|
by Katina Ancar
Orignally published in Youth Law News, January-March 2004. Download article 52 KB, 1 page. PDF requires Adobe Reader or equivalent.
The Flores settlement seeks to ensure that detained immigrant children receive appropriate services, care, and housing.
Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act,1 in March 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred its operations to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Like INS, the new agency supervises both immigration services (citizenship and permanent residency) and law enforcement functions (detention and deportation) for immigrants who enter the United States. Nonetheless, this transfer of power had a particularly significant impact upon immigrant children. Although DHS is responsible for children who enter the country with adult family members, the Act shifted the responsibility for care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant youth to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and its Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services (DUCS).2
Unfortunately, to the disappointment of advocates, this promising transfer of authority has not resulted in a new era of collaboration and improvement of conditions for detained children.As a result, in January 2004, counsel in Flores v. Ridge filed a motion to enforce the provisions of the Flores settlement agreement.3 This settlement, reached after years of litigation, seeks to ensure that detained immigrant children receive services, care,and housing appropriate to “the particular vulnerability” of children.4
Most disappointing has been the lack of cooperative spirit exhibited by the new agencies. Although initial signals were positive as the shift of responsibility to DHS and ORR neared, both agencies became unwilling to offer detailed information on how the agencies, either together or separately, intended to rectify violations of the Flores settlement.Worse, the agencies often denied the existence of violations, and failed to exhibit a commitment to work toward compliance. In addition,ORR, although it is the custodian of the vast majority of immigrant children, had few if any staff working with children in the field. Instead, DHS officers continued to be responsible for supervising day-to-day care. Finally, it appeared that DHS
was using its sizable strength to influence ORR’s actions and attitudes toward Flores compliance. These obstacles, coupled with repeated complaints from advocates regarding Flores violations, which included stripsearches, overuse of secure facilities, lack of less restrictive placements, and deficiencies in children’s access to care and services, compelled the filing of the enforcement motion. The agencies’ opposition to the motion contends that all alleged breaches have been rectified since March 2003. However, other than general statements denying any violations, they presented no affirmative evidence that Flores requirements are being met.
The current defendants’ predecessor agreed to the Flores settlement in 1997. Seven years later, the defendants have not fulfilled their promises to children and, in fact, continue to delay working with Flores counsel and child advocates to protect the children in their care.
Katrina Ancar, a staff attorney with the National Center for Youht Law, is co-counsel in the Flores case. She specializes in Kinship Care, Child Welfare, and Immigrant Children.
Footnotes 1Pub. L.No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 2The Office of Refugee Resettlement is a branch of the U.S.Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. 3For an overview of the Flores settlement agreement and the Homeland Security Act, see Alice Bussiere,Final Settlement in Flores v. Reno Offers Hope to Children in INS Custody, Youth Law News, 8-9 (May – June 1997) and Katina Ancar, Homeland Security Act Provisions Affect Flores Children,Youth Law News, 32-33 (Jan.–Mar. 2003). See also Katina Ancar & Karen Tumlin, Is INS Ready for Change? Youth Law News 18-21 (July – Sept. 2002). 4Settlement Agreement ¶ 12.A.
|
 | |
The brief in support of the motion to enforce the provisions of the Flores settlement agreement is available as a PDF.
 Download brief
348 KB, 89 pages.
|
