Recommendations for systemic reform

Recommendation 1: The BC government should work with Indigenous communities to undertake a comprehensive and transparent assessment of the steps that need to be taken to address the disparities in the social determinants of health for Indigenous peoples in BC.

Recommendations for systemic reform

Recommendation 2: The BC government should undertake a review of the current breakdown in ministerial responsibilities over primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention supports to assess where responsibilities lie for prevention services. It should then amend legislation and mandates, and reallocate funding to fill the current gaps in service provision.

Title:AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATION IN BC

Subtitle:THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD PRINCIPLE AND THE LEGISLATIVE EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S SAFETY

Recommendation 3: the Alberta Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (CYFEA), provides that the best interests of the child assessment requires decision makers to provide children who have been exposed to family violence any intervention service that “supports family members and prevents the need to remove the child from the custody of an abused family member.” This is a key framing of some of the programming needed to address family violence in the case of the child welfare system and is the approach that many Indigenous community-based family service organizations electively employ to keep families together. We recommend that similar language is included in the defnition of the best interests of the child principle that directs decision-makers to turn their mind to prevention-based supports in assessing the right of the child to be protected from harm.

Recommendations for systemic reform

Recommendation 3: The BC Human Rights Commission should undertake a review/inquiry into MCFD culture, training, policies, procedures, practices, and accountability mechanisms to assess whether MCFD policy and practice is in line with the Human Rights Code.

A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND A SOCIAL WORKER’S OBLIGATION TO IDENTIFY LESS DISRUPTIVE MEASURES

Recommendation 4: These examples indicate a need for there to be an explicit legal obligation on the Ministry to actively consider placing the child with extended family members or returning the child to the parent. The federal standard, as set out in Bill C-92, requires that a reassessment of available alternative placements is “conducted on an ongoing basis.”

Recommendations for legislative reform

Recommendation 4: MCFD should undertake a comprehensive legislative review of the CFCSA in order to bring the provincial child welfare standards in line with the federal minimum standards. It is essential that Indigenous communities and Nations are adequately consulted in the review process.

A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND A SOCIAL WORKER’S OBLIGATION TO IDENTIFY LESS DISRUPTIVE MEASURES

Recommendation 5: Recommends that Canadian legislation mimic the language of the US Indian Child Welfare Act, which requires evidence that social workers have made “active efforts” that “proved unsuccessful.

Recommendations for legislative reform

Recommendation 5: MCFD should amend the guiding principles of the CFCSA to ensure that children’s rights are not viewed as hierarchical but interdependent. The guiding principles should reflect the holistic nature of children’s rights including the right of the child to maintain relationships with their family and community, the child’s right to support services, and the importance of maintaining the child’s relationship to their culture.

Recommendations for legislative reform

Recommendation 6: MCFD should amend the best interests of the child principle set out in the CFCSA to ensure that decision-makers turn their mind to the entirety of children’s right. The best interests of the child principle should at minimum direct decision-makers to:

1. consider the trauma caused by apprehension;
2. weigh the risks to the child’s well-being if the child remains or is returned with the family against the risks to the child’s well-being that is caused by the removal and placement of the child in care;
   1. assessment of the risks to the child if the child remains or is returned to the family must be done with due consideration of all the supports and services that can be provided to the family; and,
3. consider the impact of family violence on the child and provide all the necessary services to the family in a manner that supports family members and prevents the need to remove the child from the custody of an abused family member.

A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND A SOCIAL WORKER’S OBLIGATION TO IDENTIFY LESS DISRUPTIVE MEASURES

Recommendation 6: There should also be a requirement that the Ministry respond to alternative proposals by parents, Nations, and community-based organizations that support the parent. The Yellowhead Institute recommends that the legislation include “affidavit evidence from the Indigenous group that there is no available placement.