Love From a Birthmother

I have been very fortunate to have developed great relationships with a couple of my foster children’s birth parents (past and current). As a foster parent, I truly do appreciate the sincere “thank you’s” and just the acknowledgement that I, too, love their children. The most successful reunifications in my experience have been those in which the birth parents and the foster parents develop a mutual respect and understanding for each other.

Foster care isn’t easy for anyone. Least of all for the children. Someone is ALWAYS facing a loss… Birth parents lose their children and often times have to wait much, much longer than they should for reunification. Foster parents lose the children who they have parented and loved as their own. But the ones who ALWAYS lose are the children if birth and foster families can’t work together. They lose their birth families when they are placed in care. They lose their foster families when they are reunited. If the adults who love these children put THEM first, they can help diminish the impact of the inevitable loss that they will face by working together.

I truly believe that ANY parent who loves, protects, nurtures, and guides a child is a “real” parent, regardless of their “title.” Birth parents, foster parents, adoptive parents, step-parents, grandparents, and “honorary” parents who have stepped up to raise a child without needing the title of “parent” at all. What matters is that children are loved.

Reply

My child, Samantha Martin, was born in 1993 in Alberta, Canada and passed at the age of 13 years on December 3, 2006; fittingly, International Day of Persons with Disability. Samantha’s Law is a direct result of my child’s life experiences as an individual with disability and the need to better protect equality of human rights.

Samantha’s Law creates distinction between caring families of children with disabilities from individuals who require services under the Child Intervention Model. Previous archaic stance found children with developmental delay and medical needs, like my daughter, Samantha, referred to Child & Youth Services where they were directed into foster care, much like institutional care. Families must not be forced to relinquish custody, nor out of home placement, in effort to gain access to government funding for required medical supports and services.

An area most Politicians and Legislators care not to contribute to – due to the depth of emotion it ensues and controversy involved – is that of children who fall under the realm of recipients from Child & Youth Services. It is a topic so taboo that even those who profess to be Advocates sometimes remain silent; out of fear that Government funding to its organizations may be compromised. No matter how controversial the topic, it is one that must be examined for the well-being of vulnerable individuals and one that Politicians, the Media and the Public at large have a moral obligation to attend to.

Society finds itself in the “Sandwich Generation”, with families caring for children as well as elderly members. Often, related health issues impose restrictions on families who bear extraordinary needs through the birth of a child with diversity, accident, disease or the natural aging process. None of us are infallible so each of us must be willing to address factors in the here and now on behalf of those without a voice lest we all become unable to advocate for ourselves in the future.

A harsh reality is the fact that Canadians, are gaining a notorious negative reputation for failing our most vulnerable. In Ontario, 83% of children who are recipients of Child Intervention Services, are those with special needs. In Alberta, the figure is 70% with similar statistics following across the Country. Instead of allocating resources to families directly, Governments have resorted to requests of guardianship relinquishment and out of home placements of children with extraordinary needs.

As an Advocate who has traveled on behalf of Protecting Canadian Children, I feel endeavours have been productive, educational journeys. Advocates from numerous groups representing Families and Children, members of the Public, Media, Social-work and Executive Ministry Directors united from both coasts to meet in the central location of Ontario during August and October 2011. We sat down to participate in benign discussion. Contrary to misconception, loving families are, indeed, being subjected to oppressive practice which can – and does – often result in harmful outcomes. Furthermore, parents and children traumatized by events, are expected to remain silent… Legislated Publication Bans deter individuals from being able to share the details of their case openly. While these restrictions were naturally geared to act as a means of protection of identity to support the child and family, these measures are unfortunately now detracting from accountability. We are missing key opportunities to learn from erroneous practice leading to fatalities. Silence has evolved into a mechanism to preserve integrity of the System, instead of innocent lives. Without a mechanism in place to disclose tragic events, Society remains largely unaware of the vast array of benign circumstances that lead solid families to require involvement in the Child Welfare System. Loving families unfairly blemished by ill-conceived reflection, “Surely, you must have done something” (to warrant intrusion?)

Similar mindset occurs with representatives of the Ministry too. I attended a session in which families seeking to foster/adopt were guided by a presenter who informed that many of the children in the Child Welfare System are the offspring of “prosititues” and “drug addicts”. I was deeply disturbed to listen to the biased, inaccurate commentary being fed to unsuspecting potential parents. Many of those in attendenace were couples unable to bear children of their own and the explanation substantiated sympathy amongst a group of loving persons who believed that the children did not have parents who cared, grandparents, siblings and extended family struggling to maintain contact.

Advocating on behalf of many who have found themselves amongst the statistics, including myself, I feel that I have a responsibility to educate and try to remove some of the myth and stigma attached. As a white, middle-class professional; the public typically does not envision me as a recipient of Child Welfare Services. I work in rehabilitation for Family-Centred Care Practice. I am a mother to 5 children (including a daughter now deceased.) I serve as online Administration for a rare medical condition. Close attention has led to an understanding of diverse stories negatively impacting large populations affected by well-meaning, but oft times, discriminatory and archaic practice. I have also served as a caregiver through the Ministry and thus, feel qualified to provide feedback. The Public, largely, envisions a realm of “intervention” for “abusive” situations. However, the persons who actually comprise the System fall under an umbrella which ought never occur: Children receiving services under Children’s Aid Societies with special needs. Loving families are forced to relinquish custody or coerced into out of home arrangements for high needs children. Sound like something out of the dark ages? I assure you, it is not and the practice continues in present day. My only daughter, Samantha, was one of the children who government representatives opted not to fund in home. While institutions for persons with developmental diversity are no longer ethically acceptable, forcing families to relinquish loved ones into government medical foster establishments – or – resorting to incarceration has become the present day version of the same practice. Instead of funding natural families, we continue to conceal children with special needs in out of home foster placements; a practice both detrimental to family and to child. Though studies demonstrate that it is more cost-effective and safe to provide in-home care to families, resistance is met.

Ironically, I was approached by Ministry representatives, lauded for good parenting and asked to provide care to 2 additional children with special needs. Thus, the government formally paid me the cost of out-of-home care for a family who was in crisis while it would not support my own child’s needs in-home. I gained crucial perspective from the inside out of the System and located significant gaps in Policy adherence. While we hope that most individuals who take on the role of caregiver do so with benign motive, we cannot precariously compromise the lives of innocent and vulnerable individuals with blind trust. Ministry’s are consistently recruiting for more foster establishments and yet, if we returned to Family-Centred Care Practice, this need to seek alternate caregivers would be significantly reduced.

Similar methodology of targeting transpires within the Native community; bearing outrageous statistical evidence of removal from natural families. In the realm of Child Welfare, a predetermination of failure in the role of parenting exists towards single parents, those who have grown up in the System now having children of their own; grandparents raising their children’s children, low-income families and persons with limited access to education. What seems sadly obvious is the fact that Social Welfare is meant to bolster families in crisis, not further berate and destroy. Siblings are torn apart, mothers separated in hospital from newborns, fathers distanced from offspring, and children are left to bear the disservice growing up with loss of identity in both culture and sense of belonging. Abuse within the System is well-established by studies and understandably leads to angry young adults without the skills or fundamentals to function effectively in Society.

I have personally stood at vigils for dead children in the Province. I grieve alongside grandparents who demonstrate photographs of kin sporting horrific injuries; trying desperately to garner awareness for intervention on a loved one’s behalf. Many caseworkers, sadly, have lost the human touch and are overwhelmed with caseload. That is not to say that all social-workers are uncaring, that all foster placements are only committed for funding, that all natural families are innocent of violence. There are good and bad within every circle. However, what needs to emerge, is a better understanding of who comprises the use of social services, seek preventive alternatives and facilitate measures to improve transparent governing. Whether black, white, Native or otherwise, these are all our children.

While stringent protocols are well-written, researched approaches, the reality is that these Policies are not being adhered to and the children are suffering the consequences. I appreciate the fact that each channel is but a small cog in the over-all System, however, with title does come Authority. As well, a responsibility to over-see accountability and recommendation within one’s own realm. Time after time, when visiting Executive Directors of Child & Youth Offices, there was immediate assurance of established Policy to methodically respond to complaint/concern. Yet, at each juncture, I have personally encountered various Officials who deflect authority, stating that it is either not their area of expertise – or – that they lack the authority to intercede. Sometimes, it is impossible to reach a higher platform for intervention where an Authority is unwilling to take a position, cooperate with referral or chooses not to respond to correspondence at all.

Policy defines appropriate limitations of time to response to issues, yet again, Legislation is not followed. I personally experienced continued deflection as I manoeuvred the System for 3 years prior to the death of my daughter and still do, 5 additional years following Samantha’s passing. My little girl suffered 7 broken limbs and was denied medical attention for a seizure disorder. She eventually succumbed to sudden heart arrest at 13 years of age. And, still, no one has ever been held accountable. Both medical foster placement and caseworker directed to seek medical intervention, but chose to ignore professionals and did disclose the crucial information to us, natural family and legal guardians of our child. The following is a list of encounters that I was subject to addressing concerns to and await court recommendation from Fatality Inquiry:

Children simply do not have time to wait for an Authority to intervene; they can – and do – die waiting for someone to take a stance. Days, weeks, months, years unravel without consequence. For Delonna Sullivan a baby apprehended in 2011 and died in Provincial care, the mother, Jamie Sullivan, points out, “6 days was too long.” Response to concern for a child must be immediate and every single person who is a reportable entity must take the position to ensure follow-through is achieved.

After travel in and out of Province, speaking with Child Welfare Authorities and examining Policy, I have become acutely aware that Legislation, though well-constructed and researched, exclude Penalty for lack of adherence to structure. No where in Legislation is there written deterrent for failing duty; which can and has culminated in loss of lives. Successive lack of action has reached the level of a Fatality Inquiry, yet issues are still not fully examined, nor do recommendations – if made – need be heeded.

It is crucial that CHILDREN be represented with an equal forum in which the child’s voice is professionally represented. Children and youth are suffering the consequences of neutrality and paying with their lives. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. – Desmond Tutu.

All Authorities must work collectively to address issues of alleged abuse of vulnerable individuals. Currently, a great deal of confusion is expressed by the Public – even amongst mandatory reporters – regards to knowing which Authority is most appropriate to contact:

When I approached various Executive Directors within Child & Youth venues, I asked the following question: Whom does one raise concerns with when a child presents in need of intervention? “CAS” was the response I received from some Officials. I specifically prodded, “Not the police?” The response was, “No.” I found the answer quite interesting and disturbing because – although, I too, had believed that alerting Child Welfare Authorities was the correct route – according to RCMP, that approach does NOT suffice. A Social-worker with the Alberta Ministry openly criticized me by stating that had I truly been worried about my daughter, “would have called the Police.” Whereas, I honestly believed that Child & Youth Authorities were the “Police” for Children, this observation had initially caused me to question whether I had somehow failed my child. I posed the same query to a Physician and several School Officials; each took the exact platform that I assumed: “One reports to Child & Youth Services”. Thus, currently, there is a great deal of confusion expressed by the Public – even amongst Mandatory Reporters – towards correct reporting protocol. If Authorities are at a loss as to whom is appropriate to report concerns to, then certainly the Public is also subject to misinformation, relying upon Authorities for answers that are not clear. Increased education for the Public – including those considered Mandatory Reporters is necessary – to establish true outlets for response to concerns about children and vulnerable individuals.

What became blatantly obvious to those of us discussing Policy with Authorities, is the fact that well-written outlines exclude Penalty for negligence. No where in Legislation is there written deterrent for failing duty; which can and has culminated in loss of lives. The key element is non-existence of Legislation sanctioning breach of practice. If we are to deter poor outcome stemming from negligence of duty, consequences must follow. Compliance of Law must be adhered to by individuals beyond the public sector and be inclusive of employees of the Ministry. Our Veterans have fought diligently for safety and equality and are deeply concerned that families today are facing discord at the hands of current Leadership. No platform exists in which to raise concerns of negligence. Penalty as an incentive for better outcome can act as a deterrent. So my question follows: Where no clear lines of responsibility exist to make true accountability and prevention possible, how do we alter the future? How do we prevent Policies from being ignored?

I would like to establish an explanation as to why Child Welfare workers do not follow Policy: An organization maintains effective Policy adherence by creating an environment of accountability. Therefore, when Policies are not followed, there are consequences: Teaching, training or punishment to the level of eventual firing. The Child Welfare System has not been successful at ensuring accountability. Lack of resources and qualified workers, leads to inability to punish workers who do not follow procedures. As a result, there is Systematic failure to follow procedures. Ability to hire qualified workers hinges upon work environment, caseload and pay which subsequently evolves in maintenance of a qualified work force.

Families accessing government funding solely for issues of medical need must be defined distinctly from those individuals requiring Intervention for abuse or negligence as per SAMANTHA’S LAW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha%27s_Law Amendment to the Alberta FSCD (Family Support for Children with Disabilities) Act was made retroactive to December 2006 stems from Samantha Martin’s passing on December 3, 2006 and is defined in Section 2-3, Manual Amendments: Policy and Procedures in Family Centred Supports and Services: http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/527.cfm Legislation, however, presently lacks formalized title under Law to attribute establishment rightfully to the child whose life and death resulted in Amendment: Samantha Lauren Martin, June 4, 1993 – December 3, 2006. While Legislation exists, complaints continue to emerge from affected families who indicate that Caseworkers are still directing inappropriately. This is an issue which needs to be defined and revisited until a standard response is achieved. In addition, I seek recommendation of establishment of Samantha’s Law beyond Provincial territory to benefit all Canadians.

A return to people caring for people will serve a far greater scope both ethically and economically than what we have previously resorted to. Obvious solutions stem from common sense amongst those paying attention to challenging issues and choose to be responsive. However, a great number of individuals, including those in positions of Authority, are largely unaware – and some, simply unwilling – to examine deficits and make a conscientious effort to avert oppressive and dangerous practice. We have become numb as a society to tragedies. We keep trying to over-correct instead of returning to core values which involve honour of Family-Centred Care Practice. A concept which is not only ethically correct, but financially viable.

Presently, we bear witness to children paying with their bones and their flesh and the ultimate cost of life. Consider the ramifications: It is not but one life lost, the remnants carry forward to affect all who loved that child; siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts & uncles, teachers and friends. None of us are immune. We are each vulnerable. We must collectively take a vocal position. I concede that due to past experience, my faith in a transparent, independent forum to examine the well-being of children is not strong. However, I also believe in the strength of wisdom, God and justice that these will be achieved nonetheless and I do hope that you will be one of the many who join in to ensure that the lives of children are better protected in the future. One recommendation that I offer the Office of the Child Advocate is to take example from neighbouring Provinces and allow continued investigation when a child dies in Alberta. At present, once a child dies, even where a case is open, the file is closed and no further examination or advocacy transpires. If we are to learn from errors of the past, it is necessary to visit these manifestations and take note to avert future tragedy.

Yours sincerely,

Velvet Martin,

Family-Centred Care Advocate with Protecting Canadian Children
http://protectingcanadianchildren.ca/

Administrator for Tetrasomy 18p Canada

http://www.tetrasomy18p.ca/

“Samantha’s Syndrome”

Family-Centred Care Co-Chair for Family Advisory Council

Reply