Thursday, June 3, 2010

IS THERE ANY SIMILARITY? / Part 208 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Another catalyst for conversation and concern. You see, this bothers me. I watched this. I will allow this video to speak for itself but you will have to take the time to click and watch it. Granted, it speaks to cases and jurisdictions removed from our Pacific turfside home so my question evolves like this. This report begins with a social worker speaking out. She lost her job because she refused to cooperate with a directive from her supervisors to place a child in a high risk care facility.It proceeds to telling stories about retaliatory actions by child welfare against parents who oppose publicly what the welfare agency is doing. Are some of those reported abuses and repugnant motives and conduct cited in this video news clip happening within our own B.C. system of child care and protection? I'm asking. If so, don't you think that some social workers must become whistle blowers. And about what will they blow their whistles? As for our journalists at Global, CBC, and every news organization in the province, we have to trust that will prioritize these whistle blowing stories relentlessly to generate the needed changes.


  1. To CW:

    In response to your posting on June 2, 2010 8:10 AM, I would like to refresh your memory on what you wrote on June 1, 2010 1:27 PM. I cited the 2nd paragraph in its entirety:

    "Again, RCMP not pressing charges does not affect the CFCSA guiding SW's to have concerns enough to go forward with families. No RCMP charges does not prove innocence. How often have people been known to be guilty, only for RCMP/courts found no guilt simply due to lack of evidence - this is not a comment on this family (Baynes), but RCMP charges in general."

    Your view is that no charge laid does not mean that one is not guilty. I was discussing an attitude and philosophical issue, not child removal per se.

    CFCSA allows SW to circumvent due process, use hearsay as evidence, low threshold to act as they see fit. Their so-called evidence at times are mere perception, information provided by antagonistic or malicious parties, opinions formed by shrinks paid by MCFD based on information provided by SW or extracted when parents or children under duress. This is not to say that all their evidence is faulty. I am pointing out a structural problem that opens the system to abuse and corruption.

    CW alleged that presumption of innocence is always respected. Empirical evidence suggested that the notion of erring on the side of caution (which is based on the presumption of guilt) is more often heard in "child protection" hearings. Moreover, parents usually bear the reverse onus of proof that they are innocent.

    Regarding audio and video recording, I had seen SW objecting to recording and turning off my recorder in my home when they entered without warrant under the implied threat of child removal. I had seen other children removed when their parents insisted to record interviews. Confidentiality is an excuse used to cover up black box operation. In reality, parents have little privacy when under MCFD scrutiny. I had seen SW searching a residence without a search warrant, demanding access of residence at inconvenient hours without a third party complaint, obtaining medical history of all family members without them knowing it, let alone their consent. These fishing expeditions are launched under the pretext of "child protection".

    I disagree with your position that "the fact there are problems has nothing to do with good changes being made." The continuous existence of problems means that the good changes, if any, are not good enough. Furthermore, please enlighten me what good changes are being made.

    I have not misinterpreted your comments or taken them out of context to suit my agenda. My agenda are to build a safer, better future for our children and their families, to rid corruption, abuse of authority and waste of public resources in harmful activities.

    I am thankful that some comments from CW were written during business hours.

  2. To Mr. Ray Ferris:

    Your comments on June 2, 2010 9:57 AM stated a number of problems in our "child protection" system. If this system works, these problems should not have happened.

    Beyond doubt, these problems warrant reform. What reform do you think would rectify this problem?

  3. I know Kathy Tomlinson from the CBC would love to have the budget to do justice to the MCFD situation.

    Any typical 6-figure child removal case would certainly fund such an mini-documentary.

    In this Kentucky story there is clear financial incentive outlined, where social workers end up with cash in their pockets for acquiring marketable children for adoption.

    I B.C. or other Provinces motives that might explain the steady rate of removals are less clear. I gather there is a financial incentive for removal of native children as some sort of federal grant kicks in for each child.

    I am still not clear on the direct or indirect benefits offices or individual social workers or their leaders would benefit. More overtime perhaps? Job satisfaction in tearing families apart? Or, even something as simple as job security or a faster promotion path? Free company car?

    I could only imagine perhaps that foster homes operated by social workers that they stock with high-value special needs children and they somehow wind up with the money a legitimate foster parent would otherwise receive.

    Would foster parents give kickback funds to social workers who place high value or low maintenance kids in their homes? Would foster homes get free daycare, free summer camp, free nanny's and such so they could maintain their full time jobs and would they compensate social workers for doing this?

    Lets hear some theories from others.

  4. I am less interested in theories than I am in facts.

  5. Well, Anon 12:15 since you directed questions or comments to me:

    I didn't say presumption of innocence is ALWAYS respected - I said it certainly should be.

    I also never said some SW's don't turn off recording devices - I said there is no policy stating families can't record meetings. I also didn't say the reason for turning it off would be due to confidentiality. I said a family recording a meeting only puts themselves at risks of breaching confidentiality.

    CFCSA grants SWs the authority to search homes as necessary, and collect medical records as necessary. Should either be done if it doesn't apply to the report at hand? Certainly not.

    SW's would only be at a home under the pretext of "Child protection." Families are not selected at random for "investigation" - all reports anonymous or otherwise must be followed-up with, for fear of the worst-case scenario (a child dies because no one followed-up on an anonymous report).

    Comments during business hours? SW's and CW's work flex schedules to suit families needs. Thus, my "business" hours are not restricted to a set-period of time, nor are my break times.

    Anon 12:15 - I am sorry, but you did misinterpret.

    Anon 9:29 - There are absolutely, positively ZERO financial incentives to SW's in BC to remove children. Period.

  6. To Anonymous (June 3, 2010 9:29 AM):

    The direct or indirect benefits offices or individual social workers or their leaders are job security and job satisfaction. They don't get a penny more by removing more children, not in their pay stub at least. But they do have more files to justify their job. In public service, the worst thing that could happen to bureaucrats is job elimination due to a lack of demand of their service. In this industry, service providers control the demand, prescribe what "service" is needed, define the quality of "service" rendered and oppress those who speak against them. By and large, they are doing this for their bread and butter, their livelihood.

    "Child protection" social workers are the MOST POWERFUL bureaucrats in the entire government. Even judges and the Premier cannot stop them from removing children. This is their absolute statutory authority. Many of them derive great job satisfaction in exercising this power, the ability to play god and occupy the moral high ground of "child protection". Without knowing the full scope of their power, parents who arrogantly fight back, disagreeing with them, or going public prematurely end up begging for mercy in tears.

    Above all, they don't need to be held accountable. They can dump removed children in foster home to get killed and get away unpunished as long as they follow procedures. Go find out whether the SW who removed Sherry Charlie and placed her in foster care where she was killed is still on government payroll. The 4 cops who killed the Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski in the Vancouver Airport did get away unpunished, didn't they?

    Their union and other special interests preying on state-sponsored child removal will protect them, help cover up scandals, continue to pursue a higher budget with noble reasons each fiscal year. The B.C. Liberal government alleged that the unpopular HST is needed to maintain the social services in the province. This "service" indeed hurts everyone in the province, financially at the very least.

    Politicians who speak against them run the risk of being criticized as not enthusiastic in protecting children, being sacked by their party boss or getting their family killed. Hear what the late Nancy Schaefer (an ex Georgia state senator who openly opposed CPS) who was found dead with her husband on March 26, 2010:

    The police promptly and conveniently concluded that this is a murder-suicide case.

    This corruption is bigger than what most of you could comprehend.

  7. To CW (June 3, 2010 10:01 AM):

    Thank you for responding. If there is no policy prohibiting recording during interviews, then is it wrong for SW to forcibly stop parents, who accepted the risk of breaching confidentiality, from doing so in their own home? I further suggest that you check your policy and confirm whether there is indeed no policy prohibiting recording.

    Your shrewdly construed semantic arguments impress me when you alleged that you didn't say presumption of innocence is ALWAYS respected - you said it certainly should be. You now agree that presumption of innocence should be but not always respected. Does this suggest a serious problem in this system?

    Please enlighten me which section of CFCSA granted SW the authority to search homes as necessary, and collect medical records as necessary.

    I did not say that SW conduct random investigation on families (and search their home consequently). I was referring to families under MCFD scrutiny. The vast network of "child abuse" reporting sources will keep your industry flourishing.

    I did not accuse you of writing on this blog during your work hours. I wrote "I am thankful that some comments from CW were written during business hours." Even if you are, I am thankful because it may mean that fewer children are removed from their families.

    If SW's and CW's work flex schedules to suit families needs, why all the Bayne's visitation are scheduled during regular business hours, hence effectively prevented them from seeking gainful employment?

    SW do work around the clock 365 days a year to "protect" children.

  8. If someone doesn't presume innocence, that is the fault of the individual SW, not the system.

    Did someone really just accuse a Georgia State senator of being murdered, and her spouse, for speaking out against CPS?

    SW, more than anyone, should be held accountable. Couldn't agree more.

  9. Here is the text of the MCFD recording policy. It is old, from 2000 but apparently it is still in active use:


    Ministry for Children and Families
    Child Protection Division
    PO Box 9766 Stn Prov Govt
    Victoria BC V8W 9S5
    Ph: (250) 387-7071

    August 25, 2000
    TO: Regional Child Protection Managers
    Ref: 79110
    CP 00-01

    Re: Responding to Client Requests to Make Audio or Video Recordings of Interviews

    In order to complete assessments, investigations, and make decisions required under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, social workers must gather information by reviewing existing material and speaking with those who know the child best. As the purpose of an interview is to facilitate timely and effective planning and decision making under the Act, the Director under the Act has the discretion and responsibility to determine how interviews are conducted.

    Interviews conducted as part of assessments, investigations and casework under the Child, Family and Community Service Act need to be completed efficiently and effectively in order to make timely decisions in the best interests of the Child. Information collected under the Act is made available according to the information and disclosure provisions of the Act.

    Client requests to record interviews or contact with MCF staff should be declined. When MCF staff suspect a conversation is being taped, staff should;

    • stop the interview,
    • clarify whether an audio or video tape recorder is present;
    • advise the person that recording the conversation is not permitted;
    • refrain from continuing the interview until there is assurance the recording has stopped.

    Staff should advise the client that;

    • written notes may be taken of the interview or conversation;
    • the client may ask another person to attend and witness the interview or conversation (as long as the other person is not disruptive);
    • the client may confer with legal counsel at anytime;
    • information obtained by MCF staff may be requested according to the confidentiality and disclosure provisions of the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

    When staff believe a client is likely to attempt to make an audio or Video recording of an interview or request permission to do so, staff should be encouraged to consult with a supervisor or child protection manager about whether and how to conduct the interview. In order to address unforeseen circumstances when allowing a client based recording of an interview will assist the director in assessment, investigation, and casework, Regional Child Protection Managers may approve exceptions to this general policy. Subject to your approval, permission may be given to allow a client to make a recording of an interview when:

    • recording can occur without impairing staffs ability to conduct a meaningful, effective, and timely interview;
    • steps can be taken to ensure the recording is not altered - such as the office receives a copy of the recording and verifies its accuracy;
    • recording the interview is not likely to risk harm to the child - either emotionally or otherwise;
    • recording the interview is not likely to result in identifying the person who made a report under section 14 or compromise information provided by a third party;
    • recording the interview will not compromise or disrupt a criminal invest gation; and
    • the client provides a reliable assurance the recording will not be used in a manner inconsistent with the director's responsibility to ensure information remains confidential and children and families are not subject to public scrutiny.

    Questions arising from requests to record conversations and interviews should be directed to the Regional Child Protection Manager or to the Child Protection Policy and Standards Branch at (250)387-5213.

    Ross Dawson
    Director of Child Protection
    pc: Vaughan Dowie, ADM, Regional Operations Division Mark Sieben, Manager, Child Protection Policy and Standards Branch

  10. I have been very successful with using recordings of social worker meetings to change outcomes.

    In my case I openly recorded audio and video, and the social workers simply left, very angry, but unable to do anything to prevent it. In contrast, police don't mind being recorded because they do it all the time.

    The flip side is that social workers routinely record their interviews with children. They discared any interviews that they forsee might cause problems in court, and they keep, transcribe and use those that would be useful at a Presentation Hearing.

    It should be noted that at a Presentation Hearing, this stage is only to satisfy a prima facia case that the evidence, if believed, would warrant a removal. If there is a difference of evidence between what the social worker presents in an intake report and what a parent presents in a recording transcript at this stage, the Director's version of events will prevail, and the kids stay in care.

    Only at a full trial, the protection hearing, will the difference of evidence be resolved. You will find that as the trial date nears, in order to not be embarrassed with having to explain lies in intake reports, the representatives of the director will then be eager to return your children and declare their services have addressed concerns.

    Transcripts have the added advantage of being put before assessment psychologists so they get an accurate picture of what is happening. Interview notes by parents are not taken seriously, because the assumption is it is too easy to alter the information, because, after all, the parent is expected lie continuously about abusing their children because it has already been decided by MCFD they are guilty - otherwise the children would not have been removed.

    The automatic assumption by social workers is that information in an intake is accurate, and that all removed children are the result of a parent lying about abusing their children.

    The theory MCFD would like you to believe is that parents who readily admit to abusing their children will be offerred services to remedy the concern. No more than a supervision order will be asked for so the parent can complete these services that eliminate concerns.

    Your words and your children's words are used against you but you are not read your rights, and children don't know they can have a freindly face in room with them to face these experienced interrogators who can twist their words at will and remove them from their family solely based on what they say.

    Notes taken by a skilled reporter are supposed to provide more clarity of an event as it is summary in nature, and the more salient points become visible as opposed to a mass of words in a transcript. The reality is many social workers abuse their position and lose their impartiality and make a decision of guilt in advance, then shape the information to support their position. Parents who do not record then cannot refute the social worker's version of events.

    All too often the social worker will slant the report for the purpose of deprecating the parent. Any parent who records their conversation will be cited as uncooperative.

    Social workers will simply insert their subjective impression of how the meeting went. An audio recording may not accurately record impressions, but a video recording would.

    These days, there are voice recognition systems that turn voice into text. Businesses routinely record telephone conversations and meetings and archive the information for later review and quality control.

    Recording all internal meetings and interviews of social workers would go far in understanding exactly how they do their job and make decisions and serve to hold them accountable.

    MCFD operates in an outdated fashion and should embrace technology that helps them do their jobs. If they recorded conversations, they would have control over the privacy aspect, something social workers will commonly cite as their major concern for not recording.

  11. Yesterday I made the statement that the Bayne case was about saving face. This is what happened. In the beginning the issues were clear and the ministry acted appropriately. I would have done the same thing. A medical specialist reported that she had a child in hospital and in her opinion the baby suffered from a deliberate injury. On the best evidence available, the director must ensure the safety of the child. Then the situation must be thouroughly assessed. As a precaution the two older brothers were places with grandparent. So far;so good.
    Then the situation changed. Reports started to come in from distinguished forensic medical experts who said that the injury was quite consistent with the accident described by the parents. One obvious mistake was that the reporting doctor had failed to do a differential diagnosis. As more and more dissenting opinons came in, the director was in a quandary. Disclosed documents showed that in July 2008, there was discussion about asking an independant medical expert to give an opinion on all the reports for the guidance of the director. The only problem was that they never got around to it. Meantime the months slipped by unheeded and they were suddenly on the eve of a hearing in February 2010.This was a year and a half later and the children had been in care for almost two and a half years. The boys had been placed in four different homes and the daughter moved after being in one home for 18 months. The parents had been treated like dangerous criminals with draconian supervision of access visits. The director had boxed himself in. By this stage he could not back out without looking like a monster. He could only go forward and he could not possibly ask for anything else except a continuing care order. Not only that; he would have to win the case at all costs, or he would still look like a monster. On the eve of the hearing, he finally got around to getting that other medical opinion. They purchased at great expense the opinion of a Texas doctor who makes a living out of testifying in support of shaken baby accusers. Knowing that the Baynes had run out of money for lawyers, they knew that they could win by simply outgunning the Baynes with legal expertise. Another device was to stack the hearing with witnesses of spurious testimony, so that it would take months or years to find enough court days. They would have succeeded if Doug Christie had not taken on this case. He did not just take on this case for no guarantee of payment--it has actually cost him a lot. The Goudge report has warned that the shaken baby hypothesis is unreliable and should not be used in evidence. Many other experts agree. However, Minister Polak has just put in a million or so dollars to train people to ferret out shaken baby cases. They must win this case at all costs, or they will look foolish.
    To anon. I do not have space here to address your question. I will do it tomorrow. For now all I will say that to give the senior administration a brain transplant would be a good start.

  12. Just occurs to me, anyone in any profession or even just on the street can refuse to be recorded on video or camera. Certainly distributing video or pictures of someone without their expressed permission is illegal.

  13. To CW (June 3, 2010 2:14 PM):

    Please advise what statute or common law in Canada stipulated that distributing video or pictures of someone without their expressed permission is illegal.

    Recording someone, even when done covertly, is not illegal. Whether such recordings are admissible evidence in court is a separate issue. I have seen MCFD paid foster parents called parents, provoked them on the phone, recorded the conversation covertly and SW attempted to use the recording in court to prove anger control problem. Is this illegal, CW?

    You alleged that distributing video or pictures of someone without their expressed permission is illegal. If one acts honestly and honorably, there should be no concern? I have seen SW blackmailing parents to admit guilt in court to exchange for consideration of returning children, forcing spouses to divorce by putting them under duress. Are these what you worry about being recorded?

    You alleged that there is no MCFD policy prohibiting recording during interview. Please read the 3rd paragraph of the memo titled "Responding to Client Requests to Make Audio or Video Recordings of Interview" from your Victoria HQ dated August 25, 2000 ref 79110 CP00-01 from Ross Dawson, Director of Child Protection. For the ease of reference of all readers, I reproduced the entire paragraph:

    "Client requests to record interviews or contact with MCFD staff should be declined. When MCFD staff suspect a conversation being taped, staff should:

    - stop the interview;
    - clarify whether an audio or video tape recorder is present;
    - advise the person that recording the conversation is not permitted;
    - refrain from continuing the interview until there is assurance the recording has stopped."

    Would you like to change your position now?

    I am still waiting for your reply on which section(s) of CFCSA authorized SW to search a residence and to obtained medical history without parent's knowledge. You may consult MCFD's lawyer during your work hours. I won't complain.

    I also seek clarification whether you are representing MCFD's position or just yourself as a person.

    To Mr. Ray Ferris (June 3, 2010 2:06 PM):

    I look forward to hearing your brilliant suggestions to rectify this corruption tomorrow.

  14. Hello again! Some readers may appreciate my personal experience, maybe. RCY was preceded by the Child, Youth and Family Advocate and Children's Commission. Most of RCY officers worked then for CYFA or CC, to cover-up cruel and inhuman crimes committed by social workers against children,of course. CC chose my son's 15th Birthday for planned 3 days long Hearing. Abusers insisted at my son's presence for all three days, and planned to interrogate him and then us (parents) for the first 2 days. Around 8 pm on the last evening before the Hearing, a Courier brought us Children’s Commission sickening threat: ”enclosed please find a summons for your appearance at the hearing commencing on March 8, 2000, which specifically requires you to produce at that time the audio tapes of your family’s conversations with social workers. I wish to refer you to section 16 of the Inquiry act. [s. 16 of the Inquiry Act: any person on whom a summons has been served by the delivery of it to the person fails to produce and show to the commissioners any documents touching or in any way relating to the subject matter of the inquiry, a person is guilty of contempt of the commissioners or their office. All jailers, sheriffs, constables, bailiffs and all other police officers must assist the commissioners in the execution of their office.] SUMMONS: YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND as a witness at the place, date and time mentioned below, and to bring with you and produce all audio tapes and tape recording touching in any way on the complaint about the child. In particular, you are required to bring all such audio tapes and tape recording pertaining to conversations with social workers in this matter".

  15. To: CW who said...

    If someone doesn't presume innocence, that is the fault of the individual SW, not the system.

    Did someone really just accuse a Georgia State senator of being murdered, and her spouse, for speaking out against CPS?

    SW, more than anyone, should be held accountable. Couldn't agree more.
    June 3, 2010 12:02 PM

    This is a classic bureaucratic response. When something goes wrong, it is the fault of an individual, not the system. If one blames an individual, it is the fault of the system. That's how they evade accountability. If the system is so well designed, corruption should not have occurred.

    Putting words into other's mouth and professing that they have the authority when they don't are also their expertise. I wrote:

    "Hear what the late Nancy Schaefer (an ex Georgia state senator who openly opposed CPS) who was found dead with her husband on March 26, 2010:

    The police promptly and conveniently concluded that this is a murder-suicide case."

    The purpose is to make you sound paranoid, hence dismissing everything you say as hyperbole. The cartel in the industry is so huge and powerful. No one in the general public could find conclusive evidence to prove one way or the other.

    When they make self-contradictory statements or alleging something untrue, they claim that there is misinterpretation on the receiving end.

    Parents scrutinized by MCFD have to deal with people of this caliber all the time. So will those who seek reform in the industry. Be prepared for it.

    I am still awaiting CW's response on the CFCSA house searching and medical record access authorization issue and the good changes CW alleged have taken place. Do you need more time or it is time for me to declare that these are bogus claims?

  16. Wow, I've been away and missed a lot I suppose.

    1. There you have it regarding the recordings. Thanks for providing that document, Anon. I have spoken with team leaders who have no issue with clients recording the interviews, much more recently than 2000 (ie, 2010) - if acting in good faith, and with good practice there really shouldn't be an issue on the SW or CW's part should there? But, I guess thats a personal choice?

    2. Anon 5:46 - How was my response bureaucratic? Wasn't I agreeing with you?

    3. Anon 5:46 - I answered your questions about house searching and medical record access - probably in the comment section of another blog post. House searches and accessing medical records can be conducted via the authority given by the CFCSA. Neither should be completed if irrelevant to the child protection report made.

    4. Good changes? I will, again, direct you to the Family Development Response approach (and programs), as well as the other 12 family-centred collaborative approaches offered in the Fraser Region alone, to address CP concerns in concert with families. To mention just a few of the changes/developments in practice.

    It is safe to say I am representing myself, not MCFD nor any community agency for which I might work. I've said before, I have no connection to the Baynes other than this blog.

    Like everyone else, I want the children to be very safely and happily at home with their parents.

  17. Recording thread:
    Parents seeking to protect themselves by having an accurate record of proceedings don't generally need, or want to publish unproven allegations against them that social workers may be trying to follow up on.

    It is the job of a Social workers to make an accurate record of their communications with the client. By refusing to participate in a conversation for the reason that it is being recorded, they are not doing their job of investigation.

    Interviewing social workers operate in pairs, one person does the talking with the other writes. It is difficult for a parent by themselves to write as well as fully participate in a discussion, plus they are not trained and have no experience as do social workers. Again, an audio recording saves the day for parents.

    As Josef Fisher mentioned, at the point where a trial date nears, a formal request of documentation by the other side is standard procedure. A recording is similar to a discovery done before proceedings. It is typically not an item of evidence but it can be pulled out during trial without the other side having a copy beforehand to impeach the witness if the answer in a discovery is difference than an answer to the same question asked on the stand. At the point the document is produced, the other side is supposed to get a copy as well as the witness and judge, so all participants can review the materials at the same time.

    In Supreme Court settings, you need to supply the documentation you intend to use at trial evidence so the other side is not surprised and unprepared to deal with such evidence. MCFD produces only disclosure they intend to use, and they withold or black out (redact) what they don't want parents to see.

    Provincial courts are more of a circus and surprise documentation presented by both sides in the middle of a trial is fairly common, and responsible for delays and trial extensions.

    In my case, rather than hide the recorder, I chose to have it out in the open. I was very clear with the social workers of the purpose and that I would be later retrieving the intake reports and comparing them to my recordings to ensure accuracy. The workers expressed their concern the materials would be used on to embarrass their employer, and I replied that if they were properly doing their job as any public figure should be doing, there should be no such risk.

    Suffice it to say, the investigating social workers left. As a result, and I never did discovere their concerns, and they did not gather any information from me as a consequence. I operated within the law, while the social workers violated the law by not investigating, and they inappropriately declared the act of recording as uncooperative.

    Why police do not have a problem with recordings and social workers have such a high, irrational fear of the devices when both public agencies deal with sensitive information, is beyond me. The bottom line is that MCFD Internal policy and social worker personal preference does not override the law.

  18. To CW June 3, 2010 8:42 PM:

    1. A "no recording" policy is supposed to be followed, not up to the discretion or personal choice of individual SW. You indicated that SW working in good faith and good practice should not have an issue with recording. Most SW do not allow recording during interview. According to your logic, does it mean that they are not acting in good faith or is it just a personal choice? It appears that you still want to project an image that MCFD is open to recording but some individual SW dislike that, hence this is not a problem with the system but the individual SW.

    2. Of course, you will not agree with my comment that your responses are bureaucratic. Let facts speak for themselves. You maintained that:

    "I answered your questions about house searching and medical record access - probably in the comment section of another blog post. House searches and accessing medical records can be conducted via the authority given by the CFCSA. Neither should be completed if irrelevant to the child protection report made."

    I asked you to provide the section(s) of CFCSA which authorize(s) SW to search house and accessing medical record without consent. You have NOT answered my question. Don't sidestep my question by alleging that I suggested random house search and these activities are conducted irrelevant to the child protection report. I did not suggest the foregoing.

    To support your claim, please provide a section number in CFCSA that gives SW this authority when there is no supervision order in place. If you fail to do so on or before 3 p.m. today (June 4, 2010), I will declare that your claims are bogus and SW doing these are acting outside their authority. This is fair in view that you have 2 days to find your answer.

    3. In addition to sidestepping, confusing, diffusing an issue away from the point, attempting to pretend that they have answered questions they don't want to answer or could embarrass themselves if the correct answer is given, bureaucrats like using high power terms that few people understand. This will make them look seemingly sophisticated. Few people would continue to pursue a better answer when high power terms or psychobabble jargons are used.
    What are "Family Development Response approach (and programs)", "the other 12 family-centred collaborative approaches offered in the Fraser Region"? Why they are good? How do you think that families and children benefit from them? If yes, are there any empirical evidence supporting your answer? To save you time, you may direct me to a web link if this information is public.

    Walking around a garden path is what one must prepare when dealing with bureaucrats. This is what the Baynes and all other parents must endue after MCFD intervention.

    I am glad that you are representing yourself.

  19. 怡君
    My apologies to anyone who sends a note in Chinese font which sometimes appears numerically. I have no way of corroborating the content and cannot publish comments written in a language other than English.

  20. Anon, you are very good at twisting words.

    You can research the CFCSA yourself re: accessing medical records. I'll direct you to section 96, which is in reference to accessing any information from a public body (no longer applies to private practice). Parents need not give permission for purposes of investigation. I'll remind you I stated "as appropriate/applicable."

    Section 13 and 16 will answer your question about home searches under the term "investigate." Again, a home search should only be done if it pertains to the report "as appropriate/applicable." A home visit is required for all child protection investigation. Visit does not equal search in all cases.

    Re: Recording - a document in 2000 is not evidence for a policy in 2010. I suggest you do more research by speaking with the child advocates office or a social worker personally.

    By 3pm? I think I answered your questions on a different posts comment section. Lack of answer to an anonymous blog post is not evidence to support the anon-posters assumptions. Nice logic.

    Please research Family Development Response, and you will find some of your answers. The only real way you will find answers is by speaking with families that have used the program(s). I mentioned ICM, FCPC, FGC - Integrated Case Management, Family Case Planning, Family Group Conferencing, and Ulysses Agreement. Please, by all means, do your own research on these.

    You can find your own studies on all of the above-noted programs. If you also research "collaborative practice" you will surely come across the remaining family-centred collaborative practices. Of note, all are voluntary - so families who enter into them can only benefit as it is they who decide to participate in them.

    None of the above are "high powered" terms. They are names of programs anyone can research on the internet, in the library, or by speaking with a SW or other community service practitioner. Some mental health/medical agencies also use a form or exact model of these programs.

  21. To CW June 4, 2010 1:14 PM:

    It appears that Section 96 of CFCSA does give SW the power to access a lot of information, including medical history records. People in BC, do take note of this. Is this consistent with the our long-cherished value of privacy, civil rights and natural justice? This also confirms my view that SW are the MOST powerful bureaucrats in the entire government. Few bureaucrats have this power.

    Regarding home search, I am talking about a search, not a home visit. In Section 13 and 16 of CFCSA, the only occasion that the word "investigate" occurs is in Section 16(2)(c). Please read:

    CW interpreted that "a director may investigate the child's need for protection" amounts to the authority granted to search a home without a search warrant. I disagree with this interpretation. No wonder why this "perceived authority" is often abused by other authorities who want to search a home, usually for fishing purposes, but fail to get a search warrant.

    Despite whether SW really have this power granted by CFCSA as alleged by CW, SW can do so anyway. It is because when parents refuse access, they will hint, imply of tell parents outright that the custody of their children will be at risk. Under such circumstance, most parents will bend.

    ICM, FCPC, FGC - Integrated Case Management, Family Case Planning, Family Group Conferencing, and Ulysses Agreement may not appear to be high powered terms to people in your industry. They certainly are to many people outside your trade. We will discuss this issue once I have a chance to obtain enough information to proceed.

    CW, I thank you for providing so much eye-opening information surrounding "child protection" operation. I look forward to seeing your continuous full time involvement in this blog.

  22. Anon - I do urge you to conduct research on the collaborative practices used currently (not historically) by MCFD. Research conducted by statisticians/clinicians/organizations etc. Make sure to read the fine print as these can often be written in a way such as to validate the funding organizations goals.

    I ignore the other comments as they are just that. Comments, not questions.

  23. Anonymous at June 3, 2010 10:50 AM:

    I completely agree with you. I have studied CPS all over the world, and it is truly insane how corrupt they are. This works in CPS`s favour, because if you try to explain how corrupt these `child protectors` are, many people will say you are crazy, that this could not possibly be occuring under our noses.

    However, once the truth starts to get out, it will be impossible to stop. There is too much at stake. For CPS, it is their jobs and their reputations. Parents, however, are driven by a much more powerful motivator - undying love for their children.

  24. It is 100% legal to tape record a telephone conversation with one party consent in BC, if not all provinces. All that is needed is one person (i.e., the person making the recording) to give consent).

    "Canada requires "one-party notification" - only one person in the
    conversation needs to be aware that the conversation is being taped.
    In other words, the person taping the conversation must be
    participating in it. You will find this law in the Criminal Code of

  25. There you have it. Like I said, no MCFD policy re: prohibiting recordings - despite the memo from 2000 (which of course would not supercede Provincial or Federal legislation).


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