I painted this scene once in acrylic and it didn't work, so I conceived it again in oil, and well, it works. For the past fifteen years people more informed than me have been offering systems corrections but when the concept itself is flawed – well give it up. Oh no, this outfit needs to be re-conceived. Did you hear me. This province needs an entirely new concept.
On this blog I have appreciated the challenge of delving into the B.C. MCFD policies, practices, structure and leadership yet it is not my first priority and besides it's disillusioning. What prompted me to become involved is well known by now. It was one family's struggle to be restored as a family. The more I learned about Paul and Zabeth Bayne's specific case, the more concerned I became that they were not the only B.C. residents whose lives have been consumed to regain status as a family not to mention to restore stability, happiness and peace.
I have openly acknowledged the benefits of social workers who deliver services that truly protect children and resource families. But the overriding concern that owns me is the potential for wrongful accusation of abuse and neglect on hotlines to the MCFD. Anyone can make a confidential if not anonymous phone call to report the suspicion of neglect or abuse. In fact it is the law in B.C. that a person must place such a phone call when there is a suspicion of either abuse or neglect. The gravity of the suspicion is not the caller's concern. That is the social worker's job. By law, social workers must then investigate the family that is reported.
While it may not seem likely that someone would do this, the potential exists for someone to fabricate a story that results in investigation and at the worst might result in charges being laid mistakenly. There is a greater likelihood that some neighbour will misread apparent indicators in an innocent family and begin an avalanche of trouble for a family. The Baynes were victimized by a phone call with what I assume was authentic concern but was soaked with inauthentic foundation. Regular family medical exams and reports validate that. Those children were never pale or thin because they were unfed, neglected or unloved. Those children were living with the challenges of all premature children and they were healthy as far as their doctors were concerned - doctors who were actually trained to make those judgments. Did the local MCFD SW care enough to get it straight, to actually record evidence. Evidence, not suspicion. Evidence, not hearsay. Without a balance between evidence and reported suspicion, written lines later on are incriminating.
A report of a suspicion or a concern is not the equivalent of probable cause but it is treated that way by social workers until they have proven to themselves that there is no factual basis for the suspicion. I would like to see a statical percentage for the number of children who are removed by MCFD workers without probable cause of abuse. I was astounded to read in one U.S. study that 60% of the removed children were taken without probable cause. Further, 50% of the call ins were found unsubstantiated. It appears to be a system that is without the due process of law in the sense that innocent families can feel as though they are being harassed. Is that the way it is in British Columbia?
Social workers usually want to enter the family home to observe and to interrogate caregivers/ parents and children if possible. To allow this to happen always exposes the family to risk. Parents need to become alert to ways to protect themselves from fishing expeditions by social workers. This is why I believe child welfare laws need to be reformed. Legislation, while protecting children should also protect families. Social workers should be compelled to abide by the same regulations that guide law enforcement officers. As long as social workers continue to operate with the level of power granted by the ACT then the privacy and parental rights of all BC'rs will be jeopardized.
So what would your new Concept include?
I'm going back to my easel.
Painting image "Pacific Coastal Lake" is copyright of Ron Unruh and not to be downloaded without permission
We definately have a "broken" system. That has been evident to me from day one of Paul and Zabeth's long and painful journey. I am appalled by the MCFD as I sit in court. They have failed this family. It is obvious to me that this is NOT about the children.
ReplyDeleteIt is about the children. I cannot understand why when there are only a few possible explanations for Baby B's injuries that everything possible is not being done to rule out whatever can be ruled out. Glutaric Aciduria is one of the possibilities. Or is it? She was tested, it was negative and yet its still being brought up as a possible explanation to her injuries etc. Do you all really believe a tiny preemie boy fell on his newborn sister head to head? Doesnt that seem far fetched to at least some of you? And what on earth was she doing on the floor with toddlers running around?
ReplyDeleteAnd why wouldnt Paul and Zabeth go get tested for Glutaric Aciduria. Its only fair if you are going to use it as an explanation to Bethanys condition that you rule it in as a possibility!
Both parents must be carriers. Would be easy to prove or would it?
Valid questions Anon. Look for a response soon.
ReplyDeleteFor Anon above,
ReplyDeleteAs for the laws of probability in respect to a toddler falling on top of an infant - I suppose that is what an accident is, an unlikely event.
As for Glutaric Acidemia it is not specifically referred to any longer as an explanation for the child's condition at the time of her presentation to hospital in 2007. It was considered and investigated because GS may cause children to bleed more readily than children without the disease. An impact incident such as the Baynes described with one child upon the other would have been exacerbated by this disease condition and GS even without the impact incident may have produced bleeding.
Since it is not a current issue, Paul and Zabeth have not been tested for the disease. Something of interest is that both sides of the biological parents are diagnosed with Celiac disease. In children with GA there has been an association with Celiac Disease. MCFD will not retest her for GA but it may be wise to do so.
The Baynes would have known nothing about this GA possibility in their child. Interestingly this history was introduced to the court. Social Worker Loren Humeny's handwritten notes were provided in a disclosure package to the Baynes and in them GA was one of the terms associated with the child. A caregiver for the child reported via email that the child might have it, at least professionals were looking into it and the caregiver expressed documents she had examined on this condition. CBC TV picked this up in a story that it broadcasted. The Dufferin Voca site published this email letter. While GA is discounted as a contributing or primary cause at the moment, it is still entered into court evidence and no documentation has been produced by MCFD that discount it with respect to the child. This is the best I offer at the moment.
Just a small note - all three children were tested for celiac disease - all three were negative - neither the little girl nor the boys have celiac.
ReplyDeleteRon - Fortunate enough, I am to have been away this weekend.
ReplyDeleteWere the Baynes granted extended visitation?
CW
ReplyDeleteThe Judge instructed the Baynes in what they needed to do for him to rule on this extended visitation request and they will be back in court very soon now for that ruling. I believe the Judge is open to encouraging them with this petition.
To Anon May 31, 2010 8:48 AM
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you said... “Just a small note - all three children were tested for celiac disease - all three were negative - neither the little girl nor the boys have celiac.”
THIS IS NEWS TO PAUL AND ZABETH. THEY DID NOT KNOW UNTIL YOUR NOTE ABOVE THAT THEIR CHILDREN HAD BEEN TESTED FOR CELIAC DISEASE AND CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE TEST RESULTS ARE NEGATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALL THREE CHILDREN. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS BE FORWARDED TO THESE PARENTS AS PART OF THE EXPECTED DISCLOSURE BECAUSE CERTAINLY THIS IS YET FURTHER EVIDENCE OF EITHER THE INEPTITUDE OR THE INTENTIONAL DELAY OF THE SOCIAL WORK IN RELATIONSHIP TO THESE TWO PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN THE MINISTRY HAS KEPT NOW FOR SO LONG A TIME THAT THE ONLY COURSE IT COULD CONSIDER IN ORDER TO SAVE FACE WAS A CCO. REPEATEDLY THEY HEAR AFTER THE FACT THAT A TEST HAS BEEN DONE ON THEIR CHILDREN AND REPEATEDLY THEY MUST REQUEST DISCLOSURE THAT SHOULD BE AUTOMATIC.
The Baynes were informed of the test results. Gramma kept bringing "special food" to visits to help her Grandchildren with their non existent Celiac Disease. The kids were tested, it was negative and the parents know. Gramma however wouldnt listen and still continued to bring the special diet she wanted them on. Maybe an attempt to find something on the Baynes side or denial. Call it what you want, those are the facts.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I will check into that. Either you have heard or you have in possession some inside information. I will check on its reliability. Perhaps you can too.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:10 AM,
ReplyDeleteHere is what I know. Zabeth and Paul have conferred with her mother to learn that on a couple of occasions the driver/supervisor has communicated to the childrens' grandmother concerning special foods being brought for the children. On one occasion she was told that the caregiver insures that the Baynes' daughter is given gluten free foods because her daughter requires this as well. At another time the grandmother was told she didn't need to bring special food because all the children had been tested for Celiac and they do not have it.
The fact remains that until they discussed this today, Paul and Zabeth have not received any official communication or documentation with regard to either Celiac or Glutaric Acidemia. From what I can ascertain, a person not diagnosed with Celiac does not mean they are free of the Glutaric issue.
Paul and Zabeth themselves continue to bring gluten free foods for the little girl because disclosure has not been forthcoming from MCFD and the Baynes desire to receive official confirmation before they stop doing what they believe is in their daughter's best health interests. Their family history generates their concern, Zabeth's father, aunt and some cousins all have medically been diagnosed with celiac. Paul's paternal side also has medically diagnosed celiac cases. If the children were in their care they would have had them assessed, so if they have been tested, why can these parents receive official disclosure of the test results? I don't expect an answer because that is not your department.
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteFostermom KD here ... I was questioned in court about celiac disease and the children. I verified then that the children had all been tested and were found to be negative ... Zabeth and Paul were sitting right there. It was also in my notes, that both the court and the parents received copies of. I told the social worker immediately that the tests came back negative, and also informed the supervisor for the visits to mention that they had been tested and were negative and that it was not necessary to give Bethany gluten-free food for 6 hours of a week, when she was having gluten for the remainder of the week ... I had them tested because I thought they were all very slim, knew that Zabeth's dad had it, and having a daughter myself with celiac disease I know what is entailed. It was my own suggestion that the kids be tested, there was never any concern verbalized or in writing (to the best of my knowledge)by the parents that they thought Bethany had celiac disease, and thus the doctor simply told me on a return visit that the tests had come back negative and there was no formal report made.
ps. I'm posting as anonymous, not because I'm trying to hide my identity, but because I can't figure out how else to do it!
You are right, the answer to your question regarding the parents receiving disclosure is not my department. All I know is that the family was informed that the children were tested for Celiac and Bethany was tested for Celiac as well as GA. All tests were negative. Continuing to bring Gluten free food to the 3 visits per week is not harming or helping anything. If any of those kids actually had Celiac and were fed a normal diet following Canadas food guide (such as they do receive) they would be sick and not thriving as they are. Feeding them Gluten free food etc 3 times a week wouldnt be enough to help them, they would need a special diet everday. I just find it interesting that the special diet continued even though the tests were negative.
ReplyDeleteBoth Anon and Fostermom have commented that knowledge of the celiac testing and the subsequent results have been known to Paul and Zabeth, if not officially because no formal report was prepared as Fostermom says, then by way of in court testimony by Fostermom for which there is transcript and submitted hard copy. I can only surmise that with the volume of information they were processing then and since and without a written reference they have not recalled that part of your testimony. They still do prefer to have a formal disclosure from some source but I do know that your comment has encouraged them to trust that their daughter was actually tested and with good outcome. I am not sure but they may still provide gluten free food to their children until they hear something official and because as one of you says, it doesn't matter one way or another.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to this topic, what disclosure? Why would a disclosure need to be made for a NEGATIVE testing, when there were no concerns expressed, no questions asked, no suggestions made that, for some strange reason, the parents had decided to treat one of their three children and not the other two, for an undiagnosed celiac disease? I still can't figure out why they chose Bethany and not her brothers - all three children are slim and small - why just one? And a celiac diet is no small thing - I disagree with the comment that it doesn't do any damage. I have a child with celiac. She grieves constantly that she can't eat what the other children eat - she hates watching them eat muffins, cake, cookies, pasta, pizza, when she can't ... I'm aware that many, many of these types of goodies are brought to the visits for the boys to consume, and in multiple amounts and yet Bethany is denied them - for absolutely no reason at all - she is not celiac.
KD