 |
| Not this kind of decision. |
Closing in on three years that this Bayne family has been ruptured, the case begins yet another week of court days. Hopefully this is the end of it. Hopefully regardless of the legal loopholes and extension ploys that MCFD or Jensen attempt, Judge Crabtree will say “enough.” This meticulous laptop, note-taking judge has promised that he will deliver a written and articulated ruling to this hearing.
This has nothing to do any longer with protecting children. That may have been the early presenting concern. Today is well beyond that. Paul and Zabeth are not a threat to their children, not one, two or three. These many months have exonerated them by the consistency of their behaviour in face of the most adversarial treatment by a service providing agency mandated to administer mercy. Baynes on the other hand, have corresponded and complained and campaigned for good and safe care of their children and ultimately for the return of their children. Of course they have been faulted for that by MCFD. Had they not made this significant effort, that too would have been used by MCFD as evidence of disregard or neglect. That's the way this contest for the lives of children works. This is about winning. There have been countless evidences of this motivation throughout the case data over three years.
Most important this morning is how Paul and Zabeth are doing as they start this day and this week. Remember I told you that they were a couple with faith in God and the value of prayer. They do desire to know that other people of faith are praying for them and the positive outcome. They need some superhuman strength to face what lies ahead. Some of you know what they are feeling. They are afraid and they worry. Yet because of some strong indicators they are filled with optimism. What they dread is hearing once again an onslaught of insinuations and slanders about their character and conduct and family history. It is quite a slurry of emotion that they experience right now. This is the day. This is the Day that the LORD has made.
To: Ray Ferris re your comment posted on August 8, 2010 7:44 in Part 273
ReplyDeleteI am talking about punishing child abuse in the criminal system, not implementing child protection. When parents are in jail, children abandoned or orphaned, social workers will then be in a position to help. That’s what they are trained to do, not to play god and secret police to enforce “child protection” law. What I propose is to revoke general child removal authority as stipulated per CFCSA. There are several special situations like when parents are unable or unwilling, when parents are convicted of crimes related to child safety (for example incest), when parents are dead and there is no other next of kin to look after the children, then government should take over temporary custody and offer protection. I have stated my points in previous blogs. They are consistent, reasonable and contain no contradiction.
Special interests have the tendency to make simple matters complicated so that they have more opportunities to create more business or to make them sound like professionals. When there is good evidence of child abuse, remove the parents, not the children. It is just that simple. Child protection law should not be penal in nature. Now it is the most powerful weapon government has to punish a person who has children under age 19. Above all, court is a battlefield, not a place to discuss plan of care or love of children. Litigating plan of care in court is absurd and bounded to fail.
Child removal is barbaric, oppressive and inconsistent with the mainstream Canadian values of being compassionate and humane. Perhaps, you do not see this after doing this over 30 years for a living. Do you dare to be so critical of MCFD if you are still employed, have a mortgage to pay and several mouths to feed? If you do, what have your accomplished?
Your suggestion of having top quality staff is too idealistic to be practical. You need an army of infallible god-like work force in MCFD who do not abuse power, with the ability to see through the hearts of man, with inexhaustible patience, love and care of children totally unrelated to them. Is it possible? While you do not have a solution (not a concrete one that I can see so far), I have a simple solution that is at the very least robust. If my view is narrow simply because it is simple, then I am afraid that yours is dogmatic and impractical.
To Anonymous 6:44 A.M.,
ReplyDeleteYou have completely lost me with your logic. While agree that Child Removal Authority should be removed from MCFD in most cases, your argument is that families should be separated only on "good evidence". Who do you propose determines what is good evidence and what is not? Proposing "remove the parents, not the children" is merely semantics and illogical.
If attempting to bring an out-of-control Agency out of secrecy and into the public light is being part of a self-interest group then count me in.
To quote you "You need an army of infallible god-like work force in MCFD who do not abuse power, with the ability to see through the hearts of man, with inexhaustible patience, love and care of children totally unrelated to them."
Last time I checked, that is their job.
How you ask can we ensure this actually happens? Like you, I have a simple solution. Make MCFD accountable for it's actions just like the Police. When the ability to lie, cheat and perjure oneself with complete immunity is gone, then we can hope for people who will tell the truth and truly want to help work for the Ministry.
But, one could argue that this will make Social Workers feel vulnerable and lead to a lack of SW's working for the Ministry. This argument could not be more wrong. First, if one does no wrong, they have nothing to fear. Secondly, SW's working elsewhere belong to the College of SW's and as such have to be honest and truthful or risk losing their SW designation. Why do they not fear openness?
One final note on the Ministry and their apparent lack of manpower. If frivolous complaints were not escalated to actual "Protection Concerns", then the reduced staff could concentrate on actual child abuse, instead of spending a fortune on taking every ridiculous case to court.
To anon 6.44.
ReplyDeleteYou say that there are several special circumstances where it is necessary to protect children. Basically when people are unable, unfit or unwilling to care for their own children. Old protection act, last half of 7(k)."Whose parents are unable, unfit or unwilling to care properly for him." Says the same as you. What you have said is that there are inescapable circumstances where intervention by social workers is necessary. My friend, we are of the same view. Moreover, the people who passed the law were of the same view.
What you are really talking about is how horrible abuse of the law is. You want to throw out the law, but only retain the parts that are really necessary. Back to square one.
Ron; today I continue with the review of how the child welfare services got into such a mess. I last wrote about the double whammy of the passing of the CF&CSA and the implementation of the Gove recommendations, which created the ministry of chaos and frustration. The confusion caused the loss of many skilled staff and left a lot of the work to greenhorns.
ReplyDeleteThe new act was so complicated that many staff lost confidence in their ability to negotiate it and became more and more dependent on lawyers to tell them how to do everything. Any opposition member reading this should track the growth of the ministry's legal budget. The skills and knowledge of child protection work should rightly belong with those who have the statutory responsiblity. Rather than trying to learn these skills, ministry staff have increasingly delegated their jobs to people they perceive to have more expertise and the use of lawyers and psychologists has burgeoned. Lawyers and psychologists do not have child protection expertise by virtue of their training. Psychologists are licensed principally to do psychometric testing and lawyers should know the law, case law and the rules of court procedure and the rules of evidence. The age-old culture of the law and the courts is adversarial. There is no money in conciliation and mediation. Is it any surprsise then, that since the passage of the CF&CSA that the ministry has become implacably adversarial?
At the time that the act was passed there were three watchdog officers. The ombudsperson, the child advocate and the children's commissioner. The only one of these who had any teeth was the children's commissioner and he was not afraid to use them when he felt it necessary. In the Draayer case, the head child welfare official refused to follow the recommendation of commissioner Paulin, who posted the case on his website, as permitted by law. The scandal caused he premier to remove the director from that case and the children were put back where they belonged. Following a change of government the laws were repealed and the offices of both child advocate and children's commissioner were dissolved.
This leads into the report of Judge Ted Hughes. Following an inquest into the death of aboriginal child Sherry Charlie, the negligent social work practice could not be covered up and Judge Hughes was commissioned to do an inquiry and to make recommendations. It was due to his recommendations that the inter-party legislative child welfare committee was set up and the office of the representative for children and youth was established. Judge Hughes recommended that the new watchdog should have no teeth, but could only bark. His reasoning was that he thought that children's commissioner Paul Paulen had been to adversarial. He thought that to give the new watchdog powers would make the MC&FD rendered unmanageable.
I think that Judge Hughes made some serious errors. To start with he did not ask some important questions. He made the assumption that the frequent turnover of ministers and deputy ministers had left the ministry without proper leadership and recommended continuity. He failed to ask why this turnover happened. Had he done so, he would have found that ministers left, because they had no power under the law and they were unable to lead. Senior bureaucrats have never been noted for showing leadership, but are much better top down directions. He also did not really look at why Paul Paulin was adversarial. Faced with an unco-operative and adversarial ministry, what choice did he have? It is precisely because the MCF is so chaotic as to be virtually unmanageable that the public needs a watchdog with power. Maybe if Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde had more power, cases like the Baynes could be nipped in the bud. Next time I will write guidelines for core training.
This case is being followed all over the world. I pray that the Bayne family is reunited soon. If there is any justice, they will be. I do believe that Judge Crabtree will rule in their favour.
ReplyDeleteI know it's being followed widely. Over 91,000 glances so far and it is worldwide. Other provincial parliaments peak occasionally. Our own MCFD all over the province can't stop looking. That's healthy. There is good interaction. Sorry stories. Some great suggestions for improvements and change.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to today's post, I hope that of the thousands of people watching this, the Christian reader will truly take the time to bow their knee and seek God on behalf of the Baynes. It is an easy thing to say "I will pray for you" but it is often a different thing to actually do it. This case is a pathetic display of the Canadian government making a mockery of itself. Pray that the Lord ends this and brings justice now!
ReplyDeletePray, yes, but also fight like crazy to end this horrific injustice. Show up in court at least one of the next two days, if there is any way to make it possible.
ReplyDelete