Learning from the death of Alex Gervais

This CBC story about the death of Alex Gervais helps to continue our needed conversation of how we can learn from the deaths of children in care.

Alex Decarie-Gervais' tragic life in the care of B.C's ministry of Children and Family development is the result of a series of missed opportunities by child protection officials, according to his family and at least one expert in social work.

"The system let him down by refusing my aunt the capability of adopting him," said Christopher Decarie-Dawson, Alex Decarie-Gervais' half-brother, from his home in Hull, Quebec.

Alex Gervais arrives in Quebec in 2008 to visit his half brother Chris and Aunt Line Decarrie, who tried twice to get custody of him. (Line Decarie)

Decarie-Dawson remembers a week long visit with his younger brother in 2008 when Alex was just 10 years old.

Social workers arranged for the boy to leave his foster home in B.C. to visit their aunt's lakefront home in Quebec.

Missed chance at a normal childhood

"I spent the week with him. He was very nice but very on edge and very jittery … he was very fidgety and anxious," remembered Decarie-Dawson, who, eight years earlier, was born to the same mother as Alex. 

It's not clear how many foster homes Alex had been in by then.

Christopher Decarie-Dawson says he tried to reach out to his little brother, Alex Gervais, for years, but social workers would not help. (Christopher Decarie-Dawson)

His placement, at age 18, at the Super 8 motel in Abbotsford, where he jumped, or fell from a 4th floor hotel room Sept 18., was his 16th in B.C.'s child protection system.

"The system let both of us down because I've gone through the exact same thing. I was abused by my mother as well, but I got lucky that I was taken by my father who was not sick," said Decarie-Dawson, who says his mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was unable to care for him or Alex.

Aunts attempts to get custody failed

The elder brother credits his aunt, Line Decarie, for saving him and helping his father gain custody.

A then ten year old Alex Gervais enjoys an afternoon tubing during a visit prior to Aunt's failed adoption attempt home in 2008. (Line Decarie)

He is angry her attempts to adopt Alex were blocked by B.C. officials who "refused to give custody to (her) because his father was still around, still alive."

Line Decarie first tried to gain custody of her nephew years earlier, when Alex was four.

She says police called her to tell her he'd been thrown down a flight of stairs by his father but an Ontario judge decided to give Alex's father a second chance.

Alex Decarie-Gervais (seated), then 10 , enjoyed riding his cousins's boat and spending time at his Aunt's lakeside home in Quebec in the summer of 2008. (Line DeCarie)

"Alex's father had mental health issues. Why they gave him full custody of Alex I don't understand up to this day," said Decarie, who lost touch with her nephew for several years when his father took him to B.C., where he ended up in foster care.

The Decarie family didn't see him again until he visited their home.

At the request of CBC News, Decarie dug through boxes to locate photos of that trip.

Images of a timid child tubing on his uncle's boat, bonding with the aunt who wanted to be his adoptive mother, and being embraced by relatives paint a picture of a childhood that could have been much different.

Family lost contact

The family says it was more than willing to adopt Alex, so long as it had assurances his father would have no contact.

B.C. social workers refused, and the Decaries lost all contact with Alex.

The next time child protection officials called the family would be to notify them of his death says Decarie-Dawson.

"Because he was in the foster system, so we couldn't get a message to him; we couldn't even find out if he was still alive until we found out that he died," said Decarie-Dawson, angry his brother was placed alone in a motel for nearly three months.

"I'm appalled about what has happened to him.  He should have had help. He should've had someone to call."

B.C.'s Ministry of Children and Families would not answer specific questions about the adoption attempt citing privacy law.

Bias towards biological parents says expert

"There might be some missed opportunities," said Dr. Peter Choate, professor of social work at Mount Royal University in Calgary, who has testified as an expert witness in more than 100 child protection cases.

He says social workers are trained to preserve families, but some give too much preference for parents over aunts and uncles.

Family preservation sometimes means social workers are biased toward parents in custody decisions says Peter Choate, professor of social work at Mount Royal College in Calgary. (Mount Royal University)

"We can be too biased at times towards biological parents and not contemplate what other opportunities may be there that would serve the best interests of the child," said Choate.

He believes there is a lot to learn from reviewing Alex Decarie-Gervais's case.

"Why did we want to keep Alex in contact with his biological parents as long as we did?"

"Did we do enough assessment to see the impact of mental illness on the capacity to parent?"

Choate hopes an independent inquiry will answer those questions, though he warns against a "witch-hunt" against social workers, who have a tough job.

"You are working with the unpredictability of human behavior … the public has to recognize that these are human beings engaged in very human work."  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/alex-gervais-s-tragic-life-defined-by-missed-opportunities-1.3372859 

The effects of parental incarceration on children

I have written in the past about the impact on chidlren of incarcerating parents. A couple of new reports in the United States highlight the concerns.

The first report Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to the their Children? really emphasizes that the impact of incarceration on children is not a central part of the conversation. This means that, as a society, we are not talking about the fragmentation of families, the loss of the parent figure, the deterioration of economic and social position and the costs to society when the children are marginalized in this way.

The report is reminiscent of the Adverse Childhood Experiences studies when the authors note:

Previous research has found connections between parental incarceration and childhood health problems, behavior problems, and grade retention. It has also been linked to poor mental and physical health in adulthood 

After accounting for effects associated with demographic variables such as race and income, we found that parental incarceration was associated with: • a higher number of other major, potentially traumatic life events—stressors that are most damaging when they are cumulative; • more emotional difficulties, low school engagement, and more problems in school, among children ages 6 to 11; and • a greater likelihood of problems in school among older youth (12 to 17), as well as less parental monitoring (pp.1-2)

The report suggests that looking at why and how we incarcerate is important but also says that we must begin to think more carefully about the ways that we support and intervene with the children. There is very little research (and perhaps even less evidence based programming) on how to work with this vulnerable population.

The second report, Removing Barriers to Opportunity for Parents with Criminal Records talks about the implications of having a criminal record.  The report notes that the United States leads the world in arrests and incarceration so their experience can act as an important source of learning for us. The report notes:

While the effects of parental incarceration on children and families are well-documented, less appreciated are the family consequences that stem from the barriers associated with having a criminal record, whether or not the parent has ever been convicted or spent time behind bars. A child’s life chances are strongly tied to his or her circumstances during childhood. Thus, these barriers may not only affect family stability and economic security in the short term but also may damage a child’s long-term well-being and outcomes.

The report also helps us to see the effects across all important domains in a family's life:

Income. Parents with criminal records have lower earning potential, as they often face major obstacles to securing employment and receiving public assistance. • Savings and assets. Mounting criminal justice debts and unaffordable child support arrears severely limit families’ ability to save for the future and can trap them in a cycle of debt. • Education. Parents with criminal records face barriers to education and training opportunities that would increase their chances of finding well-paying jobs and better equip them to support their families. • Housing. Barriers to public as well as private housing for parents with criminal records can lead to housing instability and make family reunification difficult if not impossible. • Family strength and stability. Financial and emotional stressors associated with parental criminal records often pose challenges in maintaining healthy relationships and family stability (p.2)

 It's a topic that deserves more attention particularly focusing on helping families and children manage the changes, stay connected and build resiliency to face the impacts of involvement in the criminal justice system.

 

Termination of Parental Rights

I have just had this article published. It discusses some of the very real challenges we face when trying to address issues if Termination of Parental Rights

Termination of Parental Rights: A Commentary

on Ben-David

PETER W. CHOATE

Child Studies and Social Work, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada

Ben-David (this issue) introduced us to the complexity of the factors

that courts consider in termination of parental rights (TPR).

It is an opening to understanding which factors are taken into consideration

and how courts make these challenging determinations.

Yet there are other questions that must be asked before we truly

understand the TPR decisions made by courts across a variety of

legal jurisdictions. This commentary argues that we must take the

inquiry deeper, asking questions that will unpack the complexity

assisting researchers and clinicians. Thus, we will want to know

how courts weigh such important issues as the credibility of the evidence.

What is it about such factors as parental competence, failure

of remediation, and other issues identified by Ben-David that cause

courts to determine TPR is the best choice? Consideration is given

to how Ben-David’s work might be extended using a Canadian

perspective.

Journal of Family Social Work, 18:243–252, 2015

Make life "everyday" for foster children

I am fascinated by a study from the University of Leicester in the UK which looks at the value of simple everyday activities for children in care. It seems that engaging children in the kinds of typical day to day activities can positively impact the sense of well-being. This can be what seems mundane - take the children shopping; play games; help care for pets; get involved in fun activities like going swimming.

These various types of activities engage children with the family system and also expose them to low stress and rewarding experiences. It socializes the child in a different way than may be quite different than experiences prior to coming into care. These sorts of activities, the researchers note, help the children to find their place within the social environment. By being successful and belonging, they can then develop a sense of empowerment in their own world - they be become actors who can create positivity in their life and are not driven by protective reactivity.

This can also lead children into finding comfort and reward in activities that link them to prosocial environments and connections.

In the world of increasing budget constraints, ins't it wonderful to think of the power of these everyday types of activities when a child is included in them with the foster family and other peers. This can also mentor children into learning how to manage free time more constructively.

The report notes:

• The participation of young people growing up in care is constructed in binary ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ terms. This research has found that this perception can lead to facilitated activities being overvalued and everyday participation being undervalued. The self-expression found in some forms of everyday participation feeds into young people’s sense of autonomy, yet this is not always recognised. 

• Participation facilitated by the corporate parent and foster carers of young people in care has a positive influence on the choices young people make regarding their own everyday participation. But this works both ways and what they choose to do in their free time in turn influences their decision to engage with the types of participation on offer. 

•  Safeguarding the well-being of young people in care is a priority for social services and carers. Ensuring and upholding this priority affects and takes precedence in different aspects of the young persons everyday life, including their participation. The requirement to safeguard can interrupt or even prevent participation inside and outside of the home. This leads to young people in care being treated differently and at times can lead to their exclusion.  

• Participation for young people exists in different geographical locations. However, when a young person in care moves placement, participation can be disrupted or even discontinued. 

The latter point speaks to the need for stability so that children can make connections that they can then hold onto allowing them to expand their sense of place, belonging and worth.

If you would like to look at the report go here and follow the links.

BC Child welfare system broken?

The Representative for Child and Youth in British Columbia, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond, suggests that the child welfare system in her province is broken. She made the comments in a report presented by the ATPN media. One issue that she raises is that, for Aboriginal children, too often funding is linked to the child being in care versus prevention efforts to keep children out of care. Turpel-Lafond has many case examples to back up her worry.

Prevention needs to address issues that child welfare is not set up to manage. Poverty is the main reason that Aboriginal children are in care. Child welfare cannot solve that. They can only respond to the effects of poverty which are typically seen in the form of neglect.

As a new federal government takes shape in Canada, now is the time for at least three core  Aboriginal child welfare issues to be tackled:

1. Start fully funding child welfare on reserves across this country;
2. Implement prevention programs to keep children out of care; and
3. When it is necessary to provide protection to child keep the child within the community and family system by providing needed supports for kinship care to be successful.

In my view, these are priorities. We should be getting them on to the agenda of this new government.

To view the ATPN report, go here.

The British Columbia Representative for Children and Youth Nails it Again

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is the Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia. She has just issued a report, The Thin Front Line that analyzes staffing and related problems in the province's child welfare system. It's a read that is relevant to child protection authorities across Canada and likely elsewhere.

She states that "The problems are systemic and have accumulated over time, worsening and not improving." She adds that the complexities of working in child protection have increased over time but there are fewer workers to manage these caseloads. This should sound familiar in many places.  She notes that workers have had to struggle with budgetary cuts, staff shortages, high turnover and pressure to meet strict timelines.

The government of B.C. says she is working with old data. Perhaps so, but the issues that Turpel-Lafond raises are hardly new. Thus, there may be some improvement but one doubts that the picture is much out of focus given what is seen in scrutiny of child protection throughout the Western world. Indeed, her themes very much mirror my own research on child protection errors. Her conclusions also strongly mirror reviews done by many authors.

Where she gets the story quite straight is in her major themes:

• Workloads are high and complex;
• Processes change and are not necessarily clinically focused;
• The issues that must be dealt with are often connected to long standing inequities that may be beyond the capacity of a worker to solve. An example is the legacy of the Residential Schools and the Sixties Scoop which decimated the parenting and family structure in Canada's First Nations communities;
• Bureaucracy is a burden that takes many hours away from clinical work;
• It's tough work so people leave and it's hard to get replacements quickly;
• The geography of Canada (in this case B.C.) means that many rural and remote communities get spotty services;
• Clinical supervision is required regularly but there are not enough supervisors to manage the needs;
• She found too many offices operating in crisis mode which tends to lead to "band aid" social work, as she put it.

Turpel-Lafond offers several recommendations which include:

• Sufficient budgets to address the staffing and workload issues;
• Improve the management systems to reflect the complexity and volume of cases;
• Track performance and respond to gaps or poor results;
• Get more First Nations workers in place.

She notes that there have been some positive steps such as the introduction of the Family Development Response to help support families with lower intensity issues. 

These are not new issues so perhaps the one question she did not ask that needs asking is "Why do these issues keep happening, time and again, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?" In other words, we are consistently getting it wrong. So how can it be done better. Public reviews need to start talking about that versus repeating themes and recommendations we have seen so often --- or is that governments are not really committed to child protection beyond the band aids? Is that governments don't really want to tackle the complex socio-economic factors that lead to children being at risk - poverty, inter-generational trauma, mental health and addictions and so on?

Investigation in British Columbia may be asking the wrong questions

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced in B.C. what has been hailed as a groundbreaking investigation. They will look into the actions of care workers who were involved with a First Nations youth, Paige, who died as a young adult from a drug overdose. Paige's case was the subject of a scathing report by the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

Paige as an infant, child and youth

In that report, social workers are noted to have failed to properly assess her needs; failed to communicate between regions as she moved around the province; didn't persist in trying to work with her as she became more challenging to engage; allowed her to live in some of the most dangerous, drug addicted areas of the province and often saw her without arranging further contact with child protection authorities. She died at the age of 19. She had many problems including Marfan syndrome which left her with very challenging eyesight, medication and cardiac health issues along with her addiction, trauma history and likely mental health issues.

As the CBC reported on September 18, 2015, "Paige as taken to hospital or detox at lest 17 times after being found unconscious or incoherent; she changed schools 16 times; and she featured in more than 40 police files, mostly for public intoxication." Yet, these incidents generally did not result in filing a report to child protection in accordance with provincial legislation. Like most Canadian provincial child welfare legislation, B.C. requires professionals to contact child protection whenever they suspect that a child is in need of protection.

It is the failure of authorities to make these reports that is the subject of the police investigation. But are they asking the right questions? It's tempting to be satisfied that the police may hold these workers accountable for their failures. That may make many professionals more aware although that might also lead to flooding the system with reports and more children coming into care. There can be a "fear chill" arising from such police efforts.

Despite the merits of a police investigation, it may be that the wrong questions are indeed getting asked. I find myself wondering (as I have with virtually all of the over 900 child welfare practice reviews I have read) what structural conditions lead to these kinds of failures.

• What causes professionals to believe that a report should not be done?
• What allows workers to believe that hard to reach youth are so challenging that you let them be in dangerous situations?
• What circumstances lead workers to fail to gather data from others who have worked with a youth?
• What did professionals believe would make a call to child welfare not worth doing?
• What is that professionals did not understand about their duty to report or has past experience caused them to believe that such calls are not worth doing because they cannot see any changes occurring?
• What kinds of supervision exists to support these decisions?

Yes, it is worth asking why these workers did not do what should be done but the questions are much broader. There has never been a prosecution under this section of the B.C. legislation. Turpel-Lafond hopes that this will be a turning point. I fear it may not be the one she wants. How many professionals will now decide that working with child protection cases should be avoided, for example.