This blog has gained a modest internet presence. There are almost 1,000 page visits each day. I am gratified to host this well attended opinion forum yet this generates concerns for me. When I write each morning, I have control over the content of the posting. I can edit and fine tune until I am satisfied with the way it will appear. In permitting comments from blog readers, I ask first that contributors follow some modest guidelines. You have discerned the approach of this blog by now. I will monitor for offensive language, misinformation, spamming and hurtful comments. But if I find something that I believe is questionable, I do not have the option to edit your comments. I can only publish or reject a comment. With a rejection I feel I owe an explanation. My concern at the moment is the mention of specific people during the course of relating your stories and opinions. Will this be handled with tact and diplomacy even in the midst of honest critiquing and reporting? My intention is that it will. A second concern for me is that when specific people's names come up as you relate personal experiences and stories as illustrations, I have no way of substantiating the statements, claims and allegations, particularly when the bulk of contributors are anonymous. That makes me uncomfortable. The line is thin between reporting verifiable facts and defamatory material. I am depending upon you to exercise caution and integrity when referring to someone while relating a story or illustration. Because anonymous contributors afford me little confidence that they are who they say they, SW, CW, parent, or that their motives for writing are honorable, on the basis of what they write, I must be trusting, discerning and objective at the same time. I will reject a comment when I have to. Nonetheless I welcome your comment. If at one time I thought the Baynes' story was unique, I am now aware that Paul's and Zabeth's story is only one of many and when you add your story to the chronology of MCFD mistakes, it actually underscores the necessity for sweeping improvements to the child welfare system in B.C. and that is a good thing. It will come. Perhaps the Bayne case will be the lightening rod or a catalyst. Who could have guessed. Keep your eyes open for every link which tries to unite the champions for change.
To those who know the Baynes, the paramount importance is not to disclose anything specific to their case. Please leave them out. The fact that the police is monitoring this blog suggests that someone has asked them to look for information to re-open an investigation to lend weight to the current CCO application. Information can be misconstrued. If the Crown approves charges, it is even more exotic. Do not inadvertently harm this family.
ReplyDeleteDoes it sound like another conspiracy theory? This is one of the frequently used tactics against parents. If the case is weak, the criminal charge(s) will be dropped after the CFCSA application is concluded, usually in favor of the ministry. It also serves to exact maximum financial punishment and compels parents to fight a two-front battle.
For the writer's own protection, do not leave any information that could identify you to become a target of retaliation. What you are dealing with is a lot more than bureaucratic mistakes. It is a blatant abuse of power, breach of trust and a witch-hunt like oppression. The Bayne's case is one of the many cases that proves to this effect.
Finally, we are in pursuit of truth, not balanced views or diplomatic two-side opinions. Sometimes the right or wrong truth could be implausible and counter intuitive. To those who are new in exploring the "child protection" industry, be prepared for this.
I hope this sight is a catalyst for change too and that once the court-involvement with the Bayne's is over the discussion continues as you see fit, Ron.
ReplyDeleteTo: Just Some Dude. said... (June 22, 2010 10:54 PM in Part 228)
ReplyDelete“By playing Devil's Advocate it only serves to support the Baynes” What a sweet double talk. Don’t tell me that removing the Bayne’s children for nearly 3 years is an act to support or develop this family. It proves the point that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light to deceive people. You Christian folks should ring a bell of the first temptation in Genesis 3:4-6.
“And yes, I have stated many times CP requires loads of improvement. But I will also state the majority that is portrayed here that MCFD and SW the world-over are unintelligent, self-centred, vindictive is the minority and the exception to the rule.”
Good damage mitigating skill. Firstly, you tried to take the wind out of the opposition’s sail by agreeing with their position that improvements are needed. Then, you stated an unprovable proposition that SW world-over are unintelligent, self-centred, vindictive is the minority. None of the parents writing in this blog has ever come across a good SW. This is not to say that there are any. No one has reliable statistics to prove what percentage of SW are unintelligent, self-centred and vindictive. Maybe they are the minority or may be they are not. God knows.
What has become undeniable is the empirical evidence that some or perhaps many of your “clients” have been abused and their families destroyed. If you want to see some clearer evidence, look at the victims of the residential schools who just finished a 4-day national gathering in Winnipeg:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Residential+school+abuses+Trauma+loss+exposed/3160124/story.html
http://www.theprovince.com/need+together/3178053/story.html
Both the residential school regime and the modern “child protection” regime would like Canadians to believe that they help vulnerable children in need and to protect them from the corrupting influence of their parents. Look at what happened to the Natives. They lost their cultural heritage and their family bond. A necessary conditions to destroy them as a nation to compete with the white man regime for land and natural resources. Native Indians remains the single largest victim by ethnic group in modern day “child protection” across the country. Why? Because the federal government subsidizes the removal of Native children, hence creating financial incentive. Don’t believe this. Read their financial statements.
Furthermore, many oppressed parents remain silent for fear of retaliation. Their mentality is similar with that of raped victims. Their silence only encourages more families be victimized. Raise against this oppressive regime en masse. Don’t let them destroy our children under the pretext of protecting them.
The “not cancel each other” suggestion is another superb damage control tactic that appears seemingly valid but logically unsounded. Supporting the Bayne's and portraying the majority of SW as honest, hard working, caring people are two independent propositions. Supporting one does not necessarily refute and exclude the other. We are talking about serious structural flaws and corruption that have a substantial impact on public safety, the well being of our children and the backbone of our nation - families.
Reading comments from special interests in this industry is always a great learning experience.
Ron; I want to continue writing about all those people who aid and abet directors in abusing authority. Starting with lawyers and judges.I think a story is a good way to start.
ReplyDeleteMr. and Mrs. G. had three adolescent children in a blended family. Girls 17 and 15 and a boy 13. Boy G got grounded, got mad and phoned the child abuse line. In come the police and the social worker, arrest and jail both parents.The children were apprehended and placed in group homes. The parents were charged, pleaded not guilty and remanded on bail for trial in nine months. The retainer for a criminal lawyer cleaned them out of money.
At the presentation hearing, they had to have a legal aid lawyer. I read the presentation report and I could see no real evidence at all. I advised Mr.G. what to expect and what to instruct his lawyer to ask of the court. At the hearing his lawyer opened by saying that Mr.G consented to a care order. Mr.G. protested strongly that he did not. The judge stood the case down to the end of the list so that she could get her instuctions clear. The lawyer is furious and tries to stop Mr.G from talking to me outside the courtroom. He is very unhappy, because she refuses to follow his instructions.
Back in court she says that Mr.G will represent himself. He asks for three things and the judge grants them all. The last one is to set down one hour on the following week to argue access.
One week later, the lawyer has not returned any of Mr.G's phone calls, but comes to court. A different judge is sitting and asks why we are here. Counsel for Ministry says it is just to set a date. Defense lawyer agrees. Mr.G. protests. Judge asks clerk of court, who confirms it is to argue access. Judge refuses to hear any arguments, because he does not want to get seized with the case. Mr. and Mrs. G. do not get their day in court for another nine months. The court was told that serious criminal charges had been made against the parents and would not be heard for nine months and agreed to set a hearing after that date. The judge in the case against Mrs. G. ruled that the crown had made no case to answer. He fired his lawyer and went to see the administrative prosecutor. When she found out that the police had nothing, she stayed the case. In protection court the workers withdrew the complaint and the judge did not bother to hold them to task. I will continue part 2 by showing how the action destroyed this family.
The G family part 2
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the G family as a result of the MCF action? The oldest daughter was the only witness at the trial of Mrs.G. The son was withdrawn from the witness list when it was discovered that he would support his parents. The daughter testified that when she used an obscenity on her mother she got a tap on the head with a book, but it didn't really hurt. She then attacked her mother who held her firmly by the wrists, causing them to turn red. That was it.That was the case against the parents. The girl had been persuaded that she was a victim and arrived at court accompanied by a victim services counsellor. After discharge from care, she abandoned her plans to go to university and went to Ontario. She did not see her family again for several years.
The two younger children were exposed to drugs in the group home and became addicted. The parents saw them on the streets panhandling for drugs, but feared to talk to them because of the non-access ban.
The parents refused to go to any meetings without me. At the first meeting with the social worker she gave them all kinds of misinformation. I questioned why a hearing would be in nine months and not 45 days. She replied that it was the parents' fault, because they pleaded not guilty. Access visits were tightly monitored and although the plan was to eventually return the children, they were not allowed to discuss reconciliation. This was in order "to protect the evidence'. Apparently the order came from on high, but she knew not where.
The boy ran away from the group home and turned up at his parents' house. They immediately phoned me and I went round. They feared being arrested. I persuaded the boy to go back to the group home and we would try to get a court hearing. He said he wanted to retract all his statements, but had been threatened with dire consequences if he did. His statements had been taken as the absolute truth by the social workers, but they called him an incorrigible liar when he told things about them. I had him write everything down and witnessed his statement.
After this the game plan changed and the parents were no longer held incommunicado. The younger children were put into counselling with a well-paid psycholigist.(He admitted later that he had not followed proper procedure and done an assessment before starting on counselling because it was not allowed for in the contract.) Apparently everyone was unaware of the addictions problem and the psychologist was oblivious to the fact that the children were coming to counselling completely stoned. First rule of addictions is no counselling before detoxification. Anything else is a waste of money. It was I who did the addictions assessment and the father who got them into recovery programs.
It was not until the father fired his lawyer that he discovered that the man had not even asked the police for disclosure until a few days before the trial. He declined to pay the supplementary bill for $5,000 that the lawyer submitted.
When I urged the parents to request an audit by the practice audit team, I was not aware that most of the inane conditions had been dictated by the head provincial child protection officer.She was also the boss of the auditor. No surprise then that the whole thing was a whitewash and all blame on the parents. This was done by the simple device of refusing to consider anything past a certain date and so avoiding the collapse of the court case. At the protection hearing the worker explained that the complaint was withdrawn because the family had benfited from all the counselling they had received.
One footnote. Quite a long time later the son got his file under freedom of information. They forgot to delete previous deletions. Three pages discussed how to get revenge on me for advocating for the G family.It was all there in black and white. There was little intelligence shown in this case and no honour at all. Tomorrow I would like to show some similarities with the Bayne case and extrapolate some principles.
To: Ray Ferris (June 23, 2010 7:37 PM)
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting story. Nothing is new under the sun. I have seen worse. Just to name a few. Have you seen parents blackmailed to admit guilt in court? Under duress, parents were forced to divorce? Removed children tricked by MCFD paid shrink to draw a picture of their family and before the child had enough time to draw his parents, the shrink took the picture away alleging time's up. Later this picture was used in court as evidence collaborating a fabricated abuse theory?
Do these amount to extortion, coercion, obstruction of justice?
After all, what's the point you are trying to make?
Anon 11:42 - I am afraid you are spending a lot of time considering my motives and missing the point.
ReplyDeleteI have not once argued there aren't historical or current problems with child protection. I have said the issues which are being portrayed as the majority, are not.
Ray - That's a brutal story. That poor family was let-down on all sides, including their own representation. Do you have a suggestion on how to address the issue of families who can't afford lawyers and thus use legal aid? I don't.
Where did they document the "revenge" against you? What form of revenge?
It appears there are a lot of similarities between Baynes and the G family. Thanks for sharing.
Ray Ferris,
ReplyDeleteI sure hope you have all these stories documented somewhere where they cannot be destroyed. I wish you had an online book that people could download. That is just horrific - but doesn't surprise me - that MCFD had 3 pages (and more I'm sure) on how to get revenge on you for helping parents they had victimized. You are a good man for helping these people.
Ray Ferris, do you have any suggestions for others who wish to help?