Consider these thoughts please.
Since posting this today, a couple of comments by others cause me to ask those of you reading this, whether you have had helpful or disappointing experiences with your appeal to Pivot."Outreach: At Pivot, we know that the fight for social justice can’t stop at the courthouse – real change happens when people come together to get things done. There are all kinds of ways that you can spread the word and mobilize others where you live, work, or go to school.”
"Act Now!: When important things are happening, speak out. Government and policy makers need to be held accountable and forced to act. Take action today! Send a postcard here.”
"Join the Movement: Join the growing numbers of people who are standing up for progressive social change! Get information about the issues that matter to you, keep up-to-date on breaking developments and events, and create ways to make change happen.”
"Events: Get together, celebrate successes, have fun, and build community. Whether you come out to one of our annual events or host your own party for Pivot, events are a great way to meet new people, get your friends involved, and become part of the movement for social change.”
"Donate: Your contribution puts power behind our campaigns and strengthens our hand giving us the necessary resources to overcome injustice and create a community of fairness and equality. You don’t have to be a high roller to make change happen – each contribution goes a long way.”
It is worth your while to spend some time on the online pages of this organization to increase your own awareness and perhaps to generate some creative juices with regard to the changes that are required to turn our present Ministry of Children into one that deserves citation rather than complaint. Perhaps as well, a community of compassion can emerge for so many of you.
This excerpt is quoted from its website.
Free Legal Help may be available at Pivot - This page informs you of the possibilities.
- Pivot Legal Society is a non-profit legal advocacy organization located in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
- Pivot's mandate is to take a strategic approach to social change, using the law to address the root causes that undermine the quality of life of those most on the margins. We believe that everyone, regardless of income, benefits from a healthy and inclusive community where values such as opportunity, respect and equality are strongly rooted in the law.
- The basic concept underlying Pivot's name and mission is that a critical pressure point of social change is to be found at the lower edge of legal and social boundaries. By systematically challenging the attitudes and institutions of power that enable marginalization, Pivot strives to move us towards a more tolerant, inclusive and compassionate society.
- By aggressively advancing the interests and defending the legal entitlements of the most disenfranchised, Pivot aims for a "trickle-up" effect of respect and acceptance that will ultimately benefit all.
"The best test of a civilized society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable and weakest members." Mahatma Gandhi
I did try to get help through Pivot. I was told that MCFD is too big to fight. Some of the issues around guardianship are more difficult to fight than police brutality, homelessness, etc. It shows how much legal power MCFD has. The Bacon brothers can apply endlessly to have disclosure rights, most parents do not even know what the problem is. And the stuff used to take away children has no real legal weight outside of this weird world created through MCFD court. Very few Vancouver lawyers will go near a case that involves fighting child apprehension. It shows that we need reform so badly.
ReplyDeleteJust be careful though about blindly supporting a cause / organization because of what they SAY they do or want to do. Look into what they have done, and are doing, and what their critics say. And don't discount their critics, because there are only a few of them, because those few may be the only ones who are really in a position to know. I am referring not just to PIVOT, but to MCFD and all organizations that have honourable and just sounding mission statements.
ReplyDeleteThe days of trusting words alone are long gone.
I appreciate both comments from you Anon 9:00 AM and Anon 9:17 AM . Admittedly what appears on an online or hard copy page may look compelling and attractive but the reality can be quite different. The first comment is particularly persuasive because of a first hand contact that did not have a positive outcome. The second comment is a general caution yet I would like to invite the writer to explain what particularly about Pivot would cause you to give this cautionary note.
ReplyDeleteI'm on the Pivot mailing list newsletter, and have 37 emails over a year and a half.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that what comes through the list has any bearing on any MCFD issues. The visual quality of the material is high, and design oriented but somewhat thin on depth.
I recall the Pivot Hands Tied social worker report funded by SW unions. II was not particularly impressed with the document. It made no mention of having social workers register with the college. Instead, the conclusion alludes to the fact MCFD does not have enough money to pay for more social workers.
There are no observations that unnecessary and expensive removals are eating up cash and time that could otherwise fund more workers.
Although their downtown east side office location and their target audience; low income, first nations people, homeless and otherwise disenfranchised individuals would seem to be the group most targeted by MCFD, but I do not see any activism or specific legal support from Pivot in that area.
MCFD issues burn up a great deal of legal time, which I suspect is by design, and this either scares away legal aid or renders them impotent.
I've also written a few letters to the BC Civil Liberties and got back only contact lists of "resources".
Their postings online regarding ther position and concerns with changes to the CFCSA are over a decade old, and right on the mark, but if you look through the various legal cases section you will not find any MCFD related cases they have helped with.
It would appear the current approach of the press and RCY office is to highlight specific shortcomings of MCFD and publicize them, and the public is responding with their dislike of this Ministry. It is better than nothing.
This in my mind these stories not very substantial, but they certainly are memorable. It gives the appearance MCFD responds to corrective requests, but the bulk of their shorcomings remain untouched.
Lets hope all this publicity leads to something a bit more substantial in the future.
Ron; next week I want to continue with the story of the long and tortuous path which led to the Gove Inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil,the Gove report, the massive re-organisation and the passing of the paralysing CF&CSA. Today I want to write a bit more about how things worked before the current act was passed.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, few lawyers were involved before the 1970s. I think Victoria and the Victoria courts gave a good sampling. Most protection cases were low income people and it was only when legal aid became more commonly available that we saw more lawyers in the court rooml. We had no legislated mediation process, but we generally did try to negotiate in protection cases and I think the very small number of contested cases indicated the success of this approach. Most children came into care by request of the parent or through desertion.
Very few social workers had any stomach for intrusive protection action and would turn a blind eye to the most horrible home situations. They tried to keep alive the myth that all families can change, given the right help and large sums of money were spent on providing support services that the parents were unable to use.
The tragic case of Matthew Vaudreuil was a good example of this. From the Gove report, it was evident that there were at least five serious risk factors present, even before he was born. His mother was a rebellious teenager, estranged from her family and a heavy user of alcohol and drugs. She had intelligence so limited that she qualified for handicapped allowance on the basis of low IQ. She was homeless and barely able to care for herself. Over the years support services were poured in, mainly in teaching home maker services. Time and again these visitors reported that the task was hopeless. No fewer than 60 reports of abuse were on file by the the time his mother killed him at the age of seven.
The main focus of court was to ensure proper process,with the view that this should provide just outcomes. Much attention was given to notifying all proper parties and renotifying them for all subsequent hearings. The first order of hearings was always to file proof of service. We had to go to great lengths to satisfy the court that we had made every effort to locate parents. The notification laxity in the Bayne case would have been unacceptable.
Hearings were mostly short and conducted with common sense regarding the evidence. It was only into the seventies that the social workers had a contract counsel to represent them and these counsels worked for the most part on a block fee, so they did not seek to prolong proceedings.
The first thing that I noticed when more lawyers got involved was that every case became more adversarial and every point in the courtroom became a matter of prolonged quibbling. With the really nutty cases, I liked the client to have a lawyer, because then the lawyer had to deal with all the tedious nonsense.
Most lawyers and judges think in terms of criminal court rather than family court. The culrure is adversarial and procedural. There is little room for informal discussion. In general both our counsel and the judges were sticklers for proper procedures in presenting evidence. Hearsay was not allowed, but official records were. Expert reports were considered, but were not the determinants without direct evidence.
By and large I would have said that the system worked reasonably well. If some cases did not go well, it was not because of the law or the system, but because of lack of adequate training and preparation on the part of social workers.
Continue on Monday.
I am the person who wrote the first 'anon' comment but not the second or the third. I find it fascinating to learn that another person went through the same path I did. I am a member of BCCLA and when I lost my kids and since one of the factors was that one of my kids was diagnosed with mental illness and is a teen, I thought PIVOT or ARA or BCCLA might help me. I didn't get much help. They are not family oriented for one thing. It is one group who are married with children and it is another group who are on the downtown east side. In the downtown east side group there are womens' centres and it is mostly assumed they will deal with MCFD issues for clients. It is somewhat out of their territory to help couples who are married and have children. But mostly it is because it is more difficult to fight MCFD than any other civil rights abuse. I was told that the right kind of lawyer to get would be one who does MCFD cases all day everyday as it is such a unique type of law. (Of course it is, as the parents have so few rights). I was also told that legal aid lawyers are only making $80 per hour while legal help can cost $400 per hour. I am working it out though with legal aid lawyer and it is not the best, but I am hopeful. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteAside from that I am rooting for David in this one and I would love to see David slay Goliath. I am rooting for Paul and Zabeth and all of us who fight MCFD, but particularly for the Baynes as they have been so brave and have helped many others.
Another comment I can not help but make is that I have gotten partial disclosure of the complaint against me and I am getting full disclosure this week. I am really surprised and somewhat is shock about all the weird, sleazy people who phoned in and told such terrible statements about me to MCFD. It is a big shock and reminds one of bugs crawling out when you lift a rock. I feel for the Baynes as the same thing happened to them. My case is that I am seen by most as quite a nice mom and our family is solid, much like the Baynes. Yet when all these weird reports are read that MCFD has compiled from some very bitter and unhealthy people, they use that as fact. Most people can get a pardon, but I will never get a pardon nor will my kids, all these files live forever. Why are our right so abused? WE are sincere parents who want to do the best for our kids? Why are our kids rights abused?
ReplyDeleteThank you Anon 11:17 PM and 11:25 PM (one in the same)
ReplyDeleteYou replied to my query in a most informative manner. I am sorry that you too are living through this ugly and destructive passage of life. Thanks for taking time to tell this story. It will serve as a catalyst to others within the veil of anonymity due to necessity, to speak and to find understanding.