Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a scoping review of the literature to explore the many ways stigma affects people with FASD and to highlight the disciplines and places where discourse on FASD and stigma is taking place. Design/methodology/approach Searches were conducted in PubMed, ERIC, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Families Studies Abstracts and Google Scholar between 2008 and 2018. Search terms focused on stigma, shame and the connection to FASD with a view to looking across social and medical science literature. Findings Searches identified 39 full text manuscripts, 13 of which were included in the scoping review. Stigma toward people with FASD exists in multiple professional forums across disciplines. The relationship between mother’s use of alcohol and the lasting impact on the child is a focus in the articles identified from a public health perspective. The review showed there was limited cross-disciplinary discussion evident. In total 13 articles were selected for inclusion in this review. Research limitations/implications Negative discourses predominate with little attention being paid to possible areas of success as well as cases of lower FASD impacts. There is a significant void in work focusing on positive outcomes for people with FASD. Such discourse would support a better understanding of pathways to more positive outcomes. Originality/value This paper highlights the issue of FASD and stigma through identification of relevant literature and expands the conversation to offer insights into the challenging terrain that individuals with FASD must navigate. The issue of stigma is not linked only to individuals with FASD but also their support systems. It is critical to recognize the multiple attributions of stigma to FASD in order to effectively take up conversations across and between disciplines to promote new discourses focused on de-stigmatization.

Alcoholism and drug addiction have marked impacts on the ability of families to function. Much of the literature has been focused on adult members of a family who present with substance dependency. There is limited research into the effects of adolescent substance dependence on parenting and family functioning; little attention has been paid to the parents’ experience. This qualitative study looks at the parental perspective as they attempted to adapt and cope with substance dependency in their teenage children. The research looks into family life and adds to family functioning knowledge when the identified client is a youth as opposed to an adult family member. Thirty-one adult caregivers of 21 teenagers were interviewed, resulting in eight significant themes: (1) finding out about the substance dependence problem; (2) experiences as the problems escalated; (3) looking for explanations other than substance dependence; (4) connecting to the parent’s own history; (5) trying to cope; (6) challenges of getting help; (7) impact on siblings; and (8) choosing long-term rehabilitation. Implications of this research for clinical practice are discussed.

Child protection workers must determine under what conditions a child should be sustained within the family system. A standard that is often referred to is “good enough” parenting or minimal parenting competence. Research and clinical literature fails to offer workers guidance on the practical application of this terminology. Such ambiguity leaves families with the probability that the standard against which they will be judged will vary from worker to worker and from community to community. The authors argue that this leaves case management open to inconsistencies that can include systemic biases which can work against rather than for the best interests of the child. Courts are accepting this term as a significant factor in determining the need for intervention and whether or not to sustain or terminate parental rights

The 1983 case Racine v Woods is the leading child protection case from the Supreme Court of Canada, distinguishing bonding and/or attachment as a more important determinant of best interest for an Indigenous child than cultural connection. Using this case, courts are upholding the permanent placement of Indigenous children in non-Indigenous homes as opposed to placement within their culture. Racine v Woods reflected knowledge of attachment and family at that time but runs counter to current knowledge. Reconsideration of the factors to decide cross-cultural adoption is needed. The essential point is that attachment assessment draws from a dyadic relational theory and is being applied to communal family systems, such as Indigenous systems. Such a review is consistent with the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as well as its predecessor, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), and recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decisions.

INTRODUCTION: The article challenges the current interpretation of Attachment Theory (AT) which favours placement of Indigenous children in non-Indigenous homes. Historical attempts to assimilate Indigenous populations are examined in relation to ongoing assimilation within child intervention and justice systems. The goal is to stimulate discussion about possible culturally appropriate models to articulate the complex and multiple attachments formed by an Indigenous person who is brought up in an Indigenous community, compared to the popular Western and Eurocentric view of parenting through dyadic attachment derived from AT.METHODS: A review of AT literature examining key questions of cross-cultural applicability validity in relation to Indigenous populations. Consultations were held with Elders from the Blackfoot Confederacy of Alberta as part of the Nistawatsiman project. Data were gathered in a project relating to AT and the Supreme Court of Canada.FINDINGS: Cultural Attachment Theory is emerging as a preferred way to think of Indigenous contexts as opposed to applying traditional AT. The validity of AT with Indigenous families is likely not valid and perpetuates colonial and assimilative understandings of family, parenting and the place of culture.CONCLUSIONS: Pan-Indigenous methods bias child intervention, blinding them to the capacity of Indigenous caring systems’ capacity to raise their children. The use of AT sustains over- representation of Indigenous children in care and continues the colonial practices of fracturing Indigenous caregiving systems which, in turn, creates the patterns for the next generation’s over-representation in care. Indigenous ways of knowing and being are required along with Indigenous-based decision making.