We have been witnessing the feeding of a family of four racoons. There must be a fifth racoon somewhere, but he is an absentee father. I am content that they do not live in my backyard or under my decks and I am reasonably sure now that they do not live in my neighbours' yards either. They are fence walkers, and they travel through our community I believe from a large green-space nearby in order to find food. So in our neighbour's yard to the rear of us is a towering wild cherry tree which has attracted these racoons. They climb high into the branches and reach with dexterity using their hand like paws to grasp cherries. When they see us they stop and consider the situation, analyzing whether we are a threat. Momma is particularly watchful and from behind her black mask she determines whether her offspring are safe or vulnerable. Tiny chirping sounds emanate from her which the babies understand. One evening we were too close I think because her message sent the little masked marvels scampering up the tree where all four sat for almost an hour. I worried that the small ones might lose their grips and fall to the ground. Momma came to each one, touched noses and ascertained that all was well. Finally they descended and moved on for the night. This has gone on for many days and today I noticed how much the little ones had grown.
All of my grandchildren have seen the racoons, so have our neighbours and their children. When our own children and grandchildren are with us, close to us, within our care, we can do such simple activities – like watching a family of racoons and talking about it. We take this autonomy for granted.
The inherent freedom of parents to nurture their children, to enjoy a backyard BBQ, to throw a frisbee or lawn bowl, to sip a cool drink or to run around until so tired that falling asleep in their own beds at home is natural, has been withdrawn and withheld from Paul and Zabeth Bayne. If this continues three more months it will be three years of private family moments that have been missed. Paul and Zabeth did not choose to be absentee parents.
What might you think of me if I were to trap the three small animals and remove them to Redwood Park but leave Momma Racoon to wander fences in my neighbourhood? The analogy doesn't work does it? I might be doing something humane. The other action is not.
You or I would likely not be qualified to make the decision on how best to remove raccoons if there was some danger they posed to us, or the need was to protect these animals from less understanding neighbours. We would call the city police, animal pest control or the SPCA, to name a few to solve the problem, if it was decided there was a problem.
ReplyDeleteUnlike raccoons, people are not autonomous in same sense. We must trust "others", to grow and prepare food and make protection decisions for us. The goals are the same, the process is different.
In a farm situation there may be no such immediate service to relieve us of having to decide whether to trap, shoot, relocate or just leave raccoons alone and hide all food sources. If I think a racoon and their family is cute believe in a live and left live philosophy, then I decide how to arrange my life to accommodate them while ensuring my family, pets and food remain save while they enjoy the experience.
If I don't care about raccoons or other animals, I can just shoot them or cage them and drop them off in a distant wilderness. However, it would not be the best example of live and let live.
----
I searched for photos, like this one,
http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/raccoon.jpg
Racoon's teeth showing
and this one
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/assets/overweight_raccoon.jpg (fat raccoon being held by lady)
and this one, of an adorable racoon
http://blog.silive.com/weather/2008/01/raccoon_5916.jpg
In order to help make a decision, as Ray Ferris suggests, a risk assessment would be performed.
If I want to justify to myself shooting the raccoons, I use photo 1.
If I want to justify creating an action plan to ensure we all live in harmony, I use photo 3. If I want to support relocation, I will use photo 2, since it is not natural to make pets of racoons and overfeed them.
I also searched google, "raccoons why they approach house" and found several articles, most of which were not complimentary to racoons. They are dangerous to people when protecting their young and at puberty, and they forage for food in city garbage cans.
Other articles described the benefits of raccoons in that they eat pesky smaller rodents and insects. Their 'masks' help night vision and reduce glare, like the black paint football players put under their eyes. Cool.
Now, who are the Baynes a danger to? Would the argument that if left unchecked, damaged children that result from their care would cost society far greater over their life time?
So, the approximate $300 yearly each British Columbian pays to have MCFD operate (4.5 million population, $1.4 billion dollar MCFD budget), how do I and my family benefit from their existence?
To me, MCFD is the pesky raccoon invading my home and eating my food without invitation, contaminating it, posing a danger to my children. Shooting "it" isn't an option, so exactly how does one eradicate such a pest?
There is nothing cute and cuddly about MCFD. The benefits of them providing family child benefits and greatly outweighed by the cost of their operation to persecute families and results in miserable outcomes.
I see a 1 in 30 chance of MCFD receiving an intake report on my family each year (BC population 4.5 million divided by 5, divided by 30,000 intake reports). A one in two chance over the 15-year childhood of any of my children.
What is humane and what is not is likely not the central issue. The issue is exactly what is being achieved by separating families in the manner that is being done?
I say MCFD's primary function is to generate more demand its service irrespective of the costs, in the same manner as a cancer grows and eventually kills its host.
It would appear that the cure for MCFD and cancer is equally difficult to find, and I do believe the first step is to recognize that MCFD is indeed a cancer, and is not a part of the natural ecosystem, as are raccoons.
This link did work for me. Use the root link http://fvrlhp.fvrl.bc.ca/ and go from there. I was not even aware there was such a library, so this is good to know.
ReplyDeleteSearching my local library for "child protection" and the author Marlene Webber and the title of the book "As if kids mattered : what's wrong in the world of child protection and adoption" did not come up with any hits.
--
You can see that I revised my "don't care" comment with respect to foster homes after I have become further enlightened with further reading materials (specifically Gordon Neufeld's writings about attachments) and a desire to tone down otherwise inflammatory comments that are counter productive.
CW has left a new comment on your post "MOMMA RACOON AND THREE BABIES / Part 252 / For Lo...":
ReplyDeleteA relevant book to the discussions on this web page.
I don't know if it's good, but I have ordered it.
http://fvrlhp.fvrl.bc.ca/search~S0?/X(child%20protection)&SORT=D/X(child%20protection)&SORT=D&SUBKEY=(child%20protection)/1%2C11%2C11%2CB/frameset&FF=X(child%20protection)&SORT=D&2%2C2%2C
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "MOMMA RACOON AND THREE BABIES / Part 252 / For Lo...":
ReplyDeleteThis link did work for me. Use the root link http://fvrlhp.fvrl.bc.ca/ and go from there. I was not even aware there was such a library, so this is good to know.
Searching my local library for "child protection" and the author Marlene Webber and the title of the book "As if kids mattered : what's wrong in the world of child protection and adoption" did not come up with any hits.
--
You can see that I revised my "don't care" comment with respect to foster homes after I have become further enlightened with further reading materials (specifically Gordon Neufeld's writings about attachments) and a desire to tone down otherwise inflammatory comments that are counter productive.
Anonymous has left a new comment
ReplyDeleteYou or I would likely not be qualified to make the decision on how best to remove raccoons if there was some danger they posed to us, or the need was to protect these animals from less understanding neighbours. We would call the city police, animal pest control or the SPCA, to name a few to solve the problem, if it was decided there was a problem.
Unlike raccoons, people are not autonomous in same sense. We must trust "others", to grow and prepare food and make protection decisions for us. The goals are the same, the process is different.
In a farm situation there may be no such immediate service to relieve us of having to decide whether to trap, shoot, relocate or just leave raccoons alone and hide all food sources. If I think a racoon and their family is cute believe in a live and left live philosophy, then I decide how to arrange my life to accommodate them while ensuring my family, pets and food remain save while they enjoy the experience.
If I don't care about raccoons or other animals, I can just shoot them or cage them and drop them off in a distant wilderness. However, it would not be the best example of live and let live.
----
I searched for photos, like this one,
http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/raccoon.jpg Racoon's teeth showing and this one
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/assets/overweight_raccoon.jpg (fat raccoon being held by lady) and this one, of an adorable racoon
http://blog.silive.com/weather/2008/01/raccoon_5916.jpg
In order to help make a decision, as Ray Ferris suggests, a risk assessment would be performed.
If I want to justify to myself shooting the raccoons, I use photo 1. If I want to justify creating an action plan to ensure we all live in harmony, I use photo 3. If I want to support relocation, I will use photo 2, since it is not natural to make pets of racoons and overfeed them.
I also searched google, "raccoons why they approach house" and found several articles, most of which were not complimentary to racoons. They are dangerous to people when protecting their young and at puberty, and they forage for food in city garbage cans.
Other articles described the benefits of raccoons in that they eat pesky smaller rodents and insects. Their 'masks' help night vision and reduce glare, like the black paint football players put under their eyes. Cool.
Now, who are the Baynes a danger to? Would the argument that if left unchecked, damaged children that result from their care would cost society far greater over their life time?
So, the approximate $300 yearly each British Columbian pays to have MCFD operate (4.5 million population, $1.4 billion dollar MCFD budget), how do I and my family benefit from their existence?
To me, MCFD is the pesky raccoon invading my home and eating my food without invitation, contaminating it, posing a danger to my children. Shooting "it" isn't an option, so exactly how does one eradicate such a pest?
There is nothing cute and cuddly about MCFD. The benefits of them providing family child benefits and greatly outweighed by the cost of their operation to persecute families and results in miserable outcomes.
I see a 1 in 30 chance of MCFD receiving an intake report on my family each year (BC population 4.5 million divided by 5, divided by 30,000 intake reports). A one in two chance over the 15-year childhood of any of my children.
What is humane and what is not is likely not the central issue. The issue is exactly what is being achieved by separating families in the manner that is being done?
I say MCFD's primary function is to generate more demand its service irrespective of the costs, in the same manner as a cancer grows and eventually kills its host.
It would appear that the cure for MCFD and cancer is equally difficult to find, and I do believe the first step is to recognize that MCFD is indeed a cancer, and is not a part of the natural ecosystem, as are raccoons.
I apologize for Blogger technical difficulties in handling incoming comments. A couple of them may have been missed. If you sent one and it doesn't appear, please send again.
ReplyDeleteI have some further comments for CW. I have no doubt that you were sincere in pointing out best practice guidelines for completing risk assessment. For the last fifty years I have often noticed that what is written often bears little relationship to what is practised. A few years ago interministy guidelines were set up for the proper interviewing of children. This was done because coercive interviewing of children had often led to false accusations of abuse. Five years later I could not find anyone who had ever heard of the guidelines, let alone follow them. The director in the Bayne case has heard of the guidelines, because I brought them sharply to his attention a few years ago. When I asked his boss if he had actually read them, he refused to answer.
ReplyDeleteOne only has to look at the guidelines in the CF&CSA to realise that what is written is seldom practiced. The principles of timeliness and not leaving young children in limbo are ignored time and again. All these guiding principles are useless because the ministry makes liberal use of legal loopholes in order to avoid them. The courts give them full co-operation.
No, no CW. I have no doubt that all those backroom bureaucrats who draw up these principles are sincere enough and they hope they are doing some good, but their efforts are largely futile. Why? Because the whole child protection system is built on a bureaucratic model and it needs to be built on a professional model.
Specifically, there needs to be a well defined core skills training programme and it needs to be taught by people who have themselves got the skills. A social worker should be considered as a trainee for the first three years and the training should be spread over that time. Excellent on the job mentorship would be essential. It might help if social work registration were a requirement of employment, but only if the college and the social work schools made great improvements in defining standards of practice in child protection work.
You might say that this would be an expensive model. To that I reply that it would be hard to find a more expensive model than that demonstrated by the incompetence in the Bayne case. The main problem would be in finding people who could define and teach the core knowledge and skills. CW,if you have any better ideas, please share them.
Ron, thanks for posting that link despite the technical difficulties. Ya, just the local Fraser Valley Regional Library search.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading that book. I ordered a few others as well.
Ray - Thanks for your response. I was just trying to point out that there are in fact "best practices" that if used and followed these tools can be effective. The issue, as you, me, and others don't refute, is that "best practice" isn't followed nearly often enough.
Do I have better ideas? No, I don't. I really wasn't trying to argue with you. Simply point out what I noted above. Best practice exists, and is effective, but not followed often enough.
I love this statement, Ray: "Because the whole child protection system is built on a bureaucratic model and it needs to be built on a professional model." You could also insert "human" or "empathetic" where you wrote "professional."
One change I would suggest, is an "experience based delegation." This is coming to fruition now, in reality. Rather than passing an antiquated test, one must prove over time they possess the requisite skills. Just as you suggest on your "three year" plan. I agree to a degree for sure. And yes, without quality mentorship it's pretty ineffective.
CW - you must know by now that you have me intrigued. In so many ways you are sympathetic to people who struggle with MCFD and you are also informed about MCFD practice and policy and you advocate certain changes because you attest to see the need for them. So how confidential do you need to remain? Are you a social worker still on the job? Are you in child protection? Are you employed anywhere between Abbotsford and Hope? Just asking!
ReplyDeleteThe only way to make change is to be part of the solution, Ron!
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't work in the region you asked about. Why remain confidential? For no other reason than I choose to.
I can tell you....change is coming. Will it be easy for some? NO. Will it be easy for new graduates? No, but it will be easier because it will match the theoretical training they receive in university. IE, Child and Youth Care education with Child Protection Specialization.
This can only be a good thing.
I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to families needing to be trusted to "fix themselves"...with all available support and opportunity. The less intrusive, the better. Families have an amazing ability to strengthen themselves when given some trust - just like kids are when given the chance to learn without fear of consequence for mistakes.
Cruelty to families and children, that's what MCFD is guilty of.
ReplyDeleteANON at 10:39 July 19, 2010 writes:
ReplyDelete"I see a 1 in 30 chance of MCFD receiving an intake report on my family each year (BC population 4.5 million divided by 5, divided by 30,000 intake reports). A one in two chance over the 15-year childhood of any of my children."
It's probably actually higher than these horrific odds, since I've never heard of MCFD going after someone who is wealthy. So if you take all the families who have a certain income and above and take them out of the equation, the odds of being a victim of MCFD would increase.
Social workers and others used to be fond of saying abuse can happen anywhere - e.g., in wealthy homes - now they love to harp about how a bad economy = more child abuse. This gets the masses equating lack of money with child abuse, which is exactly what they want. Because of course, it's much easier to steal children from those parents who don't have hundreds and thousands of dollars to fight back with.
And MCFD's best, juiciest target market of all, is the families they have already destroyed: the former foster children who have children. Those children (of former foster children) are the easiest pickins of all - in fact, MCFD can, and does, just prance right into the hospital, right after the baby is born, and swoop the baby out of the arms of Mom. And very few seem to care that this horrific violation of everything just and humane is going on, right under our noses.
It wasn't that long ago that MCFD stole a baby because they deemed the mother too stupid. They'll use any excuse they can get away with. And they get away with a lot.
Thank You and that i have a dandy present: How Many Houses Has Hometown Renovated whole home renovation
ReplyDelete