Wednesday, June 2, 2010

If you want to Encourage Reform to our Child Welfare / Part 207 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Many of you have expressed in various tones your conviction that serious changes must be made to the protection component of our B.C. child welfare system. Some of you write from a personal experience of great anguish. Living through months and even years without your children, or worse, never having the children returned. I do think that you have an opportunity to make a difference. You have a story. I don't. I merely have a sensitive sympathy meter and a ready pen. I believe that if you are going to take the challenge there are some things that must be done well. Some of you cannot do this. You are still too angry. This is about affecting change not merely scoring your point. Someone has to do the following and perhaps that someone is you. If enough someones become involved in a proactive movement, perhaps the needed changes can occur.

1.Contact your Member of Parliament. The members comprise the body that has created the framework within which the Ministry of Children operates. When you have identified the primary solution that mean the most to you and will benefit most children and parents affected by Ministry involvement, approach one of these lawmakers.
2.Contact the Media. MCFD is sensitive to media coverage as we have discerned even recently when the Representative for Children and Youth took the government to court. MCFD responds predictably with over zealousness when there has been a child fatality while in care or some abuse in a foster care facility. A change in media coverage, like more of it, more scrupulous investigative journalling can change MCFD operations. For that reason among the people you may want to contact are (1) reporters who regularly cover child welfare items; or (2) the news editor for network stations or news magazines; or even (3) the editorial board of these outlets.
3.Capitalize on Media Opinion Pages. Letters to the editor opportunities invite the kind of comment you desire to make. Make sure you work smartly, writing only 100-250 words. That means thinking clearly about one central point regardless of how many points you could or would like to make. Pay attention to news/media guidelines and stick to them. Enough of these over time makes a point. And if you write to correct a prior statement, simply set the record straight rather than question the journalist's motives.
4.Use the Comment Section of News Agency Websites. News organization welcome comments at the end of stories. No one knows how many people read the comments, and of course because anonymity conceals the writers, some deliver vile and personal attacks. When you find a discussion that is civilized, enter in to make a comment. Keep your focus on the issues.
5.What to Seek in Respect to either MPs or Journalists. Ask for a personal face to face meeting. Make an initial approach by e-mail preferably but it can be by letter and in this explain how the system is harming those whom it is intended to help. Ask for a meeting to speak about possible solutions. Don't get lost telling your own story or accuse anyone in the system of being immorally motivated. Simply give an overview of how your child(ren) are being harmed. When a reply is not forthcoming within a few days follow it up with a fresh email and if time passes again make it a phone call in the morning. If you obtain a meeting it will be brief, at most fifteen minutes. You must be well prepared with your most important points. You can have a written organized document ready to hand to the host.
6.Whatever you do avoid the 'gestapo' references or anything that blows your credibility out of the water and in fact makes legislators and reporters angry.


  1. CFCSA is a provincial statute. Don't waste your time with MP, go to your MLA. Try this and see how far you will get.

    Canadian and American media is becoming more aware of corruption in the "child protection" industry in the last few years. Kevin Libin of National Post wrote an article on Thursday, Jun. 11, 2009 titled "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say" at:

    This is a good starting point to solve the problem.

    I caution those who still have an open MCFD case and those who have children under 19 years of age living in Canada not to go public. It will attract retaliation. The Bayne case is a good example. If you are not convinced still, watch this:


    If you think that I am using scaremongering tactic to influence your readers, hear what retired judges, lawyers, professors and SW said:

    The Canadian system is set up in more or less the same way. Corruption mentioned in the video above is happening in Canada nationwide. This industry is driven by tax dollars.

    I disagree that those who are angry cannot do anything to change. Anger can be used in a positive way as long as it is under control. I emphasize that parents must fight back wisely, legally and honorably. Don't let your impulse, desire to revenge and emotion take over your rational mind.

    Using terms like Gestapo and crimes against humanity will turn people away as they sound extreme and radical. That said, if you investigate thoroughly and objectively, you may agree that these terms are not unfairly biased and exaggerated.

    Ron listed six avenues to voice your opinions. Perhaps bloggers could share what changes and objectives would be appropriate.

  2. You can also contact the Child Advocates Office.

  3. Letters you do write should be constructed in a fashion that they can later be put online so google can be used to search. You may not get a personal response from a politician, but your letter may serve as a template for other parents to copy, and they can get ideas off it.

    Other ways are to:

    1. Setup a blog, facebook page, website, included a comments section, and link to other websites, and publish contacts that support your cause.
    2. post videos and audio with still photos
    3. publish actual documents such as intake reports, risk assesments, judgments, chambers or trial transcripts but redact (black out) any personal information
    4. contribute to other websites/blogs if you cannot do any of the above.
    5. tell your kids, protect them, tell them to spread the word in their school
    6. Submit freedom of information (FOI) requests. Individuals can get perhapes 10 hours work from FOI for "free" materials, beyond that time charges may apply to acquire the information. If you see a subject that interests you, such as how much does MCFD spend in legal costs and list all the lawfirms and their yearly billing totals, file an FOI for your area and publish the results.
    7. Go "viral", this means if you see something that hits home with you, such as a story or youtube video spread it by all means possible, youtube, twitter, blog it. The more links to something of interest, the higher its google rating becomes.
    8. Name names such as bad social workers in "safe" locations such as anonymous comments, offshore websites, highlighting them in judgments critical of their job (or adding the names in if they are missing)
    9. Those with "live" cases protect your identity by installing anonymous web browsingsoftware or using such services, use complex passwords for email or use PGP to encrypt.
    10. With an eye for eventually republishing and/or later lawsuit, ask for all social worker black book notes, internal emails etc.
    11. Add to the writing list college of social workers, college of physicians, college of psychologists, complain if your case warrants it, and publish the letter and response, redactin personal information.


    Reform ideas must be actionable and preferably have a precedent for other politicians to justify following up a matter.

    1. Revise CFCSA specific section: total time in care to include the wait for protection trial.
    2. All child protection Social workers must become members of the college of social workers. Names of social workers to be published.
    3. RCY to have anonymous hotline to report MCFD abuses just like MCFD has hotline for people to report child abuse.

  4. Good points today Ron. I want to add a word about topics in your recent issues. Regarding leaving the baby on the rug. You cannot say anything to the mother that she has not already said to herself. The real issue is this. The baby got a bump on the head from an older brother. Because of the injury sustained the MCFD wants to take away all three children---for ever. When the director seeks a continuing care order, he never wants the children to see their parents again. He wants to see them adopted. Does this sound pretty stark? You bet it does, but this is the reality of the situation. Section 49 is the section of the CC&CSA that stipulates the conditions required to make a continuing care order. Just google it and read if for yourself. In contested cases it pretty well stipulates that the parents must be beyond redemption. There must be no significant reason to believe that the circumatances leading to the admission to care are likely to change. How does this apply to the Bayne case? The baby got a bump on the head. That is not likely to change. A doctor said the injury was deliberate. Ten otheer experts said that the injury was consistent with bumping heads with another child. That is not likely to change. All the evidence showed that the Baynes were careful and loving parents to their two boys. That is not likely to change.The director made the unwarranted assumption that if it were possible that the injury was accidental, then it is possible the parents might harm the boys. This is just an inference and not evidence. It is equally possible that the injury was accidental. To ignore this is irrational and adversarial. Of one thing we can be sure the members of the ministry are unlikely to change their adversarial culture. No, of course the evidence does not come remotely close to meriting a continuing care order. Ron knows it,I know it,Finn Jensen knows it and the director knows it. By now I am sure the judge knows it. Right now the Baynes are trying to get increased access. Normally such hearings are quite short and the arguments simple. Yet the director manages to drag it out for weeks. Every stalling device is used. Readers may well ask why does the director do this. The answer is that it is done in order to save face. Let me explain in my next submission.

  5. Anon 9:51 - If the College of Social Workers would accept those with Child and Youth Care bachelors in it I am sure they'd get a lot more registered names.

  6. Extremely useful postings here. I read with great interest. Thanks to all who have posted.

  7. Mr. Unruh, my fellow citizens,

    sacrifice a few minutes to learn that Canadian constitution, laws and rules are as worthless as second class citizens' rights, freedoms, safety, security, well-being, health and lives. Many of you know that, because the evidence is everywhere you look. This case is exceptional only due to an exceptional quality and an enormous quantity of undisputable facts and direct evidence of cruel crimes, committed against a 12-year-old new immigrant and his family. Abusers of Power launched merciless persecution just five months after Joe's arrival to Canada.

    Social worker who initiated cruel and inhuman persecution nonchalantly confessed in writing that she lied "due to lack of more appropriate categories" among 18 reasons listed in the law decreeing "when protection is needed". Resulting equally blatant criminal conduct of numerous Abusers of Power is so explosive, that they prefer predicted mass-murder, rather than admit any wrongdoing. The expected carnage is universally accepted as the only, and therefore an ideal conclusion to this case. Abusers of Power count on all probable scenarios, means and opportunities, such as the grisly murder of two or three teachers and all their preschool children.I fled from my communist homeland 23 years ago, to live with my son in freedom and safety. He was born and lived with his Grandma in Cuba. His Mom passed away eight days after giving birth to him. Two years later my future wife left her homeland. Our daughter was born in Toronto, and our son in Vancouver. For the first time I saw my eldest son in Cuba. He was 6 years old. When he was 8-years-old, he visited us. After the death of his Grandma, he too immigrated.

    On December 30, 1997, Joe's 150th day in Canada, we informed our Family Doctor, and to the Ministry for Children and Families that: 1. Joe sometime after Halloween and before Christmas 3-4 times indecently touched his sister, 2. all precautions to prevent very improbable repeat, 3. his sincere sorrow, enormous embarrassment, and 4. the possibility of his suicide. We then worked as foster parents, model citizens and caregivers with excellent results and reviews.

    Most of altogether nineteen children in our care had special needs. Immediate family breakdown was in the best interest of only six of them, necessary to protect their health and lives. Thirteen other children's families needed an easily accessible help. Systematic violations of the law requiring the less disruptive services (maybe some babysitting, or help from the cleaning service, a little more food or other basic necessities), whenever it is safe, astronomically increase the costs of State care. This care is usually inadequate. Often, as in our case, is extremely harmful, with very tragic results. Certainly less than one out of every one hundred dollars spent on similar destructions could dramatically improve the quality of whole families’ lives.

    We also parented two sexually abused and abusive children and their younger sibling for five months. After speaking with us, Ms. Kotorinsky, accompanied by Miss Laycock, left our home with the right conclusion that we have the situation fully under control.

    More at

    Josef Fisher, Prisoner of Conscience No. 04746160


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise