EPISODE ONE: EXIT INTERVIEW
MCFD is losing at least ten percent of its staff every year. Social Workers leave MCFD. Knowing why they leave might be valuable information in retooling yet again. The legislation entitled Child Family and Community Services Act (“CFCSA”) was inaugurated in 1996 with great promise that child welfare and protection would experience a manner of service delivery devoted to the support of families caring for children in the family home. Social workers wanted to be associated with such progressive intentions. For the past many years many social workers have been jumping ship for personal reasons but often because child protection practices are not living up to expectations. Child protection practices are not living up to CFCSA principles.
More sick days are logged by MCFD staff than across other government departments. Then many of them leave. Social workers leave because they are unable to deal with work related stress. Social workers leave because they are dismayed that they cannot accomplish superior work when the system is under-resourced in terms of personnel and services. They feel that they are unable to accomplish the outcomes projected by the CFCSA of affecting a family centred approach to child protection that actually supports the parents and extended family and communities to care for children safely. Social workers feel they have unmanageable case loads. They do not have funding for or access to preventative and supportive resources with which to help either children or parents. Social workers leave because the system is crisis driven rather than care and solution driven. Social workers leave because they have lost confidence in management and supervisory leadership.
Social workers say that they might stay if they had reduced caseloads and access to improved services and supports for families.
Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org
Why do they leave? It seems that the weakest of them still have a shred of ordinary human conscience and compassion. Their consciousness of guilt simply had become unbearable. Too weak to fight it, they fly from horrendous abuse so often imposed by the Ministry for Children and Families Development on ordinary, normal,and even on model families like Paul and Zabeth's.
ReplyDeleteModel families like Paul and Zabeths? Please, model families do not shake their children! And why is everyone seeming to forget the injuries the child received as a result of this shaking? She will be affected for the rest of her life! And the very weak explanation of what they say happened to her? Maybe their children should be returned, maybe not. But why are they allowed to hide behind their religion and maintain their innocence when so many know they are not?
ReplyDeleteWell Anonymous, those are interesting comments. Saying what you have it would have been more appropriate for you to actually use your name. Then you wouldn't seem to hide behind anonymity. Paul and Zabeth have never hidden behind religion. They are up front with their faith. And they are up front with their attestation of innocence. It seems natural and logic that innocent people will want to maintain that confession. When twelve medical expert opinions contest the one medical opinion upon which this Ministry CCO is based, how can anyone say with certainty you know Baynes are guilty rather than innocent?
ReplyDeleteTO: Anonymous
ReplyDeleteRespect the FACTS: "The children were seized in September 2007 by the Ministry of Children and Family Development because the Surrey couple were suspected of shaking their baby and causing a head injury."
SUSPECTED!
Now, kindly list and sign all the FACTS you know what make Bayne's family less than model.
TO: Anonymous. Respect the FACTS. "A Surrey B.C. couple accused of shaking their baby girl are taking their case to court to try to prove she has a medical disorder, in an attempt regain custody of their three children." ACCUSED!!!
ReplyDeleteThe State must prove beyond reasonable doubt the Accusations are not False. Or, apologize and redress the injustice. Now, list and sign all the FACTS you know what make Bayne's family less than model.
Well Mr. Fisher, you are almost correct. The Baynes are treated as though they have been ACCUSED. Actually they are merely SUSPECTED. Big difference isn't it? MCFD treats the two words as synonymous. In fact the RCMP investigated them and dropped the case because there was not enough evidence to proceed with CHARGES. MCFD can suspect them and take action against the family as though they were ACCUSED and GUILTY. But you know what that is like don't you? In fact the MCFD can even suspect that they will do it again, and that is what the Risk Assessment says, and on that basis, refuse to give children back.
ReplyDelete