Beyond Decriminalization: Sex-work, Human Rights and a New ...

PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETYA. Your profession should have nothing to do with your ability to raise a child.A. Or the court’s decision to take a child away.A. I think that if a parent is public about it that is fine. They should be allowed to saywhat they do and it should be no problem. I think if you go public – I don’t think[being in sex work] should determine . . . the fate of the children.- female street-level sex workerMany sex workers expressed the view that ability to parent is unrelated to one’s work in the sex trade.A. I don’t think [sex work affects an individual’s ability to parent] . . . it’s the individual.I have seen girls that are wonderful parents and that are not. But I have alsoseen that when I have worked in daycare centers . . .- female off-street in-call sex workerA. Absolutely not, [being involved in sex work does not affect one’s ability to parent].‘Cuz parenting is totally different than being a prostitute. I mean being a great prostituteand a great mother at the same time, that’s – just because you are, doesn’t meanyou can’t be a great mother.- female off-street out-call sex workerAgain, several participants expressed concern about the stigma associated with prostitution, and howthat stigma might influence determinations of a sex worker’s fitness to parent:A. But the way society looks upon [sex work], y’know, no way . . . It’s an automatic unfitmother.A. Yeah but that’s society stigmatizing . . .- female off-street out-call sex workerA. Even though, I may be a good parent,all of a sudden, they stick you with, if you are asex trade worker, you’re not a good parent.- female street-level sex workerSex workers with children may be subject to having their children apprehended if their conduct isperceived to be causing emotional harm to the child. 18 Court decisions are not consistent with regardto whether a parent’s work in the sex industry constitutes emotional harm to a child that merits stateintervention. In B.C. (Director of Family and Child Services) v. K.B., 19 the Court dismissed this notionstating:. . . prostitution alone is not a reason for a continuing custody order as long as a child isadequately cared for while the mother is working or if she sleeps during the day.In B.C. (Director of Family and Child Services) v. R.P.F.M., 20 however, the Court did consider themother’s sex work to be detrimental to her child, and a factor to be considered when evaluatingwhether the child needs protection. The Court stated:No specific instances were alleged of harm to N.R.D.M. because of Ms. C.B.’s activities asa prostitute. Ms. C.B. testified that she never conducted the business of prostitution in thepresence of the children. Her lifestyle certainly cannot be said to be beneficial to N.R.D.M.It brought danger into her life, as evidenced by the fact that she was assaulted in November.Raising a child in an environment where the mother-figure is involved in an unhealthy life-18 Child, Family and Community Service Act, s. 13(1)(e).19 B.C. (Director of Family and Child Services) v. K.B. [2000] B.C.J. No. 2606 (B.C. Prov Ct.) at para 4.20 B.C. (Director of Family and Child Services) v. R.P.F.M. [2003] B.C.J. No. 780 (B.C. Prov Ct.).210