Shall we talk about convenience? It is not convenient that Paul and Zabeth have been deprived of their children either. It is not convenient that they forfeited their home to pay lawyers. It was not convenient that a concert pianist should have to sell her grand piano. It is not convenient that they must work night shifts in order to attend day time visits with their children. Of course it is not convenient but the Baynes have been willing to count these costs. Why? Not to gain custody so they can abuse their children? That is a preposterous assessment of risk.
There are many things about this case that are not convenient.
Judge Crabtree's ruling came down in favour of the Ministry's own guiding principle, not convenience but rather ' the best interests of the child.' It is in the best interests of these three children that they be permitted to spend more time and special time with their mommy and daddy. Convenience for those who must make it happen has nothing to do with these arrangements. Inconvenience must be accommodated in order to affect the best interests of these children.
So let's see what arrangements can be made for Father's Day. That's a special family day for most of us.
Hello CW. I am the Anonymous writer who raised the issue of MCFD mounted surveillance. I noted that there are other Anonymous writers writing on this unbelievable issue alleging no evidence at this time (in the blog of Saturday, June 5, 2010), error on the side of caution that MCFD does mount surveillance, ... etc. They are not me. I allowed time for others to share their experience and views. I am not done with this issue yet. This is my first time responding since you posted your comments on this issue on June 7, 2010 1:58 PM.
ReplyDeleteYou provided some seemingly compelling reasons confirming that MCFD never mounted any surveillance activities on parents. You also suggested that I cannot rely on the totally “inaccurate” information contained in a web page from PAPA People Assisting Parents Association at:
http://pa-pa.ca/surveillance.html
Despite that PAPA has correctly identified some surveillance methods, their web page is not juicy enough as it is not supported by any testimonies (save and except a browser’s response) or evidence. I accepted your rule of engagement. I will not rely on this site. PAPA must be grateful of the publicity you drew for them. When special interests publicly and vigorously discredit something, there is merit.
Before I respond to your allegations, I give you one more chance. Please consult your superior and reaffirm whether the MCFD has ever conducted any surveillance (including but not limited to stalking parents, stakeout residence, ... etc.) on parents under their scrutiny. I want to make sure that I understand you without ambiguity before I respond.
It is clear that the convenience of self-centered and self-righteous SW is more important than the best interests of children.
ReplyDeleteIt is noteworthy to mention that special occasions, such as Father's Day, Christmas, birthdays, are often selected to remove targeted children. I had my children re-removed without any reason or new evidence the day before Mother's Day. Be mindful that the Bayne's children were re-removed during their birthday party after the parents went public on Global TV.
Seasoned SW know when and where to remove children in order to punish parents and to inflict maximum damage on families and children.
People go to war without regard for the possible loss of their lives for a cause. Others run into a burning building for what is worth their life. Indeed, there are interests worth fighting for in this life that outrank all else and, for most of us, one of these interests is our family. Some people show their interest for their children and ask for help and/or voluntarily give children up for adoption.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for the Bayne family and for others in similar situations, getting their children home together with their parents is worth the fight. How could it be less.
Nonetheless, to speak of justice being done by the return of the children is, in my view, a day of joy but short of the mark called "Justice". If you rob the bank, get caught, give the money back and say "sorry," not many people are favorably impressed. The Bayne faimily must start their lives again in practical ways.
Also, there's the lawyer, Doug Christie, who is giving a huge time and financial gift in this scenario. He believes the cause to be worth the fight, too.
The people who go to the courtroom to honor the Baynes, think the cause warrants their interests being set aside to be there.
Those who have gone to Bayne fundraisers, carried placards, and attended functions have set aside their interests, too, in order to support the Bayne cause. Then there is this blog which Ron writes, we read and consider, and write about our thoughts.
Social Services and their support system get financial gain for all their efforts and scheduling changes. Neither the Baynes or their support system are getting any financial gain. Yes!!! there is a cause and I am overjoyed that so many believe the Bayne case is a cause worth the inconvenience it takes to get involved. The cause, Justice and Canadian families, trumps inconvenience.
It is sad that the Bayne's have had to give up so much to try and be with their children but what people need to realize is just how many parents are giving up everything to fight for their children and they need recognition. Canada needs to know what parents are being put through and how children are being traumatized. So many parents end up devoting their lives to finding a way to get their kids back and it shouldn't be like that. Of course there will always be situations where children do need to be in care but I am talking about all the parents who did not neglect or abuse their children or harm them in any way. NOT ALL CHILDREN IN CARE ARE THERE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE.
ReplyDeleteFor all the people who are arguing on this blog about whether or not MCFD is doing what they should be or not: do you really want to argue about something as important as child protection? Do you want to take a chance and NOT believe the people who are saying there is a problem within the system? Because if you do, you better ask yourself if you indeed care about the best interests of children. When it comes to children, why take chances? Why not investigate for yourselves and find out the truth if you actually care.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:27 - I think its with you where the burden of proof lays, does it not?
ReplyDeleteSomeone else had already mentioned PAPA on this web site before I had. I don't mind if people go to PAPA, they post a lot of important videos and articles. I referred solely to the surveillance section.
I should note, I only am aware of SW conduct in the Fraser Region - certainly re: surveillance. Showing video of SW's in other provinces, or countries is nothing I can speak to. I guess I can only assume "surveillance" practice is the same in all BC regions as it is in Fraser.
...
On a different note - did anyone listen to Representative Turpell-Lafond on 88.1 CBC this morning re: the new Extended Family Program which now replaces the Section 8 kith and kin program? She was saying a lot of kids were placed under Section 8 without visiting the new home. Not sure how this came about considering it says extremely clearly right in the practice guidelines for the previous Section 8 K&K program that a home visit is REQUIRED! Terrible practice it would seem. EFP is much more thorough - in theory. Apparently theory isn't always followed.
Apologies - I made a mistake. I said "Section 8" but Turpell-Lafond was referring to CIHR. T-F wants all 4600+ CIHR files which were grandfathered into the new EFP, to be reviewed by MCFD. (Basically, if there is a safety concern in the home the child is at, make a child protection report or call the RCMP).
ReplyDeleteAll EFP referrals require numerous steps, including home visit.
Sorry for the confusion my erred statement may have caused.
In the subject of what defines what is in who's best interest, I am reminded of the movie trilogy "Matrix."
ReplyDeleteIn this movie, governent is equated to a robot society where the humans they enslave live out their normal lives, but do not realize they are simply a power source for their masters.
It is only when the odd malcontent human realizes what is going on and attempts to change things that the robot controllers make themselves known to keep the statu quo.
Foster parents and supervision personnel, MCFD lawyers, drivers, social workers -- all are very well paid for the work they do during the course of the day. One does not typically refer to variances in their workload as an "inconvenience."
Either more workers are hired to supervise, or some other parent gets their time reduced.
Instead of a child going straight home after school, they get to go to a supervision facility to meet their parents. Convenience is a point of view.
The Baynes family are not beng "inconvenienced", they are being violated on a daily basis by unconscionable people that our tax dollars pay for. This is an outrage against human and civil rights, not a mere inconvenience.
When some self-righteous social worker comes online to suggest this situation can be explained away as "not taking chances," then I need to be assured that each and every such case is being handled in exactly the same way as the Baynes, and they are not being treated differently because they chose to go public.
Perhaps the social worker can list how much visitation time each family in that person's office gets with their children.
As an analyst, I ask simple questions, such as how much visit time does each of the 14,000 children in care get with their families? What s the cost of supervised visitation versus non-supervised?
As answer to these first questions are answered, this spawns new questions. How many families are applying for more time? How many requests are granted? What is the cost of these request?
This sort of information is then used to build policy that uniformly directs workers to follow to avoid expensive court applications, and to assure families they are being treated the same. In the real world, this is how businesses keep their expenses down and their "clients" happy.
Parents are the ones who are forced to accomodate visitaton schedules that are created by social workers designed to accomodate foster parents and supervision agencies. Parents have no input on these matters.
If it is inconvenient for a foster parent to drive children to school, activity or doctor's appointment, they tell the kids take a bus, or the foster parent gets MCFD to hire a babysitter to drive. (I can only speak for myself, so other parents can chime in and relate their own experience.)
If a parent makes the mistake of stating they have something scheduled on a regular basis, or a new job opportunity, social workers will deliberately contrive a scheduling conflict or invent a limited resource issue, or enroll children in a new activity with a conflicting schedule, and purposely disrupt things in order to be in a position to label the parent uncaring for their children, or be labeled uncooperative. Social workers will smile at you, put up their hands and state it is "not them" and they are just doing the best they can.
In any case, looking at the negatives is likley not helpful for the Baynes or parents of other families reading this blog. Reading some of this stuff might be entertaining and parents can nod their heads in affirmation, but it does nothing to help parents who living with the same predicament as the Baynes.
If all parents were to read of the Bayne's success at winning something as seemingly minor as increasing access time 50% and being allowed to be present at school and doctor appointments, they would realize they are not completely powerless as MCFD would have them believe. Go file an application and change things!
To: CW (June 16, 2010 9:01 AM)
ReplyDeleteThank you for your prompt reply. I am impressed by your dedication in monitoring this blog, your knowledge in defending the “child protection” industry, your skills in mitigating damage and casting doubt. Your awareness of opposition is above the average of a front line community worker.
I am not like SW who often make broad allegations of child abuse based on hearsay, subjective perception and some very circumstantial, sometimes fabricated, “evidence” and put the onus of proof on parents after removing their children. Yes, I will bear the burden of proof on the notion of MCFD-mounted surveillance.
I am well aware that your “totally inaccurate” remark on PAPA is solely restricted to their page on surveillance in your June 7, 2010 1:58 PM posting. I have no intention to take your remark out of context and allege that you suggested that everything in that site is inaccurate.
I further restrict our discussion on the notion of surveillance in the Lower Mainland, right in the backyard of many browsers here. I will not rely on any video or information outside B.C. Does Fraser Region cover the Lower Mainland? If not, please consult your colleagues there.
Your awareness that MCFD within the Fraser Region has never mounted surveillance on parents under their scrutiny is necessary but insufficient. That’s why I asked that you consult your superior and colleagues and reaffirm whether or not the MCFD has ever conducted any surveillance (including but not limited to stalking parents, stakeout residence, ... etc.) on parents under their scrutiny.
I don’t want a quick and sloppy answer from you. Please take your time and do this. I can wait until next week. Once you give me a satisfactory reply on this, I will respond to each and every allegations in your June 7, 2010 1:58 PM posting surrounding MCFD-mounted surveillance next week.
With respect to surveillance, would it not be prudent for social workers to have some means of verifying that one parent who has had a restraining order filed aganst them, to want to know if that parent is in compliance?
ReplyDeleteThe value in catching a parent violating such a restraining order would be of immense value to MCFD in their efforts to prove parents are a danger to their children and thus, further justify the original removal and further retention of the children in care.
It is my understanding that MCFD does not have a policy or an official mechanism to hire trained investigators, as do insurance companies such as Worksafe BC and ICBC.
If I were a social worker, in the interests of doing the best job possible with limited resources, I would simply be asking foster parents or MCFD-paid babysitters to perform the task of surveillance and simply offer to disguise the payment as something else.
For social workers to be overly vigorous in denying this outright, is all the more reason to listen to parents who do claim they have been followed, or their telephone convesations monitored and determine whether or not MCFD ordered surveillance and to get proof of this.
In court, the Baynes cited an incident in which a confidential medical report ended up in the hands of an MCFD social who subsequently used the illegally obtained materials in court. In any other government setting, this would be a news-worthy scandal that would significantly hobble MCFD's already tarnished credibility and give rise for a call to action to correct the problem. Heads would roll.
In this ficticious scenario, I am imagining the observer hired by a social worker, who would follow the parent, and would call the social worker if a violation was observed. The social worker would then call the police to handle the violation. This would keep the fact that surveillance was being contracted by MCFD, off any official record. The original source remains anonymous and the payment is disguised. The investigator keeps quiet in order to ensure future business.
Eventually, one would image such an investigator would come forward to verify such theories. In the meantime, parents can arm themselves with video-recording cell phones and put up the videos on youtube.
-----
To illustrate the nasty and devious nature of one social worker in my case, I obtained a judgment that permitted me to watch my children at their activities at public venues.
At these public venues, the children were surrounded by other parents, coaches, foster parents and other children. The judge, with no prompting from social workers, included a no-contact distance provision, of approximatley 50 feet, designed to keep me out of earshot and camera-shot of my children.
There was no restraining order to prevent me from watching the kids at school during lunch or recess, I simply did not do it for fear MCFD was waiting for just such a thing to happen so that it would give them a reason for applying for a restraining order.
For the 'distance restriction' there was no police provision for enforcement. The instruction was that in event of violation the privilege would be cancelled if it came up in court again. So, me asking to watch my children was turned into a quasi-restraining order.
Social workers asked the foster parents to note any "violatons" and to email them. Violation were indeed noted. So, what they did was NOT to tell me, or to respond at the date time of each said violation to correct the observed infraction immediately, they instead saved up these old emails and entered them as evidence to be used in trial as contributing proof against me as a parent was perfectly willing to violate court orders and be uncooperative.
I think the point is, on the subject of surveillance, if it can be imagined and a parent (or two, or three) say it happened to them, I would say such an activity is well within the range of lack of scruples exhibited by several social workers I've encountered.
Hi CW:
ReplyDeleteThis is Anonymous again.
Before I respond to the MCFD-mounted surveillance notion, I have one more confirmation to seek.
Is surveillance (including but not limited to stalking parents, stakeout residence, ... etc.) on parents under MCFD’s scrutiny an act outside MCFD’s mandate and authority given in related law? If yes, is it illegal?
Regarding surveillance, I doubt whether MCF staff would have the competence to mount surveillance.
ReplyDeleteRegarding calling social workers dummies. You are quite right and they are smarter than you think I now realise that the worker who completed the risk assessment was secretly trying to help the Baynes. It was such a blatant hatchet job, that it could only bring discredit on the ministry under cross-examination. He was also crafty, because he knew that it could not put him in a bad light.It was signed off by his supervisor and approved by the director. He probably relied on the director not seeing through his subterfuge. Well done!
Regarding the child in home of relative programme. I was involved with this for years and I was actually responsible for getting this important child welfare programme extended to aboriginal communities in 1964. This is not a simple one-size-fits-all programme. I have some sympathy with Mary Polak on this one. One needs to keep focus on the basics.Many people who are unable or unwilling to care for their children seek help within the family and make private child care plans by placing them with relatives.As long as they are receiving good care, the state has no right to interfere.A criminal record is irrelevant unless it is for endangering children. We do not remove children from natural parents on the grounds of a criminal record. These families only come to the attention of the authorities if they ask for financial help. If there are no grounds to interfere as a protection concern help should be given where needed. The alternative is to leave the child there in possible need.If the social worker comes along years later and finds that there was a criminal offense somewhere in the history, it may not make the slightest difference.
However, some of these cases are started on the initiative of the MCF. Then we have a different situation. The worker sees a child at risk and avoids a court case by brokering a deal with relatives to provide care. Pay is given as an incentive. The last time I checked the policy, this could be raised to match foster home rates. By initiating the plan as a child protection scheme, the worker has a responsibilty to monitor the safety of this plan and a criminal records check would be appropriate. My personal preference would be to take custody of the child in a protection hearing and use the relative as a restricted foster home. They would be studied in the same way as any other foster home. It would also be much easier to resource the home. Among other things they would not have to get into a hassle with the financial worker about payment. There is more work this way, but worth it in the long run. When the financial and child welfare services were under the same ministry, CIHR payments were always processed by a social worker and not by a financial worker. Much simpler.
I can well understand Minister Polak saying "very well, if I conduct the investigation you request, what will it cost and what will be gained? Is this the best way we can use our staff right now?" I would suggest that a compromise could be reached by checking a random sample and see what results come up.
Anon 12:18 -
ReplyDeleteI wonder why I would engage in such an exercise with you on this blog - such as you are requesting.
I have made my statements. You clearly have evidence you wish to present. By all means do so - I know you are itching.
Ray Ferris, a documented former SW, has also stated surveillance, as you suggest it, does not occur.
You may read my previous posts and quote when I said "MCFD never" used surveillance as you suggest. I may be wrong in recalling my own posts, but I'd say a good guess is that I said "MCFD does not."
..
Ray - Your post re: CIHR is spot-on.
Back to my "high paying job" as apparently I am accused of. Cheers.
How convenient was it for these little children to be ripped from the arms of their loving family, on their birthdays, by social workers and police with guns?
ReplyDeleteHow convenient is it for these children to spend day after day and night after night without the parents who created them and who dearly love them?
It just boggles my mind to see people on this blog continuing to defend the MCFD - even if you only knew about this case, it would be bad enough. But what is happening to the Baynes, has happened to so many parents. How many more families must suffer so these so-called child protectors can paint themselves as saints, or just have a job?
And as far as surveillance goes by MCFD, of course this occurs. Why on earth wouldn't it? This is how they justify taking and keeping children.
Isn't it interesting that no matter who criticizes those in child protection and no matter where they do it (e.g., a blog, a website, etc.) there are ALWAYS social workers and others leaping to the defence of the child protection agency and piping up about what good work they do. These social workers (or whomever they are) also always never fail to slander those whom they have victimized. This happened in the Bayne case and it happens in cases all over the world. Child protection workers and agencies know that this is a public relations battle, so they are always sure to make certain that they continually send the message that they are saints and that parents are either abusers or potential abusers. They have the resources to get this message out 24/7. The public swallowed their story hook, line and sinker, until recently. You can only suppress the truth for so long.
ReplyDeleteChild protectors, or rather those who pose as child protectors, know that they are in a precarious position, just as all throughout history who hypocritically occupy and abuse positions of power are in a precarious position. I don't envy them when the whole truth gets out, because they have a lot to answer for. People don't take kindly to child abuse, especially when it is sanctioned by their government, and especially when it is paid for with their tax dollars.
To Anonymous 2:51
ReplyDeleteWho are you? I read much of this blog tongue in cheek - did you really say "no matter who criticizes those in child protection ... always sure to make certain that they continually send the message that they are saints and that parents are abusers ..." I haven't heard anybody declaring themselves a saint. I have heard almost everyone agree that the system is not working well. Conspiracy is a stretch. What | have also heard is that SW are being called "dumbies, crafty, liars, self-centered, self-righteous", and that they "remove children to punish parents and inflict maximum damage..."
And those comments are just in todays' comments! Who is vilifying whom??? How constructive are these comments?
Ron,
ReplyDeleteActually, with regards to your post today, did I miss something? Are SWs and foster parents actually complaining about visits between children and their parents as being "inconvenient"???
To Anon at June 16, 2010 4:31 PM:
ReplyDeleteAs has been pointed out, MCFD and supporters continually complain about any criticism. Your comment is just another example.
Well Anon 4:32 PM – Yours are valid questions. Did you miss something? and did either foster care giver or social worker complain of inconvenience? My “Inconvenience” theme today was inspired by the 10-page affidavit signed by Loren Humeny and Kimberly Grey as well as previous social work performance. Among the implications is a clear declaration that granting more visitation time is not only contrary to the Director's plans for these children but also inconvenient to all who must facilitate additional dates and times.
ReplyDeleteOne clear intention of the affidavit was to convince the judge that the children themselves already have full schedules that cannot conveniently accommodate more time with their biological parents. Further, the affidavit prioritizes time with the foster family rather than time with the Baynes. It also states that other play and social activities are as important as time with their parents. I want you to read this for yourself.
Point 5: “The eldest child is in kindergarten five days per week. The middle child is in pre-school five days per week and has activities and medical appointments three days per week.... In addition to kindergarten, preschool and preschool prescheduled activities as set out in the children's agenda attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A” to this our Affidavit, the children are also involved in numerous activities with the foster family in an effort to make the foster home as comforting and nurturing as possible.”
Point 27: “Upon reviewing the already busy schedule that the children have, it is evident that there is little time available for the children to experience everyday child activities such as play dates, friends and age-appropriate activities. These activities are as vital to the well being and development of the children as is their access to their parents. In the best interests of the children, time must be provided to allow for the children to experience normal, everyday childhood experiences.”
Point 28: “Numerous times throughout the past two and one half years the Director has ensured that visits have occurred to accommodate special events such as birthdays, Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day, etc. These visits have occurred when it is possible to arrange them around the children's schedule and when they are in the best interests of the children....”
Do you think I have made a logical deduction?
"The logical deduction" of "inconvenience" is really the Ministry choosing a strategy to defend themselves from the Baynes application.
ReplyDeleteAt a prior sitting, the lawyer may have detected the judge deferred to the Ministry decision makers regarding children's scheduling conflicts and limited supervision resources.
In this case, the instructions from the lawyer to the social workers in preparing their affidavits would be to focus on the extensive listing of children's activities, to make it appear that doubling the alotted time would be impossible or highly disruptive to the children to change, and, (here comes the catch-al phrase...) "not in the best interests of the children." (Laughter follows.)
The excerpts from the affidavit certainly do reveal a mindset where the underlying theme and insinuation is that the parents are guilty, and less worthy than the foster parents to whom the children should be attached to. It is quite enlightening to read this material.
It would be valuable to analyze at what is missing. In this case, what I see is missing in these fragments is any ounce of concern of the children's safety around the parents. In example Ray gives for children
As removal is the Ministry's only solution and its weapon for all child protection ailments, the singular concern these social workers should have preoccupied themselves is what danger to the children exists from the parents.
Ten pages of this? Really?
The MCFD states: "In the best interests of the children, time must be provided to allow for the children to experience normal, everyday childhood experiences.”
ReplyDeleteThis just astounds me. These people - paid for with our tax dollars - have done absolutely everything to ensure that the Bayne children DO NOT experience "normal, everyday childhood experiences." Unless of course you count getting yanked away from their loving family - on their birthday - by social workers and police, and then thrust into a succession of foster houses where they are subject to treatment that is anything but "normal" and "everyday childhood experiences."
The more I learn about this Ministry, the more disgusted I am. All Canadians should be upset that this kind of thing can go on in our country.
I urge all readers to let their friends, neighbours, co-workers, and everyone and anyone know about this blog, because it is extremely important in terms of educating people as to what kind of harm these people - the Ministry of Children and Family Development - are really doing to our children and families. Heaven help us if we don't do something to stop this abuse of power.
Thank goodness that the Baynes are such dedicated, loving, good parents (and it is evident to me just from reading this blog that they are).
The Baynes must be very strong people to have to go through this nightmare. Imagine the pain of not being with your children, of having to live without them, all because of an out-of-control government agency.
I would hope social workers are able to manage the challange of arranging the children's busy schedules to accomodate the extra three hours of visitation. Do NOT under estimate the enormity and immense difficulty of such a task.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, the difficulty for me to accomplish the same task of arranging extra visitations with Ministry-recommended NICCSS supervision was so great, not one visit in a dozen attempts that I prepaid was able to occur. Obviously, my too-few years of parenting and shuttling several children to and from school/ daycare/ activities/ doctors does not begin to compare with a trained social worker in her early twenties, or busy foster parents without any biological children who have selflessly dedicated their basement to house foster children for the too-few dollars they receive.
I should imagine the social workers would want to measure the damage to the children that occurs as a result of this disruption. This information needs to be made available to the judge at the next sitting. I seem to recall an 8-month waitlist for such counselling services, but this should still be workable if the Ministry is successful in extending the trial past August.
Do not underestimate the skills of MCFD-sourced counsellors at rectifying the dire pronouncements of damage diagnosed by skilled PhD psychologists. Why, my child was diagnoses with trama so severe, that, if not treated, would have caused life-long damage !
Ye of litle faith should be aware, that in just one single session (with only an 8-month waiting period in the 2 years my children were in care) one remarkable counsellor was able to cure my child! One session! Simply remarkable. The secret, according to my teen, was the ability of the counsellor to communicate as if to a four year old. Unfortunately, I was not able to speak to this wonder worker, likely due to immense demand for their services.
I know there is usually a 3-5 month wait list for highly trained diagnostic specialists as was the case for me, but perhaps an in-depth psychologist assessment can be slotted in-between the weekly doctor's appointments the children attend.
I would imagine also, with the best interests of the children in mind, cancelling some superfluous play time would permit foster parents to restore bonds and attachments potentially lost with excess visitations to the children's parents.
I do agree whole heartedly with Anonymous 4:31 who was responding to Anonymous 2:51 that it is not productive to generally slam our overworked and valued social workers. It would be far more productive to be specific, name names and supply accompanying audio and video to avoid problems associated with hearsay. Supreme Court Judges detest hearsay, generalizations and innuendo, so should we all.
I do suggest, that perhaps it would beneficial to name specific individuals in order to more properly praise their noteworthy deeds and accomplishments in order to commend them for their service on behalf of our troubled children.