The Ambiguity of Caring: Interpreting Best Interest Doctrine in the System of Care for Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Background

Unaccompanied children (UC) are undocumented immigrants under age 18 who are determined by authorities to be traveling without a parent or guardian. From 2021 – 2023, over 370,000 UC were apprehended at the border and placed in government custody. Before they are released to sponsor in the U.S., policy mandates that sponsor households are assessed to rule out the possibility that the child is being trafficked. Meanwhile, UC spend about a month in shelters and transitional foster placements around the country where they, too, are assessed for health and mental health needs by program staff and provided services and supports in compliance with child welfare “best interest” doctrine. A growing body of research has examined the evolving policies and programs that comprise this system of care and what happens to UC before the enter government custody and once they are released, but the programs themselves are largely closed to outside observers and researchers. This raises questions that are central to our study, including how program staff interpret and implement the “best interest” mandate.

Methods

Data for this study come from in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of program staff and supervisors (n=65) within the UC system of care from September 2022 – June 2023. We partnered with a national organization that is contracted by the federal government to provide shelter care for UC. Interviews ranged from 45 – 120 minutes and were audio recorded and transcribed. Using a cloud-based qualitative analysis software, we relied on an inductive approach to identify themes within the data. During weekly team meetings we discussed the emerging codes and definitions and, eventually, a set of themes that emerged from the codes. Inter-coder reliability and memoing provided additional checks on the trustworthiness of our analysis.

Results

We explore how workers shape the contours of care and, by extension, the terms of “best interest” doctrine for UC by examining three areas of ambiguity. First, the case of Afghan youth in 2021 introduced new communication and cultural barriers for program staff. Workers began to question whether and how the system of care should adapt given that the experiences of Afghan youth were distinct from the migration pathways of Central American UC—the system’s largest client group. Second, staff must collaborate with a range of actors within and outside of the defined system of care to meet the medical and mental health needs of UC. This can create friction and confusion about the “best interest” of UC. Third, staff must screen for trafficking concerns, but this is difficult to assess without first establishing trust with UC, a shared understanding of what trafficking is, and confidence that mistakes by staff will not be punished.

Conclusion and Implications

We argue that ambiguities within the care system mask the immediate and long-term needs of UC, ultimately creating unevenness in how “best interest” doctrine is interpreted. We conclude with recommendations for policymakers and practitioners, as well as a call for enhancing our conceptual understanding of the system of care in place for UC.