What protocols do DHS and ICE cite for handling minors encountered during adult-targeted arrests?
Executive summary
DHS and ICE point to internal guidance and detention standards that instruct officers to prioritize child safety during enforcement actions, offer parents choices about remaining with their children or designating a caregiver, and to transfer unaccompanied children to Health and Human Services when applicable [1][2][3]. Independent reporting and oversight documents show operational handbooks and revised detention standards that create exceptions and specific procedures for minors, but critics and federal investigations have documented gaps in tracking, reunification, and facility conditions [4][5][6].
1. What agencies say: prioritize child safety and “keep families together”
DHS spokespeople and ICE officials have repeatedly said arrests targeted adults, that officers are instructed to prioritize child safety, and that parents are offered the option to remain with children or designate a safe caregiver so families may be kept together through immigration processing rather than separated [1][7][2].
2. Operational guidance: ICE’s handbook and juvenile coordinators
ICE’s Juvenile and Family Residential Management Unit produced an operational guide for Field Office Juvenile Coordinators to process, transport, manage and remove minors encountered by DHS, signaling an internal, specialist framework for interactions involving children rather than ad hoc field decisions [4].
3. Formal custody, transfer, and TVPRA obligations
In cases where children are unaccompanied, ICE and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) coordinate under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) to transfer unaccompanied alien children to HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, a statutory requirement ICE cites when minors lack a lawful caregiver [3].
4. Detention standards and explicit exceptions for minors
The National Detention Standards revised in 2025 include explicit language making exceptions for minors and pregnant women, and provide special provisions for transporting minors and opposite‑sex transport situations, reflecting specific operational rules intended to mitigate harm to children in custody or transit [5].
5. How choices play out in practice: removal-with-children versus placement
DHS statements assert that parents are asked whether they wish to be removed with their children or whether ICE should place children with a safe person designated by the parent — a practice DHS frames as consistent with past administrations’ enforcement patterns [2][1]. ICE publicly emphasizes case‑by‑case consideration of humanitarian factors, including primary caregiver status, when deciding custody and detention outcomes [3].
6. Gaps: tracking, reunification, and facility conditions flagged by reporting and oversight
Federal investigations and reporting note persistent problems: DHS historically struggled to track detained children and to reunite them with families, and advocates have raised concerns about health declines and access at family detention facilities such as Dilley — critiques that complicate official assurances about safety and reunification processes [6][8].
7. The Minneapolis incidents as a stress test for the protocol
Recent high‑profile arrests in Minnesota illustrate the tension between policy and practice: DHS officials defended the operations as adult‑targeted and said officers remained with a child for safety while arresting a parent, while school officials, advocates, and local reporting described multiple student detentions and questioned whether protocols were followed or adequate oversight existed [7][9][10][11].
8. Legal limits and congressional scrutiny over arrest locations
Congressional correspondence and oversight materials emphasize constraints on arrests in third‑party residences — noting that ICE “must not effectuate an arrest in a third‑party residence without consent, exigency, or a judicial warrant” — underscoring legal limits that intersect with child‑related operational choices and have prompted scrutiny of recent enforcement guidance [12].
Conclusion
Official DHS and ICE protocols, as described in agency statements, ICE handbooks, the TVPRA framework, and the 2025 detention standards, create a written preference to protect minors, allow parental choice to remain with children, and require special handling or transfer when children are unaccompanied; however, reporting and prior federal findings highlight recurrent implementation problems — tracking, reunification, and facility conditions — that mean declared protocols do not automatically guarantee child welfare in every enforcement action [4][3][5][6][8].