DETAILS: April 2002 New Rules for "Employable Single Parents": - eighteen per cent cuts to welfare rates for single mothers; - support allowance dropped by $51 a month ($376.58 to $325.58) - new return-to-work requirements for single mothers - must work when child is age 3, not age 7 (note: contrast this with AGE 18 in New Zealand) -elimination of the Family Maintenance exemption (allowing those receiving child support payments to keep $100 a month); and -elimination of the earnings exemption (allowing single welfare recipients with a child to keep $200 a month). July 2002: shelter allowance dropped for families of three or more by $55 to $75 a month

“The Social Planning and Research Council (SPARC) in its December 2002 Report on living costs and income assistance in British Columbia concluded that, before these cuts, social assistance met only 45 - 65% of the minimum monthly costs of single parent families and single adults for food, clothing, household supplies, personal care, transportation, child care, shelter, and other basic costs.   … The December 2002 Report from the Council illustrates that, with current changes in benefit levels and eligibility, the government has made it even harder for welfare recipients to provide for themselves and their families.  Families with children have been particularly hard hit by the recent cutbacks.  For some single parents (most of whom are single mothers), income has been cut by 25%.” 

- from British Columbia Moves Backwards on Women’s Equality
http://www.povnet.org/resources/CEDAW.pdf and
- Falling further behind : a comparison of living costs and employment and assistance rates in British Columbia by Andrea Long and Michael Goldberg,
Social Planning and Research Council of BC).

The Dieticians of Canada, B.C. Region:
"Food insecurity is significantly associated with poor health, multiple chronic health
conditions, obesity, distress and depression. Undernourished children are more
susceptible to illness, have diminished attention spans and are unable to perform at
school as well as their nourished peers. .... families with children make up just over 50% of all income assistance clients. Of these 77% are single parent families. Almost 70,000 children are living in families on income assistance.. ... Over 30% of lone mother households experienced food insecurity during the previous year. Aboriginal people were about one and a half times more likely than non-Aboriginal people to live in a food insecure household."
- Report from the Dieticians of Canada, B.C. Region, The Cost of Eating in B.C., October 2002 (also at http://www.dietitians.ca/news/downloads/cost_of_eating_in_BC_final_2002.pdf)

See article: "Cuts to social assistance in British Columbia mean single mothers are on their own. by Dorothy Woodend August 6, 2002"

“NEGLECT …This may include failure to provide food, shelter, basic health care, or supervision and protection from risks, to the extent that the child's physical health, development or safety is harmed or is likely to be harmed. This also includes failure to thrive. Not always intentional, neglect may be a result of insufficient resources or other circumstances beyond a person's control..   The Child, Family and Community Service Act states that a child needs protection if the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed due to neglect by the child's parent."  
 - From The B.C. Handbook For Action On Child Abuse & Neglect, "Part II - Recognizing, Reporting, Investigating And Dealing With Abuse And Neglect," at http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/child_abuse_handbook

First, of course, MCFD first tries to work with the mother to 'resolve' the situation, but as poverty is the problem, unless she can get job that pays far above minimum wage, she's S-O-L. Never mind dealing with the emotional trauma of losing her child in the first place - how can anyone "improve" their lives when their hearts are being ripped apart? No money means she cannot afford to raise her child, thus her child is stuck in foster care.

Adoption does NOT mean temporary help or shared-parenting. It means that all legally recognized family ties (legal term: "filiation") between the child and his/her natural family are severed. It means that the child is given a new identity with a new birth registration that says that the adopters gave birth to that child. It means that the adopters have the right to deny all information and contact to the mother, who is now a legally a stranger to her own child. If the child is a baby, the child may grow up never knowing they are adopted.

• The child is now legally "As If Born To" the adoptive parents, in all ways.
• "Open Adoptions" can be closed by adoptive parents at any time and most DO close by the time the child is in preschool.
• If the mother is lucky, her child will be told that he/she is adopted.
• If the mother is lucky, her child may want to search for her when that child is a legal adult.
• If the mother is lucky, her child won't need family medical history to combat any of the 2,000 or more genetically-related diseases that exist.
• If the child is lucky, he/she won't be told that they were "unwanted" by their natural mother.

Question: WHY IS THIS DONE?
Answer:  PUNISH THE POOR FOR HAVING CHILDREN

“47. Single mothers on welfare are also at great risk of losing their children. Canadian expert on child neglect, Karen Swift, points out that state apprehension of children under the category of neglect is often a punitive measure against mothers who live in poverty. Mothers in poverty,  especially those who are racialized, are vulnerable to child welfare authorities because they are living under conditions of deprivation imposed by the state -- inadequate food, substandard shelter, inadequate childcare, inadequate clothing, and generally impoverished environments -- that make parenting extremely challenging. Apparently neutral designations like "neglect" obscure the fact that those accused of neglect are almost exclusively poor mothers, a disproportionate number of whom are non-white. -  K.J. Swift, Manufacturing Bad Mothers. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995).

“48. ... 70% of children apprehended by the Ministry are from single parent families, and 65% are from single parent families who are on welfare.  - Ministry of Children and Family Development website, online:  http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/media_site/breaking_news_hogg_jan18.htm

" Adoption is and has always been deeply imbued in classism, as it is adoption's intent and most often outcome to move a child from lower to higher-class status. This is truer today than ever, as adoption has become a business of finding children for clients." - Mirah Riben, Author Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Adoption

"Contrary to popular belief, mothers don't go on in this world after 'giving up'a child, enjoying their lives and forgetting the child ever existed. Even though people would love to think this is true, its not the reality of the situation for most of us. Our lives are colored by the tramatic event and we are never the same afterwards. Most of us grieve for years ...." - Jaymie Frederick, professional searcher and licensed PI

What woman would willingly let her child starve, or even take a chance that this might happen? In countries such as Canada and the United States – where single mothers are expected to find employment in order to feed, clothe, house, and raise their children – financial coercion of single mothers to surrender their children to adoption (or foster-care leading directly to adoption if the woman cannot find a well-paying job) is government policy.

This North American policy can be contrasted to that in other nations such as New Zealand, where the "Domestic Purposes Benefit" (DPB) provides a living income for single parents until the child is 18 years old. It is a small income but a family can live on it - it enables parents to provide a home for their children. The DBA stops if the parent lives in "a married situation:" as their partner is then expected to support them. Thus, there is no financial reason for a NZ woman to be forced to surrender a child.

(More information at http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/get_financial_assistance)

Other nations such as England
and Australia have followed suit. 
Why can’t B.C.? 

It is obvious that the situation in New Zealand prior to 1973 parallels that of North America in 2003.  Let’s step out of the dark ages of punishing single women for not having husbands to support their children.

Children are NOT a luxury reserved only for “those who can afford them”! Every child deserves a life without poverty and with his or her ORIGINAL loving family.

From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada co-signed in 1948:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

"On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages."

Article 16:

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 25:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.