In Whose Best Interests? Comparing Children’s Treatment in Immigration Court and in Child Protection Hearings in Minnesota: Similar Issues Without the Relevant Tools or Best Interests Standard

Abstract

Executive Summary Federal immigration courts and state child welfare courts make decisions regarding certain similarly situated children in need of protection, but how does immigration court compare in its procedures for dealing with them? This article uses a comparative court observation approach to consider that question, by analyzing six months of observational data from the Fort Snelling Immigration Court juvenile docket, along with observations in Minnesota juvenile court child protection proceedings. Findings include the prioritization of federal government interests over children’s best interests, apparent in the US Government ensuring that an attorney represent its own interests before the immigration judge, while children must represent themselves if unable to find or afford an attorney. Furthermore, unrepresented children must navigate complex multi-agency procedures in order to seek the two most common forms of legal protection (Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and asylum). Finally, the federal government fails to provide appropriate tools for responding to indicators of child welfare matters mentioned in immigration court, despite holding states to account for their handling of child maltreatment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.