Transcript OACAS CONFERENCE

OCCAS CONFERENCE
September 25 & 26, 2003
ALTERNATIVES TO COURT:
CUSTOMARY CARE
PRESENTERS:
Karen Hill
&
Andy Koster
FIRST NATIONS CHILD WELFARE:
EARLY HISTORY
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS
•
•
•
•
•
BNA made First Nations people ‘wards’
of the federal government
Therefore Native children became ‘eligible’ to
attend federally funded schools, and the Indian
Act was modified to make school attendance
compulsory
For almost a full century Aboriginal children
were systemically removed from their
communities.
The primary focus of these schools was
religious indoctrination, not education
The last residential school closed in 1984
The 60’s Scoop
•
The Canada Assistance Plan (1966)resolved issues of
jurisdiction, by delegating Provincial authority on Indian
reserves.
•
Prior to this 1% of children in care were First Nation
•
By 1977, 20% of all children in care across Canada, were
of First Nation origin – this rose to as high as 65% in
some jurisdictions
•
Few children were placed in Native care, and we are left
to heal the trauma experienced by many Aboriginal
children.
•
Our children were placed in unmonitored foster or
adoptive situations with non-Native care providers, who
at best failed to meet the cultural need of these children,
and at worst abused and neglect them.
FIRST NATION RESPONSE
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 1969 White Paper policy was perceived by many
Native people to be the articulation of a prolonged,
systemic assault on culture and aspirations of the
Aboriginal community.
From the Native perspective – it called for cultural
genocide, and they rejected this goal absolutely.
First Nation people organized politically and begin to
lobby for protection of their cultures and their
communities.
First and foremost, was the protection of our children.
In Ontario, the Aboriginal community lobbied for the
protection and safeguards against the loss of their
children to child welfare authorities.
Through these efforts, we saw the inclusion of Part X to
the CFSA.
CFSA – PART X
The underlying principal of this
part was to provide a mechanism
whereby First Nations communities
in Ontario could have a voice and
role in deciding the futures of their
children.
CFSA PART X: KEY PROVISIONS
Ensuring First Nations communities had the
right to legal representation in child welfare
legal proceedings
• Directing that where possible Native children
be placed in Native homes.
• Establishing Aboriginal representation on CAS
boards of directors.
• First Nations communities be given the
authority to build capacity to develop their own
child welfare service
• Recognized the principal of Customary Care
•
Why Customary Care?
Customary Care vs. Formal Care
•
F.N. ‘ownership’ of issues
related to their children
and families

Provides formalized,
predictable process of
child care.
•
Families remain vested
and involved in the lives
of children.

Children can move to
permanency more readily.
•
Involves the broader First
Nation community in
planning.
•
Planning is more efficient
as it usually involves only
the internal resources of
an agency.
Customary Care vs. Formal Care
•
Children remain integral
parts of their families and
communities.
•
Increases placement
options.
•
Enhances the relationship
between First Nations and
the broader child welfare
community
•
Supports the long term
needs of Aboriginal children
•
Children remain in
dysfunctional situations and
remain at risk.
•
Culturally appropriate
placement are at a premium
•
Contributes to the mistrust
and tension that exist
between many child welfare
agencies and the Native
communities they serve.
•
One of the key contributors
to dysfunction within
Aboriginal communities
Broader Rationale
•
Provided for in Part X of CFSA
•
Panel of Experts recommended that changes to
CFSA be deferred to recommendations of
Aboriginal child welfare review
•
The Aboriginal Child Welfare Review
resoundingly supported the inclusion of a
Customary Care option for those Native
children needing out of home placement
•
Avoids the duplication of the systemic removal
of large numbers of Aboriginal children
WORKING WITH THE
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY
WHO’S … WHO??
BAND REPRESENTATATIVE
•
Mechanism within Part X, which entitles Bands to
representation in legal proceedings.
•
Limited funding available through DIAND, most recently
suspended, pending outcome of a review.
•
Most First Nation communities do not have a dedicated
position/person, so knowledge and experiential levels
vary.
•
Some training is available through ANC&FS.
•
Few administrative supports available to support a legal
a response.
Chief & Council
•
Elected representatives of First Nations communities.
•
Can issue a BCR designating a representative to legal
proceedings.
•
May intercede/advocate on behalf of parents (Band
members)
•
Have authority to declare a placement a Customary Care
placement
•
Can sometimes view child welfare situations as political.
Band Service Providers
•
Can assist in supporting caregivers in effecting
necessary change.
•
Can mediate concerns between CAS and
parents
•
Can advocate on behalf of parents
•
Are accountable to Band Councils
•
Can provide information around
resources/strategies in meeting needs of
children and families.
Extended Family
•
Can provide support to family member(s)
involved with child welfare.
Note: This support can be a positive or negative influence
•
Can provide placement options for Customary
Care
•
Should continue to play an integral role in
child’s life, regardless of outcome with primary
caregivers.
Elders/Spiritual Leaders
•
Provide support to caregiver(s) in effecting
necessary change.
•
Provide advice to service providers – including
child welfare authorities in how to proceed.
•
There is presently a vacuum with regard to
Elders, so legitimacy can be of issue in some
cases.
Factors in Working with First Nations
Communities
•
May encounter ambivalence around
around leadership
•
Politicians may be involved in service issues, due
to history of child welfare
•
Band Service Providers may have a
issues of ownership related to clients, due to
exclusion of them in decision making of CAS’s
Factors in Working with First Nations
Communities
•
Significant extended family involvement.
•
Caregivers may have legal involvement beyond child
welfare matters.
•
The resource issue is a key factor in terms of planning
for both treatment and access provisions for caregivers.
•
There is a high degree of diversity within the Aboriginal
community, both between communities, and in terms of
individual orientation and identification with Native
culture.
Customary Care: What are Key
Component?
Customary Care Components
•
All parties need to be in agreement
•
Need to conduct an assessment of proposed placement,
to ensure safety of child, as well as capacity of proposed
caregivers to meet child’s needs.
•
Need to explore the dynamics and history of extended
family relationships.
•
Need to ensure proposed family is fully briefed and
prepared to deal with child behaviours
Customary Care Components
•
Need to extend a high level of support, as well as
mediation to Customary Care placement, this could
involve formal counselling and support services.
•
Need to commit to regular monitoring of child in
placement, to facilitate identification and resolution of
problems as they arise.
•
Need open communication among all parties around
monitoring and ensuring compliance around terms and
conditions of placement.
•
Need to build in regular review of agreement, and be
prepared to amend as necessary.
The End