Good morning. For those of you who werent here yesterday, my name is rathod, im the associate expeer enshal education at the Washington College of law. To welcome all of you here to the law school offer that welcome on not nly behalf of our law school, institutions ring as well as the American Lawyers Association nd our committee representatives. Again, thank you for everyone [applause] thank you for all of the hard work that the Planning Committee has put into making this event a success. Thanks to all of you. I know you all have very busy schedules. I appreciate your willingness for being here. Yesterday,f you here we have a series of enriching to face the challenges phasing migrant youth, some of world as s across the well as some of the ways the asylum system is being in the United States as well as how we can deeply the ore standards which is at the heart of the gathering. Yesterday and today to have such a broad range room, not onlyhe legal scholars and practitioners nd folks from the social sciences, Mental Health professionals, other health a fessionals, folks with broad range of expertise. Fruitful e very conversations yesterday and i hope theyll continue today. Through the conversations, we hope to identify paths forward. I want to acknowledge the staff rom the law school, from the center that made this event possible, many student and several Staff Members here at the Washington College of law including our relations team, the special events team and others. And for many of you, i know in the room work at nonprofit and you know how difficult it is to get the work done without the generous of donors who can resources financial we need to make these events possible. Want to acknowledge the sponsors for this event, jones ellis, baker and law offices of for your t, thanks support. [applause] and so were going to be of the g our second Day Conference with a presentation a Keynote Presentation from one of the in the field, were really delighted to have professor karen musalo. Needs no she introduction. Director at unding the u. C. Hastings college of law, its fair to say that she on the eading expert topic of genderbased asylum and fact that she is a lead leading treatise on the subject. He has authored numerous back chapters and articles and elative our project, she has litigated in cases serving as attorney in several cases. She has continued to publish in and has received numerous awards for her pioneering work in this area. Is going to be speaking to us about how we can protections in the area of genderbased violence. In warmly me welcoming professor karen musula. [applause] can people seet, me over the screen since i dont ave a box to stand on, ok, and everybody can hear me. So first of all, thank you for introduction. Rous second, i want to thank the of latin america loan studies and American College of committee, if ng i have left anybody out, i apologize, really an honor to be here and speak to you. From the panels yesterday, we root d on some of the causes for migration and we talked about genderbased womence, violence against and girls, gangs and so what i is talk about the law eviscerated by this administration to, the law to provide protection and the title it as asked to restoring protection and i will do i will talk about that, i think its important to give a little bit of the context of how this law developed and incredible sort of resistance to protecting women genderbased violence so that you understand how we got now and now we might get to a better place. For giving some of the history before i go into how i the hopeful part of think we can restore protection. All, the conceptual going back this area to the beginning of the intervehicles and protocol and state parties just didnt see of genderbased violence as fitting. Refugee definition, nationalality, opinion or membership in a particular social group. Inflicted on women werent seen as being persecution which refugee red for protection. Gender, you have to show that the persecution is on account of grounds, gender isnt one of the five grounds. That was another barrier. Concept of governments being the persecutors and often its are the prep who traitors of violence. Hese were seen as conceptual barriers, when the commission egan to see this resistance to extending protection, it put out 1985 ies of directives in and im oversimplifying grossly, what they ly counseled state parties to do as to see that harm would be persecution if it was a violation of human rights. The, you know, trapped in this concept that cultural norms or religious dictates, theyre iolations of human rights and percentage accusation and the particular social group ground definition could include groups defined by gender. Wouldnt have to be by the state, but a nonstate actor. Focus on the u. S. O in 1996, the b. I. A. , the board of immigration appeals issued the first precedent u. S. In cision in the he case involving female cutting, granting asylum, asylum for persecution of the female genital cutting. Photo is in detention. When she was out of detention asylum. Ted i would love to show that photo because i think it really the dehumanization of people behind bars and just, anyway, just leave you with that thought. There was this groundbreaking decision in 1996, there was a much more route to recognition for Domestic Violence survivors. Cutting. Male genital many of us thought that would of the door to all range gender persecution, but it easy route. An in 1999, the board of ofigration appeals in matter r. A. Reversed to a woman fleeing brutal Domestic Violence. His was during the Clinton Administration and Jeanette Reno and the Justice Department did two good things before the end that administration. Jeanette reno certified r. A. To vacated it and her Justice Department issued regulations that would have really contemplated survivors of Domestic Violence and other gender persecution. Were proposed ns in this 2000. Beenhave to this day never finalized. Thought the whole obama administration, we were like get those regulations finalized, it never happened. Contention depth of around this issue. Misr. A. Orward, herself was granted asylum by an immigration judge. T was as a level that wasnt binding precedent. Wasnt until the matter of arcg in 2014 that we actually decision saying that Domestic Violence could be claim. Is for an asylum so think about that, all the way to get a to 2014 decision saying that Domestic Violence could be a basis. Well see, that was not to be trump ved because of the administration. The first arcg do, decision recognizing Domestic Violence, it had a nature roe Legal Holding. It just recognized remember i talked about the particular social Group Definition and how used in cases involving gender persecution, it nature roe holding say this social Group Defined by women in guatemala unable to leave was a valid social group. Advocates really came in and used arcg to successfully for other cases. So not just of married women, unmarried women, girls forced into sexual relationships members, child abuse survivors. Revolutionary, but advocates really expanded to use it. What happened . Essions during his time as attorney general certified a ase called a. B. To himself and arcg and ino reverse arcg, he reversed the asylum to a. B. What did a. B. Do . I hate to show you a photo like this so early in the morning, can i say. The reason i add this is when the attorney general did this i was actually contacted by a reporter for the washington very proud of the fact that this back to the dark ages is what i said to the i said this refusal to ecognize gender violence or Domestic Violence is a violation of human rights and a basis for cranking us back of how we ages conceptualize human rights. That was the headline. I was ue, the point making and i think those of you in this room who know the history that womens this was human rights, pulling us back. This is a photo of miss a. B. Who chosen to maintain her anonymity. Sense of the ou a person herself. She did, if we had time, i would showed you, but they did a short video about her and her the talking about persecution. So her case had very strong facts. This isnt a case where the forrney general was looking a rape case, she was married to her abuser. With him. Ree children membersers brother was a of the salvadoran police. He police were largely unresponsive. When i say largely unresponsive issued her a ey protective order, this husband her, threatening her they uns and knifed and gave a protective order and said youront you serve this on husband. N enraged husband, serve the protective order is absurd. She moved away and the abuser tracked her down. After the divorce, he raped her fter the divorce and he told her that nothing but death would set her free from him. So on those facts, what did in the decision of the matter of a. B. I want to istinguish here between what sessions attempted to do and what he actually could do wlelly he is not operating in a vacuum. There is a body of precedent. He tried to do was to oreclose all claims based on Domestic Violence, other gender violence and fear of gang claims. He has the broad language generally claims by persons to Domestic Violence or Gang Violence will not qualify for asylum. He is trying to send the message, dont grant the claims. The Legal Holding is a lot older. Tatements about what the attorney thinks, so he rejects the social group formulation unmarried women unable to leave that actually had been a developed by the department of Homeland Security i said approved in arcg. He said that didnt meet the standard for a particular social group and remember i told you that the to be on account of and with Domestic Violence, we say the violence is on this person being a woman in this relationship. Her. s why the man abuses thats what domestic experts will say, but what sessions said is this is just personal. Its not about gender. Out and say arate Domestic Violence is not about about the this is ludicrousness of this. What are the actually holdings in addition to what i just told you questioning the questioning and nexus. Remember when i said it was a the individual has to show that the government to protect. To ried, sessions tried raise the standard for what it unwilling. Nable or he also suggested without any the nce that when ersecutor if you could relocate and not be persecuted, you dont qualify for asylum. So he said these things in the decision without any basis, really more of an opinion. So what happened in terms of challenges to a. B. . And this is sort of the restoring protection and whats happening and what are the strategies part begin. Im going to go over these four areas, challenges of the a. B. Decision in the context of expedited removal. We talk about expedited removal yesterday. Litigation in ms. A. B. s individual case. Nationwide trends in decisionmaking and particularly strategies. So expedited removal. Guidanceter of ab and that the uscis issues after ab strongly imply plied that dividuals fear of gang relations couldnt pass tt standard that someone must pass if youre an expedited removal. If youre an expedited removal and you dont show the screening standard for credible fear, you are removed. And youre not permitted to apply for asylum. So what the government was trying to do was anybody who appeared with a d. V. Claim or fear of gang to say after d. B. These claims dont qualify. So there was a challenge to that. Grace b. Whitaker which where the the District District Court judge in the district of columbia issued an injunction. We argued, we were cocouncil with the aclu and argued that the attorney general committed many legal errors in his ab decision. And the judge agreed. And he issued an injunction against the application of ab in this way, incredible fear. And that was a huge a huge step because it prevented the government from just, you know preemptoryly screening these people out and not permitting them to apply for asylum. Now, of course, the government has appealed and we are awaiting a decision from the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. And we dont know which way it will go. But for now, this can these ab and you know, cannot be used as justification to screen people out in the credible fear of process. Litigation in her own case. So as you know when an individual is denied asylum, one of the things you do in that individual case, you appeal it, and then through that appeal hope to have the underlying decision reversed. So after the attorney general issued his decision in matter of ab, it was sent back to the Immigration Court where we were permitted to put in more evidence. We put in about 1,000 more pages of evidence about gender violence in el value door, inability of the government to protect. Etc. , etc. I wont bore you with it. But a judge by the name of couch denied it again. I should tell you couch is one of these judges who has about a 95 asylum denial rate, which is not normal. For those who do not practice immigration law, not normal. He was also just recently appointed to be a judge. He was elevated, promoted to the board of immigration appeals. But the point im making is that it was remanded back to that same judge who denied it initially. And he denied it again. So we appealed to the board of immigration. Appealed we submitted our briefing just last month. And were waiting ifer the board of im for the board of immigration appeals to decide. The board of immigration appeals theoretically could find for her. Not likely. But if if the board of immigration appeals denies, then we get up to the Fourth Circuit court of appeals. So were in a federal court where if we prevail, we would hope to get, you know, reverse a lot of the legal reasoning in matter of a. B. And i should just say i spoke to grace b. Whitaker but that only applied to credible fear. So that doesnt restrain judges who want to deny on the merits because of the ab case. Ok so what in the face of this decision in matter of ab that tries to foreclose these claims, what is happening in reality to decisionmaking. So the center for gender and refuge study wes track and attorneys tell us about the outcomes in their cases. Its not a representative sarple. Its not come representative sample. Its nom comprehensive. Its that samp of attorneys who ask for helps for us and we wouldnt have any pro se cases because people who are not represented dont seek us. This is what weve seen in terms of trend. Weve seen 50 i. B. Cases in this area of d. V. Or fear of gang where there were 37 deniles and 13 remands back to the immigration judge. And generally, the b. I. A. Cites a decision of the a. B and after the a. G. Decided in matter of ab, not positive. Doesnt grant. But in Immigration Court weve seen something different. Weve seen 170 asylum or holding glants in d. V. Or child abuse cases. Although, there are many denials also. I dont want to paint an overly rosy picture. Weve seen at least 145 denials. But one interesting development, be more for the issue of legal theories here is that after the attorney general struck down the social group unmarried gat milan women unable to leif, theres social group that advocates have been trying to get recognized for a long time which is just gender and women. To say salvadoran women, gat milan women and a number of judges have been granting on that much more simple, straightforward articulation of social group, which is a positive thing. There are a number of Circuit Court decision. Some positive. But i dont want to paint an overly rosy picture. But you just see this little ittle pify quotes from them. This was a case padilla maldonado had proposed a social Group Similar to the one sessions rejected. And the court said her court has weakened but it doesnt defeat her claim recognizing that each case has to be judged on the case and the record. Here a judge had done exactly what i just said decided on gender and nationality and the board has reversed saying it was too broad. And the ninth circuit said, no, no, thats not too broad. Go back to the drawing board and look at this again. So these are some positive developments. Also people are raising because of social group basis hasnt worked that much in cases involving women who are asserting their rights not be beaten, attorneys are putting forward a political opinion basis because thats one of the five grounds. And feminism is a political opinion or the belief that a woman has the right not be beaten and subordinated by her male partner. And so this is being recognized by the courts also. And this court remanding to consider that this a political basis of the claim might have been a legitimate basis. So then theres some more negative decision. I know im running quite out of time. Gonzalezveliz v. Barr case where it was more mixed. Where the court doesnt ban these cases but the b. I. A. Was reasonable in finding that this was not a viable claim and a particular thing in this 11th circuit case. So Circuit Court decision all over the place. What are some of the broader strategys . Were tracking. Were assisting attorneys helping them build the record litigating ms. Abs case and were tracking case nationwide at the Circuit Court and b. I. A. Levels. Thats where we can win precedence in my last slide ill give you information how you can report an outcome in the case so that we can know whats happening. Because were intervening either as amicus or in other ways to bring our expertise to bear. There are five cases coming up for argument in the ninth circuit next month. And we have asked for them to be consolidated and putting an amicus brief and also all the attorneys are giving us some argument time. So this is the ninth circuit is generally a favorable circuit. Were looking to see if we could develop some good law at the Circuit Court. And then, you know, where at the executive level were hopeful and planning to change an administration. A lot of you have woshed on these strategys that im talking about. But theres this book coordinated by immigration hub, were looking at all the changes that we would want on a new administration. Were looking at humanitarian protection which includes the call for the reversal of ab and other bad attorney general decisions. Weve been working with a lot of the president ial candidates, the staff of the president ial candidates and most of the major candidates would pledge to reverse ab if they were elected. So legislative and im almost through. I think i have two or three more slides if that weve also you know, theres a marker bill. Refugee protection act thats been introduced many times. I never had the chance of being enacted. But if there is, you know, if the 2020 elections are positive and the senate and the house might be more amenable, and so weve actually, you know, worked with congressional staffers to fix key terms in the refugee definition that really get in the way not just of gender claims but fear of gang claims, childrens claims, you name it. And it would be by fixing a particular social group and on account of to remove a lot of the requirements that have been put in that really have been significant barriers. And then theres a number of congressmembers who are interested in stand alone bills to address ab. Finally, were trying to do a lot of Public Education and messengering to build a broader movement. And so we have a website called immigrant women too where we have women survivors of violence who have been telling their stories. Weve been working with local activists across the country to get at the city council or county Council Level local resolutions approved about reversing ab. Because we want this to be a broader its like a human rights, civil rights issues. Those are all the things that are going on. I remain very hopeful on this issue. My last slide here i will quickly mention a couple of things. So those of you who are attorneys who dont know about us, we provide expert consultation, technical assistance, different kinds of resources in these cases so please reach out to us. Were trying to track outcoming cases. So theres how you could reach the outcome in the case. Hrows an im theres an immigrant women cases a number of you were experts or are in our data base. But were trying to connect attorneys with experts because experts are even more important in these cases now. And then one resource that you might be interested in is this article matter of ab one year later that two of my colleagues wrote gives more details, those trens that i just had one or trends that i just had one at the Circuit Court level those are detailed in a much much more standed nay demure this law review. So thank you very much for your time. I was going to try to leave time for questions. But i think i ate up all my time. But i leave it to the organizers to decide what to do with me since i did that. Thank you. [applause] so i think that what dweel is not your o is its fault, karen. I wanted to remind the audience that we question cards on the table. Please fill those out. There will be staff circulating that you can hand though questions cards up to, and theyll bring it to the moderator. If you have questions for karen, we can definitely include those in the q a for Lindsay Harriss panel. Ill invite them now. If you give us 30 seconds to set up their name plates, theyll get started. So its very intimidating to be the person to speak after karen as one of my early mentors, i think for about the last 15 years when i was a law student i found her ongoing leadership in this fight to be incredibly inspiring but also con forting to know that she is still doing this with all of us and leading the way. So thank you very much, karen for your remarks. Thename is Lindsay Harris at university of the district of columbia. I teach human rights clinic. Today i have the honor of moderating this incredible panel of advocates. And were going to take you perhaps even deeper into the dark place that Steven Manning referenced yesterday. So indeed, it feels like this whole symposium has been in some ways building to this panel. And it was, indeed, a very dark moment as we think about family separate separation. I dont mean to be misleading because the family separation crisis which was manufactured by this administration by no means began in 2018 when attorney general sessions announced the tolerance policy. An it is by no means over today. So as we will discuss, family separation exists in other previous separations and continues today. But what happened in 2018 which led to mass family separations was a dark moment in our history and one from which we continue to work through and recover. It was a moment that catapulted the treatment of children on the National Spotlight and in our national conference. We saw National Media for the first time engage in these issues just in way we hadnt before. This was headline news. And there was such a ground swell of public support opposing the separation of immigrant families. So if theres any Silver Lining to this administrations relentlessly cruel and racist policies in immigration, it is that we have new segments of society and i know many of you in the room have been in the fight for a long time far before the Trump Administration. But also perhaps some of you have joined this fight in response to what youve seen. One Silver Lining is this new generation of immigration advocate who are more aware and more engaged in these issues than ever before. So were going to skip buyers. You can find them on your program so we can focus on substance. If you take a look at those bios you will confirm for yourself that the advocates that were privileged to have today are indeed some of the many courageous individual who is have fought on the front lines alongside immigrant families and children in the last years and well before. We should start with a round of applause in welcoming michelle, ashley, christie and my michael to the stage today. [applause] and were going to try to do this as little bit more of the conversation than some of the other panels. Ill start with christie. As we said family separation and tolerance have become these hot button issues since april 2018. But christie, can you share a little bit of the history behind these policies . Where did they come from . Did they exist before they exploded into Mainstream Media . Yeah, sure. Thank you, lindsay. Ive been reflecting a lot kind of on the panels yesterday and thinking about the principle of the best interest of the child. And i think thats a really important framework because a lot of what happened during family separation during the crisis and before is really due to the fact that there is no guiding principle around the best interest of the child in the border context and especially for familys that are arriving at the border. Theres no consideration of the best interest of the child when Border Control processes family unit, right . So a lot of that, the absence of having that laid the groundwork for this this to be able to happen, right . And a lot of those problems are still with us today. And ill go into that in more detail. But we still dont have like a guiding set of principles or standards relating to the processes at the border. It is important to recognize that family separation didnt just start during zero tolerance. It was going on long before. It was going on in the Prior Administration although to a much lesser extent and i did want to mention that back in lris did a nd report called betraying family values. And that report they started to recognize that this was a problem i think fearing that it could be a much bigger problem in the Current Administration and the reported documents several instances of separation at the border, you know, instances of separation of siblings of like family unit, extended family unit and the lack of tracking and all the problems related to that. But also forcible separations in some cases of biological parents and children. And then as we know now, later in 2017 advocates started to see a very disturbing number of forcible parent child separations. And we know now that that was from the the Pilot Project happening in the el paso Border Patrol sector where the administration was basically testing out this theory about what would happen if parents and child were forcibly separated. There wasnt, of course you know, there wasnt a lot of thought that went into that. There were huge tracking problems. But i think also just going back to the report from 2017, all of the recommendations from that report are actually very relevant stoil today. Still to today. The report identified massive failures by the government to provide tracking systems, to connect families, no know which parent went with which child. And those systems were never put into place and we saw the horrific consequences of that during the zeroton tolerance period when the government struggled to connect parents and kids back and i know ashley youre going to touch on the reunification process. And one of the key recommendations from that report was that d. H. S. Should improve those tracking systems, Start Talking to o. R. R. , you know, develop better standards. But also and i think this is really important that d. H. S. Should always consider the best interest of the child in all custody removal and repatriation decisions. Another key recommendation was that d. H. S. Should hire welfare professionals at the border to oversea and weigh in on all potential instances of family separation. So those again, those two like key recommendations are from early 2017. Of course, they did not obviously, did not get implemented and laid the groundwork for all the all of the chaos and the horrific consequences of zero tom rans. Tolerance. I think its also important to point out and ill go back to this a little bit later in the panel. But even now after weve been through the horrors of family separation, we still do not have hose standards in place. C. V. P. Is not evaluating the best interest of the child. They dont have to evaluate the best interest of the child. Weve been through so much litigation and very tragically where were kind of back in the same place that we were even back in 2017. Ill get into more detail later. But there was a recent decision from the miso case that gave permission to d. H. S. Basically to continue to separate parents and children in many, many circumstances where there were questions about parentage wror the parent has a prior criminal history. So and i think you know, again, just going back to the actual processing. We know now that kind of in that split second basically where Border Patrol makes the determination to separate a parent from a child, that that very small kind of you know, step in the process it opportunity take very long for them to make that determination, but the last rippling effects of that are so profound because we know, of course, immediately after that decision is made the child could be sent 3,000 miles away to an o. R. Facility. The parent goes to an adult detention facility or worse, the parent is very quickly deported from the United States and the child is left in o. R. R. Facility. Still there are huge and pervasive problems with information sharing between the two agencies within information sharing between o. R. R. Or advocates or attorneys for children. And its still very, very hard to reunify parents and children even when an improper separation has occurred. So we know now too that there have been at least 1200 tcharne have been separated since the end of zero tolerance policy. So i think thats just kind of an important starting framework again where were still in this position where were fighting for better standards, where were fighting for a better framework in place but not to take us to too darker pessimistic of a place now. But like i think were kind of still where we started in 2018 to sum it up. So the policy was officially announced about what they were doing . April 2018 was when this kind of dime the forum, into Public Awareness and as representative alluded to and spoke about yesterday, there were organizing efforts and getting americans our communities out in the streets to protest this resulting in action from the white house to end family separation. Can you speak to some of the legal challenges to family separation . You mentioned the misalocation. Im hoping how you can speak toward how those challenges play out in the court . I know some cases are still ongoing. I know the ms. L vs. Ice case. That was filed in early 2018 on behalf of a woman who was separated from her child before the zero tolerance policy was officially and publicly announced. That was during that Pilot Project phase. The judge in the Southern District of california who has presided over the case over the past few years issued an injunction and finding that the separation violated due process and the constitutional right to amily integrity. After the injunction there was this massive effort to reunify parents an children. Thans we thats when we saw all of the issues related to tracking and data and information in the late spring kind of around that same time period, a couple of additional challenges were filed. There was the dora b. Session cation and the m. M. M. Case. So the dora case was pretty focused on the fact that parents when they had had their credible fear interviews and reasonable fear interviews after they had been separated from their child did not have a meaningful opportunity to present their claims for relief because they were so understandably, you know, upset by the fact that they were separated from their child. The trauma was enormous. So chow you ask someone to really you know, you know, in a mental state that you need be into to focus on their asylum claim that moment. So that that was the krux of the dora case. He m. M. M. Case were individual case. All three cases were joined together for the negotiation of a Settlement Agreement and thened up covering certain aspects, some of the key issues in the case. And also a Steering Committee was created to assist with the reunifications particularly with locating parent who is had been deported to the United States without their children. At kind, we are a member of the committee along with the Womens Refugee Commission and justice in motion. E actually meet weekly, even now discuss various ongoing issues related to the steering economys work. The Settlement Agreement that came out of the three cases when they were grouped together was the result of a lot of negotiation by the different attorneys that were involved in the cases. But it was kind of from my perspective, it was so hard for all the issues to be grouped together. There were a number of people involved. And we came without a really imperfect result. Kind was not was not involved in negotiating the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement entitled parent who is had not passed their incredible fear interviews to have a reason to have a review of their r. F. I. They were not it into told a completely new review. But they could have a review before the asylum office. It also granted the right to anyone who has noticed to appeal had not been filed at the time of the Settlement Agreement to actual little foul an application for asylum. And so they are affirmative. Which is interesting. That did end up being a nice benefit for a lot of people. But the big problem remains that not all of these things have been fully implemented. So the asylum offices, a year and a half later, they havent gotten training or guidance. Weve had a couple of cases go forward. But not a lot. Right. So there are still a lot of people waiting and wondwheargs going to happen. And the oneyear filing deadline were hitting at the same time. So in our case the and we have a few hundred cases in total at kind. , you know, just had to gout go ahead and file without knowing what was happening with this process. The other element, ill just cover quickly. The opportunity for in case where is parents had been deports from the United States without their children, for rare and unusual cases should be brought to the attention of the court for consideration of a possible return to the United States. There was a lot of confusion about what that term really you rare and unusual, know, every, every situation in which a parent was deported without their child. Should be rare and unusual. But certain cases were identified through the work of the steering economy which made thousands of calls to those parents and partners on the ground at justice in motion went timeout visit with those parents and meet with those parents. Found that a number of parents. Or two and also had very serious violations of like theyre due process rights. And, you know, in the context of the separation. And many of this were co heresed so they would told they would not see the children again unless they agreed to be deported. Or there were other defects. They never had c. F. I. s. Ill wrapup quickly here. But just to say that after a lot of back and forth, im negotiating with the department of justice, ultimately the judge ordered the return of 11 karen to the United States. She really went through the record and the files for every parent where there was that cohersion. Or serious defects in the process. And the results are these huge efforts by [speaking in spanish] to bring back 29 of the deported parents to the port of entry, which many people may have heard about. Just one more thing to mention. In 2019 as more extensive reports emerge that family separation started back in 2017 in that el paso tile earl project. He also agreed to expand the class. And i think that was a pretty remarkable aspect oaf the you know, his history of the litigation. He decided to go back. So then the government had to account for all those additional hundreds of kids that were separated going back into 2017. And then turn over all of the names to the steering economy. So thats why the work of the Steering Committee is really continuing along now. And were all working together to try toe contact those parents to con narme theyve been in touch with their children. To see if there are any serious concerns, like some parents said, i want my child back. In the case of people who were deport, i dont know how to do that we would be able to connect with them with different partners. So thats kind of the current state of things. And were still trying to contact families that are in the United States. It turns out that its a lot hard tore find families in the u. S. Thans the in central america. The Central Committee center out letter. Ill throw that out that you may potentially if youre working with kids in the expanded class or parents, some people may be getting those letters that are coming from the Steering Committee at some point. Thats so helpful. As you said some of these families have been reuse nighted that point. Im going to shift a little bit to talking more about that reunification process. You have deeply involved in this. Im hoping you can share your experience with your experience working with these families through the reunification stage. First of all. Thank you so much more ayla and latino studies for having this important conference. Do i want to talk a little bit about the work that the u. S. Conflict of catholic bishops and clergy did to reunify certain families at the end of the Trump Administration. I want to point out that were looking at about 1100 in the montanas of june, july and early august of 2018. And there are many other familys that did not have that chance and still remain separated. That being said i do think its important to talk about what happened and why in many cases were still seeing many of the same issues. Many of the efforts of the it will gators were approached by the Trump Administration because they needed to comply with judge sapras order to reunify certain families. And they needed assistance to do this. We think we were approached u. A. C. Both usccb and partnership providers and officer refugee resettlement. We have presence at the border with our centers in different points. I think its really important to understand that in the moment that this happened there was no clear cut plan for reunification. That can be applied to us as as National Agencies with National Presence and experience decades of experienced in this area. And it can also be applied to hhs and the department of Homeland Security. I think the individuals working for the government on the groundworked as hard as we did. Day and night to do this. But you literally could say that we were building the airplane as we were flying it. And you know, i have a report that we and the lutherans did on kind of the story of the reunification thats aavailable. It takes a little bit in more detail. I do want to highlight a couple of things. First per the litigation, the children were kind of grouped into two different groups. And as the age 5 and under one was 517. We were instructed based on those two classes. The ray that the unification occurred for that age five and under is that we were instructed to bring children who had been identified, to certain sights and then rellyunal fight them with the parent who would be transported to the individual sight. So that was a pretty successful initially, i will say to you, i have service organizations. Were very concerned about the trauma that these tender age children had experienced. And so we trying to be as responsive as possible to the family and a reunification offered. We offered our Contact Information where the familiar wlirs going. Of that small number of under five children, id say we had about a 15 . Parents wanted nothing to do with followup services from anyone. They were terrified. Once we finished the quote unquote phase one, we reached the demurm of children that needed to be reunified. For this, the department of Homeland Security and h. H. S. Decided that the children would be brought to the detention facilities where the parents had been identified. They would be sent to a catholic , respite center. For that situation to kerr. And then the family has moved on. For that effort, we with the lutherans were able to reunified approximately at 1020 family units. And the lutheran were able to assist or approximately 200 family units. And they listed about 900 family units. There were so many moments, i think of real concern with kind of how the process was going, how children were going to reunify with their parents that would look like in terms of, you stability going forward. How the family unit would continue. One think that we find ourselves dealing with today is the issue of data. And this issue of making sure that people are accounted for. You know, my colleagues were still grappling with the numbers. And this was particularly true in this, you know, small class tats 1100 that were subject to the reunification. Starting with that and had an accounting on their own. We did our own accounting of this information. It is written in the report. But again not certain that there was any clearcut way to insure that their data was correlating with our data as we stouth reunify their children with their parents. You know, again for the stage two group, we did try to offer social services. And we did try to insure that they could have access to el information. We saw higher degree of participation in terms of , but not as much as we would like. In part because its some of the trauma and difficultys that the fayelies have been using. Reintegrate as a family unit to be able to find housing with familiar lip and friends. And as michelle talked about the great obstacles countering meaningful Legal Services to you. There were a couple of moment where is the existing framework of Legal Services really kind of shines through. Many of you may be familiar with the information help desk. It is a relatively new program thats been implemented. California was one of the largest destinations for the families that we saw. And we had a really hard time kind of insuring that we could get some sort of legal screening. I know youre right. Luckily the information helped out in los angeles was able to actually make contact with four or five families that had gone there and help them and helped to identify them. Im sure they were on the path of actually getting some assist stance. I wasnt say enough as we think about the importance of these programs that they are everything. We have to continue to maintain legal orientation, legal orientation for custodians. Welcome values to work to respond to the increased detention that were seeing. While that was a positive thing, i do i think were going to talk about this later. But the Data Collection issue still remains and its particularly it seems as if lessons had not been learned. You know, our report similar to womens an, kind refugee report suggests best practices. We are going to talk more about this. I think its vital to understand that while we as a community were able to come together and really capture National Consciousness and initiate a turnback. These issues are still occurring. And we do have to work harder, i think to press for basic access to the services and transparency and data as well as eliminating these sourt of separations that steam be so casually occurring every day. Thank you so much, ashley. I dont know if anyone else. But listening to all that park its hard not to get emotional. But i want to build on what hashly has shared. If you can walk us through some of the needs that the family have. I know youre organization and more specific now the projects that you have had been working hand in hand with these families and with various partners. Thank you so much, lindsay. And thanks so much for everyone for being here today. But more specifically to the jaish, committee, 3 that he has created over the years. Were grateful to him on many month fronts. Christie was saying its very hard to find populations in the United States. As opposed to guatemala. But it is. Clinic learned this firsthand with our work on the kara for bono project which is the family detention project that we had alongside with lindsey on that. The family detention project there mothers an children who were detained and still are in dealy, texas. When they were getting released by the tension they were going all over the country. We were noticing order that deportation when people dont show up to court, right . Those rights were skyrocketing. So we quickly figured out how to get in touch with the mother so we can figure out how to get them the information to be able to navigate the immigration process but give them information specifically on other things. How to avoid that order of removal . So we created a baseline secret group for the mothers. ,000 at is now over 3 mothers. We started it at the clinic. But this is the great organization. So they now have created ways of just making sure that the families know the information and how to reach them. Given that experience, we also created a Facebook Group for the formerly separated families. And we have i think, every day changes. But you have over 220 in that group that allows to understand what theyre facing. How can we respond . The National United family assistance project. So that in particular is that something we lead with again, asap im glad you heard from Stephen Manning yesterday. Have they tried to tie together. The piece that is so so important. So its a National Data base done in a confidential manner. We have partners across the street who when they found r find out theres been a family out there, hell put the information. And we know where they are. Do they have council. Do they not have council. And that allows us to focus on those families who do not have council, try to find them council. From that data base, we know for example, that there are 100 jewelries. So if youre interested in representing one of those cases please, let me know after the piiano. Is the families are fashion. There are legal needs. Transportation. Mental health needs. Of course, of course. Interpreter. And. The last monday is like protection from scams. From generally scanned because ill talk about that last. Bull given the hayesy manner which the wheel thing was done, right . Even our leg gauge is better connected to them. They work with their parnltses. And thats insane. Given the manner which is all weve done and the family reunited. We have parent who is dont have their complete immigration file. So as we were trying to place the case, we had no idea where in the process these parents are. Do you need another credible fear interview. What do we do next . So that was the first hurled. And we ended up buying a try to just find where they were in the process and once you figured that out. We also could see that they needed motions to change venue. What happened with the families, has happened with family detention in delhi and previously concerns. Those cases were in the their boarder. Not where they were going to their loved ones. So already theyre at a disadvantage because theyre going to have to do a motion to change menu in english. And they may need another attorney for that. If you were talking to the back ah hearing. Travel all the way back to where lots of trauma was going to be triggered again in addition to having to travel resources. So getting changes of venue was the first herlt in el paso. Where theyre doing an extra requirement in order to get the change of venue approved. So they didnt need attorneys at that point that we rece leased it. Well also looked to motions to reopen. Of course, some of the family had not gone to their hearing. They were confused. Maybe they had an ice checking. Also, happened a lot with the family situation. O theres a lot of weve been filing notion to open for those families. Enknow clinic is not due with some exceptions where direct Service Providers. Of nonproveraget across the country. But we will just do if its motions to ourselves. Weve engaged her for this. Its something that could be done remoteably. We did motions to reopen for a lot of times. We also have a report on. He opened success right. An so far so good with the familied that had been separated. But we are willing to take that on all the way to the court of appeals, if needed. The second one is transportation. Weve been lucky to find council in one one of the ways that we have found council for the families is thanks to ashley, the report that they issued in addition to the national reunited family data base, we learned that florida was the number one recipient state of these families. So we were able to place two ellows specifically devoted to these families, so its great, we had two fellow thrfments we found some really wonderful attorneys fully accredited. They couldnt get to court. So we had a partnership with livet. So that lift could help us get the family there is. O we would dismatch lyft to go and we tried to respond to the two ways of facebook. Thats an ongoing to need that basically with the families that were trying to someplace, trying get pro bono, Mental Health assessment. It really an ongoing to need. And if they dont get it its its, you know, i really worry about that especially for the children. But we see the trauma come through in so many ways and its really hard. The interpretation needs, these families have a lot of rare indigenous language needs that we have not had before. Thats an streaks cost that we had not prepared for with the funding with the two fellows in florida. So we need additional funding or Language Arts interpreters. If you know anyone please come see me afterwards, and then last bucket if you will. It says protection from scam. Its kind of a blanket turn because i see scams as wage an hour. So a lot of the families are having wage an hour issues so theyre not minnesota, alabama. Take note that we just had a big great. And mpst mississippi at the poultry plant there. Wage an hour, scam and then also just this past weekend, we heard of families and grandpas saying. If you dont give us this information youre in twrubble immigration. It was a total scam where i ended up calling and figuring out that it was a scam. But theres susceptible to so many scams and this happens to the first immigrant population that has gone through this but being able to get that on the facebook, saying if you gate call. Who says return our call. Thats not immigration. Do not call them let us know right away. Thats another way that, again, the Facebook Group has been really helpful as well. So i think that thats if you dont agree that that as enough, i will show you the rundown of the needs. And again, i forget to press this thing. We have so much experience on this pa them in and so much to share with you. We had her to talk about the issues of damages and litigation. For what they have been through. I would urge you if you have questions about that, come out an talk to the parents. After the break, so i think michelle and christie in particular have insight on that. We were also hoping to get through the family separation and how that intersects the. And my protection protocol i said press cushion because thats really what they say. They call them migrant persecution protocols. So if you we may get to that, we may not. I want to make sure i get to michael mint because we have been talking a lot about this families. Weve been talking a lot about data and in a sense that can be dehumanizing. So i really want to bring this back to michael to context lies this as a case study and help us understand some of the ver obvious but it merits further irexplanation some of the physical and Mental Health separation for these families, for these children . Sure, i would be happy to. Thank you all for having me here. Its not a pleasant topic. But im glad to have the opportunity to present when i net child that i that ill be talking about today, it was disturbing to hear what she went through. I was a shamed that im a citizen of a country that would do that to a person. So im a psychologist. And i had the opportunity in this case to provide a psychological evaluation for a child who had been brought to this country by her mother. And and separated from her mother upon crossing the border into the United States. And the goal of the evaluation to show in her home country were protecting her emotionally and the risks if she were to return to her own country. I think what was more shocking to me in this situation was well, first of all, this was one of the first children who i had met who had been separated from a parent. This was in 2000 i met her i think six or eighth months ago. I think the separation took place in 2018. And and upon having the experience ive had this season that i would see more and more of this. As anyone can imagine there is psychological impact especially when theres a forced separation and thats true for any child theyre at higher risk of depression, sonings. When we talk about ptsd post Traumatic Stress disorder, were talk about perceived there ises of physical wellbeing. Excuse me. Threats of death, threats of xual violence and physical violence. However, when we think about the Emotional Experience of being separated from ones primary caregiver particularly in the sitting of his own country. The fear that comes from immigrating. There nike mistake that are that it is an existential threat. She doesnt have a risk of being in the same way when were fraid to be physically harm. Is that many of these children are already more vulnerable than the average child at the time they brought to this country. A good way to think about considerable the aces study. It has been a really big deal. D basically what a. C. N. , quhoirn are exposed to one or more of these Adverse Childhood Experience are significant. Los angeles challenges. And whose details are in the study. Being a victim of emotional abuse, sexual abuse. Negotiate or living in extreme policy like being raised in a home where a caregiver abuses alcohol. A caregiver goes to prison. E homeowner witness violence in the home. So as you can image many of these children already have these have been exposed to these risk factors. And the child i call gaby was exposed to several of these and many of her specific experience has laid the groundwork for what became the se veers emotional stress that the child separation called her after crossing the border. So gaby was born in central america. And she lived with her parents for her first few yea of life. Her biological parents, timesheet Domestic Violence during that time, she witnessed mystic violence. Immediately prior to her parents separating, gabby was a victim of attempted Sexual Assault perpetrated by her father, and she actually recalled some memories associated with two experiences as a child of risk of Sexual Assault. After those experiences, her mother decided to separate from her father and for the following three years or so, they lived in relative peace. Her mother, gabby, and her mothers mother, so gabbys maternal grandmother. When gabby was eight or nine years old, her biological father contacted her mother and made attempts to reconcile, which her mother rebuffed. At that point, gabbys father began making threats threats to gabbys mother, but also threats specifically about gabby. Threats to kidnapper, to take her away. Notats that gabby would ever see her mother again, and although gabbys mother does not recall specifically telling her about these threats, gabby had a rough sense of them. She heard whispers about it or maybe hurt her mother and grandmother talking about it. Abby actually told me that she was under the impression that her biological father had said that he was going to come steal her. She was aware to some degree of the threats that her father was making. You can kind of anticipate where this is headed. Gabby, while living in her home country before the family decided to come to the United States, was already experiencing some here that she could be separated from her mother some fear that she could be separated from her mother. Her father who had attempted to assault her sexually, assaulted her mother, that her father would take her away from her mother and that she would not see her mother again. Or two instances right before the family decided to immigrate to the united and herhere gabby mother were leaving school and her father was there, so her father started stalking her. This was the first time she had seen her father and three or four years. She looked toward her mother. Her mother was fearful. They fled the scene and were able to get away and that is when gabbys mom decided to bring her to the United States. Fast forward to crossing the border, they are separated from one another. Gabbys description of it is that she was thrown in a cage with many other children. All the children were crying. All the children were separated from their parents. She was given a small blanket, which i think she even described as, like, a bag, and she remembers being cold. Afraid thats being she would not see her mother again, in part because a guard told her that her mother was probably going to get deported. So she developed a very wouldable fear that she never see her mother again or that her mother would not be in the same country, let alone the same facility. Over the course of the week that she was separated from her mother, gabby made a friend, and it was helpful for her to have a friend because they could keep each other warm, which is really very disturbing. She described the week and horrific terms, as you can imagine. After the week apart, she was reunited with her mother. They came to the washington, d. C. Area. They began living with extended family members. Gabby was obviously glad to be reunited with her mother. She experienced a pretty severe emotional decompensation following the reunion. Her mother described it as gabby kind of going crazy. She was tantruming like a baby by the time she was 9, 9 and a half, 10 years old. Sort of tantruming like a toddler. She had difficulty regulating her emotions. Described that gabby was having many symptoms of ptsd including intrusive memory symptoms. Frequent nightmares, having difficulty not thinking about what had happened. She had symptoms of depression. She seemed sad much of the time. She was extremely irritable. Severe behavioral challenges. Gabby also was not able to sleep on her own whereas she had been sleeping on her own for many years. She was nine years old, 10 years old. She and her mom started cosleeping again, and these symptoms persisted for about a month as gabby readjusted to being with her mother and trying to mend the damage to the relationship that the separation had caused. I saw gabby approximately one year later. By that time, both gabby and her mother explicitly described how she was doing pretty well. The tantrums had long faded. She was sleeping well. She had started school and was doing fairly well in school. Notxperience of gabby was that she was doing well. I had a lot of trouble i think kids this age have a sense of what it means to see a psychologist even if they do not quite cognitively know what that means. They know they will have to talk about their feelings. They know they will have to talk about traumatic experiences, and gabby presented as a child who had been through severe trauma. She was extremely withdrawn with me. It was really hard to develop much of a report or much comfort in our relationship. Avoided eye contact, spoke in a very quiet voice. Was able to get anything resembling a smile out of her. Im not saying that is what she is like in her daytoday life, but that is what she was like with me, and even though both she and mom said that she was doing well more generally speaking, there were other kind of signs that underneath the surface, there was still a lot going on in terms of response to trauma, so i did some projective testing, which is basically moreng designed to elicit in terms of potentially unconscious or underlying Emotional Distress. Showed them a picture of a child with a parent, and they are doing something, and gabbys job is to describe what is happening. I actually want to read the details about some of her responses because they were really striking. I showed her 10 cards, and my job is to get a sense of what i did scenes she is describing. She described a child as feeling sad or fearful in response to each card. Some of these cards are designed to elicit that, some are not, but on each card, she would use the word sad or scared, afraid. She describes people feeling angry on at least five occasions. She used words reflecting positive emotion on just one occasion. She also described children as fearful and seeking safety and protection. She described a girl who wanted to be protected because of what was happening. She described a story in which two children are hugging each other because something bad is happening that they dont want to see and they are protecting each other. She also describes a child who is afraid because of a nightmare. Also this is a quote afraid because of a nightmare and scared because of reality, afraid of what she will see, in shock. This is a quote. She also described an instance forcedh a woman is being to kiss a male, a male is forcing himself on another woman, and in general, described many girls specifically who are at risk of physical danger. As you can tell, her presentation during the responses onr projective testing, despite the fact that she is doing well and recovering, and quite frankly, given her experience, i think she is doing really well despite that, there is still a lot going on underneath. The trauma is still there. In addition to sort of detailing all this in report and presenting it to the lawyers so they can use it to hopefully help this family get they need get what they need from a legal perspective. My goal is to make sure mom understands that it is completely normal what gabby is going through, what she went through and described in terms of the period immediately after the separation, the fact that these things are that her behavior is improving, and yet, there are still these challenges. All that is completely normal, and preparing mom for the fact that even though she is doing well now, she is still at risk of longterm challenges. Anything that comes up that might trigger the underlying Emotional Distress that i want mom to be on the lookout for, including meeting with me, including meeting with lawyers, including what potential court dates might be coming up. Obviously, encouraging the ,amily to seek therapy for her which is a hard sell, given that gabby does not want to talk about these things. The last thing she wants to do is talk about these things. Like i said, was the who enduredi saw the parent child separation. Sad to say i think i have seen a few more since then, and i fear a few more will be coming my way. Thank you so much, michael. Michael is just painting the picture of that devastating of the devastating short and longterm consequences that a week in family separation had. And we know this is still happening. We have a couple questions from the audience. Another question here for the panel is can we give any examples of how families are still being separated . We know it is not technically through the zerotolerance thecy, but how does andining mexico mcp work how do these policies still exist today . That can be any of you. Going back to what i was alluding to at the beginning about the ongoing issues in the litigation, just kind of general stilt lack of standards, parent child separations are continuing to happen, and unfortunately from the ruling dhs canew weeks ago, when to separate basically when theres a parent criminal history issue. And that is like very easily deeply troubling to us. Because, you know, as we know, like, there are many different types of like criminal offenses that do not mean that someone that is someone would be unfit to be a parent or someone thats a danger to their child. Weve been keeping a close eye on that issue for about a year now, and we really saw last spring, we started to see like a very disturbing uptick again in separations. And we know now there have been over one thousand kids since the injunction in june of 2018. Most of those are due to criminal history. Some were due to communicable disease. We even have a case where a dad was separated from his daughter hiv positive. As the judge did ultimately find that separation to be unlawful. Thank goodness. But i think this demonstrates cdp oing impunity of cbp and the wide discretion that they have can make those separations at the border, and unfortunately because of the ruling from a few weeks ago from judge sabra, they are permitted to continue to do this when the parent has a criminal offense. And again it does not have to be a criminal offense that necessarily involves any consideration of danger to the child. I think were still were still kind of digesting that order, to be honest. I think were still trying to think about, you know, possible strategies for moving forward. There is one piece of good news that ill mention, that in the recent appropriations, the news in the recent appropriations package that went through, there forfunding appropriated Child Welfare professionals to be located a Border Patrol ,tations, which is great and you know, could be an enormous achievement. But dhs was supposed to days,ent that within 60 and how much is that going to actually happen . And, you know, but that could be a big step. That could certainly help. The other thing ill mention briefly and i just want to chime in too, but the interaction with mcc. Separations family separations that were seeing domestically are down in the last few months, but its really as a result of mcp. Families, instead of being separated, are being sent back to mexico. But were seeing what were calling the fourth iteration of family separation now, which is that some families that were mpp, different circumstances, sometimes were hearing from kids that their parents disappeared in mexico. And then the kids are presenting at the port of entry and being processed and placed in o. R. R. I think some families are making the difficult decision to do that intentionally because families dont feel that their kids are safe in mexico. Theyre being threatened or the kids are ill. So families are deciding to have kids present at the port of entry. At times now we have seen about 40 cases like this, where kids now in or our custody were previously subject to the mpp program. Theres also a slightly different take on that too, we are hears of some instances where Border Patrol has processed the family unit and had a question of parentage, meaning that they suspect that the parent is not the real parent or the biological parent or not the legitimate legal parent. And they have then placed the parent in mpp and processed the child under the cbpra so the child can go to the facility. I just heard a story a few days ago about a kid that told us up his birthed certificate and said we dont believe that this is true and sent his dad back to mexico and placed him in orr custody. I would just echo again we provide services for unaccompanied children. We are as our other uac service provider, children who were part of a family subject to mpp who are now designated as uac and in orr custody. Because we did a good job of explaining it. I want to go back to say, status issue, yet again this is not something thats in the uac portal. This is not something thats being tracked formally despite many alarm bells and regulations requiring that type of tracking. So what are we as Service Providers doing . We have implemented guidelines for our social workers to start to ask some of these questions. I know weve worked with other legal Service Providers and other uac Service Providers are doing this. But it is really important to understand that, you know, some of the Lessons Learned clearly have not been learned and its childrens wellbeing at stake here as we see this fourth iteration. It is an issue, we are seeing more children who are in this, know, wence, and, you are in a room full of lawyers, but i dont think anybody needs to think twice about some of the legal complications that come from this, let alone the social Service Needs for a child whos been subject to mpp and now is an unaccompanied child according to our system. One clarification question. And there are questions that you could do that we are not going to get to so i invite you to come up here. Ok. So one qualification question, one clarification question you mentioned that some parents are still separated based on criminal histories or criminal and the fact that there is illegal reentry. The short answer is yes, i think there is i think i have some confusion about the language of the judges order on that point. Does, too. Aclu i dont think it is totally clear. But yes, he basically did state that illegal reentry, you know, is basically the same as a criminal felony offense, and therefore could be an exemption from the class. But i think his expectation is that those parents after theyre processed for illegal reentry should have the right to be reunified with their child, but they can be still separated for the interim period. And a lot interim period. And a lot still seems to need to be worked out. This question is for michael. How can the Mental Health care providers or agencies partner with local Public School systems to identify cases of students enrolled and find Mental Health support for them and their families . If you have any ideas of how people can get involved or connect to the School System. Its a great question. Im glad to hear the School System brought into it, because honestly thats where a lot of kids are being identified and where theyre spending their time, right . But also identified, and lots of kids are receiving services there. I think that theres a big push in primary care, and i think dr. Neuman might be able to say more about this. To try to quantify aces, try to screen for aces, and i think the primary care setting is probably more appropriate because a School Setting may not be the right place to ask about these things, which is hard because the goal is we want Guidance Counselors and School Psychologists to pick up on these things too. Unfortunately, they tend to get tied in when kids are starting to show behavioral problems, as as we know when kids are depressed, they often dont look depressed in the way adults do. They tend to act out and cause engage in what we call externalizing behaviors. So oftentimes the psychologists and counselors get involved when children start to act out. I dont think i have any Silver Bullet answer for how to help. Is it a question specifically in terms of it was about engaging with the schools. But i think for anyone out there interested in engaging, find lawyers in the room, we have ideas on how we can help these families, i like what michael has done by providing psychological evaluations, by connecting with them for ongoing services. I think as lawyers, the goal is one, normalizing it, helping families understand that these are traumatic experiences, and as a result even if its not something that technically qualifies for ptsd, these traumarelated symptoms, which we could describe as intrusive symptoms, intrusive thoughts and nightmares, avoided symptoms, avoiding memories or things that remind you of the trauma, symptoms in terms of negative alterations in cognition or moods, not enjoying aspects of life, inability to experience , and in thetions final category is arousing symptoms sleep disturbance, concentration issues, irritability, helping parents understand, one, that its normal. Its normal for parents to have these experiences, its normal for children. Just because theyre safe that doesnt mean these symptoms arent going to persist. With gaby, i hope i hammered that point home. And, you know, in this world of helping the family connect to a place where the child is at least being monitored from a psychological or emotional perspective. So a primary care center, like marys home in d. C. , where they have access to Mental Health services that are tied into the primary care services, i think those are always good steps that as lawyers you all can do to make sure the family is aware and they understand that its normal and that the family has some type of support to monitor for psychological distress or Mental Health challenges that might come up. Thank you so much, michael. We are heading into a break. There were Great Questions from you all. I will share the topics in case anyone else wants to come up, there were questions around the privacy around the Facebook Group for relief families and separated families and there are questions around the technicalities, what if the kid ages out, was under 18 when they came into the u. S. , a question about children who have died in u. S. Custody, and another about families being terrified of terrified to receive services and thinking about, how do we get through that and enable families to get the services for which they may be eligible . I hope you will join me on thanking our panelists for the work they have done. [applause] thank you for sharing your experiences with us today. We have a break. I think you have until 11 25 for the next panel. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] sunday not on q a, a look at american president s through the lens of books they have written. The story has often been you saw it in that piercing quote that kennedys was the one pulling the strings behind the kennedys father was the one pulling the strings behind the scenes. But that is not true. Rathere that he would have a Pulitzer Prize then be president. Even though he did not really do literary work, he got himself the prize. In new york city, in washington, d. C. , people have gossiping, i wonder who really wrote that book, i wonder how much money they are getting out of those royalty checks, but the pulitzer change the equation. I think it made it a moral and ethical question, and readers realize this, too. When i was at the kennedy president ial library, i looked at the letters kennedy was receiving and librarians were sending him letters, schoolteachers sending him letters, did you really ride this book did you really won did you really dove right this book did you really write this book . Cspan, your unfiltered view of government, created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. N journal continues. Host joining us from new york city is coalition co. President and ceo, carol jenkins, joining us to talk with us about the e. R. A. And efforts to revive the e. R. A. And past the e. R. A. Carol jenkins,