PILPG Ukraine Drafting Notes: Return of Children

Return of Children

The issues that could arise in negotiations regarding the return of children are:

• Timeline:  Agreeing on a timeframe for the safe and organized return of children, accounting for complexities like health and psychological support needs.

• Logistics:  Establishing methods for the safe transfer of children, potentially involving family members, child welfare agencies, or international observers.

Timeline

Establishing a timeline for the return of children will require balancing the need for a swift, family-centered reunification with considerations around safety, stability, and access to resources.  Options range from strict deadlines to phased or conditional approaches, each with distinct advantages and potential risks.

• Strict Time Period:  Setting a strict, short-term timeline to complete all returns could meet urgent humanitarian needs by reuniting children with families as quickly as possible.  Such a deadline may bring immediate psychological and emotional relief to families, create a strong statement of goodwill, and avoid lengthy bureaucratic processes.  However, the urgency may strain logistical resources, especially if transportation, legal documentation, or family tracing must be completed within limited time.  It may also lead to rushed placements, leaving children without adequate reintegration support, such as psychological assistance, health checks, or preparatory communication with families.

• Phased Approach:  A phased timeline, in which children are returned in stages, allows for a controlled and supportive return process.  Phasing could enable prioritization of certain groups, such as younger children, those with immediate family, or those facing health or trauma issues.  This approach allows social services and welfare organizations to provide individualized care and integration support as needed.  However, the extended process may be seen as too slow, potentially causing stress for waiting families and emotional uncertainty for children, particularly if they perceive delays as indefinite.  There is also a risk that if political conditions change, phases could be disrupted or delayed further, eroding confidence in the process.

• Condition-Based Timeline:  Implementing a conditional timeline where returns depend on fulfilling certain criteria—such as the completion of documentation, health screenings, or family tracing—ensures that each return meets established standards.  This approach emphasizes safety and stability, reducing the risk of incomplete or rushed reunification.  However, the lack of a firm end-date may create frustration, as some children and families could face prolonged waiting periods, especially if conditions are difficult to meet consistently.  This option could also lead to accusations of selective or uneven treatment if some returns progress faster than others based on differing regional or logistical capabilities.

• Pilot Program Leading to Full Implementation:  A pilot program to begin the returns on a small scale, gradually scaling up as processes and logistics stabilize, offers a cautious approach to identify and mitigate any unforeseen issues.  A pilot program can ensure that systems are reliable and that all stakeholders, including families, are adequately prepared for each stage of return.  However, the initial slow pace of returns might create frustration, especially if the pilot is perceived as unnecessarily delaying full implementation.  The pilot approach also carries some political risk if either party views it as an indefinite test rather than a concrete step toward comprehensive reunification.

Logistics

Establishing the logistical framework for the return of children will be critical to ensure safety, oversight, and support throughout the process.

• Directly to Family or Guardians:  Returning children directly to their immediate family members or legal guardians minimizes intermediary involvement and emphasizes family reunification.  This approach reduces transit time and keeps the process transparent and emotionally supportive for children, enhancing the sense of security and stability.  However, direct transfers may be challenging in cases where family members cannot be located or verified, and it raises security concerns if regions remain unstable.  Additionally, directly managed returns may be difficult to oversee, potentially leading to gaps in accountability.

• Through a Third Party:  Coordinating returns through an independent third-party organization, such as UNICEF or the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), offers a neutral and verified channel that may foster trust between negotiating parties.  This approach can ensure thorough oversight and provide additional resources for children’s safety, psychological support, and documentation needs.  However, third-party involvement may introduce delays, especially if bureaucratic procedures are extensive or if both sides have differing expectations for the third party’s role. 

• In Coordination with Child Welfare Agencies:  Partnering with child welfare agencies may help ensure a child-centered approach that includes psychological assessments, health screenings, and reintegration support.  Such agencies are well-positioned to handle sensitive transitions and to work directly with families.  However, coordinating between agencies on opposite sides of a war can be challenging, especially if there are differences in child welfare standards, legal protocols, or public expectations.  This approach may also be logistically demanding, as child welfare agencies would need to mobilize resources for potentially high numbers of returning children.