Child Welfare, Immigration, and Justice Systems: An Intersectional Life-Course Perspective on Youth Trajectories

Abstract

This study explores how racialized migrant youth navigate Ontario’s child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems. Insights from youth, academics, practitioners, lawyers, policymakers, and social workers were gathered from a conference and contextualized using the Intersectional Life Course Theory and a critical phenomenological framework. Our analysis focuses on timing, locally and globally linked lives, social identities, and resilience, and emphasizes the interconnectedness of individual experiences within societal structures. We review systemic challenges and ethical dilemmas for young migrants, particularly concerns about fairness in potential inadmissibility or deportation consequences. We propose systemic support measures to foster resilience and disrupt adverse trajectories in order to mitigate discriminatory practices and provide targeted support for youth within these systems.

1. Introduction

Canada has a diverse and evolving societal landscape, particularly represented by racialized groups with a recent migration history. Between 2001 and 2021, the racialized population in Canada increased from 3.85 million to 8.87 million people—an increase of 130% (Hou et al. 2023). In 2021, three self-reported ethnic groups represented 16.1% of Canada’s total population1: those identifying as South Asian (2.6 million people; 7.1%), Chinese (1.7 million; 4.7%), and Black (1.5 million; 4.3%), with immigration as the primary driving force behind the population growth of each group (Statistics Canada 2022). The flourishing diversity within Canada’s population coincides with a growing body of multidisciplinary research that delves into the experiences of racialized system-involved youth (Baglivio et al. 2016; Bala 2015; Bromwich 2019; Simmons-Horton 2021). This research forms the foundation for understanding youths’ challenges, who often deal with heightened vulnerabilities and barriers to resilience.

Involvement with systems is a norm for people living in Canada. For example, Canadian law requires all young people aged 16 and under to attend school, thus requiring interaction with the education system. Throughout their lives, people living in Canada will also interact with the healthcare system and financial institutions, among other State systems. Newcomers and individuals without citizenship also encounter State systems, including the immigration, child welfare, and criminal justice systems (Armenta 2017; Bergen and Abji 2020). Studies that explore newcomer youths’ experiences with these systems acknowledge the pervasive colonial and racist ideologies that permeate these systems, which are designed to support them (Bonnie et al. 2022; King et al. 2024). Consequently, the substantial risk of negative trajectories for youths who become involved with these three systems—the worst consequences being family separation, criminalization, and deportation—is heightened for racialized youth (Simmons-Horton 2021). Yet, there is limited research that comprehensively engages with issues that span all three sectors. This current study takes up this inquiry, exploring the intersection of child welfare, criminality, and immigration status in Canada. This article is guided by the following question: What are youths’ experiences with child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems in the Ontario context? This article focuses on system reform to ensure that institutional structures, policies, and practices support youths’ potential for resilience in their life trajectories.

1.1. Racialized Migrants and Canadian Institutions

Canada is a settler-colonial state, which has received criticism nationally (Bell and Schreiner 2018; Bergen and Abji 2020; Blackstock et al. 2020; Maynard 2017; MMIWG 2019; Monaghan 2022) and internationally by the United Nations (Calí-Tzay 2023) for its history and ongoing practices of colonial interventions, policing, and assimilation efforts. Many argue that this historical connection has contributed to the ongoing challenges faced by racialized families and children, potentially perpetuating cycles of vulnerability and social marginalization (Blackstock et al. 2020; Maynard 2017; McKenzie et al. 2016; Phillips and Pon 2018). The Canadian child welfare system, for example, is deeply impacted by this colonial history that perpetuates racism, evidenced by the mass removal and displacement of Indigenous children from their families and communities (Blackstock et al. 2020; McKenzie et al. 2016). The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC 2018) reported that Indigenous, Black, and Latin American families continue to be disproportionately involved with the Ontario child welfare system compared to their proportional representation in the provincial child population (see also Bonnie et al. 2022; King et al. 2024). Researchers have suggested that child welfare services might become involved with racialized migrant families over perceptions about socially or legally acceptable parenting styles, drawing unfair comparisons, often rooted in stereotypes, between Canada and a family’s country of origin (Hadfield et al. 2017). Alternatively, some researchers posit that systemic race-based discrimination, including instances of racial profiling, drives the over-representation of specific racial groups within the child welfare system (Akuoko-Barfi et al. 2021; Bonnie et al. 2022; CWICE and JIAS 2022; Edwards et al. 2023). Further, a lack of awareness regarding immigration laws or policies, language barriers, cultural safety, and the overall challenges that families face during the resettlement process can result in inaccurate assessments when families come into contact with the child welfare system (Dettlaff 2012). As a result, racialized and newcomer families in Canada are both over-surveilled and over-represented in the child welfare system.

In the context of the criminal justice system, processes of racialization are evidenced in the system’s use of race to categorize specific populations, define attributes and behaviors, and normalize the stigmatization of people’s ethnic identities (Chan and Chunn 2014; Delgado and Stefancic 2007). Racialized youth, particularly those who identify as Black and Indigenous, continue to experience hyper-imprisonment and disproportionate punitive measures at multiple points within the criminal justice system (Bala 2015; Bailey 2020; Fitzgerald and Carrington 2011; Hayle et al. 2016; Samuels-Wortley 2022; Sibblis et al. 2022; Sprott 2012; Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2022). These conditions predominantly stem from individuals within the system who uphold its principles, including law enforcement officials, exhibiting differential treatment driven by their preconceptions of race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and social context (Cole 2020; Fitzgerald and Carrington 2011; Kenthirarajah et al. 2023; Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2022).

From the first point of contact with the criminal justice system, ’youth are at risk of being caught in the “revolving door of surveillance” and “system of breaching,” where in this cycle, one charge often cascades into additional charges, creating formidable barriers to exiting the system (Francis 2021, p. 235). Adolescence, defined by youth shaping their self-concept, is also seen as a phase for “risk-taking” behaviors and “normative experimentations,” which increase the likelihood of coming into contact with the criminal justice system (Dumas et al. 2012, p. 918; Granot and Tyler 2019). For instance, many youths experiment with alcohol consumption or cannabis use (Health Canada 2023). However, due to the heightened levels of surveillance typically applied to racialized youth, they face an increased likelihood of detection or questioning by law enforcement for engaging in these behaviors. Research further highlights the increased vulnerability of racialized youth to the use of force when they engage in actions, behaviors, or activities that are perceived as criminal or suspicious compared to their peers who are White (Haag 2022; Nordberg et al. 2018; Owusu-Bempah and Luscombe 2021; Ristroph 2017; Wortley et al. 2023). This discrepancy arises as comparable actions of White youth may be interpreted as youthful indiscretions or immature activities, but not criminalized behavior (CCSA 2017; Lee et al. 2021). Building on the issue of heightened surveillance, elevated levels of police suspicion, combined with resistance from suspects (often due to mistrust of the criminal justice system or negative past interactions), can intensify interactions and potentially result in the use of excessive force when officers perceive a threat (Brunson and Wade 2019; Cyr 2016; Ristroph 2017).

1.2. Deportation and Criminal Inadmissibility

Research also calls attention to ‘crimmigration’ to capture the merging of criminal and immigration law in the past two decades (Bosworth and Turnbull 2014; Kanstroom 2015; Stumpf 2006). While immigration issues were previously dealt with through civil law procedures, today, these issues are increasingly dealt with in criminal law and there are far fewer protections for those deemed to be “violators” (Kanstroom 2015, p. 468).

In Canada, people who do not hold legal immigration status are at risk of being deemed inadmissible if convicted of a criminal offence within the country (Division 4, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA 2001)). Canada’s laws and regulations include provisions that allow for the deportation or removal of non-citizens, including those with temporary status or without legal immigration status (Division 5, IRPA 2001). The severity of a criminal sentence in Canada is generally not influenced by immigration status; yet, immigration consequences, including deportation and an entry ban, can be significant and contingent upon the seriousness of the offence and if the person has a history of criminalization (ss. 36 and 37, IRPA 2001).

Sections 36 and 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA 2001) outline the grounds for inadmissibility, including criminality. There are a number of reasons why a prospective citizen may be deemed criminally inadmissible. For example, Section 36 indicates that a permanent resident or foreign national can be deemed inadmissible for serious criminality in Canada if they have been convicted of a Canadian offence that carries a maximum prison term of at least ten years or an offence with a prison term of over six months (GC 2017). For less serious offences carrying more lenient penalties, individuals may still be considered inadmissible on the grounds of criminality if they have been convicted in Canada of a parliamentary offence punishable by indictment or have two convictions under any parliamentary act unrelated to a single incident (GC 2017). However, specific categories of offences, such as minor violations or offences committed by juveniles, will not serve as grounds for excluding people from being eligible to enter or continue residing in Canada (GC 2017).

If an individual is deemed inadmissible due to criminality, they will receive a deportation order (GC 2017). A deportation order in Canada results in the forced removal of a person (and, in some cases, their family) from the country and mandates their return to their home country or another destination specified in the order, often with limited prospects for future entry or reapplication depending on the circumstances and the specific conditions outlined in the order. Given that racialized youth and families are disproportionately surveilled by the criminal justice system, increasing their chances of experiencing criminalization (Akuoko-Barfi et al. 2023; Saberi 2017), it is possible that racialized youth and families that are not citizens are at a high risk of being deemed inadmissible, deported, and denied re-entry into Canada.

1.3. The Current Study

This current study focuses on the unique vulnerabilities of racialized youth who are involved in child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems. Because racialized newcomer families receive heightened surveillance from the education and immigration systems, they are at an increased risk of child welfare system involvement. For children and youth who are separated from their families and placed in State guardianship, they become vulnerable to being in contact with the judicial system at different points (Bala 2015; Bala et al. 2015; Bromwich 2019; Granot and Tyler 2019; Simmons-Horton 2021; Sirois 2023). For instance, youth in State guardianship frequently encounter criminal responses, such as calling the police, for behaviors that might be managed differently within a family setting, potentially resulting in criminal charges for seemingly minor actions. For example, taking food from a kitchen cupboard without permission or fighting with a foster sibling might result in a criminal charge for theft or assault (Rampersaud 2021). The removal of youths from their homes, coupled with instability while in State guardianship, is traumatizing and has significant destabilizing effects on their mental and physical well-being (Doyle 2007; Rampersaud 2021; Rampersaud and Mussell 2021a, 2021b). Some youths respond to the destabilization by displaying disruptive behaviors, which may, in turn, invite responses from the criminal justice system (Finlay et al. 2019). In a study of federally incarcerated youth in Ontario, 25% of those interviewed reported that they had been brought into State guardianship in the past (OCI 2017). The child welfare and youth justice systems are intricately connected, with significant negative impacts on youth under State guardianship (Rampersaud 2021).

Pathways from ‘care’ (i.e., State guardianship) to criminalization are well documented (see Finlay et al. 2019; Rampersaud 2021). However, this daunting pathway extends beyond criminalization to deportation for youths who have an unresolved immigration status. While the consequences for youth involved in all three systems are known among practitioners, there is a gap in research that explores pathways between systems. This research puts these sectoral pathways in conversation in order to illuminate youths’ experiences and to identify possible points for support and intervention.

2. Theoretical Framework

In this article, we draw on concepts from the Intersectional Life Course Theory (Ferrer et al. 2017) to understand the trajectory of youth involved with child welfare, immigration, and criminal justice systems. Within this framework, we can also recognize the opportunities for resilience, wherein these youth can still achieve positive outcomes and lead fulfilling lives, despite their adversities. We use the Intersectional Life Course Theory to explore how the intersections of social identities influence an individual’s life trajectory over time. Individuals’ experiences are not solely shaped by single dimensions of identity, but rather by the interplay of various identities and their evolution over the life course, with structural conditions shaping these experiences (Brotman et al. 2020). We combine the Intersectionality and Life Course Theory to describe how the construction, experience, and impact of intersectional inequalities can vary across age, cohort, life-course stage, and social–historical context (Kwon and Adams 2022).

Intersectionality theory recognizes that multiple factors, including gender identity, expression, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, sexual identity, and expression, collectively shape an individual’s identity (Collins and Chepp 2013; Collins 2015). This theory also highlights that privilege and oppressive systems (racism, classism, ableism, sexism, and xenophobia) overlap and have compounding impacts on individuals’ social identities, providing a context for individuals to experience multiple forms of oppression simultaneously based on their social location (Crenshaw 1989; Lorde 1984; hooks 1981, 2015). Intersectionality emerged from the collaborative efforts of Black women within progressive movements, and is a dynamic framework that comprehends and addresses interconnected social inequalities (Crenshaw 1991; Combahee River Collective 1995; Rosser-Mims 2011). Life course theory is an interdisciplinary framework used to understand how life experiences are interconnected and that the trajectory of one’s life is shaped by a multitude of factors, including family, education, work, and relationships (Bernardi et al. 2019; Clausen 1986; Farrington 2005; Grenier 2012; Hareven 1994; Hutchison 2019). Within this theory, protective factors, like safe and nurturing family environments, supportive caregivers, positive peer relationships, and strong social support networks, can enhance the long-term well-being of children and families (Felitti et al. 1998; Ford et al. 2010; Gushue and McCuish 2021; Jones and Peirce 2021; Muniz et al. 2019; Pane Seifert et al. 2022; Schmitt et al. 2022).

Ferrer et al. (2017) define the process of the Intersectional Life Course Theory in four key steps: (1) identifying significant life events, their timing, and the structural forces at play; (2) expanding the concept of linked lives to encompass intergenerational and international aspects, analyzing how intersecting life trajectories impact social relationships in a global context; (3) considering identities, structural categories, and processes of difference, emphasizing dynamic identities, categories such as race and gender, and processes like racialization; and (4) contextualizing experiences within systems of domination, while recognizing agency and resistance as means to challenge and overcome structural oppression. In our context, this theory is used to understand how the experiences of racialized, immigrant, and justice-involved youth are shaped over time, considering intersecting identities and various life stages. Using the Intersectional Life Course Theory supports the understanding of how the experiences of racialized youth with child welfare, immigration, and justice systems impact their life outcomes and opportunities at different stages.

3. Methods

This present study is a subset of the larger Rights for Children and Youth Partnership project, which seeks to increase knowledge of factors that hinder or support the rights of children and youth in Central America, the Caribbean, and their diasporas in Canada. Before research activities commenced, the project was approved by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Research Ethics Board [protocol code 2017-099]. The research design is structured to achieve two key goals: (1) to describe the experiences of young people within various systems; and (2) to increase awareness regarding the limitations of siloed approaches in supporting migrant and newcomer youth, with a specific focus on youth from the Caribbean and Latin America.

3.1. Critical Phenomenology

The research design is anchored in a critical phenomenological framework. Critical phenomenology goes beyond investigating individual perceptions and experiences associated with a phenomenon; it involves a thorough critical examination of these experiences, considering the influences of broader social, cultural, and historical contexts that contribute to shaping and defining such experiences (Ahmed 2007; Guenther 2019; Lotz 2007; Melançon 2014; Al-Saji 2019; Simonsen and Koefoed 2020; Young 2002). Critical phenomenology permits researchers to uncover hidden or overlooked historical stories that still shape the meaning behind embodied realities (Guenther 2019). Adopting a lens that contextualizes the structures and power dynamics shaping lived realities aims to challenge and deconstruct established norms and assumptions within child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems.

Critical phenomenology asserts that our interactions with the environment influence our perceptions and reciprocally shape how others perceive us. The framework posits that we view others as integral components of the environment, and observing their behavior shapes our cognitive processes governing thoughts about our relational coexistence (Ahmed 2007; Guenther 2019; Neubauer et al. 2019; Melançon 2014; Simonsen and Koefoed 2020). By acknowledging the pervasive colonial and racist ideologies embedded in the State systems designed to support these youths, we engage with the critical phenomenological perspective that seeks to recognize the interconnectedness of individual experiences within larger societal structures. Further, within this framework, the experiences of racialized system-involved youth are influenced by the complex interplay of intentional actions, policies, and practices within child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems. Using critical phenomenology to understand patterns is a transformative political practice that urges us to move beyond merely describing oppression to formulating pragmatic strategies to dismantle entrenched oppressive structures and to build alternative frameworks (Guenther 2019). Data were collected aligned with a critical phenomenological framework through ethnographic methods, including participant observation, to access the stories and experiences of conference participants.

3.2. Data Collection

Data were collected during a 3-day conference in Ontario, Canada. All conference attendees were notified that the conference included a research component during event registration and were subsequently given informed consent forms to review before the event. During the informed consent process, research assistants addressed attendees’ questions or concerns. When an attendee did not consent to be recorded (audio or notes) and/or observed, they were given a color-coded name tag to represent their non-participation in that aspect of the research event. Among conference attendees, 148 consented to participate in this research; the perspectives of these attendees are captured in this report.

Research participants include youth with lived experiences of these systems, academics, community practitioners, lawyers, policymakers, child welfare workers, and social workers. All participants have experience/expertise to share about the child welfare, immigration, or criminal justice system; some have experience that overlaps between systems. For example, some lawyers represented youth with criminal matters, as well as ongoing immigration issues, and some community practitioners supported newcomer children and families who had been referred to the child welfare system. To effectively capture attendees’ insights while also protecting their confidentiality, the attendees were grouped in one of five participant groups: youth (n = 9), community practitioners (n = 66), lawyers (n = 12), academics (59), and the government (n = 2).2 Participants were then assigned to tables of between 4 and 6 people, where they engaged with people from different participant groups, along with a research assistant and trained notetaker. The conference featured panel presentations on children’s rights, with a specific emphasis on immigration, violence against children and youth, policies, and social safety, and highlighted the impact of institutional practices on the overall well-being of youths. After the panel presentations, which included at least one youth presenter, all audience participants were encouraged to ask questions and share their reflections.

Ethnography methods, including participant observation, were carried out in two distinct ways. First, research assistants and trained notetakers attended the conference events and took comprehensive notes on what they heard and saw. Participant observation allowed researchers to immerse themselves in participants’ routine activities; in this case, the events and proceedings of the conference. This method is particularly apt as it enables researchers to gain insights into what is important and meaningful through direct engagement with the panel presentations and conference activities. Second, recording devices were placed on the tables of attendees who provided informed consent to be audio-recorded throughout the duration of the conference for research purposes. The decision to also record conference proceedings in an audio format was made with the intention of ensuring data trustworthiness, minimizing potential bias from individual notetakers in determining what information was considered ‘important’ and ‘relevant,’ and offering a representation of diverse participant voices in the data (DeWalt and DeWalt 2002; Kawulich 2005; Schensul et al. 1999). After the data were collected, the research team transcribed and reviewed the notes and audio-recorded files from the conference. The team then used NVivo 12 software to analyze the data and identify emerging themes. These themes were synthesized to extract the core meaning units. Subsequently, the authors summarized each interview by integrating all the elicited themes to form a comprehensive context. A conscientious effort was made during writing to include a balanced representation of participant group voices. However, given the high number of practitioners and academics compared to the other three groups, the insights from these participants tend to appear most frequently.

4. Findings

The following section examines the experiences of youth within child welfare, immigration, and justice systems, emphasizing the Ontario context. Categories of the intersectional life-course perspective frame our findings (Ferrer et al. 2017): (1) timing, events, and structures; (2) locally and globally linked lives; and (3) categories and processes of differentiation, with each subsection subsequently referencing where systems can support youths’ resilience.

4.1. Timing of Events and Structures

The need for a comprehensive understanding of how intersecting identities influence experiences within societal systems becomes apparent when considering the cumulative impact of multiple factors on the individual’s life course. ‘Timing of events and structures’ pertains to the chronological occurrence and structural context of pivotal life events (Ferrer et al. 2017), which, for our context, includes entry into and transition out of State guardianship, obtaining migration status, and engagement with the criminal justice system.

A Lawyer exemplified how negative systemic interactions can profoundly impact a person’s life through a series of interconnected and escalating consequences:

The way children are handled within the system can cause a cascading disruptive effect on the child’s trajectory and increases the likelihood of integration into the youth criminal justice system. [A youth], who came to Canada at a young age with family, was taken into [child protection] custody. [They were] in 15+ placements, resulting in very little community and difficulty obtaining status. [They] had a number of youth and adult charges, and although they received their PR3, they could have been deported to a country they had no knowledge of. (Lawyer)

In this instance, the youth’s arrival in Canada at a young age quickly led to their subsequent entry into the child protection system, marked by numerous placements, resulting in limited community connections. This circumstance is common among newcomer children and youth, who face family separation after arriving in Canada. Once they are placed in out-of-home care, many newcomer children and youth face significant structural challenges leading to a complicated life path, especially when the child welfare system overlooks the importance of obtaining citizenship status.

Many conference attendees spoke about the experiences of youth who exited State guardianship without long-term legal status in Canada. A Community Practitioner described an individual who had been out of State guardianship for a few years but did not have legal status in Canada, despite being eligible as a child to become a Canadian citizen.4 The Practitioner shared that the person “cannot renew their health card, cannot apply for a bank account, get an apartment because all of their identity documentations have expired.” Another Community Practitioner contextualized this further: “Children without documentation status resolved before they leave State guardianship become even more vulnerable as they are unable to attend school, rent a home, [drive a] vehicle, [or] access healthcare.” Youth in State guardianship who are not supported by the system to achieve legal status in Canada before they turn 18 are often hindered from reaching traditional markers of aging alongside their peers.

Those with unresolved immigration status are especially vulnerable if they come into contact with the criminal justice system. The intersection of legal complexities involving both youth and adult criminal justice systems increases the risk of potential deportation, even for those who are supported to obtain permanent residency. A Community Practitioner spoke generally about the chronological events and structural context of pivotal life events for a youth with unresolved immigration status who then becomes involved with the adult criminal justice system after transitioning from the child welfare system. As the child leaves State guardianship, they face more punitive responses from their criminalized history of being reported by group home workers, which can, in turn, affect their migration status:

The child aged out of the [child welfare] system and has now been charged—because the workers reported to the group home—but is now charged for different things. He’s now a young adult, interacts with the adult criminal justice system and his [charge] is bumped up. (Community Practitioner)

The framework of worker policies in the child welfare system, particularly utilizing the criminal justice system as a method of behavior management and disciplinary intervention, can have long-term impacts on youth if they continue to experience criminalization. A Community Practitioner shared a similar experience with “workers within the youth system utilizing the criminal justice system to punish youth in cases where the issue could be handled at home,” giving examples of lateness or verbal arguments, suggesting that this is not an isolated practice. The Community Practitioner said systems create a “pipeline from immigration to the child welfare system to criminal charges and then deportation.” This “pipeline” shows the interconnectedness of systems that can lead to punishment, including potential expulsion from the country:

If you were charged with a criminal offence for over six months, spending at least over six months imprisonment, you can be deported if you were on a permanent residence. Some charges that go after six months under the Criminal Code include driving with impairment. It’s not necessarily something as horrific as murder or [sexual assault]… depending on what sentence you get, you could now fall into that category. If you are a permanent resident, or if you have no documentation, you are potentially deportable. (Community Practitioner)

A Lawyer further explained the legal implications for a person on this “pipeline” transitioning from child welfare to the youth criminal justice system, then the adult system, which carries immigration implications, specifically receiving a conviction under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA 2002) at age 17. The timing of the legal process is critical, as the type of sentence imposed based on age plays a decisive role in determining inadmissibility:

…a situation where someone who is 17 and convicted under the YCJA. If the Crown has sought and obtained an adult sentence, it can have criminal inadmissibility implications under the Immigration Refugee Protection Act. There’s a specific provision that says findings of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act do not result in inadmissibility where a youth sentence is imposed, and so the obvious inference is that where an adult sentence is imposed, it’s fair game. And the conviction, or the sentence, can be considered for inadmissibility purposes. (Lawyer)

Similarly, a Lawyer reviewed the potential consequences of an additional criminal conviction at the age of 19 following a recent youth charge, wherein the youth record becomes part of the adult record under the Criminal Code:

…if [a person] obtains another conviction at the age of 19 and is discharged under the Criminal Code, and their youth record becomes part of their adult record, then the Canada Border Services Agency can look at that record and [make] a determination about whether to pursue a finding of inadmissibility and then the issuance of a deportation order […] it’s very serious consequences of an inadmissibility finding including, very possibly, and in many cases, likely, [removal] from Canada. (Lawyer)

Both Lawyers explained the consequential intersection between the youth and adult criminal justice systems, where youth could have significantly different trajectories, specifically those with recent migration histories, contingent upon the timing of their criminalization and migration status. The non-linear convergence of factors leading to the possibility of deportation is frequently misunderstood.

An Academic noted the challenges and stigmatization that individuals face in conflict with the law concerning deportation, when there are shallow understandings of the broader context resulting in that outcome:

There’s a lot of stigmatization around people being- you know, in conflict with the law. “They’re facing deportation, … they must be really bad people,” you know? “They’re the danger.” … it’s not that we don’t talk about deportation. It’s not known that there are all sorts of barriers. (Academic)

Amid this stigma that acts as a barrier to seeking support, one Lawyer emphasized the critical importance of timing in applying for citizenship, particularly when someone is still considered a minor. Even if a youth is criminalized, the timing of citizenship can be a significant protective factor:

If you are over 18 and you’re applying for citizenship—now, if you are a young person with a very violent [past] and you’ve had charges, now your citizenship is ruined. So yes, there are huge advantages to applying as a minor. (Lawyer)

Another Lawyer’s statements further supported the recommendation by sharing about a child’s placement in State guardianship, where his family was able to obtain citizenship but he was not, ultimately resulting in concerns of being deported:

A child was put in care because of abusive problems in his family. His family was, in turn, able to get citizenship while he was only able to get permanent [residency] because he was in care. His status is now an issue because he was involved in a number of criminal charges. (Lawyer)

The different outcomes in citizenship attainment for the child compared to their family signify the increased vulnerabilities of systemic involvement with child welfare for children without citizenship status. If children are supported in obtaining citizenship status while in State guardianship, then the risk of deportation once they reach legal adulthood is prevented. For youth who experience criminalization, thus heightening their precarity upon turning 18, having status ultimately removes the looming threat of deportation, as it is no longer a factor of consideration.

Understanding and mitigating the impact on resilience, particularly for families and youth exiting State guardianship without resolved immigration status, can support youths’ trajectories, whereas alternatives can contribute to heightened vulnerability and compromise their ability to confront and navigate adversities:

One of the things that reverse the impact is really to look at the trajectory for the families, and the trajectory of the youth… A child who’s exiting care who is 17 or 18 and doesn’t have immigration status here, that trajectory isn’t going to be pretty because they don’t have access, abilities, or services. (Community Practitioner)

Given that citizenship can be a significant protective factor, it is cause for concern that youth in the child welfare system may not have applied for citizenship, because they lack either awareness or information about their own life events.

Significantly, some youth who are separated from their families at an early age may not even know of their non-citizenship status. Foster families and group home staff may not have this information either, and/or do not prioritize supporting youth in their care to apply for citizenship. They may only learn of their unresolved immigration status upon aging out of the child welfare system:

[The youth] don’t know that they didn’t have status here […] and it’s because the system is taking care of them and like taking care of like all this- They never explain what’s happening with them or where their whole case is, right? So, I think that’s something. There’s no transparency about their process. (Academic)

Systems are responsible for providing the support needed to youth and addressing their multiple systemic vulnerabilities. In some cases, youth who are aware of their unresolved immigration status are afraid to disclose this information to authority figures, which to many, includes child welfare. A Youth who learned about their precarious legal status in the country as a teenager shared that they were “always scared that the police may share [their] information of being without status to the government” and their strong belief that the “government will always want to catch the undocumented immigrants.” Once youths learn about their precarious status, they come to fear contact with systems. For example, the Youth agreed with other Community Practitioners and spoke about being afraid of police, immigration, and deportation because they are racialized, adding that the additional complexity of being “undocumented” can be “terrifying and a constant thought to avoid police … from a young age, there is fear to interact with the justice system”. To best help young people, it is necessary to separate the enforcement and support roles of State institutions (Rampersaud et al. forthcoming).

The interconnection of timing, structural contexts, and sequential occurrences within child welfare, immigration, and criminal justice systems shapes the life course of youth, especially those without Canadian citizenship. The punitive responses arising from their criminalized history, often influenced by social and contextual factors while in State guardianship, can trigger a series of events that significantly impacts their migration status. Racialized youth without citizenship status face heightened vulnerabilities, instilling fear of disclosure and interaction with authority figures. The timing of obtaining citizenship emerges as a protective factor, emphasizing the potential advantages of addressing immigration status while still considered a minor. Therefore, timely interventions and supportive measures are crucial to safeguard marginalized youths’ rights and future trajectories within these interconnected systems.

4.2. Locally and Globally Linked Lives

The concept of ‘locally and globally linked lives’ pertains to the interpersonal relationships and support structures established at the local level (Ferrer et al. 2017), including family dynamics and affiliations within Canada. Furthermore, this paradigm extends to the influence of global factors (Ferrer et al. 2017), notably international politics, communication modalities, migration patterns, and cultural exchanges, which collectively contribute to shaping and influencing these relational networks, including connections with family members residing outside the geographical confines of Canada.

4.2.1. Social Connections and Immigration

An Academic illustrated how interpersonal relationships and support structures established at the local level play a role in immigration, noting that successfully appealing deportation can be done if the individual has strong community or family connections in Canada:

People can successfully appeal deportation if they have strong community or family connections to stay in Canada or if they are at risk of rights violations if they are deported. But that doesn’t necessarily save someone from deportation. There’s been some interesting documentaries made about young people who are sort of ‘failed’ asylum seekers, but because it’s cruel to deport children, they sort of… house them until they reach the age of majority. So, they are basically waiting in facilities until they’re 18 and then they’re deported. (Academic)

Conversely, people who do not have significant social ties to Canada may lack the same compelling evidence to support their case for staying in the country.

Many children involved with child welfare systems experience disconnection from their community or family due to the child welfare process itself or reasons for the involvement, causing the presentation of evidence for these connections to be inherently more challenging:

The systems are more complex for undocumented persons, especially for children and youths with high levels of intrusion [...] During my discussions with Black youths, many were not born in Canada and some undocumented with no parents [in Canada]. Some others were unaccompanied minors with broken relationships or family ties. (Community Practitioner)

A Youth spoke about how the absence of family ties can create vulnerabilities in other systems, thus reinforcing marginalization: “I could not turn to my parents, I have no extended family to help me. The system just puts me out there. A lot of people in the system just end up in the criminal system for these reasons.” A Community Practitioner emphasized this damage done to young people’s social networks, beyond family, when they are removed from their communities and culture:

What we’re talking about so often in welfare is a young person being ripped away from their communities, from their people, from their culture. And, because of that, the child welfare system tends to try to bring those things back into a young person’s life in what would be sort of a fake way or an institutionalized approach to supporting a person. What they normally would receive naturally in their own communities, in their own support systems, in our families. And it doesn’t usually work very well. (Community Practitioner)

The Community Practitioner, critiquing the attempt by the child welfare system to reintegrate these elements into a child’s life, describes it as “fake” and “institutionalized”, misaligned with the authentic, strong community or family connections needed for positive immigration-related outcomes. One of the Youth participants also observed a disparity among their peers and offered a recommendation based on their lived experience, advocating the need for “Intentional support to ensure the youth gets support so they do not end up with the justice system”.

Contrary to the assumption that migrant families generally have strong external ties outside of Canada, this does not hold true for many children who migrated at a young age. In many cases, these young people have spent more time in Canada than in their countries of origin and feel socially and culturally rooted here. Many youths may not have seen family or relatives in their countries of origin in years or decades, troubling the notion that these are authentic social ties. One lawyer shared a story about a youth they represent:

He is facing really serious consequences in the criminal justice system, his status in Canada is now at issue. And steps were taken by immigration authorities to strip him up from permanent residence and ultimately deport him to a country that he had never lived in as beyond the age of about six. (Lawyer)

The Lawyer challenged the narrative oversimplifying deportation as somehow less tragic or damaging for someone if they are returning to family and cultural roots, since these ties may be tenuous at best. Another Lawyer explained that, when children are deported, “there are not enough opportunities for children… to reconnect with their families”. The process of deportation can disrupt family bonds and create barriers to re-establishing connection, especially for young people, who may face difficulties adjusting to a new environment if they have lived in Canada most of their lives.

4.2.2. Challenges and Aspirations in Canada

Youth and participants with a recent immigration history recognized the considerable challenges their families or parents faced upon arriving in Canada. A Youth shared the profound aspirations shared by many immigrants, whether they are first, second, or third generation:

Coming to Canada was a huge, huge deal for families and I think one of the things, you know, when you talk to any immigrant family, when you talk to anyone who has, whether it’s first, second or even third generation, depending on the family, depending on the dreams. You know that when you talk to your parents […] I came here, or my parents came here, because they wanted the best opportunities, best education, best health care for their kids. They wanted the best for the next generation, and for my children. (Youth)

In a parallel example, another Youth acknowledged the sacrifices made by families for their children but reflected on the realities of these aspirations within the broader global context:

I see that in so many of the parents that I talked to, especially racialized families … When you understand the sacrifices that were made by so many parents, so many families. In just to provide that, just to open that door. And then, you look at the dreams and you look at the, you know, the realities. There’s a huge difference. (Youth)

The shared expression of familial hope and sacrifice exemplifies local and global influences on individual lives, reflecting the impact of migration experiences on family trajectories across generations.

A Child Welfare Worker recalled the initial feelings of migration—both the excitement and the challenges—of leaving one’s cultural and linguistic roots, acknowledging the intention of many to support their family. However, they also noted the global perception and local realities:

We watch TV and North America is kind of dangled in front of us kind of like carrots, right? So. ‘goodness, I wanna go to Canada, you know, I wanna live in the U.S., I wanna go out to New York.’ … I want to have more opportunities, right? I want more opportunities for myself and I want more opportunities for those in my care … We start to immigrate and it’s perhaps a little bit scary, a little bit exciting. And we find ourselves uprooted from our cultures, from our languages, religions, from our foods. (Child Welfare Worker)

The themes of familial hope and sacrifice resonate across generations. However, these experiences may intersect with challenges upon arrival to Canada. As a Child Welfare Worker said, “Let’s not think that we do not have racism that still exists in Canada today. It is pervasive and it operates within many different systems.” The stress of migration, cultural disconnection, separation from their support networks and racism in Canadian systems can leave families disillusioned. The participants emphasized the gap between the global perception of Canada as an opportunity-rich land and the local challenges immigrant families face. Conversely, while acknowledging the stress, cultural disconnection, support network separation, and racism within Canadian systems, authentic community and family connections can have positive immigration outcomes.

These narratives reveal the importance of interconnected relationships on a local and global level and how they shaped the experiences of these youths. Successful appeals against deportation often rely on strong community or family ties within Canada. However, for many young people, disconnection from their families and communities due to migration or system involvement can make it difficult to provide compelling evidence for residency. The discourse about the experiences of youth with unresolved immigration status further highlights the complexities that these youth face, who often lack social ties within Canada and face increased intrusions into their lives. Community Practitioners critiqued institutional attempts to reintegrate youth; systemic change to strengthen resilience among disconnected youth can nurture genuine relationships by prioritizing initiatives that foster community integration and family reunification within Canada. Legal professionals also challenged oversimplified notions of deportation, given the profound disruptions it imposes on familial bonds and the challenges of rebuilding connections, especially for those who have spent most of their lives in Canada. Legal frameworks can reconsider the deportation processes and nuanced complexities of familial bonds and the long-term consequences of uprooting individuals who have deep roots in Canadian society.

4.3. Categories and Processes of Differentiation

‘Categories and processes of differentiation’ explains the dynamics of social identities or labels such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, and socioeconomic status, examining how individuals are subject to differential treatment based on these identifiers (Ferrer et al. 2017). Race is a marker of social identity that was referenced by many participants when sharing their perspectives on systems. A Child Welfare Worker spoke about how people are subject to differential treatment based on social identities, particularly concerning the experience of dehumanization tied to racial profiling. They reflected on the trauma of realizing that their Black identity leads to unwarranted suspicion and bullying, contrasting with their experience in the Caribbean:

The trauma of dehumanization when we got here [Canada]… we realized that every day, ‘Oh yeah, I’m Black, that’s why you’re following me? Because you think I’m going to steal some nail polish from the store that costs a dollar? Why are you bullying me? Oh yes, it’s because of my skin color.’ Things I didn’t really have to think about in the Caribbean. (Child Welfare Worker)

The Child Welfare Worker alluded to the broader societal impact of racial profiling on their sense of self and belonging, and the existing bias or discriminatory practices.

An Academic spoke about the drastic consequences when people of power hold harmful biases about racialized individuals, detailing the assumptions made by police and the intersectional experiences of race and gender for Black women who are criminalized:

I cannot tell you how many Black women sitting in jail cells have talked to me about, you know, the assumptions that were made by the police… And how that plays into the way in which Black women are treated… when they enter into the system. (Academic)

Another Academic expanded on the institutional racism embedded in systems and perpetuated by individuals within the system who uphold its principles:

Stories that young people shared with me spoke to issues of implicit bias or institutional racism that were embedded in the justice system. So, this body of research talks about how the behavior of racialized folks in different settings whether it’s the school, hospital, or otherwise, are often misinterpreted as hostile, aggressive, dangerous, and then met with more punitive responses. (Academic)

In a personal example, a racialized Youth shared a distressing encounter (full quote omitted due to confidentiality) of witnessing their family’s mistreatment during an arrest that exemplifies the dehumanizing treatment of a Black family in front of their child from people in a position of power. The Youth shared the experience of their family being “roughed up” in extreme winter, with no shoes and shirt, and witnessed their family being abused by the authorities during the arrest. The account of another racialized Youth outlined a problematic similarity, as they shared their brother’s mistreatment by law enforcement, which included recurring elements of exposure to extreme weather and abusive encounters with authority figures.

This day I went home around 4 o’clock to see my brother’s face down in the snow by some cops and make up some story. I’m also watching, you know, that it sucks. He’s in his socks, it’s cold, but his feet, he has no socks or shoes on and he’s in the snow. (Youth)

Building on the experiences of these two Black youths, an Academic incorporated age as an aspect of understanding race as a marker of social identity, illustrating how racialized children are subject to differential treatment in comparison to their White peers:

Adultification bias is a form of racial prejudice where children of minority groups, typically Black children, are treated by adults as being more mature. Therefore, they are not seen as deserving of the same degree of compassion and understanding that is attributed to their non-Black counterparts. (Academic)

A Child Welfare Worker speaking about racist, harmful misunderstandings among the youths they support shared a complaint that was made to the child welfare system when they were doing intake, which was based on racist stereotypes. The report was about a child having cornrows, where a protective hairstyle was misinterpreted as abuse. In this case, the family’s cultural background was recklessly misinterpreted through a lens that did not account for the nuances of varied social identities:

Someone who had their hair in cornrows… there was a report, so there was a complaint. Like, ‘You are abusing this child because that must have been so painful and how dare you,’ when for a lot of Black cultures, that is the way that we tend to keep our hair nice and neat and tidy. (Child Welfare Worker)

Racist systemic practices rooted in cultural misunderstandings create significant harm for children, youth, and families on the receiving end of system involvement.

An Academic added another consideration to the discourse about the dynamics of racial misconceptions and systemic involvement. The Academic observed that the majority of young people they interviewed entered the justice system during mental health distress, noting the perception of mental health crises with race and subsequent legal involvement:

Majority of those young people [I interviewed] came into contact with the justice system while they were experiencing mental health distress and when you intersect that with, it was actually Black women and young Black women who faced the most punitive responses. (Academic)

The differential treatment based on these identifiers within systems was further exemplified by an Academic, who shared the tendency for harmful labelling to emerge when cultural practices, such as expressive communication in a loud manner, are misunderstood and deemed aggressive:

The fact of not having cultural diversity within the system brings to points of having stereotypes and like labelling families who are doing stuff that culturally are natural for them. Like the fact that a loud Latino family communicates in certain ways that may seem strange to other people and that may seem aggressive. It’s something that is concerning because it’s not because they’re being aggressive it’s because it’s the way how they usually communicate. (Academic)

The collective narrative of race as a marker of social identity highlighted the profound systemic impact of racial biases on individuals across diverse societal structures. The patterns of differential treatment illustrate the experiences of racialized families and children facing dehumanization, harsh legal responses, and harmful misunderstandings, often accompanied by severe systemic repercussions. Through a range of personal accounts from child welfare workers, academics, and youth, many of whom self-identified as Black and Latinx, the pervasive impact of racial biases and discriminatory practices within these systems is shown to lead to differential treatment. These experiences are often marked by trauma, marginalization, and systemic injustice, highlighting the need for interventions to address systemic biases and promote equity. Intervention suggestions to constructively cultivate resilience included increased training initiatives about anti-racism and cultural safety, and supporting under-represented communities in decision-making processes.

5. Discussion

Within the Canadian immigration policy, the imposition of potential inadmissibility or deportation consequences for people with serious criminality may seem justifiable. However, acknowledging the impact of systemic racism faced by racialized communities within the Canadian child welfare, immigration, and criminal justice systems (Blackstock et al. 2020; Maynard 2017; McKenzie et al. 2016; OHRC 2018; Phillips and Pon 2018), racialized migrants are subject to a revolving door of surveillance and harsher penalties that elevate the risk of immigration implications. Moreover, children who arrive in Canada at a young age, particularly those who are unaccompanied, separated from their families, or asylum seekers, are susceptible to the significant risk of inadmissibility or deportation. Individuals with these specific demographics have garnered increased attention in recent years, predominantly with concerns regarding the equitable and fair application of such policies. A central dilemma emerges from the fact that many of these young migrants came to Canada without a comprehensive understanding of their family’s immigration status or their precarity (Bowden 2023), prompting ethical and practical dilemmas related to penalizing individuals who had limited agency in shaping their migration decisions and, quite possibly, have lived in Canada most of their lives.

Adverse life trajectories for those with lived experience in child welfare, immigration, and justice systems are indeed a complex, yet plausible scenario. Firstly, the child’s arrival in Canada with an unresolved immigration status, who may even be unaware of their migration status, sets the stage for potential legal vulnerabilities from an early age. Secondly, the family or child’s experience of racialization, a process through which individuals are subjected to discrimination based on their race or ethnicity, amplifies the level of scrutiny and surveillance they encounter from both child welfare and law enforcement entities. The heightened surveillance has the potential to magnify the individual’s exposure to a range of challenging circumstances (i.e., State guardianship, instability in care, etc.), which contribute to the cycle and reinforcement of youth being systems-involved. Lastly, youth in State guardianship are especially vulnerable to coming into conflict with the law, again noting the influence of racist systemic biases in further exacerbating these challenges. As a result, youth may find themselves on a challenging trajectory marked by heightened vulnerability and decreased resilience, which can ultimately lead to their interaction with the criminal justice system, perpetuating the continued cycle of surveillance, racialization, and involvement with law enforcement agencies into adulthood. This, in turn, may result in criminal convictions and legal issues that impact their immigration status and ability to remain in Canada. By this stage, if a young person’s migration status has not been resolved, they may find themselves at risk of deportation or inadmissibility based on their criminal record. These legal consequences can have a lasting impact on their ability to remain in or return to Canada, even if they have lived most of their life in the country. The broader intersectional life-course perspective explores societal structures that shape the transition into adulthood (Ferrer et al. 2017). Conventional notions of a ‘normative’ life path may not accurately reflect the realities of those involved in the complexities of immigration, child welfare, and justice systems; structural inequalities can diverge generations of individuals and families from societal or personal expectations.

At the core of this exploration lies an acknowledgment that the experiences of individuals within these intersecting systems are not isolated occurrences, but are embedded within broader societal contexts where historical, cultural, and systemic forces create an environment in which vulnerable populations, particularly those entering adulthood, navigate complex and often unforgiving pathways. Thus, the impact of these challenges on an individual’s life trajectory is not a matter of personal agency but is deeply embedded in systemic issues. The systemic context of child welfare, immigration, and justice system policies and practices are shaped by legacies of discrimination, marginalization, and systemic biases that continue to prevail. Immigration, child welfare, and the justice system are not isolated entities but components of a broader societal apparatus. The legacy of these systems also raises questions about the compounding role of institutions and their intentional role in shaping life trajectories. The relationship and overlap of these systems, while not strictly linear, form a complex ‘pipeline,’ as described by a conference attendee, drawing a parallel to the ‘school to prison pipeline’ phenomenon, where punitive disciplinary policies in schools set young people on a path to criminalization in their communities. Because expulsion from the country is the most serious consequence resulting from involvement in all three systems, a pipeline presents a useful analogy. Importantly, gaps in services within each system render youth increasingly vulnerable until they reach the age of majority, a significant turning point when the consequences may be impossible to return from.

Community practitioners revealed gaps and blind spots in their service delivery, which can indirectly and unknowingly increase a young person’s vulnerability in another system. For example, a racialized newcomer family adapting to Canada’s education system may be subjected to cultural misunderstandings, which result in their being reported to the child welfare system. A child in the family may be removed from the home as a result without resolving their immigration status. Youth who age out of State guardianship without citizenship status are extremely vulnerable. Yet, their circumstance is arguably preventable if systems move away from siloed approaches and, instead, work jointly to better support children, youth, and families. Therefore, the collaborative or fragmented nature of these institutions can either contribute to a supportive environment or collectively perpetuate the vulnerabilities of individuals moving through systems.

Participants in this research continually emphasized the need for multi-sector approaches that would better support those without legal status within Canada. They indicated the need for multi-sector training and opportunities to provide coordinated services and early intervention and to battle the stigma that comes with an undocumented status. Participants further highlighted the need for sanctuary in services beyond the municipality. The experiences of migrant youth in child welfare, criminal justice, and immigration systems—services administered at the provincial and federal level, although in some cases delivered at the local level—reveal the need for a human rights approach to service delivery, rather than one contingent on citizenship status. Peel Region in Ontario has pioneered a program, the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence (CWICE), which responds to this call. This agency works to support newcomer families with open child welfare and immigration cases to resolve both outstanding issues. In their short tenure, they have prioritized obtaining status for children who are in out-of-home care placements, which has made a significant difference in the lives of these young people. The CWICE program represents a meaningful opportunity to make a real impact, that should be both replicated beyond Peel Region and expanded to coordinate services with even more systems. Children, youth, and families do not lead single-issue lives; State services must adapt to this reality in order to better support our society’s most vulnerable groups.

6. Conclusions

This study explores the experiences of youth within child welfare, immigration, and justice systems in Ontario, Canada, framed by the intersectional life-course perspective. The timing of pivotal life events, such as entry into State guardianship, transition out of care, obtaining migration status, and involvement with the criminal justice system, indicates youths’ interconnected challenges when trying to establish resilience in their life trajectory. These challenges, including racial profiling and differential treatment based on social identities, contribute to adverse outcomes, like deportation. We acknowledge that some experiences recounted in this paper represent the voices of youth who could not contribute directly, not by deliberate exclusion, but due to some of the vulnerabilities we have outlined (i.e., deportation, lack of connection, etc.). The narratives in this paper and their context emphasize the importance of systems working together for timely interventions and supportive measures to foster racialized migrant youth and families’ resilience, and to safeguard their rights within these interconnected systems.