Child refugees at risk from Home Office age checks

Published: 19 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The Home Office’s national age assessment board is facing renewed criticism over its treatment of vulnerable children. A report by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that hundreds of young asylum seekers may face unnecessary trauma and danger because of flawed assessment practices. These children, many arriving on small boats, are subjected to evaluations designed to determine their age, yet the process often harms rather than protects. Focused on the Home Office’s procedures, the report raises urgent questions about how the UK safeguards its youngest and most vulnerable refugees.

The consortium, a coalition of over 100 organisations including the Refugee Council, Barnardo’s, and the NSPCC, has detailed significant concerns regarding the national age assessment board, established in March 2023. It employs more than 50 social workers to evaluate children’s ages, but reports indicate that some young people feel the process is hostile, with social workers perceived as “out to get them.” Cases documented in the report suggest that children experience deteriorating mental health during assessments, sometimes developing self-harm tendencies or suicidal thoughts. The trauma associated with Home Office assessments is described as far more severe than experiences with local authority social workers.

When children are incorrectly assessed as adults, they are placed in adult accommodation, often alongside unrelated individuals, which can expose them to abuse or exploitation. In some instances, young people have been charged with offences connected to their journey, including steering a dinghy to reach the UK. One highlighted case involved a child aged 15, initially assessed by the Home Office as 22, and subsequently charged with criminal offences. After local authority reassessment confirmed his true age, the charges were dropped, underscoring the serious consequences of misjudged age determinations.

The age assessment board was originally established due to concerns that adults were misrepresenting themselves as children to gain immigration advantages. However, freedom of information data indicates that many individuals initially declared adults are later recognised as child refugees following detailed local authority assessments. Judicial scrutiny has also criticised the NAAB process, noting inconsistencies, lack of objectivity, and an adversarial approach. Judges have expressed concern that political discourse may influence decisions, compromising the impartiality required for professional social work when assessing child refugees.

Previous inspections, including a report by the independent chief inspector for borders and immigration, identified significant issues with the board, while a Home Office-commissioned evaluation by the National Centre for Social Research was largely positive but limited by a small, government-biased sample. The consortium’s findings call for the NAAB to be scrapped, with funding redirected to local authorities to enhance their social work capacity in supporting child refugees. It also recommends independent oversight should the board continue and emphasises that local authorities’ judgements should be respected when assessing young people as child refugees without requiring a full Home Office assessment.

Kama Petruczenko, senior policy analyst at the Refugee Council, highlighted the risk posed by the Home Office framework, stating that it “blurs the line between safeguarding and immigration control.” She emphasised the need for assessments to be child-centred and trauma-informed, led by local authority social workers rather than by an adversarial Home Office process that compounds existing difficulties for child refugees. Petruczenko noted repeated court findings that assessments often override professional social work judgements, contributing to delays and inconsistent outcomes that affect child refugees directly.

Maddie Harris, founder of the Humans For Rights Network, recounted that children her organisation supported described NAAB assessments as “interrogatory, hostile and terrifying.” She explained that the board often begins from the assumption that a young person is an adult, seeking evidence to support this position, which undermines both accuracy and trust in the evaluation of child refugees. These practices, Harris argued, risk inflicting lasting psychological damage while undermining these children’s access to appropriate protection and support.

The consortium’s report details how flawed age assessments can directly affect child refugees’ living conditions, mental health, and legal standing in the UK. Children placed incorrectly in adult accommodation or detention face heightened risks of exploitation, abuse, and criminalisation. Experts warn that the adversarial approach may exacerbate existing trauma and make integration or recovery more difficult. Social workers familiar with local contexts are better equipped to provide nuanced, child-focused evaluations that account for complex individual circumstances, according to the coalition.

Home Office officials defended the national age assessment board, asserting that robust age checks are essential for safeguarding and border integrity. A spokesperson stated that the board provides “specialist, trauma-informed expertise” and that all assessments are conducted by qualified social workers following recognised guidance. The Home Office also confirmed it would review the consortium’s report and continue improving practices in line with independent recommendations affecting child refugees.

Despite these assurances, the report underscores the systemic issues that arise when immigration control and child protection responsibilities are combined within a single government body. Critics argue that separating these roles is essential to ensure impartiality and safeguard young child refugees. Misaligned priorities can undermine trust in social services and result in vulnerable children experiencing unnecessary stress, delays in receiving appropriate care, and exposure to unsafe environments.

As the UK continues to navigate complex migration challenges, ensuring the safety of child refugees remains a critical priority. NGOs and social workers urge policymakers to implement reforms quickly, recognising that proper assessments save lives, prevent harm, and uphold international obligations. A child-centred, trauma-informed approach, separated from immigration enforcement pressures, is vital for ethical and effective safeguarding. The consortium’s report provides a roadmap for these reforms, highlighting both the risks of current practices and the benefits of empowering local authorities.

Check our latest news