This
article contains content about residential “schools” that may be
triggering. IndigiNews is committed to trauma-informed ethical
reporting, which involves taking time and care, self-location,
transparency and creating safety plans for those who come forward with
stories to share.
Roslyn Chambers
says she first began drawing connections between residential “schools”
and Canada’s child-welfare system during law school.
It
was the early 2010’s, and she was studying law at Dalhousie University
in Halifax. After learning that her peers didn’t know about Canada’s
residential “school” system or the Sixties Scoop — something Chambers
believes everyone should know about — she started a discussion group.
They
welcomed guest speakers to join them, and Chambers says their teachings
helped her to understand that “the child-welfare system is residential
schools part two.”
“The same
principles that put residential schools in place are almost identical to
what’s happening within the child-welfare system today,” she tells
IndigiNews.“It’s another thing that we’re going to get an apology for in twenty years.”
Chambers
is a Black and Métis lawyer and the co-founder of Chambers Caldwell Law
LLP. She spoke with IndigiNews about why it’s important to fight for
Indigenous kids and families involved in the child-welfare system, and
what lawyers can do differently.
Anna McKenzie: What is your area of expertise or focus as a lawyer, and how long have you been practicing?
Rosyln
Chambers: I practice family law and child protection. I’ve been
practicing for five years, which seems like a very short time. I was a
mature law student with a lot of life experience. I think that’s part of
why my practice is very strong and growing.
AM:
How many parents [roughly] have you represented in cases against the
Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) or a Delegated
Aboriginal Agency (DAA)?
RC: Hundreds. Somewhere between 200 and 250, and that’s in five years. That doesn’t include the people that call for advice.
AM: Why is it important for you to fight for Indigenous kids and their families who are involved with MCFD?
RC:
It’s important to me because of the families that are broken and
they’re getting broken apart by the Director [of MCFD], by the
government, and their colonial views. I don’t know how else to describe
it. Colonial arrogance, white privilege … The Director steps in and
decides where that child goes, when in fact, the family and the
community probably could have dealt with that situation better and with
less disruption to the child.
It’s
important to me because I’ve got a few new tools right now with the new
Act [respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and
families]. I’m quoting it all of the time, and the judges are listening.
The legislation has to change now that we have this new Act. The
provinces need to step up.
I’m
doing this work because I don’t want to see yet another government
apology in twenty years. I want to make sure that every family, whether
it’s a mom or dad or a grandmother, gets to have their voice heard
against the Director. There are so many sad stories where the parents
don’t get a lawyer, don’t know what to do, and end up losing their kids.
It’s disgraceful, and so my work is basically trying to reunite the
family. The Director has to understand that and they have to be more
flexible and understanding instead of destroying families. Not all
families are perfect.AM: What do you think needs to be changed about the
way the legal system approaches Indigenous child welfare cases?
RC:
The very first thing is, they have to listen to the parents. I think
the judges need to listen to the parents a lot more. Also, the Director
needs to be checked. That’s the key.
There’s
been a number of refreshing changes recently, because we’re in an
environment now where judges have a better understanding. Recently, a
judge said that the Director shouldn’t go unchecked and that the court
should be [more] engaged … and this was based on me trying to get an
Indigenous child out of a non-Indigenous foster home. It’s important to
me because these families are broken, and they are getting broken apart
by the government.
I also think the
Director shouldn’t be able to just remove kids and then deal with it
later. [Social workers] should be calling and looking for a family
member and involving the child’s nation where possible. Instead, parents
may not be able to see their child for weeks.
There’s
also a lack of adequate access. The Director seems to think that two
hours, two or three times a week, is adequate to see your child.
There’s
also a lot of people that rely on kids being in care. If you look it
up, you’ll see how much money is spent on legal fees going to trial.
There’s a financial infrastructure that relies on a certain amount of
kids being in care. That money should be put into preventative measures
like keeping kids at home, supporting parents with child care and
respite care, services for mom and dad … that is money better spent that
is going to make a change. Or even just give [the money] to
communities. Give it to First Nations.
There
are some amazing social workers out there that really work to try and
get the kids home, but they are the exception, sadly.
AM:
What do you want other lawyers to know or do differently when they are
representing indigenous families involved in the system?
RC:
I want them to be empathetic. I want them to fight hard to be the
advocate. You are the voice of your client. I want them to understand
all of the services that may be available to Indigenous clients, like
legal aid or supports in finding housing so parents can work towards
getting their kids back. Those resources give us [lawyers] extra hours
for Indigenous client support.
Be more imaginative and try to support the person as a whole. Also, make sure you know the kid’s name.
AM: Would you say law students are encouraged to pursue child protection law in school?
RC:
No, I don’t think they are. It’s not sexy, it’s not fancy. It’s
possibly not even lucrative. But it is a very valuable thing. I think
there has to be a larger emphasis on it in family law, and I think it
should also be a course on its own. A child protection [course] will
help people understand the historical disadvantage of a group of
peoples, and it’s sad to say that out loud but the child-protection
system is the new residential school.
AM: Is there anything else you’d like to share?
RC: There’s another thing that perpetuates the historical disadvantage, and that’s “the watchlist.”
It’s easy to get into the child-protection system. It is very difficult to get out.
It’s
also, you know, a stereotype. It’s like we don’t expect you to do well
if you came out of the system, which is kind of ironic.
Also,
kids are still being removed at birth. It was supposed to have stopped,
but it still happens. One of my proudest moments was supporting a mom
whose new baby was removed. She was still in the hospital and then she
came home without the baby, but the baby came home that afternoon
because I went to court right away and I said this is completely
ridiculous. When you take a child away at birth, you know you are
changing this child’s destiny and ability to bond.
Instead of coming and taking kids, provide [families] with [the] supports and services in advance.
A
National Indian Residential School Crisis Line has been set up to
provide support for former students and those affected. Access emotional
and crisis referral services by calling the 24-hour national crisis
line: 1-866 925-4419.Within B.C., the KUU-US Crisis Line Society aims to
provide a “non-judgmental approach to listening and problem-solving.”
The crisis line is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Call
1-800-588-8717 or go to kuu-uscrisisline.com. KUU-US means “people” in
Nuu-chah-nulth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.