In developing an interest in one family's horror I have been exposed to an embarrassing excess of similar sounding cases. Embarrassing not to me or the parents and children whose lives are forever altered by operational decisions, but mortifying for a public ministry whose job it is to protect and to serve children and to assist and to develop parents and families. So many decisions are made for what seem to be right reasons yet the decisions have not been affected by compassion, mercy, and unbending pursuit of truth. I know this ministry must deal with some reprehensible conduct by caregivers. I know that there are parents whose unaddressed personal life issues make them irredeemable as caregivers to children. I understand that the dirty side of society requires a steely approach to aspects of child welfare and child protection. Nevertheless it is inexcusable that so many good people, both parents and children should be damaged by an insensitive system and the people who manage it. It is insupportable that many social workers whose instincts are unselfish and tenderhearted are obliged by superiors to conduct their work against their own consciences.
I hear of increasing numbers of cases in which this ministry while fulfilling a mandate to care for and to protect children, has demonstrated callous disregard for parents' statements, feelings, rights or opinions. I have registered my surprise at times. Many of these parents who have experienced what they describe as venomous treatment by MCFD social workers and superiors have called me naive. Admittedly I have found it difficult to accept that so many government employees within a ministry could have strayed so far from pure altruism. People in whom I had confidence that they were serving and helping my community, my friends, my fellow citizens have proven to be untrustworthy. Something inside me has died. A level of trust is gone. I am deeply saddened by this. And I am dismayed that in researching child services around the world, I have brushed up against countless similar distortions of justice. It is systemic. It is a societal malignancy.
We have been dancing courteously in speaking about the Ministry and the officers and social workers within it for a very long time. I am convinced that it must happen, that stretched facts, misrepresented pieces of information, subjective opinions, spiteful decisions, broken promises, concealed truths must be revealed. Fingers must be pointed and charges laid, and case actions taken and penalties awarded against people within our public ministry.
well said,
ReplyDeletelets call things for what they are. Enough of political correctness. Enough of protection for the criminals in white suites. Enough of suffering for the families. It is time to finish the charade. It is time to stop to support system taking our tax money to destroy our little families. It is time to take immunity from anyone involved in child abuse and family abuse WHOEVER IT IS. Abuse is abuse. Take away the wording. You made the child or adult suffer you have to be responsible for it. You did mistakes? Well, answer for it. Child protection workers are paid for their job by our tax money. Teachers do not have immunities, so the police, so the builders, so the drivers, electricians, even doctors though it is harder to sue them. Police does not have immunities and they have to deal with much more divers situations.
Child protection workers work with most vulnerable population and it is them who got immunities? Something wrong here with logic.
Well, Ron, these conclusions you share I have expressed some months ago. I am saddened, disgusted and dismayed that this is where Canada stands today. We go around the world concerning ourselves about injustice but we have a basic belief that we are fair and good, even honorable in the treatment of our citizenry. We have guaranteed rights we stoutly proclaim. The victims of abuse by gov't and court systems scream foul and we, the believing citizenry, say there must be more to this. We believe!! We believe because that's what we were taught since little children. That's what we tell each other. We believe there are checks and balances. We believe the truth will come out. I am embarassed that we are so naive!!
ReplyDeleteIt will all blow over for everyone except those directly affected. Change will come when people, multitudes, stand together and refuse to cooperate with the system. We need people to take time from their workplace to attend court with people like the Baynes. We need multitudes of people to go the MLA's offices. We need people of standing in the communities to stand financially with desperate people who are unable to help themselves. We need some lawyers with passion for causes and for people. I so honor Mr Doug Christie for his belief in causes other than finance. I honor you, Ron, for being willing to risk to inform people. You are someone who has standing in your community. The Hunt family have risked and they have a community they influence. We need more of these people. Where are they? Come forward, people! You and your family could be next on someone's list of calls to make about a suspicion of you or your family. That's all it takes.
There are hundreds of individuals standing up, many putting their names out there under serious threat of loosing the autonomy of family units to speak out. There is little belief, little support except from those effected. I join July 17, 2010 poster in honoring those mentioned. Chargers must be laid in cases like these. No more blanket immunities.
ReplyDeleteI have a deeper understanding of what Mr. Christie stands for after having stood before three Court of Appeal Judges on a custody matter, and when "report to court" was mentioned, these esteemed and very experienced judges asked "what is a report to court?"
ReplyDeleteThat question alone blew me away. I paid several thousand dollars for trial transcripts, more thousands for a legal examination and preparation to examine the "error of law", and here these judges were clearly trying to find wiggle room not to undo any aspect of the very well respected trial judge's ruling.
Appealing a CFCSA matter (lack of disclosure) to the next level, BC Supreme Court (which is subordinate to a Court of Appeal) is a similarly frustrating process. Again, with the same level of "error of law" research, I ran into the same attempt to water down my claim.
An individual who is not a lawyer and does not have the reputation has more of an uphill battle. It can work EVENTUALLY, but you do have to be extraordinarily persistent and not let any setback discourage you.
A one word change in the CFCSA would fix much. CFCSA 37(1) rests one phrase. In the 45 day time limit in which a protection trial is to begin, the wording is "commencing the (protection) hearing." The huge gaping hold in this legislation is that the mandatory case conference, usually an hour, and which solves nothing, apparently fulfills this requirement as it is deemed a "protection" hearing process, despite the fact this date and the full trial date is months and years apart.
The Flagg's site is nicely done, relevant and compelling. Anyone who stands up as an individual is easily shot down, (or ignored) as an individual. Sour grapes, malcontents, people that can be put in the same category as people irate about receiving a traffic ticket and starting a website to outlaw traffic tickets.
These individuals need to throw their weight behind people or a group to give that spokesperson more weight. Essentially what an MLA is supposed to be doing. Identify those individuals who clearly support what you are asking for and are willing to put a bill forward to correct some aspect of the CFCSA.
Sorry, anonymous 11:23 AM!! It is not my intention to slight anyone. It is not that no one is standing but few of people of wider influence are standing publicly. In my understanding, it has to be a very broad spectrum of our society who refuse to sit down and accept this high handed social engineering. Gov'ts look at individuals and, even some groups, as easy to disregard but professional groups, political allies, community leaders, and huge numbers of regular people representing a broad spectrum standing in dissent have the most impact. Little splinters of societies and posturing partisan political voices are more easily discounted. I commend all and "thank you" to all those you mention who are taking risks!! In fact, alone, we are all at risk of these people simple by speaking.
ReplyDelete