On today's blog post 'Relationship between Compliance and Assessment' someone anonymously told us today that his/her children have been removed for 19 days. Read it and perhaps offer this person some appropriate words.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Notice: Another disconsolate parent
10 comments:
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To: Anonymous (June 27, 2010 8:31 PM)
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear your loss. You are not alone. That's what people and their children must endure when they allow their government to retain the absolute power of removing children from their parents.
Child removal does not equal child protection. Such oppressive power could be abused to target any person or group of people. The residential school in the past is a good example to prove the foregoing. Now, the ghost of residential school reincarnates as "child protection".
"You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts. Therefore the prudent man keeps quiet in such times, for the times are evil." (Amos 5:12-13)
Anon 8:31 who has lost your children recently:
ReplyDeletePaul and Zabeth have expressed interest in assisting you and encouraging you. Write to me at ronunruhgallery@gmail.com and identify yourself and I will give you their email address.
Anon I am sorry for your loss. This is very difficult. I can't even imagine. However...
ReplyDeleteRon, you do not know this persons story. You do not know the facts. You know this person was upset and feels there was no reason. You have adequate reason (to put it mildly!) to support the Baynes. You have none to give this person your blind support. Children are often removed for reasons parents refuse to acknowledge, accept, or agree with.
I suggest blind support is not given before the story be presented.
This does not mean I believe the children SHOULD have been removed. It means, facts, understandings, and perspectives need to be provided before support is given so strongly. Anon may wish to provide both sides of the facts.
And yes, I do recognize there have been horror shows in CPS, thus the so quick-to-jump-to-conclusions of many.
Ron, as an educated, thoughtful man who possesses some excellent critical thinking, you should know better...(in lieu mostly of the excellent posts the past few days, and considering your most recent is presenting only facts and not opinion)
CW 8:50, thanks for writing. My position is uncompromised. I have not rendered an opinion about this parent whom I do not know and about whose loss I have no knowledge other than what I shared. I appreciate the caution you advise. I do not intend to become personally involved in this or any other cases. My purpose is purely to relate the news and to garner some emotional encouragement for someone who regardless of the circumstances could use a bit of sympathy. Of course they may require other and more relevant help but that is for this person and MCFD to work out. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteTo: Anonymous (June 27, 2010 8:31 PM)
ReplyDeleteI understand how traumatized when you lost your children to MCFD and how desperate you want to share your story. Do NOT openly discuss your case or provide any details in this blog (as suggested by CW). This may identify you for further persecution. Be mindful that MCFD is monitoring this blog.
Do NOT go public prematurely, namely when your children are still being held hostage and before your case is closed. It will attract retaliation.
Do NOT think that the legal kidnapper of your children is there to help. They will tell you that they are, but they are not. When they remove your children, they are in a de facto war with you. That said, display no hostility. Swallow your pride and give them a big smile. They are the only one at this time who have the power to return your children, not advocate, not judge, not lawyer, not mediator, not the ombudsman.
No public protest, reference letters, support from friends and relatives will change their mind. This is an abnormal product in democracy, not a practice of democracy.
If you are NOT on legal aid, use your financial resources wisely. They could easily bankrupt you in no time. Be mindful that fighting them is a full time job.
What you are going through is a witch-hunt oppression under the pretext of "child protection" using your children for financial exploitation. If this is your first time receiving "service" from MCFD, you may find the foregoing unbelievable. Heed my advice. No oppressed parent believes these at the onset. Many bloggers here certainly don't, perhaps until their loved ones are removed. People seem to have learn it the hard way.
The Baynes may help as they have gone through most nasty tactics that you will likely encounter in the future.
God bless.
External review systems part 2
ReplyDeleteThe representative for children and youth.
Judge Ted Hughes played a large part in creating this office. He made one recommendation with which I strongly disagreed. He noted that Paul Paulen had powers and he was too adversarial. I could not really see that Paulen had any other choice when constantly faced with an intransigent ministry. Judge Hughes helped to make the yCR into a toothless watchdog. His rationale was that to do otherwise would make the MCF unmanageable. Now all the rep can do is to bark--and bark she does. The YCR actually reports to the inter-party child welfare committee. This committee has some powers of recommendation, but as they do not seem to be able to avoid quibbling along party lines, they are of limited effectiveness. The rep's main power is the same as everyone else's. It is the power of the media and she makes public some of her findings.
Her officers work hard behind the scenes trying to advocate for various people. Although they have access to documents, they still have to rely on the power of persuasion. They too are reluctant to take on cases that are before court and at one time wanted to drop the Bayne case. However the Baynes successfully made the argument that there various duty of care issues, which should concern the representative. A senior case officer was assigned, who shared many of the Baynes concerns. He met with the director and did his best to address some of the issues.
Of course it would be totally inappropriate for an officer like the YCR to make public statements while the case is before court. However, she will be much freer once the final ruling is made. In the meantime, all she can do is keep an eye on the case as it unfolds. I think that an important principle was established in the Bayne case. The director is never absolved of duty of care and can be made accountable to the YCR. We also found that the officers were helpful and responsive. They did the best they could within their limited powers.
And now for today's blog. Sorry CW.I think you need to rethink that one. Ron rightly points out emotional support and understanding are always appropriate, regardless of the facts of the case.
I am of the firm opinion that,regardless of the facts of the case, people are entitled to due process, fairness and information about their rights. In dealing with my most horrible cases,I always tried to ensure that the parents were treated fairly and were seen to be given justice. I would do everything to help them get a good lawyer. Again, well said Ron.
Anon 11:25am is correct as I personally experienced this -- just about all of it. You will suffer no penalty in heeding this advice.
ReplyDeleteThe one other thing I can advise is to acquire a protection hearing court date as absolutely as soon as possible. The soonest such date I acquired was 13 months after removal for a 5-day period. That date was cancelled, the trial esimate doubled and the date reset months later. I attended, and won. So, prepare for the absolute worst, and hope for the best.
Take any and all courses offerred to you, and insist you be allowed to start courses immediately. Swallow your pride on this. Be aware that during these "courses" the consellor will try to elicit negative past family history that serves to "justify" the "abuse" and any other reasons for removal. What you are doing is simply pre-addressing "concerns", not admitting guilt by even agreeing to take the useless courses.
Beware of mediation also. This is also an information gathering exercise where a bunch of people in a room get to hear all the sordid details of your crimes, and "solutions" to "address" concerns and danger you allegedly represent to your children.
Be totally positive and upbeat at all occassions so only positive information is recorded. MCFD is constantly on the lookout for any display of anger, depression, etc. Basically the normal effects of separation from your children, they can attribute to your poor parenting skills.
"Confide" only positive experiences with your children, thier successes in life attributed to you. Do not allow counsellors to direct you down a path of recounting negatives.
It is the Ministry's job to have their case done signed and sealed BEFORE removal, so what they have at that point is what they should have disclosed to you and intend to use at protection proceedings.
If you detect they have absolutely no intention of attending protection proceedings and will duck out just before to avoid an expensive trial, you will have the option of forcing the Ministry to withdraw if you don't volunteer to sign a supervision order (or 3 or 6-month extension) or, they have to present their case, in which they will likely get ONLY exactly what they ask for.
This is the point the clock for time limits in care start(1-year for infants, 2 years for older children) and you can "sit it out."
Beware of a Ministry-assigned parental capacity assessment psychologist, they hire cheap people and pay for assessments against you. If possible, save legal fees and hire your own psychologist that does not get referrals from MCFD to survive, as this is the single biggest 'expert' opinion that has the most weight with judges.
Once you have this protection hearing date, you are still free to negotiate, seek mediation, apply for more access, complete courses at MCFD requests. In my experience, MCFD arranges its schedule to the protection hearing date of when to offer and allow you to complete "services", to ask you to do a parental capacity assessment, to conduct a risk assessment (if not already done so), commission pscyhological assessments on your children (without your input, of course), and accumulation of supervision reports.
It is best to only post specific information online AFTER your children are returned, any supervision order expires and the Ministry has confirmed they have closed your file. THEN post your experiences.
It is vital to know that parents, you, are innocent until proven guilty. The removal is a "precaution."
Remember, your silence is golden. Your rights are not read to you, but you have the right to remain silent as the single biggest contribution to your own defense.
MCFD builds the majority of it's case AFTER removal. If they don't suceed they can simply withdraw, or they many manage to convince you to volunteer to sign a supervision order (ie. you admit guilt) just before the protection hearing.
Wise and experienced counsel. Thanks for sending it to this disconsolate writer. So sorry to hear of your own experience.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:31...very insightful. Thank you. I can hear how gutwrenching of an experience that was for you.
ReplyDeletePart of the Principles of Administrative Fairness state that parents have the RIGHT to:
ReplyDelete-being treated with dignity and respect
-receive adequate communication
-be heard by those who make the decisions
-respond to information about yourself
-be included in planning
-advocacy and to have an advocate present
-receive notice of outcome
-have decisions make in a timely manner
-understand the roles of individuals involved in your situation
-a reasonable expectation of consistency
-adherence to legislation and policy
-an appeal process
-safety from reprisals for making a complaint
-being treated in a way that is sensitive to your cultural background and heritage
These 'Principles of Administrative Fairness' are NOT FOLLOWED therefore parents and their children are NOT treated with help but the destruction and harm.
Families are the cornerstone of ALL society...so why does Canada put up with third world treatment of their citizens?