Human Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[Cassaundra Eisner, Student, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Cassaundra Eisner, and I am 23 years old.

I was placed in the foster care system in New Brunswick at the age of nine and found my forever family at the age of 11. I am a lived expert from the child welfare system.

Over the years, I have been a strong advocate for youth in care and for adoptive families through volunteer work with the New Brunswick Adoption Foundation, the New Brunswick Youth In Care Network and with PRIDE panels. If you're unfamiliar with PRIDE panels, they're training for future permanency families and supports. I am currently a director on the board of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada.

As I already shared, I was 11 when I joined my adoptive family. Although I would argue that my adoptive family is my real family, that was not always the case. I moved in shortly after meeting them and after having meetings and sleepovers. Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year-old little girl.

When it comes to joining a new family, there are lots of mixed emotions: fear, anxiety and excitement, just to name a few. This is a huge life change for anyone, especially someone who has experienced developmental trauma from factors that were out of their control.

It is important to know that these factors are not the fault of the child or youth. Due to these unfortunate circumstances and experiences, it can be very difficult to attach and to build a trusting relationship with new people, especially caregivers. The extra time given for attachment in these situations is important to be able to build stronger and healthier relationships, and to allow for more time to heal and to build trust in these new situations.

I am here today from New Brunswick to tell you that “Time to Attach” is a very important campaign, and it's something that would benefit many youth and children who are coming into or are already in the system and are in need of permanent support systems.

Thank you for your time and consideration on something that is very near and dear to my heart.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Eisner.

You did very well, and I'm sure you will do fine in the question period.

Before we get to that, we'll hear from Carolyn McLeod, a professor from Western University.

[Carolyn McLeod, Professor, Western University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Carolyn McLeod, as was said. I'm a professor of philosophy at Western University. I'm pleased to be able to speak to the standing committee on the value of the sorts of benefits laid out in Bill C-318.

The relative credentials that I have are that I'm the lead author of a report you may have seen called “Time to Attach: An Argument in Favour of EI Attachment Benefits”.

I'm an adoptive parent of two children who came to us at ages three and six. I was the founding chair of the board of directors for Adopt4Life. I am an expert, academically, on the ethical dimensions of forming families through adoption or through assisted or unassisted reproduction, and I've contributed to public policy in these areas.

I was recently recognized for this work by the Royal Society of Canada, of which I am now a fellow.

My brief comments will centre on the “Time to Attach” report, which discusses the need for attachment benefits. We argue in favour of having these benefits for the sake of children who find permanency through adoption, kinship or customary care.

Unlike Bill C-318, we do not touch on surrogacy, which is not to say that our argument could not be extended to children born of surrogacy. I won't comment one way or another on that issue. Rather, I just want to summarize our main argument that children in adoptive, kinship or customary care families need more time to attach.

Among those families, we're focused on those who provide permanency to children, and so obtain permanent, legal custody of their children. Many of these families do legally adopt their children, but some don't, and some who do adopt them don't identify as adoptive families.

Regardless, for simplicity, we use the language of adoption to refer to all of them, and we acknowledge how imperfect that language is.

Just to summarize our main argument, I'm going to read here from the executive summary.

[The Time to Attach] report highlights a problem in Canada’s system of parental leave benefits, which is that it fails to recognize the unique challenges that tend to accompany an adoption.... Consider that adoptive parents are eligible only for what the government calls ‘parental benefits,’ whereas biological parents are eligible for parental benefits plus ‘maternity benefits.’ The purpose of maternity benefits is to respond to the special challenges that accompany pregnancy and birth. But there are no comparable benefits for adoptive parents, none that respond to needs that are unique to their families compared to biological ones.

What the system does, then, is treat adoption as though it is parenting minus pregnancy and birth. On this view, there is nothing special about adoption; it is like any other form of parenting except that it didn’t begin with a pregnancy and birth. But such claims about adoption are patently false.

[Our] report advocates for the introduction of attachment benefits for adoptive parents. Our main argument in favour of these benefits proceeds as follows. Central among the unique challenges that adoptive parents face is that of encouraging their child to attach to them as their parent or primary caregiver. While all parents can experience difficulties with attachment and bonding...the difficulties are heightened and much more common with adoption than with biological reproduction. That is true even when the adoptive parents have a kinship relationship to the child, because children tend to lack the kind of attachment we’re focused on with kin who are not their biological parents.

Adopted children often have trouble forming secure attachments to their new parents, understandably so given the kinds of experiences they tend to have before being adopted. Relevant experiences include the loss or disruption of their connection to birth parents, maltreatment by parents or caregivers, and multiple placements from foster care. The result is often an ‘insecure pattern of attachment,’ as it is called in the psychological literature. This condition affects not only one’s ability to form attachments with others, but also one’s overall social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Despite these difficulties, adoption has been shown to be effective in helping children develop more healthy patterns of attachment. This outcome takes time, however, as well as patience and commitment on the part of adoptive parents. It is particularly important that adoptive parents have time at the beginning of an adoption placement to help their child grieve the loss of previous attachments or minimize [that loss] through openness to kin, where appropriate. At the same time, they need the child to start attaching to them as their parent, which in turn will help them bond to the child.

Attachment is therefore a challenge with most adoptions, which makes adoption unique compared to biological parenthood....

...adoption is not parenting minus pregnancy and birth. Instead, it involves providing love and security to a child who once had these things but lost them or who may have never had them before. The Canadian government needs to recognize this fact and also value adoption. It therefore should create a whole new category of benefits: attachment benefits....

That's our central argument in the report, which we defended in various ways. For example, we draw on social scientific literature on attachment and adoption to show that adopted children need more time to attach than they're currently given in Canada. We also argue that legal, moral and international standards support giving the children this time and having equal leave benefits for adoptive and biological families.

Interestingly, our research shows that Canada is an outlier among comparator nations like Australia, the U.K. and Germany in not offering the same or very similar leave entitlements to adoptive parents as it does for biological ones.

Finally, our report summarizes the result of a survey we did of 974 adoptive parents in Canada. Those results were overwhelmingly positive in favour of attachment benefits.

At this point, I'm happy to answer questions you have about the research or related matters. I'll do that to the best of my ability without my co-authors by my side. Some of them have more expertise than I in certain aspects of the report.

Thank you for this opportunity to highlight the work we did on “Time to Attach”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

We'll begin the first round of questions with Mrs. Falk for six minutes.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank Ms. McLeod for being here and sharing her insight, testimony and experience.

Also, Ms. Eisner, thank you so much. You did wonderfully. I want to thank you for your courage and your bravery, and for being willing to share vulnerability. I think that's so important, especially in places like this, which sometimes.... It's not “sometimes”. This place is very rarely friendly to vulnerability, so I want to thank you so much. You did such a good job, and you're so well-spoken. Thank you so much for taking the time to be here and share.

I would like to start with you, if that's okay, Ms. Eisner.

How important is it for children and youth who are adopted to build attachments with their new family?

[Cassaundra Eisner]

It's very important. Without that attachment, it makes it difficult to really make any relationship at all.

Being able to attach to a parental figure or a permanent caregiver is important, because they can then build that trust and build that relationship, and be able to actually allow themselves to have that support system. It's also important for them to know they have someone in their corner they can rely on.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Would you say, from your own experience, that having that attachment to the permanent caregiver, the parent...? Once you formed that secure, healthy attachment, did you find that your other relationships—maybe with friends, teachers or others—were healthier, or that it was easier to attach?

[Cassaundra Eisner]

I found, in my personal experience, that after I was finally able to create a healthy attachment with my family, it became easier to make friends and be able to be honest and vulnerable with those people. It takes a lot of time, but even in romantic relationships, you have to learn from your supports growing up. That's how we learn. It's by seeing other people and thinking, “Okay. This is normal. This is what it's supposed to feel like.”

They say, biologically, it's very common for children to look up to their parents and say, “Oh. That's a healthy relationship. That's what I want.” Their parents are supposed to be there to support them and make sure that they're getting everything they need and that they have all the necessities.

If you don't have that and you don't have that relationship, it's very difficult to move forward in life, build trusting relationships with employers, keep jobs and continue to create different relationships with other people too.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Would you say in your experience that forming that secure, healthy attachment contributed to a sense of belonging and a sense of connection?

[Cassaundra Eisner]

Absolutely, it did. When I was in the foster care system, it was very much, “Oh, that's the kid in foster care. That's the child who doesn't have a family.”

One of the first things my parents helped with was making sure that I knew I had a family now. I was safe. It's very important to have that sense of belonging. You feel like you have people who care about you, who are there for you and who are always going to fight for you no matter what.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much for that.

Ms. McLeod, I'd like to turn to you.

In your research, have you determined that adopted children face difficulties and complexities with attachment?

[Carolyn McLeod]

Definitely.

Part of our report touches on the special difficulties that children in care face when it comes to attaching to their new parents. There are definitely heightened challenges there, and that comes from having previous attachments disrupted. I mean, everything that Cassandra said is borne out in the literature, in terms of the difficulty and in terms of the importance of having that attachment to a caregiver.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

What contributes to these complexities? I know you said disruption in attachment, but are there other items that might contribute to that?

[Carolyn McLeod]

Are there other items that might contribute to the attachment difficulties?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Yes, the difficulties in attachment.

[Carolyn McLeod]

There is the disruption of the attachment, but also, as I mentioned in the summary, previous maltreatment by attachment figures. You don't have an attachment figure who is encouraging that secure kind of attachment style, as it's called in psychology, which is encouraging the proper way and the healthy way to attach to another human being.

Because of that kind of maltreatment, a child entering adoption, especially an older child, like one of mine, may have already developed an insecure or unhealthy attachment style. As a parent, you need to work to try to turn that around. It's not like you're starting with no attachment or no healthy attachment, you're starting with unhealthy attachment in a lot of cases. That's part of the challenge.

One thing we say....

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Rosemarie.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

My time is up. I just wanted to thank both of you again for being here and being vulnerable and sharing with us. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Mr. Fragiskatos is next for six minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being here today.

Professor McLeod, it seemed that you wanted to finish a point there and might have run out of time. Did you want to continue?

[Carolyn McLeod]

Yes. I wanted to mention that we highlighted in our report the special challenge of attachment with adoption, but there are added challenges on top of that, so you have to factor those in.

With many adopted children, there will be some openness with kin and you navigate those relationships with biological family. You're doing that on top of trying to turn an unhealthy attachment style around. Your child also may have certain disabilities. Many children in care do have disabilities.

On top of dealing with that challenge of attachment, there are usually added challenges as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to begin with you, if I could.

Assuming that this proposal of the government goes through, which I'm sure it will—Mrs. Falk deserves credit for helping to put it on the table to begin with, along with many other MPs across the House—where would Canada compare, let's say in the G7 or the G20? Use any comparison that you wish and any comparison that could be reasonable. Are there other examples that come to mind?

[Carolyn McLeod]

Most countries, even outside the G7 or G20, provide equal leave benefits. Canada really is an outlier.

That was one of the most astounding things we discovered through the research: how unusual it is not to provide equal leave benefits. That's something we highlight. We have a chart in the report that highlights what we call “comparator” nations, such as Australia, the U.K., Germany, Sweden and Denmark. We don't have the U.S. in there, because they have such poor leave benefits, generally. It's not worth comparing ourselves to them on this issue.

Yes, it's quite shocking how unequal our benefits are and how equal other countries' benefits are.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to read into the record a summary of the report that you and your colleagues worked on. The study found that “The child welfare system...is in a state of crisis” with “too many children and youth flowing into the system”. It says there are also not enough children or youth being placed in “permanent, safe, and loving homes.”

That's something we heard in testimony presented by Ms. Murphy earlier today.

My question is a simple one, but I think it's fundamental to the discussion. What can government do to help this issue and ensure children are placed in safe and loving homes? I think it's a responsibility that extends beyond the federal government. Certainly, the provinces would have a large role here.

I know it's a very big, general question, but I can't help asking it.

[Carolyn McLeod]

I'm not an expert in the measures that have been taken, but I think there are some that have been put forward in response to the crisis.

For example, there are many indigenous children in care in Canada. Mr. Angus mentioned methods of dealing with cases where families might lose their children in our current system, such as creating alternatives that might allow children to remain, and providing education and support for their parents so that families don't get disrupted in the first place. That's obviously not going to work in every situation. There's always going to be a need for adoption, I think, and for placing children in permanent arrangements.

I could speak from my own experience. We actually adopted our children internationally after failing with the domestic system. If I had known more about that system—I learned much after becoming more involved in policy in this area—I think I would have been better situated and might have succeeded with a domestic adoption. Part of it is this: Potential parents are not given enough information here. There's not enough support for them to succeed in this system.

Those are just a couple of suggestions.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

My colleague Mr. Van Bynen picked up on a point made by Ms. Murphy about the lack of existing data.

Could you quickly comment on that? I haven't given you much time—about 45 seconds.