Immigration centre's toll on children's mental health
Paediatricians' report condemns the effect of incarceration at Yarl's Wood
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Children forcibly held in a British immigration detention centre have experienced serious psychological and physical health problems, a medical report claims today.
Doctors who examined 24 families said their findings raised concerns about the health and wellbeing of children who have sought asylum in Britain and called for an urgent review of the detention of young people.
The paediatricians' report showed that two children had been admitted to hospital and six had missed follow-up appointments for previous health concerns, including for HIV testing and disabilities. Eleven children aged between three and 11 years had developed symptoms of depression and anxiety since being detained.
The report, published in Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, said: "All of these children presented as being confused and frightened by the detention setting, and eight had developed severe emotional and behavioural problems. The majority were suffering from sleep problems, headaches and abdominal pain. None had previously required support from a mental health professional."
The doctors, who examined children at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire, said at least 12 had been separated at some point from their main carer, including a 20-month-old breast-fed baby who was separated from her mother for three weeks.
Dr Ann Lorek, the author and a consultant paediatrician at the Mary Sheridan Centre for Child Health in Lambeth, said: "Our study contains evidence that children in detention have worsening physical and mental health, and express worrying levels of trauma and sickness, despite well intentioned staff.
"They are locked up with family members for indefinite periods of time, often on several occasions ... As doctors, we ask for safeguards to protect these vulnerable children from further harm in detention."
The families examined were referred to the authors by Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Children's Society, which are campaigning for an end to detention of children and families in immigration cases.
David Wood, the strategic director of the criminality and detention group at the UK Border Agency, said: "Treating children with care and compassion is a priority for the UK Border Agency. That's why our children's policy has enshrined in law a commitment to keep youngsters safe from harm." He said the research was "limited" and more than three years old.
"Yarl's Wood Removal Centre has been praised on numerous occasions for its children's facilities – Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons recently said we had made 'significant progress', and we now have full-time independent social workers, and a range of trained experts to monitor welfare 24 hours a day.
"We would much rather keep children out of detention. However when the courts say families have no right to be here, yet they refuse to go home voluntarily, detention will often be necessary to enforce removal from the UK."
Dr Rosalyn Proops, a child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said her organisation was "very concerned" about the health and welfare of detained children and was reviewing the evidence with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
many british people erroneously believe that the uk processes the lions share of asylum seekers in europe and wish they'd try and settle in other european countries...
this is erroneous. We are the last country in the line and one of the least welcoming. this iswhy the camps build up on the French atlantic coast. Many would rather be there than here, and in fact, european countries taking many many more asylum seekers than us. We are the one european country that underperforms on quotas. Other Eurpean countries are caring for our share of asylum seekers. A source of national shame, triggered by national misconceptions.
detention is for criminals and suspected criminals. asylum seekers are not commiting any criminal behaviour. If they are in danger, they have a legal right to seek a place of safety, and I consider their admission here, if genuinely in danger, as a matter of great honour. It makes me very proud to live where I live. That children are held under detention, and are suffering, should be a point of great concern to us.
people speak a great deal about immigration but not many are aware of the facts.
asylum seekers form the smallest immigration group and very few are successful. They are held in detention centres, not social housing. if successful, they will be allocated social housing and be permitted to start working, as they are now British with anational insurance number. Most are motivated to work hard, but some may still be deeply traumatised after such experiences as war rape and torture.
economic migrancy is legal within the european union and we experienced a very large influx of eastern european workers this decade. it did have an affect on the working population but this trend has now reversed and economic migrancy has much reduced.
illegal immigration is a criminal issue, and is the modern version of the slave trade. It is co-ordinated by criminal gangs and entails great sufering and the risk, not only of forced labour, but of forced sex labour. it is a human horror story and the uk does its best to uncover gangs and rescue the victims. The victims are highly unlikely to be allowed to remain in the uk and are sent to their country of origin, often very gratefully.
anyone stealing their way in independently is returned home if found.
we are strict on immigration here and need to increase, rather than reduce, the numbers of asylum seekers we process and that we patriate.
During the second world war we had a lot less people eating a lot less calories per day, and we still needed to import food to feed ourselves. More people means more reliance on other food producing countries. Once we become more green in our energy production and free ourselves from total reliance of oil producing countries, are the food producing countries going to be the next to hold sway over our internatonal relations and hold us ransome? Sustainability, make our own electricity from nuclear, wind and wave power, be self sufficient that we could survive on what food we can produce, should the need exist. Only once Britain is self sufficient for the basics can we deal with, and be honest in the world politic, working with it instead of being reliant on it. We don't need more people, we need less, and until the ever so nice people realise this, the spaces left by emigrants will just be filled by more people born into the poverty they left.
Green issues are a different matter. Refugees must have somewhere to live, so globally its irrelevant where, in terms of environmental impact.
You could interchange your words 'ever so nice' with the words 'well-researched and humane'. Are those not good qualities for a person to have?
Harsh. But tough. It might send out the right message to the rest of the sick who want to come here.
And just in case you want to stereotype me, I'm not white and my parents are immigrants.
There is only one to deal with the immigrant explosion and exploitation of this country's good will and that is to send out harsh messages that deter others.
In a Country which is neglecting its own people and throwing a generation onto the unemployment scrapheap there is absolutely no case for allowing asylum seekers , illegal immigrants or indeed half of Eastern Europe in and giving them right to stay.
Some time very soon the crunch will come to Britain and in the sink estates and the areas where manufacturing has been sacrificed and utilities sold off to foreigners it might not be a pretty experience. Politicians and self interest groups have very nearly ruined Britain and have succeeded in putting their own indiginous population into second place on nearly every front from jobs to housing. No wonder parties like UKIP and the BNP are more and more popular - its not radicalism its a cry for someone to listen to the wishes of the electorate. This British electorate might have been kind hearted and have welcomed migrants for generations - but the mass immigration seen recently is unsustainable and clearly not wanted - the politicians however haven't listened for decades on this subject, hence why asylum and border control are in such a mess.
Anyone who complains the British system is harsh should get out more and see just how these things are dealt with overseas - any observation shows the British system is too soft and that is why the queues at Calais form and there are so many visa scams in operation - they know that once in there is very little chance of being sent home especially by judges who won't even deport violent criminals because it infringes their 'human rights'.
And here was I thinking Britain was a civilized country...
As to the actual topic above about refugees.. Britain is hardly the country with highest intake of refugees, so there's nothing to compalin about. YES, there might be other free countries before that but 1.the refugees that go to Greece for instance, have as hard time there as they had in their country of origin and 2.some of the refugees that actually come to England are from former British colonies and thus have relatives and friends here; of course they would choose somewhere where they can settle more easily than a random country.