Groundswell. New Ministry of Children Now!
What will it take? What will it take to move us first so that we become part of the movement that uproots and overturns the abusive system that is a disgrace to grace and mercy, kindness and altruistic assistance.
If that is true then some of you are verbalizing, venting, your distaste for MCFD practices with regard to child protection and the way it affects families. Do you read how diplomatically I have stated your feelings. It's too soft isn't it? In fact you are angry. I keep saying that we need to control ourselves and I believe on one hand that I am right. If you still have unfinished business with MCFD then the more unglued you appear to them, the more negative reporting goes into your file. That's why anonymity and camouflaged information needs to appear here if you are telling your story. I don't believe we need to be paranoid but wary. Are you angry yet? You see, on the other hand as Gill Troy tells us, one of the motivating factors that generate successful movements is anger sufficient to press for change. Why do any of you have to suffer so helplessly. It is plainly wrong. It is enough to make you angry.
A few of you have said that what MCFD child protection does, is wrong. It's an inadequate descriptive isn't it? You can hardly find words adequate to depict the things done to adult men and women and their children. Wrong yes! But also condemnable, improper, reprehensible, deplorable, criminal, dishonourable, immoral, unethical, wicked, that's what it is.
A groundswell is like a wave, tsunami. By the way, 75% of all tsunamis occur in the Pacific Ocean. I certainly am hoping that a Pacific opposition of tsunami proportions will strike a responsive chord among our politicians.
Do you think that you can manage your anger? Anger motivates but it doesn't win debates. It alienates listeners and readers and decision makers. The anger can propel you to be a good researcher, a committed advocate, a change maker. The anger must be first harnessed into energy.
In writing about the need for Jews to respond to the new anti-semitism McGill professor Gill Troy says, “ http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/can_we_stop_being_so
To: Ron (July 6, 2010 9:54 PM)
ReplyDeleteI am NOT Anonymous 7:36 AM and 9:37 PM in Part 241 who I truly commend for such outstanding advocacy against such a formidable bureaucracy. It is a risky, difficult and often futile endeavor.
Instead of having blind faith in an ex-service provider and supporting the position of replacing CFCSA with the old act (Family and Child Service Act, S.B.C. 1980), I humbly suggest that you should pay more attention to the ideas from those who are on the receiving end of "child protection" services. Isn't it true that they are the people whom MCFD calls "clients"? Are client's comments more valuable than those from service providers?
Anonymous July 6, 2010 9:46 PM in Part 241 had provided some avenues of activism. Try these and seek the answer yourself.
You once said that those who are angry should not advocate. Have you changed your view now? Next to love, anger is the most powerful motivating factor. Anger alone is counterproductive and cannot accomplish anything. But when combined with wit, control, perseverance and determination, it can move mountain. Above all, "In your anger do not sin" (Ephesians 4:26)
Before you can find a solution, get your head straight. Identify the root problem of this atrocity. Why this state-created barbarism exists in 21st century Canada and most English-speaking nations? What are the historical contributing factors? Who are the true beneficiaries? Why few people listen to oppressed parents?
In seeking a solution, deal with the root problem. Don't just treat the symptoms.
This is a good research topic in sociology and political science. One can write a thesis on this.
To Anon 12:46 AM July 7
ReplyDelete- You have made me think this morning . Good way to start my day. I have not been persuaded that replacing CFCSA 2010 with the old 1980 CFSA is a solution to the injustices incurred by our present child protection agencies. Further, it's not blind faith I exhibit when I listen to a former service provider, eg. Ray Ferris when he recommends that replacement. I know him reasonably well. It's blind faith for me to accept that Anon 7:36 AM and 9:37 PM in Part 241 is who she/he claims to be. Yet that testimony moved me to want to know the person on the chance that the content is valid. I was trusting that it was obvious, and if it is not I want to assure you that I am paying attention to “clients' comments.” I am planning a review of previous comments to harvest the best and perhaps the worst.
- I am paying attention. You are among those who repeatedly seek to convince me that the monetary agenda is the primary motivator of all child protection work. That may be the conclusion to which one comes when he/she is angry and perhaps has been on the receiving end of MCFD practice. If so, anger must still accommodate reality. We are not going to have a society or community without some kind of protection for children because while we don't like it, there are poorly prepared, challenged, troubled, and bad parents who do present risk to their children. Chucking CFCSA and any kind of legislation is naive.
- You wrote to me, “You once said that those who are angry should not advocate. Have you changed your view now? Next to love, anger is the most powerful motivating factor. Anger alone is counterproductive and cannot accomplish anything. But when combined with wit, control, perseverance and determination, it can move mountain.” – I did not change my mind. In the post I myself made a distinction between the risk and the strength of anger and the need to harness anger when when advocating change.
- On the one hand you humbly suggest and on the other advise me to get my head straight, which may be a 2010 colloquialism that means no disrespect. I will assume the latter although that is a leap of blind faith.
Ron: I am anon 7:36. Being anonymous, I have no reason to say anything that isn't true. Maybe if I give you some history on how I got involved, it might make more sense: I got very ill in 2002. I started having seizures, vomiting everyday and lost a severe amount of weight. At the same time, I was going through a very nasty divorce. My ex-husband told me he was gay, wanted to stay living together and told me if I left, he would make sure I never saw my kids again. I won't say how many but I have several children. I did end up leaving my ex. He called MCFD and told them I had 'run away' and was 'crazy enough to kill the children'. When they investigated these complaints, and made me sign a supervision order. One week later I had another seizure and ended up in the hospital. The children were removed from my care and sent to my ex's house. I had major emergency surgery the next day to remove the gallstone blocking my liver, my gallbladder and the stones in my intestines. I was very ill but seven days later at the presentation hearing, MCFD said I had Munchausins disease and was mentally unstable. I never got a protection hearing. Within two months my ex husband had custody of the kids and they to this day have not been returned to me. For the first three years I fought hard. Our case spent more hours in court than any other family in the history of our small town. I usually represented myself. I fought for everything from visitation to telephone access to being allowed on school field trips and I gave up my whole life to fight that fight. I studied, I observed other cases in court, I questioned lawyer after lawyer after lawyer. I spoke with social workers, team leaders, area managers, regional managers, assistants and anyone I thought I could extract information from. While sitting in court for endless hours listening to my own case, I heard so many other stories and I quite often knew the families as it was a very small town. I began to see some commonalities in cases.
ReplyDeleteWhile going through the court process, I noticed that MCFD acted very unfairly. There were times when I wasn't even served for court. I showed up at the courthouse one day to fill out paper work and noticed my name on the docket. MCFD's lawyer was in court trying to change the date for a hearing. I was in court at least once every two weeks if not more for three years. MCFD sometimes didn't provide disclosure until the very morning of trial and would give all kinds of excuses why they didn't give it to me earlier. They wrote false information in risk assessments and entered them in as evidence. They testified false evidence on the stand. When I ordered disclosure from the Freedom of information department, I was told it would be about thirty days and that I could NOT have information pertaining to my OWN children, even though I had not be found guilty of anything. I waited 13 months for the disclosure. Every now and then I would call and ask what was going on and they would respond by saying, 'we had to ask for an extension'. I went through the complaints process. I emailed Lesley du Toit so many times about my case that she finally met with me. She met with me again after I received my final review and I'm glad she listened but nothing came out of our meetings. My relationship with my children has been destroyed. I fought for every minute I've had with them in the last seven years but I've lost so much. I've lost not only their love but their respect and everyday feels like a nightmare to me. It never gets easier. This is not a wound that heals with time. My life would have no purpose at all if I did not share my experiences and compounded knowledge with other parents. Making the process easier for other parents is what keeps me going.
ReplyDeletePeople probably don't pay attention to parents who have been on the receiving end of services from MCFD because once you've lost your children, you no longer have any credibility with 'normal parents'. Everyone thinks you must have done something really wrong for MCFD to get involved. A lot of people think if you were a good parent, your children would have been returned. It is such a hard concept for people to grasp that social workers base a lot of their work on opinion. I definitely don't think all social workers are 'bad' or that there's no need for any removals, but people need to start listening to what is really going on. We need to be promoting healthy families, not tearing them apart. When children are removed, access is minimal. Visits get cancelled for invalid reasons and make up visits are rare. Some parents only see their children once or twice a week for an hour. In some cases I can see how this might be fitting. Maybe parents who are very addicted to drugs don't show up for every visit so they get the minimum because it is hard on the child when they don't show. Most parents love their children and want to do whatever it takes to get them back and they take every opportunity to see their children. Bonds diminish over time when access is so sparse and this also hurts the child.
ReplyDeleteWell Anon 7:36 am from yesterday and 7:02 today:
ReplyDeleteYou and your story utterly amaze me.
My heart goes out to you.
My admiration overflows.
People with whom you are able to spend time must be very grateful for your understanding, advice and encouragement.
Thanks for the bio details.
One of the biggest road blocks is that as soon as a client of MCFD says something inappropriate happened, no one believes them. I am a fairly smart person. I'm educated in a field other than social work and I work regular hours. I lead a normal life aside from the advocacy portion. I have a clean house, I don't drink or do drugs, I took care of my kids the same as most people but I had a vengeful ex-husband who had something to prove. People who have never been clients of MCFD usually listen to me until I say my own children were removed. Then I lose all credibility even though my points and arguments may be valid. It seems like parents who have been clients of MCFD find my words hold more credibility when I say my children have been removed. Having been through it, I know what it feels like every step of the way and I know what happens to children as a result of being astranged from one parent. It's not nice. I bear the weight of my own grief over losing the children but at the same time, I bear the weight of the pain the children have had to deal with. Five or six foster homes, running away repeatedly, sexual assault in an unapproved foster home, being told one parent is 'dangerous to be around'or mentally sick and not safe to be around alone...children get confused.
ReplyDeleteA social worker wrote a statement in a risk assessment that nearly cost me my entire relationship with my son. She repeated her statement in court and to my son's face. My son called me and said, 'Mom, social workers don't lie! She said it in a court document. You don't love me as much as the other kids. Why Mom? Why?
I have tears as I write this because the memories will always be as fresh as the day it happened. He didn't call me for a couple of years after that and when he did, it was just to yell and me and tell me how he hated me.
Because of MCFD, their decisions and things they said to my kids, my children will never know how much I love them or how hard I fought be show them that I do.
The same social worker scared my younger son so bad he kept calling me at all hours of the day or night to see if I was okay. 'Mom, the social worker told me your new boyfriend has a mental illness and might even kill you if he doesn't take his pills'.
My children now know, seven years later, that my 'new boyfriend' who is my husband, has done nothing but help me to survive the torture that MCFD put me through. He's never had mental illness or taken any 'pills'.
I stopped going to court because I knew I had to get on with my life. The frustration of trying to defend myself against false allegations became too much. I never knew what the allegations were going to be until the day of court most of the time and it's hard to defend yourself when you don't even know what will be thrown at you. When I received a letter stating I wasn't entitled to any information regarding my children, I cried so hard I fell to the floor. It wasn't that I had given up, but that I knew that there was absolutely nothing I could do. There was nowhere else to go. No one else to take my complaints to. When I told the assistant deputy director (or whatever his title was) that social workers put false information in court documents and lied on the stand, he said: 'there's nothing we can do about that. You'll have to get a lawyer'.
After three years of not working and mostly representing myself in court, how could I do that? And why aren't social workers held accountable for actions like this?
To Anon 12.46 AM. Of course I am not suggesting that bringing back the old act will solve the problems. One of the things that is evident from todays blogs is that there is no evidence of intelligence, integrity, compassion orcourage shown by MCF workers in any of the stories. Without these qualities any piece of legislation becomes a weapon and not a tool. Bringing back the old act would reduce the number of weapons and thus be the lesser evil. I will be covering the act in detail in a later blog. Await my words with bated breath!!
ReplyDelete"You are among those who repeatedly seek to convince me that the monetary agenda is the primary motivator of all child protection work. That may be the conclusion to which one comes when he/she is angry and perhaps has been on the receiving end of MCFD practice. If so, anger must still accommodate reality."
ReplyDeleteAnger has nothing to do with the logical and realistic conclusion of monetary agenda. Failing to see this is equivalent to believing that the U.S. went to war in Iraq, not for oil and money, but to install democracy for another nation and to protect its people from tyranny uninvited.
Do you have a better explanation if you reject the foregoing?
Chucking CFCSA and any kind of legislation is not naive. This is the only solution. Mark my words. The problem is not solved by any measure less than this. Do yo have a better solution?
There are other legislations that gives authorities power to separate abusive parents and their vulnerable children (which amounts to a removal). CFCSA is redundant, counterproductive and oppressive. It allows authorities (CP SW is just one of them) to circumvent due process under the pretext of "child protection". Killing CFCSA will NOT comprise real child protection work. It will minimize wrongful removals and allow public resources to be used in a more meaningful way to protect children in need.
Convincing you or not will not solve the problem. I simply want to share my opinions with others who have a concern about "child protection" in your blog. I do not want to see any committed people (including you of course) running around without accomplishing anything for our children after making so much effort.
"Killing CFCSA will NOT comprise real child protection work."
ReplyDeleteSorry, there is a typo. Comprise should read compromise.
Revert to the old act? Based on what... "evidence?"
ReplyDeleteIf we bring the discussion of the Gove report into the picture, the argument offerred by the Ministry would be, "you can have a choice: more deaths of children, or more 'precautionary removals'."
If you revert, you can guarantee a child will be "not noticed" by restoring a "crippled" system and would die as a result, then MCFD would collectively stand up and say "we told you so!" and the cycle would continue.
Until a day-by-day accounting of what goes on is properly established to measure the effects of changes, change by itself really is pointless.
Lack of good, relevant, and timely statistics that prove this or that issue exists is lacking. Rhetoric does not count. Heart wrenching stories, unfortunately, do not count.
Matters that do count are items most story tellers neglect to mention such as facts, medical reports, lack of, last minute or incomplete disclosure, whether or not parents appealed or were advised to appeal, avenues of legal advice received, etc.
It is mind-numbingly time consuming to gather this information and put it into a format in the correct language lawmakers can relate to.
Call it the "Baynes Report" completed by impartial lawyers, social workers, psychologists and have 100 recommendations come from that with the objective of avoiding a repeat of falsley accusing families of abuse and obligating years of litigation. The target is unecessary removals that can be addressed by other ways, definitions of what contitutes "unneccessary" must be done first.
Quick and dirty fixes on the magnitude some are suggesting, "just swap the old out for the not-working" seem simplistic to me.
Regardless of what Act or Director is in power, or what the Ministry chooses to call itself, the fundamentals that drive the mentality of the industry is at the core of the problem. If you change something at the top, these people flow around the problem like water to reestablish a new equilibrium so they can continue as before.
Some, and we don't know how many and how much $$, parents and children and taxpayers are paying a huge price.
Just with the Baynes case alone, while 20 teachers that each teach 20-30 children daily are being laid off at the cost of the Baynes case as it proceeds.
These are undeniable facts that provide some perspective to the public, who may not have the inclination to listen to the heart-wrenching stories attached to the case.
What the Ministry would have us believe is that if the judge decides to return the children, further injury or death of one or more of the children WILL occur at the hands of the parents and the underpaid overworked social workers will be powerless to prevent this catastrophe.
The ministry proposes that only if they keep and adopt out all three children and the public pays for their upkeep as special needs children until age 19 will these children be finally safe from their parents.
If the latter happens, there really can be no discussion of Ministry reform that originates from affected parents. As one Anon commenter put it, one a parent is successfully villified by the Ministry, from that point they have no voice at all with respect to proposing reforms to the system.
Keep in mind also the Baynes would not be able to have any more children to "replace" the one's they lost unless they moved to a different country and changed their last name.
To: Ray Ferris said... (July 7, 2010 10:18 AM)
ReplyDeleteOn July 4, 2010 2:03 PM (Part 239), you wrote:
"There is a simple way to fix it. Scrap it and just bring back the old act. The old act worked; this one does not."
Today, you wrote:
"Of course I am not suggesting that bringing back the old act will solve the problems."
They appear to be self-contradictory. Do I miss anything? Or are you being situational?
Speaking of situational interpretation, CP SW are experts in this.
Anon 2:40 wrote: "Matters that do count are items most story tellers neglect to mention such as facts, medical reports, lack of, last minute or incomplete disclosure, whether or not parents appealed or were advised to appeal, avenues of legal advice received, etc." , and "It is mind-numbingly time consuming to gather this information and put it into a format in the correct language lawmakers can relate to."
ReplyDeleteHow true. With English 2nd language, mountains of prima facie evidence of very serious crimes, facts, copies of documents, an audio report of police interrogation, for laymen self-evident gross violations of the Constitution etc. does not matter at all to 800 public servants daily receiving e-mailed 2752 words long report. 1/4 of my reports consists of copied incriminating statements of various public servants, but nobody believes that reports written by some moron unable to use comprehensible English may have even a smallest significance. The stupidest thing I ever did: immigrated to Catastrophically Corrupt Canada.
Anger does not describe all-consuming rage, furry, madness, pure hate of myself and everybody and everything, maddening powerlessness, hopelessness, constant temptation to end all suffering. Not cowardly, usefully, historically proven way - as a human torch attract some attention that Children's gulag most urgently requires. My suicide after possible murders is, after all, for ten years predicted and expected.
Take out the Act, revise the Act, write a new one...what difference would it make? Obviously there are holes that need to be repaired but enough band aid solutions already! People need to get serious about how to fix this and the sooner that happens, the better for all the children in BC. There should be meetings, brainstorming, thinking, thinking and rethinking. This has gone on too long. Too many families are suffering.
ReplyDeleteChanging things on paper isn't going to make a difference. A whole new way of protecting children is going to make a difference and having to take drastic measures in the meantime might be the answer. I have no idea what those drastic measures would be but I know for sure something drastic would have to be done to reconfigure the entire face of child protection. But that is what we need.
BC needs a committee of professionals AND parents who have been clients to sit down together and hash out what has to happen in order to set this straight and the incentive is this: children.
To anonymous 1.42 and anon 2,40
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I answered that one The old act worked reasonably well at allowing people to get through court much quicker, but of course it was only as good as the staff that used it. During the year and a half that I was family court co-ordinator we protected the rights of parents very carefully. We had internal watch dogs. Our counsel was one, who would never have allowed the garbage evidence shown in the Bayne case. Nor would I and nor would the judge. We actually had very few contested cases and we mediated much better when it was not in the act. You may recall that I said that an act can be used as a tool or a weapon. Bad staff use it as a weapon and my reasoning is that when an act is used as a weapon the current act has a much bigger armoury.
Now to the Gove report etc. The legislation has nothing to do with the periodic pendulum swing between over-investigation and under-investigation. These swings have happened under all acts. Often they are instigated by top managers and slavishly followed by those who should know better. I entirely agree with former interim child advocate, Jane Morley when she described it as a false dichotomy. A good professonal assesses each case on its own merit and ignores the trendy trash. There are a number of reasons why the present act virtually ground he courts to a standstill as soon as it went into force. But I will not cover that here.
Yesterday in proceeding with assessment I started to cover "failure to thrive" and I told about the case of a young couple who were starving their babies because they were too lazy to walk a short distance to the store to pick up formula, or to get out of bed and feed them. If you note the principles in that case that I have already covered. The evidence was direct and factual and convincing. I had to boot the out of bed and come with me to fetch the food and I stood over them to make sure the kids were fed. I did not concoct some ridiculous hypothesis about them having "Muenschausens by proxy" syndrome. They were unfit parents, who were also alcoholics. Like Frank McCourt's father in "Angela's Ashes" they were usually broke and only drank when they had money, but when they did they drank all of it. Now there is one anon who keeps claiming that all child removals are abusive and all legislation should be scrapped. Now tell me please, should I just have stood by and watched the parents starve their kids to death? What was so evil and abusive about paying grandma well to raise them and letting the parents see them as often as they wished?
I could tell you a dozen similar stories and even more about children who were left to suffer in misery out of misplaced kindness.
Mr. Ferris is so smart, and he knows so many so wonderful social workers. Strange thing that so wonderful SW did not prevent their, at least incompetent, colleagues' crimes against children. Good night to all with clear conscience!
ReplyDeleteTo: Ray Ferris said... (July 7, 2010 8:28 PM in Part 242)
ReplyDelete"Now there is one anon who keeps claiming that all child removals are abusive and all legislation should be scrapped. Now tell me please, should I just have stood by and watched the parents starve their kids to death?"
I did not say that all legislation should be scrapped. I said kill CFCSA, outlaw child removal except in several restricted situations.
In the situation you described, failing to feed a child amounts to abandoning child contravening Section 218 of the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, habitual drunkenness is a form of corrupting children contravening Section 172(1) of the Criminal Code.
Unfit parents can be removed from home during the bail hearing, which effectively separate them from vulnerable children. SW and other supporting service then can help the children and do what they are trained to do. Once convicted and served the sentence, parents must be allowed home and given a second chance.
Unlike the faulty CFCSA proceedings in family court, criminal proceedings are due process based on good evidence and constitutional rights apply.
To build that groundswell, keep telling the stories and identify the commonalities relating to system probems.
ReplyDeleteClarification on removal powers would be that social workers SHOULD NOT have UNILATERAL power to remove children and instantly revoke parenting rights without due procees, and timely process.
Provincial judges seem to rubber stamp anything put before them because to not do so means they could be letting one child slip through the cracks. If one child is later injured, that judge becomes responsible for not giving the Ministry what it wanted, and their career can be affected.
Ray, how many warrants did you apply for in your career? How many removals did you perform without warrants? How many removals occurred without first trying services and a supervision order? What percentage were aboriginals? How about removals categorized by economic status and age? How many were removed from daycare, schools, hospital and homes? How many with police assistance? What is your average case closing times? What was the average stay of children in care for those cases where children were returned to parents? What is was your salary and retirement benefits? How is your marraige and kids? Have you take a polygraph? How about any psychological tests such as MNPI?
These are invasive, perhaps impolite questions that a parent and taxpayer could argue are important criteria for determining the fitness and experience of one who has the power to remove children. This sort of information can also be used to profile social workers, compare them, and see what patterns emerge.
The worker who removed my children had 20 weeks of investigative training, had a BA and BSW. One investigative technique is asking each of my children in turn about recent deaths of loved ones, presumably to evoke tears and strong emotions, then following up with questions about abuse they suffered from their parents. That transcript was their evidence.
The story of the poor, shiftless drunk parents who didn't feed their child adequately who lost their child to the grandmother, categorizes the situation, then this becomes significant justification for the removal. There is no word on the fitness of the grandmother who produced the shiftless drunk parent.
Child removal includes the side effect of permanently labelling parents unfit, unredeemable and not able to have more children because they will be removed as well. This is not much different than sterilizing parents in order to prevent them from caring for children ever again. These parents can no longer obtain employment in certain child-related fields.
There is a permanent stigma that goes along with having your children removed, means you cannot effectively protest your innocence, your voice is silenced.
The Ministry story is that the Baynes were also poor, and they suffered munchausen's syndrome by proxy. These parents rejected valiant attempts by two Ministers of the church to feed their children properly. The Ministry offerred services, but these were inneffective in addressing concerns. The parents, frustrated with and angry with the withdrawal of the support of their Ministry friends, decided to take out their frustrations on their 6-week premature child, who as a result of inappropriate parenting suffered permanent brain damage and blindness, suffers a speech impediment, requires braces to walk, among some of the many lifelong problems.
The parents, realizing their mistake, concocted a story of an accident for doctors, who eventually saw through the ruse and diagnosed shaken baby syndrome.
If the Baynes lose, this will be the story forever. The victor writes history. No one will believe the Baynes version of events. No one will go through the many hundreds, if not thousands of pages of information that they would say proves them innocent.
If the Baynes win, the ministry story and their records will reflect the parent's unending manipulative efforts of the public and media was responsible for the win, and that justice was subverted by this process.
Anon 12:26 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat a profoundly real and disheartening picture you paint. You accomplished so much in that comment. You told us what some of us need still to do. You asked some poignant and relevant questions for later use. You graphically told us the stories that MCFD spins and how appallingly unlikely it is that the real truth can every be told. And I dislike as much as the rest of you that it must end here.
Can we find ways to tell the rest of the story in believable ways?