9 ms·

children in indigenous households are more likely to be taken out of their families Children in households affected by poverty are more likely to be at risk, a

children in indigenous households are more likely to be taken out of their families Children in households affected by poverty are more likely to be at risk, and indigenous households are more likely to be affected by poverty. What would you have child services do, leave children who are determined to be at risk where they are, just because they're indigenous? Because that has happened, and children have died as a result.

watwut 5y ago
The comment you respond to have link to citations. You dont.
- cperciva 5y ago
  I'm not talking about the Sixties Scoop.
munk-a 5y ago
I don't actually disagree that it's likely that child welfare actions are more likely to be justifiably taken against indigenous households but the sixties scoop was pretty clearly not based on household stability alone. But, at the heart of the matter, if this minority is much more likely to live in poverty[1] then that itself is a problem we need to solve. But, the sixties scoop wasn't so long ago and, honestly, I think an in depth investigation of child services today would reveal that biases are still quite present. 1. Which is definitely true in Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-revenu-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-... (sorry it looks like this report was discontinued after 2015 so no more current data is available)
- cperciva 5y ago
  Right, I'm not defending the sixties scoop at all. Just pointing out that comparing statistics on youth taken into care in the 21st century based on ethnicity without adjusting for confounders is highly misleading and potentially lethal for the children involved. Yes, indigenous poverty is absolutely something which should be addressed -- but it's not a simple matter. One obvious "solution" would be to say "pack your bags and move to a big city" -- rural communities across Canada are poorer than urban communities -- but of course that would mean leaving traditional territories behind.
  - ayngg 5y ago
    It is in vogue to make judgements on the past based on current moral standards without much more context or understanding. These issues are far more complex than the popular narrative of Canada needing to atone for the genocide of native Americans, that sort of hyperbole just makes it even more difficult to create meaningful solutions. These issues are specifically pervasive because they are extremely difficult to reconcile.
  - pempem 5y ago
    It should also based on the above, apply to nearly any family dealing with poverty in these areas. The fact is that social services does not visit and escalate issues the same levels controlling for poverty. The correlation of poverty and being indigenous is a reflection of systemic racism and purposeful limitations on societal participation, and so they co-occur. Kids in abusive homes ofc need to be supported. Kids in poor homes need policies that allow their lives to become more stable.
  - bookofsand 5y ago
    Something to keep in mind when talking about confounding variables is that all preindustrial cultures, including European cultures, had a GDP of less than $1000 per capita per year, measured in 1990 USD. The default state of humanity is deep poverty. Industrialization brought gradual growth of economic output per capita to the tune of 10-100x compared to the preindustrial era, and the extravagant riches by historical standards the average Canadian enjoys today. The huge question: how to lift populations / cultures from their natural state of deep poverty. This effort by necessity involves radical changes in culture, which may take decades if not longer. One can't live a traditional lifestyle of fishing, hunting or subsistence farming and afford a modern heated house with indoor plumbing, driving a modern automobile to the supermarket for fresh produce in the middle of the winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I think there's also a legitimate question of whether we should lift cultures from their natural state of deep poverty - I don't think that even that point can be decisively settled. Removing that traditional lifestyle and encouraging office work is better for the individual but will erode and destroy those cultural traditions over time without a lot of careful stewardship.
- nativeit-net 5y ago
  There are several comments in this thread that are well-intentioned and more or less on the right track. There are also a few that are quite problematic. I felt compelled to come make the point that--maybe this is obvious to some, but not to others--poverty is not a valid reason for child protective services to seek to remove a child from their parents. Here in the US, there are thousands of children who are homeless with their parents, and it isn't because they are skirting under the radar of social services. As long as the child is not being abused or neglected, and the parents are doing what is necessary to see they are clothed and fed, it is widely accepted that is always in the child's best interests to remain with their parent(s). Outside of imminent danger, even the most abject crushing levels of poverty are not an excuse to take someone's child from them. --Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.
belval 5y ago
One idea that floated around was to have a special division to handle indigenous cases a bit like how they have peacekeepers (indigenous self-policing) instead of the RCMP on reserves.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Considering RCMP members are trained to use lethal force with a pretty low threshold I think this is pretty fair. The RCMP is a pretty bizarre organization that doesn't really have clear parallels in other developed nations. I think it's accurate to call it a paramilitary force and they end up juggling extremely serious crimes in most cases - but tend to be the only organization with clear jurisdiction in most reservations. So, for the closest American equivalent, occasionally SWAT gets called in to break up domestic issues and investigate robberies.
  - belval 5y ago
    That seems like a very uncharitable characterization of the RCMP, they act as the defacto police in the maritimes and that doesn't seem to have an impact on police killings[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I think our main point of comparison for the RCMP behavior is the American policing system and from that comparison the RCMP come out looking saintly. I also do strongly believe that RCMP members take a lot of pride in being a force of justice and trying to apply the law evenly - there are certainly cases where that doesn't happen but my point is more focused on the contrast of duties. RCMP members are normally trained for situations that local police (that specialize in de-escalation) can't handle - but when it comes to reservations they're the authority in pretty much all cases. Being in the RCMP isn't an easy job and it'll leave you scarred and hardened in a way that can seriously impede your ability to properly deescalate non-violent situations.
Kluny 5y ago
So the kids in question got removed from their unsafe homes, and placed in equally unsafe foster homes. What was gained? The actual solution is to work with the families to help them create safer conditions and monitor the kids, keeping them at least with their tribes if not with their parents. Instead they just get placed with random white families where they're abused and often end up running away and becoming street people.
klyrs 5y ago
If the only problem is poverty, then pay the parents $1600/mo to take care of the kid. If that sounds weird, it's about how much foster homes receive per child. We have[1] a system in place that continues to take children from parents in poverty, and then delivers them to a broken foster system; paying more than my monthly child expenses. Handing money to the parents instead has the same monetary cost, but has a chance to break the cycle of needlessly tearing families apart. [1] "birth alerts" were discontinued in some provinces around 2019, but remain "under review" in NB, NL, and NS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_alert
- beaner 5y ago
  This sounds like a perverse incentive [0]. If you reward impoverished people for having children, it is not unlikely that the net result will simply be more children birthed into poverty. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
  - klyrs 5y ago
    The foster system is rife with perverse incentives, and Canada is experiencing a population decline. Is it actually a perverse incentive to raise more indigenous kids in stable homes with guaranteed income? And, this touches on a broader conversation about UBI. IMO, payments for the kid should start in the third trimester. Our society does not value stay-at-home parents nearly enough. It's a job, and a damned hard one at that. Doesn't do much good to give people a guaranteed income that's too small to raise kids on -- you'll end up with parents working multiple jobs and the cycle of poverty continues.
  - cgio 5y ago
    Except for the fact that if you reward them then the children will not be birthed into poverty. You'll get more children, full stop.
    - rangerelf 5y ago
      "...full stop." What insane arrogance. Do you have evidence or is this some gut feeling you're having? Or "common sense"? Or because you said so? Edit: accidentally a word.

watwut 5y ago

The comment you respond to have link to citations. You dont.

cperciva 5y ago
I'm not talking about the Sixties Scoop.

munk-a 5y ago

I don't actually disagree that it's likely that child welfare actions are more likely to be justifiably taken against indigenous households but the sixties scoop was pretty clearly not based on household stability alone. But, at the heart of the matter, if this minority is much more likely to live in poverty[1] then that itself is a problem we need to solve. But, the sixties scoop wasn't so long ago and, honestly, I think an in depth investigation of child services today would reveal that biases are still quite present. 1. Which is definitely true in Canada https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-revenu-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-645-x/2015001/income-... (sorry it looks like this report was discontinued after 2015 so no more current data is available)

cperciva 5y ago
Right, I'm not defending the sixties scoop at all. Just pointing out that comparing statistics on youth taken into care in the 21st century based on ethnicity without adjusting for confounders is highly misleading and potentially lethal for the children involved. Yes, indigenous poverty is absolutely something which should be addressed -- but it's not a simple matter. One obvious "solution" would be to say "pack your bags and move to a big city" -- rural communities across Canada are poorer than urban communities -- but of course that would mean leaving traditional territories behind.
- ayngg 5y ago
  It is in vogue to make judgements on the past based on current moral standards without much more context or understanding. These issues are far more complex than the popular narrative of Canada needing to atone for the genocide of native Americans, that sort of hyperbole just makes it even more difficult to create meaningful solutions. These issues are specifically pervasive because they are extremely difficult to reconcile.
- pempem 5y ago
  It should also based on the above, apply to nearly any family dealing with poverty in these areas. The fact is that social services does not visit and escalate issues the same levels controlling for poverty. The correlation of poverty and being indigenous is a reflection of systemic racism and purposeful limitations on societal participation, and so they co-occur. Kids in abusive homes ofc need to be supported. Kids in poor homes need policies that allow their lives to become more stable.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  Something to keep in mind when talking about confounding variables is that all preindustrial cultures, including European cultures, had a GDP of less than $1000 per capita per year, measured in 1990 USD. The default state of humanity is deep poverty. Industrialization brought gradual growth of economic output per capita to the tune of 10-100x compared to the preindustrial era, and the extravagant riches by historical standards the average Canadian enjoys today. The huge question: how to lift populations / cultures from their natural state of deep poverty. This effort by necessity involves radical changes in culture, which may take decades if not longer. One can't live a traditional lifestyle of fishing, hunting or subsistence farming and afford a modern heated house with indoor plumbing, driving a modern automobile to the supermarket for fresh produce in the middle of the winter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I think there's also a legitimate question of whether we should lift cultures from their natural state of deep poverty - I don't think that even that point can be decisively settled. Removing that traditional lifestyle and encouraging office work is better for the individual but will erode and destroy those cultural traditions over time without a lot of careful stewardship.
nativeit-net 5y ago
There are several comments in this thread that are well-intentioned and more or less on the right track. There are also a few that are quite problematic. I felt compelled to come make the point that--maybe this is obvious to some, but not to others--poverty is not a valid reason for child protective services to seek to remove a child from their parents. Here in the US, there are thousands of children who are homeless with their parents, and it isn't because they are skirting under the radar of social services. As long as the child is not being abused or neglected, and the parents are doing what is necessary to see they are clothed and fed, it is widely accepted that is always in the child's best interests to remain with their parent(s). Outside of imminent danger, even the most abject crushing levels of poverty are not an excuse to take someone's child from them. --Source: I have worked as a Guardian ad Litem since 2008 and my mother is the director of a county department of social services, formerly the director the department's child protective services.

belval 5y ago

One idea that floated around was to have a special division to handle indigenous cases a bit like how they have peacekeepers (indigenous self-policing) instead of the RCMP on reserves.

munk-a 5y ago
Considering RCMP members are trained to use lethal force with a pretty low threshold I think this is pretty fair. The RCMP is a pretty bizarre organization that doesn't really have clear parallels in other developed nations. I think it's accurate to call it a paramilitary force and they end up juggling extremely serious crimes in most cases - but tend to be the only organization with clear jurisdiction in most reservations. So, for the closest American equivalent, occasionally SWAT gets called in to break up domestic issues and investigate robberies.
- belval 5y ago
  That seems like a very uncharitable characterization of the RCMP, they act as the defacto police in the maritimes and that doesn't seem to have an impact on police killings[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I think our main point of comparison for the RCMP behavior is the American policing system and from that comparison the RCMP come out looking saintly. I also do strongly believe that RCMP members take a lot of pride in being a force of justice and trying to apply the law evenly - there are certainly cases where that doesn't happen but my point is more focused on the contrast of duties. RCMP members are normally trained for situations that local police (that specialize in de-escalation) can't handle - but when it comes to reservations they're the authority in pretty much all cases. Being in the RCMP isn't an easy job and it'll leave you scarred and hardened in a way that can seriously impede your ability to properly deescalate non-violent situations.

Kluny 5y ago

So the kids in question got removed from their unsafe homes, and placed in equally unsafe foster homes. What was gained? The actual solution is to work with the families to help them create safer conditions and monitor the kids, keeping them at least with their tribes if not with their parents. Instead they just get placed with random white families where they're abused and often end up running away and becoming street people.

klyrs 5y ago

If the only problem is poverty, then pay the parents $1600/mo to take care of the kid. If that sounds weird, it's about how much foster homes receive per child. We have[1] a system in place that continues to take children from parents in poverty, and then delivers them to a broken foster system; paying more than my monthly child expenses. Handing money to the parents instead has the same monetary cost, but has a chance to break the cycle of needlessly tearing families apart. [1] "birth alerts" were discontinued in some provinces around 2019, but remain "under review" in NB, NL, and NS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_alert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_alert

beaner 5y ago
This sounds like a perverse incentive [0]. If you reward impoverished people for having children, it is not unlikely that the net result will simply be more children birthed into poverty. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- klyrs 5y ago
  The foster system is rife with perverse incentives, and Canada is experiencing a population decline. Is it actually a perverse incentive to raise more indigenous kids in stable homes with guaranteed income? And, this touches on a broader conversation about UBI. IMO, payments for the kid should start in the third trimester. Our society does not value stay-at-home parents nearly enough. It's a job, and a damned hard one at that. Doesn't do much good to give people a guaranteed income that's too small to raise kids on -- you'll end up with parents working multiple jobs and the cycle of poverty continues.
- cgio 5y ago
  Except for the fact that if you reward them then the children will not be birthed into poverty. You'll get more children, full stop.
  - rangerelf 5y ago
    "...full stop." What insane arrogance. Do you have evidence or is this some gut feeling you're having? Or "common sense"? Or because you said so? Edit: accidentally a word.