Arts, Faculty of
Social Work, School of
DSpace
UBCV
Pinderi, Kristi
Master of Social Work - MSW
University of British Columbia
This thesis explores the experiences of Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (2S/LGBTQ+) former youth in care and the perspectives of child welfare practitioners who have worked with this population. Using interpretive description, the research draws on in-depth interviews and photo elicitation with former youth in care (n = 5), and interviews with practitioners (n = 3), to capture how identity, survival, and affirmation intersect within the child welfare system. Former youth in care described care as both a site of survival and a place of interrupted isolation. Survival was not only about escaping immediate harm but also about negotiating imposed institutional silence, stigmatization and sometimes the pathologization of sexuality and gender identity, racism, and religious or cultural erasure of their identities. Identity self-making became possible only when safety was secured. Moments of connection that disrupted silence and offered glimpses of belonging and possibilities. Such interruptions â whether through queer or queer-affirming foster families, supportive teachers, or culturally grounded connections â did not erase systemic harm but allowed identity exploration, imagination, and hope. The findings show that affirmation is not simply passive acceptance; it is strategic, intentional, risk-taking, and rooted in unconditional and relational care. Practitioner interviews echoed these dynamics. Child welfare practitioners emphasized the importance of humility, consistency, and the willingness to reflect on biases. They also identified training gaps, particularly in supporting caregivers to accept and embrace gender and sexual minority youth. Across the accounts of 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care, affirmation emerges as a practice of safety-making, visibility, and imagination, challenging both systemic inertia and societal conservatism.
âWE ARE THE FEW WHO HELD HOPEâ: LESSONS FROM 2S/LGBTQ+ FORMER YOUTH IN CARE AND CHILD WELFARE PRACTITIONERS by Kristi Pinderi BSW, The University of British Columbia, 2023 BA, University of Tirana, 2004 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2025 © Kristi Pinderi, 2025 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: âWe are the few who held hopeâ: Lessons from 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care and child welfare practitioners submitted by Kristi Pinderi in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Social Work In Social Work Examining Committee: Hannah Kia, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, UBC Co-supervisor Barbara Lee, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, UBC Co-supervisor Trevor Goodyear, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract This thesis explores the experiences of Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (2S/LGBTQ+) former youth in care and the perspectives of child welfare practitioners who have worked with this population. Using interpretive description, the research draws on in-depth interviews and photo elicitation with former youth in care (n = 5), and interviews with practitioners (n = 3), to capture how identity, survival, and affirmation intersect within the child welfare system. Former youth in care described care as both a site of survival and a place of interrupted isolation. Survival was not only about escaping immediate harm but also about negotiating imposed institutional silence, stigmatization and sometimes the pathologization of sexuality and gender identity, racism, and religious or cultural erasure of their identities. Identity self-making became possible only when safety was secured. Moments of connection that disrupted silence and offered glimpses of belonging and possibilities. Such interruptions â whether through queer or queer-affirming foster families, supportive teachers, or culturally grounded connections â did not erase systemic harm but allowed identity exploration, imagination, and hope. The findings show that affirmation is not simply passive acceptance; it is strategic, intentional, risk-taking, and rooted in unconditional and relational care. Practitioner interviews echoed these dynamics. Child welfare practitioners emphasized the importance of humility, consistency, and the willingness to reflect on biases. They also identified training gaps, particularly in supporting caregivers to accept and embrace gender and sexual minority youth. Across the accounts of 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care, affirmation emerges as a practice of safety-making, visibility, and imagination, challenging both systemic inertia and societal conservatism. iv Lay summary This research looks at the experiences of queer, trans, and Two-Spirit young people who grew up in the child welfare system. Many entered care during difficult times and often had to focus on survival first. Talking about their identities was not always safe, and silence sometimes became a way to protect themselves. Even so, small acts of support â a foster parent asking questions with care, a teacher who listened, or meeting other queer youth â made a powerful difference. These moments of affirmation helped young people feel less alone and opened space for them to imagine their futures. Child welfare practitioners who took part also reflected on the challenges. They noted that support requires humility, consistency, and a willingness to challenge harmful norms. Affirmation is not just acceptance. It is active care that protects and empowers youth. v Preface This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Kristi Pinderi. All procedures of this research were carried out with adherence to the guidelines and ethical grounds for research involving human subjects presented by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board. Approval was granted under the certificate number H25-00249 by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board. In accordance with the ethics approval, ChatGPT was used to generate a set of abstract paintings that were used during the optional photo elicitation process. vi Table of Contents Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay summary ................................................................................................................................ iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ ix 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Positionality ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Terminology................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Land acknowledgement and settler positionality ........................................................................ 3 2.3 Intersectionality ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Red Intersectionality and Indigenous women ..................................................................... 6 2.4 Queer theory ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Care and hope .............................................................................................................................. 8 3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 10 3.1 A notable relic: The traditional gay/lesbian approach ............................................................... 11 3.2 2S/LGBTQ+ youth exposure to the child welfare system ......................................................... 13 3.3 An intersectional process ........................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Grief and hope ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.5 The power of affirmation and the consequences of silence ....................................................... 18 3.6 Online and virtual interviewing ................................................................................................. 20 3.7 So, âwhoâs got the key?â ........................................................................................................... 21 4 Thesis design and methodology ......................................................................................... 23 4.1 Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Target population .............................................................................................................. 24 4.1.2 Sampling size .................................................................................................................... 26 4.1.3 Recruitment ....................................................................................................................... 26 4.1.4 Eligibility criteria ............................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Data collection ........................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 30 4.3.1 Member check in ............................................................................................................... 32 5 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 34 5.1 Participants: Brief introduction ................................................................................................. 34 5.2 Outlining four themes ................................................................................................................ 39 5.3 Theme 1: Affirmation as strategic vs. institutional silence ........................................................ 42 5.3.1 Erasure, surveillance and cultural/religious barriers ...................................................... 44 5.3.2 Healing through affirmation and exposure to queer family-ing ....................................... 47 vii 5.3.3 Systemic failure and harmful practices in care ................................................................. 50 5.4 Theme 2: Survive. Hope. Become. ............................................................................................ 54 5.4.1 Learning to survive and casual protective factors ............................................................ 57 5.4.2 Safety first, then Self ......................................................................................................... 60 5.4.3 Reclaiming agency and resisting ...................................................................................... 61 5.5 Theme 3: Restorative queer worldmaking ................................................................................. 62 5.5.1 Becoming together ............................................................................................................ 63 5.5.2 Healing through culture .................................................................................................... 64 5.5.3 Envision a better system ................................................................................................... 65 5.5.4 âTo prove them wrongâ .................................................................................................... 67 5.5.5 A spectrum of affirmation in care: patterns emerging from participant accounts ............ 68 5.6 Theme 4: Between care and constraint - the system the self, or both ........................................ 70 5.6.1 Identifying the failures from within ................................................................................... 71 5.6.2 Identifying good practices................................................................................................. 73 5.6.3 The discussion about the systemic and personal dimensions of failure ............................ 74 6 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 78 6.1 Strategic, intentional and risk-taking affirmation as care .......................................................... 82 6.2 âWe're the few that held hopeâ, and restorative restoring ......................................................... 84 6.3 The intertwined boundaries between âthe systemâ and the people who enact it ....................... 87 6.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 89 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 91 7.1 Possible implications for policy and social work practice ......................................................... 91 7.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 92 References .................................................................................................................................... 95 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix A: Questionnaire route for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care ...... 109 Appendix B: Abstract images for photo elicitation for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care ......................................................................................................................................... 111 Appendix C: Photo-elicitation interview protocol for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care ......................................................................................................................................... 114 Appendix D: Demographic questionnaire for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care ....................................................................................................................................................... 115 Appendix E: Recruitment flyers for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ adults and for child welfare practitioners. ......................................................................................................................................... 117 Appendix F: Resource List for Participants in a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care ....................................................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix G: Screening Questionnaire for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care .............................................................................................................................................................. 120 viii List of Tables Table 1: How the themes are developed and a summary of each category/subcategory ............................ 40 Table 2: A spectrum of affirmation in care, as strategic, intentional and risk taking .................................. 69 ix Acknowledgments I would like to offer my deepest gratitude to my co-supervisors, Dr. Hannah Kia and Dr. Barbara Lee. I was empowered and profoundly moved by Dr. Kiaâs inherent sense of trust and understanding. Her care was evident in the way she supported me, treated my questions with respect, and followed up with thoughtful suggestions. From guiding my literature review to engaging conversations about the philosophical foundations of research, and even to the careful choice of language, her genuine curiosity and appreciation for my work gave me a sense of relief and confidence that I could do this. She provided exactly the kind of support that someone like me, still finding my academic footing, needed in order to commit meaningfully to this research. It was in one of Dr. Leeâs child welfare classes at the UBC School of Social Work that I decided to become a child welfare practitioner â at a time when working within a top-down child welfare system, still grappling with its colonial legacy, remained an unpopular choice. Her commitment to both child welfare and research inspired me. I am grateful to Dr. Lee for supporting, mentoring, and witnessing my growth from that first class in the Bachelor of Social Work program to now presenting my thesis as my most important professional milestone so far. I am equally honored to have Dr. Trevor Goodyear join my committee. I had read - during my work to review the literature - his important research, and when he agreed to join the committee, I felt honored and thankful. His curiosity about my work and his thoughtful support have been motivating. I want to thank my friends and family for their trust and for holding high expectations for my work. I also want to thank everyone who supported my recruitment process by sharing the call for participants and for sharing ideas and suggestions. In particular, I am grateful to my classmate and colleague Melissa Soltani, whose willingness to circulate these documents through her networks quite literally made it possible for participants to take part in this research. x My partner, Erjon Tela - for his love, his patience, his deep commitment and care for me, for our dreams, and for bringing the stability I need to navigate my inner tension - and occasional recklessness - while building a life together. Nothing in this journey would have been possible without him. Finally, to my mother, Lili. She often worried about my activism. Once, she approached me and said, âI know you know I love you, but I donât understand why you have to be public and do this public fight.â I looked at her and told her that if I did not resist, the same forces that tried to destroy her life would try to do the same to me. It was a heavy emotional moment, but I think she understood - through that solidarity born of our shared struggles, me as a gay man, and she as a divorced woman in a highly patriarchal country - and she never asked me that question again. This thesis comes from the commitment I made to her: to resist and to thrive, to build bridges, to push back, but most importantly to learn and create, to celebrate her strength and the life she lived so fully, and to grieve for her life cut short. This grief - which can be constant in queer communities, for the people we have lost, for the relationships cut short, for the lives we have not lived, or for the lives we have not dared to imagine, and for our collective wounds - is often interrupted by a striking light of hope. That light becomes a form of survival and guidance, a way of showing possibility after loss. I saw the brightest form of it in the participants who shared their stories with me. This research - which I hope will offer practitioners some new tools - is dedicated to them and to their contagious hope. 1 1 Introduction Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (2S/LGBTQ+) children and youth in care have been considered invisible in both the scholarly literature and in the broader discourse in child welfare (Mallon, 1999). More recent research shows that 2S/LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system and experience disparities in outcomes compared to their peers (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019; de Finney et al., 2011; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). In addition, research suggests that both 2S/LGBTQ+ and their foster parents face stigma, highlighting the need for large-scale research involving youth, caregivers, and service providers to inform policy and practice across diverse child welfare settings, while addressing the systemâs limited awareness of social workersâ knowledge and insight. (Kaasbøll & Paulsen, 2022). For decades, scholars such as Savin-Williams (1994) have documented youthsâ lived experiences with homelessness as a direct result of rejection based on their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The literature - especially research on SOGIESC-based homelessness - is growing (Ecker, 2016), but important gaps persist. Scholars are increasingly recognizing the overrepresentation of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in care (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019; de Finney et al., 2011; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015), and the poorer mental health outcomes for these youth, including inequitably high rates of depression and anxiety (Goodyear et al., 2023). Within 2S/LGBTQ+ people with lived experience in care as children and/or youth, the experiences cannot be homogenized. For example, the intersection of gender, gender identity, race, and class underpins variability in these experiences, with queer youth of color in the U.S. being overrepresented in government care (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). This qualitative, multiperspectival research, guided by interpretive description, 2 examined the reflective lived experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ people with a history of being in care as children and/or youth. It sought to develop pragmatic insights for improving child welfare practice and related care experiences for 2S/LGBTQ+ people. In the province of British Columbia, being a child or youth in care means that the child or youth has been removed from the care of their parents due to identified safety concerns. The existing legislation defines the concept of âchild in careâ as âa child who is in custody, care or guardianship of a director, or a director of adoptionâ (Child, Family and Community Service Act, 1996, s. 1). Through this work, I contribute to a broader discussion about reforming and perhaps queering (Vachon, 2020) the child welfare system, by interrogating the silences and highlighting the affirmation in care. My goal was to bring forward insights that can help practitioners and policymakers rethink how systems of care engage with 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth, not only as a matter of protection, but as a matter of survival, belonging, and possibility. 3 2 Positionality 2.1 Terminology In this research, I used the term 2S/LGBTQ+ as a strategic choice. The â+â represents, in my understanding, the inclusion of all sexual and gender minority identities, including those not explicitly acknowledged in the acronym itself. This choice acknowledges the diversity within communities of people with various sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and/or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The term SOGIESC is also used interchangeably with 2S/LGBTQ+, or with the term âqueer, trans and Two-Spirit.â In this study, I refer to 2S/LGBTQ+ participants as former youth in care, explicitly acknowledging them as experts of their own lives. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is mandated to provide child protection services and to support the well being of children, youth and their families across the province. I use the phrase âthe systemâ throughout this thesis, to refer not only MCFD, but also the broader network of institutions that intersect to produce the experience of care for children and youth. Schools, mental health agencies, health care services, and other social institutions that may or may not interact with MCFD, play a role in shaping the conditions of care. When participants or practitioners referred to âthe system,â they often described this larger institutional network, rather than a single agency. 2.2 Land acknowledgement and settler positionality I live, work, play, and grow personally and professionally on the stolen land of StóêlÅ Coast Salish people. In the Halqemeylem language, StóêlÅ means river and StóêlÅ people proudly consider themselves river people. The visual representation of the complex, rough, magnificent, often dangerous, mysterious, and uncertain curvaceous riverbed reminds me of my own journey 4 in Canada. Arriving here as a refugee because of my prior queer activism in Albania, I was faced with the usual exclusions of being new and foreign. When I read about the Indigenous concept of biskaabiiyaang (Simpson, 2011), I was empowered, and I was able to reflect on the ways of reproducing my aspirations and everything that I had lost in Albania in this new country that was slowly becoming my home. The Anishinaabe verb biskaabiiyaang means to turn back your head, and Simpson reimagines it as a political process that enables Indigenous peoples to look back, not to mourn what they have lost, but to gain power from their culture, from their songs, stories, dances, philosophies, and values, and ârecreate the cultural and political flourishment of that past to support the well-being of contemporary citizensâ (Simpson, 2011, p. 51). It was this concept of resurgence and resilience that provided me with the awareness that I too could bridge my previous experience as a queer activist with my new life in Canada by becoming a social worker and redirecting my commitment to social justice into this new space that became my new home. But gradually, the systems that I interacted with viewed me as a white cisgender queer settler, and as a man in a stable long-term relationship with another white man. When I suddenly started to enjoy the privileges coming from my social location (e.g., accessing the job market easily, or being treated with preference while trying to find housing, or even when applying for a mortgage or loan), I became aware of the importance of intersectionality, which is a fundamental framework that guides this project and my theoretical orientations. What was a source of rejection in my country of origin, here appealed to cishomonormative expectations and triggered all sorts of rewards that come by meeting those expectations. This research was conducted on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xÊ·mÉÎ¸kÊ·ÉyÌÉm (Musqueam) people, where the UBC Vancouver campus is located. 5 2.3 Intersectionality When Crenshaw (1989) coined the term intersectionality, she envisioned a prism for understanding the coming together - or intersection - of multiple systems of oppression in the lives of marginalized people. This became a turning point in viewing struggles not as single issues anymore, nor as being tethered to single essential categories like gender, or race, or sexuality, or class, as essentialist thinking would suggest. Harris (1990) defines essentialism as âthe notion that a unitary, âessentialâ women's experience can be isolated and described independently of race, class, sexual orientation, and other realities of experienceâ (p. 585). It is my understanding that in the child welfare system, as in any other area, unique intersections of someoneâs identity will often determine how they will experience both oppression and privileges. In a previous study (Pinderi et al., 2025), I explored intersectionality as an opportunity for democratizing the child welfare policy development process, and the practice itself, by recognizing its healing nature in capturing the unique lived experiences of children, youth, and families, and rectifying injustices, including injustices faced by communities of queer, trans, and Two-Spirit children and youth in care. I thus view intersectionality as dynamic, less about specific static intersections, and more about how interlocking systems of power and oppression might affect different people in different ways, based on different contexts (Collins, 2015, Crenshaw, 1989). In doing so, I embrace a critical postmodern âmindsetâ that not only values subjectivity as a tool in making sense of the fluidity of intersectionality but also draws attention to how power shapes knowledge â often silencing some voices and legitimizing some others - and critiques dominant discourses as a form of oppression (Drake & Hodge, 2022). In positioning my worldview in postmodernism, I understand ârealityâ â including human experiences, such as with the child welfare system â as socially constructed and subjective. 6 Howe (1994) describes this âtruthâ as âde-centred and localized so that many truths are recognized in different times and different placesâ (p. 520). 2.3.1 Red Intersectionality and Indigenous women The deep effects of colonization on Indigenous families in Canada are well documented (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Indigenous mothers, in particular, continue to describe how systemic inequities and the absence of preventative supports shape both their experiences with, and outcomes within, the child welfare system (Buchner et al., 2022). These ongoing inequities make the use of Red Intersectionality, as proposed by Indigenous scholars, crucial in understanding the colonial roots of child welfare and the intersecting oppressions Indigenous families face. Natalie Clark (2016), when discussing intersectionality and Indigenous girls, argues that mainstream intersectionality and trauma scholarship often erase Indigenous experiences and ways of knowing. The concept of red intersectionality highlights how colonial power is lived and resisted daily, and how witnessing these practices can open new pathways for anti-colonial research and action. By centering land, community, and colonial history, Clark shows that Indigenous girlsâ lives cannot be understood only through categories like race, class, or gender, but must also include the ongoing impacts of colonization and the strength of Indigenous knowledge. This shifts the focus from seeing Indigenous girls as âat riskâ to recognizing them as knowledge holders and leaders in resistance and healing. 2.4 Queer theory As an emerging researcher, and as a queer activist, my worldviews and my work have been informed by some fundamental areas of queer theory. In particular, I have considered it immensely important to orient my activism in Warnerâs (1999) critique of ânormalcyâ and the risks that the queer movement might face when adopting an agenda shaped by 7 cishomonormativity. Warner (1999) argues that conservative queer activists have shaped the public discourse in ways that sanitize and depart from the radical roots of the early queer movement of the â60s and â70s. By advocating for issues like same-gender marriage, this conservative wing of queer activism used a politics of normalcy that eventually did not challenge heteronormativity and other rigid societal norms but added an illusion of normality that further stigmatized parts of the queer community that do not fit into this ânormalityâ. Warner makes an interesting argument about the politics of shame, used to legitimize accepted behaviours by labelling them as ânormalâ and rejecting everything else that does not fit in it as ânot normalâ and thus âshamefulâ. I find Warnerâs contribution applicable within the child welfare system too. I believe that the child welfare system should not only seek to pragmatically and performatively adopt policies of inclusion by trying to appeal to expectations constructed by values of homonormativity, but it ought to understand and when possible, to challenge the norms that marginalize the lives of some of the 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in care. I hold this view based on the belief in the power of care, and in the opportunities that hope can bring in this system. As an openly gay cisgender man with a background in queer activism, being able to do research at the intersection of child welfare with critical social work and queer theory - frameworks that strongly inform my approach in this profession - is an opportunity to bring both personal, and political commitments into dialogue with scholarship and practice as a social worker, while at the same time holding onto my curiosity and maintaining awareness of the worldview I bring into this project. Within queer theory, I have also started to hold dear the contribution of Sara Ahmed (2024), especially her conceptualization of the discomfort that queer bodies may feel in public spaces, a discomfort that comes from failing to âsink inâ or extend into 8 a public space shaped by heteronormativity. At the same time, I see opportunities in the pragmatic suggestion that this discomfort is not only about resisting, being assimilated or constantly heading to a full collision with norms, but rather about inhabiting those spaces differently. 2.5 Care and hope I approach this research as a child welfare practitioner who was inspired to become a social worker with the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) after hearing at a UBC lecture the passionate testimony of an MCFD social worker who spoke about opportunities to change the child welfare system from within. I also come to this project inspired by numerous colleagues who have expressed that they want to be able to apply a practice that recognizes the unique needs and challenges of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth, and I explore the topic as an emerging researcher, informed by the growing body of knowledge that nevertheless has left opportunities to inform social workers on what they can learn from the lived experiences of queer children and youth in care. When making a call to queer child and youth care, Vachon (2020) shares an important argument in claiming that âcare permeates queernessâ (p. 63). For Vachon, care takes the form of a profound expression of queer theory itself. He reminds us that âIt is in the caring ways that communities of queers have formed throughout history when rejected by family, friends, employersâ (p. 63), and he sees queer theory as a potent framework of critique that can be applied even on topics not necessarily seen as queer, like the child welfare system. In my worldview, queering the child welfare system comes hand in hand with the belief in change. John Holloway (2003) has mapped change, at the intersection of the scream, the enormously emotionally charged moment of denouncing injustice, with hope. The scream is not 9 always enough to bring change, and the hope unanchored in the pain of injustice cannot be transformative either. I see an anti-oppressive approach in child welfare as a framework that enables us to see the injustice. At the same time, it has the power to bring in some of us the crucial aspect that we so much need: the hope that we can change things. 10 3 Literature Review Driven by curiosity I approached the literature review with a sense of wonder and uncertainty asking a simple question: What is the news here? The answer seems to be complex (usually news is complex despite the simplified catchy introduction), as the literature is both emerging and inconsistent, reflecting the broad, nuanced, and ever-evolving nature of both the child welfare system, and the construct of 2S/LGBTQ+ people with lived experience in the child welfare system as children or youths in care. The scholarly literature is showing promising orientations as it begins to identify crucial gaps, such as the underrepresentation in research of trans, non-binary, and Two-Spirit children and youth (Walker, 2021), an important step towards contrasting the more traditional gay/lesbian studies approach (Vachon, 2020). It is also increasingly recognizing the broader issue of overrepresentation of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in the child welfare system (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019; de Finney et al., 2011; Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). Research is also pointing out the associated poorer economic, health, educational, and financial outcomes for 2S/LGBTQ+ people with lived experience in the child welfare system as children, or youth in care, despite the challenges to capture and measure it (Abramovich et al., 2023; Castellanos, 2016; Craig et al., 2020; Feinstein et al., 2001; Goldberg et al., 2019; Mallon, 1999; Mallon et al., 2022; Osei, 2019; Salerno et al, 2020). At the same time, scholars are also asking the whys and trying to answer them (Abramovich et al., 2023; Scannapieco et al., 2018). Some contributing to this body of literature have identified an important gap: Despite a growing interest about diversity within the child welfare system, there is little interest and discussion about gender and sexual diversity in this domain (Walker, 2021). Capous-Desyllas and Mountz (2019) found that gender and sexual diversity is seen as a ârisk factorâ for children and youth with lived experience in care, with child welfare services being mostly risk-focused, thus carrying an inherent inability to provide queer children and youth 11 with meaningful opportunities for connections with each other and with themselves. The authors of this study noted that intersecting oppressions add layers of isolation and stigma for queer, transgender and youth in foster care, which in turn have the ability to further disrupt their lives. The study also captured the strength and the inspiring resilience of queer youth in foster care, and both their internal and external resources that helped them survive. The study highlighted these youthsâ call for a more inclusive queer movement, and more attentiveness to their needs. 3.1 A notable relic: The traditional gay/lesbian approach In his book about the need for a gay and lesbian affirming approach in family and children services, Gerald P. Mallon (1999), a former child welfare practitioner and an openly gay scholar argues that children and youth who are perceived to be different are at a higher risk for maltreatment in their families, although their needs have historically drawn little attention within the child welfare system. Mallon (1999) argues that because of this multilayer failure to recognize their needs for affirmation and understanding, by their families first, and then again by practitioners in almost every step of the child welfare system, many queer children and youth experience homelessness. Yet, Mallon himself fails to recognize the unique experiences of gender diverse, non-binary, Two-Spirit and transgender children and youth when he narrowly and almost homogeneously describes his target population within the binary of gay and lesbian children and adolescents. Two decades later Vachon (2020) discusses the importance of âqueeringâ the âchild and youth careâ system (CYC) by building on queer theory. This important shift from Mallon to Vachon, cannot be attributed solely to the simple passage of 20 years. Those two decades were characterized by a reflective debate within the queer movement that warned about the risks of homonormativity and the strategy of âinclusionâ which perhaps was not enough to challenge the 12 status quo (Warner, 1999). More recently, Ghaziani (2014) introduced the concept of performative progressiveness to capture a form of disjuncture between the liberal positions that some people might have adopted around sexuality and the conservative behaviours on the ground. Ghaziani (2014) defines this concept as a âblissful, but nonmalicious ignorance about sexual inequalityâ (p. 255), and suggests that âsexual integration is not necessarily a sign of progress, since some straights who live in a gay-borhood are not in political solidarity with gays and lesbiansâ (p. 255). Building upon this concept, Brodyn and Ghaziani (2018) studied how people with greater access to power and privilege extend forms of conditional acceptance of gay and lesbian populations if they adopt apolitical, ahistoric neoliberal, and cisheteronormative ideals around monogamy, marriage, and children, through a process that at the end aims to strip queer spaces from their political identities. With cisheterenormativity I mean the assumption that being cisgender and heterosexual is the preferred and default way of being, an assumption that shapes laws, institutions and everyday interactions in ways that marginalize everyone who does not align it. It is perhaps within this evolution of the queer theory which calls for a shift in its application to the child welfare field too that we can locate Vachonâs (2020) work. Indeed, Vachon reminds us that the development of a new practice, based on principles of a critical queer theory, may benefit the 2S/LGBTQ+ people more than the âtraditional liberal homonormative lesbian/gay studies approachâ (p 67). This newer critical orientation to queer theory nuances Mallonâs original work by expanding it beyond the binary lesbian-gay to include the diverse experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ youth while challenging the homonormativity or conditional acceptance that can even extend exclusion within child welfare practice. Some scholars use the concept of queer intersectionality to argue that queering means to actively challenge â even within private spaces â the White settler colonialism through a re-orientation that deconstructs 13 white supremacy logics. For instance, Hunt and Holmes (2015) argue that the quiet, relational processes of decolonial change and allyship can occur within intimate geographies of everydayness: the home, family and relationships. As such, the politics of queering becomes a way of living and engaging in change through everyday activities. 3.2 2S/LGBTQ+ youth exposure to the child welfare system Scholars have identified a unique â yet a very common - disruption that unveil some of the early dynamics in the lives of some of the children and youth who have recently come out: They are either kicked out of their homes or they leave home because of rejection and abuse and try to find safety elsewhere, often in bigger metropolitan areas (Abramovich, 2012; Goodyear et al., 2024). Meanwhile, other scholars such as Ecker (2016) have identified a growth in literature focusing on the connection between homelessness and being minoritized because of SOGIESC, including among youth in government care. Two recent scoping reviews focusing on 2S/LGBTQ+ youth who experience homelessness (Goodyear et al., 2023), and 2S/LGBTQ+ youth with lived experience in government care (Kaasbøll & Paulsen, 2022) highlighted how these overlapping youth populations face systemic barriers in the transition to adulthood. 2S/LGBTQ+ youth who experience homelessness are more likely to be expelled from their homes, and enter homelessness at an earlier age, due to systemic rejection and discrimination (Goodyear et al., 2023). Both the scoping reviews pointed out inequities in mental health outcomes for these youths, including higher rates of depression, PSTD, anxiety, and other mental health challenges, as well as barriers to accessing care. The reviews also point to heightened potential for substance use harms, sexual health risks, and sexual and physical victimization (Goodyear et al., 2023). 2S/LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system, and both youth and foster 14 parents often face stigma and discrimination, pointing to the need for further large-scale research across youth, caregivers, and service providers to inform tailored interventions, improve care quality, and guide policy and practice in diverse child welfare settings. (Kaasbøll & Paulsen, 2022). Other scholars have focused on the whys of homelessness of 2S/LGBTQ+ young people and their overrepresentation in child welfare system (Abramovich, 2012; Capous-Desyllas, & Mountz, 2019; McKormick et al., 2016). As early as the 80s and â90s, Savin-Williams (1994) has observed that children and youth who are minoritized based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and/or sex characteristics (SOGIESC) are disproportionately more likely to experience child welfare involvement. The abuse, hostility, and rejection experienced within families were identified by McKormick et al., (2016) as the root of repeated fleeing from home among LGBTQ+ youths1, leading consequently to their placement in foster care. There is a recurring theme here: when youth experience discrimination, some of them are faced with parental refusal to provide care, leading to referrals made for them to access services. Within the child welfare system, then, the unwillingness of some of the staff to acknowledge the presence of 2S/LGBTQ+ people and the lack of visibility that practically makes these youth invisible, might leads to further discrimination from both staff and other youth. Finally, for those who remain in care, the lack of acceptance is expressed in limited placement options (McKormick et al., 2016). Other scholars have discussed the theme of dehumanization when investigating the experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth while living in the care of the government (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019; Genussa, 2022; McCormick et al., 2016). LGBTQ+ youth with lived experience in foster care often speak about a sense of âvoicelessness, entrapment, 1 In the section about the literature review I have intentionally used the social constructs, and the related original terminology used by each of the referenced author. 15 institutionalization, and depersonalization while in foster careâ (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019, p. 281). Similarly, after investigating queer children and youthsâ experience with racism, oppression, homophobia and transphobia in foster care, Genussa (2022) argued that âthe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse that these youths are subjected to are often so dehumanizing, that they are willing to risk further abuse, exploitation, trauma and homelessness just to avoid their caregiversâ (p. 37). 3.2.1 âBetter on the streetsâ Wilson and Kastanis (2015) summarize the existing data and research about the experience of 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in the child welfare system with the following stark overview: At various points in time while in the child welfare system these youth interact with case workers, foster parents, congregate care facility employees, and other foster youth. These encounters often include elements of anti-LGBT bias that can manifest as harassment and violence at the hands of other foster youth and caretakers, misconceptions of LGBTQ youth as sexual predators, attempts by foster parents to âcureâ youth of their sexual or gender minority identity, and unfair isolation or discipline for otherwise age-appropriate conduct in group homes (p. 11). One study found that 56 percent of the surveyed youth who lived in foster care spent time on the streets because they felt they were much safer there than in their placements (Feinstein et al., 2001). Another study with LGBTQ youth in care found that the majority of the research participants were youths of colour, most self-identified as girls, and these youth faced compounding forms of discrimination based on the intersection of race with SOGIESC-based identity (Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). Compared to non-LGBTQ youth, the LGBTQ youths in that 16 study were more likely to end up in group homes, had a higher number of foster care placements, and were more likely to have been hospitalized, including for mental health reasons. 3.3 An intersectional process Examining family, and system dynamics that force youth to flee from home in greater depth, some scholars have argued that the family crisis that often comes with the disclosure of queer identity is often exacerbated by the intersection of societal and structural rejection of queer identities with familiesâ already existing issues of poverty, violence and prior conflict (Castellanos, 2016). After conducting an online cross-sectional survey with LGBTQ+ youth ages 14-18 who resided either in US or Canada, Craig et al., (2020) found that LGBTQ+ youth experience âextraordinary high levels of childhood adversityâ (p. 8). Over 43 % of the participants reported over four adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), comprising traumatic events in childhood that have the potential to cause immediate and long-term negative impacts on health and wellbeing. In other studies of the general population, the reported frequency of such trauma is 12-14 % (Merick et al., 2018). The findings of Craig et al. (2020) also suggested that among this population, youth who identified as transgender, gender-diverse, and as bisexual and pansexual, experienced higher levels of adversity. Sadly, this research showed that LGBTQ+ youth who live in foster care experience higher levels of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and what might be important to consider for this thesis is perhaps the nature of the ACEs experienced reported by them: high rates of family dysfunction related to rejection (Craig et al., 2020). Dorri et al. (2024) have examined ways that LGBTQ+ children and youth experience ACEs at home. Issues like âgaslighting,â ignoring, denial and silence from the side of families have the potential to cause âadverse communication practicesâ (p. 41), and/or identity-related 17 physical, emotional or financial abuse that impact minoritized transgender, and Black or Latinx LGBTQ people differently. The authors described, for instance, how family priorities and values often shaped by the intersection of their race with class, would affect people differently. When discussing issues of sexuality, gender identity, family violence, mental health and therapies, Black or Latinx people experienced more adverse communication within their families, due to existing structural strain on these family systems, echoing other work that has detailed how racial inequities predispose families of colour to such conflict (Robinson, 2018). 3.4 Grief and hope Ahmed (2014), through her writings on queer grief and on feminist hope, shows how these constructions are useful for understanding the experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ people. Grief and hope reveal that loss and longing are not only private experiences, but circulate collectively, shaping how communities live their realities. This framing is helpful even within a domain like child welfare, where grief â and especially hope â can influence how young people navigate belonging, survival, and the possibility of a future. For this reason, I draw on Ahmedâs (2014) broader argument that emotions can be social phenomena that shape who is included, and who is excluded. Hope, in particular, carries the weight of past injustices into the present with persistence. Ahmed (2014) argues that it becomes a disposition rather than a naïve expectation about the future. Just like the queer grief that resists the expectation to âlet goâ â that could compound the initial loss with the erasure of queer relationships and lives that were never fully recognized â hope serves as a broader space where solidarity is anchored and forged by bringing the struggles of the past onto the present. Ahmed (2014) writes, âthat does not assume that our struggles are the same struggles, or that our pain is the same pain, or that our hope is for the same 18 futureâ (p. 214), but that recognizes that âeven if we do not have the same feelings, or the same lives, or the same bodies, we do live on common groundâ (p. 214). 3.5 The power of affirmation and the consequences of silence Studies indicate that early affirmative care, especially from parents and caregivers, is associated with better outcomes for both transgender, nonbinary children and their parents (Dangaltcheva, Booth, & Moretti, 2021; Olson et al., 2016; Simons et al., 2013). Olson et al. (2016) found socially transitioned transgender children who had been supported by their parents had developmentally normative levels of depression â although slightly elevated levels of anxiety - suggesting that early and active affirmative parental care can become a strong protective factor. Simons et al. (2013) found that affirmative care from parents was associated with less perceived burden from children of being transgender, higher satisfaction in life and generally fewer symptoms of depression. Furthermore, Dangaltcheva et al. (2021) assessed a trauma-informed and attachment-based group program for both caregivers of transgender and gender nonconforming youth and the youths themselves. After completing the program, parents â who became more informed about their role in their childrenâs journeys â reported improved relationships with their children. Another study found that early affirmation of gender identity, in addition to early access to mental health care, as well as enhanced peer support, should be combined with collective attempts to challenge the societal norms and attitudes that perpetuate minority stress (Bockting et al., 2013). An earlier study that became important in how we understand minority stress among 2S/LGBTQ+ populations focused on identifying the coping strategies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people use, and suggested that greater attention should be given to coping at a group level, because cohesiveness, and solidarity can foster protective outcomes, as people would compare themselves with other group members rather than with the 19 general population (Meyer, 2003). Scholars have suggested that the coping mechanisms, and resilience among 2S/LGBTQ+ populations can be understood as a combination of individual strengths, collective and sometimes family forms of support (de Lira & de Morais, 2018; Gonzales et al., 2021; Meyer, 2015). However, in the context of minority stress, it is important to recognize the particular significance of community resilience (Meyer, 2015). In British Columbia (BC), one of the most recent reports prepared by the Representative of Children and Youth (2023) for Two-Spirit, transgender, non-binary and other gender diverse children and youth found that this population in care is not being appropriately supported and affirmed, thus they continue to have poorer health and social outcomes across many measures, when compared to cisgender children and youth. The report highlighted a crucial finding that, âthe well-being of Two-Spirit, trans, non-binary and gender diverse children is supported through intentional establishment of safe, respectful and affirming school, community and therapeutic environmentsâ. Another study conducted in BC found that 2SLGBTQ+ youth connected to MCFD reported a mix of supportive and harmful experiences in child welfare, but overwhelmingly emphasized the importance of affirmation, correct pronoun use, and inclusion in decision-making about their own care. It concluded that without SOGIE-affirming practices and better staff training, the Ministry risks deepening harm and mistrust, while with genuine change it could play a key role in improving mental health outcomes for this population (Baker & Little, 2021). Other scholars have researched institutional policies that promote erasure of sexual identities on organizational levels and the consequences of institutional silence especially for youth (Abramovic, 2017; Shelton et al., 2018; Woolley, 2010). In one case, institutional silence was directly related to the normalization of homophobic language and neglect, as the lack of 20 intervention from teachers and administrators tolerated and reinforced a school climate where LGBTQ studentsâ marginalization was routine (Woolley, 2010). Often, the erasure of identities is a clear tool for further oppressing queer and gender non-binary people (Abramovich, 2017). Some of this institutional silence might come from deeply rooted cultural beliefs that frame childhood and adolescence as inherently asexual, leading schools and child-serving systems to avoid or suppress discussions about sexuality and gender (Lehn & Chahboun, 2025). Yet, academia holds a substantial body of research on sexuality, although much of it is marked by contradictions and unresolved tensions. Early research frames sexuality in binary, linear, and non-fluctuating terms (Cass, 1979; Diamond, 1998; Szkrybalo & Ruble, 1999) while other more recent studies emphasize its fluidity and its location in a spectrum (Kaestle, 2019; Katz-Wise et al., 2024; Lilly et al., 2024; Platt & Lenzen, 2013; Savin-Williams & Vrangalova, 2013; Savin-Williams, 2022). 3.6 Online and virtual interviewing In order to prepare myself for the research I reviewed the literature regarding various ways of interviewing and other forms for eliciting information. Conducting interviews online is a method understood by some authors to be cost-effective and to yield positive results for conducting qualitative research (Archibald et al., 2019). Craig et al. (2020) observed that the virtual interviewing of sexual and gender minority youth was quite successful and even better for building a rapport with the interviewer, compared to in-person interviewing. Another research conducted with child welfare social workers has shown that virtual interviewing can elicit comprehensive exploration (Maiter et al., 2024). 21 3.7 So, âwhoâs got the key?â Mallon (1999) argues that gay and lesbian children and youth in care and their needs have been intentionally ignored, hidden and overlooked and locked in the child welfare closet. Mallon (1999) then asks an important question: âWhoâs got the key?â (p. 143). He makes an insightful suggestion: âAddressing the needs of gay and lesbian children, youth, and families, requires that child welfare professionals obtain duplicates of the key that will assist them in opening those doors that have ostensibly been hermetically sealed for too longâ (p. 151). The importance of the role of child welfare practitioners in making a difference in the lives of 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care was highlighted in another recent literature review (Walker, 2021). In addition, Clark (2017) suggested that when working with trans clients, child and youth care practitioners can benefit from seeking out more education and from reflecting on their own privileges. Wilber et al., (2006) suggested that child welfare agencies need to make a cultural shift, instead of simply focusing on designing specialized services for LGBT youth. The authors of this study created the âModel Standards Projectâ that is perhaps one of the first practical tools that proposes a set of standards for working with 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in child welfare systems. Creating an inclusive organizational culture, supporting competent caregivers and staff, promoting healthy adolescent development, privacy and confidentiality, providing suitable placements, and providing sensitive support services, were some of the areas for the proposed standards of care (Wilber et al., 2006). Mallon et al. (2022) suggest improving protective services for 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in four areas: developing clear policies, improving trainings for staff, providing better clinical case consultations and supporting the advocacy of young people. Furthermore, Vachon (2020) criticizes the notion of child protection and reimagines what they define as the child and youth care system (CYC) within a space of possibilities and opportunities derived by the celebration of desire, sex, identity, theory and 22 politics, and by strategically applying queer analytics in the CYC as form to care for children, youth, their families and their communities. It is within this space of opportunities and ambiguity that I anchor my thesis, constructing both the expectations and the aims of my research. In response to Vachonâs (2020) call for queering the child and youth care and based on the gaps in the literature regarding how 2S/LGBTQ+ identities intersect with other aspects such as race, class, family background, and gender, to shape individualsâ experiences within the child welfare system, this research aims to produce insight into 2S/LGBTQ+ peopleâs lived experience in care as children and youth. 23 4 Thesis design and methodology The research aimed to explore the lived experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ individuals who were in care as children or youth, alongside the perspectives of child welfare practitioners, and to generate practical recommendations for enhancing child welfare practices and care experiences for this community. I employed a qualitative multiperspectival research design, guided by interpretive description (Thorne, 2016). This inductive analytical approach developed by Sally Thorne, a leading qualitative researcher, seeks to empower the researcher not only to seek new insights and socially constructed subjective meanings about experiences, but also to make use of those constructions beyond the descriptive level into the âdomain of the âso whatâ that drives all applied disciplinesâ (Thorne, 2016, p. 36). Making use of interpretive description as a âconceptual maneuverâ (p. 40), the research questions are positioned in a way that seeks to generate awareness, and to translate the findings into practice, aligned with what Thorne describes as a âpurposeful directionâ (p. 39). The research questions that led this thesis were: 1. What are the reflective lived experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ people who are former children and youth in care? 2. How do child welfare workers interpret and respond to the experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in their practice? 3. How can the reflective lived experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ people, who are former children and youth in care, inform and enhance child welfare policy and practice? For sampling and data analysis (further details below), I used elements of a multiperspectival design underpinned by a philosophical and theoretical approach that views experiences as relational and co-constructed (Larkin et al., 2019). 24 4.1 Sampling Three key considerations guided the sampling strategy I utilized for this research: I asked myself who are the individuals best positioned to provide nuanced experiential insights relevant to child welfare practice, and what is a sampling method that would allow me, as a graduate researcher, to access the target population while at the same time amplifying marginalized voices through a social justice approach. 4.1.1 Target population I invited self-identified 2S/LGBTQ+ adults to retrospectively discuss their experiences as children and/or youth in care. This approach seeks to empower participants to actively shape and contribute to this research as knowledge co-creators. I approached this thesis as a commitment towards helping to restructure the established understanding, and the body of knowledge within the child welfare system in British Columbia, by accepting the call of Vachon and Walker (2021) for âqueering [child and youth care, a process] that requires looking at where we come from and asking where we want to goâ (p. 9). Creating a platform for marginalized 2S/LGBTQ+ voices to tell the story of their past is thus not only a necessity for hearing their perspectives, but a strategic choice that aims to empower them to be able to participate in co-creating a vision for the future. Because one of the research questions for this thesis was oriented to the child welfare practice of social workers, and was concerned with informing and potentially contributing to changing this practice, it became important to elicit multiple perspectives. In alignment with this, I included as research participants current or former child welfare practitioners with experience working with 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth while in government care. They possess firsthand insight into the systemic processes, interventions and challenges within the child welfare system, 25 and they were invited to share valuable perspectives and observations on current practices and policies, and to identify both gaps and promising interventions. Larkin et al., (2019) argue that multiperspectival designs â usually those anchored in interpretive phenomenology â offer valuable opportunities to explore complex issues by allowing for both depth and nuanced understanding. While bringing together different samples and cases that can justify a multiperspectival design, Larkin et al. (2019) identify what they call the directly related groups composed of subsamples that are âimmersed in the same experience but are likely to have different views on itâ (p. 186). For example, Rostill-Brookes et al. (2011) used a similar design to explore why young people in foster care, social workers and their foster parents, while sharing the same experience of placement breakdowns, had nonetheless different responses on who was responsible and why those breakdowns happened. While a multiperspectival design supports the examination of various viewpoints, such as those of child welfare workers and out of home care providers, it was beyond the scope of this thesis to recruit, and interview foster parents due to limited time and resources. At the same time, multiperspectival design presents some important implications for the data analysis process, including the need for more time, resources, and experience. Thorne (2016) introduces a similar concept when she makes a compelling case to triangulate data through a âthoughtful practitioner testâ (p. 93)âthat is, to include in the research the experience built over time by key informants and to acknowledge the âtremendous collateral role of the expert practitionerâ (p. 93). To this end, I also used a recent very well researched report and set of recommendations from the Representative of Children and Youth (2023) as a collateral data source (more about how this report aligned with my findings below). 26 4.1.2 Sampling size I interviewed five 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care (n = 5) and three child welfare workers (n = 3). This sample size reflected the time- and resource-constrained nature of this self-funded MSW thesis and allowed for an in-depth exploration of the subjective meanings participants attribute to their experiences in care. Consistent with interpretive description, which can generate rich insights from samples of any size (Thorne, 2016), this number of participants was considered by me sufficient to capture both some variation and depth. 4.1.3 Recruitment I used a purposive approach to sampling (Campbell et al., 2020) that encourages those interested in the research to employ a snowball sampling technique, beginning with emails sent to UBC social work current and former student lists that included recruitment posters, and extending through professional networks and outreach to community organizations serving 2S/LGBTQ+ youth and child welfare practitioners. Purposive sampling, with its non-probabilistic nature, assumes that a specific sample population may hold important information about a specific problem, and therefore that population needs to be included in the research (Campbell et al., 2020). At the same time, such sampling is often used in situations where the researcher is interested in the efficient use of limited resources while also trying to reach into the depth of the problem, particularly when there is willingness from people to participate in research (Palinkas et al., 2015). Recruiting materials were distributed via three public universities in British Columbia. They were also shared through my professional networks, and with a dozen community youth organizations serving former children and youth in care. Potential participants contacted me at my UBC email account to express interest, and were sent a screening survey via UBC Qualtrics. 27 The survey included eligibility questions (more about eligibility below), detailed study information including participantsâ rights and privacy protections, and an optional demographic form covering age, communication preference (email or phone), sexual orientation, gender identity, cultural background, and whether they live with disabilities. Participants were welcome to skip any question. In total, 14 eligible participants both former youth in care and child welfare practitioners responded, and 10 followed up to schedule interviews. One participant was later deemed ineligible during the interview, while another cancelled and did not reschedule. All other participants, except one current child welfare practitioner, received the $50 honorarium. The final participant pool reflected diverse self-identified backgrounds, including European, African/European/First Nations, European/First Nations, South Asian, African, and First Nations/White participants, with one participant preferring not to disclose. Five participants reported living with a disability, while four indicated they did not. Attention was paid to ethical considerations following interviews with an Indigenous participant. Aware that ethical research with Indigenous peoples requires a decolonising approach grounded in respect, reciprocity, responsibility, and relationality, principles discussed in Kennedy et al. (2022), I positioned myself, my worldviews and western philosophical underpinnings. I respectfully informed him about my methodology. I then asked if he would be willing to review preliminary findings and offer feedback, to ensure his perspective was well represented. After reading those findings, he offered careful and thoughtful feedback, which I included as data. 4.1.4 Eligibility criteria Participants were invited to participate based on two inclusion criteria: to self-identify as 2S/LGBTQ+ adults (ages 19 or older) with lived experience in care as children or youth, or to have experience as a child welfare practitioner â current or former â serving children or youth in 28 care who self-identified as 2S/LGBTQ+ while being in care or after it. Furthermore, for adults who self-identified as 2S/LGBTQ+ with lived experience in care, the following eligibility criteria applied: To have lived in care between the ages of 11-19, and while in care of the government, to have been placed either in foster care, or in group homes. While children as young as 3-4 years start to recognize âthe cultural typology of gender that has been applied to themâ (Packer, 2021, p. 358), research has shown that early forms of rejection among 2S/LGBTQ+ people that are felt profoundly typically occur during pre-adolescence (ages 11-13) when children start reporting some forms of bullying, especially in schools, with these experiences intensifying in later adolescence (Fish et al., 2023). For this research, participants were eligible regardless of how much time had passed since their last experience in care. Research has shown that past experiences in care, family rejection, and experiencing a sense of loss of the home, even if experienced long ago, can have long lasting effects on people (Mountz & Capous-Desyllas, 2019; Samuels, 2009). This focus on self-identification assumes that the nuanced and complex process of someone self-locating themselves within a socially constructed identity can also be a political expression of agency (Wagaman, 2013). Purposive sampling, with its non-probabilistic nature, assumes that a specific sample population may hold important information about a specific problem, and therefore that population needs to be included in the research (Campbell et al., 2020). At the same time, such sampling is often used in situations where the researcher is interested in the efficient use of limited resources while also trying to reach into the depth of the problem, particularly when there is willingness from people to participate in research (Palinkas et al., 2015). Because I am 29 currently employed with MCFD, any former youth in care who have been or are currently my clients were not eligible for this research. 4.2 Data collection I employed an optional photo elicitation method, based on a protocol (Appendix C) that has been successfully applied in other research (Craig et al., 2020), combined with in-depth semi-structured interviews that I conducted via MS Teams between July 21 and August 8, 2025. Photo elicitation has been praised in a previous study with sexual and gender minority youth for its ability to encourage deeper explorations and for being a successful tool in leading to meaningful reflections and critical analysis (Craig et al., 2020). Research has also shown the need for careful ethical considerations about confidentiality, consent, or anonymity, noting that these issues can become more complex when working with marginalized populations (Joy & Numer, 2017). Indeed, while the intimate nature of sharing emotional memories through personal images may be validating and desirable, it also has the potential to prompt discomfort. In response to this concern, participants were informed that photo elicitation was optional. In addition, I preselected a set of abstract paintings generated with ChatGPT, prompted with the command to produce diverse abstract works that mirror different emotional states and reflections, capturing both positive and non-positive emotions. I used an online in-depth semi-structured interview, leaving photo elicitation as an optional choice at the end of each interview. Because photo elicitation was incorporated as a complementary method to the semi-structured interviews, it provided participants with an additional medium through which to reflect on their experiences. The abstract photos helped generate rich discussion, and deeper reflection on specific themes, which later informed the analysis. All the participants â both former youth in care and child welfare practitioners - chose to 30 use the photo elicitation option. As noted, photo elicitation can facilitate in-depth personal perspectives and insights reflections (Craig et al., 2020; Joy & Numer, 2017; Nettleton et al., 2022) that in combination with in-depth interviews guided by a semi-structured interview guide - as seen in Garfin et al. (2022), or in Guy et al. (2023) â could create opportunities for deep and nuanced reflections. At the same time the component of the photo elicitation supported me to compare participantsâ responses, and it created a safe space for follow-ups and explorations. Interestingly, some of the most revealing and important disclosures from several participants came through photo elicitation. In-depth interviews lasted approximately 40-50 minutes, while the second stage involving AI generated abstract paintings, lasted approximately less than 30 (Please see Appendix C for a photo elicitation protocol). The interviews were recorded through Teams. Through the process of interviewing, I oriented myself with an interview guide (see Appendix A), as a questioning route. Participants were informed and reminded that the interviews were completely voluntary and at any point during the interview, or after the interview, they had the option to withdraw their consent. They were also informed that any data shared during the interview will be excluded from the analysis in the event of withdrawal. 4.3 Data analysis I analyzed the data through an interpretive description approach that aimed to find the patterns, make sense of those patterns and then to transform the patterns into findings (Thorne, 2016). Data analysis began after each interview with an initial phase of checking the AI generated transcription for accuracy and anonymizing the recorded interviews. This step also allowed me to begin familiarizing myself with the data. During the process of coding, I relied on Thorneâs (2016) pragmatic advice to avoid intensive initial coding, which I followed by focusing 31 on âthe inductive analytic capacity of [my] mind as the primary source of fuel for analytic processâ (p. 174). My final goal was to engage myself and the research participants in âbuilding dataâ using an interpretive description approach (Thorne, 2016, p. 181). Thorne (2016) argues that in interpretive description, findings are more than just patterns identified in the data; they involve interpreting what the pieces mean individually and together, considering the structures or processes that shape them, and organizing them in a way that helps readers gain new understanding that wasnât possible before the study. I used hand coding for my analysis, because it provides me practical visual elements that aids my analytical process. After familiarizing myself with data and after reviewing the recorded interview and checking the transcription for accuracy, I completed a first round of coding, using simultaneous coding, including in-vivo, concept and process coding (Saldaña, 2021). In the second cycle of coding, I refined my initial codes by incorporating social justice and intersectionality principles. This process involved remaining close to participantsâ language when capturing their lived experiences, while also framing those accounts conceptually through a systemic lens. The approach followed principles of interpretive description (Thorne, 2016), which recognize the active role of the researcher in shaping the research process. In practice, a single passage could be coded both at the micro level (honouring the participantâs own words) and at the macro level (interpreting it as reflecting broader structural, cultural, or institutional dynamics). Drawing on a multiperspectival analysis framework (Larkin et al., 2019), this thesis integrated perspectives from former youth in care and child welfare practitioners, first conducting thematic analyses for each group and then comparing them to highlight areas of convergence, divergence, and interplay. The multiperspectival analysis framework did not 32 assume that former youth and practitioner perspectives would be in conflict; rather, it allowed for the identification of complementary insights across the two groups, which are explored in the findings section. 4.3.1 Member check in I actively involved participants by sharing my preliminary findings with both former youth in care and child welfare workers and by integrating their feedback. This involvement was optional, respecting the participantsâ level of comfort in this process. My goal was to honour the diverse experiences and capacities of participants while maintaining the integrity of the research. After the interview, I shared with each of them the transcript, and a summary of my understanding. Each of the participants received only their interview transcript and summary. When all the data were analyzed and deidentified, I designed a table with all the themes, the categories that formed those themes and an interpretive description for each category (see Table 1 below). I shared that table with each of the participant as a preliminary finding. Their responses through email were also anonymized and included as data. Data triangulation was used to create a broader, deeper understanding, as outlined by Flick (2022). During the interviews with the child welfare practitioners, I shared a summary of the main findings that had emerged from the interviews with former youth in care, and asked the practitioners to discuss those preliminary findings. My goal was to mitigate the power imbalance that can arise between the researcher and participants, where participantsâ feedback may be unconsciously influenced to align with the researcherâs findings. By sharing and discussing initial data and preliminary findings, rather than fully developed findings, the process helped foster an environment of collaboration and trust-building. This approach ensured that the experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ participants remain central to the research process while also 33 creating space for the unique insights and lived experiences of child welfare practitioners to emerge. Together, these strategies promoted a more equitable and authentic exploration of the interplay between these two groupsâ perspectives. 34 5 Findings 5.1 Participants: Brief introduction Introducing participants in this study was both an ethical and relational process. The inclusion in this section of the narratives was based on what participants chose to disclose. After the interview was conducted, each participant received a summary of their interview to review or amend â an opportunity to shape how their story is told. What follows here are stories entrusted to be told as they were understood together. Sharing these experiences was, for some, a way to ensure that what they experienced âis never repeated againâ (June, Participant). All identifying details were carefully de-identified, and pseudonyms were used where chosen. Together, these voices trace the processes of care, identity, and affirmation. June a survivor of sexual and physical abuse who had attempted suicide, was living in a specialized facility when a staff member walked in on her consensually kissing another girl who was her age. The staff member yelled, âStop, get off her!â leaving June feeling âlike a horrible, dirty person.â Days later, a care plan meeting reframed the incident as âacting out sexuallyâ and decided to remove June from her foster family - an openly lesbian couple - implying she had been âexposed to thisâ by them. No one spoke of it again. The institutional silence - and the shame it seeded - followed June into adulthood: âIt was cut off from who I amâ¦ until I was married with three kids and I could no longer hide itâ (June). She came out to her supportive husband because she could no longer be âliving a lieâ. June identified as a lesbian, cisgender woman, White of European descent, and did not report living with a disability. Participant 3 chose the pseudonym Odin Cavanagh. Odin is queer, trans man of Black, White, and Indigenous ancestry. He too described an affirming placement with a lesbian foster couple who âopened a whole new worldâ for him. He entered care after fleeing a violent altercation in his family. He was outed to social workers. However, this turned out to be, in his 35 words, a blessing in disguise, as his social worker made an intentional effort to place him with a queer-affirming family. This led to the brief, but impactful stay Odin had with the lesbian couple in a city in BC. He described being immersed in a queer community that allowed him to develop, for the first time, a sense of belonging. In his words, this lesbian couple âunderstood I didn't have a story, I didn't have legends and mythâ¦ They gave me culture and mentored me!â (Odin Cavanagh). He reported living with a disability. Participant 1 (P1) â who did not choose a pseudonym - also had an impactful experience with her foster parents. P1 described her first foster home as an abusive environment. After a few traumatic experiences in group homes, she was placed with a family that she described as empowering her with a sense of stability and appreciation for education. Furthermore, her foster parents actively discouraged âreliance on the welfare systemâ, emphasizing a personal responsibility that resonated with P1. Her coming out caused confusion to her mother, who â coming from a rural village in [a country in Asia] did not understand the disclosure. In the participantâs words, her mother believed that she âhad been living in a âwhite cultureâ, that maybe had something to do with itâ (Participant 1). P1 lived her queer sexuality in discretion and at times, even tried dating men. Once an adult, she shared this with her foster parent who later told her they âalways knew,â yet they never initiated a conversation about it. At the time of this interview, P1 identified as queer South Asian woman, and reported living with a disability. Culture and especially family religion affiliation was also reported by Participant 5 â who also did not choose a pseudonym - as having a long lasting and at times traumatic impact on her. Participant 5 (P5), who Identified as Black bisexual woman, reported entering care following emotional abuse. Raised in a religious household, she described her upbringing as being shaped by emotional and physical punishment and marked by strong and strict cisheteronormative 36 beliefs around gender and sexuality. She reported leaving her home as an act of mental health survival. She was initially placed with a foster family, then lived in several group homes and finally entered in a youth agreement with MCFD. In contrast to other participants, she reported her time in group homes as âgood experience [â¦ because] there were other kids there that were also either gay or lesbian or bisexual and so I didn't really feel like isolated as muchâ (Participant 5). P5 identified as a bisexual woman. She did not report living with a disability. Another participant, Louise who uses she/they as pronouns, also reported a good time in group homes. They said: âhonestly, it was good for, for the most part people there were niceâ (Louise). They described an âemotionally immatureâ family context and a history of emotional abuse and lack of support. Their time in care began with informal stays with relatives and then in a group home. The participantâs experience of sexuality was first labelled by their father as a transitional phase âthat will pass.â Later in the group home, this part of their identity was not met with hostility but with an absence of explicit conversations around it. In retrospect, Louise recalled that had any trusted staff member approached them with care and curiosity, they likely would have disclosed their queer gender/sexuality. This institutional silence delayed opportunities for exploration and self-understanding. They identified as gender fluid, bisexual and grey-asexual, preferred not to answer about cultural background and reported living with a disability. Participant 4, who chose the pseudonym Sawyer, together with Participant 7, who chose the pseudonym Delta Fox and Participant 8 (P8) â who did not choose a pseudonym - are all former or current child welfare practitioners. They have worked in the past with 2S/LGBTQ+ clients. Sawyer reported having recently left her job at MCFD after working there for a long period disillusioned by the gap between policy and practice, especially for Indigenous 37 communities. She critiqued the loss of relation-based generalist practice that leaves Two-Spirit and queer youth confused and âfighting harder for everything.â She contrasted a culture of silence with intentional affirmation - ânothing about them without themâ - and described inter-agency failures (e.g., punitive school responses to an Indigenous youth) alongside basic resource gaps (gender-affirming clothing such as chest binders not approved, limited access to queer community/culture, etc.). She reported having White European descent, using she/hers as pronouns, and preferred not to say her sexual orientation. She did not report living with a disability. Delta Fox is also a former MCFD worker who has held different positions and roles. He reported having worked with a Two-Spirit client and recalled that the youthâs identity was openly discussed, but often the discussion became entangled with clinical language and mental health diagnoses. Looking back, he reported that the systemâs approach sometimes risked pathologizing the youthâs Two Spirit identity, even if unintentionally. He recalled he wished to have been present in more discussions about the âbeauty of being Two Spiritâ rather than discussion about another clinical âproblemâ to be managed. At the time of the interview, Delta Fox identified as White, straight North American/Canadian man, with European descent. He did not report living with a disability. Participant 8 is a current child welfare practitioner who named a basic gap: practical training to move from polite âacceptanceâ to active affirmation. She described a âpeople-pleaserâ system that seeks to avoid making waves, leaving queer and trans youth unseen. She identified as a queer woman of White European descent. She did not report living with a disability. These participantsâ reflections provide nuanced data on affirmation, safety, and relational identity exploration, elaborated in the sections that follow. 38 Participants in this study shared experiences of care, identity, and affirmation that shaped their understanding of themselves and the child welfare system. Their narratives illustrate a range of affirming and challenging placements, the impact of institutional responses to queer and trans identities, and the ways supportive relationships fostered resilience. Several participants described positive experiences with affirming foster families that allowed them to explore their sexual and gender identities, while others navigated complex family, cultural, and institutional pressures that limited or delayed such exploration. June, for example, described an early foster placement with an affirming same-gender couple, which contrasted with institutional responses to her emerging sexuality. She reflected on the lasting impact of these experiences. Odin Cavanagh highlighted how an affirming foster placement allowed him to develop a sense of belonging and identity after leaving a challenging home environment. He described the importance of mentorship and exposure to queer culture, which he had previously lacked. Other participants similarly reflected on diverse experiences in foster care and group homes. Some recalled positive, supportive placements that fostered resilience and self-understanding, while others navigated complex family, cultural, and systemic pressures that constrained or delayed identity exploration. Participants noted both affirming interactions and gaps in support, emphasizing the significance of intentional, culturally aware, and identity-affirming practices. Child welfare practitioners shared insights from their work with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth, describing challenges in policy-practice alignment, gaps in resources, and tensions between clinical frameworks and affirming, relationship-based care. Collectively, the narratives highlight the importance of affirmation, safety, relational identity exploration, in front of the systemic barriers, which are elaborated below. Former youth participants ranged in age and self-identified across diverse sexual, gender, and cultural identities. Child welfare practitioners brought 39 perspectives from multiple roles, regions, and experiences working with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth. Together, these narratives provide nuanced insights into affirmation, relational identity exploration, and systemic challenges, which are elaborated in the findings. 5.2 Outlining four themes Four themes were developed using interpretive description (Thorne, 2016). The first three themes are grounded mostly - but not entirely - in the accounts of former youths in care, while the fourth theme is constructed entirely through the accounts of the three child welfare practitioners. The first theme, Affirmation as strategic (vs. institutional silence), conceptualizes affirmation as a strategic, intentional and thoughtful â and at times risk taking â practice. More than just a passive acceptance, affirmation was about enabling children and youth in care to experience a sense of possibility â often by being exposed to validating forms of queer family-ing and to eventually come out of their isolation. The second theme, Survive. Hope. Become, introduces the nuanced pathways - needed for children and youth to establish a sense of stability, that eventually allowed them to experience hope and to resist. The third theme, Restorative queer worldmaking, centres the relational nature of healing and becoming. A caregiver who connects the youth with feminist and queer culture, a support teacher who is there to listen, a queer family who live their love, and support each other openly, a caring worker who cares enough to correct the youth after making a homophobic remark, or a queer community member who takes them home when they have nowhere else to go - these are some of the relational being-with moments that mark support and resilience. These moments can be seen as queer family-ing, where kinship and belonging are created through everyday acts of care and affirmation. Queer worldmaking here is also about connecting with community and shaping oneâs becoming in dialogue with that collective. 40 The final theme, Between care and constraint, takes up a longstanding tension on whether the failures (or the opportunities) are systemic, or rather embedded in the personal failure of workers to prevent societal forms of rejection repeating themselves inside the system, and/or successful attempts in keeping them out. Table 1 maps the themes and the categories/subcategories that form those themes. Table 1: How the themes are developed and a summary of each category/subcategory Theme Category/ Subcategory Interpretive Summary Affirmation as strategic (vs. institutional silence) Erasure, surveillance and cultural/religious barriers Institutional silence can often be retraumatizing and can lead to a series of missed opportunities for validation with long-term implications for youthâs sense of worth. Religious and/or cultural-based rejection (or lack of cultural scripts) can disrupt youthsâ sense of self or delay identity self-making. Healing through affirmation and exposure to queer family-ing Affirmation here â especially from queer foster parents, or from social workers, peers and community â is more than passive acceptance. To be exposed to queer family-ing creates for some of the participants safety, a sense of possibility and it gently supports them to come out of isolation. Systemic failure and harmful practices in care As the clear opposite of the healing nature of affirmation this categoryâs extensive data suggests that the system perpetuates societal rejection by allowing (or worse, rewarding) harmful practice in care. Entering in care and early placement experiences This category captures early stories in care and suggests nonlinear, heterogenous and nuanced paths and experiences in care. Survive. Hope. Become. Learning to survive and casual protective factors Whether through strategic silence, selective coming out, or even the luck of being placed in a middle-class family, participants actively sought ways to survive and to identify support networks within or outside the system. Safety first, then self Amid constant chaos caused by placement breakdowns, too many moves, and persistent instability, safety and stability take center stage in shaping the arc of youthsâ time in care and their identity exploration. As one participant said: âHow to explore your identity if you are going from home to home?â Photo elicitation/Resilience Hope is not an unrealistic expectation fueled by an euphoric belief that things will suddenly improve. Any reflection on hope is 41 and hope, between light and darkness anchored in the duality of light and dark - between sun and clouds, pain and healing. Hope, then, is not accidental: it is resistance. Reclaiming agency and resisting This is about empowerment, seeking independency, setting boundaries, achieving, refusing to âbecome a statisticâ or to be reduced, going to a better school, reclaiming indigeneity as a political reawakening, healing and remembering through journaling, reconnecting with former caregivers, and âbreaking a lieâ. Restorative queer worldmaking Becoming together This captures participantsâ realization that life can have new meanings when lived with people â caregivers, a teaching assistant, a caring worker, a peer who takes you home when you have nowhere else to go. This relational being-with marks a pivotal moment during their time in care (or sometimes just when aged out), that sets an irreplaceable standard of care. Healing through culture By anchoring their self-making in a broader culture â like reading a feminist book, singing, learning how to dress, âhow to be a butch lesbianâ, how to make a tie, or going to pride and driving on a pink Cadillac, perhaps going to a drag show, or even becoming one - some participants found a narrative that was therapeutic, gave them words, and above all, gave them a story to belong. Envisioning a better system This category is about relational safety, and care; it is about centering children and youthâs needs when reenacting that care. It is about empowering them to create/find their individuality. âTo prove them wrongâ Often forced to internalize othersâ deficit narratives and low expectations some of the participants saw thriving â and not just surviving â to prove the system (or to themselves) wrong. At times, this âpressure to succeedâ appears to have been for some of them the driving force that shaped the arc of their survival and of their becoming. Between care and constraint: Is it the system or the self? Identifying the failures from within System fragmentation, lack of effective training â or the limits of it - the disconnect many workers experience from the ethics of their profession, and the systemic silence rooted in misconceptions about gender identity and sexuality are among the structural gaps that practitioners identify from within the very system they form. Identifying good practice Practitioners see good practice in being reliable, consistent, humble, curios, respectful, and reflexive of their own positionality. Is the failure systemic or personal? Answering this old and central tension requires, perhaps, non-binary thinking. One of the practitioners spoke about finding the inner self that can connect in deeper levels with the client, another one spoke about the failure of the system to support workers when dealing with complex situations while a third practitioner said that âit is bothâ. Note: The first themes are developed mainly based on the former youth in care data; the last one is developed entirely based on the data from the practitioners. 42 5.3 Theme 1: Affirmation as strategic vs. institutional silence Participantsâ pursuits of affirmation were often rooted in a need to counteract various forms of rejection they had experienced. Often, it was to counteract the institutional silence in care, the erasure, or worse, the pathologization of their sexuality, and/or gender identity that had eroded their sense of worth. Sometimes, it was because of the religion-based rejection that they had experienced in their religious family. Sometimes, the lack of affirmation came from not having cultural frameworks, which made the discussions around their identity complicated, at times unfinished, or confusing. In contrast, sometimes the affirmation they experienced came when they least expected it, carrying trust in moments of suspicion, and often, bringing an unanticipated but long-lasting and transformative sense of worth. For June, this kind of affirmation came as an unexpected act of trust at a time when her life was defined by surveillance. She remembered it vividly: When I was at Children's Hospital, I couldn't be left by myself. One day the psychiatrist finally brought me up to her room [where] she had two dogs and said to me: âI want you to take my dogs for a walk by yourself. Outside. Not on these grounds.â I had gone for weeks and weeks and weeks of having somebody arm's length away from me. And she's telling me to take her two very precious dogs that she loves so much on a walk off hospital grounds?! When I look back [I see] the risk that she took on me, [and it] humbles me. At the time I was blown away! I didn't believe her at first and she handed me the leash to my hand, and she said goâ¦ and I'll never forget that because all of a sudden, I had a taste of what life could be like. I was by myself outside: There was so much construction going on. I do remember that. Then, I 43 got out to a street, and I saw houses. And I saw grass. And I saw trees. And I had these two dogs, and this sense of joy and awe, [that] I hadn't felt in a very long time. Like, oh, my God, somebody trusts me! Like I had value, for the first time in a long time. (June) For others, affirmation came through the presence of a single, trusted adult who was there to listen. When Louise was told by parents that their bisexuality âwasnât realâ, and that this was âall a phase that will go,â the quiet recognition they received from a support teacher had the potential of a spark for her future resilience while they entered in a meaning making process. Louise recalled that moment: I was in grade 8, this was when I was still living at home. My parents snooped through my phone one time and found out I was texting my friend. I guess I told my friend I was bisexual, and they snooped through my phone and found that out and my stepdad told me like that it's not real, it doesn't exist and just told me like there's no way of knowing that. They literally told me that it was a phase which is a very classic line and then I remember going to school and I was devastated because I never had that opportunity to come out to my mom, you know, and to be belittled in that way and have my privacy invaded... And so, I just remember [the support teacher], I was telling her this and I was crying, and she was like, âI'm very sorry that happened to youâ and she was very validating. I had that safe place to go to and to also vent to her about certain thingsâ¦ She was always very supportive and was always very accommodating for my needs at the time. (Louise) Moments like this marked a sharp contrast with the long periods of institutional silence and erasure within the system. The silence âled to a series of missed opportunities for validation with long-term implications for the youthâs sense of worth and identity. In the following sections, I will focus on the categories that form this theme. Across these categories - erasure, 44 surveillance, cultural, or religious barriers, healing through affirmation, exposure to queer family-ing, and systemic failures - participantsâ experiences illustrate how affirmation often had to be strategically sought, and enacted in contrast to the institutional silence, neglect, or stigmatization that shaped their time in care. 5.3.1 Erasure, surveillance and cultural/religious barriers Erasure, surveillance, and cultural or religious barriers may sound distinct, but in the participantsâ accounts, they appeared as interconnected forces and methods shaping how queerness was stigmatized, silenced, and disciplined in care. Erasure often meant identities were denied or simply never talked about, leaving participants invisible or forcing them to believe that there was something wrong with them. In addition, surveillance heightened the risk of exposure and punishment, while cultural or religious barriers often framed sexuality or gender identity as foreign, shameful, or morally wrong. Together, these dynamics formed a foundation of constraint that sometimes played a long-term role in participantsâ lives. They became overlapping mechanisms that restricted disclosure, increased a sense of internalized shame, and delayed opportunities for affirmation. For P5, entering care, meant living briefly with a foster family, and then being placed in a group home, before she eventually lived independently through a youth agreement. In the context of MCFD, a Youth Agreement is a legal arrangement that allows a young person (usually 16 or 17 years old) to live independently or semi-independently with MCFD support. P5 perceived this as an act of survival: My family were [name of religion], they were really strict with me growing upâ¦ there was a lot of emotional and physical abuse. There was a part of my childhood where my sexuality got brought up and I was ridiculed and physically attacked from both of my parents and there was 45 an incident in my school involving one of my friends that I guess we had an interest with each otherâ¦ my parents were not happy about that, and that was a bit traumatising. (Participant 5) Some of the participants were actively looking for validation, even when it required coming out, and the uncertainty it often carried inherently. When Participant 1 came out to her mother, she did not reject her, but because she lacked cultural references for it, the disclosure led to more confusion, and her mother â who had a rural background from a country in Asia where homosexuality was not acknowledged nor accepted â tried to make sense of it as a âwhite cultureâ influence. The participant considered it a missed opportunity. P1, at times, even forced herself to date men, and eventually delayed living fully till later in her adulthood. She said: I told my mom I like girls. My mom's like, yeah, I like girls too! Like I have lots of friends that are girls, you know - just went over her head and it kept going over her head. You know what I mean? [Then] my mom would make comments like, you know, ânobody in our family is gay. What is gay?â She would be hard on herself because she thought she raised us wrong, or because my brother and I had exposure to a âwhite culture,â that maybe that had something to do with itâ¦ (Participant 1) The incident that June described happening at a specialized center, when a staff member walked in on her kissing another girl, and that was interpreted as evidence of âsexualized behaviourâ, is perhaps the most vivid example of the implications that the stigmatization of sexuality had on some of these youths. Marking them with shame, or with a sense of âbeing wrong,â and being âdirty,â was followed by an intentional long silence that caused deep wounds. The re-traumatization came with the complex layers of her abuse history, but now she was cast as the one causing harm: 46 The staff looked at me differently, like they were disgusted with me or like I had betrayed them. I avoided this girl and never spoke to her again out of fear of being seen as a bad person. I stayed in my room, feeling deep embarrassment and shame. A history of sexual abuse and trauma complicated these feelings in complex, layered ways. Nobody spoke of it until the next house meeting when everyone was told there was a new house rule. Iâll never forget the staff member directly looking at me, nodding her head and slowly saying, âNew rule. No girls in other girlsâ bedrooms. In that care plan meeting it was framed as a sexual behaviour that they need to keep an eye outâ¦ Then, it just was never talked about again. Never mentioned, never again, nothing! (June) Often, the erasure was also internal, especially when the emerging sexuality was perceived through a form of internalized shame. P1 captured the feeling this way: There's a lot of internal shame, a lot of internal shame, internalised shame that, like, why am I not like the other kids?! You know, why am I like this?! Why am I not like the other kids?! Why am I like this? You know, wishing that I wasn't like thisâ¦ (Participant 1) In Juneâs case, the traumatic erasure came after she had experienced a short moment of healing with her first foster family - the lesbian couple who created for her, albeit briefly, a period of safety, affirmation, nurturing, belonging, and exploration. What follows in the next section is a detailed exploration of how participants described the healing nature of being exposed to queer family-ing. The affirmation highlighted in this category is more than passive acceptance â it creates safety, nurtures a sense of possibility, and, for some, carries them gently out of isolation. 47 5.3.2 Healing through affirmation and exposure to queer family-ing Odin remembers in detail the month when his world â according to his own vivid memories â felt âwiderâ. Living briefly with two foster mothers in a city in BC, he experienced a home where queerness was both normalized and celebrated. They invited him into community spaces â from local Pride events to casual gatherings â and introduced him to people whose lives reflected possibilities in understanding his identity, that he had not imagined for himself before. The exposure to these meaning-making possibilities, combined with everyday acts of care, created a sense of belonging, and cultural connection that he still carries. Odin remembered it as follows: [At] my first lesbian foster homeâ¦ I learned I wasn't weird, that I wasn't alone. But this foster home, it was like, oh my God, there's the whole community and we're proud and we're entertaining and we're funny and we're exciting and we dance well. I started to learn how to be a Butch lesbian and you know, I had always had my gender identity issues, but being accepted for being a Butch lesbian and being able to kind of have that title opened my world up and allowed my confidence to grow. (Odin Cavanagh) After he was placed in a high middle-class household, with a lesbian couple who lived their relationship openly â Odin identified at that time as lesbian â the foster parents saw an opportunity to help him anchor the complex identity exploration process into a broader cultural and historical togetherness. It equipped Odin with words, a narrative of continuation, colourful symbols, and long-lasting relational meanings. This narrative of continuation did not just mean continuity in queer family life, but also the sense that his identity belonged within a larger lineage and story, with symbols and meanings that stretched beyond his own experience. He felt a sense of belonging when he anchored his own story to that collective history: a stark contrast to 48 the rejection he had experienced from his mother. At the same time, it enabled him to safely become a competent user of the cultural and therapeutic connectedness that became the foundation of a durable, intergenerational form of queer kinship with the former foster parents he now calls his âfoster grandparentsâ (perhaps his creative way of preserving his motherâs role for him, while granting a similarly important place to his foster parents). Odin emphasized that affirmation from queer family members and peers was felt more authentic than the support he received from cisgender, straight people in his life, which at times could feel superficial: Instead of it being a bunch of straight people around me affirming that âit's OKâ, that âit's all right, you don't need to worry, I accept you â¦â, [instead], it was like: No, no, this is how we dress, this is how you do a tie. This is how you do a bow tie. Do you know the history of butches in this world? She (one of the foster moms) taught me all about famous Butch lesbians and women who transit, who dressed as men and lived their lives as men and were great warriors. (Odin Cavanagh). Sometimes, affirmation came in quiet, intentional ways that were made to feel natural rather than forced. Caregivers offered resources or started conversations in ways that seemed casual, but in fact created lasting foundations of safety and belonging. June described it as follows: I remember one day I found âOur bodies, Ourselvesâ left in my room and I was like, what is this? They made it look like it wasn't intentional, but there was all of a sudden, this new book in my roomâ¦ And I think there was a conversation too, about any questions or anything I had about it. I read a lot, and I just couldn't get enough. [Then] their approachability of likeâ¦ do you know how to use tampons; do you know how to use pads? And I was like, no! And they're like, OK, no problem, like it wasn't a big deal! But it was a big deal for me, because I was so 49 scared, while for them it was like it's OK and everything was just OK. We could talk about bodies and sexualities, and it wasn't a forced thing. It was just like if we were watching a show and something came up, you know, like it was all very organic, and nothing was manufactured. (June) Both Odin and June described exploring their identities through a two-way dynamic of self-making and relational witnessing: on one hand, the permission to become - safely and creatively - who they wanted to be, and on the other hand the outward experience of witnessing their foster momsâ love, and their day-to-day queer family-ing. By âfamily-ingâ I refer to family as a practice of doing; in other words, I see family for what it does, not necessarily for what it is, borrowing from Ahmedâs (2014) conceptualization of family as a verb, âa word for doingâ (p. 176). This experience of witnessing queer family-ing was vividly remembered as a profoundly healing act. This is how June detailed it: I have this very vivid recollection, about one of them [foster parent], her mom and dad disowned her because she came out as gay and she carried a lot of pain because of that. And at Christmas time, it was really hard for her because her entire family had cut her out. And I remember her cryingâ¦ I remember her sitting in the dark with a Christmas tree all lit up and cryingâ¦ For me, that sight had always meant that something terrible had happened, that someone had been hurt, or that I needed to call 911, or that it was time for alarm bells. But this time, it was different. She was met with support and love. Her wife put her arm around her and said, âItâs OK.â I was just like: Wow, like love can look like this, right? And so, it just kind of blew my mind. And it was very affirming for me to see too. (June) Odin and Juneâs time with their lesbian foster parents, while transformative, was brief. Odin subsequently returned to group home placements, whereas June was transferred to a mental 50 health facility and did not return to her foster family. The following section examines participantsâ accounts of some of the most distressing experiences they encountered in care. 5.3.3 Systemic failure and harmful practices in care In participantsâ accounts, systemic failure and harmful practices in care often appeared as the stark inverse of affirmation. While affirmation was remembered as intentional acts of recognition that enhanced their sense of safety and belonging, the stories of failed practice described institutional neglect, coercive and other harmful practices. Participants spoke about being placed in environments where disclosure of sexuality or gender was pathologized and stigmatized, often through emotional violence or humiliation. Rather than affirming who they were, the system erased, disciplined, or punished their identities. P1 described her experience in one of her first foster placements as traumatic and highly abusive. P1 described her experience in one of her first foster placements, as traumatic and highly abusive. She said: The foster home where my brother and I were placed was extremely abusive. It was almost like living in a residential school. My brother and I were forced to go to church on Sundays when that wasn't our religion. My brother and I are of South Asian descent, so we were forced to kind of join a religion that wasn't really ours. There was a lot of abuse in the foster home, such as if I didn't finish my meal, I would have my mouth washed out with soap. I'd have my face washed with cow manure. I lived on a farm. I didn't really speak out. I was just a kid. And my brother got beaten up all the time by the foster parentsâ family. (Participant 1) Group homes â at least the group homes experienced by P1, June, and Odin, were not remembered as being any safer. Odin had the following comparison to make: 51 I talk about Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) studies all the time. And group homes are literally the ACEs all freaking day. You are more likely to endure more trauma and violence in group homes. They are terrible. No kid should be forced to live without family, connection or guidance when they did nothing wrong. There is nothing healthy about a group home dynamic. (Odin Cavanagh) Louise, on the other hand, described her experience in a group home as generally safe, but they highlighted inconsistent staffing as a gap that eventually impacted their stay negatively. Inconsistent staffing felt like a relational disruption; she was never able to form meaningful and affirming alliances with the staff, who frequently came and left, or did not have any consistent rotation to allow them to form and maintain working relationships with the youth. Louise said the following: I would say the biggest challenge for me was not always having a stable support network because there were so many youth workers there that would rotate, right, and so sometimes, you know, you pick the one that you bond with the most, and you don't get a lot of time with them. But at the time I was quite depressed. There was even some suicidal ideation. (Louise) Participants recalled that those practices did not have to be malicious to be harmful. June recalled that one of her counsellors at MCFD was sent to obtain continuing professional education related to mental health. The counsellor completed a dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) training, and at her return, June felt she had become like âa guinea pigâ for the practitioner to practice her newly learned skills. Although June believed she did benefit from the therapy, she remembered feeling put off by the way the counsellor began using DBT and that she credited it â not June herself â for Juneâs eventual mental health gains: 52 So this counsellor learned what DBT was, and then she brought it to the office and taught everybody else, and I was like her star person that she was going to do it with, which retrospectively, I'm glad that I did it because I think it really did help me, but I kind of thought like a show pony at times because she just was like âthis is June and you know because of DBT she hasn't self harmed in a monthâ and she would say that when we were passing in the hallway and she met somebody that she works with. That kind of felt weird. (June) June traced a similarly harmful experience she had with another foster parent during a period in care that she described as being the opposite of the affirming and nurturing time she had with her lesbian foster parents. June explained that she had received little credit for her hard work of pursuing growth and healing amid adversity, with these efforts sidelined as her foster mom took centre stage: The foster mom who was living in the house at the time also had thisâ¦ When I was doing well, it was because of her, and it wasn't because of me. It was because of her and what she's doing - in reality, she was horrible. But she just flaunted me, and she would go to her workplace and be like âI'm a foster mom and this is my foster kidâ. And she was, you know, very showy. (June) All three child welfare practitioners who participated in this research shared other harmful, unethical, and damaging practices â especially practices that decentred clients and lacked transparency â that they had witnessed from co-workers. Sawyer shared the following recent experience with social workers in multidisciplinary teams (after she resigned from MCFD): In the meetings, I feel like they don't expand on things; I have to say no very often, this person's getting upset. I think we should stop for a second and just breathe or take a break. 53 Like it's not client centred anymore. I think it's a bunch of social workers at the table that update, everybody knows a little bit and nobody's really giving theirâ¦ showing their hand. It's not transparent. So, my worry would be for kids getting lost. (Sawyer). One form of systemic failure that was pointed out across accounts was a pattern to pathologize identity. Rather than being recognized as a source of strength, queer or Two Spirit identity was described using a clinical language, and treated as a problem to be managed. Delta Fox, who has recently started a new clinical position outside of MCFD, remembered the following example: This was when I would have been a collaborative practice and I was supporting social workers and a therapist to have an holistic reunification process. The discussions were more clinical, unfortunately. What was being discussed was, how do I say this, the Two Spirit energy for this youth was discussed in the context of the problems that they might have been having and how that was paired with some clinical diagnosis in some case. [As if] there was a comorbidity, a mental health comorbidity. (Delta Fox) Another failure described by participants was the lack of tools and support for social workers to challenge discriminatory practices. Without proper training, workers were left unequipped to respond when youth were demeaned or misidentified. P8, who is still a child welfare practitioner with MCFD, highlighted the following example: I just recently had an incident where there was a youth in care that had made complaint against a caregiver and my experience and this youth by the caregivers was I don't remember the exact wording, but [the youth was] identified as trans, but not in a respectful way and I feel like, for me as the investigating social worker, it would have been helpful to have some 54 support or knowledge behind me to navigate a conversation like that where they are speaking derogatorily about the youth and their exploration of their identity. (Participant 8) For some of these youth, one important aspect of their journey was being exposed to a standard of queer family-ing that proved difficult to replace or replicate within the care system. It was as if they had experienced the loss of a family for a second time. Whether through strategic silence, selective coming out, or even the relative fortune of being placed in a middle-class household, participants actively sought ways to survive and to identify - often silently â various support networks both within and beyond the system. Amid the constant chaos caused by placement breakdowns, frequent moves, and persistent instability, safety and stability emerged as central to shaping the arc of youthsâ time in care and their identity exploration. As P1 reflected, âHow do you explore your identity if you are going from home to home?â It is within this context of instability and fractured belonging that the next section turns to examine how participants navigated survival, hope, and engaged in the ongoing process of becoming. 5.4 Theme 2: Survive. Hope. Become. In group homes, in the presence of their foster parents, at school, in front of the counsellor, in a treatment center, in a hospital, and even in a care plan meeting where practitioners and caregivers gather to discuss their needs, children and youth in care learned to remain silent. This inward retreat became a survival strategy. They learned to trust their instincts more than the adults that were supposed to nurture, protect and help them grow. Yet, within that silence were also forms of hope â where hope appeared as a strategy more than as a dream for a better future. While navigating both survival and hope, youth were engaged â on their own pace â in a process of becoming. By becoming, I refer to the ongoing process of identity formation 55 shaped through experiences of affirmation, sometimes strategic silence, and resistance. These experiences also enabled a sense of agency, as youth learned to act as strategists in navigating systems, relationships, and their own survival. In the case of P5, for instance, the intersection of race with sexuality, and the religion-based traumatic rejection and abuse experienced at home, made her cautious, despite living under a roof that appeared to be supportive. In the same group home where she reported she experienced some supportive interactions with other 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care, her sexuality and her family dynamics could not be understood in isolation from her racialized experiences. She remembered being there as one of the few Black people: I was born here, but my parents are originally from [a country], and so I identify as Black. Sometimes it was a bit like lonely, also because I usually tended to be like the only Black person in a lot of the group homes. While I was in the group home because of the personal issues that I was going through, I kind of isolated myself a lot, so I didn't really reach out to make friends. I was just more in my own world. (Participant 5) The important ways how race and cultural background intersected with sexuality and being a child/youth in care to shape their experiences in a system that rarely reflected their identities, histories, or ways of being back to them, was highlighted by P1 as well. She said: My foster dad was also a person of colour. My foster mom was Caucasian. So, you know, I think maybe that's why we kind of gravitated toward my foster dad. I know that the Ministry [of Children and Family Development] really tries to push on cultural matches, but back then, I mean my brother and I were the only South Asian kids in care. You know, like it was rare to see back then an Asian, a Filipino, an Indian person in the care of the government. So yeah, I did kind of feel like we stood out. (Participant 1) 56 Once in that imposed silence, they remained observant to cues of care or potential connections, especially among perceived queer staff. For P1, actively screening staff for possible markings of queerness, to connect in a deeper and safer way, may reflect an attempt to compensate for a lack of cultural references. This mirrored how, earlier, she had felt an immediate sense of safety and belonging when connecting on a racial and cultural level with her foster parent, who was also not white. In this way, the alertness became possibly an active strategy for exploring her own identity. She said: One of the workers at the group home was gay. I didnât understand what that even meant because, like I said, I grew up in a South Asian environment and hadnât had any exposure. LGBTQ people werenât talked about in my home. I just noticed that a lot of the group home staff looked more androgynous. It wasnât until I lived in another group home, with a bigger organization, that I encountered more people I would probably identify as queer. Some dressed more androgynously or were presented as more masculine (Participant 1) During photo elicitation, participants spoke about hope. They recognized it not as naïve optimism, but as something that coexists with pain - sometimes dim, sometimes bright, yet present all the time. Their reflections revealed hope as a force born from struggle, between light and dark, and an emotional memory that persisted even in moments of isolation and uncertainty. Hope often emerged during specific moments of being unsure what the future held for them. For instance, for June it emerged the first night she closed the door of her own place under a youth agreement, realizing how terrifying it was to be alone. Faced with the possibility that the future might mean nothing more than endless loneliness, she described how hope appeared as a small flame in the darkness of that present moment: 57 At the very end, when I moved into my own place and I finally kind of right in those early days of when I was discharged from foster care, and all of a sudden, I was completely on my own because I had nobody. It was very, very scary! But [then] it also was like this feeling of like, oh my God, now I can do anything I want: I can create my own life. That feeling of hope and excitementâ¦ but also grounded and calmâ¦ (June) In the following section I will focus in more detail on the categories that substantiate this theme, and how former children and youth navigated their time in care through strategic silence, selective coming out, or even because of luck in the sense of being placed with affirming? foster parents. 5.4.1 Learning to survive and casual protective factors Participants described learning to survive within the child welfare system through a mix of silence, strategic self-protection, and occasional moments of support. The stories, and the experiences shared under this category show how participants weighted risks and opportunities: sometimes affirmation opened new possibilities, sometimes silence became a shield, and often, the absence of recognition from adults reinforced that strategy. In other words, survival was not passive endurance, but an active process of negotiating identity, safety, and belonging. After being outed by his mother, Odin was approached by his social worker with a clear intention: to get him out of that small town and find an affirming foster family. Odin described this unexpected conversation as follows: She didn't act weird about it. She understood more than I did how important it was for me to be around other queer people. She kind of came up to me. And she's like, I know, I understand that you are, you know, a lesbianâ¦ as that how you identify that kind of thingâ¦. It was like a 58 shock, but she was really sweet about it and because of that I didnât feel like I had to say no you are wrong. I actually just said yea I think so. So, she was great and yeah, she was a supportive one. I can't say that all of my social workers were, and I got really lucky because [of her]. It was a small town and a very small officeâ. (Odin Cavanagh) P1 described how neighbourhood and class shaped her experiences, pointing out that where a young person grows up can bring both opportunities and disadvantages. She said: I think... If youâre raised in an environment where youâre living in a shelter like BC housing or those kinds of homes, you donât really get to see the worldâ¦ When my brother and I moved to the West side, we met different kids with different mentalitiesâ¦ it took time for me to integrate. I think [where you grow up] has a lot to do with itâ¦ (Participant 1) June described learning the strategic value of remaining silent, recognizing it as a self-protective strategy to maintain distance from social workers, whose interactions left her feeling embarrassed, and deeply ashamed. At the same time, her interaction with social workers during that care plan meeting left her questioning herself, as she suddenly internalized a deep sense of shame: When they labelled me as having a certain behaviour because I was with this other girl and when they said that I'm acting out, they blamed it on the two women putting these ideas in my head and I shut it down because I [thought] if I'm going to do well, if I'm going to earn these points and get out of one-on-one supervision or graduate out of this treatment place and go back home to the foster place I have to do what they want me to do and what they wanted me to do is cut it off with this girl. So, I did. They wanted no more âacting outâ. So, I couldn't talk 59 about it. I internalised this idea that doing well means not being with a girl, and so it shaped me all the way through. (June) Because youth were already going through a troubled time in their lives â dealing with mental health challenges, being away from family, and coping with instability â coming out became an extra burden. This burden was often tied for some of them to the taboo nurtured in the religious values of their families. In this context, living in the closet had its own benefits, offering them a way to avoid additional conflict or rejection, and to focus on getting through an already difficult period: It was still something that I was dealing with internallyâ¦ it was still somewhat of a taboo subject, so I think I still was dealing with a lot of shame from my family and also society at that time because people were not as open 15 years ago. I didnât tell to my social worker. . I was just wrestling with the reality of it within myself, so I only told people that I felt like I could trust and at that time in my life I didn't really trust too many people [including my social worker]. (Participant 5) For some, being silent was less a deliberate survival strategy, and more a direct outcome of the institutional silence around them. This silence was shaped by workers not knowing how to approach the topic of gender/sexuality, perhaps believing it was not appropriate, or simply failing to recognize the need that youth might have had to discuss their identity, and be actively affirmed and acknowledged. For example, the rule of âdonât ask, donât tellâ was evident in Louiseâs account of growing up queer in the child welfare system: As far as me being open about my sexual orientation, I really wasn't at the time. I didn't tell anyone that I was like bisexual or anything. I never felt challenged by it. I justâ¦ I was never 60 like if someone were to ask me like one of the youth workers, then I would tell them, so I didn't feel like I was hindered in telling them, I didn't feel unsafe. It was just something that I kept personal. Just no one asked me. Yeah, it was never a discussion. (Louise). The following section highlights another central finding around the importance that safety had for children and youth in care, as a precondition to fully experiencing their identity exploration and without fearing the consequences of doing so. 5.4.2 Safety first, then Self The constant chaos caused by placement breakdowns â moving from foster parents to a group home, to other foster parents, or extended family, then to group homes again, back and forth â this persistent instability turned safety and stability into perhaps the most important factors shaping the arc of youthsâ time in care and their identity exploration. This category surfaced across multiple accounts: for June, safety meant surviving extended stays in a mental health facility when no placement could be found, to the point where staff created a special living corner for her; for Odin, it was tied to the instability of moving back and forth between an isolated rural area and a more urban centre; and for P5, it meant escaping abuse at home first, and then continually scanning her group home environment to determine whether it was truly safe. When describing in detail this instability, P1 said: If you're going from home to home, thereâs no real process for learning or growing - it takes more brain capacity to be in survival mode than it does to be in learning mode. You canât just sit a kid down in an unstable home and say, âHey, little [first name], how do you feel about your sexuality? Do you want to come out?â No, you canât do that if the person does not feel safe. For me, there was a lot of internalised shame - asking myself why I wasnât like other 61 kids, wishing I wasnât like this, wondering if my family would accept me. Even now, my extended family doesnât really know. I dated women but wasnât public, didnât post on social media, didnât hold hands in public. It starts with safety - emotional safety and a stable home. A child deserves to feel safe, doesn't need to be in survival mode and going how is someone going to accept me? (Participant 1) The following section brings together stories of assertion, self-definition, and acts of defiance âmoments when participants transformed imposed limitations into opportunities for self-determination and visibility. 5.4.3 Reclaiming agency and resisting Participants also described moments when they reclaimed agency and resisted the limits placed upon them. These acts â whether setting boundaries or insisting on access to queer community â were not only signs of growth. For some of these youth, being able to set boundaries and to find their voice was also a powerful form of survival, and a strategy for self determination. Sometimes, reclaiming agency was about making known â often loudly â their needs, and about allowing those needs to be the center of care, rather than to be sidelined by the systemâs refusal to embrace out of the box alternatives. For example, Odin recalled his self-advocacy to attend Pride events, even after his social worker told him no: Once I asked my social worker if I could go to Pride in [a big city] and she said no. Then I got a ride with my uncle, who was heading down to [a city], and I got down to [a city] and then I called my social worker, and I told her I'm in [a city]. I'm going to Pride. You need to find me somewhere to stay. So, they had to find me an emergency group home [in a big city]. (Odin Cavanagh) 62 The next theme below is constructed to capture how participants found new meanings for life through connection â a caregiver, a teaching assistant, a worker who cared, or even a peer who opened their home. These moments of relational being-with â by which I mean the everyday (or constant) practices of being present, attentive, and connected with another person â set an irreplaceable standard of care, one that could shape their survival and their sense of becoming. Anchoring their self-making in a broader queer culture â through books, music, clothes, Pride, drag, or simply learning âhow to beâ â gave them language, stories, and belonging. Often, against the weight of deficit narratives and low expectations that were attributed to them as 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care, they turned survival into thriving. For some, the very pressure to succeed became the energy that fueled their arc of becoming. 5.5 Theme 3: Restorative queer worldmaking Participants described how shared 2S/LGBTQ+ identity markers could act as signs of safety â a way of seeing themselves in another, of knowing they were not alone. These forms of recognition opened the door to genuine connections â which they actively sought â whether through a worker, a peer, or a community that prevented the deep isolation of care. Safety was often built through vulnerability, through peer mirroring, through the experience of connecting in some of the most pivotal moments or crossroads. Sometimes, trust was fostered simply by encountering someone who moved through the world in a familiar way, someone whose presence mirrored their own. These moments of relational identity expansion â where healing became possible because it was relational â point to the power of supportive community in shaping the experience of care. In these connections, participants found not only belonging but also the beginnings of queer worldmaking, by which I mean the ways participants created and/or engaged with spaces 63 of belonging and safety through acts of care and connection, whether in foster families, or in the queer community. The following category about becoming together captures this important identity togetherness. By identity togetherness, I refer to the recognition participants felt when they saw themselves reflected in another person â moments when peers, workers, or caregivers mirrored back their queerness, and affirmed that they were not alone. This togetherness fostered trust, safety, and hope. 5.5.1 Becoming together Participants described becoming together as the process of finding and creating community where identity could be shared, mirrored, and affirmed. These moments of connection, whether meeting another queer youth in care, joining a school Pride group, or being taken in by strangers at a party, offered belonging and safety in the absence of support. In these spaces, becoming was a collective experience, where resilience was nurtured through togetherness. Having been exposed to a broader culture that gave him a collective story, and a stable source of excitement and possibility for a joyful exploration of identity in community, Odin sought that community when he missed it, and sometimes, he actively worked to create it: There's a funny story. One kid came in and he was new. He was from [village in BC]. And I don't know what it was. I just saw him walking around and he talked to one of the staff and I got up off the couch, I walked up to him, and I was like, hi, my name's [X], which is what my name used to be, and I was like: are you gay? And he just looked at me, terrified, and he was just like, yesâ¦ And I was like, oh, my God, me too! And so, it was just like that. (Odin Cavanagh) 64 Louise, despite struggling with her mental health, found her own ways to connect with a community where she felt accepted and celebrated. She said: I had two friends; they had transitioned or were in the process of doing so, and that just opened my eyes up to another world, and it always felt very safe and supportive because we understood each other. At school there was a Pride group run by some teachers every Tuesday or so, and we would all go there and it was a wonderful space to have lunch, and just talk to everybody who like identified as part of the community, and I just remember, like I just felt so supported there, especially because I still haven't left care or left my home yet (Louise). Odin told me how he had spent his 19th birthday at the office of his social worker trying to figure out his housing options. And there, at his worse moment, when the system had completely failed him, it was the queer community that stepped up to provide support: I ended up homeless for a while. I had met these people at a queer party and you know, these people that I barely knew let me sleep on their couch and helped me get on my feet living here in [city in BC] and you know, getting to go to dances and volunteering to help set up... Queer community was the only real safe haven that I had... It was like finding a place to rest until it's time to goâ¦ (Odin Cavanagh) 5.5.2 Healing through culture This sense of togetherness was not only a powerful way to normalize aspects of participantsâ identities that felt rejected by everyone else, but it was also conceptualized as a form of mentorship. Odin discussed this notion when he told me that, it felt like, âsomeone coming to you and saying, hey kid, you are over here with us. Nothing wrong with you, you just 65 need to learn how our people do it!" I was told by participants that this form of mentorship was experienced as an open door leading to an intergenerational transmission of culture: My foster parents and they made sure I always had tickets to every event. I was like the royal family kid. Every Christmas I went to this big queer party, and it was just lovely. They're the most important people for sure. Sorry, I don't know why I started crying, I haven't thought about them in a whileâ¦ Gen Z or whatever has just kind of skyrocketed into the futureâ¦ It's important that culture is transferred through the generations, and that's one of the important things that's so crucial is straight people and straight support can be amazing and is crucial. (Odin Cavanagh) Other participants described similar experiences of mentorship, and cultural transmission. June remembered the impact of feminist books shared in her foster home, and Louise spoke about the support she found in Pride groups, and queer events at school. For them, culture and community were a source of guidance and belonging. 5.5.3 Envision a better system For participants, both former youth in care and child welfare practitioners, a better system is about the definition of care, relational safety, and about centering children and youthâs needs. At the same time, a better system is about empowering youth to create/find their individuality. P1 said she was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 36, and receiving medication allowed her to finish her school. She did not experience this tailored form of care while she was in care. She said: I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 36 years old, although I always had a learning issue. I didn't know what it was. I forked out $2000.00 of my own money and I got diagnosed with 66 ADHD. I didn't know I had that. So even though I graduated from high school and stuff, I felt like I just kind of like progressed. But ever since I've been diagnosed and on medication, my grades are a lot better, you know, but this is. It's a matter of just paying attention to what those children's needs are and you know, finding out what they like to do and having the youth creating their own individualityâ. (Participant 1) Participants had direct suggestions about what a better system would look like: âEmpower kids to find their voiceâ (Participant 1), âdonât assume everybody is straightâ (June), âlet the youth create their own individualityâ, âhave a pride stickerâ (June), âyes, support the families, donât tear them apartâ (Odin Cavanagh), and âtemporary solutions are not cost effectiveâ (Participant 1). Taken together, these suggestions form a vision of care that is relational, and affirming, one that respects youth as individuals, validates their identities, strengthens families where possible, and invests in stable, lasting supports. A call from an inward kind of reflection came from Delta Fox, who said: âthe best training is not about adding skills but chiselling away at what is inessential in ourselves, so we donât project barriers onto othersâ. Here, Delta Fox was pointing to the inner work required of practitioners â recognizing and setting aside personal biases, defensiveness, and other âbaggageâ that can become barriers in relationships with youth. When asked what needs to change, P5 made this reflection: âIf more social workers took the time to not just see kids as a number but to connect with them and provide spaces for them, that could make a differenceâ, while P8 focused instead on training: âA good start would be by training workers moreâ. Across these reflections, participants pointed to two core changes needed for a better system: on one hand, the structural â stable placements, ongoing support, training for practitioners, and intentional affirmation; on the other, the personal â the inner work required 67 from practitioners to recognise their bias and see youth as full human beings. Together, these ideas suggest that creating a better system is as much about reshaping relationships, as it is about reforming structures. 5.5.4 âTo prove them wrongâ A few participants spoke about their need to succeed and do well as not only related to a sense of achievement but also related to resilience as a form of defiance, made important especially in a context of stigma. Often, former youth in care perceived their potential was reduced by extremely low expectations that the system had of them. For P1, the low expectations set by the system created constant fear of becoming âanother statisticâ. She described feeling pressure to prove that she and her brother could succeed, even when the system seemed to expect otherwise. June shared a similar experience, but for her, the pressure to âprove them wrongâ came with an even more painful trade-off: succeeding meant following the script that workers wanted, which required her to erase her queer identity. To do well was to keep her âhead downâ, hide who she was, and to numb the feelings that came with that erasure. June said: There was this narrative, we don't expect you to survive to be 19. So, I felt I internalised this pressure of doing well because I wanted to prove them wrong becauseâ¦ that was said over and over and over again, and it was like, well, you're not going to die on my shift. So, I wanted to do well, to prove everybody wrong and in order to do that, I just had to put my head down and ignore who I am. It created this hatred of who I am [that was] reinforced by what they were saying. And because of medications, it was almost easy for me just to numb out and not feel it (June) 68 In the opinion of P1, for the system to set low expectations, meant that even the choices offered to the younger people in care were designed to simply meet low expectations. She said: Had my mother not been an advocate about my brother and I going to a normal functioning high school, I think my brother and I would have been a statistic of ministry because those were the kind of kids I hung around with. Instead MCFD wanted me and my brother to rely on the system. And I never, ever collected a welfare cheque. And I'm 45 years old. I bought my own condo. Like I'm, you know, I'm a fourth-year accounting student. Like what more do you say I integrated back into society (Participant 1) The following section introduces affirmation as a spectrum of care, drawing on participantsâ reflections about what it meant to be seen and supported in their identities. These accounts show that affirmation was rarely accidental, but intentional, strategic, and often risk-taking â a practice through which care became healing. 5.5.5 A spectrum of affirmation in care: patterns emerging from participant accounts The findings suggest that affirmation in care and the healing that comes through culture and community can be understood as a spectrum of experiences described by participants across different contexts of care. Each point along this spectrum is grounded in the patterns shared by participants. At one end, silence emerged in the accounts of June, Louise, P1, and P5, who described the absence of relational safety, talked about the persistence of institutional silence, and about experiences where their sexuality was pathologized or stigmatized. P1, June, Louise, and P5 spoke about constantly scanning their environments for safety. As outlined under Theme 2 about safety they often learned that keeping silence was sometimes the only survival strategy available. 69 Moving along the spectrum of the affirmation, interruption appeared often through exposure to queer family-ing, the strategic presence of supportive adults, and encounters with queer culture and community. Odin and June both recalled such moments, while Louise emphasized the significance of community spaces, often at school where queer people supported each other. These experiences were felt often as interruptions, though not always sustained, that created cracks in silence. The possibility of affirmation enabled them to imagine new possibilities. Recognition and validation were described most vividly in experiences where affirmation became embodied in rituals and community practices. Odin highlighted moments of cultural celebration such as concerts and Pride, while June remembered family traditions with a lesbian foster couple that made her feel her identity was reflected and welcomed. Finally, integration was reflected in narratives of reclaiming rejection by projecting it into a collective identity. Odin, for example, spoke about efforts to create queer community even within shelters, reframing exclusion into a shared experience that could foster solidarity. Taken together, these accounts form what I conceptualize as a spectrum of affirmation in care - strategic, intentional, and often risk-taking. This spectrum (Table 2) is not meant to imply linearity or inevitability, but to illustrate recurring patterns that illuminate how affirmation operated, faltered, and at times endured across the lived experiences of both former youth in care and practitioners who participated in this thesis. Table 2: A spectrum of affirmation in care, as strategic, intentional and risk taking Silence Interruption Recognition Validation Integration Enabling condition No relational safety Institutional silence Exposure to queer family-ing Strategic Relational safety begins to form Adults Ongoing affirmation Creation of rituals Youth internalize belonging Reclaim rejection by projecting it 70 Sexuality pathologized adult presence Exposure to queer culture & community Sexuality normalized become caregivers Queer language /models available Self is reflected (e.g., party, singing, dancing when sad) Cultural integration (e.g., pride event, concert tickets) into a collective identity Characteristics No affirmation Identity erasure Strategic self-imposed silence Active scanning for support Affirmation is risk-taking Strategic Intentional Affirmation is witnessed Restorative and therapeutic Rooted in community A sense of possibility Protective Rooted in shared culture Felt as an alternative to rejection Transformative Enduring Possible outcomes Fear Shame Isolation Survival mode Curiosity Disbelief Cautious openness World is widened Relief Joy Belonging Naming Dignity Feels seen Sense of being legitimate (not wrong) Pride Hope A sense of future Connected to a shared story Note: This spectrum of affirmation is not conceptualized to be linear. 5.6 Theme 4: Between care and constraint - the system the self, or both System fragmentation, lack of effective training - or the limits of it - the disconnect many workers feel from the ethics of their own profession, and the systemic silence rooted in misconceptions about gender identity, and sexuality are among some of the structural gaps that practitioners themselves identified from within the very system they constitute. As for good 71 practice, they highlight the importance of being reliable, consistent, humble, curious, respectful, and reflexive about their own positionality. Yet, when it comes to the old and central tension â is it the system, or the people â they do not draw clear lines. For one of the participants, the importance of their work â and its success, or the failure â lies in the ability to reach clients at deeper levels; for another one, the problem is in the systemâs failure to adequately support workers; and for at least one of them, the conclusion was that âit is both.â 5.6.1 Identifying the failures from within Participants who had worked inside the system reflected on its failures from within, describing disorganization, unfulfilled policies, and a lack of training and resources as persistent barriers. These accounts are important for this study because they show how systemic breakdowns are not just administrative problems but directly affect practice with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth - leaving workers without the tools to affirm identities, address discrimination, or build safe and consistent relationships. In this sense, failures from within highlight how gaps in policy and practice undermine the very conditions needed for affirmation and belonging. Sawyer remembered that working in an office that was organized through a generalist social work practice offered her opportunities for a more structured, consistent, and accountable practice. She said: In my experience [as a generalist social worker], I was that person that did everything, and I found that to be easier and more successful for the child. I always knew what was happening for everybodyâthe school, the caregivers, the grandparents, the children. And now itâs four or five social workers getting this information. Itâs going in five different files, not into one brain. From the outside looking in at the system now, I just see chaos and confusion, and I wouldnât want to be a social worker there anymore. Their introductions arenât even proper. 72 Like, oh, Iâm so and so. OK. But who, what do you do? Who do you work for? Do you work for MCFD, or do you work for the school? Like, who do you work for? (Sawyer) In other moments during the interview, this participant did not hesitate to express a sense of frustration with how things have turned out in the system where she worked for many years and thought she would retire from but eventually left. She said: They do make policies and then they donât follow them. That was my experience. I often felt like I was fighting, and in fact I left a system that I was with for 30 years and I thought I would retire there. But I could not stomach the way that they treated the Indigenous people anymore. No matter what I did or said, it was terrible. â¦ Even if they made a policy, they would not follow it. (Sawyer) P8 spoke on the lack of training, and the lack of resources for the workers, seeing them as at least a very first thing that could bring important change. On the lack of training and tools, she said: Systemically, I think thereâs issues. Thereâs not a lot of in-depth training in how to support that population and how to respect their identities and their expressions and their orientationsâ¦ We donât have the training to support them in their journey, but we also donât have the resources to support those very serious considerations and topics that theyâre looking at. (Participant 8) These gaps become visible in practice, for example, as P8 said when, âa youth in careâ¦ made a complaint against a caregiverâ¦ identified as trans, but not in a respectful way,â leaving the worker without the knowledge to intervene effectively. The lack of training is an issue for caregivers as well. This participant described the system itself as, âa people pleaserâ¦ that will 73 just lean whichever way it needs to in order to create the least number of waves, or to lean towards the dominant belief of societyâ. 5.6.2 Identifying good practices Practitioners told me they see good practice in being reliable, and consistent with their clients and families, humble, curious, respectful, and reflexive of their own positionality. These qualities are important when working with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth, whose past experiences of rejection, instability, and erasure make them especially sensitive to whether adults can be trusted to show up. Reliability, and follow-through counter the instability of constant placement changes; curiosity and humility help workers resist assumptions about identity; and respect for dignity and humanity provides a corrective to the systemic silence many participants described elsewhere. Sawyer said the following: I think that consistency and reliability work. With every child, but I donât know. I had a little special spot for those two for sure. Like they, I just felt like they had to fight harder for everything. â¦ Like even just picking up the phone or messaging back and saying Iâll be right with you. Iâm just in a meeting and they know that I will because they know me. (Sawyer) She remembered the moments when her client felt hurt because of the lack of reliability and respect in handling unexpected plan changes: I think the both of them often said to me, you know so and so cancelled whatever professional or whatever, or a parent or a grandparent. So, they often were very clear about I appreciate that you show up and I noticed that a couple times that I didnât because I had something come up or something that was unavoidable, they were hurt. And then that I had to build trust again. (Sawyer) 74 Delta Fox also highlighted the importance of consistency, reliability, and approaching clients with a non-judgmental attitude: Consistency! If youâre going to do something, say youâre going do it and be present. Absolute consistency, which is, I guess, reliability, being able to follow through. Again, if you say that youâre going to offer a type of service, if you say that you have a certain type of a case management plan mean it, mean it, follow through with it and make it happen right, thatâs a huge value. â¦And then to add an adult in that whoâs a social worker that shows up and you know, is an absence of the criticalness and also [non being] judgmental and can be consistent and can be reliable and can create a space for a lot of positive relationship elements - thatâs really good. (Delta Fox) P8 focused on the importance of relying on a practice that is based on respect for the clientâs dignity and their humanity. This is important for all clients, but perhaps especially so for 2S/LGBTQ+ youth, many of whom have experienced assaults on dignity in the context of SOGIESC-based discrimination. She said: I think for me, a lot of my professional practice is based around respecting the identity, the humanity of the people that I work with, and I feel like when weâre not appropriately trained as social workers to interact with people of all different populations, then weâre not being given the tools to respect them as human beings. (Participant 8) 5.6.3 The discussion about the systemic and personal dimensions of failure Answering the central tension whether failure is systemic or personal requires, perhaps, a non-binary thinking. By this I mean moving beyond the simple dichotomy of blaming either âthe systemâ or âthe individualâ and instead recognizing how both interact. Failures can stem from 75 systemic structures that leave workers without tools or training, while also being shaped by personal beliefs, biases, and levels of self-awareness. Seeing these as interwoven helps to set the stage for the reflections that follow. One of the practitioners spoke about finding the inner self that can connect through deeper levels with the client, and based on this reflection, this is less about being critical with the system and more about examining oneâs inner self: [Thinking about] self-awareness, the capacity to check in with oneself. â¦ Who the carrier is, right, a lot of this stuff is, you know, Iâve trained it, Iâve got it, I have the skill and tool. But thereâs a bit of a disregard for the person who carries and holds on to the tool, right? â¦ And so, I donât think these trainings can really offer that. And so, itâs a bit of a spiritual endeavour, to connect with those who are Two-Spirit. So, connecting at a bit of a spiritual level, you know, you really you need to go deep to do that, and you need to go deep to make those meaningful connections. (Delta Fox) Another participant spoke about the failure of the system to support workers when dealing with complex situations, âto provide that starting point to have further conversations and learn moreâ (Participant 8), while a third practitioner said that âit is bothâ. When I followed up with a question on whether the problems should be located on a systemic level, or on specific individualsâ lack of knowledge, Sawyer told me: Thatâs a good question. Yeah. Umm. I think it could be both, yeah. I mean, I came in fairly quickly like I was new from coming out of school. So, I was not in the same mindset as them on that issue for sure, and I could see how some of it was influenced by the wider system while some was just individual attitude (Sawyer). 76 When asked about how social workers approached the identities of Two-Spirit and LGBTQ+ youth in care, one participant described two distinct âbranches of practiceâ that she had observed during her career. On one side, there were workers who chose silence and deferred responsibility, framing identity exploration as a temporary âphaseâ, rather than something to be affirmed in the present. She explained: So, the branch of social workers that decided you should not bring that topic specifically up wasâ¦. their argument was theyâll change their mind. You need to give them time to decide what they want to do or who they want to be. Theyâre too young. Their parents should make that decision you know, itâs not the Ministryâs choice. Nobody actually said itâs the childâs choice. Yeah. (Sawyer) In contrast, she also highlighted âanother branch of workersâ who practised active affirmation. These were the ones who were willing to âtake the riskâ of naming and supporting a youthâs identity openly. Some workers in my data made clear that affirmation was not optional but necessary, and they (or other colleagues they had witnesses) found ways to do so even within system limits â by naming youth identities openly, showing consistency and reliability, offering small but intentional affirmations, and refusing to treat queerness as a problem. Sawyer recalled one social worker in particular: The one that I think was probably the one I admired the most and he had, heâs the one that said nothing about me without me. I was involved with that child too and that child did change their identity a couple times, and he was there for that teenager, for every step of the way to support and to be there and to be consistent and to be the one person that didnât flinch when they made a change or show any kind of, I donât knowâ¦ I find him fascinating too, because he is a Christian and he attends church every week and I did not expect him to be like 77 that. If heâs not sure if itâs in the social worker code of ethics, he will look, he wants to be a good social worker. (Sawyer) These accounts show how workers navigated the tension between silence and affirmation, and how a social work practice of consistency, openness, and recognition could make a difference for 2S/LGBTQ+ youth. Taken together these insights offer a foundation for the discussion that follows, where I consider what these stories mean for practice with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care. 78 6 Discussion This thesis is based on a qualitative multiperspectival study guided by interpretive description. The study aimed to highlight the experiences of 2S/LGBTQ+ former children and youth in care, and to develop practical insight to inform child welfare policy and practice. Following semi-structured interviews supplemented by photo elicitation with five 2S/LGBTQ+ adults with lived experience in care, and three current and former child welfare practitioners with experience working with this population, I developed four themes that collectively respond to the research questions. Rather than producing oppositional or dialectical perspectives between former youth in care and practitioners, the themes show how their insights often align in complementary and intersecting ways and help to inform policy and practice. 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care have experienced rejection inside, and outside the system through implicit, or explicit ways that have established â and perpetuated â a constant message that exploring, understanding, and integrating sexuality and gender identity in ways that feel authentic to them could be a risky thing to do while in care. Child welfare practitioners play various roles in these processes. Previous studies have documented their central importance, with Mallon (1999) positioning practitioners at the heart of addressing the needs of 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in care, and Wilber et al. (2006) highlighting the importance of creating cultural shifts within the system, and enabling staff to seek suitable placements, and provide sensitive support services. In the current study, some practitioners had inspiringly managed to safeguard younger people by matching them with affirmative foster parents. At the same time, some practitioners â supported or allowed by the system (more about this below) â have failed to prevent societal hostile attitudes from entering and shaping care. Previous research has documented how 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care often face discrimination within child welfare systems. They have encountered elements of anti-LGBT bias 79 from caregivers and professionals (Wilson & Kastanis, 2015), or even violence that left them feeling safer outside the system than within it (Feinstein et al., 2001). While these studies point to systemic problems, what eventually emerged in this thesis were the more detailed accounts about the mechanisms through which failures to respond to these children and youthâs needs operate inside the system. Thus, a salient contribution of this study is that it locates the rejection experienced by 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care as a systemic issue. While previous work has examined individual and family processes of sexual and gender identity-based rejection (Dorri et al., 2024; McKormick et al., 2016), this study details the ways through which rejection also penetrates the child welfare system. For instance, participants recalled the pain of being pathologized and stigmatized on the basis of their sexuality and/or gender identity. Any attempt to experience them was framed as âa problem,â an âacting out,â or âsexualized behaviour.â Equally painful has been for them to experience the heavy institutional silence that felt like a systemic attempt to erase them. This kind of labelling did not occur in isolation â it reflected what scholars have described as institutionalized bias, in which youth behaviours are filtered through prevailing professional or systemic assumptions (Mallon, 1999; Wilber et al., 2006). This echoes research that has shown that 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care are often treated as if they were sexual predators, or in need of being âcured,â leading to unfair isolation or pathologization of behaviours that would otherwise be considered normative for their peers (Wilson & Kastanis, 2015). Such systemic misrecognition not only reinforces the perception that safety lies outside the system (Feinstein et al., 2001), but also contributes to deeper patterns of rejection, with some youth pushed into homelessness at an early age (Goodyear et al., 2023). This silence participants spoke about had two faces: one was an institutional one, the other was a strategic choice adopted by youth. Even when sexuality was labeled as âsexualized 80 behaviorâ triggering painfully long meetings to include that âproblemâ in âthatâ child/youthâs care plan, notably, any further discussion about it never came, forcing youths â as it was the case with June, one of the former youth in care who participated in this research â to âshut it downâ completely. The message it sent â or at least the message perceived by some of these youth â was that, in order to come out of the clutches of this system, they had to be silent, forcing themselves to experience a long-lasting wound from the internalized shame that the silence produced. The institutional silence mirrors the kind of erasure that Abramovich (2017) identifies as a form of oppression and the forms of dehumanization and depersonalization investigated by Capous-Desyllas and Mountz (2019) that leave many of these youth voiceless and entrapped within a system structured by cisheteronormative logics. It affected youthâs sense of worth in profound and long-lasting ways. Silence â especially an observant kind of it â turned out to be also a useful survival tool that enabled 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care to constantly scan for supportive and affirmative spaces. They actively â although silently â looked for staff who might be safe, sometimes reading subtle markings of queerness or non-binary identity as signs of potential allyship. While these cues initially offered a sense of safety, the absence of concrete actions or affirming dialogue meant that this early sense of safety could not be sustained. Practitioners might have chosen silence because â as Sawyer, a former child welfare practitioner highlighted in this research â some of them did not know what to say and how to interact, or worse they thought that the âchoiceâ involving anything that had to do with sexuality and/or gender identity âwas for family to doâ. There are several layers to unpack here. First, the lack of awareness on how to respond in situations that require confidence does not mean the pathways of the system are closed. Rather, it can be understood as a pragmatic call for improvement - one that points to the need for 81 intentional training with implications not only for practice but also for how societal beliefs around the nature of sexuality are confronted, to emphasize that every personâs identity â fixed or fluid â deserves affirmation. Previous studies have also highlighted the importance of equipping practitioners with such tools to shift culture and practice (Wilber et al., 2006). Likewise, research shows that increasing practitioner awareness is itself a critical step in creating conditions for more affirming practice (Capous-Desyllas & Mountz, 2019). Secondly, practitionersâ choice to remain silent â whether due to lack of awareness, uncertainty, or the belief that identity should be left to caregivers â raises an important point and an ethical obligation for social workers: to respect the dignity, worth, and the self determination of youth in care, who are ethically required to be empowered as the only agent in the identity self-making process. By identity self-making I mean the process by which young people interpret, choose, and express their own gender and sexual identities, claiming authorship over who they are rather than being positioned as passive recipients of adult, or institutional definitions. Research shows why this autonomy â affirmed by caregivers â is critical: socially transitioned children supported by caregivers report normative levels of mental health (Olson et al., 2016), while affirmation more broadly is linked to stronger life satisfaction, and fewer symptoms of depression (Simons et al., 2013). Conversely, institutional silence and erasure reinforce marginalization (Woolley, 2010; Abramovich, 2017), often underpinned by cultural beliefs that frame children as âasexualâ and discourage open dialogue about identity (Lehn & Chahboun, 2025). For practitioners, promoting youth agency is not only a developmental need, but also an ethical imperative, echoed in professional standards such as the Model Standards Project, which emphasizes affirming placements and respect for privacy and self-determination (Wilber et al., 2006). In addition, scholarship on minority stress has shown that resilience for 82 2S/LGBTQ+ youth is nurtured not only through individual strengths, but also through collective affirmation and community-based coping strategies, underscoring the importance of environments where self-determination is actively supported (Meyer, 2003, 2015). Thus, identity belongs to the young person â including the right to interpret it, to choose it, and to express it. Societal rejecting attitudes that are often embedded in claims such as âthey will change their mindâ or âthey learned it from lesbian parentsâ point to, perhaps, the same resistance to accept the personâs autonomy in how to express and interpret their own identity. Even if all the exploration of identity is understood as a phase, as an experiment, or a fluid process that the young person decides to engage in or with â although growing research suggests that fluidity itself is an identity rather than merely a passing phase (Savin-Williams & Vrangalova, 2013; Savin-Williams, 2022) â the experiences of former youth in care who participated in this research echo a collective call: that such explorations must be supported, nurtured, and shielded from the reach of societal hate that penetrate the very system meant to protect them. 6.1 Strategic, intentional and risk-taking affirmation as care Faced with the systemic inherent suspicion about sexuality and gender identity, youth in this study frequently self-isolated to protect themselves. This temporary retreat within the safety of their inner selves did not pause their self-making, it just made the process of identity exploration a lonelier one. Children and youth were left to make sense alone, often horrified in isolation by the prospect of what they are pushed to believe they are â at times, forcing some of them, like P1, to ask themselves âwhy canât I be like everyone else?â This mirrors Ahmed's (2014) conceptualization of discomfort that queer bodies may feel in public (as well as in institutional) spaces after realizing that those spaces have been shaped in ways that cannot 83 contain them. But at the same time this moment also uncovers Ahmedâs pragmatic and hopeful suggestion that this discomfort is not only about resisting or being assimilated, nor about eternally challenging norms. It can also be about inhabiting those spaces differently. Might this finally signal a strategic and enduring reconciliation for the system so that it can reconfigure itself in ways that allow for a kind of care that nurtures and affirms such difference? If hate permeates the system, the best remedy we might have is situated, perhaps, in the kind of care we allow that very system to embody, because as Vachon (2020) reminds us, âcare permeates queernessâ (p. 63). And to be cared for, means â as participants in this research described - to be affirmed, and to be allowed to identify with a shared story and culture. This is why both former youth in care, and child welfare practitioners elevated affirmation from passive acceptance into a source of remedy and healing, which allowed me to conceptualize affirmation â often based on their vivid memories and descriptions â as a strategic and intentional intervention in care (more about this below). Affirmation is thus envisioned as care rooted in community, culture, and on a shared history. It is often about reclaiming a rejected aspect of identity by anchoring it on a collective sense of togetherness. For example, when Odin was exposed to that sense of togetherness through culture, and when he finally became part of a shared story, he became a leader, and when community was non-existent, he would form it: in shelters, in group homes, in small towns. This finding supports some of the calls made at the RCYâs report (2023) that emphasize the importance of culturally relevant and affirmative support. The affirmation is, obviously, not about forcing youth to come out, but as the RCY report recommends, is about intentionally creating a safe and respectful environment that allows â and encourages â youth to actively seek 84 connections, and therapeutic interactions in school, in community, and in every space of their life. In this way, we might enable a safer and relational self-making. 6.2 âWe're the few that held hopeâ, and restorative restoring While listening to participants sharing their stories with me, I learned that hope was won and earned. Their hope was not simply an inner light that illuminated their intricate mazelike paths of childhood and adolescence. Hope became a goal â a âform of investment,â or a âdispositionâ as Ahmed (2014, p. 209) has described this form of hope â often embedded in the pressure to succeed, and in an existential claim â âI have to do wellâ (June) â that some of them had to make to themselves. Hope was about perseverance, âto push through and to come out of the other side following my dreamsâ (Participant 5). Hope was about âa place to rest before getting ready to leaveâ (Odin Cavanagh). Sometimes, hope was born during a scary moment of loneliness. When June got her first youth agreement, she described that after entering in her home, and shutting the door off, she suddenly realized she was alone, a lonely, rejected teenager who had no one else, and she got scared. At that very moment, though, hope was born, and she suddenly realized that: âOh my God, I can do anything I want! I can create my own life.â Ahmed (2014) talks about this feeling as a wonder that comes when the world is suddenly opened and widened by new possibilities of togetherness and solidarity, a wonder that is also bodily, as if âbody opens as the world opens up before itâ. It is also a learning moment that leads to a âradicalization of our relationship with the pastâ (Ahmed, 2014, p. 205). âIt opened my world up and allowed my confidence to grow,â Odin told me when he described the impact that hope and his exposure to new possibilities had on him. The possibilities he talks about were anchored in the people who taught him to belong. Those lessons though, were forged in the shared past of a community that had learned to come together. As Ahmed 85 (2014) reminds us, hope then, is not merely about the future, but it is also about allowing the past to come in the present: âthe coming together of different bodies in this present timeâ (p. 217). Understanding hope through its relational nature has, without any doubt, important implications for child welfare practitioners, and for the child welfare system in general. Hope is understood as a healing opportunity seeded through connections, through shared stories of support, survival, and shared stories of wonder that create opportunities for togetherness. As such, hope can be nurtured and maintained through art, colors, music, dance, and community, through culture, symbols, and the ability to find your own tribe. As Odin reminds us, âto be able to find your people and your tribe is, I think, the only way to really find yourself.â Just like that wonder introduced by Ahmed (2014), former children and youth in care who participated in this research wondered â when witnessing queer family-ing â how possible this process might be for them, and how surprisingly reassuring and promising it looked. This restorative witnessing of an alternative to the rejection â or to the perceived rejection â they had internalized offered a healing opportunity to counteract the persistent condemnation of 2S//LGBTQ+ identities, and the institutional erasure they often experienced. âThey understood I did not have a story, and they gave me oneâ, Odin told me. And what better way to do this than using culture, art and community? Queer theory helped me see these practices of âqueer family-ingâ not simply as supportive gestures, but especially as disruptions of the cisheteronormative logics that define what is treated as ânormalâ and what is not (Warner, 1999). Ahmedâs (2014) conceptualization also illuminated how queer bodies move through public spaces â and within state institutions â shaped as extensions of cisheteronormativity. The experiences that participants described reflected the discomfort that comes with it. At the same time, an intersectional lens helped me 86 notice that rejection was not experienced uniformly: for June, her class background and white, wealthy family of origin shaped the way the system initially disbelieved her report of abuse; for P5, being both Black and queer in group homes intensified isolation; for P1, cultural frameworks that lacked words or understanding for queerness made affirmation nearly impossible, and for Odin, rejection intersected with experiences of poverty and homelessness. In anchoring my understanding of intersectionality, I drew on Harrisâs (1990) caution against essentializing identity around a single element in isolation from race, class, or other realities. In other words, I did not approach participants simply as 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care, but as people whose experiences of rejection and affirmation were shaped through the interplay of sexuality, race, culture, class, and care histories. This framing shifted my analysis from rejection as an individual burden to rejection as something structured by overlapping systems of power. Thorne (2016) introduces practice-informed imaginal exercises as important means for researchers in applied disciplines to rely on the knowledge created during their experience, often at a level of âexpert witnessingâ (p. 180), to bring that knowledge to a research context, asking perhaps an important question: âWhat might I not be seeing?â (p. 179). As a social worker I have had some experience working in the recent past with youth in care and I have myself used the care plans detailed in Chapter 5 of MCFDâs policies. I know from that firsthand experience how powerfully that document of care and planning is designed â based on legislation â to capture all forms of a childâs permanency: physical, legal, cultural and relational permanency (CFCSA, 1996). But what this research demonstrates is that permanency is not only something we plan for, but more than that, it is something we, as child welfare practitioners, co-create, perform, and witness happening. For 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care, affirmation cannot be postponed until we think they might be ready for it, but it must be part of what creates permanency and what makes 87 stability possible. Hope, then, is not just an inner state of mind and soul, but rather a guiding method, a commitment, and a daily act, that demands imagination, care, and a clear willingness to risk. At the end of his interview, Odin disclosed a thoughtful and profound acceptance of the power of hope, though bounded by its limits: âIf we're still hereâ, he said, âitâs because we're the few that held hope.â 6.3 The intertwined boundaries between âthe systemâ and the people who enact it In this thesis, I do not aim to villainize MCFD, nor to reduce complexity by pointing to the system as if it were a singular, conscious entity. As I explained earlier, the system is used here as a research construct â a way of naming the network of institutions, policies, and professional practices that are expected to interact in supporting children and youth in care. My findings suggest that this construct can operate, sometimes, as a set of fragmented practices that inconsistently materialize in the lives of participants. While the system is normatively imagined as cultivating understanding, recognition, and support, participantsâ experiences revealed how often these expectations broke down â whether through institutional silence, pathologization, stigmatization, or the uneven presence of affirming adults. At the same time, it is important to note that every system, including the child welfare system, has mechanisms for accountability and oversight (RCY, 2023), even if these mechanisms did not always translate into the affirming care participants needed. I have consistently been cautious and attentive â in line with interpretive descriptionâs encouragement of the researcher to have a commitment to advance their respective profession â to understand the experiences shared with me as data, and to transform that data, through rigorous methodology, into useful insight for improving policy and practice. Thorne (2016) emphasizes that the strength of interpretive description lies in the researcherâs ability to move 88 beyond description and transform patterns in the data into findings that sustain both rigor, and practical usefulness. This perspective has guided me â especially when reflecting about the system â in thinking of my analysis not only as an academic exercise, but as a way to generate insights that can become actionable for practitioners. This is why when the discussion of whether the failures are systemic, or related to the workers came up, especially in interviews with child welfare practitioners, I became more attentive to finding pragmatic ways of turning those reflections into practical and actionable steps (more about those steps below). In this regard, the binary thinking of âeither it, or usâ â as it is the case almost always â doesnât help. For instance, care plans are systemically organized to support clients â yet participants in this research told me how often those care plan meetings are experienced as attacks to their self determination and agency, especially because of their practitioner-centered nature that can feel overwhelming (one striking example in this research is Juneâs experience with it). Yet, even within that collegial setting, workers have options to create safe interventions, to connect children with culture, and to support their cultural, community, spiritual development and well being. Safety concerns create suspicion â again, Juneâs example is perhaps the most striking here â but in the same system that operates through suspicion, there was also place for people like the clinician that in a surprising turn affirmed June and changed her life. The same system matched Odin with the affirmative lesbian couple. Yet, the same system â almost during the same time â abruptly separated June from her own affirmative foster parents. The same system allows, and at times even rewards, the fragmentation of care, and along with it the fragmentation of responsibilities, but in the same system, there is also space for Sawyerâs inspiring colleague who relies on the social work code of ethics (and not just on MCFD policies) 89 to support his clients and their families. There is also space â in this same system â for the kind of practitioner described by Delta Fox who told me he prefers to reflect about his positionality as both a possible tool, and a barrier to connect with clients, instead of just pointing out the lack of training. In other words, this binary focus does not allow us to transform the knowledge that comes from this discussion into a better practice. So, the question would rather be: how to turn the failures in both systemic and individual transformation? 6.4 Limitations The studyâs sample is small, and the findings are not generalizable. Although the sample was generally a diverse one, it lacked unique perspectives from other possible subgroups within the broader â and very heterogeneous â group of 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care. These include more perspectives from nonbinary people, Indigenous, Two Spirit, trans women and gay men. In addition, this research lacked more perspectives from child welfare practitioners with direct guardianship responsibilities. Guardianship social workers are a distinct group within child welfare in BC. Under the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), when a child is placed on a Continuing Custody Order (CCO), the Director of Child Welfare becomes their legal guardian. Those delegated responsibilities are carried out by guardianship social workers, whose role is to act as the legal guardian on behalf of the state. That means they are the practitioners who work most directly and continuously with children and youth in permanent government care: overseeing their day-to-day well-being, education, health, cultural plans, and long-term stability. They are often the primary adult representing the childâs interests in planning meetings and court, and they remain involved until youth transition out of care at age 19 (or through extended supports). Also, hearing more positive experiences would have been very insightful. 90 All interviews with former youth in care were retrospective, and a significant portion of participants reflected on experiences from many years ago. This creates a limitation in terms of capturing more recent perspectives on child welfare practice. However, the inclusion of a younger participant (in their â20s) provided an important point of comparison that helped to balance these retrospective accounts and offer a more contemporary lens. As the interviewer, my own positionality as both a social worker, and a gay man may have shaped the ways participants responded to me. While this could be viewed as a limitation in terms of potential influence on disclosure, it also likely functioned as a strength in building rapport, trust, and openness during the interviews 91 7 Conclusion 7.1 Possible implications for policy and social work practice Training can be transformative not only when it is mandatory, but when it is useful, and rooted in risk-taking practices that donât feel dogmatic, but are instead designed to fill gaps in knowledge. Clients and workers expect these trainings to be as bold as needed to unsettle outdated assumptions, yet grounded enough to equip workers with the confidence they need to show up ethically and effectively for children, youth and their families. This also means reconnecting practitioners with continuing education that encourages a renewed commitment to ethical practiceâone that is not just procedural, but deeply relational, and committed to the social justice principles of social work and other helping professions. I hope this research makes a strong case that it is now time to develop a system in which affirmation is intentional, strategic, and supported at all levels and stages. Affirmation is not merely a passive, progressive, or political orientation. It can be a way of being. It can be relational courage. It is, in fact, ethical responsiveness. Sometimes, it is the act of standing in uncertainty, and still choosing care. Reconnecting with Two-Spirit, queer, and trans cultures can have restorative and transformative impacts for 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care, who often lack a shared story to anchor not just their pain, but most importantly, to reimagine the co-creation of their futures. At the same time, it is important to recognize that reconnecting in Indigenous cultures carries distinct meanings in the context of colonization, tied to histories of dispossession, and ongoing struggles for sovereignty. While there may be resonances with the experiences of non-Indigenous LGBTQ+ youth, these are not equivalent and should be understood in their own terms. Queering the system means allowing intellectual and emotional currents within it â union efforts, the passion and labour of workers, queer and 2S/LGBTQ+ staff, researchers, ad hoc committees, advisory boards, etc., â to constantly question, challenge, and rethink how to 92 prevent societal rejection, fear, and hate from penetrating the system. These processes may be initiated from inside the system by workers and allies, or from outside by communities and advocates, but must ultimately be co-led and facilitated by those most affected, including 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care, as the best experts of their lives. Queering the system is a refusal to normalize harm, and a call to make room for joy, for difference, and for the possibility of something better. 7.2 Future research Future research could extend to engaging directly with youth who are currently in care, as well as with parents and caregivers, whose perspectives are central to understanding the broader ecology of affirmation and care. Future longitudinal research could also explore affirmation and survival strategies applied over time, and compare experiences, perhaps across different provinces or regions, paying attention especially to different kind of access that queer, trans and Two Spirit youth in care have to their community, shared history and culture. In terms of practice implications, future research could highlight how practitioners integrate (or fail to integrate) intentional and active affirmation in their practice. 7.3 Conclusions Entering care happened in different ways for former 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care who participated in this research. Yet, their entry to care was marked - almost uniformly - by violence, abuse, or family crisis. As soon as they entered care, their first experiences were often defined by rejection, silence, shame, sometimes luck and isolation â survival became their dominant and immediate priority before any identity exploration could even be imagined. Sometimes, silence was what they adopted to shield themselves from a suspicious and hostile environment. In the safety of their inner selves, distrust toward professionals was common, although they constantly 93 scanned them for signs of care. Amid institutional silence that could not, did not know how, or did not want to accept their identity, some unexpected encounters with affirming adults â foster parents, queer workers, teachers, mentors, peers â interrupted isolation, and disrupted the erasure of their identity. The affirmation they described was more than passive, progressive political, or cultural acceptance, and required intentional, risk-taking acts that created safety, visibility and possibilities, often opening wide their worlds and imagination. Connection with openly queer families exposed some of these youths to queer family-ing and kinship. Witnessing it felt therapeutic, restorative, connective, and rooted on an historical, cultural sense of togetherness. Group homes emerged repeatedly as deeply harmful for most of the youth â especially for older cohorts â with former children and youth in care describing them as âtrauma hubsâ. Some youth described better and positive experiences in group homes, especially those who were able to form some protective early community connections. Placement options and geographic location mattered â being placed in safer areas shielded youth, while other placements exposed them to increased perceived risks. Child welfare practitioners â both actual and former ones â named several gaps in training, systemic silence, and often described the system as leaning toward making âthe least wavesâ, pleasing the dominant cultural and political attitudes, instead of challenging harmful dominant norms and discourses. Effective workers were identified to be those that were consistent, reliable, able to reflect about their own positionalities, and humble in acknowledging what they did not know. Race, culture, class and religion intersected with sexuality and gender identity to shape youthsâ experiences before, during, and after care and shaping whether they felt seen or reduced. Some of the participants highlighted the absence of cultural and queer mirrors within the system, although they often successfully scanned, and identified perceived queer staff â who continued 94 remaining silent. Hope did not appear as an inner state of mind, but it was seen as an attitude built â or maintained â through small acts of relational and long-lasting affirmations, that brought the collective past into the present to aid their imaginations about the future. Hope and perseverance defined their journeys: survival first, then the gradual reclaiming of identity and possibility. This research highlighted some importance implications for policy and practice: Preserving and supporting families wherever it is possible and safe, and providing support for both workers and caregivers through meaningful, transformative and applied training that challenges the dominant harmful narratives, and promotes strategic, protective, risk-taking and intentional affirmation. This affirmation is more about being relational and transformative, rather than merely political correctness. Ultimately, these stories call for a child welfare system that not only protects, but also affirms â one that refuses silence, embraces difference, and makes room for youth to imagine futures beyond survival. 95 References Abramovich, I. A. (2012). No safe place to go-LGBTQ youth homelessness in Canada: Reviewing the literature. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse, 4(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy16579 Abramovich, A. (2017). Understanding how policy and culture create oppressive conditions for LGBTQ2S youth in the shelter system. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(11), 1484â1501. DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1244449 Abramovich, A., Pang, N., & MacKinnon, K. R. (2023). Investigating the mental health outcomes among LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness in York Region, Ontario. Children and Youth Services Review, 155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107282 Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596 Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203700372 Baker, A., & Little, J. (2021). 2SLGBTQ+ Experiences with the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Children and Family Development. Research and Evaluation in Child, Youth and Family Services, 3, 77-106.https://doi.org/10.14288/recyfs.v3i1.197566 Bockting, W. O., Miner, M. H., Swinburne Romine, R. E., Hamilton, A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the U.S. transgender 96 population. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 943â951. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241 sciencedirect.com+13 British Columbia. Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46, s. 1. Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/ Brodyn, A., & Ghaziani, A. (2018). Performative progressiveness: Accounting for new forms of inequality in the gayborhood. City & Community, 17(2), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12298 Buchner, K., Pearson, T., & Burke, S. (2022). Indigenous Womenâs Experiences with Child Protection at Their Childâs Birth. Practice, 34(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2022.2054973 Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206 Capous-Desyllas, M., & Mountz, S. (2019). Using photovoice methodology to illuminate the experiences of LGBTQ former foster youth. Child & Youth Services, 40(3), 267-307. Carabez, R., & Kim, J. E. (2020). LGBT youth in foster care and the critical advocacy role of Public Health Nurses. Public Health Nursing, 37(5), 750-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12757 Castellanos, H. D. (2016). The role of institutional placement, family conflict, and homosexuality in homelessness pathways among Latino LGBT youth in New York City. Journal of homosexuality, 63(5), 601-632. DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1111108 97 Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219â235. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01 Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual review of sociology, 41, 1-20. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24807587 Clark, N. (2016). Red intersectionality and violence-informed witnessing praxis with Indigenous girls. Girlhood Studies, 9(2), 46â64. https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2016.090205 Craig, S. L., Austin, A., Levenson, J., Leung, V. W., Eaton, A. D., & DâSouza, S. A. (2020). Frequencies and patterns of adverse childhood events in LGBTQ+ youth. Child abuse & neglect, 107, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104623 Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 14. 538â554. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46. Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96046_01 Clark, B. A. (2017). Ethics in child and youth care practice with transgender youth. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 8(1), 74â96. doi:10.18357/ijcyfs82201716754 Dangaltcheva, A., Booth, C., & Moretti, M. M. (2021). Transforming Connections: A trauma-informed and attachment-based program to promote sensitive parenting of trans and gender non-conforming youth. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 643823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643823 98 De Finney, S., Dean, M., Loiselle, E., & Saraceno, J. (2011). All children are equal, but some are more equal than others: Minoritization, structural inequities, and social justice praxis in residential care. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 2(3/4), 361â384. doi:10.18357/ijcyfs23/420117756 de Lira, A. N., & de Morais, N. A. (2018). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations: An integrative literature review. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 15(3), 272â282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0285-x Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among ado-lescent and young adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34(5),1085â1095. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.5.1085 Dorri, A. A., Stone, A. L., Heffington, B. I., Njowo, P. J., Rivera, G., Schnarrs, P. W., & Salcido Jr, R. (2024). âWeâre Not Gonna Talk about This, It Didnât Happen. Youâre Confusedâ: Adverse Communication in Family Responses to Mental Health, Childhood Sexual Assault, and LGBTQ Identities. Society and mental health, 14(1), 39-55. DOI: 10.1177/21568693231170901 Drake, B., & Hodge, D. R. (2022). Social work at the crossroads: The empirical highway or the postmodern/critical off-ramp? Research on Social Work Practice, 32(4), 363â373. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221077450 Ecker, J. (2016). Queer, young and homeless: A review of the literature. Child & Youth Services 37(4), 325-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2016.1151781 Feinstein, R., Greenblatt, A., Hass, L., Kohn, S., & Rana, J. (2001). Justice for All? A Report on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Youth in the New York Juvenile Justice 99 System. Urban Justice Center. Stable Url: Microsoft Word - justiceforallreport.DOC (hivlawandpolicy.org) Fish, J. N., Bishop, M. D., & Russell, S. T. (2023). Age trends in bias-based bullying and mental health by sexual orientation and gender identity. Prevention science, 24(6), 1142-1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-023-01530-4 Flick, U. (2022). Revitalising triangulation for designing multi-perspective qualitative research. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research design, 652-664. Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n40 Garfin, D. R., Amador, A., Osorio, J., Ruivivar, K. S., Torres, A., & Nyamathi, A. M. (2023). A multiâmethod exploration of mindfulness as a coping tool: Perspectives from traumaâexposed, unhoused women residing at a drug treatment facility. Stress and Health, 39(2), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3188 Genussa, L. A. (2022). From Foster Care to the Streets: A Call to Support Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ Youth in Foster Care. Columbia Social Work Review 20(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.52214/cswr.v20i1.9641 Ghaziani, A. (2014). There goes the gayborhood?. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850174 Goodyear, T., Chayama, K. L., Oliffe, J. L., Kia, H., Fast, D., Mniszak, C., ... & Jenkins, E. (2023). Intersecting transitions among 2S/LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107355 100 Goodyear, T., Knight, R., Fast, D., Oliffe, J. L., Jensen, M., Kia, H., & Jenkins, E. (2024). Navigating and negotiating âoutnessâ among 2S/LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness. Children and Youth Services Review, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107830 Goldberg, A. E., Frost, R. L., Miranda, L., & Kahn, E. (2019). LGBTQ individualsâ experiences with delays and disruptions in the foster and adoption process. Children and Youth Services Review, 106, Article 104466. https://doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104466 Gonzalez, K. A., Abreu, R. L., Arora, S., Lockett, G. M., & Sostre, J. (2021). âPrevious resilience has taught me that I can survive anything:â LGBTQ resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 8(2), 133â144. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000466 Guy, A. A., Surace, A., Zelaya, D. G., Flynn, R., Opalo, C., Keuroghlian, A. S., ... & Kahler, C. W. (2023). Transgender and gender diverse adultsâ reflections on alcohol counseling and recommendations for providers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 93(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000663 Holloway, J. (2003). Change the world without taking power: The meaning of revolution today. https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/Holloway_Change_the_World.pdf Howe, D. (1994). Modernity, postmodernity and social work. The British Journal of Social Work, 24(5), 513-532. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23709709 Hunt, S., & Holmes, C. (2015). Everyday decolonization: Living a decolonizing queer politics. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 19(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2015.970975 101 Joy, P., & Numer, M. (2017). The use of photo elicitation to explore the benefits of queer student advocacy groups in university. Journal of LGBT Youth, 14(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2016.1256247 Kaasbøll, J., Pedersen, S. A., & Paulsen, V. (2022). What is known about the LGBTQ perspective in child welfare services: A scoping review. Child & Family Social Work, 27(2), 358-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12894 Kaestle, C. E. (2019). Sexual orientation trajectories based on sexual attractions, partners, and identity: A longitudinal investigation from adolescence through young adulthood using a U.S. representative sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 811â826. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1577351 Katz-Wise, S. L., Ranker, L. R., Kraus, A. D., Wang, Y.-C., Xuan, Z., Green, J. G., & Holt, M. (2024). Fluidity in gender identity and sexual orientation identity in transgender and nonbinary youth. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(9), 1367â1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2244926 Kennedy, M., Maddox, R., Booth, K., Maidment, S., Chamberlain, C., & Bessarab, D. (2022). Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible research practice: a narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. International journal for equity in health, 21(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01738-w Larkin, M., Shaw, R., & Flowers, P. (2019). Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative research in psychology, 16(2), 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1540655 102 Lehn, E. W., & Chahboun, S. (2025). From taboo to inclusion: Kindergarten teachersâ practices and perceptions of childrenâs sexuality. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1546431. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1546431 Lilly, K. J., Satherley, N., Sibley, C. G., Barlow, F. K., & Greaves, L. M. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel study of New Zealand adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(9), 1351â1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517 Maiter, S., Kikulwe, D., Danish, U., Drynan, P., & Blackman, M. (2024). Navigating Challenges and Leveraging Technology: Experiences of Child Welfare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Societies, 14(10), 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14100193 Mallon, G. P. (1999). Let's get this straight: A gay-and lesbian-affirming approach to child welfare. Columbia University Press Mallon, G. P., Paul, J. C., & López, M. L. (2022). Protecting LGBTQ+ children and youth. Handbook of child maltreatment, 575-591. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82479-2_29 McCormick, A., Schmidt, K., & Terrazas, S. (2016). LGBTQ youth in the child welfare system: An overview of research, practice, and policy. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2016.1221368 Merrick, M., Ford, D., Ports, K., & Guinn, A. (2018). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011â2014 behavioral risk factor surveillance system in 23 states. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(11), 1038â1044. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2537. 103 Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674â697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209â213. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000132 Mountz, S., & Capous-Desyllas, M. (2020). Exploring the families of origin of LGBTQ former foster youth and their trajectories throughout care. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, 104622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104622 Nettleton, J. A., Burton, A. E., & Povey, R. C. (2022). âNo-one realises what we go through as Type 1sâ: A qualitative photo-elicitation study on coping with diabetes. Diabetes research and clinical practice, 187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109876 Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20153223. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223 Osei, G. K. (2019). Peer influences on antisocial and prosocial behaviours in group home foster care: evidence of greater protections in better resourced homes and higher income neighborhoods [Doctoral dissertation], University of Windsor. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7727/ Packer, M. J. (2021). Child development: Understanding a cultural perspective. Sage Publications. 104 Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42, 533-544. DOI:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y Pinderi, K., OâKane, M., & Lee, B. (2025). Unveiling intersectionality: Healing opportunities and challenges in democratizing child welfare policy development process. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory, 8(1), 1â25. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/SWPS/article/view/20782 Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressionsand the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(7), 1011â1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774878 Robinson, B. A. (2018). Conditional families and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth homelessness: Gender, sexuality, family instability, and rejection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12466 Rostill, H., Larkin, M., Toms, A., & Churchman, C. (2011). âA shared experience of fragmentation: making sense of foster placement breakdownâ. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 16, 103â27. doi:10.1177/1359104509352894 Representative for Children and Youth. (2023, June 22). The Right to Thrive: An urgent call to recognize, respect and nurture Two Spirit, trans, non-binary and other gender diverse children and youth (Special Report to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia). Representative for Children and Youth, Province of British Columbia. 105 https://rcybc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/RCY-The-Right-to-Thrive_22-June-2023.pdf Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. https://studylib.net/doc/27171483/saldana--2015--the-coding-manual-for-qualitative-researchers#google_vignette Salerno, J. P., Kachingwe, O. N., Fish, J. N., Parekh, E., Geddings-Hayes, M., Boekeloo, B. O., & Aparicio, E. M. (2020). âEven if you think you can trust them, donât trust themâ: An exploratory analysis of the lived experiences of sexual health among sexual minority girls in foster care. Children and youth services review, 116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105161 Samuels, G. M. (2009). Ambiguous loss of home: The experience of familial (im) permanence among young adults with foster care backgrounds. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1229-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.008 Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual youths: associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 62(2), 261-269. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.261 Savin-Williams, R. C., & Vrangalova, Z. (2013). Mostly heterosexual asa distinct sexual orientation group: A systematic review of the empiri-cal evidence. Developmental Review, 33(1), 58â88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.01.001 106 Savin-Williams, R. C. (2022). Sexual and romantic spectrums: Mostlystraights and mostly gays/lesbians. Current Opinion in Psychology, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101503 Scannapieco, M., Painter, K. R., & Blau, G. (2018). A comparison of LGBTQ youth and heterosexual youth in the child welfare system: Mental health and substance abuse occurrence and outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 39â46. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.016 Shelton, J., Poirier, J. M., Wheeler, C., & Abramovich, A. (2018). Reversing erasure of youth and young adults who are LGBTQ and access homelessness services: Asking about sexual orientation, gender identity, and pronouns. Child Welfare, 96(2), 1â28. https://alexabramovich.me/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Shelton-et-al._CWLA.pdf Simons, L., Schrager, S. M., Clark, L. F., Belzer, M., & Olson, J. (2013). Parental support and mental health among transgender adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 791â793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.019 Simpson, L. B. (2011). Dancing on our turtle's back: Stories of Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence and a new emergence. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Arbeiter Ring Pub Szkrybalo, J., & Ruble, D. N. (1999). âGod made me a girlâ: Sex-category constancy judgments and explanations revisited. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 392â402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.392 Thorne, S. (2016). Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice. Routledge 107 Truth, & Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume One: Summary: Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future. James Lorimer & Company Vachon, W. (2020). Queering child and youth care. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 11(2), 61â81. doi:10.18357/ijcyfs112202019519 Vachon, W., & Walker, M. (2021). Introduction: Possibilities, futures, and queer world-making in child and youth care. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 12(3), 1-22. DOI:10.18357/ijcyfs123-4202120332 Wagaman, M. A. (2016). Self-definition as resistance: Understanding identities among LGBTQ emerging adults. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(3), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2016.1185760 Walker, M. (2021). Exploring the CYC CIS-TEM: A literature review of queer and trans topics in child and youth care. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 12(3), 23-54. DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs123-4202120333 Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life. Free Press. Wilber, S., Reyes, C., & Marksamer, J. (2006). The Model Standards Project: Creating inclusive systems for LGBT youth in out-of-home Care. Child Welfare, 85(2), 133â149. Stable Url: https://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Model_Standards_Project_article.pdf 108 Wilson, B. D., & Kastanis, A. A. (2015). Sexual and gender minority disproportionality and disparities in child welfare: A population-based study. Children and youth services review 58, 11-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.08.016 Woolley, S. W. (2010, October 15). âThe silence itself is enough of a statementâ: Unintended consequences of silence as an awareness-raising strategy (ISSC Working Paper Series 2008â2009.46). Institute for the Study of Societal Issues, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45p0h3w1 109 APPENDICES Appendix A: Questionnaire route for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care For 2S/LGBTQ+ adults with lived experience in care: Child Welfare Involvement and Experience in Care "To start, I'd like to understand how your journey in care began. Weâll first talk about the circumstances leading to your placement, and then weâll reflect on your experience while in care." â¢ Can you share with me the circumstances that led to your placement in care? â¢ How do you remember your experience in care? SOGIESC Identity â¢ "Based on your reflections now, how do you think your sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression (SOGIESC) might have impacted your experience within the care system? Were there any specific challenges you faced in care related to your identity as a 2S/LGBTQ+ individual? Additionally, were there other factorsâsuch as race, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, or anything elseâthat, in combination with your SOGIESC, influenced your experience in care? Perceptions of Others â¢ What were the perceptions of other people about your SOGIESC â including your social workers â and did you know about their perceptions? â¢ How did the perceptions of other people around you, including your social workers, about your SOGIESC might have impacted your experience in care? Identified Supports â¢ Were there individuals (caseworkers, foster parents, peers) who made you feel safe or understood in terms of your identity during your time in care? How did they support you and, if you felt supported, how do you see their actions now? Recommendations for Policy and Practice Change What changes would you recommend the child welfare system make to better support the needs of 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care? For child welfare practitioners: Experiences and Initial Reflections 1. Can you describe your experience working with 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in care? 110 2. What are your initial thoughts or impressions about the preliminary results that were shared with you? Challenges and Approaches 3. What challenges do you observe 2S/LGBTQ+ youth facing while in care? How have you or others in the system addressed these challenges? 4. Can you share any practices, supports, or approaches that have worked well in meeting the needs of 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care? What made them effective? 5. Describe your efforts to connect with 2S/LGBTQ+ children and youth in care. What strategies or approaches have helped build trust and support? Intersectionality and Barriers to Support 6. In your work with queer youth, how do you navigate or address â or how have you navigated in your experience or addressed - the ways intersectionality (e.g., race, class, gender, SOGIESC) impacts their access to support, resources, or safety? Policy and Professional Reflection 7. Based on your reflections now, is there anything you think you could do differently when working with a 2S/LGBTQ+ youth? 8. What specific policies could be improved to better serve this population? 9. What advice would you give to other child welfare professionals working with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth, particularly regarding best practices for care and support? 111 Appendix B: Abstract images for photo elicitation for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care 112 113 114 Appendix C: Photo-elicitation interview protocol for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care 1. Introduction to the photo-elicitation process I will invite the research participants to engage in an optional photo-elicitation process, explaining its purpose: âResearch has shown that photo-elicitation can encourage deeper reflection on personal experiences, emotions, and memories, offering a different way to express thoughts that might be difficult to articulate with words alone.â I will emphasize that participation in this part is voluntary, and they can choose to skip any question or stop at any time. 2. Photo selection and initial prompt Participants will be asked to choose one photo from a set of abstract images (e.g., textures, colors, shapes, or symbolic representations without specific people or places â Please see Appendix B) to minimize personal exposure while allowing symbolic interpretation. Initial Prompt: âWhy did you choose this photo?â Follow-up Prompt: âWhat else can you tell me about this photo?â 3. Clarification and probing (as needed) To deepen understanding, I will ask clarifying or probing questions if appropriate, such as: âª âWhat memories or feelings does this photo bring up for you?â âª âCan you describe how this image connects to your experiences in care? (or your experience as a social worker)â âª âWhat else do you remember when you look at this photo?â 4. Closing the Interview I will thank the participants for their time and engagement, acknowledging the emotional labor involved in sharing personal reflections:âThank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me today. I really appreciate your openness and time.â 5. Post-Interview Reflection (Researcher Memos) o After the interview, I will write reflective memos to capture initial impressions, emerging themes, non-verbal cues, and contextual notes. o These memos will be integrated into the preliminary data analysis, helping to connect participantsâ narratives with broader research questions. 115 Appendix D: Demographic questionnaire for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care Please know that you are free to not respond to any questions you donât want to answer. Anything you tell us about your age, gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, will be helpful to us for contextualizing participantsâ experiences. 1. Pease give me a name youâd like to go by. 2. Can you let us know what pronouns you go by? [free-form response] 3. Can you please give us an e-mail address youâd like us to use when contacting you to set up an interview? If youâre more comfortable over the phone, please feel free to give us a phone number instead. [free-form response] 4. To which gender identity do you most identify? Please select all that apply. Response type: Multiple choice (select all that apply) â¡ Agender â¡ Demigender â¡ Trans woman â¡ Trans man â¡ Gender-fluid â¡ Genderqueer â¡ You donât have an option that applies to me. I identify as __________. â¡ Woman â¡ Non-binary â¡ Pangender â¡ Questioning or Unsure â¡ Man â¡ Prefer not to say 5. Can you please tell us your age? [Select your age from the dropdown list] Dropdown menu (single response) Response options: 19 â 85+ 5. What is your cultural background? (Choose all that apply) â¡ African â¡ European â¡ East Asian (e.g., China, Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, 116 Macau) â¡ South Asian (e.g., Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) â¡ Southeast Asian (e.g., Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) â¡ First Nations or Indigenous (please specify): ____________ â¡ Hispanic or Latina/Latino (e.g., Latin, Central, or South American origin) â¡ Middle Eastern (e.g., West Central Asian and Middle Eastern regions) â¡ Not listed here (please specify): ____________ â¡ Prefer not to answer 6. Can you please tell us about your emotional, physical, and sexual attraction to other people? Please select all that apply. Response type: Multiple choice (select all that apply) â Lesbian â Asexual â You donât have an option that applies to me. I identify as __________. â Bisexual â Gay â Heterosexual (Straight) â Pansexual â Queer â Same gender loving â Questioning or Unsure â Prefer not to say 7. Can you please let us know if you identify as a person living with a disability? Yes___ No___ 117 Appendix E: Recruitment flyers for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ adults and for child welfare practitioners. 118 119 Appendix F: Resource List for Participants in a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care The following list provides mental health and support resources available in British Columbia, Canada, for participants who may experience mild to moderate emotional distress. These resources are accessible to 2S/LGBTQ+ individuals and others who may need support. Immediate Support and Crisis Lines: â¢ BC Mental Health Support Line: 310-6789 (no area code required) â¢ Crisis Centre BC: 1-800-784-2433 (1-800-SUICIDE) â¢ Talk Suicide Canada: 1-833-456-4566 (24/7) or text 45645 (4 PM to 12 AM PST) â¢ Kids Help Phone: 1-800-668-6868 or text CONNECT to 686868 2S/LGBTQ+ Specific Supports: â¢ QMUNITY: (604) 684-5307 | www.qmunity.ca â¢ Trans Lifeline: 1-877-330-6366 (peer support for trans and non-binary individuals) â¢ Friends of Dorothy LGBTQ+ Youth Advocacy (Kelowna): www.friendsofdorothy.org â¢ YouthCO HIV & Hep C Society: www.youthco.org Counselling and Mental Health Services: â¢ Here2Talk (for post-secondary students): 1-877-857-3397 www.here2talk.ca â¢ BC Psychological Association Referral Line: (604) 730-0522 â¢ Foundry BC (youth ages 12-24): www.foundrybc.ca â¢ MindMapBC (2S/LGBTQ+ affirming mental health services): www.mindmapbc.ca Additional Support Services: â¢ 211 BC: Call or text 211 www.bc211.ca (provides information on local community resources) â¢ VictimLink BC: 1-800-563-0808 (24/7 support for victims of crime and trauma) â¢ BounceBack BC: www.bouncebackbc.ca (free mental health coaching program) 120 Appendix G: Screening Questionnaire for a qualitative study with 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care This short screening questionnaire will be used to confirm participant eligibility for the study. Responses will be collected through UBCâs Qualtrics platform to ensure data security and compliance with ethical research standards. Screening Questions 1. Are you 19 years of age or older? â Yes â No (Ineligible) 2. Do you currently have any ongoing legal or service agreement with the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), such as a Youth Agreement or other formal support program? â Yes (Ineligible) â No 3. Which of the following best describes your experience? (Select all that apply) â I have lived experience in the child welfare system in British Columbia. â I am a current or former MCFD social worker/practitioner who works or has worked with 2S/LGBTQ+ youth in care. â Neither (Ineligible) 4. For child welfare practitioners: Have you ever been supervised, and/or mentored (e.g. during your full delegation process), or had your work evaluated or overseen by Kristi Pinderi (Co-I on this study)? â Yes (Ineligible) â No 5. For participants with lived experience in care: Do you self-identify as Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or another sexual or gender minority (2S/LGBTQ+)? 121 â Yes â No (Ineligible) Were you placed in foster care or a group home while in care? â Yes â No (Ineligible) Were you in care between the ages of 11 and 19? â Yes â No (Ineligible) 6. Would you like to receive the consent form and further details about the study? â Yes â No
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Social Work
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Kia, Hannah
Lee, Barbara
"We are the few who held hope" : lessons learned from 2S/LGBTQ+ former youth in care and child welfare practitioners
Text