Two-year-old could be taken

Page 4

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge's written reasons for choosing to grant custody of a two-year-old child of Aboriginal ancestry to his non-Aboriginal adoptive grandparents make infuriating reading for workers and activists who seek to stop cross-cultural adoptions.

During hearings in early September, both the biological grandfather and the adoptive grandparents were in court trying to persuade Justice Robert Bauman that the child should reside with them.

The judge handed down his decision on Sept. 26. That decision would have allowed the non-Aboriginal adoptive grandparents to take the young boy back home to Connecticut with them. But any action has been ordered stayed until an appeal is heard. The court granted the stay during a hearing on Oct. 14 so that members of the child's biological family could apply for legal aid and prepare their appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on Nov. 10.

The child's story is a complicated tale that stretches from coast-to-coast through two countries. His mother was taken from her home by Winnipeg area social service workers soon after her birth in 1976. After spending her first five years in a variety of foster homes, she and her sister were adopted in 1981 and raised by a couple who were living in Montreal at the time of the adoptions but now reside near Hartford, Connecticut.

The girls' natural parents had severe alcohol addiction problems at the time. The father, now 42 and a Vancouver area resident, is a member of the Sagkeen First Nation, the Manitoba Aboriginal community (formerly called the Fort Alexander reserve) of which the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine is a member and former chief.

The father had been sober for 12 years when his daughter sought him out and visited him in Vancouver shortly after her son was born. In November 1995 she and the boy travelled across the continent by bus and moved in with her biological father, the two-year-old's grandfather.

The adoptive parents informed authorities in the province that they were concerned about their daughter's ability to care for her child. She has led a troubled life; there was a suggestion during the trial (that was not documented as true) that she suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome. She has been institutionalized on several occasions. She does not get along with her adoptive parents.

The young boy was apprehended by British Columbia Ministry of Children and Families officials within days of arriving in the province and placed in foster care. The adoptive parents then applied to the British Columbia court for the right to take their adopted grandchild back to the United States. A preliminary ruling by Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon placed the boy with the biological grandfather while the case was being prepared for court. In making that decision, Justice Dillon relied heavily on a recent change to the province's Child and Community Services Act which prohibits the adoption of Aboriginal children by non-Aboriginal people.

The change in the law (enacted last fall) beefed up what had previously been a government policy which had evolved over the last 30 years as it became more and more evident that cross-cultural adoptions involving Aboriginal children just didn't work.

Those who have advocated for the end of cross-cultural adoptions in British Columbia read the 20-page decision and see suggestions of racial or cultural insensitivity.

Viola Thomas, the president of the United Native Nations, British Columbia, the province's off-reserve residents association, is especially angered by the decision because it appears to ignore a hard-won legislative victory which was supposed to stop cross-cultural adoptions in the province.

"It is law!" Thomas said. "How can a judge ignore that?"

Thomas pointed out that the province has a sordid history in handling the placement of Aboriginal children who are taken from their families.

"In B.C. in the 1960s there were at least 16,000 statu children adopted out to non-Native families," she said. "That number is based on DIA records. It's probably a lot higher because Métis and non-status people aren't included. They called it the 'Sixties Scoop.' There were cases where the babies were sold for $10,000 a shot and exploited, used virtually as slaves."

In his decision to award custody to the adoptive grandparents, Justice Bauman wrote that he was impressed by both sides.

"Having weighed all of these factors, and the evidence before me, I have concluded that while [the biological grandfather] offers a suitable parenting and family environment for [the boy], that offered by [the adoptive grandparents] is superior and better serves [the boy's] best interests," the judge wrote.

There are references to the relative income of the two parties all through the judge's reasons for his decision. The amount of money earned by the adoptive grandparents is noted, as is the intention of the American residents to send the boy to a local prep school. The judge also notes that the biological grandfather had not worked for several years and that he had attended residential school as a child and then became tangled up with substance abuse which brought him into trouble with the law.

In two succeeding sections of the judge's decision he listed what he saw as the positives of each of the competing sides:

"In favor of [the biological grandparent] are ties of blood, his obvious love and affection for [the boy], his Aboriginal heritage, his demonstrated ability to provide a home and care for his family."

"In favor of [the adoptive grandparents] are the ties of adoption, their obvious love and affection for [the boy], their desire and demonstrated willingness to encourage [the boy] in the appreciation of all facets of his heritage, the stability of their home and their apparent economic ability to provide [the boy] with many advantages."

Thomas is outraged the judge seemed to feel it was all right to take a child away fromhis biological family and his culture because the adoptive grandparents have a higher income.

"What is the definition of 'superior?" she asked, referring to the judge's remarks. "[The biological grandfather] has gone through his healing journey. He is providing for the child - his own blood relation. Is this all about money?"