New Briefing: Unaccompanied Minors, Mental Health and the ‘Danish Model’

As the government turns to Denmark and its restrictive asylum policies (see here and here for recent coverage), today we publish a special briefing on what the so-called ‘Danish model’ has meant for children seeking asylum in Denmark without family support – a particularly vulnerable group absent from all government’s communications until this week. 

We find that Denmark’s restrictive measures – temporary protection, minimal family reunification rights, accelerated removals and more – have had no effect on overall number of UASC asylum claims in Denmark, and have had well-evidenced detrimental impacts on young people’s mental health. 

Alongside the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC), we recommended that the Home Office keep five years’ leave for unaccompanied children – which they have accepted, temporarily. However, the government have only done this short-term while they develop a new model, when the UASC route to settlement will change. 

Rather than creating stability, these measures intensify precarity for those most at risk. 

Our findings are stark: 

• Restrictive policies have had a negligible effect on the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Denmark. 
• Temporary protection regimes create cycles of insecurity, fear, and disrupted development. 
• Aggressive integration requirements and the threat of being removed exacerbate trauma, anxiety, and poor mental health among young people. 
• Discrimination and constant uncertainty make it harder for young refugees to learn, build relationships, or plan for their futures.

As the UK announced the application of some of these elements (notably, the 30-month limit on all refugee protection), it must confront these documented harms. The Danish experience shows that such policies destabilise the lives of children and young people who arrive alone – those who most need safety, continuity, and care. 

If the UK is committed to upholding its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1951 Refugee Convention, it cannot afford to repeat Denmark’s mistakes.