Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Immigrant Family Separation

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The psychological furnishings of forced family separation on asylum-seeking children and parents at the Usa-Mexico border: A qualitative assay of medico-legal documents

• Kathryn Hampton,
• Elsa Raker,
• Hajar Habbach,
• Linda Camaj Deda,
• Michele Heisler,
• Ranit Mishori

x

• Published: November 24, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259576

Figures

Abstract

The U.Due south. government forcibly separated more than five,000 children from their parents between 2017 and 2018 through its "Zero Tolerance" policy. It is unknown how many of the children have since been reunited with their parents. As of August one, 2021, nevertheless, at least 1,841 children are still separated from their parents. This study systematically examined narratives obtained as part of a md-legal process by trained clinical experts who interviewed and evaluated parents and children who had been forcibly separated. The data analysis demonstrated that 1) parents and children shared similar pre-migration traumas and the event of forced family unit separation in the U.S.; 2) they reported signs and symptoms of trauma following reunification; 3) almost all individuals met criteria for DSM diagnoses, even later on reunification; 4) evaluating clinicians consistently concluded that mental wellness treatment was indicated for both parents and children; and 5) signs of malingering were absent in all cases.

Citation: Hampton K, Raker E, Habbach H, Camaj Deda 50, Heisler M, Mishori R (2021) The psychological furnishings of forced family separation on asylum-seeking children and parents at the US-Mexico edge: A qualitative analysis of physician-legal documents. PLoS ONE sixteen(11): e0259576. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259576

Editor: M Barton Laws, Brown University, UNITED STATES

Received: March 18, 2021; Accustomed: October 21, 2021; Published: November 24, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Hampton et al. This is an open access commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Data Availability: This information was originally collected for the purpose of the asylum seekers' private legal cases. PHR clients consented for apply of their de-identified data for PHR's programmatic piece of work at the time of their evaluation, only have not consented for wider use of their data by other researchers. Although the information set is fully de-identified, it contains personal health data and information about highly sensitive and traumatic events such every bit sexual assail, kid corruption and domestic violence. Parents and children inside this data prepare notwithstanding have pending immigration cases. Due to the lack of consent and sensitivity of the data, which includes data of minors and active clearing cases, information technology would non exist ethical, nor legal, for PHR to widely release this customer data. PHR'south Ethics Review Board is able to field requests for use of this data on an individual basis. The data is stored on a countersign protected database, which only 3 PHR staff members tin can access, and will be maintained in accordance with PHR information protection and storage policies for programmatic data. Data access may be requested from Dr. Bob Lawrence, chair of the PHR ERB: Robert Lawrence, M.D. rlawrenc@jhsph.edu.

Funding: The writer(s) received no specific funding for this piece of work.

Competing interests: The authors take declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Reports, first in 2017, that the Trump assistants was separating immature migrant children–as immature as four months old [1]—from their parents led to a nationwide outcry. The U.Due south. regime separated more than than five,000 children between 2017 and 2018 through its "Zero Tolerance" policy that aimed to deter asylum seekers from inbound the United states through the U.Due south.-United mexican states border. Post-obit litigation, the practice was halted past the courts, simply the regime was unprepared to reunite parents with their children, many of whom had been sent to states throughout the country to stay in shelters or with foster families. Jonathan White, commander of the U.South. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who at the fourth dimension was a deputy director for children'southward programs at the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement and a career public wellness official at the HHS, testified earlier a Firm panel in July 2018 that he had warned the administration that forced separation would crusade "traumatic psychological injury" [2]. Medical consultants for the Department of Homeland Security, through the Senate whistleblower protection plan, also warned the administration of the trauma that would exist caused by family separation [3]. Nevertheless, the administration proceeded to instruct government employees to split up families while denying that there was a formal family unit separation policy in place. A report by the Part of Inspector General of the Section of Justice states that the Attorney General and other senior officials indeed knew that prosecutions would result in separations [iv]. In February 2021, the Biden Assistants created a new Interagency Task Forcefulness on the Reunification of Families in order to coordinate reunification of the separated families, but as of Baronial 1, 2021, the Task Force reported that only 42 children had been reunified, and at least 1,841 children were yet separated from their parents [5].

The question of whether the separation caused lasting trauma has been a affair of political debate. Erstwhile President Trump, for example, claimed in a presidential debate, "[The children are] fine, the facilities they were in were and so clean" [vi]. All the same, the scientific literature, and about all experts agree that experiencing such trauma can have persistent furnishings. Such babyhood exposures are too known every bit Adverse Babyhood Events, or ACEs [7]. ACEs are linked with disruption of neurodevelopment and with negative effects on social, emotional, and cognitive operation [8, 9]. ACEs accept also been associated with negative intergenerational effects [10]. Loftier levels of extreme or repetitive stress are correlated with increased run a risk of mental health conditions, such as depression and PTSD, and even physical conditions such as cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease [8]. Children who experienced trauma often take sleeping difficulties and showroom heightened responses to perceived threats, in the class of crying, being fearful, or clinging to a trusted adult. Aggressive behaviors are also common, as is regression, defined as reverting to an earlier developmental phase. Many families and adults arriving at the U.S. border accept already experienced significant pre-migration trauma in their home countries [11]. This trauma is farther compounded by subsequent trauma through their experience in U.S. immigration detention, which has been linked with deterioration in mental health symptoms [12], like to the experience of refugees in other countries which have punitive immigration detention systems, such every bit Australia [13].

Individual health professionals and numerous medical organizations actively opposed the policy of family separation due to the trauma that it was predicted to cause [fourteen]. The American University of Pediatrics called it "authorities-sanctioned child abuse" [15], and Physicians for Human Rights adamant that the harms documented are consistent with the legal definition of torture and temporary enforced disappearance nether international human rights law [xvi].

Due to the difficulty to access people while they are detained and after they are deported, very little empirical enquiry has been published on the psychological effects of the Zero Tolerance forced separation policy on those straight affected. A study conducted in South Texas Family Residential Centre, a detention center where U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement detains parents and minor children together, completed 425 interviews with mothers and evaluations of 150 children, of which 17 percent had been forcibly separated under the policy. The written report revealed that children who had been separated had worse outcomes compared to those who had not been separated, including higher rates of emotional issues (49% vs. 29%, p = 0.003) and greater total difficulties (15% vs. 9%, p = 0.015) [17]. These findings are consequent with scientific literature from the United States and other countries regarding the traumatic impact of family separation on refugee and asylum-seeking children, including higher rates of PTSD and depressive disorders which tin continue into their machismo and contribute to lower bookish achievement, attachment difficulties, and poor mental health [18–22].

To better sympathize the psychological effects of family separation on those direct affected, nosotros systematically examined narratives obtained by trained clinical experts who interviewed and evaluated parents and children after reunification every bit function of a medico-legal process. These evaluations were conducted for various types of legal cases, including the clients' asylum claims, appeals for clients who did not pass their credible fear interviews, and lawsuits for damages related to family separation.

Methodology

From July 26, 2018, through December fourteen, 2019, clinician members of the Physicians for Human Rights U.South. Asylum Programme referred 818 individual evaluations to clinicians for the purpose of providing medico-legal affidavits, out of which 42 evaluations were conducted for parents or children who had been forcibly separated by the U.Due south. government. The clinicians evaluating the separated family members included psychologists (x), psychiatrists (six, including i child psychiatrist), pediatricians (ii), social workers (2), a family unit physician (one) and a licensed professional person counselor (1). In total, 9 were men, 13 were women.

Out of 42 completed affidavits, 11 doctor-legal affidavits were excluded from the written report because the evaluation focused on the asylum case without addressing the family unit separation and subsequent harms that occurred in the United States. The researchers analyzed the remaining 31 affidavits by performing a content assay to identify themes and sub-themes through open, axial, and selective coding [23, 24]. The coding tool was jointly adult by the research team, using Dedoose, a qualitative assay software program. Data reached lawmaking saturation by the second intercoder agreement trial and meaning saturation past the 4th intercoder agreement [25]. After four trials, the enquiry team established a 78 per centum intercoder reliability understanding. An experienced qualitative researcher conducted a peer audit of the coding. Through an iterative and consensus-based process, the enquiry squad revised themes and sub-themes. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Lath (IRB) reviewed the inquiry plan and designated it as exempt from full IRB review since the data are anonymized and thus this human subject report presents no greater than minimal take a chance to participants.

Results

Demographics

The medico-legal affidavits involved 25 family unit separation cases, comprising a total of 31 individuals, including five parent/kid pairs and a married man/married woman pair (the husband was separated from their daughter at the U.S. border, the wife migrated afterwards with their son). About of the parents and children (27/31) were reunited at the time of evaluation. Three children were not reunited with parents at the fourth dimension of the evaluation; ii of the children's parents were deported and another child was separated from his father who was in U.Southward. immigration detention at the fourth dimension of the evaluation. Most of the parents and children had been released from detention into community settings at the fourth dimension of the evaluation (24/31); vi of the mothers were evaluated in an immigration detention center (Southward Texas Family Residential Center) and i child was in custody of the U.Southward. Office of Refugee Resettlement. Other demographics in Table 1.

Major themes in the clinicians' assessments

The post-obit five categories emerged from the data assay: 1) parents and children shared similar pre-migration traumas and the issue of forced family unit separation in the U.Due south.; 2) parents and children reported signs and symptoms of trauma following reunification; 3) almost all individuals met criteria for DSM diagnoses, even after reunification; 4) evaluating clinicians consistently ended that mental health treatment was indicated for both parents and children; and 5) that signs of malingering were absent in all cases.

Migration trigger and separation event every bit reported by parents and children

Due to targeted acts of violence in their habitation countries, all parents arrived at the U.S. border having already been exposed to meaning trauma. Many were victims of gang-based persecution including death threats, physical assault, murder of relatives, extortion, sexual attack, and/or robbery. All parents expressed fear that their child would exist harmed or killed if they stayed inside their habitation country. In almost all cases, their children also had experienced severe damage earlier fleeing; gang members drugged, kidnapped, poisoned, and threatened children, including threats of death, violence, and/or kidnapping if they or their parents did non comply with the gang's demands. Parents were confident that the journeying to the United States would ensure protection for their children afterwards failed attempts to evade gang-based persecution in their home land.

According to the reports of the parents and children, the conduct of U.S. officials was punitive rather than protective. When parents arrived in the U.s., they reported that immigration authorities forcibly removed children from their arms and transferred parents to other facilities while their children slept. In some cases, the children "disappeared" while their parents were in court rooms or receiving medical care. Almost all reported that immigration authorities failed to provide any explanation every bit to why they were being separated, where their family members were being sent, and if / how they would be reunited. In addition, the asylum narratives documented instances of four parents who were taunted and mocked by immigration authorities when asking for the whereabouts of their children. One-half of the parents interviewed by PHR clinicians reported poor conditions at the detention facilities where they were held, and the children likewise reported being mistreated or living in poor conditions while detained and while in foster care.

Diagnoses observed and recorded

The mental wellness conditions diagnosed by the evaluating clinicians and depicted in the md-legal affidavits were found to be highly consistent with the parents' and children'due south reports of their traumatic experiences in detention and family separation. At the aforementioned time, several clinicians commented on the likelihood that the separation exacerbated pre-existing trauma from events and incidents in their home country. According to the clinicians, most individuals met diagnostic criteria for at to the lowest degree ane mental wellness condition such as mail service-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); see Table 2. While several people did not run across all diagnostic criteria for these conditions, nearly everyone exhibited hallmark features and symptoms of these three major atmospheric condition. It is worth noting that two children evaluated long after reunification with their parents still exhibited severe symptoms and, despite some symptom improvement, yet met criteria for diagnoses at the time of evaluation; a half dozen-year-old girl from Guatemala met criteria for PTSD one year after reunification with parents and an 8-year-onetime boy met criteria for PTSD and separation anxiety disorder two years after reunification with parents. Neither had exhibited these symptoms prior to the separation consequence.

Signs and symptoms of trauma

PHR clinicians identified symptoms and behaviors consistent with trauma and its residual effects in nearly all of the parents and children. These symptoms were present at the time of the family separation also as the time of the examination postal service-reunification. Chief concerns included feelings of confusion, general upset to severely depressed mood, abiding worry/preoccupations, frequent crying, difficulty sleeping, difficulty eating (loss of ambition), recurring nightmares, and overwhelming feet. The aviary-seekers also reported physiological manifestations of anxiety and panic (racing eye, shortness of jiff, and headaches) too as experiencing "pure agony," emotional and mental despair, hopelessness, and beingness "incredibly despondent".

Trauma exposure in adults can manifest physically as well equally psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. Common signs of trauma include sluggishness, fatigue, poor concentration, a racing heartbeat, bouts of anxiety, panic attacks, depression, or vague somatic symptoms (e.yard., headaches, abdominal pain, general pain). Three of the 19 parents as well experienced suicidal thoughts while separated from their children.

The evaluating clinicians noted that the children exhibited reactions that included regression in age-appropriate behaviors, such every bit crying, not eating, having nightmares and other sleeping difficulties, excessive parental attachment, clinging to caregivers, urinary incontinence, and recurring feelings of fear post-obit reunification with their parents.

Follow upwardly handling recommendations

In almost every case encountered, proficient evaluators noted that the trauma suffered by the parents and the children were causing significant distress and ongoing functional impairment, requiring further intervention and robust therapeutic support. The interventions well-nigh frequently recommended included "trauma-focused psychotherapy," removal from detention, and psychiatric medications.

The clinicians also commented that a return to their country of origin would lead to exacerbated symptoms due to "returning to the site of initial traumas" and a lack of mental health resources and services bachelor. One clinician said of a mother from Honduras, "Given Ms. 10'southward lack of admission to mental healthcare in Honduras, this degeneration could cause significant morbidity and bloodshed, also as incalculably impair the evolution of her daughter, who may have meaning psychiatric trauma due to the recent forced separation from her mother".

In many cases, symptoms and distress connected after reunification, prompting the evaluators to recommend therapy, and too removal from detention for those still in clearing detention centers. Of a Guatemalan mother, "Her symptoms are expected to proceed until she is removed from detention, which is a constant reminder of the trauma of the separation from her sons, and receives appropriate, trauma-focused psychotherapy…. She needs to be in an environs that does not constantly remind her of the trauma of the separation. Information technology is my professional recommendation that she and her sons be released from detention and treated with trauma-focused therapy in the United states." Of a thirty-year-old mother, the clinician noted: "The presence of clearing officers is a constant reminder of the trauma she experienced at the hands of immigration officers at the border".

Clinicians besides recommended a number of trauma-informed adaptations which could be made during the on-going legal procedure. They recommended providing boosted time to process questions and formulate responses, repeating questions, pre-medicating with anti-anxiety medication, assuasive for frequent breaks to rest and assuasive their children to remain with them during the interview or allowing them breaks to come across their children. A forensic psychologist said of a 36-year-onetime mother, "Courtroom officials must use uncomplicated language, monitor her understanding, and rephrase material as needed." A psychiatrist commented regarding another mother's data processing difficulties due to the trauma of separation from her child, "Symptoms of her disability may interfere with her ability to attend to interactions and to process information".

The examining clinicians recommended that many of the adults and children receive professional mental health support considering, as was stated regarding ane of the children, "if left untreated… (he) would be at loftier risk for future psychological and physical bug".

Clinician assessment of credibility

PHR's experts who evaluated the parents and the children noted that all the interviewed individuals had "demonstrated appropriate emotional reactions to stressful and traumatic situations," and did not prove any signs of malingering, which is described in the DSM-Five as "the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological issues" that are motivated by external incentives. Following in-depth evaluations, which often lasted more iii hours, clinicians uniformly deemed the parents and children as credible historians, showing "no evidence of exaggeration or deception," providing an account that "constitutes an entirely expectable, natural and cohesive psychological story," having "no indication of exaggerating or faking symptoms," and "displayed none of the central features of the malingering patient".

Word

Our analysis of 31 medico-legal affidavits of parents and children directly affected by forced family unit separation shows nearly compatible negative mental health outcomes. To our cognition, this is the offset qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of the "nil tolerance" policy, as assessed during in-depth interviews past experienced clinicians.

Physicians for Man Rights and other experts have concluded that the U.S. authorities's handling of parents and children through the policy of family separation constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment [21, 26, 27]. Moreover, all cases reviewed for this projection rise to the level of torture, defined by the United nations Convention Against Torture equally an intentional human action which causes severe concrete or mental suffering for the purpose of compulsion, penalty, intimidation, or for a discriminatory reason, by a state official or with country consent or acquiescence [28]. In the cases reviewed, it is credible that U.S. officials intentionally carried out actions causing astringent pain and suffering in order to punish, coerce, and intimidate mainly Primal American asylum seekers to not pursue their aviary claims. Torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment are violations of human rights and are prohibited under domestic and international law in any and all circumstances [28].

Given the severity of psychological distress and impairment caused by forced separation, which persist even following reunification, parents and children require professional mental health support in a supportive community surroundings in order to rehabilitate and recover functionality. The clinicians noted that recovery well-nigh probable will not occur in the following scenarios: 1) detention settings, 2) ongoing forced separation from family members, three) forced return to their country of origin, and 4) re-exposure to pre-migration trauma. Community-based settings in which families can safely access social support such every bit friends, family and religious communities, as well as work and school, are the nearly advisable surround for recovery. Furthermore, functional damage may continue to impede individuals' ability to participate in their clearing example, absent-minded pregnant accommodations such as breaks, utilizing simple language, and rephrasing questions every bit needed.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the information was not nerveless for research purposes and therefore was non uniform in construction. The population captured in our analysis was not selected in a systematic style and may be unique in that they all had legal representation. Nevertheless, the rich and illustrative narratives of this accomplice help shed calorie-free on the experiences of separated families [29, 30].

No children nether the historic period of six were represented in the dataset, so the impacts of separation on infants and toddlers is not assessed in this study. Nearly of the families included in this data gear up were separated for an boilerplate of 30–70 days. Families who were separated for much longer may have experienced even greater negative health consequences equally a issue of the separation. Thus, farther study is needed regarding the bear upon of separation in populations with especially prolonged separation. Finally, the materials analyzed are narrative reports of clinicians who interviewed survivors and are not direct transcriptions of interviews with the affected individuals. As such, reporting bias is a limitation.

Conclusion

Untreated trauma can accept chronic and long-lasting effects on both adults and on children and adversely affect their physical, mental, developmental, and behavioral wellness. Those who experience trauma, especially as children, have higher rates of chronic medical conditions such every bit cardiovascular disease, cancer, and premature death [viii]. In addition, there is an increased risk of psychiatric disorders such equally anxiety, depression, and psychosis, and of detrimental coping behaviors such as smoking and use of alcohol or drugs [18, 19, 31, 32]. Recovery from trauma is possible, but requires: 1) avoidance of re-traumatization, two) psychiatric and behavioral health interventions, 3) strong social and family-mediated back up.

The decision to split up very young children, including nursing and preverbal children, from their parents, without whatsoever intent to reunify or even to effectively rail the separations, is not a legitimate policy choice—indeed the policy violated well-established principles of human rights. The resulting severe psychological harms, which were intentionally inflicted by the U.Southward. government, creates a moral imperative to aid this population, and to do then urgently.

Parents who take been deported, their children still suffering securely in the U.s.a., must be reunified in the The states. Culturally responsive trauma-informed mental health support must be provided [33, 34]. Accommodations—such as offering breaks, using simple language and translations, providing boosted time to process what is being asked—should exist available to ensure a trauma-informed adjudication process. I Guatemalan mother, at the end of her evaluation, asked the psychologist if in that location was whatsoever way to forget about the trauma of separation because it is so painful for her. This question must be answered with multi-system, multi-sectoral back up, including health and mental health services, legal services, and thoughtful reparations for the harm caused by this policy. Families should be consulted regarding the about appropriate ways of reparation [35–37], including but not express to a formal apology by the U.S. government, a pathway to permanent legal residence, monetary damages and prosecution of the officials who implemented this policy. The policy of forced family separation should also be a goad to deportment to create a more humane immigration system which tin can foreclose such trauma in the hereafter. Clinicians and health professionals tin can articulate the pressing demand for a trauma-informed clearing system in a powerful way through their expertise [38]. The authoritative voice of clinicians in documenting trauma and advocating for policy change is part of a global movement which recognizes immigration policies every bit a critical structural determinant of health [39–41].

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The researchers would similar to thank the children, parents and their legal counsel for their consent to study their stories to document the harms of forced family separation.

We would likewise like to thank the following PHR Asylum Network members, who conducted evaluations which were used in the report: Eddy Ameen, PhD, LPC; Yenys Castillo, PhD.; Phyllis Cohen, PhD; Barbara Eisold, PhD; Nathan Ewigman, PhD, MPH; Rebecca Ford-Paz, PhD; Karla Fredericks, MD, MPH; Eric Goldsmith, MD; Erin Hadley, PhD; Teyah Hults, LPC; Kirandeep Kaur, Practice; Ballad Luise Kessler, Md; Eindra Khin Khin, Md; Frances Lang, LICSW; Stuart Lustig, MD, MPH; Patrick McColloster, Physician; Thomas McCoy, LCSW, MDiv; Spyros D. Orfanos, PhD; Katherine Peeler, Doc; Kristin Samuelson, PhD; Jeffrey Stovall, MD; Jason Thompson, PhD; Anna Van Meter, PhD; Erin Zahradnik, MD; and Jennifer Zhu, MD; and to the New York University Postdoctoral Plan in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis Immigration and Human being Rights Working Group.

References

1. one. Dickerson C. The youngest child separated from his family at the border was 4 months one-time. The New York Times. June. 2019 Jun 16;16.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
2. two. Trump administration was warned of "traumatic psychological injury" from family separations, official says [Internet]. PBS NewsHour. 2018 [cited 2021 Oct nine]. Available from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-was-warned-of-traumatic-psychological-injury-from-family unit-separations-official-says
3. 3. Letter to Chairman Grassley and Vice Chairman Wyden, Senate Whistleblowing Caucus, July 17, 2018, https://www.whistleblower.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Original-Docs-Letter.pdf.
4. 4. Justice Department IG written report on family separations—CNNPolitics [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct ix]. Available from: https://world wide web.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/doj-report-family-separations/index.html
5. v. Interagency Chore Strength on the Reunification of Families. Interim Progress Study. Homeland Security. 2021 Aug. [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Bachelor from: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/21_0826_s1_interim-progress-report-family unit-reunification-task-force.pdf.
6. 6. Woodward C, Yen H, and Alonso-Zaldivar R. AP FACT Check: Falsehoods and fumbles in Trump-Biden contend [Internet]. AP NEWS. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://apnews.com/commodity/ap-fact-check-final-argue-trump-biden-4d304cf7ce7dee9c228f48bd9b76e8f7
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Oral R, Ramirez G, Coohey C, Nakada S, Walz A, Kuntz A, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and trauma informed care: the future of health care. Pediatric research. 2016 January;79(1):227–33. pmid:26460523
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards 5, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of expiry in adults: The agin childhood experiences (ACE) study. American journal of preventive medicine. 2019 Jun. pmid:31104722
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Oh DL, Jerman P, Marques SS, Koita One thousand, Ipsen A, Purewal Due south, et al. Systematic review of pediatric health outcomes associated with adverse childhood experiences (aces). pmid:30905481
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Lê-Scherban F, Wang X, Boyle-Steed KH, Pachter LM. Intergenerational associations of parent adverse childhood experiences and kid health outcomes. Pediatrics. 2018 Jun 1;141(6). pmid:29784755
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Keller A, Joscelyne A, Granski G, Rosenfeld B. Pre-migration trauma exposure and mental health functioning amidst Central American migrants arriving at the United states of america edge. PLoS One. 2017 Jan ten;12(ane):e0168692. pmid:28072836
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Keller AS, Rosenfeld B, Trinh-Shevrin C, Meserve C, Sachs Due east, Leviss JA, et al. Mental health of detained aviary seekers. The Lancet. 2003 Nov 22;362(9397):1721–3. pmid:14643122
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Steel Z, Silove D, Brooks R, Momartin S, Alzuhairi B, Susljik IN. Impact of clearing detention and temporary protection on the mental health of refugees. The british periodical of psychiatry. 2006 Jan;188(ane):58–64. pmid:16388071
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. fourteen. Teicher MH. Babyhood trauma and the enduring consequences of forcibly separating children from parents at the United States edge. BMC medicine. 2018 Dec;16(1):1–three.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. fifteen. Wise J. American Academy of Pediatrics president: Trump family separation policy is "child abuse" | TheHill [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://thehill.com/latino/392790-american-academy-of-pediatrics-president-trumps-family-separation-policy-is-child.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Habbach H, Hampton K, Mishori R. You lot Will Never Come across Your Kid Over again [Internet]. Physicians for Human Rights. [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://phr.org/our-piece of work/resource/you-will-never-encounter-your-child-over again-the-persistent-psychological-effects-of-family-separation/
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. MacLean SA, Agyeman PO, Walther J, Vocalizer EK, Baranowski KA, Katz CL. Mental health of children held at a Us immigration detention heart. Social Science & Medicine. 2019 Jun i;230:303–8.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Geltman PL, Grant-Knight W, Mehta SD, Lloyd-Travaglini C, Lustig South, Landgraf JM, et al. The "lost boys of Sudan": Functional and behavioral health of unaccompanied refugee minors resettled in the The states. Athenaeum of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 2005 Jun 1;159(6):585–91.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. nineteen. Hodes M. Psychopathology in refugee and asylum-seeking children. In: Rutter'due south child and adolescent psychiatry, fifth ed. Wiley Blackwell; 2008. p. 474–86.
20. xx. Bronstein I, Montgomery P. Psychological distress in refugee children: a systematic review. Clinical kid and family unit psychology review. 2011 Mar;14(ane):44–56. pmid:21181268
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Miller A, Hess JM, Bybee D, Goodkind JR. Understanding the mental health consequences of family separation for refugees: Implications for policy and practice. American journal of orthopsychiatry. 2018;88(one):26. pmid:28617002
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Bean T, Derluyn I, Eurelings-Bontekoe E, Broekaert Eastward, Spinhoven P. Comparison psychological distress, traumatic stress reactions, and experiences of unaccompanied refugee minors with experiences of adolescents accompanied past parents. The Journal of nervous and mental disease. 2007 Apr 1;195(four):288–97. pmid:17435478
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Corbin J, Strauss A. Nuts of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications; 2014 Nov 25.
24. 24. Kelle U. " Emergence" vs." forcing" of empirical data? A crucial problem of" grounded theory" reconsidered. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement. 2007 Jan 1:133–56.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus significant saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative health research. 2017 Mar;27(4):591–608. pmid:27670770
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Van Schaack B. Father-Son Separation at The states Border Illustrates Lasting Harm That Demands Redress [Cyberspace]. Just Security. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://world wide web.justsecurity.org/74079/father-son-separation-at-united states of america-border-illustrates-lasting-damage-that-demands-redress/
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. USA immigration policies resulted in more family separations than disclosed [Internet]. Amnesty International. 2018 [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://world wide web.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/10/usa-treatment-of-aviary-seekers-southern-border/
28. 28. Assembly UG. Article 1. Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. United Nations, Treaty Series. 1984 December ten;1465:85.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Payne 1000, Williams Thou. Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology. 2005 April;39(2):295–314.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. xxx. Crouch M, McKenzie H. The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social science information. 2006 Dec;45(4):483–99.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Bronstein I, Montgomery P. Psychological distress in refugee children: a systematic review. Clinical child and family psychology review. 2011 Mar;14(i):44–56.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Miller A, Hess JM, Bybee D, Goodkind JR. Agreement the mental health consequences of family separation for refugees: Implications for policy and practice. American journal of orthopsychiatry. 2018;88(one):26. pmid:28617002
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Gartland MG, Hidalgo JA, Danaher FS. Case 20–2020: A vii-Year-Onetime Daughter with Severe Psychological Distress after Family Separation. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 25;382(26):2557–65. pmid:32579817
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Paskey S. Telling Refugee Stories: Trauma, Credibility, and the Adversarial Arbitrament of Claims for Asylum. Santa Clara Constabulary Review. 2016 January 1;56:457–530.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Ford M. The Case for Migrant Reparations. The New Commonwealth [Internet]. 2018 Aug ane [cited 2021 Oct nine]; Bachelor from: https://newrepublic.com/article/150348/case-migrant-reparations
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Stance | The U.Southward. owes separated migrant families much more than reunification—The Washington Post [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct nine]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/31/separated-migrant-families-reunification-resources/
37. 37. Families separated at United mexican states border ask for residency, aid [Internet]. AP NEWS. 2021 [cited 2021 October ix]. Bachelor from: https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-united mexican states-immigration-838f4b54515aeff87cc2ec67097c56ee
38. 38. Physicians for Human Rights Asylum Policy Working Grouping. Re-Imagining the Asylum Organization: Recommendations from Asylum Medicine Experts | Health Diplomacy Blog [Net]. [cited 2021 October 9]. Available from: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210510.133971/full/
39. 39. Dudley M, Young P, Newman 50, Gale F, Stoddart R. Health professionals face up the intentional harms of indefinite clearing detention: an Australian overview, evaluation of culling responses and proposed strategy. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2020 Jan 1;17(one):35–51.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. xl. Essex RW. Australian Clearing Detention: How Should Clinicians Respond? [Cyberspace] [Thesis]. 2019 [cited 2021 Oct 9]. Available from: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/20642
41. 41. Castañeda H, Holmes SM, Madrigal DS, Young M-ED, Beyeler N, Quesada J. Immigration as a social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Wellness. 2015 Mar 18;36:375–92. pmid:25494053
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar

huberased1965.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0259576

Share this post