Thanks to one of the numerous Anonymous writers of comments I was updated with regard to the Flagg family and I want to insure that you know the rest of the story. I wrote about the Flaggs earlier. You can read my pieces 219 and 220. In Post 251 I encouraged you to read Leah Flagg's blog and sign the petition for reform which she was advocating. I can only hope she will continue this effort now that her own dilemma is over.
Here is the Flagg Family Update from her article “Family gets children back” July 5, 2010, CBC Go Public. All of the yellow font is Kathy's manuscript.
“Leah and Steve Flagg said their problems were also solved after speaking out. The Kamloops couple approached CBC Go Public in April, after they could find no help for their mentally ill adult son.
Leah and Steve Flagg got help for their mentally ill son, and their other children were returned to them.(CBC)
"What we have seen — since the story aired — is that with enough motivation our government can do for its people what it has promised," wrote Leah Flagg.
Flagg and her husband, Steve, had allowed their son to move back into their Kamloops home, even though his violent outbursts put their other children at risk.
Before that, the 19-year-old had been under the care of B.C.'s Ministry of Children and Family Development. He was cut off from those services when he became an adult. His mother said she could find nowhere for him to live, so she brought him home.”
The ministry responded by putting the Flaggs' other three children in foster care. The parents spoke publicly about how this had devastated the family.
"A Ministry of Housing and Social Development manager called us the morning after the story aired," Flagg said. "She has been working closely with me ever since . … With her help, we obtained housing [for the son], and his disability benefits were not delayed.
"The last of [our children] returned to us full time shortly after the story aired, and legal custody is being returned to us.
"We hope to encourage other families to pursue complaints and advocate for change … which will enable greater accountability."
If you have a family situation for which publicity might become a resource that produces a good outcome for you, contact Kathy Tomlinson. She welcomes all such contacts. Submit your story ideas to Kathy Tomlinson at Go Public.
It is situations like this when I believe CLBC (CYSN for children/youth) should be in a position to assist. Just because someone isn't living with the disadvantage of having an IQ below 70 (or one of their other rare disorders which qualifies them when over an IQ of 70), doesn't mean they are able to function without significant intervention for life.
ReplyDeleteRon, those who are attempting to get justice for parents all over the world, are, all over the world, watching this case. Those who are fighting against the gross injustice of child protection will be able to use this case when they fight their court case.
ReplyDeleteAnd Judge Crabtree will rule for the Baynes, I have no doubt about that. He cannot but do otherwise.
The decision in this case will not just be provincial news, it will be international news. This blog has been tremendously important in helping to bring about a new era. We just have to keep up the momentum, because as everyone involved knows, this kind of battle can be very draining.
The word is being spread and, soon, awareness of the true nature of child protection will reach a tipping point. Parents, and all others who care about children and justice, will, hopefully, join in and fight to ensure that their children and their children do not have to go through what the Bayne's children had to go through. And are still going through.
Please attend at the next court dates in August, where Judge Crabtree is sure to rule for the Baynes (and Ron can you please confirm when these are - days of the week, and dates)? Thank you.
To Anon 9:59AM, hear hear. I hope these words of wisdem are indeed prophetic.
ReplyDeleteNeither the Flagg parents or Chris Martell were accused of harming their children, so they are relatively safe from such counter accusations, any claims matters were before the courts, or any air of suspicion that would disable their credibility.
Publicity is a double-edged sword.
Anyone considering publicity would do well to review the Flagg and Martell story and try to pick out anything they would not want a prospective employer, friends, or even enemies to see.
Weigh the pros and cons and make sure there is a clear benefit that outweighs the risks. Negative publicty is easily managed and survived by governments and corporations, but individuals have little protection.
I believe the Baynes have effectively been disabled from improving their job situation because of the ongoing publicity and because of the visitation schedule that occurs within working hours that is imposed on them.
For example, Zabeth can't start teaching piano to children when she is accused of abusing her children and matter remains unresolved.
The Baynes priorities that is their children are very clear though, they stand a better chance at getting a fair hearing in the public eye that not.
The Baynes story is a worst-case scenario with respect to publicity. This is a clear example of killing the messengar (or trying to). MCFD took their two boys back in a deliberate retaliation for going public. The people involved all have 9-5 jobs and do not seem to be in danger of being unemployed any time soon.
Further publicity has had the reverse effect for the Baynes, as MCFD has accused the Baynes in court of exposing their children and foster parents to harmful media exposure.
I too went to Go Public to explain my story, and Kathy agreed it was newsworthy. However, my wish for protecting my children's privacy, I was not allowed remain anonymous, and my children were in care at the time. Mindful of the Baynes situation, I too was concerned of MCFD retaliation.
One question Kathy asked was, what is the worst the Ministry can say about you? I sent her my report to court, which as most people know, contains unproven hearsa allegations written in such a way as to paint the parents as abusers.
At the time, I wanted an immediate result, and I was convinced that only going public would be able to solve. Fortunately, the situation changed with the help of another parent's experience, and I was able to devise a counter strategy to get my children back unconditionally without the help of media.
Now, with my children back, I have a far better story to tell, with the voices of the children (hopefully identities hidden) once I decide the timing is right to publish it.
The problem with publicity, as the Baynes found out, people come out of the woodwork and the social worker in their case used the derogatory information obtained and wrote it into the risk assessment.
Social workers that are supposed to be helping families that demonstrate no integrity need to be removed as quickly as possible. If they were registered with the College of Social Workers, this mechanism would partially address this problem.
In Chris Marell's case, the foster home should have been shut down immediately. That would have been the first step towards offering the public and parents some peace of mind during the investigation.
My children lived in a foster home a psychologist labeled a good placement, and it had a flooded basement, has mice and rats, had a history of electrical overload problems, one child has stitches in his head, and one foster parent assaulted one of my children resulting in an ambulance call.
To top that off, the place burned down a few months after my children were returned to me. The people still are caring for foster children and are in a rented home.
Just remember that publicity needs to sell papers first. The messengers can be expendible, so be mindful of this when considering this route.
Ron;today I want to write some more about how we came to endure the ghastly CF&CSA. Before I do, I would like to say a word to anon 3.01. People only go to the media out of desperation. For them publicity is the court of last resort. In fact, for foster parents who have been grievously wronged, it is the only court. They have no legal rights. Justice is not available in family court unless one has almost unlimited cash for lawyers. The ministry will outgun you every time. I have seldom seen legal aid lawyers with the necessary skills, or commitment.
ReplyDeleteChild welfare legislation has been much debated over the years. In earlier years court cases tended to be short and biased in favour of the social workers. The reason for this is that for the most part social workers avoided taking children into care, even when the abuse and neglect was severe. Most of the cases they were dealing with required little legal skill because the parents did not want the children. Neither the protection social workers nor the parents usually had lawyers, which shortened things considerably.
There have been about three times of big change in protection law. One of these times was about thirty years ago when a gentleman called Vic Belknap was the superintendant of child welfare. He was probably the last superintendant of a kinder and gentler area. He was sincere and committed and he put a lot of heart into his work. Unlike Ruby McKay, most of her successors were not noted for critical thinking and Vic Belknap was no exception. The child welfare legislation came up for review and Mr.Belknap seized the opportunity to make his mark by consulting widely on the sort of act we needed in British Columbia. Workshops sprang up and I was on a committee of the BC association of social workers trying to come up with a position. Many academics had input and they probably influenced the superintendant more than anybody. The thing that I personally pressed for was to recognise people who gave years of foster parenting as having some rights to prevent children from being arbitarily moved, with no recourse to court. If you raise a kid for years with tender loving care, have you not earned some rights of decision?
Anyway the end result was that Mr. Belknap proposed a long and complicted act which virtually tried to find a formula for every situation. Evidently the academics had got at him. Many of us who actually had to do the job were not impressed. One cannot legislate practice, because it belongs in the realm of education and training. When people try to legislate practice, it begs the question as to what the social work schools are teaching and what sort of in-service training is going on.
Fortunately, the very controlling deputy minister took the same view and he introduced a short and simple act, with which I had notquarrel. It had few clauses defining need for protection and left matters largely to the strength of the evidence and the judgement of the courts. One great improvement, which I hailed enthusiastically was the elimination of the need to identify children. Prior to that time, children had to be physically brought to court to be identified by someone who knew the child intimately. Usually this would be by the parent or close relative. Squalling babies would be brought in, or children had to miss school and so on. Foster mothers would be kept waiting for hours. If the parent did not turn up, the whole thing had to be repeated. One judge always insisted on identification by the natural parent. When we finally got a parent in who had not seen her child for five years and could not identify the child, he had to rethink his position. Under this act, hearings were fairly short and hearsay evidence had little influence.The next major change was not until after the Gove inquiry. Continued.
To Ray Ferris, it is fascinating and very enlightening to hear the history of the child protection system. Thankyou for the posts.
ReplyDeleteOne observation I made early on with respect to the MCFD legal process, I noticed how casual and slap-dash everything seemed.
I would advise anyone reading this blog to attend a day in court to witness a typical MCFD lawyer handle the many cases in that one day to get a better understanding of the dynamics of what goes on in a courtroom.
Anon at July 28, 2010 9:11 PM:
ReplyDeleteYou suggested that readers of this blog "attend a day in court to witness a typical MCFD lawyer handle the many cases in that one day to get a better understanding of the dynamics of what goes on in a courtroom."
Can you tell us where we would go to witness such a day in court? Would this be in provincial court on Smithe Street in downtown Vancouver. And if so, how would we know which courtroom to go to?
Thanks for your help.
Oh, and I just realized, anyone who wants to watch MCFD in court should go to see the Bayne trial, re-commencing August (August 8, is it Ron?)
For Anon 11:11 PM
ReplyDeleteActually the Bayne case resumes Monday August 9th.
I am in court all day in August, also to get my kids back. It is 'mediation' and MCFD has three binders against me, although I have never even yelled at my kids. I have not seen the binders yet. I wonder what to expect from mediation. Has anyone been through it?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to witness court with MCFD against the families of B.C. you can go to the Vancouver court house. Family court is every Wednesday in court 2 or 3. THere are also longer trials that book other rooms such as court room 5. I watched some trials that were not my own on days that I was not required at court and my social worker got quite mad. THey do not like people learning how it goes in MCFD court. I hope that once I have this a bit better behind me (ie. have my kids back!!) I can join with others who feel the same way and study the whole sham. Many cases are being brought before a judge routinely when the parents just need help, potential neglect due to inadequate housing (that is what i am charged with) is not a big enough issue to warrant the hours of files and phone calls made to gather erroneous information against me, nor is poverty a crime.Why is it in the court room then?
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:21 - What was the purpose for your children being removed?
ReplyDelete