Jump to content

Placing A Non-sikh Child In A Sikh Home


Guest 265msw
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 265msw

Hello,


I am posting anonymously because I am employed by the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development as a Social Worker here in Surrey, B.C. Canada and right now I am part of a classified case where a 4 year old non-Sikh boy has been removed from His Sikh foster parents because they let his hair grow long and had him wearing a patka, this violated the rules of imposing a religion on a foster child so the foster child had to be removed. I don't agree with the decision being made by Child Protection Services as the Sikh foster family was doing a great job of taking care of him. What is your opinion of this?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

Hello,

I am posting anonymously because I am employed by the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development as a Social Worker here in Surrey, B.C. Canada and right now I am part of a classified case where a 4 year old non-Sikh boy has been removed from His Sikh foster parents because they let his hair grow long and had him wearing a patka, this violated the rules of imposing a religion on a foster child so the foster child had to be removed. I don't agree with the decision being made by Child Protection Services as the Sikh foster family was doing a great job of taking care of him. What is your opinion of this?

When a group of people secretly dislike a religion they would be willing to go to extremes. I honestly couldn't imagine if this happened in the United States, (but again it is the most religious of industrialized countries). Let parents raise their kids how they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I am posting anonymously because I am employed by the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development as a Social Worker here in Surrey, B.C. Canada and right now I am part of a classified case where a 4 year old non-Sikh boy has been removed from His Sikh foster parents because they let his hair grow long and had him wearing a patka, this violated the rules of imposing a religion on a foster child so the foster child had to be removed. I don't agree with the decision being made by Child Protection Services as the Sikh foster family was doing a great job of taking care of him. What is your opinion of this?

In a way they are right, as a 4year old cannot decide for himself whether he wanted that. But as the foster family treated him as their own child, a parent would only do the best for their child, and would not have seen it as forcing a religion on him.

The case should have been also assessed on the love and care the foster family was giving to the child, not just being rejected on one rule alone. But seems the rule outweighed the other aspects in this case.

Can the family not appeal agsinst this decision? Or both come to some solution without taking the child away? What will they do now, cut his hair? This may confuse the child further. There should be some plan when something like this occurs, rather than just taking the child away, it will be emotional for child too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I am posting anonymously because I am employed by the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development as a Social Worker here in Surrey, B.C. Canada and right now I am part of a classified case where a 4 year old non-Sikh boy has been removed from His Sikh foster parents because they let his hair grow long and had him wearing a patka, this violated the rules of imposing a religion on a foster child so the foster child had to be removed. I don't agree with the decision being made by Child Protection Services as the Sikh foster family was doing a great job of taking care of him. What is your opinion of this?

I want to know how Jew, Muslim & Catholic foster parents have faired in similar situations.

It is obvious that child would assimilate into culture & religion of his/her foster parents.

If ministery officials think otherwise then they are oblivious of human psychology and incompetent to do their job.

Why start something which you can't finish ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the rules were made clear then yeah the government had every right. In all honesty thrusting a small child (providing he was 4 when adopted) and asking to change his lifestyle completely can be detrimental, now if he was a bit more grown up and wanted to become a Sikh, that's a different story.

Similar situation was posted here by a kid. There shouldn't be any force of any kind on any child in any GurSikh's house. If memory serves right there were non-sikhs that were parts of the Guru Sahib's entourage. All of whom the Guru Sahib treated with so much care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest 9876598765

Hi, I am intrigued by this discussion. You present a very interesting discussion. I am a UK Social Worker and work in Child Protections services. Yes, imposing religion is "breaking the rules" around Fostering, as regulations are very strict indeed.

There's way more to consider here. What evidence is there to suggest this was "forced" or "imposed". Child will learn from their environment, it would be naive to think that if a child does not observe daily Sikh practices that this will have no impact.  

The decision of removal, really needed to weigh up the rule that has been broken again the impact of ANOTHER movement of home, family, people he thinks love and care about him, people he can talk to if he needs or wants to express himself, people he is learning to trust, against this rule. Furthermore, I assume as this was a fostering situation other factors will need to be established. 

What as the Authority who have a Corporate Parent responsibility to this child are we doing to the very early years of his life. Picking him up and moving him around. At 4, what was his attachment to the carers, relationships with potentially other siblings in that household. 

Before looking at whether religion was imposed, what efforts were made by the carers to uphold and encourage the child's own religion if any? If they did, then some credit needs to be afforded in the overall conclusion of the decision. 

So, now this child has been moved not allowing him to wear a patka, or cutting his hair could be even more detrimental. Which are reflections that the Foster Carers will need to take some accountability for, there is an impact on the child that could be longer term. 

Overall, I think this is where bureaucracy interferes,  and forgets that the most important person in all this is the child. What is best for this 4 year old, this child is tomorrow's adult and the Authority has a responsibility to that. Starting now. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jagsaw_Singh
11 hours ago, Guest 9876598765 said:

Hi, I am intrigued by this discussion. You present a very interesting discussion. I am a UK Social Worker and work in Child Protections services. Yes, imposing religion is "breaking the rules" around Fostering, as regulations are very strict indeed.

There's way more to consider here. What evidence is there to suggest this was "forced" or "imposed". Child will learn from their environment, it would be naive to think that if a child does not observe daily Sikh practices that this will have no impact.  

The decision of removal, really needed to weigh up the rule that has been broken again the impact of ANOTHER movement of home, family, people he thinks love and care about him, people he can talk to if he needs or wants to express himself, people he is learning to trust, against this rule. Furthermore, I assume as this was a fostering situation other factors will need to be established. 

What as the Authority who have a Corporate Parent responsibility to this child are we doing to the very early years of his life. Picking him up and moving him around. At 4, what was his attachment to the carers, relationships with potentially other siblings in that household. 

Before looking at whether religion was imposed, what efforts were made by the carers to uphold and encourage the child's own religion if any? If they did, then some credit needs to be afforded in the overall conclusion of the decision. 

So, now this child has been moved not allowing him to wear a patka, or cutting his hair could be even more detrimental. Which are reflections that the Foster Carers will need to take some accountability for, there is an impact on the child that could be longer term. 

Overall, I think this is where bureaucracy interferes,  and forgets that the most important person in all this is the child. What is best for this 4 year old, this child is tomorrow's adult and the Authority has a responsibility to that. Starting now. 

 

 

 

Great really well written post.  Lots to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use