Debates of May 17, 2007 (day 9)

Madam Chair, I move that this committee recommend that the Minister issue a directive reinforcing the use of extended families in the placement of apprehended children and that every effort be made to place children with extended family within the child’s home community before a child protection worker considers placement in a foster home in or outside the child’s home community. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with this idea of using extended families for the placement of an apprehended child. I just have two caveats or concerns about that. I think that extended families should receive the same remuneration to care for that child as would a foster family that would not be related to that child. The reason being is that sometimes, just because it is an extended family, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have other obligations, a job or may need to procure childcare or support. I think sometimes it has been the thinking of the system that if you put a child with an extended family member, automatically there should be no financial assistance for that family member to take care of that child. I think that is maybe one of the reasons why there has been some resistance, because it can create quite a change in the family dynamics to take in especially younger children that need some supplementary care or babysitting. That is one thing that I would say about that.

Another thing is that I don’t think that extended family members should automatically be considered a viable placement either. I know there is always the overriding thought that they will do what is in the best interests of the child, but I think that the extended family should still, even though they are related, be subject to the same kind of home study, stability study, that any foster family caring for a child would undergo. It can be done fairly quickly. It can be done on an emergency basis. It can be done and assessed fairly quickly, but there have been some pretty publicized cases where children were being cared for by grandparents or extended family members that it was not a good situation for that kid. I don’t think you can just categorically say because this person is a relative, they are an ideal placement. It should be subject to the same kinds of criteria that you would use in approving any home for a child that has been apprehended. Those are just my two comments and concerns on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Lafferty. To the motion.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just highlighted the whole purpose of this motion that was brought forward was due to the fact that we consulted with the communities. The community elders, mostly elders, have told us that with the apprehension process, most of the kids are transferred to Yellowknife. That is the whole idea behind this motion where we always stress the importance of having the child with an extended family member. I do agree with Mrs. Groenewegen from Hay River South, that there has to be a fit home as well in the community with the extended family. Is it a safe home? It has to be a safe home. That should be a priority. But there are other extended family members within the community. We all know each other. I fully respect that and I fully support that, too. There has to be a safe home. We are doing this for the safety and well-being and also the best interests of the child. At the same time, we come from a small community. We also speak our language, as well. We are also lucky to have our cultural background as well with our elders in the community. Certainly, we cannot punish the child when he/she has been taken to a bigger city where a child does not speak English, but the English speaking foster parents are there. So I do understand to some degree that it is a last resort. Yes, I will support that if it is the last resort because of the well-being of the child. At the same time, we must work in the community to identify those suitable homes for the extended family. Mr. Chair, that is the whole purpose of the motion that is brought forward to us. I just want to highlight that. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Lafferty. To the motion. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with my colleagues here. I sort of agree with Mrs. Groenewegen with regard to remuneration of extended family members. I also think that it is important. I know that child welfare workers work really closely with families to investigate the homes all the time. That is one of the responsibilities, to make sure that wherever you take the child, apprehend the child, you have to place them in a safe home whether that is extended family or a foster care home. One of the difficulties in small communities, though, is trying to get foster homes, because a lot of the people are afraid that, if the family members know where the child is, they will come knocking on the door. That is one of the reasons why it is very hard to allocate foster homes in the home community. One of the best options is to use extended families in cases like that. In extreme cases, I strongly believe that, if the child’s welfare is at stake, if the department has no other choice but to send them outside of the community, do it as a last resort. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried