Assessing necessity and proportionality Ø In some cases alternative measures to detention are not sufficient and effective, e.g. to prevent absconding. As a  result, the authorities deem it absolutely necessary to detain families with children. In this case they have only two options: separating the child from the parent or detaining the whole family together. This creates conflict between the right to respect of family life (and avoiding separation from the parents) and the best interests of the child, which requires that the child be detained only as a last resort. If detention is considered necessary, only one of the parents will be detained. If both parents are detained or there is only one parent, the child is referred to child protection authorities, that is, social services at the municipal level. However, children fully dependent on their parents (below the age of six years) can be kept in a detention centre with the parents.207 In 2016, the Belgian Council of State prohibited the detention of a parent even if a family hosted in the return housing units did not fulfil the agreement it had concluded with the state, arguing that this measure constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life.208 Sometimes, authorities detain only one of the parents, usually the father, keeping the child in a reception facility with the other parent. A number of EU Member States use this as a practical solution to prevent detention of children, keep children in the education system and, at the same time, prevent absconding. For example, in Denmark, children aged between 7 and 14 are rarely detained with their parents in the Ellebaek facility, which is used for pre-removal detention of families. The option of detaining one parent only is, in some EU Member States, regulated by law. For example, in Finland, Government Bill No. 172/2014 allows the possibility of placing one of the parents in a detention unit and the other one in an open facility, such as a reception centre, with the child.209 In Germany, the possible separation from the family differs by region: for example, in Brandenburg, usually only “the head of the family” is detained pending the family’s removal.210 Figure 12: Shortest appropriate period of time Shortest appropriate period of time Set maximum time limits More regular reviews Prioritise procedures involving children Source: FRA, 2017 207 Denmark, the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing. 208 Belgium, Council of State (Conseil d’État), Arrêt No. 234.577, 28 April 2016. See also Caritas international, CIRÉ, Ligue des droits de l’Homme, MRAX, Centres fermés pour étrangers état des lieux, December 2016, pp. 70-71. 209 Finland, Government Bill No. 172/2014 (hallituksen esitys/ regeringens proposition 172/2014), Article 122. 210 Germany, Ministry of the Interior of the State Brandenburg (Innenministerium Brandenburg) (1997) ´Organisationserlass ´des Ministeriums des Innern zur Durchführung des Asylverfahrensgesetzes´, 6 March 1997, Article 6.7.2. 57