90's, first as a caregiver and later on as a supervisor. Melissa has been a caregiver for many years, and has also been assigned being a supervisor for shorter periods of time.

4.7 Ethical considerations and limitations

In accordance with the Finnish law, chapter 6 in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, individual cases were not discussed in more depth to avoid the risk of revealing someone's identity. This did however not pose any obstacles, since the goal was to get a consistent picture and not to go into individual cases. Considering the anonymity of the professionals' clients, the minors, the names of all interviewees have been changed. This with the exception of two respondents from Pakolaisneuvonta, who do not work in direct contact with the minors. The case study is also represented with her own name, this on her own request.

To be able to further see how the amendments are affecting minors and families trying to reunite on the basis of family ties, a more extensive number of professionals would need to be interviewed. Observation studies at housing facilities of the minors, was due to lack of time

(27)

26

not conducted in this study, however could give more insight into how the everyday life as a minor is. An interview with a representative from Migri was proposed, nonetheless turned down by them. This with the explanatory statement of not having the capacity to answer to all the respond to the demand for interviews, leading to students not being prioritized.

Table 1 Respondents

Name Profession Male /

Female

Age Experience

Anna Caseworker Female 30's Anna, M.Soc.Sc., has worked as a care worker in a housing for unaccompanied minors for a few years before becoming a caseworker.

Beatrice Social worker Female 40's Beatrice, M.Soc.Sc., has worked as a social worker for over 20 years. Experience from many fields, with over 10 years working with unaccompanied minors. At the moment working as a social worker at a hospital.

Bo Representative Male 60's Retired engineer, with over 20 years’ experience being involved with newly arrived migrants. He is involved in the church, and as a sustaining person for people in need of support, besides the

assignment being a representative for the minors.

Kenny Lawyer /

Representative

Male 40's Lawyer who has also been a representative for many years.

Laura Social worker Female 30's Laura, M.Soc.Sc. is completing her MSW at the time being, and has worked as a social worker for unaccompanied minors for 7 years.

Marjory Representative Female 60's Marjory is retired, however still active as both a teacher's assistant, homework assistant, and being a representative.

(28)

27

unaccompanied minors for over 20 years. Starting off as a care worker, she has now been a supervisor for over 10 years and has also been working at other institutions in between.

Melissa Care worker Female 40's Melissa, vocational social work degree, has been working as a caregiver, and also as a substitute supervisor when needed.

Rebecca Social worker Female 50's Rebecca, BsSW, has been working with migrants since the 90’s, and has been holding a position as a social worker for unaccompanied minors for the past 15 years.

Piritta Lawyer Female 30's Lawyer working for the NGO Pakolaisneuvonta, in their Helsinki office.

Sanna Legal advisor Female 40's Legal information clerk working for the NGO Pakolaisneuvonta, in their Helsinki office. MA in communication and journalism, with experience from a handful Finnish NGOs within the migration sector.

(29)

28

5. The effect of the changes in the application procedure

In the following two chapters, the results will be presented along with an integrated discussion. The focus will be on the themes that were proven to be out of most importance, both according to the frequency of which they were mentioned by the respondents, and also out of most relevance in correspondence to the research questions. This leads to some themes not being addressed as findings, however certain quotes can be presented as an example to further nuance the different themes' problematization.

By focusing on both the overarching effect the changes in application procedures have had on the families and the minor sponsor, and further, how this more specifically affect the minor's well-being, this presentation of the results will try to deliver a fair picture of how the children and their well-being is affected by the changes in the application process and how this is not being considered when dealing with residence permits based on family ties. The first empirical chapter, The effect of the changes in the application procedure, will first present data derived from Migri’s website, to acknowledge how the change has affected the number of applicants. Further on, the effect of how the changes have affected the families and the minors will be presented and discussed. The second empirical chapter, Best Interest of the

Child, will from the perspective of the Convention of the Rights of the Child reveal how the

change has affected the well-being of the minors living in Finland, with more specific underlying themes as expectations, afflictions and decisions.

Well, it's not a coincidence that they have made this procedure more complicated, no... It is simply to thin out even more. /Kenny, Lawyer & Representative

The changes in the Aliens Act, which have been presented in a previous chapter more specifically, have been put into practice now for closer to 5 years and just over 3 years respectively. This implying the amendments are well implemented by the time being, and consequently, possible difficulties experienced by the changes would therefore presumably be evident.

The effect of the changes in the application procedure is in this chapter divided between data obtained from the statistics available on the website of Migri, and from the interviews. Most data from Migri can be found online from the year of 2006 and onward, with some

(30)

29

exceptions. The data from year 2011 up to date will be presented and analyzed in this chapter, giving some possible explanations to the decreasing numbers.

The statistics will be followed by how the changes have affected the families applying, also including the minors in Finland. Bearing questions of whose choice is it to apply, and further, whose responsibility it is, in mind, the effects concerning the minors in particular will thereafter be presented in the next chapter.

5.1 Statistics

Thinking back on the first five years (of being a representative)... now it is a lot more strenuous with the family reunion! That is a fact. Theoretically there is a chance, but

practically it is very small. /Bo, Representative

Analyzing the statistics from 2011 and forward, the number of applicants has decreased drastically, accompanied with the number of approved applications. With the application system changing as of 2010, the data provided before and after 2011 is not comparable. Before the change, an application made by the minor in Finland, would/could include several people, being the parents and the minor’s siblings. Now the applicants are divided into categories according to their relationship to the sponsor, being main caregiver/spouse/sibling/other relationship. Hence the data available today is more descriptive than before. With the main focus here being the sponsor's main caregiver, the numbers are as follow:

Table 2 Applications submitted

Year Applications 2011 107

2012 20 2013 16 2014 12

(31)

30

Year Approved Declined Together

2011 Data not available Data not available Data not available

2012 1 36 37

2013 1 156 157

2014 10 33 43

2015 (-February) 3 3 6

There is unfortunately no data available on how the approved decisions are obtained, if most are through appeals or direct from Migri. According to the table above, the years of 2012 and 2013 were the most gloomy ones, with only two approvals out of 192 applications. The decreasing number of applications can be connected to the change in application procedure in 2012, but the turn from almost approving every application to only one in 2012, cannot be explained by the change, hence only by more precise and thorough interpretations of the paragraphs in the Aliens Act. Since most declines are being grounded on by-passing the Finnish law by sending the children away with the intention of family reunion (Raivio, 2013), the 36§ (Aliens Act: 13.9.2013/668) has proven to be used extensively in the last 3 years. This change in interpretation happened to be at the same period of time when the right wing populist party The True Finns was voted into the parliament in spring 2011. Some of the interviewees claim this to be the moment when everything turned around.

5.2 Effects on the minors and their families

The current situation is that the chances of an actual family reunion are so small that it will not be applied for. In some cases (...) the child probably has to scrape up the money or ... pay

off as time go by, if they have borrowed it. But still... some believe that it is possible anyway, and try (applying). /Kenny, Lawyer & Representative

As can be seen in the statistics, the declining number of applications can be explained by the difficulties families experience in dealing with the changed application procedures. Three main hinders are mentioned as the main causes to why families have to think twice before considering applying; (1) fees, (2) distance and (3) the person liable for payment. As have been mentioned earlier, the fees being Euro 455 for an adult and Euro 230 for a minor sibling,

(32)

31

this is a relatively large amount for a one-time payment which does not promise a permit. It is calculated that a family of five (5) applying, would today pay Euro 1590, as of before 2010 the same application would have been Euro 690 (Hufvudstadsbladet, 2013), indicating the increase in application fees. Further adding travel and living expenses, and visas, it is a costly affair even for families with assets.

We do not have the same discussion on family reunification now. It ... is perhaps a more accepted fact now, that it is not worth it. There are of course those who do apply, go on interviews, and submit the application but... it's just wasted money, basically. When there are

such long distances and such big families. /Kenny, Lawyer & Representative

In accordance to what is mentioned by ECRE & Red Cross (2014), not all minors entering Finland come from poor families, but it is common that the minor's journey has been supported by the family by, as one respondent suggested; selling land or the house. This leading to the consequence of running out of resources, there might not always be means left for traveling and living costs that handing in an application would bring with it.

Since the families themselves had to start applying, that is when it started getting more difficult. And not everyone have the economic prerequisites for that. They are dependent on

that there is someone in the West who can pay. And a little child has no such money. /Beatrice, Social Worker

One main change, further proven to be one of the main difficulties, is the person(s) obliged to be present when handing in the application. This is being stressed by most interviewees. With lack of a Finnish Embassy in the country of residence, this results in long, costly, and sometimes dangerous travels for the family to be able to reach an embassy. The absence of embassies is not limited to Finnish consulates, but a problem experienced in many countries (ECRE & Red Cross, 2014).

This one boy had his family in Pakistan, they are Afghans. The Finnish Embassy in Islamabad is closed, so that left them with the option of Tehran or New Delhi in India. And for some reason they started thinking about Delhi, but I mean... it's terrible! It's travel by

(33)

32

least 4 weeks before they would be scheduled for an interview, so they should of course have to afford to live there and... They had to leave it in the end. /Laura, Social Worker

With changing the applicant, changes were automatically also made in the person liable for payment. The payer of the fees earlier being the minor, it was automatically paid by the social welfare since the minors do not have any means3. It has however been confirmed by all the interviewees that facts still stand, being the minor still functioning as the main provider of the application fee to the family. This is mainly possible by borrowing from friends and relatives, and put a lot of pressure on the minor, even though they do not think twice about helping out. Especially the social workers stressed this as very difficult and putting the minors under a lot of stress. The allowances are calculated according to Finnish living costs and do not leave a lot of room for spending money on anything else. There are differences though, being if the minor still lives at a family group-home and is provided food and other essentials, while the older ones receive more money but has to cover all their costs. Different living arrangements can mean different financial conditions, but overall it is not an easy task to find funding for the travels and the fees. The family size is of course also a factor, less family members, less total fees for the family.

(...) it can be really hard when you are living in a family group home, you are 17 years old and have started to receive the integration allowance. Although there is a lot of money to send

off as remittance, in the end they might have 200 euros left to live off every month. It's almost like they starve themselves. Not buying clothes, wearing ripped shoes. It's not okay to observe

this either. /Laura Social Worker

(...) and of course the financial aspect. The fact that there are no resources. So it becomes impossible to apply. But it is a fact that it places such incredible pressure on the children in Finland. That they have to raise that money. Maybe borrow from fellow countrymen, and they

might also end up in debt for the family to be able to apply. I do think that that is a fact. /Beatrice, Social Worker

Consequently, even if the responsibility of applying nowadays is placed on the families abroad, the professionals are all agreeing on the specific impact the amendment has had on

(34)

33

the minors. As the quote below will further clarify, before the change the families would not have to do anything in the first stages. The child, in companion with the representative, had to hand in the application, however this could be done at the nearest police station. The bill of the application fee was thereafter sent straight to the social worker's office. This meaning the child was not extensively involved, only if one was of the age of actually understanding what was going on.

Concerning the family reunions, it has certainly become .. somehow .. I must say .. worse. We now have more periods of feeling bad... because we only receive declined decisions. In the past it was so much easier! (...) In the past all they had to do was to walk to the police station

here, submit the application, we received a bill and paid it through the social allowances. So that first stage was very quiet. The family did not have to do anything, but now, we have this

period of "Help, how can we afford the application fee!" and the stress of trying to raise money to send to the family. And then when the application is finally made it is the interview

stage for the family, following a negative decision, if one looks really crassly at it! And then everything is torn up... No, all this work and then still receiving a negative (decision)! So they

appeal… and are waiting and waiting and waiting for the new decision to come. Which is also mostly declined. So ... yeah, all those periods are incredible stressful /Laura, Social

Worker

As Laura also emphasize, the change brings with it a great deal of stress. The stress is not solely on the families applying, but indirectly on the minor as well. This is due to the minor quite often being the one holding the means to provide for their family, monthly sending remittances from their allowances. The fees however, are far beyond what a minor can save up for within a short period of time. With the handling process often being protracted, time is usually what is lacking when trying to submit the application. The stress can, besides the money issue, also be connected to a feeling of guilt (ECRE & Red Cross, 2014). The guilt can, as Rebecca states, arrive when the minor work as a middleman, providing information from Finland, however in the end it still ends in a negative outcome.

They (the minors) understand. And the representatives also stress that no one gets their family. But of course they have to try anyway, for their parents' sake. They have to do it. Or tell the parents to go to the embassy. And I also believe that... it can also increase their guilt.

(35)

34

and the family submit the application and.. and then get a negative decision. But not everyone might do it (apply)... when they hear how it is. /Rebecca, Social Worker I think it is an unreasonable demand on the child (providing the application fees). Because it

is not in the child's best interests to make sure... it's not a child's job to work for something like that, and to be under the pressure of. Because it's an extreme pressure too! /Anna,

Caseworker

The money issue is, as have been presented in this chapter, the main concern after changing the system. It is affecting both the families and the minors, the families in the process of not having the means to apply, and further on the minors when they theoretically are having more chances of actually finding means for the fees. This theoretical chance might not always be realistic, and do put the minor under a lot of pressure. A discussion further endorsing this matter will be provided in the next chapter.

(36)

35

6. Best interest of the child

When ratifying the Convention of the Rights of the Child, nations sign up to follow the convention and are also obliged to show how they actualize it by handing in reports every 5th year. By Finland ratifying the CRC in 1991, the state has agreed upon to always consider the best interest of the child under the circumstances that the convention covers. As stated in CRC Article 3, 1§, the best interest of the child should be considered in all actions concerning children4. Looking at the effects of the change in the Finnish Aliens Act, it has led to, even if

it might have been amended with the best intentions, having a big impact on the minors residing in Finland. In this chapter the best interest of the child is used as a general framework, to facilitate an understanding of from which perspective the effect on the minors are being looked upon. A presentation of how the professionals perceive the general well-being of the minors will start off the chapter, followed by an analysis on how the application process is influencing the well-being more specifically. Thereafter moving into the more particular, shifting the focus to the expectations the minors have, the afflicting feelings and also the potential of a reconciliation process.

6.1 Well-being

They all feel... In general they all suffer from something. They are all traumatized in some way, because they have been separated from the people in their lives they are being the

closest to. /Anna, Caseworker

As research conducted in the last decade shows, scholars have pointed out the risks accompanying the category of unaccompanied minors. The levels of psychological distress are above the levels of the teenagers of the same age in the country of residence (Bean et al, 2007b). The category is also, however, known as a group of high resilience (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2007).

Moreover, although the category is a very diverse one with many differences, many of them have been exposed to hardships (Carlson, Cacciatore & Klimek,2012). Sexual abuse is

4

Article 3, 1§, “the best interest of the child should be considered in all actions concerning

children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies (..)” (Convention of the Rights of the Child,

(37)

36

mentioned by some of the respondents, stating that it is not uncommon and that this will further obstruct the minor's´ well-being. These incidents can maybe also be seen as part of what Harsløff Hjelde calls the “silence” surrounding these children, addressing that many children keep their family and real backgrounds a secret in order to obtain residence permits and therefore do not interact with people too much in order to not reveal anything they should not (Engebrigtsen, 2003).

When receiving a residence permit, it also holds the possibility of one's family applying for residence permit. Among the interviewed professionals, they all underline the waiting as a very difficult part of the process. As one of the social workers explains, the well-being is connected to the process of awaiting decisions.

When they first come here to the group home and are waiting for their residence permits, they are very happy. They are saved and so on... There are some psychosomatic problems, but they start school which they fortunately can do pretty quickly here. And then they will get into the everyday life and routines, and it seems like it is going pretty well. And most of them manage well here. They play football and go to the gym and to the swimming pool and you know. But then when they get this residence permit, that is when they will hit a crisis. When they move to the family group home. Because, I think for some... it might be an emptiness, of "what should I wait for now?". "Now I have a residence permit, and now what?", "So what? Now the family

is over there" and then there will be a second chaos and anticipation... Depression and everything. So I would say, in the family group home, they are usually worse off than those

who are here (group home). /Rebecca, Social Worker

Another factor, that has been stressed by many of the respondents, is to what extent the minor is aware of the whereabouts of the family, or are in contact with the family. Research has also stressed this as a risk factor (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006). The uncertain conditions are closely connected to the well-being, and the ones lacking this information about their loved ones, have a really tough time concentrating on anything else than worrying about this. Laura describes how this uncertainty is a big hinder for the integration.

(...) but overall, when they have had time to be here for a while and become used to the city and they have started getting friends, it gets better. But I have to say that if they do not know

Between hope and despair : how changes in family reunification procedures in Finland affect the unaccompanied minors in the application process