Paul and Zabeth had several communications with their Child Protection Social Worker this week. Among the messages was a schedule for the three weekly visits which were ordered by the judge two weeks ago. He said, “That access shall be increased from two times a week for three hours each to three times a week for three hours.” That is appreciated. The judge also ordered access for special occasions. But you must hear how the order was worded. The judge has written these before, and the MCFD has dealt with them before. So he said, “Reasonable access on special occasions.” The modifying word “reasonable' makes all the difference. It is included as an order but the qualifying term immediately reduces the probability that access on many special occasions will be realized.
The final word this week was that the arrangement cannot be made this year for Paul to have his children with him for Father's Day. I am sure that she tried, the social worker that is. She expressed at the last court appearance that she was looking into the possibility. This week she did want the Baynes to know that this was not a denial of a visit but rather an inability to coordinate the plans.
What they wanted was the opportunity to go to a family restaurant for a father's day meal. Visits are customarily in a standard visitation facility. The children however live with a foster family who have their own father's day plans and can't be faulted for that. A driver/supervisor would also be needed to transport the children to the meeting place.
The reality is that a Judge's order is never black and white but rather still contingent upon variant factors. This time it appears, that a Father's Day visit was 'unreasonable.'
To Anonymous said... (June 19, 2010 9:41 PM)
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with the remarks mentioned in your comment posted on June 19, 2010 9:41 PM comparing CPS and Nazi.
History proves that oppression of this nature is for money, power and fame. "Child protection" gives them all. Using children as pawns to plunder parents or to beat them into submission is not new. Residential school abuse is another example and has re-emerged as "child protection" under the same welfare banner.
If the saints here still don't believe that this is money and power driven, think about why the high priests wanted to kill Jesus so badly. Chew on this and I will elaborate later.
If you think that not following a judge's order is uncommon, you are wrong. I have seen MCFD refused to return children after a judge ordered so, alleging appeal. Of course, they never did in this case. What can parents or the judge do? Nothing.
ReplyDeleteDon't be too happy if the judge does order return of children. Law allows SW to scoop them up again with or without new evidence. This is the law on the best place on earth.
the poor family! :( How "unreasonable" is it to want to spend time with your own children on fathers day? This whole case is such a farce! it's annoying. I continue to pray for the Bayne family....
ReplyDeleteThe more I learn about the MCFD, the more I think they are doing exactly the opposite of what is in a child's best interests.
ReplyDeleteI wish I knew more about how family service social work was applied. I wonder why they couldn't have arranged this on the Monday after father's day if getting supervision on a Sunday was so difficult?
ReplyDeleteThis seems quite odd, to me, all of it.
MCFD protects the best interests of special interests in the "child protection" industry, not the best interests of children.
ReplyDeleteDeclining Father's Day visit is an example of how they circumvent not only law but also court orders. Seasoned SW know how to push this to the limit without getting into hot water. They are NOT dumb.
Furthermore, this also serves to weaken the family bond with biological parents and enables the foster parents to earn more subsidies for special events like Father's Day.
Monetary incentives? Are you serious? Yes, I recently witnessed MCFD seducing a 12-year old kid to remain in care voluntarily using a Disneyland trip as bait when they failed to get a custody order. They went as far as retaining a high priced Downtown lawyer representing the child without knowledge of the parents and the child, let alone their consent. That's how generous they waste tax dollars that you have entrusted.
I refer to blog number 223. Someone wanted to know how one defines negelect. I think that I had made the point that severe neglect is abusive. This is a fairly simple statement and makes the point that some things can be just as damaging as direct physical abuse. I am reluctant to make exact definitions of neglect, because this is a typical bureaucrat's solution.They like to codify things and then make a checklist, which means nothing if a worker lacks good judgement.
ReplyDeleteRather I would like to re-emphasise the point that neglect is a matter of judgement or opinion. More than one judge has remarked that opinion is only as good as the facts on which it is based. On this score, a social worker who removes a child because of severe neglect should be able to make a clear statement of the facts on which it is based. I could give you dozens of examples to illustrate the point, but I do not need to. Anonymous at 9.22 AM in blog 223 does this for me. I think other readers will agree with me that she makes a very convincing case, based on witnessed facts that these children were so neglected that they needed to be protected. I have read the files on dozens of similar cases, where such neglect continued for years while the social workers went through ritual dances, until the kids came into care anyway, because of desertion, eviction or other crises. The social workers were mostly very nice people to know personally, they were well-meaning, but neither they nor their supervisors had any clear concepts about the work of child protection. They were indecisive and relied too much on being told what to do by psychologists and psychiatrists.
In my own experience I found that most cases had an element of alcohol abuse, or the abuse of other drugs. One had the usual litany of problems like drinking the grocery money, or spousal abuse.Sometimes the removal of a child was the thing that moved them to try to deal with their addictions. I would give them every help to get into a programme and when they achieved a specific period of abstinence, I would advocate for the return of the children under a period of supervision. I found that this increased the likelihood of maintaining abstinence.
Another topic that has come up has been calling social workers names and tarring them with the same brush. Some of the contributors made valuable contributions. They had seen several social workers and could make comparisons. Their bad experiences far outnumbered their good ones. As a protection worker and supervisor, I used to see a lot of foster parents. They often used to express surprise at the support and service that they got. They would comment that most workers were hard to reach and stingy with help. What could I do? Just make sure that my staff did a good job. I am sure that many of the fine social workers feel the same way.
Another thing that I found was that one could never risk involving the management, because they were sure to panic and mess things up. Nowadays there is so much bureaucratic control that it is impossible to avoid the management. Now wonder so many of the best staff quit in frustration and many of the ones that remain are less capable and of course mistrained.
A 12 year old can not sign a VCA alone - a parent signature is required. A 12 year old would be consulted on their view, but the 12 year old giving consent would not seal the agreement. Parent would also need to sign. Yes, a parent may very well be told "if you don't sign MCFD will remove the child from your care, thus court proceedings will be required." This, in essence, is against the nature of a VCA.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a child not want a "high priced" downtown lawyer representing them? a 12 year old is entitled to their own representation in court, who would have to express the wishes of the 12 year old. This lawyer would be separate from the MCFD council. The parents consent is not needed for a 12 year old to have their own representation. You say the lawyer was acquired without child consent - when informed of having this representation did the child object? If the child did not object, would you prefer they had the cheapest lawyer available?
Ron - did Paul and Zabeth not simply request a different day on which to celebrate father's day? The time together is what is important.
Finally, no court order was broken by the SW. It says right in the order "at the directors discretion." They are under no court order to make the fathers day visit happen.
I guess the devil's advocate might ask "Paul and Zabeth may have wanted to see the children on fathers day...did the children want to see their father on fathers day?"
CW - As you say at 4:47, I guess you are playing the devil's advocate in that last submission. First, of course no court order was broken, nor did I write that. What I pointed to is the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a special event being the call of the social worker seeking to make the arrangement. Second, and perhaps a bit more testy of you, unless CW, you are on the inside and know more than I do, I can say the children did want to see their father and one child had something to give to his father which will have to wait.
ReplyDeleteCW,
ReplyDeleteIt's comments like the one you made June 20, 2010 4:47 PM that just really make you look like you are so biased in favour of the MCFD, and against parents:
"I guess the devil's advocate might ask "Paul and Zabeth may have wanted to see the children on fathers day...did the children want to see their father on fathers day?"
Of course they wanted to see their father. Why wouldn't they? Because you and a few others here on this blog are attempting to cast doubt on parents in general and the Baynes in particular? Why exactly wouldn't these children - who are so obviously loved and who are so obviously wanted by their parents (who have done so much to fight for their children) -why on earth wouldn't they want to see their parents?
Don't hide behind the rhetorical device of pretending to play the devil's advocate. You want people to believe this is actually a possibility (that the children don't want to see the parent) - you are putting the idea out there under the guise of being a devil's advocate.
Why don't you start fighting for this family instead of making every excuse in the book for the MCFD and the social workers. We all have admitted that there are some good social workers out there, that we are concerned with the bad ones, so why can't you just accept that the bad ones need to be reigned in, and start helping out, instead of slyly slandering parents?
Ray Ferris,
ReplyDeleteI think you were the person who first used the term "dummy" to describe social workers. It's somewhat deceptive to chastise people for using this term when it was you who used it (as you do when you say, at 12:23 PM "Another topic that has come up has been calling social workers names and tarring them with the same brush"). People may only have been using this term afterwards to quote what you said. I don't know that anyone here has tarred every single social worker with the same brush.
I really get tired of reading how social workers are such victims, when in reality it's a job they chose to do, they get paid for, whereas parents who have - like the Baynes - wrongfully had their children removed, are still getting defamed in subtle and not so subtle ways. I wish these social workers who were so concerned about how they are perceived by the public would start fighting for parents who have had their children wrongfully taken.
As far as neglect goes, it is just way too subjective a definition. And there is no way we should be giving social workers this much power - to remove a child because of neglect (which I bet any parent could be accused of if you had the wrong social worker).
You mention all these cases of neglect which we have to take your word on, but I have heard of countless others where neglect is used to remove children - permanently - and the "neglect" was NOT neglect, or abuse or even anything close.
The fact of the matter is, children are being wrongfully removed. This is causing monumental damage to children, families and society. Instead of social workers spending their time talking about all these supposed abuse cases they helped out on, why don't you help expose and stop the false reports of child abuse and the wrongful removals?
It just seems like it's deny, defend, deny. All the time. YES, we accept there are good social workers. YES, we accept some children are abused. But let's get on with it, and deal with the children who are wrongfully removed, the abuses of power, the cost to everyone of letting child protection run amok.
To anonymous at 6.34. I doubt whether you understood a word of what I wrote.I agree that definitions of neglect are so subjective that one must back up the opinion with hard facts, just like the reader whom I quoted. I thought I gave some pretty vivid facts to back up my description of neglect. I also made a fairly simple point that it is tough on the good workers, when they all get tarred with the same brush. Also understandable that abused clients would do so. Let me tell you a little story on the topic.
ReplyDeleteIn the late 80s and early 90s, false accusations of child sexual abuse became epidemic and were mostly based on coercive interviewing of young children by sexual abuse counsellors. In order to try to stop this the government put out forensic guidelines for the proper interviewing of young children. They were put in a publication known as the interministry guidelines. They were soon forgotten.
A Coquitlam couple had two children and in addition they adopted two special needs children and lovingly raised them to adulthood. When these girls were half grown they took another child. She was so handicapped that she was not able to leave the children's hospital until she was over two years old. They gave her the most loving care for the next ten years and she made remarkable progress. One day she was abruptly snatched from them and they have never seen her since. Quite a while afterwards the director justified his action by making ridiculous accusations against the parents. The resource worker protested. "When we ripped this child from the only home she had ever known, we inflicted far more cruelty than she could possibly have known in the foster home." He was forbidden to talk to the home and told to stay in line.(From freedom of information documents.)
In an effort to secure the return of the child (by the way the foster parents did not get special rates.) I attended a meeting with the head of the Fraser region, the foster parents and other supporters. Suspecting that the child had been coercively interviewed, I asked the director how many interviews had been conducted and over what time frame. He declined to answer on the grounds of confidentiality. I then asked him if his staff were all trained in the use of the interministry guidelines and monitored for use. He replied that this was a personnel matter and therefore confidential. I then tried to pin him down by asking "Have you yourself read the interministry guidelines?" He thought for a minute and then he replied "That is a procedural question, I suggest you address it to the Ombudsman." I remind you that I had several witnesses for that.
Okay readers,would dummy be too harsh in that situation? Please tell me what name you would choose? By the way this gent makes $120,000 a year, I just checked it.
Today is day 7 of losing 2 of my beautiful kids. I started out with MCFD for supports 20 years ago. I hae been a mom for that long. They added up the # of my intakes, even those were almost all voluntary intakes and now they take my kids because of their length of involvement. THat is all, no other reason given. My family started to almost fall apart from sadness. I just keep trying to put one foot in front of the other. I wonder how did this MCFD get bigger than the police reports, bigger than doctor reports, bigger than the truth. I look at this blog because it encourages me so much. I look up to Zabeth and Paul. No one can understand the depths some people are tried and I am sure that their faith leads them on.
ReplyDeleteIf SW, at least some of them, are dumb as Mr. Ferris repeatedly asserted, then is it dangerous and inappropriate to give them so much power to remove children? It is like giving a mentally challenged person the power to push the button to launch a nuclear missile. Intelligence does not threaten me. Stupidity does.
ReplyDeleteAbove all, smart SW may even be more dangerous to families and children if they have the wrong motivation.
It is the power to remove children that seriously challenges public safety.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstood me. I was not protesting about the fact that you used the word "dummy" per se, but I was protesting the fact that others were protesting that there's so many here on this blog who are criticizing social workers. I was merely pointing out that I believed it was you, not us, who had originally used the term. So therefore we shouldn't be criticized for criticizing social workers (by usiing the word "dummy") since it was you, not us, who had used the term.
However, I don't think "dummy" is the right term. It suggests that these people don't know what they are doing, that it's all just a mistake. I think it is deliberate. That's why they keep doing the same thing, over and over. They know exactly what they are doing.
I disagree with some of the things you say, but I very much appreciate some of the things you have said, and done.
Is there any way you could get the resource worker you mention above to talk to the media?
(You, Ray, stated, June 20, 2010 8:21 PM )
"The resource worker protested. "When we ripped this child from the only home she had ever known, we inflicted far more cruelty than she could possibly have known in the foster home.""
Ron, I know you didn't say the court order was broken. Other commenter's did. Like I said, "devil's advocate" nothing more, nothing less. If you want a discussion these are the questions need be asked.
ReplyDeleteAnon - Not trying to cast doubt on Baynes. I want the kids with their parents too. I've said it before.
I've said before bad SW's exist and need all the help they can get. Never denied that, ever.
Ray - Thanks for sharing the story. Who was the regional director at the time?
Anon 11:51 - I bet they have received other information and for whatever pathetic reason haven't told you specifically yet. I've seen that happen too. I pray for you during this time of great confusion and hurt.
In response to CW's comment on the child coerced to stay in care in response to Anon 9:32am is my child. I thank a reader for alerting me to this blog, so here is some additional context for this case.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't just one conditional promise of just one expensive holiday trip, it was several. Bribes included cash and a promise of an idyllic lifestyle in foster care. Both parents were actively disparaged over a five month period by the foster parents and social worker.
CW left out the fact that parents who find themselves in this situation would be paying maintenance during the entire time their children are in care. In my case that would have more than covered the cost of paying foster parents.
My child was in care for about 8 months before the social worker and foster parent began the multi-month task of coercion to convince my child to stay in care. RCY was also involved as well, as foster parents encouraged my child to phone in this “wish” to stay in care of this reprehensible Ministry.
As CW may have alluded, it was not the case of my child first asking MCFD to ask to be placed in care due to some intolerable situation at home. My older children were removed from their school and kept for nearly two years. An ex-spouse was one driver of this situation I was able to identify, but the identity and extent of involvement was vigorously hidden by MCFD.
Freedom of information requests failed. Additional disclosure attempts included an appeal to BC Supreme Court were adjourned.
The first task at hand by MCFD involved several social workers, supervision worker, team leader and community service manager was isolation of my child by commissioning a psychologist report on all siblings that recommended they be separated from each other. Without such a recommendation separation would be against the CFCSA and Ministry policy.
The MCFD resource people searched for, and located a new foster home after a couple of months. MCFD then executed a forced removal of the children from the foster home and relocated some of the children to a different city and school. Three foster homes were used during the children’s stay in care.
I could see during visits the gradual distancing of my oldest child from me during visits. There were several missed visits, with deliberate planning of activities that coincided with visits. I knew something was going on but supervised visitation prevented any such communication to find out what.
All phone call contact was terminated. Visits were 3 hours weekly maximum. No visits occurred on any holidays, birthdays, Christmas, New Years etc. even after I applied in court for more access.
The MCFD lawyer announced by email one day that my child had made the decision to stay in care and that a lawyer was approved by the attorney general and was in the process of being appointed.
An anti-MCFD lawyer I talked to knew immediately the person involved as I was relaying the story before I told him the name. Apparently, my experience is not a unique occurrence.
Long story short, my child had a change of heart. The Ministry retaliated, assuming I was responsible, so they doubled the trial time estimate, cancelled the protection trial date, and a new date was set for several months later.
As the protection hearing date fast approached, the Ministry attempted to foist a supervision order on me and expected me to be overjoyed to avoid a trial and sign the document, but they were mistaken.
As the Ministry was faced with the prospect of a judge hearing my child testify as to the tactics the social worker and foster parent used, MCFD then withdrew unconditionally before noon the first day of the trial. This move certainly surprised the judge who shrugged her shoulders and adjourned the trial.
MCFD’s reason for the withdrawal under CFCSA s.48(1) was that "services" were successful in “addressing concerns.”
MCFD “services” are a joke - read Josef Fischers comments as they are accurate.
With thanks to Anon 10:59 PM
ReplyDeleteYou have shared an emotional story as have others already. I am so pleased that yours had a happy ending. Some others do not. Nonetheless, what your saga again describes is the shocking truth that despite the transformation goals and objectives and ideals at the top offices, there is a systemic MCFD absence of integrity, character, compassion, truthfulness among many who are making day to day decisions as if this is all about winning rather than thinking clearly and doing what is right.
Thank you for not using specific names as you told your story.
Anon 10:59 - Maintenance is discussed but so very rarely enforced. Its just not worth the effort.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the psychologist wanted the kids separated, not the SW. The way you describe it. You are correct about the policy - can't imagine what justification the psychologist had for that recommendation. Sheesh.
Child returned because services were no succesful? What were they even referring to? Services with parent were unsucessful? Services with child were unsuccesful? If they were referring to parent that would suggest the "child protection" issues were not addressed thus the child could not be returned home. Mind-boggling!
This is a rhetorical comment - I wonder what words were shared to try and convince your child to stay in care?
Thanks for sharing your story, Anon. I can't help but shake my head. So much is unfathomable.