Liam Thornton

Vulnerable Childhood, Vulnerable Adulthood: Direct Provision As Aftercare for Aged-Out Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Ireland

Ireland’s approach to after-care for ‘aged-out’ separated children is problematic. Currently, upon reaching the age of 18, most separated young people are moved to ‘direct provision’, despite the fact that the state can use discretionary powers to allow them to remain in foster care. Direct provision is the system Ireland adopts providing bed and board to asylum seekers, along with a weekly monetary payment. Separated young people in Ireland are in a vulnerable position after ageing out. Entry into the direct provision system, from a legal and social work perspective, is concerning. Utilising direct provision as a ‘form of aftercare’ emphasises governmental policy preferences that privilege the migrant status of aged-out separated children, as opposed to viewing this group as young people leaving care. In this article, utilising a cross-disciplinary approach, we provide the first systematic exploration of the system of aftercare for aged-out separated children in Ireland. In doing so, we posit two core reasons for why the aftercare system for aged-out separated children has developed as it has. First, doing so ensures that the state is consistent with its approach to asylum seekers more generally, in that it seeks to deter persons from claiming asylum in Ireland through utilisation of the direct provision system. Second, while the vulnerability of aged-out separated children is well-documented, the state (and others) ignore this vulnerability and are reluctant to offer additional aftercare supports beyond direct provision. This is due, we argue, to viewing aged-out separated children as having a lesser entitlement to rights than other care leavers, solely based on their migrant status.

A Preliminary Human Rights Analysis of the Working Group Report and Recommendations on Direct Provision

There is a noticeable lack of any human rights analysis on the system of direct provision and ancillary supports provided for protection seekers. This is stark when compared to at least some level of human rights analysis that informed recommendations on the protection process. The human rights analysis regarding the protection process considers in particular Ireland’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC), in particular the best interests of the child and the status determination process. In relation to recommendations on the direct provision accommodation and supports available to protection applicants in direct provision, there is a noted lack of engagement with Ireland’s international human rights obligations. In addition, I argue that the recommendations emerging from the McMahon Report on direct provision accommodation, further embeds institutionalised living for protection seekers in Ireland.