“They cut your wings over here . . . you can’t do nothing”: Voices of children and parents held in immigration detention in Canada

Full text

1
195
16
“ey Cut Your Wings overHere … You
Can’t Do Nothing”
Voices of Children and Parents Held in Immigration
Detention inCanada
 ,  ,   
In Canada approximately 9,000 persons are held in immigration detention cen-
ters ever y year, according to the Canadian Border Ser vices Agency (CBSA , 2011).
Approximately ha lf of these detainees were either asylum seekers or failed refugee
claimants awaiting deportation. Detention takes place in Immigration Holding
Centers (IHCs) in 65percent of cases and also in provincial jails (35percent;
ibid.). e three IHCs, located in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, function
like medium- securit y prisons and are surrounded by razor wire fences and staed
by guards (Cleveland & Rousseau,2013).
Approximately 650 (im)migrant children are detained every year in Canada,
again according to the CBSA. is is likely a signicant underestimate of the
actual numbers of children held in immigration detention, however, because
children are oen not issued detention orders themselves and are in deten-
tion accompanying parents who have chosen to stay with their children rather
than relinquish their care to provincial children protection services (Kronick,
Rousseau, & Cleveland, 2015; “Detention … ,” 2009). In these cases, children
are statistically and legally invisible as detainees. ey are detained with their
mothers in a mother- child section (separate from the women’s section), and sepa-
rated from fathers or older male relatives, who are held in a sepa rate men’s section.
In Canada asylum seekers’ mean detention length is approximately one month,
though families may be detained for anywhere from 48 hours to many months.
is chapter examines the research looking at (im)migrant children and par-
ents who have been detained i n Canada. We draw on research conducted between
2011 and 2012, investigating the lived experiences of 20 detained families

1
  
196
(Kronick e tal ., 2015). A s an ethnog raphic study, the inve stigation soug ht to under-
stand children’s and parents’ daily detention experiences, as well as their percep-
tions of and reactions to the immigration detention system in Canada (ibid.). In
this chapter we use the in- depth interviews as well as participant observations
and discussions with key informants of the study to illustrate the experiences of
detained families. We look rst at the pre- migratory experiences of families, and
then explore the day- to- day lives of children and families in detention, including
their experiences of being arrested and navigating the legal processes of immi-
gration detention. Next we examine the experiences of families who have been
separated in the context of detention, as well as those mothers who are parent-
ing in detention. Finally, we address detainees’ own perceptions of immigration
detention in Canada.
Pre- migratory Contexts:Trauma, Separation, and
Complex Migratory Trajectories
Families who had experienced detention in Canada described signicant prior
trauma and persecution. ey described histories of physical assault, rape, and
torture; threats or harassment by an organized group; murder or disappearance of
family or friends; witnessing murder; religious persecution; domestic violence; and
forced separation of family members and of parents and children (Kronick et al.,
2015). Some participants had also experienced signicant stress and even trauma
duri ng the tra nsnationa l migration proc ess (ibid.). ere were f amil ies who had live d
with precarious status in another country. One family had already been detained as
migrants in a Central A merican im migration prison prior to thei r arriva l in Canada .
Several families had endured long, dangerous journeys by boat or on foot, in some
cases t raveling th rough mult iple continents. ese  ndings, suggesting a heavy bur-
den of pre- migratory stressors and trauma, correlate with international literature
(Steel etal., 2009; Ryan, Kelly, & Kelly, 2009). Children and families arrived in
Canadian detention centers already having lived through trauma, and oen having
already faced marginalizing immigration practices in other countries.
Living inDetention:Arrests, Reviews, and DailyLife
Arrests. Families initially arrive in detention on the basis of a decision of a
Canad ian Border Serv ices Agency (CBSA) ocer, who is invested with the power
to arrest and detain migrants. (Im)migrants and asylum seekers are detained pri-
marily for three reasons: (1) a person’s identity has not been established; (2)a
person is deemed unlikely to appear for an examination, admissibility hearing,

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 197
or removal from Canada (i.e., a ight risk); or (3)someone is deemed a threat to
public safety or inadmissible on security grounds (Nakache, 2011). Importantly,
fewer than 6percent of detainees are deemed a risk to public safety (Cleveland &
Rousseau,2013).
For many parents and children, the experience of arrest was described as
frightening and humiliating. One mother, arriving by plane with her two teenage
children and a six- year- old, described 10 hours of interrogation by CBSA ocials
at the airport aer making an asylum claim. e interrogation was followed by
their arrest:
We just arrived and we didn’t know what was happening. . . . Ididn’t
understand that they were taking me to a detention. . . . It was horrible,
Iwas crying. “Why are we in a jail? Why are we detained?”. . . We didn’t
know what to do, what was happening. Actually they said they weren’t
through with us, so they said we could stay [in detention] or they can
send us back. (Case12)
As this mother described, families were oen anked by uniformed ocers
during their arrest, who accompanied them to the van transporting persons to
theIHC:
Yeah, that was the most undesirable thing also. ey didn’t put us
into handcus, but there were three to four policemen. Of course one
was ahead in front of us. e other ones were behind us. Two at our
sides . . . . it was security for us to . . . to take us into the car. (Case12)
Parents reported how humiliating this experience was for them to be seen in
public appearing as criminals and how frightening these experiences were to
their children. In one case a child of ve years had to be forced into the van by
ocers when he tried to ee infear.
ree families told us that their children had been witness to their parents in
shack les and handcus:
: ey handcued you in front of thekids?
: Yes. In front of the kids. And . . . we were all crying, you know?
My kids were crying. ey were like:“Mom what happened? Why are
they doing this?” (Case17)
Participants also noted the experience of being searched in front of their chil-
dren. Amother of a 21- month- old boy described arriving at the detention center,
having her personal belongings conscated, and then being searched in front of

1
  
198
her toddler. When security guards aempted to search him he cried, frightened,
refusing to enter the smallroom.
Some families reported that during long periods of interrogation and waiting
for transport, they were le without food for themselves or their children. One
mother was a rrested in her d riveway wh ile holding her in fant in her ar ms (Kron ick
etal., 2015). She was separated from her infant who was still breastfeeding
for four days in provincial jail until she was transferred to the IHC when space
became available.
In summary, for the families we interviewed, arrests evoked feelings of terror
and shame and were in some cases made more trying by long interrogations, lack
of food, the intimidating presence of ocials in uniform, and detainees’ lack of
knowledge of the process and their rights. Children are witness to their parents
being searched and sometimes being handcued.
Review hearings. Once families have entered detention facilities, their impris-
onment is reviewed before an administrative tribunal of the Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB) at 48 hours, 7 days, and then every 30 days aer deten-
tion. Families are typically represented by legal counsel, though they may rep-
resent themselves. Adecision maker from the Immigration Division of the IRB
determines if someone is to be released or detained further aer hearing argu-
ments from the detainee or representative and the lawyer representing the CBSA.
Families in our study described these hearings particularly unsuccessful
ones as painful and frustrating experiences. Parents spoke both of a failure to
take into consideration the presence and best interests of their children, and of a
sense that the proceedings were arbitrary and unfair.
In several cases, children’s well- being was not taken into account by decision
makers at detention review hearings. During one hearing, the decision maker
stated aloud that he was “taking into consideration the best interests of the child”
but proceeded to give a decision that did not mention the children. In other cases,
parents aempted to make the decision maker aware of their children’s interests
(or in this case a pregnant spouse) and were ignored during the hearing:
ey just stopped and Isaid “please, I need to talk to somebody. Help
me.” My wife was pregnant. We started to have problems with that preg-
nancy. . . . e baby basically stopped growing. . . . She wasn’t in good
condition. She was having trouble here by herself. Basically they didn’t
care about that. We provided them with some leers from my family
doctor and everything. . . . And they didn’t care. (Case18)
One mother noted that the only time her children ages six and four years
were invoked in the hearings or arrest (despite the children being present) was
when the decision maker cited the parents’ desire to make a good life for their
children as evidence that they were a ightrisk:

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 199
Yes, that was the only time [they mentioned the children]. Not even
when we were ar rested . . . even when we said that we want to be together.
ey say:“It’s not a big deal.” . . . e way that they treat you is . . . it’s not
nice, it’s not fair and it’s not respectful at all. (Case17)
We also observed avoidant reactions to children in a detention review hearing. An
IR B member did not look at the two you ng children who were present throug hout
the hearing; nor did the member appear to notice when the eldest child, age 11,
wept as the decision was announced. e child le the hearing room and vomited
soon aer, according to her mother, as a consequence of her enormous distress at
returning to detention.
While families noted the invisibility of their children in the detention review
hearings, they also felt that hearings were oen unjust and arbitrary. One father
who was separated from his family described the process as a kind offarce:
[e detention review hearing] was a theater:this guy talks, Iam sup-
posed to respond, he talks again then the judge makes his part. at’s it.
Every single time was the same thing. Even when Igot released it was the
same thing. (Case18)
Key informants also explained that during some detention hearings CBSA law-
yers had sometimes used medical records from the detention center without
patient consent, thus breaching patients’ (i.e., detainees’) condentiality.
Rules ofdaily life. While children and parents are in detention, their daily
life is dictated by rigid schedules, surveillance by guards, and minimal stimula-
tion. Despite children’s right to access education (Citizenship and Immigration
Canada, 200 7; U NHCR, 2012), schooling provided with in the IHCs is onsite and
described by children and parents as inadequate (Kronick etal., 2015). Although
spaces are clean and physically safe, there is sometimes a lack of space and oen
children are deprived of age- appropriate toys and stimulation. e diculties of
daily living, combined with pervasive understimulation and lack of freedom of
movement, make life in immigration detention feel degrading, overwhelming,
and distressing for children and their parents.
e following vignee, witnessed by our researcher, underlines restrictive reg-
ulations governing children’s activities in detention. In one IHC the family yard,
which children could access at the discretion of the guards, was adjacent to the
yard for the men’s holding section. We observed an 11- year- old girl, detained for
approximately two weeks with her mother and younger sister. e child entered
the family yard having not been able to go outside previously, because she did
not have adequate w inter clothi ng a nd noticed her fat her across the barbed w ire
fence separating the men’s yard. e girl ran toward the fence, smiling and waving
hello, visibly delighted to see her father, from whom she and her mother and sister

1
  
200
were separated. e guard quick ly yelled at the child to stop, insisting that she not
acknowledge her father. e child, shocked and frightened, backed away from the
fence (ibid.).
Even meals and wake- up times were strictly regimented, making the mun-
dane act of geing up and breaking bread trying. In one IHC, meals required
families to exit the family areas accompanied by guards to travel to another
building. “At ve in the morning a woman came to tell us ‘get yourselves ready,
you’re going downstairs. We’re going to eat.’ At ve in the morning!” (Case 19)
is mother explained that she would sometimes have to wait forty minutes
outside in the snow with her two children before they reached the cafeteria
(Kronick etal.,2015).
e institutional norms and regulations were upheld even while appearing
absurd when applied to young children. For example, aer an interview was
completed with a mother and a 21- month- old toddler in a conference room, the
gua rds tried to contain the family i n the room until per mission was given for them
to leave. In general, guards were careful to open doors and release families from
specic rooms only when permission was given by the central guard desk. While
waiting, the toddler sang songs with his mother for several minutes to pass the
time. Aguard then arrived and opened the door, explaining that they must still
remain in the room until an order was given. e toddler, laughing delightedly,
quickly ran out of the room as if playing a game of chase. e guard pursued him
with seriousness, aempting to block the child’s path with his knees and forcing
him back into the room with his mother.
In contrast, guards oen en acted a dual role:that of jai l keeper, but also of care -
giver for t he chi ldren. We obser ved a ve- year- old run to a gua rd who was arr iving
on shi and who picked him up and spun him around playfully. Similarly, guards
were oen aentive to mothers’ well- being, and would sometimes tell us during
our interviews that they believed the mother was depressed, in one case adding
that she (the guard) could not imagine being detained herself. ey were also
aentive to children’s needs, for example pointing out to a mother that a child had
lost a sock, or commenting on how sophisticated a drawing done by a ve- yea r- old
was for his age. In this sense, guards acted so as to resist collusion with the oppres-
sive practices of detention (ibid.), while at the same time their actions appeared to
almost deny the harsh reality of children’s circumstances in detention.
In short, detainees, including children, are the objects of near- constant sur-
veillance in t he IHC and have l imited freedom of movement. Security personnel’s
interaction with children and families is characterized on the one hand by moth-
ering and nurturance, and on the other by power and authority. ese ambiva-
lent actions toward detainees point to the dicult position of guards, as they are
tasked both with protecting migrant children and protecting us om the presence of
certain migrant children.

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 201
Health Care and Psychosocial Supports inDetention
Parents described limited sources of support in the IHCs. ere are primary care
medical services, which include nurses who are available during the day and a
doctor who visits the IHC every three or four days. Key informants also told us
that a previous family doctor working in one of the IHCs had been red because
of his advocacy work on beha lf of detainees. Another doctor hired on private con-
tact by the CBSA was nicknamed “Doctor Tylenol” because he provided such
minimal treatment.
Families can sometimes access support from nongovernmental organizations
that are permied to visit the IHCs in Toronto and Montreal. ese organiza-
tions typically help families access legal representation. ey also may furnish
clothing, toys, and books to detained families. In one IHC, an NGO provides
volunteer therapists who lead a support group for detained adults, but there were
no regularly available social workers or psychologists in either IHC. Signicantly,
many of these services would be oered by the state in a prison, but they are not
in theIHCs.
Frightening Separations inDetention
Separation of children from their parents because of detention was an important
and common experience for families in our study (Kronick etal., 2015). Children
may be separated from fathers or older male siblings when they are detained, or
parents may be detained without their children in some cases. Sometimes par-
ents are given the choice of having their children accompany them in detention,
or separate from them, leaving them in the custody of provincial child protection
services (“Detention … ,”2009).
Children appeared highly distressed by separation from a father within deten-
tion. One 11- year- old child, detained for nea rly three months , spoke to her mother
frequently about her father, asking where he was and if he was OK. As the deten-
tion progressed she began to refuse meals, ask ing that the food be saved and given
to her father (Kronick etal., 2015). Several mothers reported that when children
were able to visit their fathers they would cry on reunion. It appeared that despite
opportunities to meet fathers a few times a day, children were extremely anxious
about the absent parent. is high level of anxiety may point to the retraumatiz-
ing eects of separation and detention following multiple pre- migratory traumas.
For children who were separated from their parents during the laer’s deten-
tion, there w ere opportun ities to visit t he detention center. However, as we lea rned
from participants, these visits were oen very stressful for children and parents.
For example, one parent described the experience of having his three- year- old

1
  
202
child and pregnant wife visit him in detention. Because they were not Canadian
(as some detainees’ children are), they were required to meet in a visitors room,
speaking to the father/ husband behindglass:
ese other Canadian kids could come in, but my son because he was
[non- Canadian] couldn’t get in. ey are so mean [.. .] It is up to the
mood of the judge, the guard. It’s up to everyone’s moods. (Case18)
e same father noted the strict rules surrounding contact with visitors. He told
us that aer meeting with his wife and child in the visiting room behind glass he
would go to his cell to watch them leaving the IHC from his barred window:
Sometimes they didn’t treat us like humans. . . . I’d go as fast as Icould
to my room just to say bye to her [my wife] every single day. Once one
of those guards just came to me and said “. . . Don’t say ‘hi’. Don’t salute
people.” Itold him “Hey it’s my wife! It’s my family. What are you talking
about?” “You are not allowed to do it.” Icouldn’t even respond to that.
Iwas just brought to tears. (Case18)
Children who were spared detention but separated from one or both parents fre-
quently appeared to fare poorly during the parent(s’) detention. Aer his mother
was detained alone, a ve- year- old’s school noted social diculties, regression
in academic milestones, and inability to separate from the female teacher from
whom he was seeking comfort and “aection.” As his father described:
I think that he is scared. He is scared for his mother. Is she in danger he
knows that she is here [in Canada], but why isn’t she coming home? He’s
already asked me the question “Tell me, papa, tell me the truth.” Icried
when he asked me that. . . . Idon’t know what to say. . . . Ihave to reas-
sure him before he’ll be calm and not ask more questions. “She’s going to
come, she’s going to come.” It’s as if he doubts that she will come home.
(Case20)
e detention of his wife and the resultant family separation also appeared to
aect the children’s father, who reported insomnia, loss of appetite, weight loss,
and suicidal ideation:
I got angry and Isaid to myself “I prefer to go and die in my country.
Iprefer to be imprisoned in my country than my wife should be in prison
for something that she didn’t do. . . . Why are they keeping her there [in
detention]? For nothing! Isay that it is shameful. It’s a shame on Canada.
(Case20)

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 203
One family who had chosen to separate from their two children, ages si x and four,
in order that they not face imprisonment, reported how anxious their children
were about their parents’ absence. To try to console the children, the parents had
told them they were merely working overtime to help pay for a vacation.
: ey are always asking “When do you come back? When do you
comeback?”
: Yes. ey cry. Sometimes they get really upset, you know? ey
tell us:“Why are you taking so long? Why do you need a lot of money to
take a vacation? . . . Mom, why do you say ‘soon’? ‘soon’ never happens,
Mom.” (Case17)
e children’s grandmother, who was caring for the children while the parents
were detained, also reported to the parents that their children’s behavior had
changed, suggesting they were more aggressive and irritable and would cry more
easily since being separated from their parents. e mothernoted:
Of course it is a stressful situation for them. We never, never separate.
Never. We are always together. ey have on their minds what happened
[when parents were arrested and handcued in front of the children]. . . .
Ijust can’t wait to be with them, to have them, to smell them. Ican’t wait.
(Case17)
We also documented separation experiences of families who were detained as
part of a specic mass arrival of Tamil asylum seekers from Sri Lanka aboard the
Sun Sea (Cleveland, Dionne- Boivin, & Rousseau, 2013; Cleveland, Rousseau, &
Kronick, 2012). In that case, 25 mothers arriving with children were detained
in a separate facility from fathers who were detained in provincial prisons. e
family we interviewed reported that for a period of two months the mother and
children were perm ied no contact with the father. A er two months, phone con-
tact of 10 minutes per week was allowed, and aer three months children and
mother could visit father in jail every 7 to 10days for 15 minutes to one hour. As
in other cases, the family reported children’s high anxiety at being detained and
separated:“Why aren’t we geing released? When do I get to see my father? Is
father coming to take us?” (Case 11)the children frequently asked. ese chil-
dren had experienced a high level of pre- migration trauma, including witnessing
the violent deaths of children or adults (including extended family members) and
enduring months of shelling, in addition to the diculties entailed in migration
(Cleveland etal.,2012).
We also met with parents who were detained without their children in provin-
cial jails. e detentions in jail occurred because there was no more room in the
IHCs. In all of these cases, children were necessarily separated from their parent

1
  
204
because c hildren are not per mied in prov incial pri sons. One father told us he wa s
unable to reach his wife and children, having been permied only one phone call,
which had not gone through, so for two weeks his family did not know where he
was. Two mothers were held in jail and forcibly separated from their breastfeed-
ing infants until they were permied a transfer to the IHC (Kronick etal.,2015).
Overall our research suggests that families are aected not only by deten-
tion, but also by the family separations that are caused by immigration deten-
tion (ibid.). Separating children from their parents oen with the intention of
protecti ng children f rom the harmful experiences of detention severs child ren’s
secure aachments (even if only temporarily), leading to severe distress and psy-
chological maladjustment.
Children and Parents inDetention Together
Several parents, especially mothers of infants, noted how dicult it was to parent
under the IHC rules. Parents were not permied to let children out of their sight.
For example, the mother of a four- week- old who had been detained for nine days
when we met her complained how dicult it was to use the bathroom, given she
had to carry the baby with her in his car seat a weight she had been advised not
to li aer her caesarean section.
Parents we interviewed disclosed signicant d istress man ifesting as sleep di-
culties, nightmares, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, weight loss, and feelings of shame
and humiliat ion. Parents spoke of thei r loss of condence in detent ion. One father
remarked:“Detention, for me, it demoralizes you. And then you even start to
doubt yourself” (Case19).
e mother of a four- week- old described her lack of condence caring for a
newborn as a rst- time mother cut o from all social supports in detention.
Several parents were also adamant that the IHC was not an appropriate place to
parent their children:“I don’t think this is a place you can take care of children”
(Case14).
Yet despite the inherent challenges of parenting in detention, many parents
demonstrated signicant resilience in caring for their children. One mother
would use the few picture books in the IHC to tell traditional stories from her
country of origin to her children. Another mother spoke of using traditional
lullabies and songs to soothe her distressed children. Multiple families devised
stories about detention to try to protect their children from the frightening and
uncertain reality of their status; for example, parents oen denied that they were
in detention, or if they were detained without their children they told them they
were hospitalized, “studying English” (Case 17), or working overtime.
Despite parents’ capacity for resilience and their determination to protect
their children from the deprivation of detention, the evidence suggests high

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 205
rates of psychiatric symptoms in adult asylum seekers who are detained in
Canada. Compared with nondetained asylum seekers with equivalent pre-
migratory trauma experiences, both women and men held in brief detention
(average 31 days) are significantly more likely to have symptoms of post-
traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression (Cleveland & Rousseau,
2013). This suggests that parents’ mental health may be strongly affected by
detention. There is considerable evidence suggesting that parental depres-
sion has an impact on children’s well- being in multiple domains (Weissman
etal., 2006a; Weissman etal., 2006b). Thus, children in detention may face
not only the adversity of the detention experience, but the effects of parental
mental illness.
Perceptions ofDetention:Children’s Perceptions
In our study, many children were keenly aware of being in detention, and even
younger children struggled to understand what it means about themselves and
their f uture. Older children also perceived the experience of detention as having a
negative impact on their well- being.
A four- year- old ret urning by v an to the detention center a er a detention review
hearing said to her mother while looking out the window:“ose kids are lucky,
they get to play in the park. Idon’t want to stay [in the IHC]” (Case 6). Even a
toddler, age 21months, was described by his mother as knowing “that [the fam-
ily’s circumstance] was not normal” (Case 5). Akey informant described being in
the outdoor yard with a child who asked how to spell “help.” He explained that
he wanted to write “help” in the dirt so that airplanes above might come and
rescuehim.
Older children questioned why they were detained. One 11- year- old
asked:“we are not bad people. Why a re we here? We don’t do ba d thin gs” (Case 2).
Abrother and sister, aged 13 and 12, describe an experience of connement in
detention:
: I feel trapped. Iwant to ride my bike, to see my friends. at’sall.
: I feel like Iam injail.
: It’s basicallyjail.
Children also responded to detention with prominent psychological distress
and psychiatric symptoms (Kronick et al., 2015), suggesting that detention
likely has harmful psychological consequences. Further, though many chil-
dren experienced relief of symptoms on release from detention, several chil-
dren in the study demonstrated ongoing psychological eects even long aer
brief detention (ibid.).

1
  
206
Adult’s Perceptions
Parents spoke strongly about feelings of disappointment at being detained on
arrival in Canada:
Canada, with its values as a so- called developed country, it’s shameful.
Iwould say that it is really u nacceptable. . . . Isay that it is criminal . . . and
you don’t even want to take into account children who are suering. . . .
No. I would rather die with dignity than be treated as a subhuman.
(Case20)
Some parents also noted how degraded and criminalized they felt in being
detained:“ey [CBSA ocials and guards] didn’t like immigrant people, ille-
gal people. Sometimes they didn’t treat us like humans or something like that.”
Another fathernoted:
e moment we came here we were treated like crooks. . . . e moment
we landed here, the treatment, the detention we were really disap-
pointed and we never expected this. . . . We were under oppression there
[in our country of origin], so we came here. . . . So that was very painful
that aer suering there we come here and we are treated as being part
of a terrorist organization.
Overall, parents denounced the practice of detention and emphasized how inap-
propriate imprisonment was for their children.
Conclusion
Children who come with their parents to Canada seeking asylum are regularly
held in immigration detention. According to the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, detention should used only as a measure of “last resort” and only
when children’s best interests are given primary consideration (UNHCR, 1989).
Far from considering children’s best interests, current immigration policy and
practice in Canada opens the door to (im)migrant child and family detention.
Our research suggests that experiences of detention are frequently traumatiz-
ing to children and may result in traumat ic family separations even when children
are not incarcerated themselves. Although detention in Canada is relatively less
harsh and briefer than it is in other countries, children speaking out in our study
made clear that detention was profoundly distressing. Ch ildren oen live through
frightening arrests and detention review hearings, and experience deprivation,

1
Voices of Children and Parents in Immigration Detention inCanada 207
understimulation, lack of psychosocial support, parental distress, and harsh sur-
veillance during their day- to- day life in detention.
(Im)migrant children in Canada should be protected from the harmful expe-
riences of detention and from separation from their primary caregivers in cases
where parents are detained alone. Policy makers, advocates, and health profes-
sionals have an obligat ion to shape Canadi an immig ration practice a nd legislation
to ensure that children and parents are not detained for immigration purposes.
References
Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). (2011). Detentions at a glance. In CIC Data
Warehouse (Ed.). Candian Border Services A gency, Oawa, ON:Author.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2007). Enforcement manual (ENF- 20): Detention.
Retrieved from hp:// www.cic.gc.ca/ english/ resources/ manuals/ enf/ enf20- eng.pdf.
Cleveland, J., Dionne- Boivin, V., & Rousseau, C. (2013). L’expérience des demandeurs d’asile
détenus au Canada. Criminologie, 46(1), 107– 129.
Cleveland, J., & Rousseau, C. (2013). Psychiatric symptoms associated with brief detention of
adult asylum seekers in Canada. Canadian journal of psychiatry, 58(7), 409– 416.
Cleveland, J., Rousseau, C., & Kronick, R. (2012, Feb. 2). e harmful eects of deten-
tion and family separation on asylum seekers’ mental health in the context of Bill C- 31.
Retrieved from hp:// www.csssdelamontagne.qc.ca/ leadmin/ csss_ dlm/ Publications/
Publications_ CR F/ brief_ c31_ nal.pdf.
Detention and best interests of the child. (2009). Canadian Council for Refugees. Retrieved
from hp:// ccrweb.ca/ les/ detentionchildren.pdf.
Kronick, R., Rousseau, C., & Cleveland, J. (2015). Asylum seeking children’s experiences of
detention in Canada:Aqualitative study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 85(3),287
Nakache, D. (2011). e human and nancial cost of detention of asylum- seekers in Canada. Oawa,
ON:UNHCR. Retrieved from hp:// www.refworld.org/ docid/ 4fafc44c2.html
Ryan, D.A ., Kelly, F.E., & Ke lly, B.D. (200 9). Ment al health a mong persons awa iting an a sylum
outcome in Western countries. International Journal of Mental Health, 38(3), 88– 111.
Steel, Z., Chey, T., Silove, D., Marnane, C., Bryant, R. A., & Van Ommeren, M. (2009).
Asso ciation of tort ure and other potentia lly traumatic event s with menta l health outcomes
among populations exposed to mass conict and displacement:Asystematic review and
meta- analysis. JAMA, 302(5), 537– 549.
UNHCR. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Ch ild. NewYork, NY:Aut hor.
UN HCR. (2012). Detention gu idelines f rom United Nat ions High Com missioner for R efugees .
NewYork, NY:Author.
Weissman, M.M., et al. (2006a). Remissions in maternal depression and child psychopathol-
ogy:ASTAR*D- child report. JAMA, 295(12), 1389– 1398.
Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., Nomura, Y., Warner, V., Pilowsky, D., & Verdeli, H.
(2006b). Ospring of depressed parents:20years later. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163,
1001– 1008.