The child-saving paradigm
Child welfare began in the last century as a sincere effort to rescue children from abusive or negligent parents and home situations. That was admirable then. Children were plucked from horrendous environments. Decades have passed and economies changed. Generations have come and gone and most parents manage parenting well and family life flourishes. A need still remains for resources targeted to children and families that experience difficulties. But what we seem to have perpetuated in our child welfare systems is the save the child paradigm. You rescue best if you remove the child. The child is hungry in the home? Take the child away. The child is inadequately clothed? Take the child away. For all the expertise and credentials and dollars we are throwing at child welfare, we remain anchored in this culture of salvation for the children by removing them from their homes and families. That is of itself so counter-cultural to ethnic groups who have come to Canada to live and thrive. It is counter-productive to homegrown citizens to whom life has dished out hardships and finding themselves unemployed or unhealthy or otherwise dysfunctional, instead of finding help from our heavy tax invested government ministries, find opposition and invasion of privacy and rights, and find harm that sends some over the edge. Aboriginal communities particularly have experienced the insidious results of child-saving philosophy. Not respecting First Nations families, our provincial governments in Canada have mistakenly removed many children on the premise of helping them, saving them. Is some of this being addressed now? Yes! But slowly and in small increments.
Child Welfare Enterprise in B.C.
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? 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. 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. After years of leadership upheaval it may appear now that the Ministry has achieved a turn around. We are still waiting to see. After all, from 2004 to 2006 there were four different ministers. Four deputy or acting deputy ministers served during this same period. Then along came Ms. Dutoit and Ms. Polak and Ms.Turpel-Lafond and the system transformation plan.
Child Protection and the Bayne Family
Tomorrow counsel Finn Jensen will begin his summary statement to the Court. I intend to be there although I do not look forward to it. I wish to report to you the essence of this final day in court for this case. The treatment of this family over almost three years has been nothing short of an escalating disgrace. It has been a discredit to the good Transformation intentions that are birthed in Victoria's Ministry offices. I am convinced that the regional ministry suspects that they are losing this case. They have been scrambling. It's shameful and you may yet hear about it.
