Two years ago, I wrote an article about a father and his two children. He had survived a vehicular accident and used a wheelchair, while his children sold vegetables along the roadside in Chaguanas. When I first contacted him for information about his situation, he was reluctant to speak to me. “They will take away my children. They will say I can’t care for them. I love my children and I don’t want them to go in a home somewhere. All dem homes does have abuse. You think other people will love my children like I do.”
When the story was published, I was contacted by the Children’s Authority, members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and government officials, all seeking information about the children. From those conversations, I got the impression that helping meant taking them away because their father was considered unfit.
The case of Sabrina Khadoo and her twelve children reminded me of him. Sabrina is a 34-year-old single mother living and working in a roadside vegetable stall along the Naparima-Mayaro Road in Princes Town. Her partner was murdered one year ago. The family has no running water or electricity and eight of the children are in school. But if their home is unsafe because it lacks basic necessities, should our first response be to take away the children or to help make their home safe?
This is where I have a problem. If a parent is unable to work or has a disability, why do we automatically assume that the child will be better off away from that parent? Poverty does not mean that someone is a bad mother or a bad father. It means that the family needs help, financially and otherwise. I am not saying that children should remain in homes where they are being abused or seriously neglected. There are certainly situations where removal is necessary to protect a child from danger but poverty by itself is not abuse A parent may not be able to afford everything a child needs but that does not mean that the parent does not love or care for the child.
The Children’s Authority itself states, “Research on best practice confirmed that children thrive best when placed in a family environment.” It says that family reintegration should be achieved through “strengthening families and building capacity within homes.” This is the right principle. Wherever it is safe and possible, the State should help families care for their children through assistance with housing, welfare support, counselling, education and access to work.
The Judith Jones report should also caution us against believing that residential care automatically guarantees safety. It documented serious failures, including physical, psychological and sexual abuse in children’s institutions, as well as weak monitoring and accountability. This does not mean every children’s home is unsafe or every worker is uncaring. It means that taking a child from a poor home and placing that child in State care is not a simple solution.
The fact is this issue is much bigger than the two families I have written about. A 2025 National Multidimensional Child Poverty Analysis found that over one in three children in T&T experiences poverty in areas such as housing, education, health, protection and access to opportunities. This is a national problem and therefore it requires a national response. Government is now developing a National Child Well-being and Poverty Reduction Strategy, which is expected to strengthen programmes and services supporting children and families. Family strengthening should therefore be at the centre of it.
That said, what should assistance in times of poverty look like? Emergency food cards and grants are definitely necessary in the short term. However, we have to be careful of creating a system in which families remain dependent on temporary handouts. Thus, assistance has to be in a more strategic manner that will assist in a permanent way. As Parliamentary Secretary Senator Dr Natalie Chaitan-Maharaj said, “When we invest in children, we create stronger families, more resilient communities and a more prosperous nation.” Real investment must help parents become financially stable and put families on a stronger footing for the long term.
The father I wrote about is proof of what this kind of assistance can achieve. He was given a job in a wheelchair-accessible business and his children’s education is being sponsored up to tertiary level by two businessmen. While his disability remains, the family’s situation changed. He is now gainfully employed and can care for his family financially and otherwise. That is what real help can look like. The children remained with the father who loved them while the additional support is setting them up for a future that does not mean selling vegetables on the side of the road. Maybe this is what Sabrina Khadoo needs—a physical building in good condition to raise her children and a proper support plan so she can manage her family, educate her children and create a better future for her family.
People may ask how a mother came to have twelve children she is struggling to support. Parents do have responsibilities but those children are already here. They cannot be punished for adult decisions and their mother’s poverty should not be used to break up the family when practical support could keep them together safely. We must protect the children, but wherever possible, we should find ways to protect the family too.
