European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children policy is not systematically implemented in practice.184 The designated residence decision should determine the perimeter of permitted movement and the periodic obligation to report to the nearest police station or gendarmerie unit. Guarantees are required from the people concerned, including proof of stable address and possession of valid travel documents (which the administrative authority can hold in exchange for an official receipt). When third-country nationals in an irregular situation, who are the subject of a removal order and are accompanied by their children, do not have a stable address, the circular suggests considering designated residence in an establishment such as a hotel (France is now also creating open centres). For families whose guarantees to report are poor and whose overall behaviour strongly indicates that they will refuse to meet their obligations, the circular recommends choosing the solution best adapted to the characteristics of each situation, such as designated residence with particular vigilance, or house arrest in another place that facilitates monitoring by the police or gendarmerie. If this measure fails, the family could be put in administrative detention, according to law. Another alternative to detention comes from the Netherlands. Families are placed in ‘family locations’, where their freedom of movement is restricted on the basis of the Aliens Act 2000.185 People staying at a family location may not leave a certain region of the Netherlands, often the municipality where the family location is.186 The Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers maintains a daily reporting duty at the family location.187 This means that residents, all family members including children, must report each day (except Sundays and holidays) to officials of the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers. If they fail to do so, financial penalties may be imposed. 5.2. Family life When authorities decide on the necessity and proportionality of detaining families with children, they also need to consider the right to respect for private and family life, set forth in Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR. This right encompasses not only the right of a child to be with their parents but also protection from interference with the family’s private life. The ECtHR is of the opinion that, while mutual enjoyment by 184 France, CIMADE (2014), Centres and establishments of administrative detention (Centres et locaux de rétention administrative). 185 Netherlands, Aliens Act 2000, Article 56. 186 Netherlands, Aliens Decree (Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000), Article 5.1. 187 Boersema, E., Sportel, I., Smit, M. and Leerkes, A. (2015), ‘Als ik bezig ben, denk ik niet zo veel’. Evaluatie van de pilot Activeren bewoners gezinslocaties, The Hague, Ministry of Security and Justice – WODC. 52 parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life,188 it cannot be inferred from this that the sole fact that the family unit is maintained necessarily guarantees respect for the right to a family life, particularly where the family is detained. Confining children with parents to a detention centre, thereby subjecting the family to custodial living conditions typical of that kind of institution, can be regarded as an interference with the effective exercise of their family life. This interference needs to be examined, giving primary consideration to the best interests of the child.189 In Popov v. France, the ECtHR clarified “that the child’s best interests cannot be confined to keeping the family together and that the authorities have to take all the necessary steps to limit, as far as possible, the detention of families accompanied by children and effectively preserve the right to family life. In the absence of any indication to suggest that the family was going to abscond, the measure of detention for fifteen days in a secure centre appears disproportionate to the aim pursued.”190 Article 9 of the CRC requires States Parties to ensure that a child is not “separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child”. Furthermore, under Article 2 (2) of the CRC, children should not be discriminated against on the basis of the status or activities of their parents. Secondary EU law on asylum and return also reflects the principle of family unity. Article 12 of the Reception Conditions Directive establishes that Member States should take measures to ensure family unity when providing housing. When a family is detained, it should be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy (Article 11 (2)). Article 14 (1) (a) of the Return Directive establishes family unity as one of the safeguards of persons pending return, while Article 16 (2) requires that families in detention pending removal be provided with separate accommodation guaranteeing adequate privacy. The right of children not to be separated from their parents191 and to be 188 See e.g. ECtHR, Olsson v. Sweden (No. 1), No. 10465/83, 24 March 1988, para. 59. 189 ECtHR, Popov v. France, Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012, para. 103. ECtHR, A.B. and Others v. France, No. 11593/12, 12 July 2016, para. 145 and 151. 190 ECtHR, Popov v. France, Nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012. 191 PACE, Recommendation 1985 (2011), Undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation: a real cause for concern, para. 9.4.4; Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec (2003)5 on measures of detention of asylum seekers, para. 21.