 |
| Any Family |
The parents have been what the child has not yet been – both young and old. Parents should have accrued wisdom from situations that the child has not yet experienced. So it is the parents' responsibility to create an environment in which they can pass wisdom on for the child to readily learn life lessons. It is the parents' responsibility to treat the child with dignity and respect. It is the child's responsibility to honour parents and to listen and to obey and to learn. A child who learns these home life lessons becomes enrichingly wise for a life that can be genuine, wholesome, prosperous. This is the foundation of good family and community relationships.
Given my faith background you will understand why I consider it to be significant that the fifth of ten fundamental commandments given by God to a society of people is this one. Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."
Parents are also given direction in Ephesians 6:4 “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”
Whining or not, as long as law has not chanced to revoke child removal authority, we remain status quo. Revoking child removal authority is not anti child protection. Indeed, it is pro child protection and patriotic. Special interests in the CP industry are a big risk to children, families and national security. Their activities, inadvertently or not, destroy the backbone of our nation: families.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reminding people of the importance of families.
ReplyDeleteCould you elaborate on this statement, please:
"A person's response to government derives from the parent-child relationship."
Yes Anon 6:41 AM
ReplyDeleteI can elaborate on my post remark, "A person's response to government derives from the parent-child relationship."
My thinking is that if parents are well connected with their children, demonstrative of love and respect for one another, and when parents communicate their expectations reasonably and children calmly comply with the authority their parents represent, a response to authority is established that transfers even to government. Further when parents provide examples of respect for authority, that instructs children. Children follow examples. Of course, such principles are true in an ideal world in which government does not betray trust and warrant negative reactions
Many people, children included, now have very good reasons for not trusting government. But I would say this has more to do with the role government has played in their lives, than anything their parents may have done or not done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Anon 8:12 AM, specifically when government action or inaction affects the children directly as it does with MCFD. When children are old enough to equate the SW's and others with government, you can aleady assume what their responses will be.
ReplyDeleteRon, removal of children is the last resort. Contrary to what some will have you believe who comment on this web page, or following this post.
ReplyDeleteRon, you simply need to go speak with SW's. Not sure they'd speak with you - but I know you'd be pleasantly surprised.
*Before anyone is outraged, yes, I realize there is historical evidence of knee-jerk reactions the world-over by SW's.
The rest of what you wrote was quite eloquent, Ron. I gotta be honest, I read, just waiting for the punchline - and you delivered in your last sentence. I'll suggest again, you start balancing your posts if you want to be taken more seriously in what you are trying to achieve. ie, suggest it need be the last resort then post an instance when it WAS the last resort and when it WAS NOT the last resort. Then discuss the outcomes of those "snapshots" - admittedly being a miniscule portion. For that, you'd have to find a SW to speak with.
...."you can already assume what their responses will be."....Please enlighten us.
Apologies - I should add that I am not a SW. I am not involved with the Baynes at all, or any others similar or otherwise to the Baynes.
ReplyDeleteRon, you could do so much more with this web page than you are. But, I feel the majority of your posts are written on emotion and lack the follow-through of subjectivity - when speaking on topics OTHER than the Baynes. Your Bayne's posts appear to be very organized and factual. All your posts should be and should come with the same evidential research/support.
Just a random thought that occurred: Now that you have a solid readership, it may be a good idea to get some (appropriate) advertising on your page, and you could donate the money to the Bayne family. Google adwords is a simple way to do this.
ReplyDeleteRon; as usual I must apologise for being off the topic of the day, but not off the topic of the blog. Last Friday a court set a date for the last hearing in the Bayne case. September 21st has been fixed for Finn Jensen to sum up the case for the MCFD. All day. Mr. Jensen has a big job ahead of him, so I thought I would give him a helping hand and suggest a presentation for him.
ReplyDelete"Your Honour; I stand before you all day today to sum up the case for the director. I know it will be a long and trying day for you, but please understand that a man has to earn a crust or two to maintain the family and this is probably the last chance that I will have to get a payday from the Bayne case.
No doubt your honour has reviewed most of the evidence that has been presented and you may have come to the conclusion that we appear to have presented very few facts in our evidence. I beg the court not to be misled by appearances, as they can be very deceiving. Facts can be greatly overrated. It has long been accepted in evidentiary precedent that many people will look at the same facts and see completely different things and come to opposite conclusions. So with facts relying so much on perception and interpretation, we urge the court not to pay too much attention to the actual facts of the case. It is much more reliable to heed what wise and reliable people advise.Would it not be insulting to those sincere and dedicated social workers to disregard their opinions for the sake of a lack of a few measly facts? Is it not insulting to a dedicated pediatrician to bring in a lot of hired guns to belittle and defame her?
The Baynes have made far too much of the fact that the RCMP could find no evidence to charge them. HOw can one possibly place any trust in a police force that could not find the evidence against Willy Pickton? Everything that the Baynes and their supporters have done has been blatantly self-serving and detrimental to the orderly running of the ministry for children. All they are interested in is getting their children back so that they can give them further abuse. How can one trust them? There is no end to their cunning. For nearly three years they have carefully attended every access visit and have hugged and kissed their children, even though they have been repeatedly warned against it. They have even used the ploy of working as night janitors, so that they can attend every access visit and court, while constantly complaining, so that they can carry on with their deception. The court should not be deceived by all this. Finally YOur Honour, should you not see fit to grant the requested continuing care order, you will virtually be declaring that the last three years have been a huge waste of public funds. Can you imagine what devastating consequences that would have? Can you imagine the stress that this would place on the shoulders of the director and his staff.I beg the court to show compassion to all these good people and please, please, please let us have our CCO." Well I could go on, but I think I have given counsel enough help already. What do other readers think?
When the ministry has summarised its case, that is the last court date. The Baynes can make a written response and then all we can do is wait for Judge Crabtree to deliver his written judgement. The end is finally in sight.
Anon 8:29 and 8:35 AM
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to keep my Anonymous-es clearly in focus. I believe you wrote the two comments referenced above and you have written me earlier I know. You are not a social worker but you are assuring me that social workers do treat removal of children as a last resort. Alright, point taken. I am sure that conversation with social workers themselves will be informative to me. In my mind my closing sentence was not so much a punchline as a corollary to my conviction about the importance and value of family – a corollary in view of the general theme of our interaction on the blog. I actually appreciate the stimulus of your remarks, so if some writers aim their words for your heart, wear the vest and keep writing. You state that I could do more with this online presence than I am. I would be pleased to explore that with you further. Tell me. In that context did you mean to say that I write the majority of my posts on emotion but lack the follow-through 'objectivity' rather than 'subjectivity' which you wrote? Truth is, I am not the dispassionate journalist when the Baynes were my driving reason for starting this. Of course, when it comes to matters not directly related to the Baynes, objectivity comes more easily. Perhaps you were not Anon 9:25 AM with the advice to add advertisements. I will consider it although I am not keen about cluttering the page.
Write on emotions? Revoking child removal authority is not an emotional appeal. It is the only solution to protect children and families. You see how skillful special interests are in mudslinging those who want to take away their trump card. With the power to define child abuse and remove kids at will, every family is at risk. Facts have spoken for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of last resort, I have seen kids removed because parents rent a flea infested condo, kids went to school appearing sad, parents disagreeing with absurd positions of CP SW, kids have rash with medical proof,... Just to names few. Is it last resort?
Suggesting that Ron could "do so much more with this webpage" is a bit much, I think, seems how it is obvious that he has put a great deal of time and energy into this. He doesn't get paid for this; it is a labour of love. He is already going above and beyond the call of duty, and for that I am very, very thankful.
ReplyDeleteTO: The social worker or MCFD employee or whoever you are.
ReplyDeleteRe: Your statement that Child removal is a "last resort."
Who are you trying to kid?!!!
September 21st, 2010.
ReplyDeleteAnother very important day, I would assume, for supporters of the Baynes to show up in court. I know I'm going to do everything in my power to attend.
It is absolutely amazing to me the similarities of the Bayne case in B.C, and our case in Ontario.
ReplyDeleteOn September 21, not so long ago..Our trial concluded. We heard those words we had fought and prayed so hard, so long...then we walked out of that court room and our babies were there. My husband and I were finally free to hug them, and kiss them unfettered as tears of joy rolled down our faces. We literally dropped to our knees, and enshrined our children with so much unrestrained love. We looked into the faces of their caregivers, and we saw their happiness for us but we also saw their grief. Our children's care givers were about to travel a road, we knew well. As a team, with a vested interest in these children, we moved fourth. Kinship care worked well for our children. I am so sorry that the Bayne children were ruthlessly removed from this program. Its a good thing that these children have a proven track record of being resiliant, strength that must come from the fortitude of their parents. This family survived being removed from their parents, then their grandparents, and several other homes. Despite their tender ages, their advancing ages in addition to serious health issues they adjusted well, simply because they had too. There is no reason the children could not be successfully be returned to the parents, grandparents and extended friends, family. Collectively, the Bayne family have shown that they can and will survive the unimaginable. 10 experts to one, let Justice be done. The world is watching, and recording.
I am thrilled to hear about your outcome.
ReplyDeleteTwo points. First; I wish anon 11.16 am would add a tag to your anon, so we know when you are writing. Ie .Anon Blue eyes, or anon abolitionist might be better. We have heard you call for the abolition of apprehension power many times, but your suggested alternative strategies are weak. Why do you not come forth with a more convincing alternative format, before making more calls for removal of apprehension power? I am certainly willing to listen.
ReplyDeleteSecond; to the person--someone with social work experience perhaps--who says that apprehension should be a last resort. I am sorry to have to tell you that this is just a rather meaningless catchphrase, which I have heard so often in the mouths of social work profs. If you were to read my book you would understand why. The very first resort is to make sure that a child is safe, either at home or in care.Sometimes that means that removal must be the first action. Look at the Bayne case. On the best evidence available, the social worker had reason to believe that baby B. was at serious risk and must be made safe. This meant apprehension and also a safety plan for the brothers. Although placed with relatives, they were in fact taken into care, but in a manner which would not cause distress. Apprehension was an appropriate first resort. The second resort should be to do a thorough assessment of the situation, to see if there was corroborative evidence. That assessment should have quickly shown that the family did not have a profile that was compatible with an abusive family. As soon as all the conflicting medical reports came in, the whole situation should have been completely re-evaluated. When this was considered with the police dropping the case and the lawyer advising them to return the boys, the third resort should have been to return the boys. The last resort should then have been to reunite the whole family as quickly as possible.
I have acted in many cases where apprehension was my first resort, because the safety of a child seemed to demand it. By no means did it mean that I kept every child in care after proper assessment.
You know perfectly well that it is usually useless to talk to the social workers, because they always say that everything is confidential. Since doing advocacy work I have gone to many interviews with clients and I have frequently heard social workers come up with the most dreadful bilge. In roughly one third of the cases, I have found that the actions of the social workers have been appropriate and the client was in denial about their high risk behaviour. Ie. A mother who was convinced that her severely diabetic child did not need insulin, but that prayer was enough. In such cases I write to the parent pointing out what they need to do and I support the social worker. I copy the staff.
Unfortunately in two thirds of the cases I have found the serious type of abuse of authority manifest in the Bayne case and in the cases of other contributors to the blog. Now Mr.Last Resort, I will tell you what is of even more concern to me. It is that no matter how flawed the actions of the social worker are, they are always fully supported to the top of the ladder. Never once have I seen a senior person intervene, or show concern. Theoretical internal review systems are futile and never have any outcome. When they are wrong and they know they are wrong, there is never an admission. There is only spin and cover up. I would rather you address that issue than issue comforting little homilies about talking to some social workers. What do you propose to do to change this culture of entrenching wrongs?
We ass(u)me, that child abuse and negelect happen all the time..parents care for their children, therefore they are always the guilty party. We never question the motives of professionals, that have personal, professional, corporate vested interests. Who watches them? Are readers aware that a team of Pediatric Doctors in Canada got away with being wrong more than 40%, and that was exclusive of the contributing errors of GP'S, lab tec's and nursing, and most notably CPS at the time? If the Canadian Government allows its Provincial underlings to operate professional government side businesses at an admitted 40+% failure rate, with said "professionals" emerging with barely ruffled feathers...than it has no business putting the Baynes et al. under microscope. In terms of Canadian Justice the Baynes must be seen achieving at least minimum standard of 60% required for professionals. The Baynes are not professionals, so what standard are they expected to perform at? 100% 24/7? under duress? Despite serious professional inquiries, these "professionals" continued their practices, personally and professionally for years. Yet the Bayne family has served three years, concurant. Do the math. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 3 soon to be 4 children. Thats 9 soon to be 10 times 3 years. That's a 30 year term. Serial killers have had a better chance than the Baynes for early release. Enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteNope, I didn't suggest the advertisements. I did write the two you referenced, Ron.
ReplyDeleteBy doing so much more, I mean you could balance the web page. Provide both sides. Improve your credibility by conducting research. You write about the Baynes with passion (appropriate subjectivity) AND objectivity. But on other topics the entries come across as emotional and subjective.
Ron, I would be very, very careful about advertising because what may happen is you may end up having advertisements for the child protection industry, based on the key words of this blog.
ReplyDeleteI note that Ray Ferris, himself an ex-social worker, states that "...in two thirds of the cases I have found the serious type of abuse of authority manifest in the Bayne case.." This means that two thirds of the children and families are being harmed by MCFD, and at the very most 1/3 is being helped (and this is true, only if you believe that MCFD helps).
As long as you give a group of people who basically have no accountability such enormous God-like power - that is, the power to take a child from his parents - then you will have problems with wrongful removals. Government should not have this power. It would be better to accept the fact that there may always be a certain percentage of children that cannot or will not be rescued (and there certainly are many now, in spite of MCFD's claims to care only about the best interests of children). Help those who need help; if there are real signs of abuse, do an investigation, then charge the perpetrator criminally. But don't have some socialist social worker yanking kids away from their family on the basis of some bogus subjective "neglect" accusation.
And while Ray Ferris appears to be pro-parent, I do not accept his statement that in 1/3 of the cases the child just had to be removed and there was no other option.
ReplyDeleteOf course it sounds dramatic and persuasive when Ray Ferris refers to the example of the religious woman* who wanted to only pray for her diabetic child (rather than put him on insulin), but, remember, we don't know the facts of this case.
Doctors will often diagnose a child as having a condition (such as Attention Deficit Disorder) and if the parents disagree, or don't agree to drugging of their child, the child is "removed." Then the child will be yanked from his family, thrown into an institution, heavily drugged, and essentially destroyed - this happens all the time, if not in Canada, most definately in the USA.
Or, another scenario is this: doctors will often fail to diagnose a child, and the illness is then, conveniently, blamed on the mother (e.g., Munchausen by Proxy), because the doctor is both incompetent and malicious (i.e., evil, yes, EVIL).
*Once again, we have a religious person portrayed as some kind of nut; maybe the woman is / was a nut, maybe not. This stereotyping of a parent as a religious nutjob is in keeping with my observation that child protection is very anti-religion. It seems to be full of atheists. And atheists of course do not believe in any commandments, especially honour thy Father and Mother.
Re: Ray Ferris' 11:23 a.m. post
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting us know the final date that Finn Jensen will have his final opportunity to spout his lengthy, monotonous diatribe. It will indeed be another testimony to the Bayne's perseverence and willingness to do whatever they need to in order to have their children returned. It will be a challenge for all of their supporters and even Judge Crabtree simply to stay awake as Finn will undoubtedly try at least 15 different ways to say the same thing, in the same soporific tone of voice. I'm sure many of his sentences will be prefaced with "I suggest to you that..." He seemed to like to use that phrase a lot in cross-examination - in an attempt to make the other person believe that what Finn was proposing was credible, and indeed because he suggested it, it must be the truth (LOL)!
Doug Christie was able to make a succinct, articulate and convincing summation within an hour. Finn Jensen's insistence of having a full day for his summation shows his desparation to use words - lots of them - to spin his case.
I hope every single seat is filled with supporters for Paul and Zabeth.
Social workers do not only remove children as a last resort. That is ridiculous and very untrue. Over the last seven years I have heard case after case where children were removed when other measures could have been put in place. Cases where more than one family member offered to care for the children but MCFD wouldn't even do the home studies. Cases where the children could have stayed with the parent if certain things were put in place but 'no funding' for that! Several situations where the children didn't even need to be removed. I think, if life is so bad for a child that they must be removed, there better be proof and I don't mean proof without evidence. I mean proof. Why screw up a child's future forever based on a few comments made by a neighbor or an angry ex spouse? And, when children are removed, parents should be told their rights just as it is when a person is charged with a crime because, in reality, what's the difference. Everything a parent says to a social worker will be used against them in court so why don't social workers tell parents that? Why don't social workers take statements from parents that are signed so that no statement can be later twisted and used against them?
ReplyDeleteYes, my social worker hated me. I thought I was being friendly and she wrote that I talked non-stop, & am a very anxious, unpleasant person. They can write personal insults and call it evidence. She was trying to build a case that I am mentally ill somehow. My doctor kept saying that I am not. If I said that, it was also recorded against me. Finally I got a psychiatric assessment. Guess what? It also said I am not mentally ill. Now they want a PCA. Another person they hope will say I am mentally ill. I hope I pass that one too. It will be my 6th test of mental wellness. I have passed all these tests with all these experts and no one who knows me at my job or anywhere thinks I am mentally ill, yet one neighbour kept phoning in that I have mental illness, so they want it to be true.
ReplyDeleteI read that the downfall of government can come from wishfulness and yesmanship. Wishfulness is the leader wanting to hear something that furthers his case even if it is not true. Yesmanship is the subordinates telling the boss whatever he wants to hear and promotions being based on that. MCFD is full of both.
ANON 6:52 PM
ReplyDeleteTheoretically you and I want the same thing - a change to the child removal statute.
We are far apart about how to express that opinion.
Ray Ferris gives you some information and you challenge it on the basis of not having the facts. However, you state extremes about diagnoses, removals and drugging and destroyed lives and it happening all the time, yet without statistical or factual backup.
Then you create a fictional medical scenario and tell us the doctor is malicious and evil, and this is to be example of the ways things are everywhere, all of the time.
Finally you claim that atheists proliferate in child protection agencies and that these are all anti-religion. That doesn't help me even though it may get a load off your mind. It might have been expressed that many employees are of no religious persuasion and find it difficult to understand religious convictions and therefore do not respect them.
The family can hardly be blamed for not continuing to maintain the website. The decision of the lower court to allow MCFD to keep the children in care in the face of a higher court decision illustrates the problem with the judiciary and the negative influence of MCFD.
ReplyDeleteThe scary thing to me as a taxpayer and parent is the relative digital silence after such an atrocity of an ordeal. Will this same silence be the result after the Baynes case is over? Where is the follow-up lawsuit? News, CBC and TV coverage? How is any parent going to benefit from either of these cases?
The only lesson that one could possibly derive from this is that if you take your child to the BC Children's Hospital with a head injury, there will be a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis and you will lose your children for a minimum of 3 years, and you will have to put your life and financial assets on hold during that time.
If you search the Baynes and shaken baby syndrome, there are plenty of hits. If I do a new search with the Rahman family, and there is just the link to the website.
The legal costs are simply staggering. If the Rahman's paid $200,000, MCFD (us taxpayers) paid far more) and they have succeeded in taking several years from the children's lives.
MCFD is apparently free to repeat the exercise again. Only the Rahman's or the Baynes family are able to hold MCFD personally accountable, if the attempt to file a lawsuit is not made, there will likely be more such SBS cases.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteI am Anon at 6:52.
My statements probably do seem extreme, but this is an extreme situation, where children can be ripped from parents on the basis of a caseworker's hearsay evidence.
I don't have any statistics, because child protection, conveniently, doesn't accumulate these kind of statistics. I only know what I read and hear. And what I keep reading and hearing is this:
1) Child protection workers, and the entire child protection industry, behave in a manner that is distinctly immoral, and which is not accord with any legitimate religion;
2) The child protection industry seems to like to use the extreme example of the parents who deny a child, for example, a blood transfusion (or in Ray Ferris's example, insulin), in order to promote the idea that a) religion is to be distrusted, and is harmful to children, and b) the state should have the power to protect children who have parents who will not succumb to whatever medical care the state deems necessary.
3) The child protection industry doesn't respect the religious persuasion of parents and children whom they have victimized. This was also apparent in the Bayne's case, was it not?
4) There is a proliferation of cases where the state has removed children because the state deems it necessary that the child receive some sort of medical care for a supposed mental or physical disorder. Yet the state will not help the parent and child out, and permit the child to be at home. The state will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a child in an institution or in foster housing, but not one nickel to keep the child at home, where he or she belongs.
5) There have been a large number of cases where, if the parent is foolish enough to complain about medical services or lack thereof (e.g., the failure to diagnose), the medical profession or a member of it, will quickly call in the authorities (i.e,. child protection and the police) and that is the last the parents see of their child. Most, if not all, of the complaints we hear from parents about bogus diagnoses of Munchausen by Proxy (where the parent is blamed for the child's illness) are the result of co-operation between the medical profession and child protection.
I don't say that children are removed all the time, or that all medical professionals are evil, or that all the child protection workers are atheists.
But what I do say is that there are enough that we can make the generalization that parents should be very careful in clinics, doctors offices, and hospitals, and with all medical professionals, as many child protection accusations occur within this setting.
And be aware that if you are a part of a religion that believes in family, and if your children are well behaved, child protection workers seem to focus on you, because a) they don't like the notion of family (this should be obvious by now), and b) they seem to want well-behaved children, perhaps as they are easier to place in foster housing.
Also be aware that if you don't want your child subjected to the immoral and/or objectionable teachings of public school (i.e., sex ed in grade one), you can home school them. Home schoolers (perhaps because they are often religious, but most definately because they defied the state) were often subject to child removals, until they organized. They now have legal defence teams (not sure about BC) which will assist any home schooling parent who has had their child removed. The public has been brainwashed about home schoolers, led to believe that these children are only home schooled so they can get abused, and that they will all be social freaks. However, and this has been statistically proven, they fare better academically and socially.
(Con't...)
Anon from above (and 6:52), Con't:
ReplyDeleteI should probably be more diplomatic and politically correct in how I express myself with respect to the child protection industry and all those who fuel it (and it is often fueled by the medical profession). I am aware that any kind of generalization, or broad statement, about the child protection industry garners criticism. But that doesn't mean those broad statements aren't true.
If a child lives by a busy street, we warn him or her about crossing the road, even though not every car would fail to put on the brakes in time. And likewise, it only takes ONE encounter with the wrong person to destroy a family forever. And where child protection is concerned, these harmful people are virtually everywhere - in the grocery store, in the doctor's office, in the schools, you name it. It may seem harsh to paint the state and medical profession in such a light, but parents really need to beware. The consequences of not being aware can be catastrophic.
My children went from trusting hospitals, police and thinking that social workers are good people to being really scared and wary. By the time they were interviewed by the new SW last June, they did not reveal much on any details about where their dad is, if they see him, if they spend more time with me or with their grandmother,etc,etc. Then the one boy ran from his school to the other schools to warn the siblings that a SW was coming and what to say. This comes not from a lifetime of doing anything wrong, but from a lifetime of harassment by MCFD. I had two years off from them and everyone made amazing progress. We moved and the kids started new schools without open files, we got more connected to our family as I did not have to ask MCFD permission every time I did anything. Then we came back to visit Vancouver and someone tipped off MCFD that I had a new baby. They stormed in with four cops who stayed four hours and we were all searched. Nothing was found, but still a SW showed up the next day and she felt I should go to court on the hunch that I might be mentally ill and the 'risk' of me having such a big family. I have a lot of children. I won't say how many as it gives me away. I finally got my baby back this week after two months without her, I still don't have my son back. All this so that MCFD could be certain that I can handle my kids. I am college trained for two years to work with kids. They are wrong about me, but to even point it out makes them madder. Terrible system!!!!
ReplyDeleteA sidebar here from NYC in re families and
ReplyDeletegovernment
I am the youngest child of an older couple. My mother and father lived through the Great Depression here in the States. Their parents were immigrants from Europe.
While I did not experience what they had experienced, I knew the stories. Their lives living in the Great Depression wherein my immigrant grandfather lost his home, and social workers from "home relief" arrived every Sunday to make sure the family didn't have more than bread and water to feed the 7 children (apparently, when the social workers rang the bell, the children hid the meal in the kitchen sink--back then kitchen sinks had metal coverings)
Sunday was the only real meal the family had. And, as my mother and her siblings tell it, it was on Sundays that the social workers rang the bell.
So, I grew up with a healthy distrust of the goverment. Mind you, my family is comprised of police officers, lawyers, and even a judge here and there. And many other civil servants.
It is not that we despised government, we just had a healthy distrust of same, which is, should anyone read the US Constitution, exactly what our US forefathers believed.
In my humble opinion, it is unwise to involve government in the day to day lives of any family.
You Canadians and we US folks are cut from the same cloth, we are pioneers, we take care of our own. We rule the government, the government does not rule us.
I apologize for this long "history" lesson but I felt it needed to be told.
Godspeed to the Baynes.
Reader from NYC
Great post "Reader from NYC." I always enjoy reading your posts. And thank goodness for Americans who do have a healthy disrespect for government.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to have a "healthy" disrespect?
ReplyDeleteI have a healthy disrespect for the child protection procedures of MCFD, since in this context 'healthy' means something akin to informed, intelligent, robust and reasonable.
ReplyDelete