Wisdom from the Elders: kinship care that honors traditional Indigenous ways

Abstract

This study describes insights shared by Indigenous Elders in British Columbia, Canada, who were asked about kinship care practices involving Indigenous children. It arises from a community-guided research study that set out to explore how child welfare organizations that work with Indigenous children and families can develop kinship care practices that honor traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices around kinship care. In-person interviews took place with eight Elders in the fall of 2022. Thematic analysis revealed three themes: (a) kinship care as a traditional practice, (b) kinship care and current child welfare systems, and (c) creating kinship care practices that uphold traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices. This article discusses these themes and their sub-themes and offers suggestions for child welfare organizations, policy-makers, and practitioners.

Introduction

The word Indigenous originates out of a global context and is generally used to describe people who are Indigenous to a geographic location. In Canada, Indigenous peoples include those who are First Nations; Métis, those of mixed First Nations and European ancestry who have a unique life and are distinct from other Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; and Inuit, people historically located in the Arctic who are legally and culturally distinct from First Nations and Métis people. It is important to note that there is great diversity both within and among these groups as seen in the 70 Indigenous languages they speak, the 600 First Nations and many Métis nation organizations that represent them, and the 50 communities that the Inuit call home (Statistics Canada, 2022). This study was conducted in the province of British Columbia (BC) which has one of the smallest Inuit populations in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2016), and none of the participants identified as Inuit. The study generally explores the experiences of First Nations and Métis peoples and is not intended to represent a specific community.

Indigenous children in Canada have consistently been overrepresented in the foster care system. According to the 2021 census Canada data, although they make up only 7.7% of the total population of Canadian children aged 14 years or younger, 53.8% of the children in foster care are Indigenous; this number is up from 52.2% in the 2016 census (Government of Canada, 2021b; Statistics Canada, 2022) and 48% in the 2011 census, where they represented 7% of the total population (Statistics Canada, 2016). These ongoing disparities have long resulted in calls for widespread, systemic changes within Canadian child welfare systems, changes that return jurisdiction over Indigenous child welfare to Indigenous peoples and re-establish models of kinship and community care (Fallon et al., 2021; Government of Canada, 1996; Kimelman, 1985; Representative for Children and Youth [RCY], 2013, 2017; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC], 2015c, 2015d).

Largely due to this activism, in the past 40 years, there have been major shifts within the Canadian child welfare system, as seen in BC. Child welfare services in BC have formally been provided to Indigenous children through the provincial government, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), since the 1950s; however, since the 1980s, many Indigenous communities have successfully fought for the return of jurisdiction over their children through the establishment of Indigenous Child and Family Service agencies (ICFS). These agencies have been developed as a way for Indigenous communities to provide culturally-appropriate prevention and protection services to Indigenous children and families (John, 2016; RCY, 2017). Recent federal and provincial legislative changes in Canada have affirmed the rights of Indigenous peoples to have jurisdiction over their children (Government of Canada, 2021a, 2021b), paving the way for Indigenous communities to further take back their child welfare services and making it possible that kinship care placements for Indigenous children will increase. It is important to note that many Indigenous children in BC are not served by an ICFS agency and instead continue to receive services through MCFD. In recent years, this organization has attempted to address the disparities for Indigenous children in care by creating policies and practices that are intended to support traditional Indigenous ways such as the use of kinship care (BC, 2011; 2015; Fallon et al., 2021).

These shifts have left child welfare in BC in a state of transition, and with this transition has arguably come the opportunity for change, including the chance to create kinship care systems that truly honor traditional Indigenous ways rather than replicating the Eurocentric processes that have been prevalent in formal child welfare systems to date. The goal of this study was to turn to the Elders to learn more about how child welfare organizations, policy-makers, and practitioners might do that. Knowledge about parenting, family wellness, and other aspects of Indigenous family and community life has historically been held by Elders and passed on orally to subsequent generations (Hare & Davidson, 2020; Muir et al., 2019). For this reason, Elders are especially well-poised to offer insight into traditional and current child-rearing practices. The research question was, “How can child welfare organizations that work with Indigenous children and families develop kinship care practices that honor traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices around kinship care?”

Literature review

Kinship care refers to a living arrangement where a child is no longer living with their parent(s) and is instead cared for by a caregiver who is an extended family member, a person with whom they have a significant relationship, or a member of their cultural community (Mann-Johnson, 2016). The practice of kinship care predates current child welfare practices (Leinaweaver, 2014); in many countries, its use was replaced by a formal foster care system that involves child welfare organizations hiring people, generally unknown to a family, to care for a child. Over time, however, kinship care has internationally come to be the preferred placement option for children, and the literature suggests that its use is increasing (Brisebois & Lee, 2012; Cudjoe et al., 2021; Houston et al., 2017; Malinga-Musamba, 2015).

Kinship care has particular significance for Indigenous peoples in Canada because it is the way through which communities traditionally ensured children were looked after and the roles and responsibilities around raising children were shared (Baskin, 2022; de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015; Mann-Johnson, 2016). The devastating impacts of colonialism, which included the removal of Indigenous children from their kinship circles and their placement in residential schools and foster homes, have been well documented (TRC, 2015a, 2015b). As Indigenous communities have continued to heal from these experiences, they have undertaken the difficult task of rebuilding the systems that cared for their children.

Despite the diversity that exists both between and within First Nations, Métis, and Inuit groups, some “common values, practices, and histories can be evoked to construct a cohesive portrayal of the past, present, and anticipated future of Indigenous families” (Anderson & Ball, 2020, p. 143). In this context, the literature on Indigenous peoples and kinship care can provide some valuable insights into traditional practices. This following summary draws primarily on North American literature; it is important to note that similar issues exist for Indigenous peoples in other settler colonial countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

One of the commonly held values traditionally shared by Indigenous peoples was that all things animate and inanimate are interconnected and exist in relationship with one another (Frideres, 2020; Kimmerer, 2013; Linklater, 2014). With this value came a belief in the importance of the collective well-being and the reciprocal nature of community and individual health (Little Bear, 2000). Children were honored as sacred gifts that were meant to be shared to promote community strength, bonding, and caring; the entire community was responsible for protecting and nurturing them (di Tomasso & de Finney, 2015). Interdependence was valued, as was the idea of prioritizing community gain over individual gain (Baskin, 2022). This value was also a means for community survival. Historically, harsh conditions such as food shortages and extreme cold meant that families had to live and work together; manage their relationships with each other, the animals, and the land; and work together for the good of the larger community (Anderson & Ball, 2020; Baskin, 2022). Due in part to these shared values, the concept of best interests of the child which currently guides Eurocentric child welfare practice is replaced within Indigenous communities by a belief in the importance of not only the best interests of the child but also of all the people around the child (Baskin, 2022; Lindstrom & Choate, 2016).

Indigenous communities have traditionally had an expansive view of relatedness that was based more on connectedness than on nuclear family ties (Gaudry, 2016; Lindstrom & Choate, 2022; Muir et al., 2019). Communal living meant child-rearing in Indigenous communities was typically shared in family groups, with children being parented by grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, and uncles (Anderson & Ball, 2020; Kikulwe & Mann-Johnson, 2018; Muir et al., 2019). Although children knew who their biological parents, siblings, and grandparents were, other members of the extended family could equally be considered a parent, sibling, or grandparent. This meant that a child could have many mothers and fathers, grandparents, and siblings, all who played important roles in their upbringing (Anderson & Ball, 2020). Likewise, roles involving discipline, teaching, and play were shared among kin so that children received guidance from the person best equipped to provide it; decision-making, including decisions involving a child’s welfare, was commonly done in consultation with the extended family (Anderson & Ball, 2020; Qwul’sih’yah’maht [Thomas] & Kundoqk [Green], 2015). These shared values ultimately meant that individuals felt a responsibility to contribute to their immediate biological family as well as to all children belonging to their community (Baskin, 2022).

Anderson and Ball (2020) argue that the eradication of kinship care within Indigenous communities was an intentional tactic used by European newcomers to colonize Indigenous peoples. From their earliest contact with settlers, Indigenous peoples were threatened and coerced into changing their family systems, not only because Europeans did not approve of the way they raised their children but also because Indigenous families stood in the way of colonization: early on, Eurocentric governments had concluded that the fastest way to overtake Indigenous communities and gain access to their land was to take over the education and raising of their children, with the ultimate goal of assimilating them into European Canadian society (Haig-Brown, 2016). The mass removal of Indigenous children has been compared to removing the heart from their communities: “Elders lost the children they had been responsible to teach, women lost the children they had cared for, and men lost the children they had protected and provided for” (Anderson & Ball, 2020, p. 148). This situation created the conditions for an unraveling of family systems that communities struggle with to this day.

Methods

I begin this section by situating myself in this research. I am Métis and a proud member of Métis Nation BC, grateful to have lived my entire life on the beautiful traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh people (a sub-group of the Dakelh Indigenous people whose traditional territory includes the city of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada). My parents were born in Alberta; many Métis were part of a diaspora of people who relocated West from the Red River area of Manitoba (Vowell, 2016). Métis scholars highlight the importance of engaging in reciprocal relationships with contemporary Métis and First Nations communities (Kinewesquao [Richardson], 2015; Voth & Loyer, 2020); I am privileged to be an active member of the Métis community in Northern BC and to have lived and worked alongside Métis and First Nations peoples here throughout my life. My career has included 20 years as a child welfare social worker, during which I supported many Indigenous and non-Indigenous kinship care families and developed a passion for contributing to children remaining in their communities.

My goal was to be guided in this work by an anti-colonial approach. Broadly, colonialism is the theory that one race, culture, or nation has an inherent right to claim dominion over and exploit peoples and land (Greenwood et al., 2022). Contemporary manifestations of colonialism are visible in social work wherever Eurocentric forms of knowledge and practice are centered in service delivery (Almeida et al., 2019; Elkassem, & Murray-Lichtman, 2022). While relationships between the state and Indigenous peoples have been redefined and renegotiated over time, marginalization and a focus on Eurocentric knowledge continue within child welfare structures, and as such, they essentially remain modern-day manifestations of colonialism (Kaskitémahikan [Hart], 2009; Strega & Sohki Aski Esquao [Carrière], 2015). An anti-colonial research approach acknowledges the ongoing impacts of colonialism on Indigenous peoples and focuses on the recovery of traditional Indigenous knowledge (Kaskitémahikan [Hart], 2009), essentially the focus of this study.

In keeping with an Indigenous research framework, this study prioritized relationships and accountability to those relationships (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008). The research question arose from numerous conversations between myself and the leadership of Carrier Sekani Family Services (CSFS), an ICFS agency in BC; in those conversations, research questions that could be of benefit to Indigenous children in northern BC were explored until a topic and methods were agreed upon. These methods included conversational one-on-one interviews for data collection, the gifting of an appropriate honorarium, thematic data analysis, and knowledge translation through community presentations. The Elders were recruited through convenience sampling in which I reached out to two well-respected Elders I have a prior relationship with and snowball sampling in which those Elders identified other Elders who they felt I should talk to. In appreciation, the Elders were gifted with an honorarium as well as a handmade gift. A written summary of the findings was given to the Elders and CSFS; an oral presentation was given to CSFS, with the possibility of more to follow. Ethics approval was obtained from CSFS and the University of Northern British Columbia.

Data collection

Elders met with me for a semi-structured interview that lasted approximately 45 minutes. Six open-ended questions were asked, including “Can you please tell me about how kinship care was traditionally used in your community?” and “What changes do you think could be made to kinship care as it’s used now to make it more similar to traditional kinship care?” Participants were given the choice to meet virtually, over the phone, or in person, and each of them chose to meet in person.

Sample

Eight Elders shared their insights; five First Nations and three Métis, six women and two men. All were living in an urban area in northern BC at the time of the interview; all had experience working in a professional or paraprofessional capacity. Each of the Elders had extensive experience with kinship care: Five were raised either partially or fully by their grandparents, six described being raised with other family members such as cousins, and several had been kinship caregivers as adults.

Data analysis

The Elders were given the option of reviewing their transcript, and all but one made that request; one Elder wanted to discuss her transcript but did not request changes. Data analysis was done by the researcher using an inductive thematic analysis process that followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) 6-step process: Familiarize yourself with your data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name themes, and produce the report.

Findings

The Elders did not hesitate in providing rich, thoughtful responses to the interview questions. In this section, the findings from those discussions will be discussed. Wherever possible, the words of the Elders will be used to highlight the themes that arose, using the pseudonyms E1–E8 to protect their confidentiality.

Kinship care as a traditional practice

Strong families and communities

The Elders shared that First Nations and Métis communities were traditionally strong and healthy; families had well-established values, which included a sense of community, of watching out for one another, and of the importance of extended family. Grandparents, aunts, and uncles played a key role in children’s care, and everyone in the community helped to teach them traditional values such as respect as well as practical skills such as preserving food. When there were unhealthy community members, there were processes that ensured children remained safe:

If anyone touches a child, hits a child, or harms a child, they would shun them away from the group and put them somewhere else where they’re all by themselves . . . First Nations felt that the children were a gift from God and that’s how they treated their children. (E6)

Children were placed with their kin for practical reasons such as an infertile couple’s desire to raise children or the inability of a couple with many children to raise them all. Sometimes children stayed with their kin due to their parents’ struggles such as, for example, alcohol use and when they were having conflict with their parents. These arrangements took place formally, for example, through a potlatch ceremony, or informally, with someone in the community such as grandparents or an aunt stepping forward to provide care. The kinship arrangements were described by the Elders as being natural and automatic, as done “out of love” as well as “to keep the children out of the child welfare system” (E4).

Fluid roles

The Elders also described a sense of fluidity around kinship care. A child or youth could stay with a family member for a while and then move back to their parents’ or stay with another family member without there being a formal plan or agreement in place. One Elder noted:

We had cousins that lived with us for two or three months or two or three weeks or whatever. And then when things were good they went back home . . . there was no Ministry involved. . . . It was a family thing so you dealt with it within the family. (E1)

Kinship care arrangements could be shared among family members; for example, if a child could not live with their birth parents and the grandparents were too elderly to care for them full-time, the child could live with them part-time and another family member part-time. There was also fluidity around who could provide teaching to a child within the community; an Elder or an aunty could fill this role. One participant described with laughter, “Some of the Elders in the village would reprimand me. And my mom and them . . . just didn’t say anything, they let that Elder do what she should be doing. So I got hell from a lot of them” (E2). These fluid roles were reflected in names used for family members as well as in how those family members were thought of. One Elder shared:

We called our grandma mom and we called our grandpa dad and my mom’s siblings were like my older siblings who left home . . . to this day I don’t call them aunty or uncle. I call them by their name because to me they’re like my older siblings. (E4)

Interestingly, two of the Elders described kinship care placements in which the child and family did not belong to the same Indigenous community and expressed a broad sense of kinship that extends to all Indigenous peoples. One described the boy she raised in kinship care:

And he wasn’t our blood. He wasn’t even our culture. But if you understand the word in Cree [the language of a group of Indigenous peoples, many of whom live in central Canada], wahkohtowin [being related to one another], he’s family no matter what, right? Despite blood, despite culture, he’s family. We’re all related. (E8)

A simple life

Several of the Elders described their experiences living with their kin as a simple but happy and fulfilling life. One shared:

My grandmother showed me how to . . . trap. So I do my own trapping. And I helped her fix the winter food, fish, canning, half-dried, smoked . . . I’m not a kid that had all those fancy clothes and fancy food, fancy home. I had cabins. That’s good enough for me . . . It was a good life . . . As long as I had love and care and attention, it was there with my grandparents. I miss them so much. (E5)

Another fondly described a time later in her life when she lived with several generations:

[We lived in] a one room shack with a wood stove, had to pack water, make wood, but that was the happiest time of our lives. (E6)

Kinship care and current child welfare systems

The damage of foster care

Every Elder talked about foster care being damaging to First Nations and Métis children, and it was clear from what they shared that living with kin was much preferred to living in foster care; six described tragic deaths involving people they cared about who were involved in the foster care system. A sense of disconnection and identity loss for those who grow up in foster care was threaded throughout the Elders’ stories, and they described children experiencing a deep sense of loss even when their basic needs are met in a foster home:

I know people that are the same age as I am who have been fostered out and they get a good education, they’re well-spoken, they dress nicely, but inside they’re hurting and a lot of them say that the only way to take away the pain is alcohol and drugs. So you can give a child anything you want but if it’s not brought up in Indigenous ways, then the child feels that they’re a stranger to their own community. (E3)

This sense of being unable to successfully return to community rose repeatedly. It is important to note that several Elders also described examples of positive foster care placements. These caregivers were ones who forged relationships with the children’s families and communities, brought them to visit, and made efforts to help them learn their cultural practices.

The ripple effect of dysfunction

In contrast to the strong, healthy traditional communities they described, every Elder shared a sense that Indigenous communities are currently struggling with dysfunction, describing a ripple effect that began with the residential school era and continues to this day: “We’re still hanging onto our residential school trauma. We still hang onto it for dear life because we’re too fearful to talk about it . . . it’s a ripple effect going down generation to generation” (E6). This dysfunction was described as a reason that children enter the foster care system:

And there’s lots of lost dads out there . . . who grew up in the system and then they have their kids and . . . there was never any real healing or work done with them and we kind of just put them in foster care and let them grow up and age out and then they have kids and then they do the same thing, right? (E4)

This pattern of dysfunction was also viewed as being a barrier to kinship care placements occurring more often than they do. One Elder said:

Once a child has been apprehended . . . but there is dysfunction and there’s violence and there’s no healthy uncle or aunt, or there’s no grandparents, so what’s the option? The Ministry has to step in and they have to be apprehended and then that sore remains, the fear, the trauma, the shame. And then they grow up and . . . a lot of them may continue, they may be successful, however a lot of them turn to something that will dull the pain. (E1)

This Elder went on to share:

Both my parents were in the residential school and we were never hugged, we were never told I love you because they never learned that in the residential school . . . when I talk of kinship, how can you give something you weren’t taught? (E1)

Creating kinship care practices that uphold traditional values, beliefs, and practices

The difficulty of returning to traditional ways

When asked how we can create kinship care systems that honor traditional practices, several Elders questioned whether it is possible for communities to completely return to traditional ways. They discussed the loss of knowledge in communities about traditional practices: “With all the atrocities that happened with residential schools and everything else, we see the family unit was broken . . . very traditional kinship, I mean that fell apart” (E1). One Elder pointed out that many Métis people were not raised in their culture and are therefore unable to engage in traditional practices: “We have so many Métis families who are new. They don’t know the culture. They weren’t raised in the culture” (E7). The Elders also suggested that larger societal changes have made it impossible to return to traditional ways:

[The current use of kinship care in child welfare systems] is. . .nothing more than I think lip service to the actual traditional pieces of it that really worked. And I think, too, it worked in our day and age because we had those family supports around us. Now in this day and age, with . . . families being physically distanced from one another, who has the support I had of my mom and my aunties and my cousins for childcare and respite and that, right? (E8)

In spite of expressing doubt that we can completely return to traditional practices, the Elders provided many suggestions for ways to bring current systems more in line with traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices. These are shared in the next sections.

Change within child welfare organizations

Although the area where the Elders were residing has a strong ICFS presence, when discussing child welfare organizations, they most often spoke of MCFD. One of the predominant themes that arose was the need for MCFD to make changes in their kinship care processes. The Elders discussed the need for MCFD to give power back to Indigenous peoples: “The BC government has to realize, they’ve done enough damage, let’s give back the power to where it belongs, let’s try and mend what was so ripped apart” (E1). This theme particularly surfaced when there is a need for MCFD to turn to families and communities for direction regarding the best plan for a child who cannot live with their parents. Several Elders suggested that social workers often do not know about viable family options and that talking to the family could help them learn who is available to care for a child. Many also pointed out that families know who in the community is healthy and could help social workers make safe placements: “I think Ministry should get family members together, you know, have a meeting with them and judge from that . . . where the child would be best placed” (E2); “Families know. And the communities know who is safe and who isn’t. It doesn’t have to be published in the newspaper who has what charges or whatever against them” (E8).

Two of the Elders discussed ICFS agencies in their area, expressing a sense of hope that these organizations are doing things differently than MCFD. One shared:

I feel sorry for social workers because they’re bound by policies and subjected to listen to those policies as opposed to listening and realizing the traditions and the strong, strong values that were held once upon a time. So now now these delegated agencies are there to try and fix that wrong, and there have been successes because they’re getting more vocal, they’re getting more brave. (E1)

Healing for communities

Earlier, it was discussed that many Indigenous peoples hold a value around the importance of community and the reciprocal nature of individual and community health. In keeping with that value, although each Elder openly shared their ideas about kinship care processes, they also consistently spoke about ways to contribute to the overall healing and health of communities. One way that this theme surfaced was around the need for specific interventions for parents who might not have learned skills due to the intergenerational trauma suffered within communities:

If you put a family in there and you know, maybe they don’t want to change, okay put an intervention in there. Teach them how to parent, teach them how to budget. That’s how I learned how to parent, how to budget, how to put my boundaries down. (E6)

The Elders also spoke of the need for their community members to take accountability and face their struggles: “There has to be admission . . . from the people, families, the structures have been broken and they would have to understand and be accountable for the wrongs” (E1). In addition, they spoke about healing being a path to communities moving forward with healthier processes: “I think there still needs to be a lot of healing in community because there’s still so much that are hurting and dealing with past trauma and that needs to be deal with so that they could move forward” (E4).

The need for education

The need for education on many levels also surfaced throughout the interviews. The Elders spoke about the importance of social service organizations and social workers becoming better educated so that they are no longer making decisions about Indigenous children and families through a Eurocentric lens. One Elder shared an example of social workers assessing whether a home is suitable for a child:

My standards may not meet the white standards and yet it could be healthy. . . . See me as I see myself, give me back the power to think I’m a good housekeeper. I’m healthy. My children are clean. But it’s those standards . . . those thoughts, perceptions, and racism, and prejudice . . . how do you change their attitudes? (E1)

The Elders also spoke about the importance of Indigenous peoples becoming educated as a way to increase the power of their voices within systems that impact Indigenous children and families. One noted with pride: “I see my people . . . getting educated and it’s so beautiful. Education is key” (E1). Another suggested Indigenous peoples should, “Get a PhD so you can meet government at their own level, right?” (E7). The Elders also advised that Indigenous people could be better educated and informed about what is happening to Indigenous children who grow up outside of their families and communities as a way to motivate them to fight for the return of their children:

So there’s a lot of education involved with it . . . it’s not right that they’re being raised by somebody else and not someone [Indigenous] . . . we’re losing our kids, and they should be in the community because now the communities have a window, very small compared to [before]. (E3)

The need for supports

All the Elders spoke about the need for families providing kinship care to be better supported. For example, the need for improved financial supports arose, with the Elders pointing out that, although traditional kinship care may not have resulted in a monetary payment, modern pressures make financial supports necessary:

I think it’s different than when my grandparents were raising us because there wasn’t the financial part of it. They just did it out of love and even though grandparents are still taking their grandkids and raising them out of love, reality is. . .the cost of living and everything, especially if they’re on a pension. (E4)

The need for supports that are equal to those received by foster parents was also raised:

We should be helping our families who are raising their kids whether it’s aunty, uncle . . . you know, [social workers] will give them a bus pass but if it’s a foster parent [they’ll] arrange for transportation . . . they get pretty much whatever they ask for. If they work, we do the babysitter thing but for grandparents or aunts we don’t. It should be the same all around. (E4)

Some of the Elders also spoke of the importance of social workers building positive, supportive relationships with Indigenous families. Finally, the Elders spoke of the importance of offering families supports that fit with traditional values and beliefs:

And working with families, putting more support out there . . . you know how it is with MCFD. You have to go through treatment, you have to do a parenting course. Those aren’t traditional. When you’re working with Aboriginal people I think you know teaching them their traditions, or as close as possible . . . maybe connecting with an Elder in their community. (E4)

Hope for the future

It is typical for Elders to share their wisdom through stories in a way that is not always direct, and upon re-reading the transcripts after what was thought to be the final data analysis, a final theme emerged that had not been apparent at first. Each of the Elders shared stories about their younger family members—children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews—that demonstrated a deep sense of pride and hope for the future generation of children. For example, two Elders shared:

All of my grandchildren are graduated . . . some of them have even carried on in their education and they all work. And my grandson . . . he’s very, very polite, and the woman I was talking to said oh boy you can tell he was raised right and . . . she knew my daughter and she said your daughter was raised right too [laughter]. (E2)

[My granddaughter] knows how to preserve the fish, how to dry, how to can. She learned everything . . . And I don’t know how it came about for me to stop [the ripple of dysfunction] but I did. I did it out of love for my grandchildren. Somebody has to break the chain. There is chains in the family and they’ve got to be broken. And we’ve got to start thinking about saving our grandchildren. (E5)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore how child welfare organizations that work with Indigenous children and families can develop kinship care practices that honor traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices around kinship care. The suggestions that stem from the findings are relevant to child welfare organizations, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and the policy-makers and practitioners associated with them. They will be presented in this section, along with a discussion of some potential barriers to implementing them.

A focus on systemic issues: community and individual healing

One of the most interesting trends in this study is that, when asked about kinship care in child welfare systems, the Elders consistently spoke less about kinship care as an insular practice and more about the general health and well-being of communities. For example, almost all described the ripple of dysfunction within their communities and the need for community members to heal. This holistic perspective is perhaps not surprising given the previously-described Indigenous value regarding collective well-being and the reciprocal nature of individual and community health. This finding suggests that kinship care cannot be discussed outside of the larger context of community health and healing. In the context of this article’s research question, it also suggests what may be a counterintuitive approach to developing kinship care policies and practices that honor traditional Indigenous values and beliefs: a focus not on child welfare policies and practices per se but rather on supporting Indigenous communities to heal.

By extension, simultaneously providing support to the individuals involved in kinship care to heal could ultimately contribute to kinship care placements that honor traditional Indigenous ways. For example, the Elders shared ideas about helping parents learn some of the skills such as parenting and setting healthy boundaries that were lost due to intergenerational trauma and of doing so in a manner that is consistent with traditional practices. The idea of supporting Indigenous individuals in their healing as a way to improve kinship care systems is consistent with recent research with Indigenous kinship caregivers which found that one of their primary needs is for support to heal from the impacts of colonialism (Burke, Bouey, Madsen, Costello & Schmidt, 2023).

Kinship care as a response to the over-representation of Indigenous children in care

Previously, the over-representation of Indigenous children in the Canadian foster care system was discussed. Woven throughout the interviews was each Elder’s belief that creating kinship care systems that honor traditional Indigenous values and beliefs will by extension increase the number of Indigenous children living with their kin, thereby decreasing the number in foster care. This theme arose subtly in many ways. For example, when asked about traditional kinship care, the Elders spoke of the natural way in which community members would historically take care of children and families in crisis so that nobody remained in need. When asked about the current child welfare system and its use of kinship care, they described the damage of foster care which is to be avoided and the ripple effect of dysfunction that has at times prevented modern families from being able to care for their kin. Similarly, when asked what is needed to create kinship care systems that honor traditional values and beliefs, their ideas focused on the hope of healthy families and communities that can care for their children and on organizations that support those models of care. This finding suggests that child welfare systems that endeavor to create kinship care policies and programs that honor traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices may have the added benefit of helping to address the previously described over-representation of Indigenous children in foster care.

A place for culturally-safe foster care

Although this study set out to explore the use of kinship care with Indigenous children who come into contact with child welfare systems, it is important to note that several of the Elders spoke positively about foster parents they know who keep children connected to their families and communities and try to help them learn their cultural practices. This finding suggests that while changes are made to create improved kinship care processes for Indigenous children, families, and communities, there may be space for culturally-safe foster care.

Organizational and practitioner shifts in practice

This research also suggests that practitioners re-assess how they think about and plan for kinship care placements and that they be supported in making those shifts by the organizations and policy-makers that support their work. For example, the Elders spoke about a model of kinship care that provides safety to children while allowing them to fluidly move in with their kin when they need additional support care, then move back with their parents when they feel safe and comfortable to do so; kinship care was also described as being shared between family members at times. These examples highlight the potential for providing safety to Indigenous children while creating kinship care practices that allow for placements that are flexible rather than rigid and that support autonomy whenever possible. Other suggestions given by the Elders such as that social workers meet with families to find out who is available and safe to provide care and that they reevaluate how they assess caregivers’ homes are already theoretically supported within child welfare organizations. The reality that the Elders mentioned them may mean that additional policy changes are needed as well as additional supports for social workers which could include training, clinical supervision, and lowered caseloads.

Heeding wisdom from the past

Finally, it is important to note that some of the ideas shared by the Elders are repeatedly echoed in the national and international literature on both Indigenous and non-Indigenous care. For example, one Elder described the need for kinship caregivers to receive appropriate supports and for those supports to be equal to those received by foster parents, something kinship caregivers and their advocates have long been saying (Burke, Bouey, Madsen, Costello, Schmidt, Barkaskas, et al., 2023; Murray et al., 2004; Sullivan et al., 2015). This finding suggests that organizations, policy-makers, and practitioners who work in kinship care should maintain an awareness of the research that has already been conducted with those impacted by kinship care processes and that they work to create systems that honor those ideas.

Barriers to change

The ultimate goal of research that is conducted with, by, and for Indigenous peoples is not to generate knowledge but rather to improve the reality of those being researched (Frideres, 2020; Wilson, 2008). The task of re-establishing traditional models of kinship care is arguably daunting, and the Elders in this study certainly questioned whether returning entirely to traditional ways is even possible; however, each one expressed at least some optimism in the possibility of creating kinship care systems that more closely align with traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices than those currently in place. Along with their optimism, it is important to note the intersecting barriers that exist in moving from the previous suggestions to real and lasting change.

It is important to acknowledge that finding ways for formal child welfare systems, which were created out of inherently Eurocentric concepts, to better fit with Indigenous, community-based processes is very challenging by sheer virtue of the fact that their underlying worldviews and values are so vastly different (Lindstrom & Choate, 2016; Ney et al., 2015). This tension is evidenced in the reality that, in spite of the fact that many of the suggestions in this article are already acknowledged in the literature, they have yet to be operationalized in BC’s child welfare system. For example, in keeping with what was shared with the Elders in this study, the need for kinship care homestudy processes that better fit the needs of Indigenous peoples is well documented (Blacklock et al., 2018; Kikulwe & Mann-Johnson, 2018; Lindstrom & Choate, 2022; Mann-Johnson, 2016). At the same time, creating an assessment process that simultaneously fits the needs of the child welfare organizations and Indigenous peoples in this province remains elusive, and I would argue largely because both operate from an inherently different worldview.

It is also important not to minimize the devastating impacts that intergenerational trauma continue to have on Indigenous families and communities, nor to underestimate the complexity involved in supporting communities to heal. Because of the abuse that occurred in residential schools and the lack of traditional role models, many survivors and their descendants lost the ability to use culture-based parenting skills and to engage in nurturing interactions with children that promote healthy connections (Muir et al., 2019). Mental health problems arising from intergenerational trauma at times result in dysfunctional parent-child relationships. Childhood trauma has impacted parents’ ability to cope with stressors (Muir et al., 2019). In addition, racism and poverty continue to impact the ability of families to reconnect with, invest in, and reclaim their children and youth (de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015). For the 53.8% of children in foster care who are Indigenous in Canada, healthy kinship circles are needed today, and the long and difficult journey needed to bring about healing in communities cannot be ignored.

Intersecting with these challenges is the reality that Canadian neoliberal policies place significant pressures on child welfare organizations, policy-makers, and practitioners, greatly impeding their ability to implement change. Neoliberalism is an ideology that prioritizes the well-being of the market over the health and well-being of society; controlling government costs is a priority, and in the context of social work, this focus results in fewer available services; the hiring of less-educated, lower paid workers; and higher caseloads (Baines, 2017; Radian, 2017; Strega & Sohki Aski Esquao [Carrière], 2015). Under neoliberalism, the role of child welfare has shifted from a focus on providing services to those in need to a focus on assessing risk, requiring clients to take action to reduce risks, and monitoring whether or not they do so (Fairbairn & Strega, 2015). Another central belief of neoliberalism is that dependence on the state is wrong and harmful, leading to further societal problems; this belief, coupled with a prevailing attitude in society, including that among social workers, that kin should not be compensated for caring for their own, leads to a pervasive lack of supports and services for kinship caregivers and kinship care programs (Mann-Johnson, 2016). All the suggestions in this study, including finding ways to create child welfare processes that are embedded in Indigenous values and supporting communities to heal from the impacts of intergenerational trauma, require a long-term commitment on the part of the state to provide resources at every level, including to Indigenous communities, social service organizations, and individuals involved in kinship care, something that is difficult if not impossible to operationalize under neoliberal policies. The findings in this study did not identify solutions to these barriers but rather highlighted the reality that they exist and that ongoing research, advocacy, and micro- and macro-systemic changes must occur if we are to shift kinship care policy and practice.

Limitations

This study has potential limitations. Although every intent was made to ensure it was undertaken in a respectful, collaborative, and relational way guided by an anti-colonial approach, I acknowledge with humility my ongoing journey to decolonize my mind, heart, and work; my insider and outsider status as a Métis person doing research with both Métis and First Nations Elders; and the inherent difficulty in using academic research, which is an historically extractive process, to gain insight around traditional Indigenous values, beliefs, and practices. All the Elders in this study were living in an urban area and had experience working as professionals or paraprofessionals. Their perspectives could be different from Elders who live on reserve and who have no experience working with government systems. Research with Elders in different contexts such as those living in their communities could add additional insights. As stated previously, there are many differences both between and within First Nations and Métis groups, and the ideas expressed by the Elders in this study may not be shared by First Nations and Métis peoples from other communities; it was not the intent of this study to generalize the participants’ experiences to those of all Indigenous peoples, and research with Indigenous people from other groups could prove insightful.

Conclusion

Earlier, it was suggested that settlers in Canada intentionally eradicated kinship care within Indigenous communities as a way to further their goal of taking control of those communities and their land (Anderson & Ball, 2020). It is arguably somewhat ironic, then, that kinship care has surfaced as the preferred placement option for child welfare organizations that work with Indigenous children in countries like Canada. The question remains, however, as to whether or not these systems truly honor the worldviews of the people they are meant to serve. Baskin (2022) asks,

Are Indigenous practices regarding children and families being co-opted or appropriated by dominant forms of child welfare? Or is the West beginning to learn from us that sharing the power with families and communities helps to serve the best interests of the children? (p. 253).

She surmises that both may be the case but concludes with a vision where Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples work together to share their gifts and knowledge so that we can work together for the good of all our children. Indeed, although this research was conducted using an anti-colonial approach, with a goal to acknowledge the ways that dominant structures and marginalization continue within child welfare systems and to focus on the recovery of traditional Indigenous knowledge (Kaskitémahikan [Hart], 2009), if dominant Eurocentric perspectives continue to be applied to Indigenous children in care, we are arguably simply perpetuating “the continuation of colonial processes, with the practice of oppression and cultural dismemberment overlaid with the rhetoric of caring and altruism (Love, 2000, p. 29).