Imageries of family and nation: A comparative analysis of transnational adoption and care for unaccompanied minors in Belgium

Abstract

Drawing on empirical research completed in Belgium, this article presents a comparative analysis of the care regimes for two categories of children: transnational adoptees and unaccompanied minors. Although state immigration policies consider the two groups of minors as humanitarian exceptions that require preferential treatment, the kind of humanitarian help and social investment they are believed to deserve differs dramatically. Ideologies of relational exclusivity and fixed belonging differently structure the investment of care that the two groups are believed to need, dependent on their ability to be read as freestanding, cultureless individuals, assimilable to the host nation.

Belonging and participation in liminality: Unaccompanied children in Finland and Sweden

“…Sporton et al (2006: 213) suggest that negotiation of one's own position is not a simple process in the 'liminal' phase of refugee children's lives in general, and the situation of unaccompanied children may become even more complicated, since research shows that there is no one who takes up the parenting role in the care of them (e.g. De Graeve and Bex, 2015;Stretmo, 2014).…”

Recognition in the lives of unaccompanied children and youth: A review of the key European literature

“…Many of the studies reviewed presented unaccompanied children and youth as rather satisfied with the reception structures and procedures they encountered, especially when the focus was on the systems that secure children's basic needs, such as safety, shelter and food. However, many studies suggested the systems seemed to overlook other essential needs, such as full access to medical help while still waiting for the residency permit (Connolly, 2015; Lundberg & Dahlquist, 2012; Sedmak & Medarić, 2017; Sinha & Uppal, 2009); stable, caring, family‐like relationships (e.g., De Graeve & Bex, 2016; Eide, Lidén, Haugland, Fladstad, & Hauge, 2018; Herz & Lalander, 2017; Omland & Andenas, 2018; Wernesjö, 2015); social support and educational guidance (De Graeve & Bex, 2017; Oppedal, Guribye, & Kroger, 2017; Pastoor, 2015); and being heard and seen as unique individuals (e.g., De Graeve & Bex, 2017; Deveci, 2012; Kaukko & Wernesjö, 2017). According to some studies, the structures and procedures also tended to homogenize unaccompanied children and youth, for example, according to their legal status or age, while failing to recognize the diversity among this group (De Graeve & Bex, 2016, 2017; Derluyn, 2018; Kaukko & Wernesjö, 2017).…”

“…The care structures in unaccompanied children's and youths' lives influenced the possibilities for recognition that incorporated the aspect of love. For example, age and legal status, rather than personal needs, often defined their living arrangements (e.g., De Graeve & Bex, 2016, 2017). Additionally, these young people lived among official relationships.…”

“…Indeed, some of the unaccompanied children and youth in the studies explained how they received less guidance and emotional availability than they would want from their legal guardians (De Graeve & Bex, 2016, 2017; Hopkins & Hill, 2010; Kalverboer et al, 2017; Wernesjö, 2015). However, some studies (Eriksson & Hedberg Rundgren, 2019; Kalverboer et al, 2017; Lundberg & Dahlquist, 2012; O'Toole Thommessen et al, 2015; Sedmak & Medarić, 2017) described good care relationships between the young unaccompanied individuals and their guardians.…”

“…Creating a caring community in the temporary and rather extraordinary situations of unaccompanied children and youth may be challenging, but it is possible. Participants in several studies reported experiencing close, family‐like ties in institutional care (Eriksson & Hedberg Rundgren, 2019; Gustafsson et al, 2012; Kaukko & Wernesjö, 2017; Lundberg & Dahlquist, 2012; O'Toole Thommessen et al, 2015; Pastoor, 2017; Wernesjö, 2015) and foster families (Herz, 2019; Kohli et al, 2010; Ní Raghallaigh, 2014; Sirriyeh, 2013; Sirriyeh & Ní Raghallaigh, 2018) and with friends and their families (Bjerneld et al, 2018; Eriksson & Hedberg Rundgren, 2019; O'Toole Thommessen et al, 2017; Pastoor, 2017; Sedmak & Medarić, 2017; Sinha & Uppal, 2009; Wernesjö, 2015), people from non‐governmental organizations and other family‐like guides (De Graeve & Bex, 2016, 2017; Herz & Lalander, 2017). When comparing foster care with institutional care, foster care was found to be a form of housing, where recognitive relationships are more likely to be created (Herz, 2019; Kalverboer et al, 2017; Kohli et al, 2010; Ní Raghallaigh, 2014; Sirriyeh, 2013; Sirriyeh & Ní Raghallaigh, 2018).…”