CMW/C/GC/4-CRC/C/GC/23 Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, states that the term “parents” must be interpreted in a broad sense to include biological, adoptive or foster parents, or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom. 1. Non-separation 28. The right to family unity for migrants may intersect with States’ legitimate interests in making decisions on the entry or stay of non-nationals in their territory. However, children in the context of international migration and families should not be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy and family life. 21 Separating a family by deporting or removing a family member from a State party’s territory, or otherwise refusing to allow a family member to enter or remain in the territory, may amount to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family life. 22 29. The Committees are of the view that the rupture of the family unit by the expulsion of one or both parents based on a breach of immigration laws related to entry or stay is disproportionate, as the sacrifice inherent in the restriction of family life and the impact on the life and development of the child is not outweighed by the advantages obtained by forcing the parent to leave the territory because of an immigration-related offence. 23 Migrant children and their families should also be protected in cases where expulsions would constitute arbitrary interference with the right to family and private life. 24 The Committees recommend that States provide avenues for status regularization for migrants in an irregular situation residing with their children, particularly when a child has been born or has lived in the country of destination for an extended period of time, or when return to the parent’s country of origin would be against the child’s best interests. Where the expulsion of parents is based on criminal offences, their children’s rights, including the right to have their best interests be a primary consideration and their right to be heard and have their views taken seriously, should be ensured, also taking into account the principle of proportionality and other human rights principles and standards. 30. The Committees are concerned about cases where children are separated from parents and placed in alternative care by child protection systems when there are no concerns related to parental abuse and neglect. Financial and material poverty, or conditions directly and uniquely attributable to such poverty, should never be the sole justification for removing a child from parental care, for receiving a child into alternative care or for preventing a child’s social reintegration. In this regard, States should provide appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their childrearing responsibilities, including by providing social benefits and child allowances and other social support services regardless of the migration status of the parents or the child. 31. The Committees are also of the opinion that based on article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a comprehensive approach to the child’s right to a family environment in the context of migration should contemplate measures directed at enabling parents to fulfil their duties with regard to child development. Considering that irregular migration status of children and/or their parents may obstruct such goals, States should make available regular and non-discriminatory migration channels, as well as provide permanent and accessible mechanisms for children and their families to access long-term 21 22 23 24 8 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, para. 7. Human Rights Committee, communications No. 2009/2010, Ilyasov v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 23 July 2014; No. 2243/2013, Husseini v. Denmark, Views adopted on 24 October 2014; No. 1875/2009, M.G.C. v. Australia, Views adopted on 26 March 2015; No. 1937/2010, Leghaei and others v. Australia, Views adopted on 26 March 2015; and No. 2081/2011, D.T. v. Canada, Views adopted on 15 July 2006. See Advisory Opinion OC−21/14 of 19 August 2014, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, para. 280. See Committee on the on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, general comment No. 2 (2013), para. 50.