T is a 8 year old child from an eastern European country, they are of Roma origin, does not speak English and it is unclear how long they have been in the country. The only information obtained is that he was brought in the back of a truck a long time ago.
Following emergency services being called to the home it was discovered T had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of mother’s partner and subsequently was brought into care.
Unfortunately shortly after being brought into care T’s mother vanished and could not be located.
T spent 18 months in the care system and began to thrive socially and in education. Due to the young age he has quickly adapted to life in the UK, speaking good English, experiencing new social environments and forming goals for their future.
Due to the laws around immigration and the lack of official paperwork for entry into the country it was decided that T would be returned to his country of origin, who also wanted him to return.
T would return to the country’s care system, which had a reputation for not being the best but also for treating any person of a Roma persuasion as a second class citizen.
When T was informed of the plan he tried to repeatedly injure himself as a means of prevention to leaving. Despite his clear wish to stay and continue in the new and positive life he had established, the decision remained for him to return.
Debate....
Is this the right decision for T?
Should the country of origin have such authority or preference even when there are no relatives or connections for the individual?
Should the policy for immigration stand when there are concerns for the wellbeing of a child?
Does the differencing standards between countries negate who has authority?
It is proposed that I propose that individuals have the right to choose & decisions based on situations rather thanbeing forced because of their origin