Expanding the Role of Culture in British Columbia's Adoption Scheme

AuthorMichael M.J. Choi
PositionIs a graduate of the University of Victoria, Faculty of Law (JD 2014)
Pages43-49
APPEAL VOLUME 20
n
43
ARTICLE
EXPANDING THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN
BRITISH COLUMBIA’S ADOPTION SCHEME
Michael M.J. Choi*
CITED: (2015) 20 Appeal 43
INTRODUCTION
Adoptive parents, government agencies, l awmakers, and courts continue to wrest le with
the dicult question of how a chi ld’s cultural or racia l heritage should be integrated
into the Canadia n adoption system. Canadian courts have genera lly taken one of
two approaches in an eort to manage the complex ities involved in identifyin g and
accommodating children’s cultural needs. Some have adopted a sin gular, monolithic
perspective of culture as a natural consequence of biological heritage.1 Others have
refrained from engaging the question at the judicia l level, leaving the mat ter to the
case-by-case d iscretion and policies of adoption agencies, government departments, a nd
adoption agreements, with only a sma ll nod towards cultu re’s potential impact on the
best interests of the chi ld.
While the current British Columbia Adoption Act (t h e “A c t” )2 require s specic
consideration of the importance of cultural preser vation in the adoption of Aborigina l
children, the expa nsion of positive duties placed on all adoptive parents may subst antially
benet adopted children from other cu ltural or racial groups. Drawing from the
experience of the cultu ral planning proc esses already mandated in the adoption of
Aboriginal children, such measures would ideally address an adopted child’s potential
cultural need s and ensure that a more even st andard is applied in all adoption cases. In
arguing for th is position, I will proceed by ex amining the c urrent legislative struc ture’s
treatment of adoption and culture, m aking a case for the need for reform, a nd concluding
with suggest ions for possible implementations.
PART I. MULTIPLE STANDARDS
Under section 3(2) of the current Act, adoption applications concerni ng Aboriginal
children specic ally make consideration of “the importance of preserv ing the child’s
cultural identity” mandatory.3 For adoptions generally, the Act lists “cultura l, racial,
linguistic a nd religious heritage” as a “releva nt factor” in determining t he best interests
of the child under section 3(1)(f).4 ese multiple standards create a r isk of culture being
subsumed in the overal l assessment. As the Act presently stands, adopted A boriginal
* Michael M.J. Choi is a gr aduate of the University of Victo ria, Faculty of Law (JD 2014). He is
currently an articled s tudent at Pryke Lambert Le athley Russell LLP in Richmond, British
Columbia. He would like to thank the APPE AL editorial team and Gillian Calder, Universit y of
Victoria, for their ass istance with this article.
1 Fareen L Jamal, “Cultural Fluency for Family Lawyers ” (2012) 31:2 Can Fam LQ 203 at 209.
2 Adoption Act, RSBC 1996, c 5.
3 Ibid, s 3(2).
4 Ibid, s 3(1)(f).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT