We need a public inquiry into child care
by Janet B. Webster - Special to the News
A Yukon News Archive story originally published November 8, 2000

It's not hard for the ordinary person to understand that children need stability, particularly during the early years of development. Common sense alone dictates that a disruption in the relationship between the infant and his or her primary caregivers is a traumatic experience. That's why hospitals now routinely allow parents to accompany their young child when they need medical attention. Fifty years ago, child psychiatrist John Bowlby, in a report to the World Health Organization, was very clear about the consequences of disrupting a child's early relationships - distress, despair and detachment. In the late '60s, based on his research, Bowlby argued that disturbance of bonding in childhood is associated with psychiatric disorders in adulthood. During the last few years, researchers have elaborated on the pattern noted by Bowlby. It's now called Reactive Attachment Disorder. Unattached children are insecure and suffer from high anxiety. This is often revealed in prolonged and intense rages to seemingly trivial events. Their behaviors are hard to manage and hard to understand. Throughout their lives, attachment-disordered children will have difficulties with relationships with caregivers, teachers and authority figures generally. They will have difficulties maintaining an intimate relationship and in bonding or becoming attached to their own children. In his recent book, The Growth of the Mind, Stanley Greenspan explains what happens. He argues that it is the subtle emotional interactions between a devoted caregiver and an infant that lays the foundation for the development of intelligence, morality and conscience. He says that emotions, not cognition, are the architect of the mind. Without this early "ecstatic wooing," the child is "at risk for becoming a self-absorbed or unfeeling, self-centred, aggressive individual who can inflict injury without qualm or remorse." In other words, the formation of a relationship with another human being is essential if we are to bring up children who have a sense of what is right and what is wrong and who can behave in a decent manner. And this relationship must be formed during the first few months of life. What happens to children whose family of origin does not provide adequate physical and emotional care? Such children become the responsibility of the government, either temporarily or permanently. The idea behind taking children into care is to reduce the burden of suffering for each individual child and for society as a whole. Being in care is supposed to be more advantageous to the child than being left in a family that cannot provide adequate nurturing. Not all children taken into care stay in care. In Canada, there appears to be a 60/40 split between temporary and permanent care. The director of family and children's services in the Yukon tells us she is the legal guardian of 230 children. I'm estimating that 60 per cent (138) are in temporary care and custody while 40 per cent (92) are permanent wards. It's the permanent wards who are my primary concern, as these are the most vulnerable children: they have no advocates. It is these children who require long-term planning to ensure stability. It is these children who will play out their old, unsatisfactory relationships with each new set of caregivers, increasing the likelihood of multiple placements. It is these children who are at risk of a wide range of social-emotional and behavioral difficulties. It is these children who will carry these risk factors into adulthood. It is these children, through no fault of their own, who increase the burden of suffering for society as a whole for as adults they will need a wide range of social and health services. So, I think the public needs to start asking questions about why children in care get moved so often. What are the needs of these children? How are decisions about placement made? Are foster parents given the information they need in order to understand the challenges of the children they look after? And what supports are available to them? In short, where's the accountability of the government for the manner in which they raise this community's children? Not too long ago, a little boy died in British Columbia. He had been in the care of the provincial government all his life. There was a public outcry and judge Thomas J. Gove was commissioned to hold a public inquiry. His report is called Matthew's Story. The executive summary is on the BC government's website. The full report is in the library of family and children's services in Whitehorse. It makes for sobering reading. Here are some of the things the judge said: * Child protection has, for as long as anyone can remember, been conducted in secrecy, with at least the perception that social workers are not accountable. * Many social workers were confused about their role and did not treat the safety and well-being of the child as paramount, giving priority to family unity instead. * Social workers made a succession of disjointed case plans: they did not practice effective case management. * District supervisors did not effectively supervise their social workers and they approved case decisions without sufficient knowledge. * Ministry files were disorganized, making it difficult for social workers to extract key information about the ministry's previous involvement with the family. * The ministry had no established process for people to make complaints, nor any independent process to have social workers' decisions reviewed. I don't think Thomas Gove was knocking social workers, and neither am I, for he noted that, "To do their jobs, social workers also, quite obviously, need help: better training, manageable caseloads, relief from occupational stress and burnout." I wonder whether it's different in the Yukon. Based on what I know, I'm skeptical. Thomas Gove wondered whether Matthew's story was unique. He found that it wasn't. In his report, he made it clear that children need protection from emotional harm, as well as from physical and sexual abuse. In fact, he recommended that BC change its legislation so that children were protected from the likelihood of emotional harm. I haven't seen a physical death of a child in care in the Yukon, but I work daily with the results of psychological death - children who have been traumatized by violence, abuse and the emotional harm stemming from the lack of stability in their lives. Nothing less than a public inquiry is needed here. This is the first of two. Webster, PhD, is an educational psychologist. She is a researcher and consultant in private practice in the Yukon. See www.yukon.net/crisis/