Lobat Sadrehashemi is the co-author of Broken Promises, a new report on the child protection system and its ongoing neglect of aboriginal children. She was interviewed by Am Johal.

Am Johal: Why did Pivot Legal Society decide to write the Broken Promises report on the child protection system in British Columbia?

Lobat Sadrehashemi: Pivot had a type of town hall meeting with women, and they asked women about the legal problems they were having and the two issues that came out were the criminalization of sex work and child apprehensions. Pivot has done two reports on the criminalization of sex work and has wanted to do work on this issue for some time. We had the opportunity to start work on the issue of child apprehension in October of 2006.

Can you talk about your role, how youâe(TM)ve interacted with this issue?

I am the legal coordinator of the project and co-author of the report. I have a law degree and a master of social work degree. I have never practiced child protection social work but I know many people who do. In addition to doing research on this report, I was able to take on individual child apprehension cases, representing moms whose children had been taken. I saw first hand how difficult it is to advocate for your client when the social worker has their hands tied behind their back with too many cases and too few resources to direct parents and children to.

Your report cites that the root causes behind child apprehensions are associated with mental health, addiction and poverty. Can you speak to that?

This report is based on interviews and affidavits from 44 parents. It follows Pivotâe(TM)s general approach of talking to those least likely to be asked to give their opinions of what should happen for policy and legal reform. In the child protection system, that is parents. Parents are not only not consulted, they are also often afraid to voice their criticisms, fearing that their children will not be returned if they are critical of the Ministry.

There are so many misconceptions about who interacts with the child apprehension system. A lot of people think the child protection system is about people who sexually abuse their children or beat their children. Ten percent of children are apprehended due to physical harm and less than one percent from sexual exploitation. The vast majority of apprehensions involve parents who may be struggling with poverty, mental health and addiction issues, who care about their children and want the best for them. If there were appropriate support services, these parents may be able to keep their children in the home. With low income assistance rates and a lack of long term supportive housing it is very difficult to raise a child in BC as a poor single mom.

Will you be following up with the Children and Youth Advocate in British Columbia?

The representative for children and youth has a copy of this report. We want to work with her on this issue. Mary Ellen Turpel Lafond was appointed in November of 2006 and we feel that the creation of her office was a really important step. We are happy that the government acted quickly in following through with one of Justice Hughesâe(TM) principal recommendations in creating a position for an independent officer of legislature that could act as a watchdog for children and families.

What are some of the main findings of your report?

Some of the most surprising findings for us were that from everyoneâe(TM)s perspective the child protection system was not working. It is not broken because of bad legislation âe” the guiding principles and service delivery principles in the legislation set out a strong framework for the Ministry âe” the problem is that there is such a huge gap between these principles and the experiences of families. We found that the gap was because of lack of resources both when the decision to apprehend a child is made and once a child is in care the delays in getting them back to their families. The vast majority of parents involved in the child protection system have the same hopes and concerns for their kids as other parents âe” but donâe(TM)t have the resources/ substantial hurdles not faced by other parents âe” low income assistance rates, lack of housing, they may need services to treat a mental illness.

Children are being apprehended at a greater rate than they should because services are not available. And when kids are taken into care, the system is plagued with delays and a social worker with 35 families on her caseload doesnâe(TM)t have the time to make sure everything is being done to reunite kids with their families and so kids get lost in the system. And we know the outcomes for kids in care are devastating. It is particularly tragic that kids in care grow up to be parents with kids in care âe” generations of families are being tied into this system and for the aboriginal community kids have been taken for the last 100 years.

Even if a child is taken away temporarily, one would think that there should be more specific community resources that could take care of children or are aboriginal specific services in their own communities?

One option that is available for families is the use of kinship care âe” where the child is placed with a family member instead of foster care. While we support this idea, the problem that we heard from mothers is that this option is not well supported financially by the government.

A family that takes on a relative receives an income supplement through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. The amount of the supplement is not enough and is not at all on par with the amount a foster parent would receive. This means that aboriginal grandmothers are struggling on not much support. This option should not be used as a way to reduce the budget of the Ministry on the backs of aboriginal grandmothers. We are recommending that that this kinship care be better supported by government. It is a viable alternative to keep kids close to family during a transition period.

A social worker who had been working for the Ministry for five years described to me what her ideal solution would be âe” she dreamed of creating a space where parents could live with their children for a long period of time, where they could learn parenting skills, address addiction issues, and see counsellors to address childhood abuse or domestic violence.

Instead of removing children from parents, this social worker thought it would be in the childâe(TM)s best interest to be raised in an environment where her mother was addressing her needs in a way that could still guarantee the childâe(TM)s safetyâe¦

No matter who we talked to, everyone said that the system isnâe(TM)t working as it should. They grew up in care, or their parents grew up in care or the residential school system. This is a case of generation after generation being taken away from their parents âe” it is a system that is unfortunately perpetuating itself within the current system. This just isnâe(TM)t working. The state is not a good parent. If you think about it, what kind of parent would move their kid from home to home and kick them out at age 19 without support?

Am Johal

Am Johal

Am Johal is an independent Vancouver writer whose work has appeared in Seven Oaks Magazine, ZNet, Georgia Straight, Electronic Intifada, Arena Magazine, Inter Press Service, Worldpress.org, rabble.ca...