We are agreed on the paramount value and importance of the family. When a child's welfare, health and protection is threatened in relationship with the biological parent(s), then family is not to be considered more important than the child(ren). Such is the horrible dilemma faced by social workers on many occasions. In some situations removing a child may decidedly be the most compassionate and responsible course of action. Social workers attest that child removal is and should be a last resort. Many people whose families have been disrupted by protective child removal are convinced that it was expedient rather than last resort. 
We are agreed that child neglect or abuse must be ended, punished and prevented. We are mostly agreed that the security, safety and care of children is paramount. Nothing can be more important than that. Nevertheless there are some writers who consider child removal barbaric in any case. We are not agreed about what constitutes a viable ground for removing a child and disrupting a family. Suspicion works. Not all of us are content with the latitude that suspicion affords MCFD. Suspicion however is enough to get the protection wheels rolling. Suspicion must be investigated and settled swiftly. Suspicion is not the equivalent of evidence. However, intense suspicion requires evidence so a concerted effort is then made by MCFD to uncover anything that may reinforce a care order. Some allege that justification for child removal frequently consists of manufactured negative evidence. Some allege MCFD engages in surveillance and some SWers deny this. Some writers stick to their theory that child protection agencies everywhere have been taken over by people bent on personal gain in terms of power, profit or reputation and some go so far as to say the entire system is geared to corruption of which monetary gain both institutional and personal is the driving force. While some valid points can be made in that regard these accusations are usually unsubstantiated.
Removed children must be housed somewhere, so a system of foster care homes provide for usually safe and loving environments for short and extended periods. Most of us but not all believe that many foster parents are dedicated good caregivers. A few should never have been trusted with someone else's children. Most of us find fault with a system that does not require the registering and licensing of all foster parents. Most of us believe that care by kin and extended family is a preferable option and should be practiced far more than it is. Some writers citing an actual case or two then make sweeping statements that all fostering further leads to ruined lives of crime and addiction and homelessness. Countering that are contributors who know that many foster children have escaped an awful childhood and young adulthood by being removed from beastly biological parental homes. Most of us believe that social work is an honourable vocation and one which requires the highest of character qualities. We also believe that most social workers seek to serve people effectively and to deal wisely. Many of us believe that carte blanche criticism of social workers is unwarranted. We also believe there are social workers who faced with day to day pressures and verbal abuse, lose sight of ideals and their work suffers. A good number of people allege there are social workers who are mean spirited and should not be engaged by MCFD.
MCFD follows the law – yes it does! Sometimes in following, the result is right and sometimes in following that same law, it turns out so wrong.
Some writers supply web links to resources and information which is helpful in considering contesting opinions or making up one's mind. Some writer's call for report information yet seem in later responses not to be taking personal time to go to sites to find the data.
There is much more but ….................... How does reform come when we are not on the same page? Better question, how do we move the legislators to the same page?
Blogger has a comment counting glitch. Comments have already been published today but are not counted even though they exist. Hit the comments button to read.
Mr. Unruh, you wrote: "MCFD follows the law – yes it does!" That is absolutely untrue.
ReplyDeleteJust one of countless, my case is exceptional only because of the excellent quality and enormous quantity of undisputable facts and direct evidence of cruel crimes, committed against a newly immigrated 12-year-old child and his family.
Criminally negligent social worker falsely accused my wife and I in her Intake Report that we "do not protect children from abuse", and that there is "sexual abuse/exploitation or likelihood by parent". In the second, Investigation Report from February 23, 1998, perjurer confessed that she willfully violated S. 13. of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, when protection is needed: "there is no evidence that the parents are sexually abusing any child in the home, nor there is evidence that the parents are not protecting the children." She explained that she committed perjury "due to lack of more appropriate categories."
Responses to my Reports of all resultant crimes prove public servants' determination to further lie, harm, destroy, and let the public pay any price for maintaining their power and utterly false image of a great, compassionate, just and free society. They are convinced that all others are too stupid and cowardly to recognize and punish their depravity.
I am VERY grateful for all your great work, lucky for you without any PERSONAL experience. Thank you and everyone who does anything positive for countless children and families
with similarly, and often much worse than my or Bayne's family experience. GOOD LUCK!!!!
Ron,
ReplyDeleteAn excellent summarization of the frustration | feel reading the comments. Personally, I agree with both positions, but get frustrated with the name-calling, the exaggerations, and the conspiracy theories. Thank you for saying it so well.
Kudos, Ron.
ReplyDeleteMCFD does not follow the law. People should read the Constitution. There is no way the MCFD follows the law.
ReplyDeleteHere is just one example (from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms):
"Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
This kind of "evidence" - the kind that brings the administration of justice into disrepute" is par for the course for MCFD and other child protection agencies in Canada.
MCFD does not follow the law. Not even their own laws. The best example of this is that they do not - they absolutely do not - do what is in the "best interests of the child." The Bayne case is just another example of this. Even their own lawyer knew that they weren't following the law, and wanted to give back the children to the Baynes. The MCFD ignored him. Child protection agencies have also been known to ignore court orders, so, no, they do not follow the law.
What does neglect look like? What about the woman across the street who looks like an obvious drug addict (skinny, poor skin condition, ratty hair, dirty clothes, aging before her time). She is always running in and out at all hours of the night, always having seedy looking characters over until early morning hours, loud voices and fighting can be heard coming from her house. Her two kids always have messy, dirty hair, sometimes they don’t have shoes on. I once walked the four year old to walmart (she had barefeet) to buy her shoes because her mother had spent all her welfare check getting drunk every night that week. I’ve spent hours picking nits out of their hair sometimes every day for weeks. The mother won’t afford lice shampoo. I’ve been woken up early in the morning by the two girls knocking on my door because they need a place to sleep and it’s too noisy or they’re scared of the people their mother has over. I fed them three meals a day for months. I’ve walked into the house at 2 in the afternoon to check on the girls and the mother was passed out on the floor, half dressed while the four year old was trying to boil water, broke a glass and was sitting on the floor crying while the six year old was trying to clean it all up…the mother didn’t hear a thing even though she was only a few feet away from her children. There’s never any food, the tub is full of cat feces. The girls spent all their time at my house. I took them to the park on warm days, I got them clothes when theirs were getting tattered. I put shoes on their feet when it was cold. I gave them treats and let them bathe at my house. I fed them when they were hungry. Social workers would come to visit their mother, check up on things, leave and maybe return in a few months for another visit but the children were never taken. I spent all my free time looking after them, making sure they didn’t wander away from the house when mother was passed out, making sure they didn’t get too hungry or too scared or too tired. I had food in the cupboards, a warm clean house and a job. I don’t do drugs or drink. I’m in bed at 10pm and up at 6am. I lead a normal, boring life. I care about children very much.
ReplyDeleteThe moral of this story is that the mother I have spoken about lives with and is raising her children right now. I, on the other hand, have been without mine for a very long time because of MCFD. Of course, people usually think I must have done something to have my children taken away permanently and I understand that line of thinking. All these years that I’ve sat alone in my quiet house with no children to take care of, I’ve spent my spare time reflecting on myself as a mother. I can’t call myself a perfect mother by any means but I can’t call myself a bad mother either. I never neglected the needs of my children, I never hit them or called them names. They always came first. I sang them to sleep as infants, cradled them in my arms and nursed them. As toddlers I read them to sleep, carried them when they were tired, kissed their owies, taught them the alphabet, played with them in the yard. I fed them healthy food, did laundry every single day, kept a clean house, drove them to school and back, helped with their homework and, as they got older, tried to give them guidance and support their decisions. But they were still taken. No amount of love and nurturing could win that court battle but I fought and I fought hard. I gave up my job, my income and my pride. I forced myself into that courtroom each week (or however often it was) no matter how embarrassed I was of the allegations, no matter how much I cried before I opened that heavy wooden door to the courthouse, I knew I had to do it for my kids. I would do anything for them but that’s not what my ex-husband says and that is why I don’t have them anymore. That is why MCFD did what they did: because my ex-husband, who wanted me to stay married even though he was gay and very physically abusive, did not want me to leave. Some people get to keep their kids and some people don’t. It’s a matter of opinion.
Generalizations don't work in court, neither should they work in a public forum if the reader wishes to gain some credibility.
ReplyDeleteThe same is usually said of police; improper use of force, wrongful deaths, power-tripping individuals.
The path for remedy is equally tortuous for citizens wishing to assert their rights. BC, for example is the only Province that charges an arm and a leg for a jury trial. I believe the figure is something like $40,000-$60,000 (without accounting for lawyer's costs) Just such a trial is needed so that people from all walks of life to listen to the evidence and make a judgment.
On a blog the makeup of the audience constitutes the jury. MCFD is not coming out on top from my view. There are enough specifics from individuals who are relaying some personal examples. This carries a lot of weight, when I as a reader first need to figure out what motive this person would need to make up information.
It is not that difficult to separate the diatribe from facts.
On ocassion, some MCFD people with inside knowledge cite facts, and my ears pick up and I am then able to ask more questions.
Ron posts the specifics of an MCFD response affidavit, my ears again pick up interesting information and I'm able to make a more informed opinion.
Ron helpfully sifts through the many comments and out may come a new subject for a blog.
Of course no one will agree on what point to start with first. My vote is to clean up the court process first, by making judges more accountable with the information that is put before them to ensure both sides get an equal chance to respond and the materials are actually read and responded to in an oral reading.
I didn't get to see the transcript of the oral reading of the Baynes access application, I want to know why they won so handily when MCFD has a CCO application outstanding.
To-do and shopping lists are great things to have, so this is likely a first place to start. Post such a list, and see what the hundreds of readers vote on.
To the poster above (June 17, 2010, 11:53 AM):
ReplyDeleteI believe you that you were a good mother, and that MCFD wrongly took your kids away from you. Please keep speaking out, because eventually people will listen. They are listening now, we just need more to listen.
To 11:53
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for your loss. Each of your stories are very poignant. Such a distressful thing - everything seems so arbitrary ... it seems impossible to believe these little children are being "left behind" , and that, contradiction of contradictions, you become their proxy caregiver... I hope you have supports in place for yourself.
It is stories like Anon 11:53 AM that prompt innumerable questions.
ReplyDeleteThe story of the drunk mom who needed help, why did no one call MCFD -- or did they? Was the better choice made to watch over and care for the child in need versus the mom having to deal with fighting to get her child back as well as deal with her own condition? Will other parents act similarly hearing from friends, neighbors and news horror stories that might lie in wait for the family if a call to child protection was made?
How can parents be helped but without our government destroying them on the process? Workers would have been well aware of the destruction of the parent, how much help was provided?
I write this from the courthouse library in Vancouver, fighting without representation simply to get more access to my child. The opposition is fighting tooth and nail to prevent this.
Again, MCFD is negatively involved in my case. Even though I won and my children were returned unconditionally, the opposing spouse used the temporary situation to restrict my access to the siblings that MCFD did not remove by alluding similar "concerns" existed. MCFD sent lawyers on their dime to assist the spouse against me.
There are indeed wars being fought, and often MCFD willingly allow themselves to be used as weapons for those they choose to side with. This story coincides what I'm going through.
Unless a parent has gone through the onerous process of navigating court on their own, without finances or legal aid lawyer, there can be no understanding of the internal strength one must muster to simply prepare and attend hearings. One can have a courtroom filled with friends and supporters, but only you can speak to defend yourself. An experienced lawyer that does not first think of their bottom line is exceptionally hard to come by.
MCFD should be paying for parents to defend themselves, and be allowed to choose their own lawyer and be allowed to consume the same funds as the Director and their representatives.
For Anon 11:57 AM
ReplyDeleteYou wrote the following: “I didn't get to see the transcript of the oral reading of the Baynes access application, I want to know why they won so handily when MCFD has a CCO application outstanding.”
From my perspective the Baynes did not win handily in the sense of an easy or effortless win. Nor did they win all that they requested. What they were given reflected first, the Judge's perception that MCFD's affidavit was unconvincing in assessing risk to the Baynes, and second, the effectiveness of the Baynes' reasonable, sensible, concise and honest affidavit. For the sake of others who must prepare similar documents, I will say that the Baynes did not use this occasion to badmouth MCFD or take pokes. Hostile language would not impress this judge who wants credible statements and evidence. As for the outstanding CCO court case, perhaps MCFD needs to prepare for the fallout, the disfavour, the consequences that will ensue when in August the Judge rules to return the children to the Baynes.
Justice delayed is justice denied. And how many MCFD cases have there been where justice has been delayed?
ReplyDeleteI asked earlier what Ray considered "neglect" (as he seemed to indicate that he believed it was not abuse to remove a child for "neglect."
ReplyDeleteNot sure if he replied, but I thought this passage from FixCas.com was worth quoting:
"Failure to follow a doctor's orders is now treated as neglect. This rule turns psychiatrists into drug pushers, since parents cannot refuse to follow a prescription. In a few American states, parents now are granted authority to refuse such drugs, without that being treated as a reason for child protection intervention. Ontario should give parents the same authority."
I'm not sure what the policy in BC is regarding the refusal of drugs / removal of child. But if it is the policy, it would - I believe - be abuse by the State to remove a child simply because the parent refused to put their child on drugs (e.g., drugs for ADD or whatever).
I am a Yank. I live in NYC. I read law. But, granted, US law.
ReplyDeleteI am not well versed in Canadian law, but from what I have read and compiled for years,
CPS (in the States), MCFD (in BC) --they do not follow the law.
There are safeguards in the law, but child protective services do not adhere to same.
They circumvent the law.
These children, by law, should have been returned to their parents a very long time ago.
That is the law.
http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/pdf/handbook_action_child_abuse.pdf
ReplyDeleteDefinition of all child abuse, including neglect.
MCFD kept involving themselves in my life since I got free respite childcare from them 13 years ago. The last two times the neighbours called on me, I was found to have poor housekeeping skills. I have never been found to have done anything to harm my kids, never seen to lose my temper am a good cook, etc. Now this week they took my baby away from me. I went to court and I see the same faces. THey have all the FIrst Nations people there to renew their supervision orders or get their kids back. It is something that has nothing to do with real child abuse, it is all some crazy exercise with all these jobs connected to it. At least by now, I know my rights, I have a good lawyer, etc, etc. But how silly. NOw I hope I can get two of my kids back and survive all the 'work' I need to do to 'improve' myself. A lot of us have been hurt by MCFD and this blog has been one of the most encouraging things I have ever see.
ReplyDeleteWe left Ontario because they threatened to remove our 4-year old if we refused to put him on Ritalin. We wanted to have a child psychologist try cognitive behavior therapy instead and use meds only as a last resort. We wanted a second opinion and a more thorough assessment done because the prescribing psychiatrist only spent 15 minutes with our son before writing a prescription.
ReplyDeleteIn B.C. we have faced a multitude of other issues, but at least the social workers listened to our reasons for requesting a second opinion and agreed another consultation would be appropriate.
Not ALL social workers are dictatorial tyrants. We have worked with MCFD for 11 years and had a few very skilled and ethical workers. But I DO mean a FEW.
Unfortunately, the reality is that out of nine workers, three were knowledgeable, conscientious, ehtical and skilled communicators.
I once thought it was just our bad luck, but having spoken with so many families over the years, I realize our experience is quite typical.
Disheartening? Yes.
Can it be improved upon? Of course it can, especially if we organize as a group and offer suggestions for positive change rather than just complain.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I believe change is something worth fighting for and I'm just not prepared to give up, even in the face of seemingly overwhelming opposition.
To Anon 9:55 AM
ReplyDeleteYour last comment is an encouragement to me as well.
Author Dianna Holden is writing a book of her experiences growing up as a child in the care of MCFD. She would like to include the stories of others’ expriences and wants to hear from foster parents, client families, etc. Your story can be anonymous, but please include in your story what you think can be done to improve the system of services to vulnerable children and families.The purpose of this book is to generate a dialog of problem solving and positive change.If you would like to share your story and your suggestions for change, please visit http://www.worldwidepeoplelocators.com and send an email to the attention of Dianna Holden.Or phone: 1.877.212.1294 or 1.877.504.4422
ReplyDeleteFOOD FOR THOUGHT
ReplyDeleteFostering = encouragement; aiding the development of something
Foster care is the term used for a system in which a minor who has been made a ward is placed in the private home of a state certified caregiver referred to as a "foster parent". The foster parent is remunerated by the state for their services.
Like so many criminals, Gardner is a product of upbringing. At age two, he was found in the street alone, wearing only a diaper. By six, he was addicted to gasoline and glue. By 10, he'd 'graduated' to LSD and heroin and was acting as a lookout for his stepfather during robberies.
When Gardner was 11, he was sent to a mental hospital not because he was mentally ill but because child welfare officials thought it a better place for him than his home. He spent 18 months there.
He was subsequently sexually abused in a foster home. At midnight in Utah, he'll face a firing squad of five, who will shoot until they kill him.
And he will be FREE AT LAST
If there is a belief that MCFD follows law, removal of children is an acceptable and necessary act, all conspiracies are unbelievable, then the current system is so perfect. No improvement or change is needed. What is this blog advocating for?
ReplyDeleteThis attitude and division in opinions partially explain why this problem remains unsolved for such a long time. It proves how powerful and effective damage control effort is. Obviously, there are full time staff monitoring this blog, writing comments to defend accusations from oppressed parents, casting doubt and discrediting parents. While comments from pro family writers are generally longer, contain first hand testimonies and supported by reliable and independent evidence, facts and statistics, comments from special interests are usually short, contain broad and ambiguous allegations without much proof and at times incomprehensible messages. They bank on the undue blind faith in elected government, take advantage of the unthinkable abuse and damage inflicted on parents and children in real life and that nobody will believe these parents if they go public and tell the whole truth.
It creates so much confusion that one Anonymous writer ( June 17, 2010 8:10 AM) wrote “Personally, I agree with both positions, but get frustrated with the name-calling, the exaggerations, and the conspiracy theories.” How can one possibly agree with two mutually exclusive and opposing positions? Speaking of calling names, if someone calls them ruffian, I buy that. Calling them idiots and dummies are improper because they are not. They are the most cunning, calculating, devious, hypocritical and manipulative creatures I have ever met. A friend of mine just characterized them yesterday by saying “I would not leave my dog alone with them let alone a child.”
Special interests have strong financial and job security motives to tarnish the reasons of seeking reform as exaggerations and conspiracies. If the “child protection” industry collapses, their livelihood will be seriously affected. On the other hand, I don’t see any financial motive to drive parents all over the world to lie on similar stories. How do they benefit? If they lie, should they lie on something more believable. Be mindful we are seeking truth, not balanced views and that parents are taking a personal risk in voicing their opinions, even when writing anonymously. Above all, they don’t get paid writing comments here.
Perhaps let me speak in a language Christian folks may understand better. The most successful deception of Satan is to make people believe that he does not exist or he does not have the power to inflict irreparable damage on mankind.
The Province just published an article titled “Residential school abuses: 'Trauma and loss' exposed” on June 16, 2010:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Residential+school+abuses+Trauma+loss+exposed/3160124/story.html
Atrocities of this nature could occur simply because government has the power to remove children from their parents. There are compelling reasons to believe that modern “child protection” is a derivative of this infamous regime. Both regimes are conducted under a welfare banner, alleging to protect children from harm of their parents. Both regimes are funded by government and perverted by special interests using children for financial exploitation.
Think about this people. If you allow government to retain a general power to remove children as it is now, atrocities like the residential schools and the Baynes are what you and your children must endure. This power is oppressive and could be abused to target any group of people. Don’t ever complain when your loved ones fall prey.
What happened to the Baynes could happen to any parents with children under 19 years of age in B.C. All it takes is just a phone call. If you find this an exaggeration, I assure you that you will find all these implausible allegations against special interests true and real within 6 months after they take your children or grand children away.
JOSEF AND THE GARDNER COMMENT
ReplyDeleteJosef, your comment was entitled 'food for thought,' and it is certainly that. What are you thinking Josef? I am publishing this only to underscore for the future that I will insist that the comments stay on target. Nothing is gained if I merely reject a comment without explanation. Your story is a true one. Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed in Utah yesterday by his choice of firing squad as opposed to lethal injection as punishment for a conviction of murder in 1985. Further his execution was not a 'shoot until they kill him' sentence but a supervised team of five marksmen shooting a bullet to his heart. He chose that to draw attention to his death because of the controversy over the death penalty. His was a troubled childhood without question. But aside from that final horror, your implied message is beyond belief. It seems that you want us to think that it was wrong to remove him from his home in which neglect and abandonment and abuse by example were evident. We don't know all of the factors that will have shaped him into a two time killer, but it is a certain thing that his family and home life had a formative role in addition to the sexual abuse in the foster home. So if your point was to say that all fostering is reprehensible and wrong and all removal from family homes is wicked, I strongly disagree and consider your comment misguided.
CW: I already know what MCFD's guidelines for child abuse and neglect are. If your comment was prompted by my post on neglect, you completely missed the point. Social workers use their opinion to guide their decisions. They may remove a child based on what they think is neglect. A child is fed breakfast, bathed and dressed in clean, appropriate clothes in the morning but gets hungry in the car on the way to daycare. The child takes a peanut butter sandwich out of the lunch bag and eats it. Peanut butter spills on his shirt and shows up for school with a small patch of peanut butter smeared on his clean shirt. The child care worker reports it to MCFD who then decides the mother is neglectful and begins an investigation. It is noted in the risk assessment that the child shows up for daycare every single day in dirty clothes but the child care worker never said that and even testifies that in court. Why would MCFD spend so much money and time investigating a peanut butter spill when their are children out there who really need help? You might argue that there must have been other issues or whatever but that was not the case. This particular family's problems with MCFD started with a silly peanut butter smear and escalated because of false statements.
ReplyDeleteI overheard a social worker speaking to a witness in the halls of the courthouse just before a trial one morning. The social worker told the witness that when the lawyer questioned her on what a child had disclosed, that it was better to say what her interpretation of the child's statement was instead of the child's actual words.
These are two small examples of why children end up being removed when they don't need to be.
RON: I was foster parent of altogether 19 children, from 2 weeks to 12 years old. In my previous comments I explained that 6 of them lived under dangerous conditions and their removal was the right decision. The rest suffered terrible trauma in vain. Just a few hours a week of babysitting, or some help with shopping the right stuff for lowest price, or a 3-4 hours /week of cleaning services, or extra 50- 100$ /month, and someone whom they could trust to speak and get some encouragement and good advices was necessary for 11 of them. Parents of the last 2 were falsely accused.
ReplyDeleteAnd we too, later, of not protecting children from abuse, and of likelihood that we exploit and sexually abuse them. Despite that, for more than five months after horrible lies we still parented children entrusted in our care by the MCF, until the last one was, on Mother's day, abducted him from his pre-school. We were not allowed to give him his clothes, toys and say good-bay. Many years later some parents of our foster children, when we met, speak warmly with us what's new in their lives, and one visited us with his now young man until recently.
We knew many foster parents from many meetings. Cca1/5 of them were doing good work, the rest from not good to very bad. One, the most appraised by SWs', had a couple of deaths of children in his care on his account.
We closely worked with about 30 SW, 2 were excellent, 5 or 6 had good intentions but were absolutely incompetent, and the rest were secret sociopaths, openly enjoying their power to inflict and deliberately inflicted a lot of pain and suffering. 2 made decisions CLEARLY ENDANGERING our 2 children's LIVES when taken for visits. We of course most firmly advocated for all our children's safety and well-being, regardless of SWs' threats to end our services if we continue to do so.
I interrupted Mr. Gardner's story where he was sexually abused by sickos paid to protect him. At that point he still could be saved from becoming murderer. His exit was his deliverance, and he is finally free at last. I wish to be too, yet children should not die before their last parent. I wish we could speak face to face, or at least through phone call so anything confusing could be explained on time. My English is so poor that even smart people do not understand me, and accuse me of something I would never even think about. It is so frustrating. This is my last comment in your blog, not to confuse you and your readers anymore. I wish
GOOD LUCK TO ALL WITH CLEAR CONSCIENCE!!!
Anon 9:55: You said..."I was found to have poor housekeeping skills. I have never been found to have done anything to harm my kids, never seen to lose my temper am a good cook, etc. Now this week they took my baby away from me."
ReplyDeleteThen what was the reason for removal? You would have a court document indicating this exactly - I am not asking if you agree, I am asking what the reason was given.
I think the point Josef Fisher was making about Gardener is that severing parental bonds can have dire consequences, and the FBI seems to agree:
ReplyDelete"The FBI estimates that of the 500 recorded serial killers in U.S. history, fully 16 percent were adopted – an incredible statistic, considering that adoptees represent only 2-3 percent of the general population."
"Aside from the serial killers, Paul Mones, a defense attorney and expert, who wrote the book When a Child Kills, reports that adoptees are 15 times more likely to commit parricide (kill one or both adoptive parents) than biologic children. Among adopted children who have killed both of their adoptive parents, I have personally examined and/or testified for: Patrick Campbell (Darien, Conn.), Patrick DeGelleke (Rochester, N.Y.), Matthew Heikkila (Somerset, N.J.), Daniel Kasten (Ronkonkoma, N.Y.) and Patrick Niiranen (Portland, Ore.). (Most of these cases, with my forensic evaluations, are described in detail, in my book Adoption: Uncharted Waters.)"
http://www.crimemagazine.com/07/adoptionforensics,0919-7.htm
It's important to point this out because too many people see only the advertising by the child protection and adoption industry, which is intended to paint child protection, removal, and adoption as something which is highly desirable for the child. We rarely hear about what the consequences of the negative side of child protection or adoption. If we do hear about it, it is countered by a deluge of advertising from the child protection and adoption industry, said advertising intended to persuade us all to think that it is always in the best interests of the child to remove him or her from her parent.
Maybe it seems extreme of Josef Fisher and others to point out these extremes. But we are dealing with an extreme business here. It isn't pretty, despite what we might be led to believe.
Leah - excellent post.
ReplyDeleteJosef/Ron - I wonder if Gardner didn't have FAS?
Anon 6:52 - Someone asked the definition of neglect, so I posted the link. Frankly, I don't know if I was posting that link based on your post or not.
If it was your point to which I was responding and you meant to say "SW use personal opinion to make neglect removal decisions" then you should have stated that - not asked "what is your definition of neglect?" as it was directed to Ray Ferris.
Josef, don't make it your last comment. We can all work at understanding one another. It's difficult isn't it, when we are not face to face and we don't know one another or what level of trust we can have with each other. Keep trying.
ReplyDeleteJosef, please keep posting your comments on this blog. It is crucially important that we hear about your experience and opinions. I know it is very frustrating when people seem to want to censor you or whatever, but please have patience. Please keep posting on this blog. People are coming around, and realizing things aren't what they have been portrayed to be.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "neglect" goes, this is a highly subjective term, and without even looking, I would guess that the MCFD definition is also subjective (if someone wants to copy and paste their definition, please do). As such, it could be used, and apparently is used all the time, to effect wrongful removals of children.
ReplyDeleteYou can find the MCFD definition of neglect in the link provided above.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9 AM you said, "I think the point Josef Fisher was making about Gardener is that severing parental bonds can have dire consequences," and if that is what Josef was seeking to say, then I better understand it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Josef Fisher and others who have been victims of MCFD.
ReplyDeleteI think it must be extremely difficult for a parent who has been a victim of MCFD to write about their experience in a manner that doesn't at times appear a bit extreme. But I think we should do everything we can to help them present their experiences to the public. This blog has been excellent in that regard - you can just feel the relief of parents - they finally have a forum.
Sometimes I wonder if the MCFD doesn't deliberately pick on people who may come across as a bit extreme, because the MCFD knows that if these people ever go public with their story, they will appear less credible (e.g., people will just think they are conspiracy theorists or whatever). After seeing some of the things that MCFD does, it wouldn't surprise me if this is the case. If this is the case - if MCFD deliberately picks on parents who may communicate in a manner that to others appears extreme, then it would be worthwhile for parents to always try to appear as calm and rational as possible when dealing with MCFD. I know this must be extraordinarily difficult, when your heart is being ripped out.
This is one thing that the Baynes really have in their favour - they always appear to be extremely calm, rational, and composed. I greatly admire their strength in this regard.
This is not meant to be a criticism of Josef Fisher whatsoever. Just an observation about how things might work.
I was hoping someone would copy and paste the actual definition (of NEGLECT), rather than just providing the link. I don't really link going to the MCFD website, call me paranoid:)
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote: "which is intended to paint child protection, removal, and adoption as something which is highly desirable for the child."
ReplyDeleteI have never spoken with a single social worker who thinks removal is desirable. You can't imagine the hours in counselling SW's often undergo due to the trauma of removing a child.
Believe it or not.
Anon 3:05 PM you said, "I think it must be extremely difficult for a parent who has been a victim of MCFD to write about their experience in a manner that doesn't at times appear a bit extreme." ......... you may have something there. How emotionally caught up would most of us be if we became victimized, perhaps uncontrollably. Good advice you give to exhibit a calm demeanor, and I will guess almost impossible for some of us.
ReplyDeleteCW,
ReplyDeleteWell if removals are so traumatic for the social workers (that they have to spend "hours in counselling... due to the trauma of removing a child,") imagine how much more traumatic removals must be to the children who are being "removed." Never mind the parents, all the extended family and friends.
MCFD and their employees are not the victims here, at least not as far as I am concerned. If removing children is so traumatic, perhaps these social workers should start fighting to keep families together - help them, instead of tearing them apart.
Now, let me guess - every single one of those removals was from homes that were so dangerous that the child had to be taken away immediately, never to see their mother or father or relatives or friends again. Because that is what happens to these children, even when there is a false allegation of neglect due to peanut butter stains on a shirt. Oh, they might get a year or so of visitations in a stuffy room, where every word and gesture is spied on, and then finally all parental rights are terminated. But the upshot for a large number of these removed children is they are doomed to foster care forever.
If the social workers are so upset by the traumatizing effects of removals, I wonder why they aren't also upset because of the traumatizing effect of wrongful removals. They must know that the same occurs. They are privy to knowledge regarding false allegations of child abuse. They know how easy is it to call child protective services and make an allegation, true or false. They know how easy it is to get a child removed. They read the news - they know that in the USA child protective workers have themselves been prosecuted for false reports to child protective services (we don't bother with such prosecutions in Canada - or perhaps we are just have better child protective services workers here). Why aren't these same traumatized social workers you mention also upset about children who get wrongfully removed?
And do the social workers who are so traumatized by removals also spend countless hours in counselling when a child that has been removed is found to be abused or murdered in foster care? If so, the cost for counselling social workers must be enormous.
And finally, I wonder, is there any counselling for parents who have been deprived, permanentally, of their children? What will happen to the Baynes if the judge decides that they can no longer see or touch or speak to their three children? Does MCFD or anyone there care? If so, what provisions are there for them in that time of unfathomable sorrow, if it should occur - and I pray to God that it does not.
Anon 3:28 - that link does provide the literal definition of neglect; It is is the same definition the world-over.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:22 - Good morning - you've extrapolated statements and suggestions from my post which simply don't exist.
When did I suggest it was NOT traumatic for kids/parents? When did I suggest it was MORE traumatic for SW than it is for kids/parents? I was saying that it IS traumatic - full stop.
When did I suggest SW weren't affected by the trauma it causes families?
Actually yes, SW do go see counsellors if their child is killed in care. What in heavens name are you basing your wild assumptions on? Your post is suggesting SW all have massive personality and sociopathic disorders, that they are robots!
What about those kids and parents who are separated by removal and are actually HAPPY about it? It does happen! Often. Believe me or not. My point is....you just know your experience, and the words typed on a screen. While those in the field are in direct contact with ALL forms of removals and have a much wider perspective. To be clear - I am not stating the exception (ie, bad social workers) such as you suggest does not exist.
Finally - your last point is so poignant. MCFD should most definitely provide counselling for parents whose children removed and then returned to them, even if the judge says there is no risk of harm to the children. That is most certainly an amendment to practice which should be created.
What is interesting about persecuting false reports - I couldn't agree more that it should happen regularly! - but I recently called Connecticut child protection and they state right on their hotline that false reports may result in criminal charges. They obviously aren't as wishy-washy as us Canadians. Bravo to em.
I do wish you could meet some of the foster parents I have - tell them they provide a horror-show for the kids. Nightmares that are reported are horrible horrible things and DO happen - but they are the minority. That minority MUST be corrected as so many of you on here state. I could not agree more!
CW,
ReplyDeleteYou stated "To be clear - I am not stating the exception (ie, bad social workers) such as you suggest does not exist."
Even if bad social workers were only the "exception" I would think that you would be trying to rid MCFD of them. What are you and other social workers doing in this regard, I wonder?
From all we are learning here and elsewhere, bad social workers certainly don't seem to be the "exception."
Re this comment of yours:
"MCFD should most definitely provide counselling for parents whose children removed and then returned to them, even if the judge says there is no risk of harm to the children. That is most certainly an amendment to practice which should be created."
I wonder if parents would really want to accept counselling from the same agency that wrongfully took their children away. I sure wouldn't accept it. It seems almost twisted to offer counselling to someone you did so much to destroy, as if you wanted to re-hash the experience. And even if parents had no problem with being treated for psychological damage by the same agency that did the damage (or having it paid for by MCFD), I would hope they (the parents) would realize that MCFD could very well use whatever the parents said in these "counselling" sessions against the parents at some future date. It just seems like another way to make the entire child protective experience into an industry, where there is no end to "services" etc. that will be provided.
I don't get what you mean by the "even if" part of this sentence: "MCFD should most definitely provide counselling for parents whose children removed and then returned to them, even if the judge says there is no risk of harm to the children."
Child protective agencies all over the world will admit that a large percentage of the reports of child abuse that they receive are "unsubstantiated," but what are they actually doing do ensure that false reports are discouraged. I don't imagine a whole lot. If they were truly serious about this, they could easily prosecute some of the millions of false reports they get, and make a very public example. CPS never makes an example of the false reporters. Once in a blue moon someone will get prosecuted, but it is not something law enforcement or CPS wants to do apparently.
ReplyDeleteCPS Supervisor makes false child abuse report (but she only gets 90 days in jail):
http://current.com/news/politics/90374337_cps-supervisor-guilty-of-making-a-false-report-of-abuse-gets-90-days-in-jail.htm
Considering the fact that this was a gross abuse of the CPS supervisor's position, and considering the fact that she could have destroyed lives, this was a light sentence. But much better than no prosecution whatsoever, which is usually the case.
Anon 6:48 - You want the family to find their own and MCFD then pay for it? I think that's a reasonable request, but I can imagine the how some would perceive that.
ReplyDelete"Bad social workers" do exist and need all the support they can get to improve their practice.
The "even if" part was basically poor English on my part! Obviously there is no risk if the kids were returned home. I suppose it meant "even if" there is no risk, the parents will have experienced trauma due to the separation from their children and vice-versa. Thanks for asking for clarification on that.
Not nearly enough is being done to dissuade malicious child protection reports - can you imagine how many hours are wasted on malicious reports? Be mad at those people who make the reports, not the social workers (unless the social worker totally bungs it up and falsely accuses someone based on rumour! I agree that is horrendous practice! if it's an outright lie, then the malicious reporter sure must go a long way to ensure the lie can be proven).
CW,
ReplyDeleteI don't think truly bad social workers need our support; I think they need to get a different job, one where they can't do such horrific damage. Just because someone is a gov't employee, or a union member, doesn't mean they shouldn't be fired. (If only the parents got so many breaks.)
As far as false reports go, I think that a lot of these could easily be discerned as such, almost immediately, but that child protection workers just don't bother getting at the truth. I've read about cases that are just outrageous, where the social workers should never even have begun an investigation, so it can't all be blamed on the false reporters.
As far as counselling goes, I think that a person who has had their child wrongfully taken and then returned, or wrongfully taken and never returned, probably doesn't want to talk to some stranger about it. Before there is money doled out for that, there should be money to get the Baynes, and all the other parents who are waiting for visits, on Father's Day and other days.
I've read about some pretty awful injustices throughout history, but nothing I've come across compares to what is happening to child and families via child protective services. It continues to amaze me how they get away with murder. They won't forever though. The truth has a way of getting out, almost like some law of nature. Or God.
The Ministry’s frequently used pattern from removing children to apprehending and adopting them out as follows:
ReplyDeleteFirst target healthy white adoption-ready infant
The parent needs to have “history” with the Ministry.
If the parent is poor, with a low level social supports and representation, the process can be sped up. Court time can be obtained relatively quickly, and a CCO equally quickly granted.
Supervision reports and a psychologist assessment are done. If the parent’s history is sufficiently derogatory, these reports can be very positive, because the judge will still be able to successfully ignore them and give the weight to instead of any derogatory history of the parent.
A foster parent or proposed adoptive parent will always be presented in glowing terms. Financial arrangements are never part of court discussions. The foster parents may be abusive or have a criminal back ground what is important is that they want to adopt.
An anonymous protection report must be filed with the Ministry noting concerns over a child’s well-being. This gets the Ministry’s foot in the door so they can open a file and “investigate.”
If the biological parent has no supports, is single and for example is a women fleeing from abuse or staying at a transition house this speeds the process of apprehension or adoption up faster.
First, get a 3-month interim custody order by consent or by order of the court. Theoretically, the parent is not beyond hope at this stage.
Theoretically the father’s consent is not needed treat him as though he doesn’t exist and not include him in any of the MCFD decisions!
If all reports are positive regarding parents mental health find any dirt the MCFD can on the parent even if it is here say evidence and from 10 years ago!
Next, get a 6-month renewal. This is easier if the parent first agreed to the 3-months (indicating an agreement the child needed protection).
Don’t notify parents of visitation date and time, hence creating a perception that parent no longer cares for the child. This reinforces a picture of past, and indicates the future danger to the child that it would be eventually if parent is granted access, this encourages the adoption being more important than the parent having access and way easier for the MCFD to adopt the child.
Continue accumulating derogatory information such as missed visits. Ignore phone calls from the parent and don’t initiate contact. This then looks like the parent missed visits and no longer wants to be involved in the child’s life.
Don’t write down anything positive such as the parent made improvement instead write down there has been no significant change or this would demonstrate the parent is able to.
Ignore any visitation reports that say the parent is able to parent has a clean and safe home the judge doesn’t need to have that information!
Put forward any false information about the parent to court it’s a sure win for the MCFD and who cares if it is false not going to be found accountable anyway!
Don’t offer any intensive parenting courses. This is the first clue to the intent of filing a CCO, and just says there aren’t any support services available and the child would be at risk in the parents care.
File a CCO this is the first clue to the judge that the Ministry has deemed the parent is beyond hope at this stage.
Win the CCO application, any visitation granted can later be safely terminated.
Voila! An adoption is complete and the biological parent has no recourse and no rights to the child since the CCO order is in place.
Appeals to BCSC and COA, Human Rights complaints and Judicial Reviews are pointless, especially if you are representing yourself. It just gives the MCFD more money in their pocket for their time dealing with the matter!
Lisa Arlin
I belive that section 2 of the guiding principles actually is contrary to protecting children from threat of harm this section leaves children vunerable to harm by the MCFD for example:
ReplyDeleteRemove a child from parents care bassed on allegations then in the child's best interest place the child or children in far to many foster homes which are disgusting and here I can mention the one in the News recently mabye someone could recal CBC news. Next In the child's best interst seperate siblings, and don't give parent reasonable access to their children force parents for no reason to have supervised visits in a prison like setting have child or children brought to and from visits by a total stanger and a diferent driver each visits. Reuduce parents visitation like once a week 2 hours per visit because the MCFD says in the Child's best interst and definately don't allow the child or children to see their parents on christmas or birthdays other holdiays well due to the MCFD office being closed.
The above is specifically contrary to the guiding prinicples saying that our children are entitled to being safe from threat of harm.
Will the MCFD ever be accountble for their wrongful actions?
So many parents have been treated unfairly,
I say it is time for a change!
Sincerly Lisa Arlin
What can I do when NOBODY wants to take the time to listen to my story
ReplyDeleteI have so many un answered questions I live in CRESTON B.C. yes I told my story once on this web site someone was suppose to get back to me they never did Is anybody out there in this world that can help me I'm feeling total abandoned by MLA the OSMPERSON and THE HEAD OFFICE OF MCFD BY THE WHOLE GOVERMENT SYSTEM
very frustrated single mother of two young childern
Hello Anon. Will you even see this response? you have gone back into the archives of my blog site for the second time, so far it is a marvel that I would even detect your presence on the site. However, I have set it up so that no matter what post is responded to even one that is four years old as this one is, I can see the reply of a reader. You may never remember where you left this comment among the thousands of posts I have written. I answered you last week and here I am again. I could call you by name because we corresponded by email. In fact I asked my friend to write to you with advice and he did that from a lifetime of experience with MCFD and sympathy for anyone who has had difficulty with MCFD that could be resolved. So I hope that when you say no one is listening, you don’t mean us as well. Rather you mean anyone in government who could help is not paying attention I assume. If you care to talk by email with either me or my colleague, please do. In the meantime, you should know that these people will not comment to you privately about your case which is officially schedule to be aired in court. It has to go through the proper channels. That’s the way they work. They do not know you or your story, whether you are truthful or at fault or anything else and they can’t make those assessment on the phone, just as we cannot by email. That’s why you should pay close attention to what my colleague sent to you.
Delete