Guest post: "Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

I can only imagine my desperation if I had to consider sending my boys away just to keep them safe.

But if I ever had to, I’d want a mother like Karen to be there for them. Karen is an amazing woman who told her story of fostering a refugee boy and brought huge attention to a campaign to get more refugee children settled safely in Britain.

This week, MPs had the chance to vote to let mothers like Karen keep doing what they want to do - opening their homes and their hearts to refugee children who are in Europe all alone without a mum or dad to look after them. I'm ashamed to say that they did not, and that the government decided to close the door to the thousands of children who need our help. The campaign was only asking for 3,000 children to come to Britain. To put that in context – that would be just five children per parliamentary constituency, and nowhere near the 10,000 mostly Jewish children that Britain saved through the Kindertransport before the Second World War.

I took a special interest in this vote because I have been working at Theirworld to help create school places for Syrian refugee children in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, where many fleeing families arrive first. I have been focused on how to make sure that children never embark on a further dangerous journey to find a safe haven. When I saw that the British parliament was considering a vote to offer a welcome to 3,000 lone children who really need us to open our hearts and homes, I wanted to add my support. So last week I wrote to my local MP for the first time ever. I wanted his backing for refugee children, an issue that goes well beyond party politics. I know lots of Mumsnetters contacted their MPs too and have heard from many of you on Twitter. It was devastating to see the government vote down the proposal to give safety to lone refugee children in Europe.

But this does not stop there. The House of Lords last night voted to back the bill thanks to the efforts of Lord Dubs and other campaigners. So it goes back to the House of Commons next Tuesday with a chance for MPs to reconsider their vote and help 3,000 lone children.

One of the ways you can help them think again is to sign this petition. If enough of us do it then perhaps a few more MPs will listen and reconsider their vote. In pushing for this change we won't be on our own – we have the backing of lots of energetic dedicated groups like Citizens UK, Save the Children, HelpRefugees and others. This weekend the former Archbishop of Canterbury gave his blessing, arguing that this is a chance to honour what our parents and grandparents did in the face of an earlier catastrophe.

This is not a question of sparking a new political controversy - that is not my way and not the Mumsnet way, I don't think - it is a matter of simple humanity. While we can't ensure that every child is safe in his or her own country, we can act to prevent children dying on our doorstep here in Europe, and ensure a safe home and education and hope for a better future.

As long as this terrible crisis runs on and horribly on - then we have obligations to the children who are here in our continent. Our MPs now have a second chance to help these vulnerable children and we should help them to take it.

Please join me, and sign here: Britain must not turn its back on child refugees in Europe.

British children lose out because of the British government, not because of foreign children. Fearing what incomers may take away is aslippery slope in my opinions and laying blame at the wong door. Yes, fighting for rights for all te vulnerable is important and that means looking at the roots of a corrupt system that rewards the rich and demonises the weak and vulnerable. Participating in the demonisation of the vulnerable is not the answer. They've had a go at the unemployedand disabled and now the government directs hate at refugees. This really needs to change.

Late teens is a child however you try to dress it up

Emily a 19 year old male or female is not a child not matter how YOU try to dress it up.

Late teens is a child however you try to dress it up

Emily a 19 year old male or female is not a child not matter how YOU try to dress it up.

Late teens is a child however you try to dress it up

Emily a 19 year old male or female is not a child not matter how YOU try to dress it up.

Didn't mean to post it three times but still, it gets my point across.

This entire thread is so hideous it's making my head spin - it's as absurd as "Tina" Green coming on and asking for donations to fill the gap in the BHS pension fund.

The OP has political contacts which would make the most hardened of hacks green with envy, her own husband could've facilitated change by putting money into budgets when he was chancellor and he could've forseen all of this when he was PM... like those of us on the ground did.

Instead of asking "mumsnet" to sign a petition (which will do nothing) - why don't you OP, email the party chairman and ask him to champion your cause both amongst standing members of the party and also via email to its grass roots members.

It seems to me you never expected your name to go live alongside this blog post - the family which obfuscates together stays together?

Yes but in my example above there are the funds - just not the right people.

My city has had the government grant cut the deepest. I am deeply angry at that. Many in the city are actively campaigning to get this changed. It would however not change the situation with the foster carers. Many people who would have considered this as an option are having to work full time or maybe the ones whose children had left home have now had to move back.

There is a lot wrong with the governments cuts and yes most of us are trying to campaign to change that. But bringing people into a situation where there may not be the support systems for them and may at this moment disadvantage some of the most vunerable will not make it easier.

It isn't about money or government policies, it's about a severe lack of experienced and suitable fosterers. As pp said there are huge recruitment drives all over the UK, we are still several thousand short for the children already here.
I asked you to suggest some practical solutions because you're constantly telling us to open our borders and that is as far as you can see. What happens if we do? Do we just leave these vulnerable children to wander the streets hungry and at risk of abuse? How is that better than their current situation?

I know there are massive recruitment campaigns at the moment - there are around this time every year as Fostering Fortnight is in May.

There are also lots of foster carers with empty beds at the moment who would be willing to help these children. I'm a foster carer. Several carers in my area have expressed an interest in helping out refugees, or already have foreign children living with them.

Yes the children come from very troubled backgrounds and have experienced severe trauma - so have lots of the children foster carers already care for.

From memory I think there are around 330 local authorities in England. That would mean less than 10 children per LA. Is it really better for these children to stay in the danger they're currently in?

I have seen figures of £50,000 to £100,000 per child, per year to care for these children. If each LA takes 10 children, that will add half a million to a million to their budget. The government is taking back LA reserves, where does this money needed come from?

Sporting, 3Purple makes some good points.

Itswjust, I have stated in previous threads that European countries should provide safe passage and take more refugees. Saying I want to 'open borders' is a massive over simplification of what I have said and inaccurate.

I have suggested solutions in pevious threads which posters like you sneer at. Can you not think ofany solution, other than them wandering the streets? Do you think that is all a wealthy country like the UK can do, merely offer them a somewhat Dickensian dystopia?

Just to clarify. Are these some of the underage children we are being asked to help?

greece.greekreporter.com/2016/04/26/clashes-with-underage-refugees-and-riot-police-in-lesvos-hotspot/

I need help understanding 'underage'. Do we mean under pension age?

"From memory I think there are around 330 local authorities in England. That would mean less than 10 children per LA. Is it really better for these children to stay in the danger they're currently in?"

1. The majority aren't actually children.
2. If we take these young guys, more and more will turn up in Calais wanting to come over. It won't stop at 3,000trust me. Their families will send them onand then try to use them as an anchor to enter the UK via family reunification rules.

A Gallup poll done several years ago found that around 40% of the developing world would, if they had the opportunity to do so, move to Europe to live there.

I think people are seriously underestimating the sheer numbers of people who would come to Britain if they were given the green light.

No Emily I can't. There are safe guarding procedures in place that have to be adhered to for the protection of all concerned. There is no way round that.

What about the children here waiting to be fostered? What a shame they're not a trendy or right on enough cause.

I remember on another thread, someone stating taking refugees into their own home wasn't a long term solution, now we are not talking about their home, they are all for it.

Little children refugees will be popular, males as per the Guardian picture will not be popular and are a safeguarding nightmare for fellow female students and looked after females, due to the misogynistic background of these late teen males.

What are the barriers to using these empty beds? Why are none of the children that are listed as being in need of a place being placed with these carers?

As I understand it there needs to be a match between the child and the carer, not just simply a case of bed space. Is there an issue with there being some carers with spaces not in areas where there is high demand? I understand they also ideally have to keep many children local as regards school places and if they are able to return to their families at some point.

If some of these children are fostered it may be that they need a home where there is one-to-one capability due to enhanced needs which may mean they need someone with certain conditions: ie, no other children currently, experience of trauma and challenging behaviour.

I'm assuming that the Guardian is a fairly reliable source on the shortage...

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/03/8000-shortage-foster-families-demand-carers-bbc-series

Howto, are you referring to me? For starters Idon't have a spare room. Do you think refugees sleeping on a sofa permanently is a long term solution? I do what Ican and have offered to help refugees integrate by taking them to the reception centres they currently have to go to where I live, finding interpreters and when they leaveI am happy to help them find work and show them around. Why are you side eyeing? Many people want to help refugees and that doesn't mean they have to want to foster them. You are making quite a silly point. Refugees want proper homes,not a sofa, they want dignity and a real life.

howtorebuild many looked after girls have issues which may make it difficult for them to be housed with any boys of their own age or older, they may have been removed from homes where there was sexual abuse/DV etc. So any boy would be an issue however nice and well behaved.

I had a think about it and realised that very few 6 year olds could make it across Europe on their own. Mine certainly couldn't make it home on the bus from town easily, let alone much further. The younger children will mostly be with relatives I would have thought. But an older teen from say 14 onwards would just about be capable of doing it. I suspect that is why most of the children you are seeing are in fact what I'd describe as young adults.

These come with certainly a few more challenges than very small children. Therefore foster families would need to be tailored to their needs.

Where do you live Emily?

Emily, no one is suggesting you personally should foster someone, it may not be appropriate for you to do so due to a range of factors including your family situation, work and space in your home. But someone will be required for these children to do just that and at the moment there appears to be a shortfall. Reception centres are ok for when people first get here and probably necessary so all official forms can be filled but as you've pointed out plans need to be made for them going forward, whether there may be a chance of them returning (as many of my Bosnian students did) or making a life over here.

I would be more supportive of drives to find care for underage refugees if it were accompanied by hard-headed measures - such as bone density tests - to ascertain that the 'children' really are children and not just posing as such to garner sympathy and fast-track treatment.

When they introduced bone density testing for migrants claiming to be minors in Scandinavia the number of supposed 'children' claiming asylum plummeted. Funny that.

Fostering
3000 x 184 x 52 = £28,704,000

School place
3000 x 4000pa school place £12,000,000

Medical needs? Nuffield says approx £2K per person per year
3000 x 2000 = 6,000,000

£46million pa. Or less than one day's worth of our payments to the EU, in whose countries they are already living if they are in France, Greece, Italy.

Why is this a UK problem?

Why is this not a problem for the wealthy EU countries they are living in?

Why stop at 3000?

I came on Mumsnet this afternoon to post the link to the latest petition Sarah is referring to: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128833 - please please please, I implore you to sign it, share it and email your MP to ask them to support the latest amendment when it returns to the Commons.

As I understand it, many of the unaccompanied child refugees this amendment is referring to actually have family and friends in the UK, so in those cases no foster carers required.

The new amendment proposed in the Lords last night is for the government to discuss with local authorities how many child refugees they could accommodate, rather than a fixed 3,000. Surely that addresses many of the fears voiced on this thread?!

I find it astonishing that anyone would think it acceptable that the UK sits by and does nothing to help these poor children. There are tens of thousands of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe - we should play our part.

People need to remember it is luck of the draw as to where you happen to be born. A different roll of the die and it could be your children in that situation. If it were mine I would hope somebody would help them.

Like the Syrian 'child' refugees in Gillingham who are on trial for gang rape and have been ruled by a judge actually to be over 18?