Children's workers should be reined in.One of these days I will write to tell the good stories of children's lives rescued and improved by the intervention of child welfare ministries. Their mandate is clear and essential, to protect defenseless children from abuse and neglect. I know that they exist. However, it is the miscues and bungles and stupidities that trouble child welfare's reputation in Canada and these are unnecessary and unacceptable. They catch my attention. Occasionally we talk about reforming child care and protection ministries. We certainly do that in British Columbia. http://leahgainorflagg.com">I refer you once again to reform advocate Leah Flagg. On her website you will see the appeal to sign a petition. Please do it. The effect of petitions is negligible I grant, but a list of supporters is better than silence.
Canada’s child-welfare agencies have among the broadest intervention powers in the Western world. Records show that Canadian agencies intervene annually in 200,000 Canadian children's lives. Caseworkers are equipped with immense powers and authority that can be easily misused unless there is vigilant restraint or monitoring. One can be a recent social work graduate and be authorized to enter someone's home without a warrant, apprehend a child without due process being completed and even able to appropriate police to enforce the procedure. A caseworker may require children to be clothed to a certain standard, fed, medicated and educated in a manner specified by the caseworker. Parents who do not comply may risk losing child custody, even visitation of their kids or have their children removed permanently. Families are being traumatized by caseworkers to a degree that it is nothing short of a distortion of the very system designed to prevent abuse. The Bayne family of two adults and three children have experienced this and countless other families as well to whose stories some comments on this blog have alluded. This blog and the comments written by others make a case for harnessing these agencies that are out of control.
Child Welfare agencies violate privacy and rights of individuals. Newborns have been taken from parents who are considered intellectually deficient; or from religious families whose faith in the Bible instructs them to corporal punishment; or homeschooling parents have been required to enroll their children in public school on the threat of removal. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered “at risk” of abuse or neglect even if none of this has actually occurred. Then we hear of the cases, far too many, where the children that are removed experience treatment that is far worse than what was alleged to have happened in their homes.
When the swine flu was the big scare one mother kept her children home from school for one week after which someone lodged a complaint and a caseworker showed up to pull the children out of class to be questioned and then threatened the protesting mother that they might seize her school age children as well as two toddlers at home. Hundreds of incidents reported by parents testify to receiving threats that their children will be apprehended. Threat is one of the tools in the arsenal for silencing the objections.
There can be little or no public scrutiny of cases. Media is blocked from reporting details or questioning case workers. Always these limitations are said to be set to protect the children. We are learning that this government agency is capable of error in judgment yet the public cannot scrutinize cases because of these limitations. Judge Thomas Crabtree ruled against a ban on information proceeding from the court hearing concerning the Baynes or you would know almost nothing about them.
And if you care to read an alarming National Post article from 2009 which inspired today's post then go to this online article by Kevin Liblin, National Post June 12, 2009 entitled 'Children's Aid Society Workers Should Be Reined In, Critics say.
WE NEED A FRESH START
To supplement today's excellent posting, this witch-hunt like persecution conducted under the pretext of "child protection" is a crime against humanity.
ReplyDeleteArticle 7 1 (i) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-24/latest/sc-2000-c-24.html#ARTICLE_7__56389
defines enforced disappearance of persons as a prohibited act when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.
Section 1 (k) further prohibits other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Compare these definitions of crimes against humanity with the contents of today's blog and see how well they fit.
This blog has done a remarkable job to unveil the atrocities created by "child protection" agencies all over the world, in particular, the MCFD.
However, meaningful reform is still far and remote. It will take decades of hard work from committed people under smart leadership to rein in this oppressive and hypocritical regime ever known to mankind.
"The Revolution has not yet succeeded. Comrades, you must carry on!" (Dr. Sun Yat-sen on his deathbed).
An interesting comment you made and compelling enough that I repeat it.
ReplyDeleteTo be even clearer for readers...
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
among the Crimes Against Humanity is ….
(i)enforced disappearance of persons;
which,
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1: (is defined as)
(i) “enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
As you inferred Anon 1:11 AM, there are striking parallels between these definitions and what we are daily writing about on the e-pages. And you pointed out Article 1.(k) “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
Source: Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-24/latest/sc-2000-c-24.html#ARTICLE_7__56389
And thanks for the affirmation for the blog.
The child protection argument is consistent that they justify "temporarily" setting aside rights of lower importance by saying that they are protecting children from such harms that originate from the parents.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what ridiculously low threshold that social workers decide what constitutes "harm," it becomes an excuse to se aside all rights in pursuit of an imaginary remedy that involves removal and separation.
With that thought in mind, once children are "safe", typically their voice is silent to anyone outside MCFD from that point. MCFD pretends to speak for the children, and they say they convey all the wishes of the child as gathered from the foster parents, social worker, and doctors and other workers MCFD hires.
I know from listening to my children after their return and comparing what what was attributed to them saying doesn't match, to put it mildly.
----
A friend alerted me to a new website http://www.iicrd.org/ that gathers professionals in the area of upholding child rights. Mediation-minded Lawyers and health professionals are featured.
Another fledgling webpage http://hearthechild.ca/ has been started by some B.C. professionals that also has noble objectives.
Jane Grafton is, I believe a pioneer in the field of providin supervision access between children and parents.
John Paul Boyd is a mediation-minded lawyer that runs the highly useful J.P. Boyd's BC Family Law Resource website.
The other individuals I am not familiar with.
When such people get together for the benefit of children, we have the beginnings of a path towards correcting some issues, or at the very least, focusing some attention on issues that are harming children.
Obviously children too young to talk cannot have their views known, but professionals can monitor progress and provide the "voice" that child needs if it becomes clear, for example, delays in justice are causing attachment and bonding problems between the child and parents. Snapshot examinations at the beginning and throughout the duration of the child's incarceration can show judges the "improvements" MCFD say the removal justifies, or what parents say and many reports say, the child deteriorates in care.
---
The "one of these days" comment with respect to publishing the good works of people within MCFD needs to have a date.
This is because, if we assume "some" social workers are "confused" then the public and those misguided social workers need to hear first hand accounts of parents and even the voices of children were they did receive useful and timely services that are current so they know what deserves commendation rather than condemnation.
The question needs to be reduced to why everyone is not getting equal treatment.
If there is an example of a shaken baby diagnosis where someone later said, "ooops, it turns out we were wrong, because of new information that changes the original diagnosis" I want to see if such examples exist.
If doctors and social workers face an enormous penalty for being "wrong" and they are scared to admit this because of personal consequences, this needs to be revealed.
A listing of all reversal of abuse diagnosis from all BC hospitals and doctors would be needed to confirm whether or not this is a valid suspicion.
While it may be personally be satisfying to villify MCFD as a whole, and you are most certainly preaching to the choir here, as an end to itself, it may not be the most efficient route towards accomplishing change.
It is more akin to drum beating, accumulating forces and preparing for an inevitable battle such as the residential schools issue where there are many victims.
MCFD, in defending its practices, is in the process of painting itself as an organization willing to accept criticism and is making changes. Since they have many tendrils, they are willing to cut off the old and insignificant appendages in order to appease the public.
Anon 2:19 - you will note MCFD is funding the IICRD's research re: Aboriginal practice development.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iicrd.org/work/projects/child_protection/mcfd_nenanc.
So the organization you say has no respect for rights of individuals/children, is directly supporting financially the one you trumpet for respecting rights of individuals.
There is definitely a lot of threats of apprehension used as a matter of course. I was threatened with that quite a bit. There is more police involvement with normal families and more court involvement. They are thinking everyone is like Mrs. Vaudreille (the case the Gove inquiry was using as a model for child welfare reform). It has gone too far the other way and MCFD is still troubled. The government was not able to fix it, they just changed it.
ReplyDeleteIt is really hard on kids to be away from their parents, most kids love their parents and it is pretty obvious when it is not the case. SO, if there is a bad relationship between parent and child it could be okay to do a removal, but not in many of the removals now going on. For some reason, there is so much involvement in stuff that is not abuse. The neglect or potential for neglect category is way overused. Even if the mom has lots of kids and the family can not keep the house clean all the time, it is neglect. Before they would just give homemakers, now it is a big supervision ordeal. I am speaking from experience.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, what I was a child I phoned the children's helpline (1980s). My parents were always fighting and it was scary, there was physical harm done. THe helpline counsellor talked to me and calmed me down and I went to bed. No police showed up, no files opened on my parents.
Now, things are much more vigilant. But also worse in some ways. I also think that some of the social workers who do the intakes are not that aware of how to parent. My regular SW is great but the woman who set up the file against me is not even a real SW. They do not need to have all that training to be a CPS worker.
Anon 2:19 PM
ReplyDeleteThat was an insightful, provocative and resourceful comment, thanks for that.
To CW: I gather you would imply because MCFD finances a project or entity that has lofty sounding goals, exonerates the organization as a whole for its failings in other areas?
ReplyDeleteExactly how much respect did MCFD show the children in their charge when they permitted third parties to hook up electrical gadgets to their these vulnerable children's private parts and show them pornography, all in the name of child protection?
If one good deed can be used to paint a government agency in a favourable light, then similarly, reprehensible actions such as the penile testing process conducted without public knowledge for over 20 years must serve to provide a less favourable image of these public servants.
I would hope that a discovery process to find out why the voices of these children who were subject to this penile testing process were not heard during this twenty year period. Perhaps now we will find out.
The new group of concerned professionals primary focus is having children's voices heard. Several of these individuals have been influential in the Attorney General's recent announcement the Family Relations Act will be reformed so that it is less adversarial and more in favour of the children.
Similarly, the CFCSA can also be reformed. As more information comes forward that the current process is actually harming children and society, the impetus for this change will continue to grow.
It took Mary Ellen Turpel Lafonde to reveal that the penile testing was even going on. A very abused group of kids are those in foster care who are also considered to have anything psychiatric going on. What a nightmare. I hope Mary Ellen can keep watching these terrible things that are being done to kids and making it public. Kids have no rights these days and MCFD needs to be more supportive of the rights of kids in care. THere is a new group starting to get kids in care together to comment and have input into MCFD so I think M-E Turpel Lafond is having some influence.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:23: To put it very simply. I was saying that folks who are attacking MCFD as not respecting the rights of others, is directly funding a study to address this very issue. While folks on this web page say MCFD has done no good, and then promote the very organization MCFD is funding.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is contradictory.
I would suggest, by funding this research they are acknowledging their shortcoming. I'd also suggest, by agreeing with Turpell-Lafond and cancelling the penile testing would also mean MCFD is acknowledging its error. I think it might be fair for you also to acknowledge this and acknowledge the support of IIRCD MCFD gives - in the name of change and growth in the best interests of kids.
On the flip side - MCFD would have wondered something along the lines of "How can we solve the issue of sexual abuse/assaults." One of the solutions would have been put forth by physicians. That solution would have been this EXTREMELY DEPLORABLE testing. Hindsight is a wicked-tool. I certainly hope we hear these childrens' voices too who were subjected to these tests.
I never said one "good deed" negates the "poor deeds." I was pointing out the contradiction of the person who originally posted the link to the IICRD - an organization I will be following very closely.
For the record - I've never said the CFCSA is beyond reproach/adaption.
"The new group of concerned professionals primary focus is having children's voices heard. Several of these individuals have been influential in the Attorney General's recent announcement the Family Relations Act will be reformed so that it is less adversarial and more in favour of the children."
Are you referring to HEAR THE CHILD? Looks like an outstanding organization. I'll also be following them very closely.
...all who are advocates for change should.