MCFD'S CALL IS BAD FOR SO MANY REASONS (part 2 of 4)
MCFD Erred Gravely In Métis Child's Case
A three-year-old Métis girl named SS was removed by MCFD from her Métis foster parents in B.C. with whom she has been since birth, in order to send her to live with non-Metis parents in Ontario, where her two Métis siblings live? This was ill-advised.
Using the Ministry's own legislated and customarily stated criteria for determining placements, I am showing you why the MCFD decision was unreasonable, and therefore not in the child's best interests. Yesterday in part one, you saw explanations one, two, and three.
Fourth, is the importance of a positive relationship with a parent as well as a secure sense of being a member of the family. When this decision was being considered and when it was before the court in 2016, the child had no relationship whatsoever with the prospective adoptive parents in Ontario or the two older Métis sibling sisters whom SS had never met. Because SS was firmly established in her then, present family consisting of foster mom and dad and older grown children, there was and is a high probability that a 'positive relationship' cannot develop with the other sibling girls.
Fifth is the preservation of the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and spiritual heritage. The honourable Ontario parents are well intentioned yet with respect to this criterion they are not of Métis heritage. Continuing identification with the Métis community has not been observed as a priority with respect to the best interests of their two adopted Métis sisters. There has been no reason to believe that SS will have her heritage preserved in her new home. In the B.C. foster family, LM, the mom has Métis cultural heritage, and she and the child were well connected to the B.C. Métis Federation. Furthermore, the Métis birth father is in Victoria and easily accessible.
Sixth, is consideration of the effect on the child because of a delay in making a decision about her future. Delays were created by the MCFD's repeated extensions of a Temporary Care Order (TCO), as though this was a probationary period for the foster parents and the foster child. Yet the child came to LM and RB when she was three days old and was with them for almost three years and no probationary period was required, and she could have been adopted to these foster parents, except for the Director’s refusal to consider this.