European legal and policy framework on immigration detention of children Ø National child protection authorities could play an important role in safeguarding the best interests of the child and promoting the well-being of detained children. They could help assess the best interests of the child (e.g. when authorities consider detaining children together with their parents), oversee child detention standards and in run complaint mechanisms smoothly. Nevertheless, in many Member States, child protection authorities do not take an active part in deciding whether or not a child should be detained, or in monitoring detention facilities, according to information that FRA has gathered. A typical example of the involvement of child protection authorities is when such agencies act as guardians for individual children, although in this case the contribution differs significantly. When social workers work in the detention facility, as they are in Hungary, the national child protection authority is usually involved only when the social workers contact it about cases of child abuse, domestic violence or other situations requiring formal involvement.405 Child protection authorities visit detained children regularly in only a few EU Member States. For example, in Estonia, when children are held in a detention facility, a social worker and a child protection specialist from the local municipality visit the centre to monitor the children’s well-being. 406 The social worker or the child protection specialist decides the frequency of the visits, depending on the specific case.407 Similarly, in Finland, when a child is held in detention with a parent in the Joutseno Detention Unit, social workers from child welfare services of the municipality visit the detention facility regularly and meet each child and their parents every two weeks.408 Social workers assess the child’s condition and deliver their statement to the District Court, which rehears the matter every two weeks and decides whether or not the requirements for continuation of detention still exist.409 The involvement of national child protection authorities is possible only if they are informed that a  child is detained. In Estonia, an informal arrangement between the Police and Border Guard Board and the Estonian Union for Child Welfare (Lastekaitseliit) ensures that 405 Ibid., Section 19 f)-g). 406 Estonia, Police and Border Guard Board Estonia (Politseija Piirivalveamet): Harku detention centre (Harku kinnipidamiskeskus). 407 Ibid. 408 The term ‘child welfare’ is as well used in Finland to refer to child protection. For instance, the English translation of the central act on child protection is called the Child Welfare Act. 409 Finland, Joutseno Detention Unit, 26 February 2016. 92 child protection authorities are informed every time a child is placed in the detention centre.410 8.3. Schengen evaluations The Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism,411 as revised in October 2013, provides for the verification of the application of the Schengen acquis. Teams of experts from other Member States, led by the European Commission, visit sites in a given Member State with the support of EU agencies, such as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and FRA, as observers. Since 2015, the strengthened Schengen evaluation mechanism covers all aspects of the Schengen acquis, including return and readmission. On-site evaluation visits can be announced or unannounced. They follow multiannual programmes (currently for 2015–19) and annual evaluation programmes. After each visit, the team draws up an evaluation report, identifying any shortcomings, recommending remedial action and setting a deadline for implementation. The European Commission submits the recommendations to the Council of the EU for adoption. As part of follow-up, the Member State in question must submit an action plan on how it intends to remedy the weaknesses and gaps. Ø Regular reviews in the field of return and readmission focus in particular on the correct application of the Return Directive at the national level. They also include monitoring the treatment of children in return procedures and assessing the best interests of the child. The evaluation assesses compliance with standards explicitly included in Articles  10 and 15–17 of the Return Directive. In particular when reviewing detention conditions, the standards drafted by the CPT are used as a guiding document.412 410 Estonia, Police and Border Guard Board Estonia (Politseija Piirivalveamet): Harku detention centre (Harku kinnipidamiskeskus). Estonia, Estonian Union for Child Welfare (Lastekaitseliit). 411 Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen, OJ 2013 L 295/27, pp. 27–37 412 According to the Commission’s Return Handbook (p. 93 et seq.), other implicit standards are the following: Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2005), Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return, adopted 4 May 2005; Council of Europe, CPT (2017), Factsheet on Immigration Detention, CPT/ Inf(2017)3, Strasbourg; or the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2006), Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules, 11 January 2006.