The history of Indigenous child welfare in BC

For thousands of years, Indigenous communities successfully used traditional systems of care to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. [1]

Your child protection laws have devastated our cultures and our family life. This must come to an end. [2]

Since the time of Settler contact, Indigenous people in British Columbia have endured the devastating effects of colonization. Colonial policies—designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples and extinguish their communities, cultures and ways of life—have specifically targeted Indigenous children and the family structures they are nested within. The resulting breakdown in traditional family and community structures has and continues to cause irreparable harm.

Residential Schools and the 60s Scoop

The Indian Act, first proclaimed in 1876, gave the federal government control over most aspects of Indigenous people’s lives. It empowered the residential school system that operated in BC from 1861 to 1984 and where “the primary objective was to eliminate any vestige of Aboriginality replacing it with a Euro-western culture, knowledge and spirituality.”[3] A 1920 amendment to the Indian Act made attendance at state-sponsored schools mandatory for all Indigenous children who were physically able to attend, and provided truancy officers with the power to force attendance. Residential schools were also “the primary mechanism of First Nations child welfare in Canada between 1879 and 1946.”[4]

In 1951, the federal government amended the Indian Act to include Section 88, which gave provinces the power to enforce their child welfare laws on-reserve. In subsequent years, Indigenous child apprehensions rose dramatically: Indigenous children accounted for less than 1% of BC children in care before the amendment and over 30% by the early 1960s.[5] In what became known as the “Sixties Scoop,” thousands of Indigenous children were fostered and adopted into non-Indigenous families and lost their cultural and community ties forever.[6] In many cases, particularly among the Métis, children were misidentified as non-Indigenous and lost any opportunity to ever reclaim their Indigenous identities.[7]

Indigenous Resistance

In the 1960s and 70s, the large-scale removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities “sparked grassroots political activism throughout the province” and calls for the resumption of Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare.[8] The Indian Homemakers Association of BC (BCIHA) understood child welfare issues as “integral to Indigenous sovereignty” and worked to keep and bring children back to their home communities.[9] The BCIHA also worked to change the legislation and policies that produced the Sixties Scoop: they challenged the province’s jurisdiction over Indigenous child welfare and authority to apprehend Indigenous children[10] and pressed the federal government to “recognize Indigenous Peoples jurisdiction in the area of child welfare.”[11] The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, which emerged in the late 1960s to fight the assimilation efforts articulated in the White Paper, also began to demand recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare.

In 1980, the Splatsin people (from whom 2 of every 3 children were apprehended by provincial authorities between 1951 and 1979) passed a by-law recognizing their jurisdiction over child welfare, and established the Spallumcheen Child Welfare Program, now known as Splatsin Stsmamlt Services. Canada initially rejected the by-law. The Splatsin amended their by-law and resubmitted it: it was “inadvertently not disallowed by the Minister within the 40-day period, thus receiving status of a by-law on child welfare under the Indian Act.”[12] BC refused to recognize the by-law, so the Splatsin worked with other First Nations and with organizations such as the Indian Homemakers Association and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs to bring public attention to their efforts to reclaim responsibility for their children. These efforts culminated in the Indian Child Welfare Caravan of 1980, a carefully planned political protest that started in Prince George and moved through Lillooet, Williams Lake, Nanaimo, Mount Currie and into Vancouver, picking up supporters along the way. The caravan ended at the home of the provincial minister responsible for child welfare. Chief Wayne Christian later met with the minister and negotiated an agreement through which the province recognized Splatsin jurisdiction over their children, both on and off-reserve.[13] The handwritten agreement included the following text:

The Minister of Human Resources agrees to respect the authority of the Spallumcheen Band Council to assume responsibility and control over their children. The Minister of Human Resources agrees to the desirability of returning Indian children of the Spallumcheen Band presently in the care of the Minister of Human Resources to the authority of the Spallumcheen Band and both parties agree to work out an appropriate plan in the best interests of each child presently in care, assuming that the Spallumcheen Band will develop necessary resources in negotiation with the federal government.[14]

Following the success of the Splatsin people, the federal government quickly shut down any further attempts by First Nations to draft their own child welfare by-laws, and Splatsin remains the only First Nation in Canada to achieve a band-by-law model. Over the next several decades, Indigenous communities followed two distinct pathways in their efforts to take control of their own child and family services: the delegation model and recognition of their inherent jurisdiction over children and families.

The Delegation Model

Under the delegation model, Indigenous communities created child and family services agencies to replace provincial agencies, to prevent the removal of children from their communities and to provide culturally appropriate services to their children and families. In 1985, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council signed an agreement with the BC government delegating authority for the delivery of child welfare services and establishing the first delegated aboriginal agency in BC.[15] Shortly afterward, the federal government placed a moratorium on the creation of new delegated agencies. The moratorium was lifted in 1991 when Canada implemented a national First Nations child and family services policy, locking First Nations child welfare agencies into a national funding formula (Directive 20-1) and requiring them to adhere to provincial standards for child welfare practice.[16]

Under the delegation model, delegated agencies are legally empowered by Indigenous communities to provide child and family services to the members of those communities. Indigenous communities establish a delegation enabling agreement, which “delegates authority flowing from the provincial child welfare legislation to individuals employed by Aboriginal organizations based on the organizations’ adherence to established standards.”[17] Agencies serving First Nations also establish funding agreements (under Directive 20-1) with the government of Canada, while Métis and urban agencies receive their funding from the province.

Following implementation of the federal First Nations Child and Family Services program, Indigenous communities in BC quickly established several delegated agencies: by 1995, eight agencies were operating. As those agencies worked to provide culturally appropriate services to children and families, it became apparent that agency staff needed education and training developed from Indigenous perspectives. In the early 1980s, a small group First Nations social workers, including Warner Adam, Deb Foxcroft, Deanne George, Steve Kosey, Elsie Paul, Maurice Squires and Gloria Wilson, came together to find and create opportunities for training and to advocate for changes to child welfare policy and funding. In 1994, this group incorporated as the Caring for First Nations Children Society and began providing delegation training for the staff of the newly created delegated Aboriginal agencies, as well as “supporting the assertions and aspirations of BC’s First Nations communities.”[18] The Caring Society became the Indigenous Perspectives Society in 2014, and continues to offer training programs for delegated Aboriginal agencies.

In the early to mid-1990s, as Indigenous communities were creating delegated Aboriginal agencies, agency directors recognized that “they were all working on the same path and that they needed to come together to support each other in the journey.”[19] Agency directors had been meeting with representatives from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) as the Aboriginal Sub-Committee, which became the Partnership Forum when federal representatives joined the discussions.[20] The Directors Forum was established in the mid-1990s to allow agency directors to prepare together for the meeting of the Partnership Forum. Initially, the Directors Forum was known as the First Nations Directors Forum, as the first delegated agencies were established by First Nations. In 2012, the directors of urban and Métis agencies were invited to join the forum, and the name was shortened to the Directors Forum. [21]

Delegated Aboriginal agencies strive “to promote well-being, connection, belonging, and cultural permanency for the Indigenous children and youth in their care.”[22] Since their inception, however, delegated agencies have faced significant obstacles in their efforts to provide culturally appropriate services to the children and families in their communities. On the practice side, agencies have been constrained by provincial policy and legislation; on the funding side, they have been constrained by federal funding directives. Agency directors and Indigenous leaders have worked for decades to manage, circumvent and eliminate those constraints.

Culturally Appropriate Practices

In 1991, BC’s newly elected NDP government committed to reforming child welfare practices. The government consulted with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities: outcomes of the Indigenous consultations were reported by Lavina White and Eva Jacobs in Liberating our Children—Liberating our Nation. The report noted that:

“Everywhere we travelled there was a recognition of the damage done to our families and communities by the residential school system and the apprehension and removal of children from their communities. Everywhere we went we heard of culturally inappropriate responses to the problems caused by these tragedies, and nowhere did we find Aboriginal communities with sufficient resources to address these problems.”[23]

Based on input from extensive community consultations, White and Jacobs developed over 100 recommendations with an unwavering emphasis on the resumption of Indigenous jurisdiction over their children and families. “The answers to these problems cannot lie in the further extension of bureaucratic regulation of Aboriginal life. […] That answer can only be framed in the inherent right of our people to govern ourselves.” While the government’s intention was to reform child welfare legislation and practice, White & Jacobs argued in their report that “changes to family and child protection legislation must be seen only as an interim measure that will be fully resolved through the recognition of the paramountcy of Aboriginal family law.”

In response to Liberating Our Children, the Minister of Social Services announced that the ministry would undergo “a fundamental shift in values, from a child-centred to a family-centred system.”[24] This shift was to include an emphasis on preventative services so that families would be supported to stay safely together or to be swiftly reunited when it became necessary to temporarily remove children. The new legislation (the Child, Family and Community Service Act, CFCSA) articulated several principles to guide the delivery of child and family services, including:

  • A family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents
  • If, with available support services, a family can provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services should be provided
  • The cultural identity of aboriginal children should preserved
  • Aboriginal people should be involved in the planning and delivery of services to aboriginal families and their children
  • The community should be involved, wherever possible and appropriate, in the planning and delivery of services, including preventive and support services to families and children[25]

The CFCSA did address the full scope of issues and recommendations articulated in Liberating Our Children. However, among those who had participated in the community consultation process, there was “a cautious optimism” that real change would flow from the new legislation.[26] However, before the CFCSA came into effect, a young Indigenous child, Matthew Vaudreuil, died in terrible circumstances while in his mother’s care. Matthew and his mother had been involved with the child welfare system throughout their lives and Matthew’s death highlighted—in a very public manner—significant problems with the system. The government, and the Ministry of Social Services in particular, was widely criticized for these failures, and—under tremendous public pressure—quickly appointed a provincial court judge to conduct a judicial inquiry and make recommendations to fix the child welfare system.

The inquiry report (known as the Gove report) ignored the Liberating Our Children recommendations and instead focused on the child protection aspects of child and family services. “Basically, a vision of a child welfare system that recognized and built on community and family strength was replaced by one that relied on administrative expertise, reorganization, and investigation.”[27] There was a particular emphasis on systematic risk assessment in the Gove report and a warning that parental strengths should not be given too much weight in assessing risk for the purposes of child protection. In the initial development of risk assessment procedures, it was anticipated that social workers would use risk assessment tools along with their professional judgment to support professional decision-making. There were “high hopes that risk assessment would advance professional social work practice in child welfare.”[28] However, after a rushed implementation process, risk assessment became a procedurally-driven and administratively-onerous process that tended to dictate practice rather than supporting professional judgment. The shift toward prevention services and family support services initially envisioned in the CFCSA did not occur. Instead, regulations and practices based on the Gove recommendations resulted in further increases in the number of children and youth in care.[29]

For Métis children and families, the CFCSA presented one more significant failure: under the definition of “Aboriginal child,” the Act omitted any mention of Métis identity. This erasure of Métis identity perpetrated further cultural loss for Métis children, families and communities and “Métis children have become phantoms within the system.”[30] The omission also contributed to the widespread practice of placing Métis children in care in either non-Indigenous or in First Nations homes, leaving them without any cultural support and often severing their ties to the Métis community.[31] The CFCSA was not amended to include Métis identity until 2018. The disappearance of Métis children into the child welfare system continues the decades of cultural loss during which “Métis have hidden their identity in order to survive, to avoid discrimination, and to protect their children from removal to residential school and to foster care.”[32] In 1999, six Métis leaders (Margaret Clement, Sharon Coflin, Keith Jager, Gary McDermott, Robert Simmonds, and Tammy Sloan) established the Métis Commission for Children and Families of BC to prevent the disappearance of Métis children into the child welfare system and to maintain their connections with family, culture and community. The Métis Commission became the designated representative for Métis children, youth and families within the BC child welfare system.[33]

In a renewed effort to create space for culturally appropriate practices, in 1997 the delegated agency directors began working with MCFD and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada to develop operational and practice standards for delegated Aboriginal agencies. This work produced the Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards and Indicators (AOPSI), the first such standards for Aboriginal agencies in Canada.[34] The AOPSI standards articulated the minimum expectations of performance in relation to child welfare-related practice for delegated agencies and were written to meet or exceed BC’s legislative requirements. The AOPSI standards were approved by the directors of BC’s delegated Aboriginal agencies and by the provincial Director of Child Protection in 1999.

While a significant effort was made to ensure the AOPSI reflected the importance of family and community in Indigenous cultures, “they nonetheless did not embody practice founded on an Indigenous worldview and were not considered truly reflective of Indigenous beliefs, values, and cultural traditions.”[35] To address this gap, in 2009 the directors of the delegated Aboriginal agencies, along with the Caring for First Nations Children Society, MCFD and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, launched the AOPSI redesign project, Starting from a Traditional Place. The project name signalled the intention to center Indigenous principles and values in the development of a practice framework guided by community input.

The AOPSI redesign project spanned three years, during which over 600 Indigenous Elders, youth, parents, community members, and delegated agency staff participated in community consultation sessions. Between 2009 and 2012, agency directors contributed significant efforts to revise AOPSI; however, in 2012 the Provincial Director of Child Welfare decided against proceeding with the revised standards, and required Designated Aboriginal Authorities (DAAs) providing protective child welfare services to incorporate a specific risk assessment model (Structured Decision Making) into their practice.

In July 2013, MCFD and DAAs began working on an Aboriginal practice framework to build on the AOPSI Redesign and design a framework to guide policy and practice within DAAs and across all six MCFD service lines.[36] This work resulted in the Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework, “an overarching framework intended to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children, youth, families and communities through restorative policies and practices. It applies to policy and practice involving Aboriginal children, youth and families on and off reserve regardless if they are being served by a delegated Aboriginal agency or the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Restorative policies and practices are culturally safe and trauma-informed, supporting and honouring Aboriginal peoples’ cultural systems of caring and resiliency.”[37] The APPF was endorsed by the Directors Forum and MCFD in 2015.

Equitable Funding

When the federal First Nations Child and Family Services program was implement in 1991, First Nations “expressed concern that the structure and amount of funding in Directive 20-1 were problematic.”[38] In 2000, a joint review by the Assembly of First Nations and Canada concluded that the funding under Directive 20-1 was insufficient, that the funding formula made it impossible for agencies to provide preventative and least disruptive services, and that First Nations children were being taken into care as a result.[39] In 2006, after negligible progress in addressing documented failures within Canada’s child and family services policy, Cindy Blackstock of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations filed a human rights complaint against Canada “alleging racial discrimination against First Nations children resulting from the Government of Canada’s First Nations child and family services program.”[40] In 2008, the complaint was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a full hearing.

On January 26, 2016, the CHRT ruled that Canada racially discriminated against First Nations children by underfunding child and family services and found that Canada had been aware of the “adverse impacts” of this discrimination for years. Canada did not appeal the CHRT ruling and subsequently increased funding for child and family services—finally funding delegated Aboriginal agencies to provide meaningful preventative services.

Recognition of Indigenous Jurisdiction over Children and Families

Delegated Aboriginal agencies were always intended as an interim step on the pathway toward the full exercise of Indigenous inherent right to self-determination. “That has always been the goal from the very beginning of delegation. We didn’t really want to be delegated by the provincial government. Our goal was always to have our own jurisdiction over our children and families—that was always on our mind. And in our delegation agreements, we did specify that delegation would be in place until there was legislation and change allowing for something different from delegation.”[41]

As Indigenous communities created delegated agencies, they also continued working toward recognition of their jurisdiction over their children and families. In the early 1990s, the BC government showed a willingness to work with Indigenous leaders toward the resumption of Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare.

In 1993, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs signed an MOU with the BC government which recognized the inherent right of Indigenous communities to assume responsibility for their children and families. In the MOU, BC indicated that it would relinquish authority over Indigenous child and family services as Indigenous communities resumed jurisdiction. The MOU also established a Joint Policy Council, through which First Nations leaders worked with the provincial government “to pressure the federal government to uphold its fiduciary obligations to Indigenous Peoples with respect to child welfare.”[42] However, the federal government insisted that authority for child welfare rested with the provinces and would not provide funding for child and family services to Indigenous communities unless they had a delegation agreement with the province. Provincial policy subsequently shifted toward the delegation model for responding to Indigenous demands for self-governance with respect to child welfare.

In 2001, the BC government announced its intention to create five regional child welfare authorities. The proposal was for blended Indigenous and non-Indigenous authorities, but Indigenous communities resisted this assimilationist approach. First Nations, Métis and urban Indigenous leaders united their voices and produced the Tsawwassen Accord which articulated their opposition to blended child welfare authorities and recommended the development of regional Aboriginal authorities. In 2002, Indigenous leaders signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the government of BC indicating that regional Aboriginal planning committees would be created and funded to develop regional Aboriginal authorities. “The intention was that the communities should be part of the process and that development of the authorities should be driven by the Aboriginal communities, not by the politicians (whether they were Aboriginal or in the BC government) or the bureaucrats.”[43]

The regional Aboriginal authorities provided the potential for progress toward reclaiming Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare, for centering Indigenous values in the planning and delivery of child and family services, and for integrating the full range of child and family services (including early childhood development, adoptions, community living, youth justice and child/youth mental health). However, the process established by the government to develop the regional authorities was “confusing and difficult for all involved.”[44] The MOU that established the Aboriginal planning committees was to be renewed annually, but was never renewed. In 2004, the government cancelled plans to establish non-Aboriginal regional authorities and cut funding for the development of regional Aboriginal authorities. The regional Aboriginal planning committees continued their work and, in 2007 two interim Aboriginal authorities were established. The promise of increased autonomy in child welfare for Indigenous communities was not fulfilled, however, which undermined support within Indigenous communities for the regional Aboriginal authorities. In 2008, the government abandoned the legislation that would have established the regional Aboriginal authorities, and delegation remained the only model under which BC and Canada supported Indigenous communities to provide their own child and family services.

In 2008, the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) convened the first First Nations Chiefs’ Indigenous Child at the Centre Forum. During the forum, the chiefs committed to “the exercise of our inherent rights and responsibility for the survival, dignity and well-being of our children” and produced a collectively developed action plan to guide First Nations in improving child and family services.[45] At the second Forum later in 2008, the chiefs signed the One Heart, One Mind: Statement of Solidarity & Cooperation, which established an Interim Chiefs Child and Family Wellness Council to: revise the Child at the Centre Action Plan based on community input; work toward implementation of the action plan; and establish a permanent First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council.[46] In 2009, the FNLC and BC signed the Recognition and Reconciliation Protocol on First Nations Children, Youth and Families, through which BC committed, “to supporting First Nations to exercise jurisdiction for First Nations children, youth and families” and to working collaboratively in a nation-to-nation process to implement the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan.[47] The First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council was formally established in 2010, and BC began funding community-driven child and family initiatives under the Indigenous Approaches program. However, in 2013, the BC Representative for Children and Youth (BCRCY) released a report that was sharply critical of Indigenous child welfare policy in BC. Although the report was developed without any input from service providers and without any direct examination of programs or services, the RCY concluded that BC had spent over $66 million “without a single child being actually served.”[48] BC accepted the report as presented[49] and then cut funding to the First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council and to community initiatives associated with the Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan.[50]

In 2016, the FNLC prepared an Action Framework: Reconciliation, Self-Determination, and Self-Government for Indigenous Children, Families and Nations in BC.[51] The framework called for: the establishment of an Indigenous child & family reconciliation charter; tripartite work to reform child and family welfare for Indigenous nations in BC; and new legislation supporting the development of Indigenous child welfare systems and the resumption of jurisdiction by Indigenous nations and communities. In 2018, the FNLC signed a Reconciliation Charter with BC and Canada committing to child-welfare reform and establishing a tripartite working group to address policy and legislation related to First Nations children and families.[52] In 2019, the federal government passed An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, affirming the rights of Indigenous governments and organizations to exercise jurisdiction over their children and families.

Bibliography

[1] Blackstock, C., Cross, T., George, J., Brown, I., & Formsma, J. (2006). Touchstones of hope for indigenous children, youth, and families. Ottawa, ON: First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada.
[2] White, L., & Jacobs, E. (1992). Liberating Our Children: Liberating Our Nations. Victoria BC Ministry of Social Services.
[3] Indigenous Child at the Centre Action Plan. Retrieved July 16, 2020 from https://ihraamorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/ind-child-at-the-centre-action_plan-2008.pdf
[4] Kozlowski, A., Sinha, V., Hoey, S., & Lucas, L. (2011). First Nations child welfare in British Columbia. Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal.
[5] Kozlowski, A., Sinha, V., Hoey, S., & Lucas, L. (2011). First Nations child welfare in British Columbia. Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal.
[6] Grzybowski, K. (2012). Voices from Aboriginal Child and Family Agencies in British Columbia: Supporting Aboriginal Adopted Children with Cultural Planning. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
[7] Canada, D. (2012). The Strength of the Sash: The Métis People and the British Columbia Child Welfare System. Unpublished doctoral dissertations. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
[8] Walkem, A. & Bruce, H. (2002). Calling Forth Our Future: Options for the Exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ Authority in Child Welfare. Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
[9] Nickel, S. (2009). “United we stand, divided we perish”: Negotiating Pan-Tribal Unity in the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
[10] Barkaskas, P.M. (2005). The Indian Voice – Centering Women in the Gendered Politics of Indigenous Nationalism in BC, 1969-1984. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
[11] Walkem, A. & Bruce, H. (2002). Calling Forth Our Future: Options for the Exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ Authority in Child Welfare. Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
[12] Turpel-Lafond, M.E. (2019). Opinion on Federal Bill C-92 – An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Legal opinion provided to the First Nations Leadership Council of BC.
[13] Hyslop, K. (2018). ‘We Can Stop That Flow of Children Going into Care.’ The Tyee. Retrieved June 4, 2020 from: https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/06/06/Stop-Children-Going-Into-Care/#:~:text=Since%201980%20about%20450%20children,Splatsin%20of%20the%20Secwepemc%20Nation.
[14] MacDonald, J. (1985) The Spallumcheen Indian band by-law and its potential impact on native Indian child welfare policy in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Family Law 4, 75 as cited in Lucas, L. (2008). A Framework for Social Work Practice: Usma Child and Family Services. Unpublished Masters thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
[15] Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council history. Retrieved May 28, 2020 from: https://nuuchahnulth.org/history
[16] Schiffer, J.J. (2014). Feathers, Beads & False Dichotomies: Indigenizing Urban Aboriginal Child Welfare in Canada. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. New York, NY.
[17] Green, J., Kovach, M., Montgomery, H., Thomas, R., & Brown, L. (2007). Witnessing Wild Women: Resistance and resilience in Aboriginal child welfare, in People, politics, and child welfare in BC, pp. 97-116.
[18] Indigenous Perspectives Society (2014). Gathering our History. Retrieved June 25, 2020 from https://ipsociety.ca/gathering-our-history/
[19] Deb Foxcroft (personal communication, June 8, 2020).
[20] Maurice Squires (personal communication, June 8, 2020).
[21] Nita Walkem (letter to urban and Métis agency directors, November 16, 2012).
[22] Bennett, K. (2015). Cultural permanence for Indigenous children and youth: Reflections from a delegated Aboriginal Agency in British Columbia. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10-1.
[23] White, L. & Jacobs, E. (1992). Liberating Our Children – Liberating Our Nation. Community Panel Child Protection Legislation Review, British Columbia. Report of the Aboriginal Committee. Retrieved June 29, 2020 from http://www.turtleisland.org/healing/liberate.html
[24] Gove, TJ (1995). Report of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection in British Columbia. Retrieved July 1, 2020 from http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/gove/
[25] Child, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c. 46. Retrieved July 2, 2020 from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01#section2
[26] Bennett, D., & Sadrehashemi, L. (2008). Broken promises: Parents speak about BC’s child welfare system. Pivot Legal Society. Retrieved July 1, 2020 from http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/legacy_url/310/BrokenPromises.pdf?1345765642
[27] Armitage, A. (1998). Lost vision: Children and the Ministry for Children and Families. BC Studies, 118, 93-122.
[28] Callaghn, M. & Swift, K. (2007). Great expectations and unintended consequences: Risk assessment in child welfare in British Columbia in People, politics, and child welfare in BC, pp. 158-183.
[29] Liston, M. (2013). Evolving capacities: The British Columbia Representative for Children and Youth as a hybrid model of oversight. In L. Jacobs & Baglay S. (Eds.), The Nature of Inquisitorial Processes in Administrative Regimes, pp. 359-388.
[30] Carrière, J. & Richardson, C. (2016). The invisible children of child welfare: Legislation, policy and governance models for Métis child welfare. In J. Carriere & C. Richardson, C. (Eds.) Calling Our Families Home: Metis Peoples’ Experience with Child Welfare. Vernon: JCharlton Publishing Ltd.
[31] Canada, D. (2012). The Strength of the Sash: The Métis People and the British Columbia Child Welfare System. Unpublished doctoral dissertations. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
[32] Métis Nation of British Columbia. Understanding the Métis in British Columbia: A Guide for Social Workers, Legislators, and Policy Makers.
[33] Métis Commission for Children and Families of BC: https://www.metiscommission.com/about/about-mccfbc/
[34] Thomas, D.A., Hubberstey, C., Rutman, D., Hume, S. & Van Bibber, M. (2009). The Aboriginal Practice Standards Re-Design Project: Literature Review. Caring for First Nations Children Society. Retrieved July 10, 2020 from http://icwrn.uvic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/literature-review.pdf
[35] CFNCS & Nota Bene Consulting Group (2012). Starting from a Traditional Place: The AOPSI Practice Standards Redesign.
[36] The six service lines include: Early years services & early childhood development/child care; services for children and youth with special needs; child and youth mental health services; child safety, family, youth and children in care services; adoption services; youth justice services.
[37] Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework in British Columbia. Retrieved July 13, 2020 from http://www.mvaec.ca/downloads/aboriginal-policy-and-practice.pdf
[38] First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Pre-Tribunal Timeline. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://fncaringsociety.com/pre-tribunal-timeline-history-first-nations-child-and-family-services-funding
[39] McDonald, R.-A. J. & Ladd, P. (2000). First Nations Child and Family Services: Joint National Policy Review. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/docs/FNCFCS_JointPolicyReview_Final_2000.pdf
[40] First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Pre-Tribunal Timeline. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://fncaringsociety.com/pre-tribunal-timeline-history-first-nations-child-and-family-services-funding
[41] Deb Foxcroft (personal communication, June 8, 2020).
[42] Walkem, A. & Bruce, H. (2002). Calling Forth Our Future: Options for the Exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ Authority in Child Welfare. Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
[43] Green, J., Kovach, M., Montgomery, H., Thomas, R., & Brown, L. (2007). Witnessing Wild Women: Resistance and resilience in Aboriginal child welfare, in People, politics, and child welfare in BC, pp. 97-116.
[44] MacDonald, K. (2008). The Road to Aboriginal Authority of Child and Family Services: Considerations for an Effective Transition. The Centre for Native Policy and Research and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved June 25, 2020 from https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2008/CCPA_BC_Aboriginal_Authority.pdf
[45] UBCIC Timeline. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/timeline
[46] One Heart, One Mind: Statement of Solidarity & Cooperation. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://ihraamorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/one-heart-one-mind-declaration-july-2008.pdf
[47] Recognition and Reconciliation Protocol on First Nations Children, Youth and Families. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/BC_Recognition_Reconciliation_Protocol.pdf
[48] BCRCY (2013). When Talk Trumped Service: A Decade of Lost Opportunity for Aboriginal Children and Youth in BC. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/BC_RCY_AboriginalServices2013.pdf
[49] Holyk, T., & Harder, H.G. (2016). Aboriginal child welfare in British Columbia: A critical discourse analysis. Canadian Review of Social Policy/ Revue Canadienne de Politique Sociale, 74, pp. 82-108.
[50] Sunset of the First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council. Resolutions of UBCIC Chiefs Council June 10th-11th, 2015. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ubcic/pages/132/attachments/original/1551208731/2015June_ResolutionsPackageCombined.pdf?1551208731
[51] FNLC (2016). Action Framework: Reconciliation, Self-Determination, Self-Government for Indigenous Children, Families and Nations in BC. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://ihraamorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fnlc-sept-2016-reconciliation-framework-on-children-families_finaldraftforbcchiefs.pdf
[52] News Release: BC and Indigenous leaders confirm commitment to action on child welfare. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news_releases_2017-2021/2018CFD0001-000105.htm