The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

J. Sims (Chair): Nice to see everybody.

Over to our guests to make the presentation.

Consideration of Representative
for Children and Youth Reports

Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging

J. Charlesworth: Lovely. Good morning, all of you.

I’m very pleased to, once again, be able to come before this committee. It really is truly a pleasure. I’ve appreciated the opportunities to begin to get to know some of you and hear some of the things that you’re wanting to bring to life in your responsibility with this committee.

I’d like to bring myself into this circle by acknowledging, in a good way, the lands that I am on. I’m on the traditional and unceded territories of the W̱SÁNEĆ people. I’m very grateful to the keepers of these lands.

[11:05 a.m.]

Also hoping that the heat breaks soon, because I’m quite concerned about the four-leggeds and the wingeds and the humans as well — the two-leggeds — at this time. I hope that, wherever you are, you are safe and cool as best you can.

I’d also like to acknowledge that I’m supported today by deputy representatives Samantha Cocker and Alan Markwart as well as Executive Director of Communications Jeff Rud. There are two other members of our team, and they will introduce themselves shortly, as we begin to talk about the report.

The primary purpose of our time together today is to talk about Skye, because one of the things that I find really helpful is to situate our work with an understanding of who we’re talking about. So this report, Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging, is centred around Skye but also understanding that Skye has connected, historically, her mom, her grandmother, the generations before, the ancestors and the people in her community.

I just want to share a little bit about Skye. As a young child, she was cheeky and mischievous, with a great sense of humour and an infectious laugh. She had a zest for life. She was a child who bubbled with energy. You can actually see it in the photographs. She was a young person who needed to be busy, and she was able to channel her energy through activities such as rock climbing, swimming and horseback riding when these were made available to her. She loved being in nature, particularly going fishing and riding horses. In fact, fishing was described as her Zen.

She had a really deep connection with animals. She was intelligent and inquisitive. She would always state her opinions and was never afraid to let people know how she felt. In her own words, she was a wise person, an owl, and the kind of person who was assertive and who would “stand up for her friends.” She wanted to work with children herself in the future and, in fact, contemplated being a pediatrician or a counsellor. One of the people who we spoke with said that she would have made an extraordinary child and youth care worker or social worker, given her depth of empathy and understanding.

Skye needs to be understood, too, in the context of her family. So her mum was described as a talented artist. In fact, her work appears at the front and the back of our report. She created beautiful quilts, paintings, beadwork and medicine bags. She was described by people who knew her well as a smart and articulate woman with an awesome sense of humour. She was generous, and she had many friends who loved her.

It was evident through our work that Skye’s mum wanted the best for her daughter, and in fact, there were many times where she recognized that, in her own journey of healing, she wasn’t able to provide the best for Skye, so she would approach the ministry and ask for some help, and some voluntary arrangements were made for a period of time. In fact, what really shone through as we took on this work was how much Skye and her mother loved each other.

I’ll stop sharing there and move into talking about our report and what we did and what we discovered. It was important for our office to tell Skye’s story in a good way — in a way that brought her to life and helped us really, deeply understand this story that needed to be told in order for the learning to happen.

Before we get into the details, I’d like to ask two of our staff who were involved in this report to introduce themselves to you. Joining us today are one of the Indigenous staff members who played a lead role in this project, Caitlin Alder, as well as RCY’s acting executive director of reviews and investigations, April Fox.

April and Caitlin, would you mind…?

Actually, let’s start with you, Caitlin. Would you mind introducing yourself to the committee?

[11:10 a.m.]

C. Alder: Aanii. Good morning, everyone. My name is Caitlin Alder, and I’m Anishinabe from the Naotkamegwanning First Nation [audio interrupted] territory.

I’m really grateful to be joining today from the traditional territories of the Esquimalt, Songhees and W̱SÁ­NEĆ peoples.

I joined RCY a year ago and worked on the Skye investigation for the greater period, for probably about ten months. Coming into this investigation, I have historical experience, working with the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls as well as working front-line child protection as a social worker, working with youth who had very reflective stories out of Skye.

I was really privileged and honoured to have helped carry her story out into the world, and I really wanted to share with the utmost integrity that her story I was told [audio interrupted] really capturing her spirit and capturing more about who she was rather than simply what happened to her. I feel like that work couldn’t have been done without our other staff member, who, unfortunately, isn’t here today — Jody Bauche — who is Métis. She brought forward Skye’s story and really, really carried it through for the last two years. I just really want to acknowledge her and the work that she’s done.

Honoured to be here with you today and looking forward to the rest of the presentation. Miigwech.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you, Caitlin.

Over to you, April.

A. Fox: Good morning, everyone. My name is April Fox.

I’m phoning in from the traditional, unceded territories of the Lheidli T’enneh Nation, also known as Prince George.

As Jennifer mentioned, I’m currently the acting executive director for reviews and investigations and have, for the last few months, been supporting the team to basically get the report out of the door and into the world. It’s been a great privilege to support the team to do that.

I have a long history with RCY. I’ve been here for coming up to 13 years within the advocacy program area. I’m just really happy to be here with everyone today.

Thank you.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you, April and Caitlin.

Caitlin has mentioned Jody Bauche, who is also a key member of the team. I also want to speak into the circle Monique Auger, who led the project in the early stages and actually was the one who got us on a path of thinking about Indigenous research methodologies and the ap­proaches there.

There were many others involved. Carly, whom you know. She’s presented here before. She’s over at the office — our sister organization, the Human Rights Commission, in which she also is very involved. So lots of people that bring these important stories forward.

None of us knew Skye or her mother personally, but through the eyes of the people who cared about them, we learned a lot during this investigation. Through the process, we also grew to care about them. I just want to tell you a little bit about our approach, because it’s important to understand the investigation, the ways in which we bring investigations forward, and with this committee, this is the first investigation that we’ve brought forward to you.

Any investigation that we do, the story is an exemplar, if you will, of stories of many, many children. When we take a look at these things, we think this is a story that’s important to tell, because it’s going to lead to understanding and improvements in the system for many children.

The other thing that’s important about this particular story is that the investigation team that researched and presented Skye’s story was led by Indigenous RCY staff members. We’re very fortunate to have…. Almost 20 percent of our staff are Indigenous, and we need to do even more and better in that regard. The research methodology used by the team has been significantly influenced by an Indigenous world view, in which it’s understood that there are multiple stories, perspectives and truths that are relevant to any situation being considered.

These diverse stories and perspectives contribute to a more fulsome and holistic understanding of the child, and particularly, in this case, of Skye and her family and the people connected to her, and the situations and challenges that they faced. As you well know, an Indigenous world view is not linear. It’s circular. It understands everything is connected. Thus, that helps us make sense of the very complex situations.

Let’s talk for a moment about the context. We released this report on June 10, during a period of significant trau­ma and grief for Indigenous peoples in B.C. and Canada. And it’s continuing today.

[11:15 a.m.]

The release came less than two weeks after the discovery of the 215 lost children by the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Band on the former site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School. We debated about whether it was appropriate to bring this report out, particularly at that time, wondering if we would cause harm, whether it was just too much pain.

Of course, we did what we do, which was that we went to the leadership, First Nations leadership. We went to the Chief of Skye’s nation. After consulting with the leadership, and with the blessing and participation of Chief Wanda Pascal from Skye’s Teetl’it Gwich’in Band, we decided that it was important to move ahead with it. In fact, Skye’s story lifts up and reinforces all that has been coming to light since that discovery and the more recent discovery of 751 children in Saskatchewan.

As all of the elders, matriarchs, leaders, survivors and family members have told us, the impact of settler colonialism and assimilation and elimination practices, such as the residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the millennial scoop, continues to affect the well-being of Indigenous children, youth and families. As I mentioned, I chose to investigate Skye’s story back then because it reflects the story of many First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous children and youth my staff and I see in our day-to-day work, in our advocacy, in our reviews and investigations. We had no idea how prescient this would be.

I want to acknowledge that much has changed in the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s practice, policy and legislation over the last 20 years since Skye was born, and there are many positive changes underway. We speak to that within the report. However, we continue to be aware of and involved in many situations similar to Skye’s, where a young person experiences a lack of connection and belonging to people, to place, to culture and to a sense of themselves — a positive sense of themselves — and, as a consequence, experiences much pain, sadness, distress, risk and, of course, poor life outcomes.

We continue to see situations in which children are disconnected from their families and communities of origin due to what’s often perceived or presented as a problem with the parents and family members rather than the system understanding the vulnerabilities in the context of historical and contemporary trauma, racism, stigma, shame, poverty, and a lack of timely, accessible and culturally attuned opportunities to heal.

I’m going make a link here to the residential schools. On the surface, the heart-wrenching discoveries in Kamloops and Saskatchewan and the tragic death of Skye on her 17th birthday might seem unrelated. But in fact, as we know, they’re different chapters of the same continuing saga: the story of colonialism and the devasting damage it has done and continues to do to First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous children and families and communities across Canada.

The children found in Kamloops and Saskatchewan were separated from their parents, siblings, extended families, territories and cultures. It was a result of the residential school system that ripped them from their homes and incarcerated them in abusive and dangerous facilities. Skye wasn’t born until 2000, a few years after the last residential school closed its doors, but she too was removed from her mom, her sister, extended family and culture as she became part of what many have described as the modern-day residential school: the child welfare system.

Turning to Skye and their life challenges, both Skye and her mom faced tremendous challenges in their lives. Skye’s mom was removed from her family home as an infant and adopted to a non-Indigenous family during the period known as the Sixties Scoop. Skye herself was removed from her mother’s care when she was five years old and never saw her again, despite expressing many times that she wished to have a connection.

During her time in care, she endured three failed adoption plans, lived in eight different foster homes, moved 15 times and attended eight different schools. Both Skye and her mother experienced abuse during their childhoods. Both experienced mental health and substance use challenges.

Both could have had better lives. They might have had a lasting relationship with one another, and they might have had different fates, had they been better supported to deal with their past traumas. It’s important to note that there were many people who cared about Skye. She was much loved, and some worked very hard to support her.

[11:20 a.m.]

However, the overall response of the child-serving system led to what Dr. Martin Brokenleg calls unbelonging. He also goes on to say: “Every human needs deep connections and to feel a sense of belonging.” The way the system responded to Skye and her mother fractured that sense.

Our report explored the five dimensions of belonging important to all children. Sometimes they’re known as dimensions of permanency, but we decided to frame it in a different kind of language and talk about belonging, which resonated for the Indigenous advisers that we spoke to.

It’s important to all children to belong, but it’s particularly important that we bring care and attention to that of a child who’s in care: relational belonging, belonging to a sense of people and having meaningful connections; cultural belonging; physical belonging, to have a sense of place and connection to the land or to the schools and the places of importance — like for Skye, nature; identity and belonging; and, of course, legal belonging, sometimes focused on adoption.

Our main finding is that the focus by MCFD on legal belonging or adoption came at the expense of all the other forms of belonging and permanency for Skye. That focus — which, by the way, we acknowledge in the report — was fuelled to a certain extent by our work in the office that privileged adoption for a period of time, but nonetheless, we obviously continued to learn, all of us. That focus resulted in three failed adoption plans for Skye before she was 12. These took a heavy emotional toll on her and resulted, actually, in the heartbreaking severing of the continuing relationship between Skye and her older sister.

Potential placements for Skye with extended family were not fully explored, and a nurturing placement with an Indigenous foster family was inexplicably severed, as was the relationship with a longtime and trusted counsellor. Skye’s life was chaotic, with multiple moves between placements in communities, and she wasn’t provided opportunities to connect with her extended family or her Dené culture in any meaningful way.

One of the things she wanted to do was to go to her home territory near Fort McPherson in the Northwest Territories. In fact, she did a lot of her own independent research, and she clearly expressed a desire to visit her territory and connect to her culture, and neither were meaningfully supported.

The cumulative result of all of this was that Skye wasn’t able to realize the true sense of belonging that all humans need and seek. She seemed to be constantly searching for a sense of her own identity — who she was and how she mattered — and she was looking for those meaningful connections throughout her short life. Sadly, however, it ended with a tragic overdose death in August of 2017, on her 17th birthday.

It’s important to note that this report was not about blaming individual social workers for what happened to Skye. There’s no one person, decision or event that caused the poor life outcomes for Skye and her mom. Instead, it was the cumulative impact, driven by misplaced priorities in the system and ingrained attitudes towards parents who use substances.

Skye was clear about what was important to her, but her voice was often not heard. Skye’s mother desperately wanted to be a part of her daughter’s life but wasn’t properly supported for that to actually happen. Many people cared about Skye over the years, and there was some exceptional practice by individual workers, particularly by workers towards the end of Skye’s life. But overall, tragically, it wasn’t enough.

So what has to change? As I said earlier, much has al­ready changed in MCFD practice, policy and legislation in the past 20 years, and there are many positive changes currently underway, including the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families.

However, we can have the best policies, practices and infrastructure, but colonialism still reaches into families through the intergenerational and historical trauma — that too often goes unrecognized or ignored and, therefore, unsupported — and through the structural bias and systemic racism that’s built into, that’s hard-wired into, our systems. These negatively affect the services provided and, by extension, the outcomes for children and youth, parents and grandparents.

Colonialism’s influence on the child welfare system is particularly evident when you consider that more than two-thirds of the children currently in government care in B.C. are Indigenous, despite the fact that Indigenous people comprise less than 10 percent of the child and youth population. According to MCFD’s most recent service plan, an Indigenous child is nearly 18 times more likely to be removed from their parents than a non-Indigenous child. For many of those children, we continue to hear stories about experiences of disconnection from belonging.

[11:25 a.m.]

There’s a promise of positive change ahead with the federal legislation enabling Indigenous nations and communities to re-assume jurisdiction over their child welfare, but this process is not happening overnight. While this transformation unfolds, it’s important for MCFD and Delegated Aboriginal Agencies to take steps to ensure Indigenous children currently in its care or who come into care can achieve the sense of belonging that they need and deserve.

In the report, I made three recommendations to address the immediate actions required. First, I recommended that MCFD conduct a systemic needs analysis of cultural and family support resources required to ensure that workers are better supported to promote a sense of belonging and identity for First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous children and youth in care. I recommended that this process include a substantive investment of new resources by April 2022, in the next fiscal, and that that be considered a down payment of sorts on the resources identified in the longer-term plan.

Why that was important is that one of the things we noted — and, in fact, have affirming evidence through our care plan review that I’ll speak about a little bit later — is that oftentimes social workers and guardianship workers don’t have the resources that they need or the expertise that they can access to enable them to better understand what the family supports are, what the extended family connections are, or the cultural or community connections that could be created to support that young person. We felt that it was very important that that be taken a look at very closely and enhance the resources that are available.

I also recommended that MCFD review and revise all relevant care planning and case management standards, policies, practice guidelines and training materials with the goal of aligning those materials with the dimensions of belonging, as described in this report. What we learned through the consultations, particularly with our advisers, was that language matters deeply. The concept of permanency has been in use for many, many years, and we aren’t necessarily questioning what that means anymore. As soon as you introduce a notion of belonging, which all of us can feel…. We know who we belong to and where we belong. When we bring that new language in, it actually can help us shift mindsets as well.

Finally, I recommended that in the interest of improving practice, MCFD distribute this report to all staff who work with and plan for children and youth who are in care or who may come into care and then meaningfully engage in discussions with those staff about belonging for children and youth in the context of case planning, decision-making and the development and implementation of care plans.

Now, I’ve got a bit of pushback on that recommendation. It’s like: “Well, that’s kind of a process recommendation. Is it really going to effect any change?” There’s an intention behind why we decided to have that recommendation. We were feeling that there’s a receptivity to doing the work differently, and this is an opportune time, particularly in light of what’s unfolded over the last month and a half.

The ministry has been receptive to Skye’s story, and I can say with confidence that they’ve been moved by it. To give you an example, I was recently in a large gathering of MCFD staff, and one of the participants who’d been involved in Skye’s care, in fact, spoke about the impact that the story had on her. She was grateful for the tone and the approach — that we didn’t single out individuals or events that caused Skye’s situation but, in fact, spoke about the system.

What was important to me was to hear how she spoke about questioning and examining her own practice in her relationships with Skye. She wondered how she will do her work differently now. In fact, she said: “I will do my work differently now. I am carrying different kinds of questions, different kinds of awareness.” It was beautiful, because this was in front of 150 of her colleagues that she was doing this reflection and sharing what she has learned.

That’s what we are in this for — to try and see those kinds of discussions, reflection, analysis so that it’s not just a report. It’s something that draws people in to examine what they’re doing, why they’re doing it and how it could look different. Through that, that will ripple out to programs and to policies and to the ways in which the work gets done.

We are in discussions with the ministry leadership and practice leads about how we can help spread the knowledge gained from this report to MCFD staff provincewide and what this will look like and feel like so that the title of the report, Skye’s Legacy, becomes a reality.

[11:30 a.m.]

I have also had conversations with the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies and met with their practice leads. They, too, are embracing this. In fact, they want us to do a companion piece that says: “Here are the ways that we can foster belonging.” This is the beginning of a conversation that will carry on for some time. Really, what’s important is to get below the surface to the structures, the processes and the mental models that affect how we engage with young people.

It’s a strong message about the importance of belonging in a young person’s life and about how everything possible must be done to ensure that belonging. Skye wasn’t given the opportunity to realize the belonging that she needed and deserved. It is my hope that sharing her story in the way that we have will enable other Indigenous children and youth such as her to do so — and, in fact, all children and youth who come into care. It offers us all important teachings, including in the circle. When we know better, we must do better.

That concludes the formal part of my presentation. I’d be happy now to answer any questions and to have a discussion with members about this report — of course, ably supported by members of the RCY team.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you for a very thorough going-over of the report with us.

I want to add my words to what you heard from a staff member at the ministry. I was also very touched by the way this story is being told. I always like it when we do our teachings through stories. I think it really, really hits home. Data and everything is good for those of us who are data geeks, but to get to the heart and to honour this beautiful young woman…. I think this was very well done.

M. Morris: A very detailed report. I appreciate the work that has gone into this. It’s frustrating, though, reading that. I’ve worked my whole life in small communities, a lot of times with disadvantaged youth. I’ve got a family member who’s a manager of a delegated agency here in Prince George. She’s read the report as well. We’ve had a lot of discussion about it.

A lot of it boils…. It’s the same old, same old that we see continually and that has gone on over years — over decades, in fact. I like some of the recommendations. Social services, in my view — in my experience as a police officer and a politician, and just in general, because I’ve had family members involved — are so under-resourced. They’re overwhelmed. Social workers are dropping like flies just because they can’t handle the caseload. They don’t get involved in some of these areas that are extremely busy because of that.

I'm wondering what kind of reception, I guess, you’ve had from the senior managers within the ministry itself with respect to recommendation No. 1. They need to have some light at the end of the tunnel here, and you’re talking about 2022 as the down payment to get some of these resources out there. I think it’s paramount. I think we need to do a lot better than we have been doing. There are so many falling through the cracks these days because of the intensity of the drug supply out there and the types of drugs that we have here. The problems are just so huge. Where do we start?

By sending a lot of these things back or giving the auth­ority back to a lot of the First Nations groups…. When I lived with the Nisg̱a’a, the matriarchal society was very strong, and the House Chiefs were responsible for peace and order within the houses. Let’s bring that responsibility back and give those folks the tools that they need in order to take back the authority and the good work that they’ve been doing in those smaller communities, and maybe it’ll transcend into the bigger, urban communities that we have here as well.

[11:35 a.m.]

A good report, a good story. But it’s the same…. There are a million stories like that right across the country and right across B.C. here. We have to start somewhere. It’s like going on a diet, I guess. It’s never too late to start.

J. Charlesworth: Right. Thank you so much, and thank you for the work that you have done over your career, too, and your insight into the complexity. I think that’s critically important.

I agree with you. The thing that we struggle with a lot is seeing the same stories repeat themselves. That’s why Skye’s was so important. We have to figure out what measures that can be taken so that we’re not continually receiving these kinds of stories.

I guess a couple of things. You asked about reception from senior managers in the ministry — very strong, very supportive. Because of the way in which we do our work, there were no surprises for them in doing this. So they’ve had lots of time to consider. Of course, as you know well, in terms of the resources, that’s a fiscal requirement, and Treasury Board will have to consider that. The ministry has not said definitively that they would allocate resources, because they have some processes to go through. But my sense is that they have accepted the three recommendations and will move forward as need be.

In terms of where we start, I think you’ve identified the experiences in many nations with strong traditional practices. Nisg̱a’a is an excellent example. Really, it’s trying to figure out how we support and ensure that there’s capacity there. Over this coming time, that’s going to be critically important.

The other thing that I think is important is that Skye’s story started when she was born, with her mom and the kinds of supports that could’ve been provided to her mom, who was wanting very much to heal from her trauma and was doing the right things, with respect to reaching out and asking for help and whatnot, wanting to go to treatment. We really think that we need to back up the bus. I’ll talk about that a little bit. It’s very hard to change the trajectory at 15, 16, 17 and 18 years of age. We need to figure out: how do you support families?

That and, I guess, the same old, same old. There have been lots of recommendations, hence the reason to not talk about just policy or more resources but to talk about hearts and minds and centring our practice from the concept of what we could do differently that would enhance that sense of belonging. What we see so often is that everybody is doing their job, but they’re not seeing how their jobs connect with others and how a decision over here could have ripple effects over there.

It’s really about trying to change the system, and we’re committed to continuing on the process. Sorry. That’s a long-winded answer. There’s no simple solution because of the complexity. The toxic drug supply — man, that changes a lot too. We’re just going to have to keep going and trying to make sure that this is a very meaningful embracing of the learning from Skye. I hope that helps.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the report. I think it was actually one of the hardest reports for me to read, because it’s so story-oriented. It’s so relationally oriented. Like you mentioned, one of the things that hit me really hard was the continuous effort from the mother’s side, trying to fix the situation, yet the lack of support in responding to it.

I actually do have a question about the report, specifically the story part of it. In the middle section, around when she was about 11 or 12 years old, there were quite a few times when she was removed from her family. It seemed to be working out — that both Skye and her foster family seemed to be functioning — but for some reason, MCFD decided to go in and remove the child and did not provide an explanation.

That sort of shocked me a bit. It seems to continue to become a theme through a lot of the storytelling of Skye’s story. Is it common practice for MCFD to remove a child without providing an explanation? Or is that a circumstance of confidentiality? Is that the reason why it was not provided? It’s embarrassing, my lack of knowledge here.

J. Charlesworth: No, no, these are, as usual, excellent questions, Henry. I’m going to respond at one level.

I’d also like to invite you, Caitlin, as a practitioner, if you wish, to speak about when moves happen and what kinds of explanations are provided.

[11:40 a.m.]

You’re absolutely right. At that really critical age of 11 and 12, what happened was Skye was in a stable foster home. This is what we spoke about a lot. The orientation towards adoption and what was called forever families was so profound that they didn’t take a look at, “Well, how is she doing right now, what’s her context, what is she saying she needs, and what does she want?” and bring her voice in.

Adoption was kind of paramount — “Get the child into a forever family. We have somebody who’s interested in her. They seem like a good family” — over: “Well, how is she connected, who is she connected with, how is she doing right now, what is her perspective, and where is her voice in all of this?” That is something that we see quite a bit of — decisions being made somewhat in isolation and not with a lot of curiosity about how the child is doing right now.

The other thing I want to emphasize is how critical that 11- to 12-year-old period is. We often see that that is kind of the threshold moment where a child might be doing okay, and then significant decisions have been made in their life, and it’s a real challenge thereafter.

It’s one of those things for us to take a look at, developmentally, and encourage the system to take a look at, developmentally. Understand the context for the decisions that you’re making, and understand the developmental trajectory for that child and what they need.

Can I turn it over to you, Caitlin, to talk about the notification for…? I think it’s all over the map, in all likelihood.

C. Alder: Yes. Thank you for asking me to weigh in here.

I have several years’ experience working on front-line child protection where I did work for a Delegated Aboriginal Agency and was the guardian of many children in care over the years. From my experience, I guess one explanation can be that while Skye was very, very stable in the home she was at, at the age of 11 — she was very well bonded, and she was with a First Nations family, which was really, really great for her — unfortunately, as a contracted caregiver of the ministry, that placement could not be seen as permanent or as a plan for permanency for Skye.

Although we do mention in the report that the ministry did approach the foster family, asking if they would adopt Skye, the family advocated that she was not yet ready, given the breakdown that had happened years prior. With that in mind, the ministry took that as: “Well, they are unwilling to adopt her, so we need to move her to an adoptive, permanent home as quickly as we possibly can.” That kind of took precedence over any kinds of wants or needs expressed by the foster family.

One of the issues that we did also mention in the report was that there was very little acknowledgement or even priority to ask what Skye wanted in that situation. She was moved very, very quickly once a family was identified. Now, I don’t know if that move to an adoptive home is a common practice across the board for many children, but we could see that it did take precedence over planning for Skye’s best interest in finding her that forever family. It really, sadly, backfired and was an unfortunate part of the story that we had to acknowledge.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you, Caitlin.

Does that answer your question, Henry? Thanks. Good.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Jennifer and team, for this work.

These might be a bit more technical, but just a statement first is: trying to find a social worker is like a unicorn sometimes. When we were trying to match vulnerable young people to social workers, it would take days and weeks to connect them.

I would love to…. This isn’t partisan, because it’s been an issue for many, many years. We have got to invest in social workers and in hiring social workers. One of your recommendations is providing resources for social workers. When a social worker has got I don’t know how many hundred young people they’re dealing with…. The people with MCFD, I think, do a fabulous job, but it cannot not impact your ability for decision-making. You’re tired, and there are so many things you’re considering. So I think some very bad decisions were made along the line here.

[11:45 a.m.]

The issue with permanency and taking Skye out of the home where there was love and support…. I’m glad that’s been identified — that that’s a challenge.

A question. Is there a team of care with young people in some way, where you don’t have a single social worker — I might be totally wrong on this — making a decision as impactful as the one, for example, to move Skye out of that stable foster home? I believe people have to have decision-making authority, but when there are things like that, is there a team that makes that decision, or is that one individual person?

J. Charlesworth: Good question. I would say that it’s never one person, because a social worker would be consulting with their team lead or perhaps a practice consultant and whatnot. In some cases, though, there might be just a couple of people involved. In other cases — and we see this a lot, especially with children with very complex lives — there is a large team around them. However, that doesn’t necessarily lead to the ideal outcomes or the best decisions.

That’s driven by a number of things: availability of resources, continuity of relationships. As was noted in the report, there were 18 social workers who were involved in Skye’s life. No one really knew her. Sometimes she was on her own, and there hadn’t been a visit for almost a year.

The availability of resources often affects things. “We don’t have a placement that’s appropriate, so we’re going to move you to this community” or “We’re going to take you out of here because we need to put another child in there.” So resources are a significant challenge. Placement resources are a significant challenge. Even with the best intentions of teams, they might not be able to execute what they think is the right thing to do, either because they don’t have all of the information and knowledge, or they don’t have sufficient resources.

Your point is well taken — that social workers are struggling. Mike said the same thing. Social workers are struggling to do the right thing. I think, though, that there are some models in place that we can learn from and scale up in terms of that kind of really good decision-making, deliberation and ensuring that the child’s voice is heard. It can be done quite successfully. There are models that we can draw on around the province.

I don’t know if other members of the team want to step in to that.

C. Alder: I might weigh in quickly. Just to add….

When you’re talking about models and frameworks of practice, one of the frameworks that we do speak to within the report is the Aboriginal policy and practice framework, which I think is probably what you’re looking for in terms of a more collaborative process of planning for the child. It’s where there is meaningful engagement with the child’s nation, engagement with the child and the family, and ensuring that the entire circle is wrapped around the child and the family, making those decisions together and not solely on the heels of the social workers, who are trying to plan for forever for this child.

K. Paddon: I will try to sum it up. I wanted to say thank you for the decision that was made by the writers to not attach this to the personal characteristics or any developmental issues or any specific trauma, which so often allows people to dismiss a situation. “Oh, well, that’s only because she….” Fill in the blank. I want to thank you for that decision, because I think that it’s very important.

I am curious to know if part of the legacy will be for this report to be shared with our schools of social work in hopes that they’ll include this in their curriculum, include this in their things that they know before they’re starting their careers.

My question actually came as…. It was a little bit of a surprise for me to not see more explicitly, in the re­commendations, the issue surrounding Indigenous foster homes and the potential causes or contributing factors to that. The description in the report itself….

[11:50 a.m.]

It seems quite apparent there’s a perceived lack of re­spect, and there are definitely colonial standards of safety and ideas of what makes a home safe. I’m wondering which recommendation you think tackling that would fall into.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you. Great questions.

I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things there. Schools of social work, schools of child and youth care, counselling programs, etc…. The next step for us is that we’re developing a knowledge mobilization strategy that will allow us to take the report out into many different contexts and to influence hearts and minds, if you will.

I have already been in conversation with folks from a couple of the schools. We’ve got a good relationship with the B.C. Association of Social Workers. So we’ll continue to do that, because you’re absolutely right. This is a teaching story. It’s great to get it at the front end of your career, before you’re actually doing the work. So that is part of our strategy — to do the knowledge mobilization and make sure that we take this story out in a good way.

In terms of Indigenous foster homes, you raise a really, really good point. We could have done a recommendation on that, and one of the challenges we all face is: where are we going to get the greatest impact through our recommendations?

With respect to the Indigenous foster homes and the points made in the report about how the system is constructed to dissuade people, Indigenous folks, from becoming foster parents, my hope is that when we bring the story into the ministry, with the ministry, that they will be talking a look at their policies, their practices, their guidelines, the training, etc., to try and figure out what they need to adjust. The ways in which they recruit and support and value Indigenous foster parents are a key part of that. My hope is that it will be woven into that work.

S. Chant: My question or commentary also follows along on what Kelli was saying. The first piece of it — and I’ve been a clinician for a zillion years — is the assessment tools and how they’re applied and how we look at things in terms of what’s safe and what’s not. How do we accept…?

My perception is…. Having been a foster parent for many years and having had a social worker come into my home, who was 24 years old, had no children and wanted to teach me how to manage the seventh foster child in my home…. We did short term, while they figured out what they were doing with kids. Absolutely, the way that assessments are done and the way decisions are made really, desperately needs to be looked at.

Also, following on how you responded to Kelli, the other piece is…. I hate to be mercenary about this, but there is no incentive to adopt. If you are fostering a child, there is money involved. There are the care needs of the child. There is money involved. If you adopt, that funding dries up, and you are expected to absorb this child into your family without having supports in place to allow for the things that a third child entails.

I think that if we were wise, what we would do is have a transition, five years or something, that says: “Okay. If a family is prepared and willing to adopt and has all the other structure in place, it behooves us, as the guardian figure” — I don’t care what we call ourselves, and guardian is terribly colonial and terribly wrong — “to provide the resources to transition that child into the family and ensure that the supports are in place fiscally to support a third child or a fifth child” — or whatever it is — “in conjunction with the other kids that they’ve already got and the other family commitments that they’ve already got.”

I also am frightened to ask if there was a difference in rates to Indigenous families versus non-Indigenous families. My bet is that there was a difference, and there may still be a difference.

Those are my bits and pieces. Again, it’s a massive issue. You can parse out different strings of it. All the strings, I think, need to be identified, and that’s going to be a wicked job for somebody. Thank you.

[11:55 a.m.]

J. Charlesworth: Thank you, Susie. You raise a really…. As well, there are a couple of things that I just wanted to share.

Assessment tools. You’re absolutely right. Many of the assessment tools — the parental capacity assessment, the structure decision-making tools, the things that are being used — are very colonial, and they are very much defined by what a family should look like, rather than embrace the diversity of families and how that might get expressed.

We flagged, for the ministry, probably a year ago or over a year ago — Alan, you may want to step in on this one — our interest in taking a look at all of those assessment tools and how they are being understood or whether they’re appropriate, given what we know now. The ministry has been working on that, and we’re due to get a very thorough briefing. Actually, it was supposed to be tomorrow afternoon, but because of some people being away, we’ve postponed that until September.

We will be getting a thorough briefing and taking a look at all of those — the whole range of assessments and what they’re doing to ensure that they are less colonial, and they’re also embracing the diversity of family and how best to support. Tied into that, we’ll be taking a look at how is it that…? Instead of those tools being weaponized, in some cases, against families that have certain characteristics, how is it that the focus can be around supporting those families?

That leads me to the transitions for adoption. There are the post-adoption supports. Many people say that that’s not sufficient. It’s obviously an area to continue to look at.

The other thing that I wanted to put in there, though, in addition to the post-adoption supports…. That’s constructed on the basis of adoption looking very typical, but as we move towards resumption of jurisdiction and beginning to think about the different ways, in fact, we speak about custom adoption or customary adoption in the report, we have to be mindful that what we think of as belonging and long-term connection — or adoption, in another word — is going to look different. Those families are no less deserving of the kind of fiscal supports that will address the special needs, and the healing, etc. I think that’s a conversation that needs to unfold.

I welcome Samantha or Alan to speak to that, if you wish.

In terms of the rates of foster home, they’re not discriminatory in the sense of Indigenous foster homes getting less than non-Indigenous foster homes. It’s more on the basis of how they are seen in terms of the levels that they’re at. That’s not to say that there isn’t implicit bias or those kinds of things showing up, because that’s what systemic racism is. But there isn’t anything in policy that would differentiate.

Samantha or Alan, anything you’d like to add to those comments?

A. Markwart: No, not really.

We do know the ministry’s been doing some fairly substantive work on the assessment issues, like parental capacity assessments, risk assessments. The very fact that they acknowledge there is a need to kind of move forward on that is welcome, but we just haven’t had the details yet of where they’re at. Stay tuned.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you very much, Jen and team. Thank you very much to you and your team for spending this time with us.

Now, Jennifer, I believe you’re just going to give us a quick update on your upcoming reports.

Update from
Representative for Children and Youth

J. Charlesworth: Yes. Thank you so much, and thank you for your attention to this report. Skye is very near and dear to our hearts, so I appreciate the time that you’ve taken to learn about her.

A couple of things I wanted to do is to just give you a sense of what is unfolding and what you can expect come the fall. Right now, we’re undertaking an annual review of our strategic and operational plan. That articulates the vision, mission goals, strategies and priorities of the office, as well as our program of what we are going to do.

Just to give you a sense, over the next 18 months, we’ll be focusing in a number of areas. Indigenous child welfare, for the reasons we’ve spoken about today, including supporting the resumption of child welfare. Special needs. Children and youth with special needs or, as the ministry now calls it, children and youth with support needs. Mental health and substance use services for children and youth.

[12:00 p.m.]

Those transitional support services, including housing for young adults who have left care and our enduring responsibility to them. Residential services, which I have not spoken much about at this committee thus far, particularly for those with very complex needs. Rights. Children’s rights. And as I’ve mentioned before, those kinds of early support and intervention services to better assist families in staying together and to support children in those critical early years and care planning. Those are sort of the big buckets that we’re working on.

More specifically, our reviews and investigations team will be completing a second report on child participation, voice and representation in legal proceedings. This complements the one that we brought to you in January, Detained: Rights of Children and Youth Under the Mental Health Act. This second report, which will come out in the fall, probably late October or early November, will focus on child participation in child welfare and family law proceedings and those highly contentious, difficult decisions that get made, and sometimes children are caught in the middle.

The reviews and investigations team will also be commencing a new investigative report similar to the investigation process that we’ve done for Skye and also doing an aggregate report on critical injuries and deaths involving girls with complex needs, because that’s a cohort that we see over and over again. There are lots of people involved, and nothing seems to be sticking. These children have very complex co-occurring…. Mental health, substance use, exploitation, housing instability, etc. What are we going to do there?

Moving over to our monitoring team now, you know that we’ve presented Excluded: Increasing Understanding, Support and Inclusion for Children with FASD and Their Families. We’re so grateful for the way in which you’ve held that report in such a good way. We’re planning an extensive knowledge mobilization strategy around that report which will enhance awareness, understanding and action in support of children and youth with FASD and their families. This knowledge mobilization strategy or knowledge transfer is a new approach for us. We’ve never done that before, but we hope to enhance the reach and systemic impact of our work.

You will be happy to know that Myles Himmelreich, whom you met, has joined us on contract. He will be co-creating that knowledge mobilization strategy with our team, with Pippa’s leadership. That will be flowing out and have many different tentacles out. We’ve already got bookings with school trustees and principals and vice-principals and school counsellors, etc., to try and address the education side of things, and we’ll be moving in many other areas to try and increase the impact of that report.

The monitoring is also nearing completion of a quantitative and qualitative review of care planning for children in care that focuses on cultural planning for Indigenous children, planning for youth transitioning into adulthood and permanency planning, or belonging planning, as we would use the language now. That will be released and presented to the committee likely in the fall, again, probably in parts, maybe, in October and November.

One of the things that’s key here is this is not one that’s going to capture a lot of public attention. Our main role there will be to assist the ministry, because they’re doing a review of their whole care-planning process and are awaiting the results of our very in-depth review to assist them in that work.

Monitoring is also leading the development of the public RCY report on early years, including an examination of how families can be kept safely together, building on Skye and her mom’s experience and the economic and social value of prevention and early intervention. They are beginning work on a range of issues related to contracted residential care services that are funded by MCFD.

We are working on two public reports on the unique needs of and services for gender minority and sexual minority youth. This work is being done in collaboration with university researchers and the other RCY teams. The reason for that is we do see a very different kind of profile for gender minority and sexual minority youth in terms of the injuries that they experience and felt that it was important that we brought a deeper lens to their experience with the system.

The cool thing is that through all of this work, we’ve built partnerships with universities and research institutes so that we can amplify and bring the best available evidence to inform our work.

[12:05 p.m.]

Two final things that I’ll mention to you. One is that our First Nations, Métis and Inuit relationships team is doing some work right now with the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Fiscal Studies and Democracy. That’s a comprehensive review of provincial and federal funding of services to Indigenous children and youth in B.C., with a focus on child welfare service but also including prevention, etc.

That, too, will be coming out the latter part of the fall. The key thing with that is that we’re doing that in collaboration or in communication with Delegated Aboriginal Agencies, who are opening up their books and helping us understand the reality for them, and with the First Nations Leadership Council so that that will inform or assist in the resumption of jurisdiction, because we’ll have a better sense of the dollars and cents.

That gives you a sense of some of the major reports that we’re working on. Then a final thing I’ll say is you will also be gifted with our annual report and service plan that needs to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly by September 30. Of course, there will be a lot of things in there about COVID and all of the adjustments that we’ve made, the things that we’ve learned, the impact that we’ve seen.

I will give you a bit of a sneak preview in that our caseload has been going through the roof this year, with respect to reportables and critical injuries and deaths. In large part, that’s due to the ministry doing a much better job in reporting, but it’s also, I think, indicative of the other stressors and pressures that our young people are experiencing.

We will delve into that, and you can look forward to that by September 30. That gives you a sense of where we’re putting our energy and a little bit about why and also what you can expect to see in the fall. Happy to have any questions or comments there.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you, Jennifer, for your update of your workplan. I want to know what you’re going to be doing during the daytime. It’s a very ambitious and very comprehensive and a diverse set of issues you will be looking at. We’re looking forward to you coming back and keeping us updated, and having further discussions.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you so much.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you to your team and you for the work you do.

I’m hoping it cools down enough so we can actually get out there and enjoy the summer and I don’t have to watch Henry fanning himself because it’s too hot in his office.

We get it, Henry.

For the committee, we are going to take a comfort break. Let’s hope everybody is back by 12:15.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Madam Chair, Susie has a question.

J. Sims (Chair): Oh, sorry. Susie?

S. Chant: I just wanted to say thank you for the incredible work that Jennifer and her team are doing in so many ways to turn over so many rocks that have been haunting us all for a very, very long time. What it speaks to is a team that is truly committed and truly feels supported and resourced to do the work that they’re doing.

I think that we need to try very, very hard to emulate that within the tentacles of MCFD to make it so that they feel able…. I have met so many people that often…. You know, “I want to do that, but I can’t,” for whatever reason. You hear it all the time. I just want to figure out how to get beyond those things.

So thank you. Sorry. I’ll stop talking now.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you. I see no other hands up. So comfort break. Let’s see you all at 12:15.

Once again, a big thank-you to Jennifer and team. Take a little break.

The committee recessed from 12:09 p.m. to 12:16 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

J. Sims (Chair): Now that you all look orderly, let’s have someone move us in camera, please.

Moved Mike, seconded Kelli.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:16 p.m. to 12:36 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

Committee Report to the House

ANNUAL REPORT 2020-21

J. Sims (Chair): We are in a public meeting right now. I am going to be looking for movers.

Moved, Coralee.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Coralee, if you could read out the motion.

C. Oakes (Deputy Chair): I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth approve and adopt the report, entitled Annual Report 2020-21 as presented today; and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to work with committee staff to finalize any minor editorial changes to complete the supporting text.]

Motion approved.

J. Sims (Chair): Coralee, would you move the second one too, please?

C. Oakes (Deputy Chair): I move:

[That the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth deposit a copy of the Committee’s report, entitled Annual Report 2020-21 with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; and further, that upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following session, as the case may be, the Chair present the report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity.]

Motion approved.

J. Sims (Chair): We are now done the business of the committee today. As this is going to be our last meeting, I presume, for at least about another month, I wish you all a very happy and restful summer. I hope it cools down.

I am not going to say you have two or three months off now, because you know, as MLAs, that this is maybe going to be the busiest time coming up now. Especially as there will be more gatherings and things, there will be an expectation for us to be out there.

I also want to thank each and every one of you for the very professional way you’ve done your homework for each committee and for the debate and discussions we’ve had. So enjoy, everyone.

To our staff, before we leave…. As you said earlier, Susan…. It says “the Chair,” or it says “the committee.” We know who does the real work. To you and all the staff, a big shout-out and thank-you. I really do hope you get a total break and enjoy the summer.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Thank you, Madam Chair.

J. Sims (Chair): Henry, would you like to move the adjournment?

Moved, Henry. Seconded, Kelli.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:39 p.m.