Indigenous cultural considerations during disclosures of child abuse

What are cultural considerations for Indigenous children involved within the Canadian child welfare system and what challenges do they pose during disclosures of abuse within child abuse investigations? A literature search was used to find resources relevant to the research question; this was obtained through Google Scholar and the University of British Columbia (UBC) library. A review of the literature was summarized to reveal themes regarding cultural considerations for Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse. Culture is a very deeply rooted phenomenon with multiple layers. We know from research that culture is a factor that can have an influence on children’s disclosures of abuse during investigations. Involved professionals who work with children from a different culture than their own, need to ensure culturally aware and safe practices. Especially when cultures have traumatic histories, such as with Indigenous Peoples in Canada. But what does this really mean during investigations of child abuse? And how does one know if a culturally safe practice is being achieved? The Eurocentric origins of the Canadian child welfare system needs to be acknowledged in order to understand how it continues to be visible in practice today. Even though Canadian provinces have recognized the need for reconciliation and culturally safe practices with Indigenous communities, literature is still lacking on specific knowledge about Indigenous children’s needs and safe approaches during their disclosures of abuse within investigations. Directly involving Indigenous communities to understand specific cultural factors and collaboration with multidisciplinary work within Child Advocacy Centres is a step in the right direction and another step toward reconciliation. It may hold the key to creating an understanding for what Indigenous children need during disclosures of abuse.


Introduction
The term culture is difficult to define; it is used in many contexts, in many different ways. Sawrikar (2016) acknowledged the challenges in defining culture, however her description deems appropriate: the traditions and customs that are inherited from generation to generation, becoming acceptable norms. Understanding culture this way accounts for culture's many possible types-the culture of a country, the culture of people who speak the same language, the culture of people who share the same interests, and so on: "Really, these cultures are just generalizations... that have emerged from normative trends and so have 'truth' embedded in them" (Sawrikar 2016, p. 18). Lee and Johnson (2007) shared a similar definition and identified the appropriateness of framing culture as "shared meaning systems" (p. 236). Korbin (2002) expressed the importance of not viewing culture as a rigid entity; rather, it is changeable in subtle and visible ways as it continually adapts to the changing environment. Taking these rationales together, culture can be viewed as the collective norms within a particular group or nation. To exactly define one's own culture can be difficult to put into words, as it is a way of being and knowing. Smedley and Smedley (2005) said: "the evidence from history and the study of thousands of diverse cultures around the world are testament to the overwhelming and coercive power of culture to mold who we are and what we believe" (p. 17). To understand another's culture poses an even deeper challenge; gathering knowledge about an alternate way of being and knowing requires considerable time. However, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of culture, especially when providing services for others. Self-reflexivity about one's own culture is crucial when trying to understand effective approaches in providing services with diverse populations, particularly in recognizing the influence and power of holding dominant beliefs (DeSouza 2008;Malatzky et al. 2018;Woods 2010).
Canada's child welfare system was built on Eurocentric ideologies, which can pose challenges for children that are raised within alternate cultural perspectives Gosine and Pon 2011;Herbert 2007), particularly during disclosures of abuse. The Canadian child welfare system comprises government agencies aimed at preventing and addressing child maltreatment, which they define as neglect, exposure to intimate partner violence, emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, and sexual abuse of a minor (Government of Canada 2019). Provincial and territorial legislation defines the age of a minor and sets out the duty to assist and intervene when a child is found in need of protection (Government of Canada 2019). The other legislation instrumental in helping ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth is the Criminal Code of Canada (Province of British Columbia 2017). In many cases, a forensic interview is conducted with children who are suspected of experiencing abuse so they can describe to professionals what has happened to them (Newlin et al. 2015). Children's disclosures during the forensic interview provides direction for other aspects of the investigation; as well, helps professionals to better understand what treatment and/or health interventions may be needed. Fontes (2005) described different aspects for a multicultural practice in child maltreatment. She especially highlighted the value of understanding circumstances for children and their families from diverse cultural backgrounds who have become involved in the child welfare system. Cultural considerations within the Canadian child welfare system need to be understood in order to gain insight into the challenges they may present for children during disclosures of abuse. Especially important is to explore the cultural considerations within a system that represents a long history of trauma, such as with Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Situating myself
I identify myself as a settler-ally and respectfully acknowledge the completion of this paper on both the unceded territories of the Syilx (Okanagan) Peoples and the Secwépemc Nation. I have been a counselling therapist for over 20 years. The majority of those years was working with Indigenous populations as a school counsellor in a private Indigenous school and a contracted counsellor working with Indigenous individuals and families and co-facilitating Healing Circles with Elders and Residential School Survivors. Much of my counsellor work also involved working with children who experienced child abuse. I supported children/youth and their families as they were involved with the Canadian Justice system during the investigation process, which included the forensic interview. I directly witnessed the additional stress, anxiety and trauma these systems and processes created for the children/youth and their families. In many cases, therapy needed to first focus on helping them through the investigation process before we could even approach the trauma that was caused by the child abuse itself.
In 2015, I championed and coordinated the development of a Child & Youth Advocacy Centre (CYAC) in BC, Canada. At the onset of this project, I recognized the gap in research to fully understand culturally safe and trauma-informed practices when working with Indigenous children and youth during the investigations of child abuse. This gap in research is the reason I wanted to pursue my PhD research. I am a Steering member with the BC CYAC Network and a member with the National CYAC Network; the need to better understand culturally safe approaches with Indigenous children and youth is a Nation-wide priority within CYAC approaches.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore literature regarding cultural perspectives within the Canadian child welfare system and to answer this question: What are cultural considerations for Indigenous children involved within the Canadian child welfare system and what challenges do they pose during disclosures of abuse within child abuse investigations?

Methods
A review of literature was conducted to identify cultural considerations for children involved within the Canadian child welfare system. The aim was to look for and identify some challenges that involvement with the child welfare system may pose for Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse within investigations. The next step was to look for patterns regarding the challenges and categorize this information into written themes. Using a combination of a critical analyses approach and drawing from my background experience and knowledge in working with Indigenous children during disclosures, the themes were translated into main messages concerning culturally safe practices with Indigenous populations. The hope and intention of this paper is to generate further thinking regarding culturally safe practices during investigations of child abuse for Indigenous children.
The initial search for literature was performed through Google Scholar and British Columbia (UBC) Online Library. The process followed a method of investigating literature through English-language, published, peer-reviewed, empirical studies and reviews or government documents regarding Indigenous cultures and child welfare. Open sources relevant to the area of the study, were included in the review process. The majority of the literature searched was published between 2015 and 2021. However, some sources reviewed were published prior to 2014 due to the current relevance they demonstrated regarding Indigenous culture and/or cultural needs within child welfare. As well, it was interesting to note the continuous cultural needs for Indigenous populations throughout history. The following search string: (children) AND Canadian Child Welfare AND (child abuse) AND culture. A second search was performed on the same search engines using: (children) AND (child abuse) AND (disclosure) AND (Indigenous). Generally, if the title, abstract and keywords demonstrated the words in the search strings, the literature was reviewed. Some of these sources led to additional literature sources by exploring some of their citations/ references; these were also reviewed for relevance. Literature was deemed relevant if it examined or discussed a variety of cultural perspectives within the child welfare system. This included literature that noted experiences, impacts, or influences from different minority cultural perspectives. As well, literature was included if it acknowledged professionals' or children's or families' experiences or observations regarding Indigenous cultural perspectives within the welfare system. Such literature was believed to meet the objectives for the literature review. Literature that did not demonstrate relevance to the topic or used language according to the objectives and research question were extracted from the search. Literature that was unable to be fully accessed by author could not be included.

Literature review
Euro-ethnic origins of the Canadian child welfare system A main factor to consider when looking at cultural issues within the child welfare system in Canada is that it is a system that derived from Eurocentric ideologies.
In fact, many services in Canadian society, specifically the child welfare system, can probably be viewed as having been established predominantly through Anglo-Saxon philosophy. Khoo et al. (2002) conducted a case study of child welfare practice in both Canada and Sweden. They described how Canada's system can be seen as a "liberal, Anglo-American model" (p. 453). De Leeuw and Greenwood (2017) discussed how the first child welfare act was passed in the British Columbia in 1901; as system that solidified law to ensure that children were not in situations of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. These authors also described how the logics regarding child welfare relied upon dominant beliefs and the mutual agreed upon ways for assessing the "goodness of some families' domestic spaces versus the corruptness or unwholesomeness of others" (pg. 145). When a system is built through a certain cultural philosophical paradigm, it is understandable that particular services and practises would accompany. Hetherington (2002) saw that the child welfare system is "constrained and directed by the culture of the society in which the service systems exist" (p. 13). She continued with how decisions are therefore framed by systemic structures; all shaped by core values and principles that often influence and guide professional judgement. Gosine and Pon (2011) consulted with child protection workers in the Ontario's welfare system where many identified how their workplace environment was characterized by dominant norms regarding attitudes, policies, tools, and practices. Such prevailing ideologies constructed within a system would have direct implications for the clients it serves, easily creating situations where unique needs or situations may not be fully understood. Such an example is with Hughes et al.'s (2016) work regarding mothers who experienced intimate partner violence and involved in the child welfare system in Manitoba and British Columbia. They highlighted how many of the women felt stereotyped with their needs being generalized. Another study, based in Ontario, demonstrated how over one-third of a group of children who had complicated and chronic medical diagnoses were placed in care primarily for reasons of neglect (Azzopardi et al. 2021). Yet, the study also revealed how the individual need of the caregivers was often overlooked. In many cases, it was believed that the best way the children could have been supported was by supporting the parents first, through understanding what they needed in order to take care of their kids. This latter example demonstrates the importance for understanding how certain concepts, such as neglect, will impact diverse cases when invariably defined under a specific cultural lens. Many researchers and experts in the area of child welfare have continually expressed how dominant influences in service delivery can prevent the unique needs of minority population service users from being met (Blackstock et al. 2007;Gosine and Pon 2011;Herbert 2007;Hughes et al. 2016;Swift and Callahan 2016). Even though the development of specific classification systems and tools have helped shaped universal definitions for detecting such concepts as neglect, the interpretations often rely on child protection service workers (Dubowitz et al. 2005). We need to question who developed these tools and what cultural lens is the worker working from. For example, the work of Swift and Callahan (2009) in examining risk assessment processes in Canadian child welfare brought attention to how assessment practices may have been overlooked for years and do not factor in issues such as culture. These authors therefore questioned the validity of assessment techniques and felt that the idea of assessing risk is a concept that is still being carried over from the past.

The Canadian child welfare system and indigenous communities
Indigenous peoples have lived on the land that is now known as Canada for thousands of years. Within that time, generations of children were guided by Indigenous traditions and grew into healthy and proud contributing members of their community. European colonization not only challenged these customs, it created havoc (Blackstock and Trocmé 2005; Indigenous Services Canada 2018).
[It is estimated] that the population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada decreased 80% from the time of contact to confederation due to intentional and unintentional introduction of disease, bounty hunting and starvation…this prolific loss of life was coupled with forced displacement from traditional lands and the assignment of Aboriginal peoples to small reserves, where main-tenance of traditional sustenance was often not possible. The result was an erosion of communal cultural knowledge and ways of life that had sustained generations of Aboriginal children and the introduction of multi-generational grief and trauma and displacement (Blackstock and Trocmé 2005, p. 14).
Residential schools operated in Canada for more than 125 years in effort to remold Indigenous children in a more European culture. During this time, children were separated from their parents, not allowed to use their own languages or practice their spiritual and cultural traditions; many were subjected to severe abuse (Canadian Museum for Human Rights 2020; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996; Trocmé et al. 2004; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2012; University of Alberta 2015). The implementation of the residential schooling system disrupted the ability for traditional child-caring practise for Indigenous families. Child welfare services then resorted to adopting Indigenous children into non-Indigenous families Trocmé et al. 2004).
From he beginning of the1960s until the 1980s, a period known as the Sixties Scoop, Canadian child welfare removed thousands of Indigenous children from their parents, families and communities and placed them in non-Indigenous homes Pon et al. 2011;Sinclair 2007). During this time, government overlooked the lack of culturally based services and the high influence of social workers' Euro-Western practice in working with Indigenous children and families ). This lack of mindfulness resulted in relying on "situations in which child removal [was] the primary intervention in child maltreatment cases versus the intervention of last resort" (Blackstock, Trocmé, et al. 2004, pp. 3, 4). Colonization led to a loss of culture and the breakdown of families; the harmful practices with Indigenous Peoples and their communities have left residual effects for Indigenous children and youth today. The direct result of colonization can be seen in the high rates of mental health, addictions, violence and suicide amongst Indigenous Peoples; as well the disproportionately overrepresentation within the welfare system and child maltreatment investigations Bourassa et al. 2015;Sinha et al. 2013).
Some of the ideologies behind child welfare practice during the residential schooling period and the Sixties Scoop continue in child welfare practice today, due to the cultural foundation of the system. The best interests of children constitute the legal standard of child welfare and family law (Government of British Columbia 2021; Government of Canada 2015). Kline (1992) expressed how this standard was developed during colonization times and conditions. The time when thousands of children were removed from their families and raised in institutions or fostered-out to non-Aboriginal people as a way of promoting the best interests of the child Sinclair 2016). Even though many changes within the system have been implemented over the last century, its developmental roots are still recognized and inadequately address the needs for Indigenous populations in Canada (Swift and Callahan 2016). Indigenous families are reported to child welfare agencies far more than any other population group in Canada (Adjei and Minka 2018). There continues to be an overrepresentation of Indigenous children apprehended from their families and placed in other homes (Adjei and Minka 2018;Pon et al. 2011;Ontario Human Rights Commission 2016). Indigenous Services Canada (2018) stated that "Indigenous children represent 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes in Canada.... The over-representation of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Nation children in the child welfare system is a humanitarian crisis". Service approaches with Indigenous children have still been identified as universal, overlooking individual needs (Baskin and Sinclair 2015). During 2016, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs appointed a representative to meet with First Nations leadership, communities and youth, agencies and other service providers throughout all the Provinces in Canada (Wesley-Esquimaux 2017). Some key issues raised were the continued inappropriate application of western standards in practices and the worker's lack of knowledge about Indigenous history, culture and values. Sinclair (2016) challenged the term best interests of the child and encouraged considerations as to whom may be asking this question and the paramountcy this dialogue can hold. She expressed how best interests must include culture and for Indigenous children this represents connectedness to their communities and territory. Thus demonstrating that in order for the child welfare system to work for Indigenous children, interpretations of needs must be defined accordingly with their own cultural values and traditions. Blackstock et al. (2007) highlighted the 1990s acknowledgement by child welfare authorities who wanted to learn from the system's harmful past by identifying the need for a culturally appropriate response. However, as the same authors pointed out, there is no established method to measure its effectiveness in child welfare practice.

Culturally safe practice
Cultural safety [is] a preferred way of working as professionals, the need to decolonize our professional practice, and the importance of using informed terminology when working in a range of cultural contexts (Thompson and Taylor 2021, p. 1).
Providing a culturally safe service or practice should be seen as an outcome that is explicitly determined by the recipient. Practicing culturally safe is understanding that not everyone should be treated the same or implementing a standard approach to care. Rather, it is acknowledging individual differences and perspectives so determining and addressing unique needs can be achieved (Ball 2008;Thompson and Taylor 2021). A cultural safe approach recognizes the impacts of our colonization histories and promotes the need for a decolonized practice. A practice that involves examining our own practice and our beliefs, assumptions and reasons for our methods. Faithfully implementing this routine will heighten our awareness for what individuals need and enhance our ability to provide a service where the clients themselves will consider culturally safe (Thompson and Taylor 2021). De Leeuw and Greenwood (2017) indicated how the child welfare system needs to be entirely deconstructed to achieve a culturally safe practice with Indigenous Peoples. And when determining what is best for Indigenous children and families, Indigenous culture needs to be at the forefront of practice through active and effective engagement with Indigenous Peoples and in creating culturally safe relationships. Rae's (2011) report described some promising practices for First Nations, Inuit and Métis Communities in Canada and first addressed the need for an overall better investment within Indigenous communities and families. The report indicated how a main factor why so many Indigenous children are in care in Canada is the lack of resources available at the community or agency level; therefore, creating gaps in services for children and families. Another key practice is the need to increase Indigenous input to "drive the visioning process" (p. 16). Thus allowing respect and preservation for Indigenous voice and knowledge and in making culturally based decisions regarding Indigenous children. As well, consultation with Indigenous communities enhances the ability for improving cultural awareness in service and heightens the capacity for a culturally safe practice. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015) released 94 Calls to Action and provides the foundation for thinking about cultural safety in the area of child welfare practice. Implementing a culturally safe practice with Indigenous Communities is the responsibility for all Canadians. Building and maintaining respectful and culturally safe practices between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Communities will be an on-going process, but is the only way decolonizing theories and practices can be put into action.

Disclosures of abuse for indigenous children within the Canadian child welfare system
One in three Canadians experienced abuse before the age of 15; this statistic is higher amongst Indigenous populations (Afifi et al. 2014;Statistics Canada 2018). Child abuse can have serious life-long outcomes with devastating impacts. Beyond the physical, psychological and social consequences of child abuse, there is an massive economic impact, including costs of hospitalization, mental health treatment, child welfare, and longer-term health costs (World Health Organization, 2020).
Experiencing child abuse is traumatic and obviously can lead to negative outcomes. When cases of child abuse is suspected, they require a thorough response so a protective and supportive course of actions can follow in order to decrease the possibilities for such adverse results.
Most countries have policies responding to suspected cases of child abuse (ISP-CAN, 2008), which most often includes law enforcement investigating the case and conducting child forensic interviews (Newlin et al. 2015). A child's disclosure of abuse during the forensic interview can help determine what occurred and is often the only piece of evidence to help substantiate a case and potentially identify an offender. A child's disclosure during the forensic interview also helps determine what protective and healing interventions the child needs to mitigate the outcomes of being abused. In some cases, a child's disclosure during a forensic interview is the only resource for knowing that a child has been harmed. However, literature demonstrates several factors that create barriers for children to disclose their experience(s) of abuse to professionals.
Culture itself has a significant ability to influence children/youth's willingness or ability to disclose the abuse (Alaggia 2010;Gilligan and Akhtar 2005;Hritz et al. 2015;McElvaney 2008;Newlin et al. 2015;Paine and Hansen 2002). There are many aspects of culture that we need to think about during children's disclosures; communication style is one of these aspects. Many Settler Canadians are Francophones and Anglophones and generally, they are communicators that try to avoid creating conflict and remain polite throughout the discussion (Cultural Atlas 2021). Overall, eye contact is usually maintained to show their sincerity and not making eye contact can send messages of boredom or disinterest. Indigenous communication values relationships, learning through observation and experience, and connectedness with everything around us (Baskin 2016). The Indigenous Corporate Training website (2021) provided additional insight regarding communication factors for Indigenous Peoples, which was consistent with my experience in working with Indigenous Peoples as well. The website indicated that for many, eye contact is often not identified as a curtesy within conversation. And for some Residential School Survivors, eye contact with school personnel led to physical punishment; therefore, eye contact may not be preferred. Allowing silence is also suggested; there is no expectation to fill silent periods during discussions and allowing long pauses demonstrates respectful listening. Everyone has a unique communication style and culture directly influences this style; when communication styles clash, it can create a challenge in the relationship (Carter 2011). Effective communication is crucial within a forensic interview; it encourages rapport building with the child and can calm, relax and help establish trust when he/she is afraid or hesitant to speak (Themeli and Panagiotaki 2014). Adequate non-verbal communication is equally important and can significantly strengthen the effectiveness of the interview, or in fact, do the opposite. It is evident that having an understanding and being able to effectively address cultural differences regarding communication style is an important aspect of children's disclosures of abuse during investigations. Some authors describe how a "cultural force" can often weigh a child or youth's decision whether to disclose abuse or not during their forensic interview (Hritz et al. 2015). This challenge is especially true for Indigenous children and the conflicting cultural values regarding collectivist and individualist beliefs is an example of this. Collectivist views emphasize membership and the "individuals' loyalty to their groups" (van Hoorn, p. 2). Traditionally, Indigenous cultures place value on the principle of connectivity-for them, everything in the universe has a meaningful connection. Value is placed especially on relationships, the connected reality of people in their environments and learning through these relationship (Baskin 2016; Carriere and Richardson 2013;Little Bear 2009;Smith et al. 2019; University of Alberta 2015; Wilson 2008). Individualistic ideologies tend to focus more on "personal rights and goals" (van Hoorn, p. 2). Individualistic approaches to child welfare and the best interests of the child ideology have been criticized and questioned for years within Indigenous communities (Blackstock and Trocmé 2005;Kline 1992). As the focus on what is the best interests of the child, implies that children's needs are considered in isolation and are separate and distinct from those of their families and communities (Kline 1992).
Traditionally, Indigenous cultures, viewed child abuse (specifically sexual abuse) as an illness that needed the community's help in healing both the abuser and victim so balance and harmony could be repaired within the community (Collin-Vézina et al. 2009). The Westernized approaches within the legal justice system in responding to child sexual abuse in particular, conflicts with this Indigenous ideology. Instead of involving the community and working towards resolution, Westernized procedures will separate the abuser from the victim and often have the goal for the abuser to be in isolation from the community. The legal system may then be recognized as a process that overlooks the root causes of child abuse and the need for restoring the imbalances within the community, possibly adding additional hesitancy for the child of being involved in the system. Victims often don't want to disclose patternsof abuse if it means that their relatives will have to go to jail…Communities do not believe that a legal solution is really a solution at all. Many Aboriginal people believe that the legal system of the dominant society does not address the root causes of the imbalances that allowed [the abuse] to occur in the first place. (Government of Canada, 2018).
van Hoorn (2015) conducted a study that looked at the issues of trust amongst collectivist and individualist cultures. He explained how individualist and collectivist cultures can be identified through the relationship that one has to the collective and "people's radius of trust, [can be] defined as the width of the circle of people among whom a certain trust level exists" (p. 2). Interestingly, collectivism correlated with a narrower trust radius when compared to individualist cultures. Sawrikar (2016) addressed how certain cultural groups may have had past fearful experiences with governments and therefore fear and lack trust in authorities and the child protection and justice system. In Thibodeau and Peigan's (2007) study, they interviewed primarily First Nations individuals that were employed within First Nations agencies. This study demonstrated that due to the traumatization and oppression that was created by our colonization history, there is an overall lack of trust for Government programs and services. Wesley-Esquimaux (2017) also found a lack of trust for groups such as, children's aid societies and delegated agencies for Indigenous families. For Indigenous youth in particular within this study, they stated issues such as: -Wanting opportunities to talk about abuse, whether it was physical, emotional, sexual or spiritual; -Wanting their parents to get help and education, and wanting to remain with their families rather than being placed in care; -Lacking resources for their personal needs or having limited access to their culture; -Not feeling safe or included while in care or not feeling any safer in care; -Wanting more information on where they are going and what was happening; -Not feeling believed when they had concerns about experiencing child abuse; -Not feeling supported or heard and feelings of betrayal by a system that did not hear them or care to ask them what they wanted or experienced.
The lack of trust felt amongst Indigenous communities for the Canadian child welfare system directly stems from the historic trauma that has been past down from generation to generation (Collin-Vézina et al. 2009). The genicidal practices on Indigenous populations, the loss of traditional lands, family, culture, the traditional languages, and the experiences of residential schools and the 60's Scoop are such examples for the traumas that have disrupted the harmony, balance and mutual cooperation for Indigenous Communities (Collin-Vézina et al. 2009;Blackstock and Trocmé 2005; University of Alberta 2015). Indigenous children are essentially left with these residual effects; a crucial factor to think about regarding their disclosures during investigations of child abuse within the Canadian child welfare system.

Improving the system
Consideration for the history of child welfare in Canada is required from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives to understand values and practices that will reinforce positive outcomes (Blackstock et al. 2007;Trocmé et al. 2004). Only when efforts are collaborative to understand First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children's experiences in Canadian children welfare, can practice move forward and the system improve (Blackstock et al. 2007;Rae 2011). This concept should encourage new and creative ideas for non-Indigenous and settler-ally service providers to improve knowledge and find ways to incorporate more cultural safety into practice. "An approach is needed that addresses community and structural issues impacting Aboriginal family and child well-being while respecting the resilience embedded within Aboriginal ways of caring for children, families, and communities" (Gillespie et al. 2014).
Sawrikar and Katz (2017) discussed child protection systems in Australia-systems similar to those in Canada-and found that the dominant culture embedded within the current system challenged the ability to provide culturally sensitive programs. One model however, the Coffin Cultural Security (CCS) Model, was developed in recognition of the Australian colonial history, and how the deeply rooted Westernized paradigms within government processes left Indigenous perspectives excluded within community development (Coffin and Green 2016). The CCS Model demonstrates an approach decolonizing services and community developments by discussing five principles. Firstly in leadership; work should be with and include Indigenous peoples from the start in order to have appropriate cultural guidance. Secondly is to build authentic and genuine partnerships that will encourage joint discussions and decision making. Establish two-way communication between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous people to enhance relationship building, working together and trust. Build towards sustainability; have policies and procedures that will allow a practice to remain current regarding on-going and growing cultural needs. Lastly, create reciprocity. "There needs to be an equitable exchange where one party is not depleted in anyway" (p. 76). Perhaps linking the CCS model with Wesley-Esquimaux's (2017) findings regarding what Indigenous youth say they need from the system, may enhance further ideas for inclusivity and collaboration efforts when responding to disclosures of abuse. Gillespie and Whitford (2010) also discussed the need for community collaboration within child welfare practice and utilizing the guidance of Indigenous professionals and Elders to understand values and processes for effective approaches. These authors agreed that more research is needed in Canada to understand how these networks are implemented and sustained, but that more communities can begin by promoting the goal for such an action-focused model. Anderson's (1998) article discussed Indigenous perspectives on child welfare. Her summary reiterated the need for the system to be inclusive of family and community; they were viewed as sources of support, care, and help. Rae (2011) discussed a review of BC's Child, Family and Community Service Act (1996) that was conducted by a standing committee on social programs for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Members discussed "the importance of involving communities in creating solutions to their challenges as a key to success" (Rae 2011, p. 13). This group identified how communities have the ability to develop appropriate child welfare and family support systems inclusive of traditional knowledge and Indigenous ways of being. They acknowledged the need for service providers to be properly educated about the specific Indigenous community they are working with, and in values will support traditional practices and customs.

For further thought
Investigations of child abuse is just one piece of the child welfare system and research has demonstrated how the different processes within it, such as the forensic interview, can create additional trauma for children . Child & Youth Advocacy Centres (CYACs) were established to minimize this secondary trauma; instead of meeting child abuse professionals in municipal and government buildings (i.e.: police stations, child protection offices, hospitals and court houses), children go to the one child-friendly centre and the professionals come to them. Children have their forensic interview at the centre and they and their families are also properly supported at the onset and throughout investigations, as well are connected with the appropriate community services to mitigate the adverse outcomes of being abused. Nonetheless, literature demonstrated how some processes and procedures within the Canadian Justice system still stem from dominant ideologies which continues to pose challenges for children that are raised within non-western cultural perspectives. For years, researchers regarding cases of child abuse have questioned how children and their needs can be kept at the forefront of practice (Fontes and Plummer 2010;Korbin 2002;Winkworth and McArthur 2006). Winkworth and McArthur (2006) expressed how children's voices and experiences can often be overshadowed in child protection work. Canadian provinces have recognized Indigenous populations as unique, distinct cultures for whom are needed structural change, legislative amendments, and enhancements for culturally safe, inclusive, and collaborative service protocols (Baba 2013 This role has demonstrated to decrease the level of mistrust that Indigenous people feel when in contact with law enforcement. An emerging model of specialized victim services in Canada are Victim Advocates in CYACs; they often receive traumainformed and culturally safe training to provide a specialized service for child and youth victims of violent crimes. Other larger organizations hire Indigenous liaisons to help build and maintain positive and effective relationships between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous cultures, such as Aboriginal Patient Liaisons (APLs) and Indigenous Patient Navigators in health organizations (Northern Indigenous Health 2021; BC Children's Hospital 2021). As of January 1, 2020, the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families was enforced. The Government of Canada co-developed, with Indigenous People, provinces and territories, the new legislation that aims to reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care and improving services for them (Government of Canada, 2022). This new legislation encourages hope for Indigenous children within the welfare system. However, more attention and knowledge is needed regarding Indigenous children's needs and safe approaches during disclosures of abuse within investigations, specifically during the forensic interview. Culture continues to be a factor that creates barriers for children to disclose abuse during the child forensic interview (Alaggia 2010;Hritz et al. 2015;Newlin et al. 2015). Fontes and Plummer (2010) conveyed the importance for professionals to understand diverse world views, and to recognize that every child they encounter is a unique cultural being with a distinct assembly of norms. Efficient work with children means practice needs to adapt to who this child is and what he or she needs. Fontes and Plummer (2010) refer to this level of awareness and reflection for being able to accommodate a child's need in practice as cultural humility. Wilson (2014) makes reference for this high level of reflexivity in practise as being culturally safe.
In Tujague and Ryan's (2021) article, Ticking the Box of Cultural Safety is Not Enough: Why Trauma-Informed Practice is Critical to Indigenous Healing, they emphasized the importance for those working with Indigenous communities to both acknowledge and understand the impacts of trauma in order to engage in a culturally safe practice. These authors also expressed the need for recognizing how both historical and the additional on-going traumas impact Indigenous People's daily lives.
The literature demonstrated numerous factors regarding efforts to decolonize when building and implementing community services. For starters, be committed in learning and understanding our history with Indigenous Peoples. There are hundreds of bands and reserves in Canada. Each one has a distinct history that has shaped their particular cultural identity (Statistics Canada 2018). Non-Indigenous individuals show respect by being committed in acknowledging, learning, and understanding the uniqueness of the territory and community they are in. When I first started my journey as a PhD student who wanted to conduct Indigenous research, which was also around the same time I began coordinating the development of a Child & Youth Advocacy Centre (CYAC), I sat down in conversation with one of my Indigenous colleagues (and a partner in developing the CYAC). He explained to me the importance of taking the time to learn the uniqueness of each Indigenous community that I will work with, and in understanding they have distinctive cultures within them. He expressed how this would demonstrate my sincerity and commitment in working with that community.
The literature demonstrated that collaboration with Indigenous members is key. I remember my Indigenous colleague saying to me, nothing about us without us, regarding to the importance for inclusion, partnership, and an ongoing relationships with Indigenous communities. The use of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in CYACs are logical practices for identifying and understanding cultural aspects during children's disclosures of abuse within investigations. It is interesting to note the effective use of MDTs for sharing knowledge within health systems (Dickhoff and Dahele 2019;Pullen 2017;Reddy and Spence 2008). Reddy and Spence's (2008) study highlighted the largest informational need for the users of MDTs is specific information about the patient. In transferring this type of MDT practice to child abuse investigations, knowledge regarding the cultural needs of the child could be heightened at the outset. As Fontes and Plummer (2010) indicated, professionals such as forensic interviewers can enhance a safer practice by understanding the child's needs in planning for interviews, and tailoring the interviews specifically for them. An MDT in a CYAC may consist of several professionals such as police, child protection, health practitioners, and those providing victim support for the child and family; therefore many professionals coming together to share knowledge and to consider different aspects about the child's needs (Cross et al. 2008;McDonald 2013;Shaffer et al. 2018). Inclusions of Indigenous professionals such as, Indigenous liaison workers or advocates would play a key role in helping the MDT team learn and understand such pertinent cultural aspects. Thus, providing valuable information that could help the interviewer tailor the forensic interview with the needs of the child. Professionals responding to cases of child abuse must take cultural impacts into account and design their service to meet the needs of the child (Gilligan and Akhtar 2005). Some interview protocols recommend the interview be adapted according to the child's cultural background and preferred language. Therefore, the interviewer should contemplate if an interpreter is needed and be aware of all the cultural factors that could act as barriers when trying to develop efficient rapport and in attempting to elicit sensitive information, such as a disclosure of abuse (Rohrabaugh et al. 2016). The literature demonstrated that determining a practice as culturally safe, needs to come from the clients themselves. Muir and Dean (2017) shared a common error people make when collecting feedback or evaluations; service providers often focus more on the delivery aspect and not enough on the results. These authors stated that an ideal first step would be to build the evaluation process right into the design of the program or service; this method would encourage fuller engagement and feedback from the start. They continued that this inclusivity would not only help build trust and collaboration, but would help the evaluation tool represent the appropriateness and priorities of their culture, family and spirituality. The literature indicated that the most important approach to understanding a culture is to directly consult with that culture. In addition to an MDT approach, directly involving Indigenous knowledges may create solutions towards culturally aware and safer practices with Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse within investigations. Fontes (2005) encouraged familiarity with a culture through "consultation with professionals who come from the culture in question" (p. 71). She stressed the helpfulness of having culture-specific information when working with people from a particular group, since this "alerts us to some of the unique issues that may be important for people from that group and can help us design interventions" (Fontes 2005, p. 11). In specific for cases of child abuse and the services within a CYAC, having meaningful and collaborative conversations with Indigenous individuals who are familiar with this work or knowledgable about what children need would be such an example. Taking the time to consult, learn and be aware for the cultural needs of Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse would add so much value and insight into how practices could be enhanced to meet their needs.

Conclusion
The literature demonstrates how the Eurocentric origins of the Canadian child welfare system continues to be visible and in practice today, especially when it comes to determining what is best for the child and what this term specifically means for Indigenous children and youth. Dominant ideologies within child welfare pose challenges for Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse within investigations. More knowledge in this area is needed. The use of multidisciplinary teams (MDT) in child advocacy centres may benefit decision making practices when working with Indigenous children. However, more effort to understand Indigenous children's needs within a CYAC during their disclosures would be of benefit. Collaboration with Indigenous individuals and communities demonstrates to be imperative to better understand the cultural impacts for Indigenous children during their disclosures of abuse. Perhaps this collaboration method may be a useful practice when needing to understand the needs of any child where cultural differences are applicable. For years, Indigenous scholars have stressed the importance for inclusivity in practice (Baskin 2016;Blackstock 2016;Little Bear 2009;Kovach 2010;Smith et al. 2019;University of Alberta 2015;Wilson 2008). This is not only another step toward reconciliation for Indigenous communities, it may hold the key to creating an understanding for what Indigenous children need during disclosures of abuse.