Social workers involved in protecting children do commendable work when they save a child from any form of abuse within the child's home. Sometimes that abuse is not well established and sometimes the possibility of risk is not definite and then the choices that are made become critical. Social workers receive direction from upper management and cannot always exercise their own judgements. But what about the questions that require answers?
- What does my conscience (that inner voice) say about it?
- Could it hurt anyone—including me?
- Is it fair, clean, just and reasonable?
- Would it violate the Golden Rule? (Treat others as you would like to be treated )
- Have I been told by others that it's wrong?
- Deep down how do I feel about it?
- How will I feel about myself later if I do it?
- What would people whose opinions I respect, advise me about it?
In response to Ron’s post below:
ReplyDelete“If we are to press for reform and we must be on the same page as you say, help me to understand how the one needed change can be 'revoking the government's authority to remove children?' Do you consider that to be a realistic objective? Is that what you truly believe we should all call for legislators to do? Would they listen to us if we called for that? Or, did you make a such a strong statement to underscore how horrific the present situation is?”
(August 1, 2010 6:25 AM Part 266):
Special interests in the “child protection” industry allege that child removal authority per CFCSA is necessary to protect children. The Act is instrumental to this noble cause. They want people to believe that:
1. there is sufficient check and balance in the judiciary and other complaint mechanisms like the Ombudsman;
2. there are “good” social workers who do not abuse their power;
3. there are bad parents whose children needed to be removed;
4. “services” from MCFD aim at helping families in need.
Indeed, the foregoing are not true in many cases.
The following are irrefutable:
1. Statute, case law and the legal process are so lopsidedly against parents and families that the current system is irreparable.
2. Based on unsubstantiated allegations and junk science, some and perhaps many children are removed against the will of themselves and their parents. Some removals are wrongful and unnecessarily.
3. There are structural corruption in this tax-dollar driven industry that the presence of non-corrupt service providers is insufficient to rectify the problems created by general child removal authority.
4. Custody of one’s own children is a fundamental human right and has not been recognized for political and financial reasons.
5. There are other statutes that give the government authority to separate abusive parents and vulnerable children based on good evidence and due process, rendering the power given in CFCSA redundant and its repeal will not compromise real child protection.
6. CFCSA gives too much undue latitude, low and ambiguous threshold to remove children. Case law are built on this standard and can be relied upon in arguing in favor of MCFD applications.
7. Child removal authority has been seriously abused by various parties for reasons other than child protection.
8. There is little or no accountability as MCFD indemnifies and it is very difficult for parents to seek legal remedies in case there is an abuse of power.
(to be continued)
(continued from previous submission)
ReplyDeleteI did not make this strong statement to underscore ministry-created atrocities. This is a simple, effective and ultimate solution to our problem at hand. The government will allege that less radical solutions are more appropriate. No, they are not. The delusional changes, if any, they are prepared to undertake are nothing more than a show of insincere act. All these atrocities are caused by the power to remove children. To undo this problem, this oppressive authority must be revoked.
If you approach politicians with this demand, they will say no. Some may tell you that the government is legally obliged by the UN to have this authority. Child protection does not equal child removal. Be mindful that elected officials are supposed to serve the people and do what people want. Now, they are strongly influenced, if not manipulated, by special interests. Once you gather enough support from the populace and tell them that you will move forward to remove them from office if they refuse to act according to the will of the people, they will change color.
While mobility and minority language rights are protected by constitution, custody of our own children are not. Charter of rights in this country are meaningless until child removal authority is revoked.
Like slavery in the 18th century, “child protection” is an oppressive regime perverted by special interests. It can only be solved by changing law. This is a matter of right and wrong, good and evil. William Wilberforce of England appeared to embark on an unrealistic cause when he had to fight the majority of the MP. Yet, he successfully outlawed slavery. Note that he did not advocate improving the living standard of slaves or perfecting the criteria in selecting slaves. He intended to outlaw this hideous practice at the onset. The famous Christian hymn “Amazing Grace” was written in this era.
Evil prevails when good men fail to act. For the love of our children and our nation, we cannot hand down such a perverted system to the future generation. I ask that we all rise in one voice and make this long overdue reasonable demand with unwavering determination. This is a difficult and dangerous task.
Thank you for a well written and well considered couple of comments Anon 12:32&33
ReplyDeletePlease identify these "special interests."
ReplyDeleteRon; Today I want to continue with reviewing the events which led up to the introduction of the dreadful CF&CSA.
ReplyDeleteIn the early 1960s the British Government commissioned an inquiry into the British social services with the task of studying the systems and making recommendations for administrative change WHERE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT ADMINISTRATION WAS A PROBLEM. The commissioners on the Seebohm Commission duly reported, but in the preamble to their report they made a very important point which provides a valuable lesson for today. Of course it is not a point that is important to academics or administrators so no one heeds it. The commissioners noted that they became aware of many problems within the social services, which were not of an administrative nature and they would not be solved by making administrative changes. They urged attention to these other matters.
I want readers to take note of this point, because this has never been understood by the management of the child protection services under its various titles. The numerous attempted reforms have always failed because they always attempted to find administrative and legal solutions for problems, which were not of a legal and administrative nature. Why do they do this? Simple. It is because they are incapable of "thinking outside the box." It is all they know. Just as lawyers and judges are locked into a centuries old culture, which drowns justice in process. Oh yes,the law will deliver a just verdict---if you live long enough. One thinks of Dickens' "Bleak House" as ancient history, butit is absolutely topical for today. So in combination with the locked-in mentality of the court system and the tunnel vision of senior bureaucrats a series of child welfare nightmares are created.
In 1992 a little boy called Matthew Vaudreuil died. He was just over five and a half years old. On January 14th,1993 his mother pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The audit eventually concluded that he had died as a result of years of abuse and neglect. This death precipitated a series of events which eventually led to the Gove Inquiry and report and also to the enactment of the current CF&CSA.
These events are recorded in detail in the Gove report. In 1992 child welfare services were a division of a ministry of social services. There was an official called the superintendant of child welfare, who was appointed by the legislature and answerable to the legislature, thus exercising some independance from the ministry hierarchy. There was a body accountable to the superintendant called the audit and review team. They were charged with doing practice audits and inquries into suspicious child deaths. Starting an inquiry was an automatic procedure until the office of the superintendant was filled by a woman called Joyce Rigaux. She virtually put a halt to child death investigations.
Immdediately after Matthew's death an inspector started an investigation and had done quite a lot of the ground work, when she was ordered to halt the process by the superintendant. The audit team strongly protested, because it seemed that the legislation granted them independant status. The superintendant reinterpreted the whole thing in order to give sole control to herself. Both the inspector and her superior eventually took demotional transfers in protest. This interference eventually led to a scandal, which caused the superintendant to lock horns with the feisty Joy McPhail who was the minister responsible for the services. The minister had no power to overrule the superintendant, but she took what action she could
Continued
Continuing Gove etc
ReplyDeleteAs can be expected the investigation and conviction of Verna Vaudreuil got considerable publicity, but the media were thwarted by a gag order on the case for a long time. Eventually the gag order would be lifted and awkward questions could arise. The superintendant could no longer prevent an inspector's investigation and this did not start until March 1994, one year and eight months after Matthew's death and 14 months after his mother's guilty plea.
The audit report was clear, thorough and unequivocal. About twenty social workers, supervisors and managers had turned a blind eye to compelling evidence of abuse and neglect. Various people pointed out that the mentally handicapped mother was so unstable that she was not fit to take care of herself properly and could not possibly look after an infant. Complaints of abuse and neglect poured in for the next five years. Ministry employees lamely responded by offering support and help, which did nothing to protect Matthew. When teaching homemakers were put in, the only result was that the reports of abuse and neglect increased in number.
This was a disaster. If this report got filed with the minister and tabled in the legislature it would reflect very badly on the regional involved staff and even worse on the superintendant who had suppressed the investiagation. Damage control became the obvious priority. The SCW required revision after revision of the report and eventually the whole senior executive, involving several deputy ministers got involved in meetings developing the final drafts. Had the right thing been done at the start, it would have caused a stir, but it would have blown over. By now the cover up was so blatant that it made things far worse.
Joy McPhail,the minister, was limited in what she could do because of protocols of not overruling professionals and mainly because it was the report of the SCW who was an independant officer. So she launched a commission of inquiry under Judge Thomas Gove. Gove later remarked in his report that the supposedly independant superintendant of child welfare had become just another creature of the bureaucracy,looking after the interests of the organisation and not after the interests of children.
The Gove Inquiry had a fairly large staff and they travelled the province holding hearings in various locations. Eighteen months after starting, the long-awaited Gove report came out. The detail and analysis was thorough, fair and objective. He came down very hard on the SCW, but was more tolerant of the social workers, because they were largely untrained and were under poor direction. He was not impressed with the senior administration who seemed to be very confused about a number of crucial issues and who seemed to be quite at loss in suggesting how to improve things.
There was a very marked irony in the recommendations of the Gove report. A number of field staff had reported that there had been two or three major re-organisations in the ministry, which were meant to improve things. Each re-organisation had created chaos and that which was working well had been impeded. As usual the irrelevant administrative fix had been applied. Gove pointed out that the main problems were lack of training experience, good mentoring and the lack of a good core training programme. Senior officials had repeatedly discussed how to address these issues, but were at loss to know what they could do about it. Sure, they could declare mission statements and declare policies, but they never followed up to ensure quality compliance and they did not know how to do it.
After all this, what did Judge Gove eventually do? He recommended another administrative fix. He knew that most of the problems were not of an administrative nature and that the previous attempts at administrative fixes had failed and yet he came up with the same old mistake. He knew about the Seebohm report, because he mentioned it in passing. He should have re-read the preamble.
.
Continued
Perhaps this can be simplified to: "Am I going to tell the truth today and be worthy of respect from parents I deal with today."
ReplyDeleteTell the truth to yourself, to your supervisor, to the parents and their children. Did "abuse" occur, or was it an "accident"? Such a simple question.
Each day we make decisions, how fast to drive, when to switch lanes, how to react when someone cuts us off in traffic, even, whether or not to remove children from their parents (hopefully not as a result of being cut off from traffic earlier that day.)
The job of a social worker is to gather information, the best information possible, distill it and transfer that information to their supervisor and back to parents.
If the informatin is skewed, something is missing, more focus is placed on one item of information over others, the interpretation and resulting decision will change.
Part of telling the truth is not deliberately omitting information that would change the outcome. Telling the current truth is not using old or outdated information and inferring this is the truth.
Off the top of my head, special interests can include:
ReplyDelete1. Foster Parents
2. SBS program developers
3. Program Trainers: hospitals, social workers, foster parents, parents etc.
4. Psychologists that do assessments
5. Doctors specializing in abuse examinations
6. Lawyers generally
7. Aboriginal service
8. Counselling services (children who witness abuse, Project Parent etc.)
9. Daycare operations and subsidies
10. Subsidized Housing
11. Mental health
12. Male Penile testing
13. Youth sexual abuse training
14. Supervised access
15. Advertising anti-abuse campaign
16. Third party study contracts
(I'm not the author of 12:32)
I met parents who lost their children as I was required to attend 'parenting classes' as part of my involvement. One woman deserved to lose her daughter as she had a very bad crack problem. I met her at an MCFD dinner 4 years ago. Then as it was required for me to have involvement again, I met more parents recently who lost their kids last year or this year. The reasons did not make much sense. One woman was a very beautiful and nice lady with a great sense of humour who has a job. She lost her two daughters ages 13 and 10 and they have not been returned for a year in spite of all her efforts and the classes she is taking with MCFD. HEr older daughter was going a bit wild and staying out all night and smoking pot, she is a single mom and could not control her daughter, so she was taken and the younger daughter was also taken. The point she made was why take the younger girl who wanted to stay with the mom? The sisters are in separate foster homes and it is not the best. MCFD considers that if one kid is at risk they are all at risk. But that is not necessarily true.
ReplyDeleteThe next story was from a woman who did not lose her daughter but was in a low income housing complex with mean neighbours. They phoned MCFD on her if they heard her daughter crying through the wall. She was quite a nervous wreck and explained how she established a routine of bribing her daughter with candy at bath time every night so she would be quiet and not bother the neighbours so they would not phone MCFD. The daughter is now 10 and was bribed since age 2 and is now hard to control. It shows that when parents are so scared of MCFD that they give the child candy and bribe them, it doesn't work out. Children need to learn to not have tantrums and parents need to be supported. Why bother a sincere mom? She was a nice lady and worked in an old age home. Both nice, respectable people, both single moms who were not heeding MCFD bothering them!
Other cases were very sad as they involved recent immigrants who spoke no English, they were so confused and frightened and so sincere. They did not know why they lost their kids and were not sure if they would ever get them back. The course was given only in English, and a lot was lost in the translation.
When I first went to these classes, before I lost my own kids, the parents seemed so nice and sincere and I could not believe I was with a group of people who were considered bad enough parents to warrant losing their children. Then I lost my kids and I knew what is going on. Too many kids are taken from parents who are not abusing their children and probably just need some support.
I started to make friends with my supervisors as I was under supervision to see my children. THey are not happy either. Many people who are in MCFD are not happy with the current structure. Previously there were 165 MCFD service agencies in the Loser Mainland, now there are 4. Why spend all this $$ in court now?
12:32 was talking about these groups having a say in removal/return-to-parent after removal.
ReplyDeleteOf this list, only Lawyers have SOME part in whether children stay in care - the Baynes case proves exactly how much, which is little. NONE have a part in the decision to remove. I can see how a psychologist may be seen as having a part in the return-to-parent decision, but they don't benefit either way.
Doctors, who conduct "child abuse examinations" do not benefit from making a decision either way.
I don't know what a "Program Trainer" is, nor how they impact removal/return.
"Aboriginal service" - Not sure what you mean by that.
I can see your point re: supervised access programs - but they have no say in REMOVAL. But have no actual say beyond submitting their reports - which is a whole other issue.
So much abuse is done in the name of "child protection."
ReplyDeleteIf MCFD or any of these other child protection agencies really cared about child abuse, they'd shut themselves down. If you've ever witnessed an unnecessary child removal, or a child that is or was abused in foster housing, you understand pretty quickly that child protectors aren't what they claim to be.
There is something seriously wrong with too many of those who work in this industry. Appealing to a conscience won't work. We have to be stronger than that - we have to make the laws and the government work for us, rather than pleading with it to not harm our children.
We live in a time when those who want to do harm know that the best way to do it is to hide behind the cloak of benevolence. It doesn't matter what the particular form of harm is, evil now knows - perhaps more now than at any time before in history - that in order to do what it wants to do - it just needs to adopt the persona of goodness. The fact that hypocrisy is everywhere now suggests that we are on the brink of a new era, one where hypocrisy itself will finally be exposed. I could be dreaming though.
-----------------------------------
The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.
~Socrates
CW,
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obvious that all the parties mentioned above (special interest groups) do benefit, by increased reputation (prestige) and / or remuneration.
If a psychologist etc. doesn't fall in line they will not be getting business from MCFD. These "experts" are just what Margaret Hagen, Ph.D, terms "Whores of the Court."
You can read her book if you want; she's made it available for free.
She even has a chapter devoted to child protection.
http://whoresofthecourt.com/
"In this provocative and well-researched book, Margaret Hagen, Ph.D, reveals how expert psychological testimony is a total fraud, showing how the courts have increasingly embraced not a cutting-edge science but, instead, a discipline that represents a terrifying retreat into fantasy and hearsay; a discipline propelled by powerful propaganda, arrogance, and greed.
Dr. Hagen sounds a clarion wake-up call, offering some startling – and much-needed – recommendations about how we can reclaim our own ability to judge and supplying vital advice on how we can protect ourselves from the ravages of psychological testimony in our own lives."
Professor
Margaret A. Hagen
“A damning indictment of the psychologizing – and undermining – of the American legal system. With righteous wrath and devastating wit, this sweeping critique should stir national debate.”
-- Publishers Weekly
Child removal is equivalent to winning a contract to build a house (it costs about the same). Money is expended, the many services and many subcontractors (the 3rd party) are required, and most of these are delivered before there is a determination of whether or not the child(ren) needs protection, or in need of these services. By the time one gets to a protection hearing, the "services" will supposedly have done their job and said protection hearing can be avoided.
ReplyDeleteOn a word of a social worker, removal of children triggers tens of thousands of dollars of expenditures and involvment of many of these third parties mentioned.
Each of the parties listed knows there is a regular flow of business due to child removals, so of course they support child removal and recognize a social worker's power to give them work that can be a significant source of business.
Most of the third parties have a vested interest in seeing the children stay in care for as long as possible, of course they have no say in the removal.
Recommendations from these special interests and lengths of training programs are designed specifically to span the longest amount of time possible.
For example, there is typically months of delay in having children assessed by a psychologist, who then may diagnose Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and prescribe counselling such as Children who Witness Abuse, which also has a long waiting list. Deliberately constraining corrective services also helps ensure children stay in care longer.
Of course these various parties have no say in the actual removal, as that would be a conflict of interest. So, social workers commission reports that recommend more services, longer terms of service, or specialized (more expensive) services. No one keeps track of the big picture of money expenditures for each family affected by removal. Social workers are essentially divorced from such cost considerations so they have complete freedom to address the "needs" of the family without having to be hamstrung by a beancounter monitoring their every expenditure.
What is not so clear is after all is said and done is how the children and family benefit. If an after-service study is done, it is by the social worker who may create yet another risk assessment written in glowing terms how wonderful the various services fixed said problems. It certainly is not an independant psychologist the parents get to choose unless they pay the bill themselves.
If a social worker asks the Baynes' supervision workers if, in their opinion, the Baynes need supervision, would the answer be yes, or no?
Would the government give the parents the money to shop around for their own supervision personnel, their own psychologist, their own college-registered social worker? No way.
The point is, the listed professionals do not care how the children come to them. These people understand the pecking order and where their money comes from. They go through the motions of "fixing" the children or preparing reports or other work that is required.
Programs training is an industry that creates training programs for whatever government or corporate business that needs it.
Aboriginal services is a subcategory targeted to one ethnic minority. Cultural development, for example, specialized training for social workers to deal with natives etc.
Special interest businesses have motive for focusing their practice on lucrative opportunities presented by child removal.
ReplyDeleteA psychologist will lose their contract or will not be used by the Ministry again if they criticize the removal and lenth of the retention and cite damage to the child parent bond is clearly occurring because of the removal.
An independant psychologist contracted by MCFD will be eager for repeat business so will "play ball" with the government and make a recommendation for a longer stay in care and suggested lengthy services to remedy problems.
Foster parents will "play ball" with the social workers in hopes of getting "better" kids placed with them later, or high-value special needs children. Meaning, foster parents will listen in on private phone conversations, interrogate children to acquire information, spread misinformation, and otherwise gather evidence that will help facilitate a recommendation the children stay in care longer.
Long term one-on-one parenting courses, the counsellors or instructors also mine the parent for information, try to convince them to confess or admit regret so they have something negative to write in reports, which serves to justify the taking of the course even before a protection hearing is held that agrees with the social worker's removal decision. A course that can be completed within a month takes over a year.
The longer the removal, the more each third party involved has time to benefit.
The social worker is well versed in various strategies to ensure children spend the longest possible time in care. They can blame delays on court, waiting lists for providers, uncooperative parents, you name it.
CW:
ReplyDeleteHow do you know whether these special interest groups benefit or not? Are you privy to everything said and done and given to them? Obviously, MCFD is corrupt to the core, so the people they do business with on a regular basis - unless they are deaf, dumb, and blind - are also going to be corrupt.
Once again, it seems you are trying to defend MCFD and the child protection industry.
Who does have the say then? My SW likes me and wants my kids to go back to me. My doctor is working on the same. Yet when we went to court, the MCFD lawyer pulled in with a huge, rolling suitcase full of files against me. My lawyer was shocked as we were just there for access and not even fighting the removal order. This case is quite minor, yet it has been dragged on for two months.
ReplyDeleteWhen I have been waiting in the MCFD office for my supervised visitations, it is like a legal hub. They are constantly on the phone with their lawyers, faxing documents to their lawyers, having legal documents couriered to them.
What has happened the emphasis on programs that show a friendlier side of MCFD such as 'Roots of Empathy' ? What has gone wrong with MCFD ?
I'd pick bottles out of garbage cans before I'd work for MCFD.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 5:39 PM,
ReplyDeleteWhat has gone wrong with MCFD is the same thing that has gone wrong with all gov't agencies, just moreso. They have total power and zero accountability.
The only way we can fix it is to put the fear of God, or us (seems how its very doubtful they believe in God) into them. And we can only do this by, as Ron puts it, linking arms together. We've got to all stick together, and fight for one another. We can start by showing up in court, Monday, August 9, 2010, when court resumes for the Baynes.
And as far as your social worker goes, I would never assume that she likes you, no matter how much she smiles or how nice she acts. Many of them are very two-faced, they get better results that way - getting you to trust them, and to talk, and then using it against you. I could be wrong, but I would never trust an MCFD social worker - not when my child's life is at stake.
Anon 11:43 PM is right.
ReplyDeleteNever, ever trust a polite, kindly-appearing soft-spoken social worker. They are the one's instructing the lawyer when you are ot there.
They either want you to let your guard down and trust them so they can do more damage, or they are hoping you will shout and scream in frustration.
If you don't contest the removal, then you may be seen by the judge as agreeing that it was justified. Later, it then becomes easier for them to extend the time they keep your children when a renewal comes because of your initial agreement.
If it is trivial as you say, workers actually have to do more work to villify you. If they are unsuccessful in riling you, watch out for your kids.
You will find out soon enough if they are in for the long haul. The next step could be a risk assessment if one is not already done, a physical checkup at the HEAL abuse clinic in Surrey, followed a few months later by a psychological evaluation of your children (without your input), asking you to do anger management and another parentng course, and asking you to do a parental capacity assessment.
Keep posting as time goes on, let us know the proress of your case.
Do you know what Anon 6:34 PM on August 4th?
ReplyDeleteYou may have a bone to pick with the social workers you have been exposed to. But I am weary of the categorical statements that all social workers, even those who are polite and courteous are merely wolves in sheep's clothing. There is a balance to be struck in the way we report things and make our points.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your chastising the poster above because of his/her comments about social workers:
I would think very carefully about how you criticize those who are warning parents, because someone who may be reading may decide to trust the wrong social worker. Even if there are some good social workers (and I have to question this, if only because not ONE has spoken out against the MCFD, even when it is clear the MCFD is abusing their power) - even if there are some good social workers - how do you know which ones are good and which ones aren't?
If a parent trusts the wrong social worker, the results could be devastating for the parent and child. Devastating. Think about what could occur because a parent mistakenly trusts the wrong social worker. I'm not saying we have to call ALL social workers evil; but please don't say things which might lead a parent to let their guard down. How many atrocities does this Ministry have to commit before it can't be trusted? And the people who do its work?
Social workers who act nice could be compared to cops who play good cop and bad cop. It's a way to get information, information that can and will be used against you. Maybe there are nice social workers out there - but if there is, how come NOT ONE has stepped forward to defend the Baynes (except a retired social worker, and only apparently, on this blog).
Atrocities occur all the time within MCFD. WHERE are all these ethical social workers??? They should be outraged, speaking out, trying to help parents and families. What we get instead is complete and utter silence. Oh yeah, except for the ones on this blog and elsewhere who always pop up to defend the MCFD. Never, ever to defend parents against this ruthless Ministry.
Anon Aug 5 10:09 AM
ReplyDeleteYour point is well taken.
It will be difficult, almost impossible for a vulnerable parent to know whether a pleasant social worker is sincerely a "good" one or a "crafty" one.