Childhood Statelessness i European Courts: An Avoidable Crisis 6. 27 Recommendations Conclusions drawn from this research invite two recommendations: (1) litigator-generated safeguards, and (2) targeted lobbying for legislative change. “Statelessness is what makes these children unique.”184 The approach to representation then should educate the court about the special nature of what each child faces if deprived of nationality, while ensuring the child is heard and protected. This approach can be successful if litigators command the protection necessary for their clients and the international treaties intended to protect a child’s rights are domesticated and respected. 6.1 Litigator-Generated Safeguards The literature and this research underscore the importance of each child receiving separate representation both legally and emotionally while navigating a court system. Dependent upon the jurisdiction, this might mean an attorney capable of providing both, or a dedicated attorney and a separate guardian. It would be unfortunately unrealistic to recommend all jurisdictions establish guardianship in immigration/asylum-related cases. Certain jurisdictions may never be motivated to do so for political reasons and others may not be able to afford to do so – “guardianship is expensive.”185 What appears more reasonable is to recommend litigators take on the safeguarding role despite the lack of domestic law. Litigator-generated safeguards could take on several forms: a commitment to only represent one child and avoid conflict of interest with parents and others; to ensure the child has a guardian trained in issues of statelessness; to ensure pleadings advocate for the specific best interests of the child despite a parent’s facts entwined with a child’s case, or; to partner with an expert or NGO on statelessness issues. However, many litigators in child rights cases are volunteer attorneys, court appointed, or working within an organization overwhelmed with workload. Many do not have the luxury to engage with only one client for certain cases in which perhaps they deal with entire families or classes of children. Further, many stateless families and children do not know their rights, or do not feel free to make litigation requests. “I can count on one hand the firms who can put in the time” to give the necessary attention to child rights cases.186 One area of safeguarding precedent that could be better established would be an official fight for equal treatment of children across courts. If allowed under a court’s procedural rules, litigators could petition the court for a guardian and cite to the benefits bestowed by the analogous family court in the same jurisdiction. If denied, litigators may argue discrimination as an additional violation against their minor clients under the state’s law or multiple international agreements. Litigators may cite to family law cases within their jurisdiction in their pleadings on issues of best interests and the right to be heard, with hope the court or tribunal adopts the more protective practice and procedures. Litigators within the given immigration framework could demand their minor clients receive the same safeguards as those provided in family courts. This paper does not intend to create best practices. In fact, such standards already are encompassed within the CRC and set forth by the CRC Committee. CRC Articles 2 (no discrimination), 3 (best interests), 6 (right to development), and 12 (right to be heard) are the “main ethical guidelines that you have to respect always when you are working with children in whatever position.”187 There are additional best practices and ethical standards pertaining to child rights litigation not only available but obligatory in several jurisdictions.188 This recommendation instead is to invoke a consciousness and creativity to representation that will benefit child litigants and may better the chances of a successful outcome, or at least a stronger record upon which one may appeal. 184 Executive A (n 70). 185 Barrister (n 70). 186 ibid. 187 CRC Chair (n 73). 188 Executive A (n 70).