Twenty hours after she turned 19, officially 鈥渁ging out鈥� of the child-welfare system, Carly Fraser jumped to her death from the Lions Gate Bridge. When her mother, Lisa Fraser, sought answers, the Ministry of Children and Family Development said Carly鈥檚 case would not be reviewed because the girl was no longer a 鈥渃hild鈥� or 鈥測outh鈥� under the child-welfare law.
Regardless of technicalities, the government鈥檚 responsibility and accountability do not end because of a date on a calendar. Using a strict interpretation of the rules to sweep the death of a child under the rug is sordid and shameful.
A child raised in a stable, supportive home faces challenges upon entering the adult world. Those challenges are nearly insurmountable barriers to someone who has been abused, neglected and shunted from one temporary home to another.
Expecting a person to step from government care to successful independence simply because she or he turns 19 is not only unrealistic, it is heartless.
Carly鈥檚 wretched four years in government care included being sent to live in an apartment on her own when she was 16, and where she was raped twice. She was taken to the hospital twice in 2013 after expressing suicidal thoughts.
In December 2014, the day after she turned 19, she jumped off the bridge. Her body was never found.
Her mother, Lisa Fraser, wants to know what wrong, why decisions were made. Those answers are needed, not because they will change anything for Carly, but because they might help save lives and improve the lives of those who age out of government care.
Carly is not the only youth whose journey through the child-welfare system ended in death. In 2013, a girl named Paige died of a drug overdose in a public washroom after years of neglect, spiralling into addiction and being shuttled through 50 different shelters, foster homes and seedy hotels in Vancouver鈥檚 Downtown Eastside. Like Carly, she was 19.
After investigating Paige鈥檚 death, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond chastized the provincial government for letting down children in care. Some improvements have been made, and Stephanie Cadieux, minister of children and families, said she knows more can and should be done but 鈥渢he reality is, my ministry has a mandate to service children up to the age of 18/19 and not beyond.鈥�
That mandate should be expanded. Those who have not had a stable, safe upbringing need more support when they turn 19, not less. It should not be a calendar that determines when they are on their own, but an assessment process that ensures they can survive and thrive. Those cast adrift too soon are prone to abuse, addictions, crime and lifelong dependence on the state.
Youth in care are often difficult to deal with. Their circumstances tend to make them rebellious, distrustful and angry. The answer is not to cut them loose, but to stay with them until they are on a firm path to a better place.
Turpel-Lafond was to appear at two meetings of the legislative committee on children and youth this week to discuss Paige鈥檚 case, but late last week, those meetings were cancelled. Cadieux had also been asked to appear before the committee, but the government refused to allow that.
While the opposition was told that the head of the committee cancelled the meetings, a committee chair does not move without checking with the premier鈥檚 office. It appears the government has put politics 鈥� avoiding hard questions while the legislature is sitting 鈥� ahead of doing a better job and improving the welfare of children in care.
The government should not try to duck this issue. It should concentrate more on saving lives and less on saving face.
