SHOULD FOSTER CAREGIVERS BE CALLED 'PARENTS'?

Subsequent to yesterday’s blog statement I found a Master of Social Work thesis written by Serena Kullar in which on page 24 using her research she supports the notion I presented yesterday. I said that the term ‘foster parents’ is confusing, not to adults but rather to the children. Caregivers for children who are removed from their biological family are generally of acceptable character and respectable intention and performance. Nonetheless, a child with a mom and or a dad, is abruptly expected by virtue of title to accept one or two strangers as parent. Whether the biological parent-child relationship has been satisfactory or deplorable, to identify someone else as mom or dad is a problematic expectation. It can break a child's heart or reinforce a horror. In a wholesome family like Derek's, the longer this foster relationship is sustained the more cavernous the distance between the biological parent and his child. In a case like Ayn’s this is an injustice for which the government will never be called to account.”

Serena Kullar has written, “When children are brought into care, the caregivers are referred to as foster “mothers” and foster “fathers” by the children and this results in birth mothers being stripped of their mothering role (Greaves et al., 2001). Instead, the authors suggest that foster carers should be referred to as aunts or uncles because this still allows children to acknowledge them in a close way, but more importantly, allows the mother to keep her title (Greaves et al., 2001). In the United Kingdom, the term foster parent is foreign, and the terms foster carer or caregiver are used to maintain connection to biological parents.”

Although in her paper entitled, "THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SUBTANCE USING WOMEN IN BC’S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM," the subject of Ms. Kullar’s paper is women in B.C. and particularly aboriginal women, prompting her to write that this nomenclature, ‘foster parent’, “symbolizes the devaluation of mothering by women of colour,” I contend that the terminology devalues biological mothering and fathering. A foster care-giver is not synonymous with mom and dad. My position on this I grant you is coloured by cases with which I am focused, namely those in which the parent or parents are able and responsible and in which the best interests of the children would be met by their return to their true mom's and dad’s care.    

 

Ms. Kullar is a senior member of the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society

745 Clark Dr

Vancouver,  BC V5L 3J3
Canada

Child Welfare Enterprise in B.C./ Part 320 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Child welfare is not important to the general population. Young families live and love life and generally get on quite well. Why would they pay attention to the trouble we discuss here? It is only when one ordinary family ends up in the child welfare system that these few individuals learn how difficult life can become. Child welfare is also tough I believe for those who must work within it. Be patient with me here. The work load is increasing for each worker. From among B.C. children approximately 1 to 1.5 percent are in the care of the government. There is some ammunition for a few of you. After years of leadership upheaval it may appear now that the Ministry has achieved a turn around but who really knows. After all, from 2004 to 2006 there were four different ministers and when the Hughes Report was launched the Minister's position was being transitioned from Stan Hagen to Tom Christensen. Four deputy or acting deputy ministers served during this same period.

Build a Better Future - Reform MCFD

While government care most certainly is a safer place for some children than leaving them in their homes that is most certainly not true of the majority of removals. I am not going to back these remarks with footnoted references. Avid students can look up details as well as I can. My reading however leaders me to these conclusions. When the government is the sole guardian of children, the children's health is substantially worse than the health of children not in care. Childhood health concerns are common among children whether in or out of care but the rates of health issues for those in care is 1.2 to 1.4 times greater than those of the general population children. More alarmingly, 65 percent of children in continuing care suffer from mental disorders and that is where this Ministry of Children want to keep three Bayne children. Who can't see the connection here? That percentage is four times greater than that of children and youth in the general population. There are higher rates of both intentional and unintentional injuries for children in care and higher death rates as well.

I harvested some of these observations from a UBC publication. While published in 2007, if you want a comprehensive resource, access the “People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia.” Scroll to the index to select data.

MONDAY IN COURT, SARGENT & TRUTH / Part 275 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

He was MCFD's final witness. To tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Yesterday's witness did that I believe. His was a five page report that was thorough and well reported. I believe he told the truth in the report and under questioning by lawyer Finn Jensen and cross examination by Doug Christie yesterday.

Michael A. Sargent, is a full-time paediatric radiologist practicing in the Department of Radiology of the BC Children's Hospital for the past eighteen years. He carries the rank of Clinical Professor of Radiology with the University of British Columbia. He is presently the Acting Director in charge of the magnetic resonance imaging area at the Hospital. He is also a member of the American Society of Pediatric Neurology. He reviewed all radiological imaging studies done for Baby B that are on the PACS system of BCCH. And yesterday his testimony was decidedly not anti-Bayne.

To make a case in support of the Ministry claim that one or both of the parents was responsible for the baby's injuries, was the reason he was in court. It was at the request of Dr. Colbourne who told him “we need you.” The other radiologist on the case declined to testify. Dr. Sargent has testified in relation to Dr. Colbourne's diagnoses in other cases. The MCFD Director's case for a Continuing Care Order rests foundationally upon Dr. Colbourne's Shaken Baby diagnosis of Baby B's injuries dating to the autumn of 2007 and that diagnosis is not a stand alone call. If the diagnosis can be supported by the findings of another highly qualified expert, the case has legs. MCFD's case may be on life support now and running out of breath. When anyone tells the truth in this case it never reflects well on the MCFD. His opinions, Sargent admitted, were subjective opinions. Sargent reviewed the studies performed by other clinicians, just as ten other experts did, but each of the ten has disagreed with Colbourne's conclusion. Today, Tuesday August 10th, we hear from one of those ten, namely Dr. Barnes.

We cannot know whether Dr. Sargent's interpretations of the studies might have been different had they been influenced by information that he admittedly did not have, such as the knowledge of the reported accident between the two children or knowledge of the baby's birth history. He did not know that Zabeth spent three days in labour and fourteen hours and thirty five minutes in the final stage of delivery, (the trauma of which can can cause subdural bleeding in newborns.) He didn't know that Baby B was severely anaemic at birth. He did not know that the baby's head circumference grew by six centimeters in the three weeks following the fall that the parents reported. He did not know that she received two sets of steroid shots for lung development due to the mother's history of premature delivery (and this can predispose children to fractures or intracranial bleeding.) He did not know that the baby was on DomPeridone for reflux and that at the same time Baby B’s mother was on the same medication for milk production (and that this medication is considered unsafe because it can cause subdural bleeding.) In fact he did not seek a full history as is frequently recommended to radiologists, because he felt it might be inappropriate since the case was already before the court. He knew only that Colbourne suspected it was shaking.

But you see, in Judge Crabtree's court, Dr. Colbourne has not yet been recognized as qualified to state that it was shaking. She can and did state what she discovered upon examinations of Baby B. She was not permitted to state how the injuries were incurred or that they were non accidental injuries. That was ruled as being beyond the scope of her qualification. Dr. Sargent's testimony did not effectively help the MCFD cause because he was interested in telling the truth. In fact, Dr. Sargent suggested that the lengthy delay created by the failure of medical professionals in area hospitals to diagnose and to treat the cause prior to admission to BCCH made definitive determinations sketchy.

Today, more of the truth. Dr. Patrick Barnes in the morning and Zabeth Bayne in the afternoon.