 |
| A difficult balance |
This blog and its accompanying comments archive have sounded a general note of caution about the family justice system, essentially expressing the that there is a "chronic weakness" in the system because of a shortage of resources in numerous areas.
We should be critical of a legal system that seems to make it impossible for the Baynes or anyone else to fully expunge their names from the MCFD files once they have been positioned there. Our judicial system should be capable of clearing the names of innocent people.
The Court would consider it improper to criticize Dr. Colbourne and other doctors in the case of the Baynes. The Court would deem that these acted properly in good faith in performing their duties. Therefore, a lesson learned from this case is that at the earliest opportunity there is an imperative need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children, specially in cases where the facts are unusual as they are with the Bayne case. A corollary lesson learned from this case is that even when provisos and revisions are placed into a system to reduce or eliminate mistakes, mistakes do occur in a system that is operated by human beings. The Baynes contended that Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis was mistaken and they still do. Following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis, the Baynes asked MCFD for a second opinion but they were denied. MCFD was satisfied that Dr. Colbourne was accurate. Well, she was right about her medical findings, but the error occurred when she identified those findings with a label, namely Shaken Baby Syndrome, which by virtue of the name points to cause. But the cause has not been established. And further, if a baby had been shaken at some point what kind of a system is it that empowers a doctor and social workers to impute blame to a parent or parents by automatically taking children away from them? The Baynes themselves had to obtain the records and reports and send them to independent medical and scientific experts in order to get second opinions. Second opinions which in point of fact, disputed Dr. Colbourne's opinion making it clear that the MCFD erred to be satisfied so soon. For almost three years these three children have been denied the right of growing up together. Only in recent months were all three placed in the same foster home. That is a wonderful provision. A Continuing Care Order for which MCFD has applied, if granted, would permit the adoption of the children and the possibility that one or all would be separated from the others and denied that unique privilege of siblings to grow and bond together. With attitudes that prescribe this course of action, MCFD doesn't come close to touching the best interests of children so not to mention striking a balance between the interests of children and birth parents.
the problem with this balance is that children on one side and parents on the other. It is like dividing apple on two halves and deciding which half is going to brown faster or which half got more damage. What about the KNIFE and hand that holds it?
ReplyDeleteWhat the judges and the social workers, and the child protection industry as a whole, keep forgetting or ignoring is that it is in the best interests of a child to be with their family, their real family, not a fake, paid-for family who may or may not be doing it for the best intentions.
ReplyDeleteIt is never in the best interests of a child to be savagely taken from all they love and know, merely because this makes work for the child protection industry. It is absolutely in a child's worst interests to be subjected to what the Bayne children - and so many other children - have been subjected to, all because of the greed, arrogance and malice of the child protection industry.
No reasonable person can keep learning about these atrocities and still believe that the government, or a non-government institution such as Children's Aid Society, really cares about children. The evidence is overwhelming. What they are doing to children and families is exactly the opposite of what is in a child's best interest.
If you read the case law, you will see - time and again - how judges fall back on this smug little phrase, "best interests of the child," as if no matter what they do (judges, social workers, doctors, etc.) it can all be justified because they (judges, social workers, doctors etc.) are only concerned with what is best for the child.
If these people who profess to care about children really did in fact care about children, they would never tear them from their parents so easily and so recklessly. This is God-like power, to tear a child from their parents. But this God-like power is now, it would appear, in the hands of the devil. A devil who has duped the masses into believing he is a protector. To repeat Plato:
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.'
And what is more tyrannical than these so-called child protectors?
This child protection racket is operating all over the world, but all over the the world, people such as Ian Josephs are fighting it:
ReplyDelete"My name is IAN JOSEPHS. UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action! "Forced adoption" too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with loving parents,brothers,sisters,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives!
Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents.Worse still these parent VICTIMS are ruthlessly gagged !!Yes,here in the UK secret courts jail parents who dare to protest publicly when social workers take their babies at birth and arrange for them to be adopted by strangers. Some "lucky" mothers who discovered where their adopted children were living have been jailed for ringing the doorbell,waving at the children in the street, or sending them a Xmas card on the grounds that they were undermining the forced adoption and committing a breach of the peace !
Extract from "The Times" April 13th 2010 !
"Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
Read more at:
http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp
And the UK may have the worst child protection racket of all, but they also seem to have many fighting against the corruption, including journalists:
ReplyDeleteSunday Telegraph:-
Christopher Booker Column 16 July 2010
"Never in all my years as a journalist have I felt so frustrated as I do over two deeply disturbing stories of apparent injustice which cry out to be reported – but which, for legal reasons, I can refer to only in the vaguest terms, This is because to report them as they deserve, and as the victims so desperately wish, would challenge a part of our legal system which has been deliberately shrouded in an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy.
Two weeks ago I described four examples of what I described as one of the greatest scandals in Britain today – the seizing of children by social workers from loving families, on what appears to be the flimsiest and most questionable grounds. The children may then be handed on to foster carers, who can receive up to £400 a week for each child, or are put out for adoption by strangers, in a way which too often leads to intense distress for both the parents and the children involved.
One case I referred to concerns a north London couple whose five children were in April seized by social workers from Haringey council and sent into foster care. The mother was pregnant and her baby was born last month. Shortly afterwards, at 3 am, according to her version of what happened, nine police officers and social workers burst into the hospital room where she was lying on a bed breastfeeding, to wrest her baby from her arms with considerable force. They then discovered they had nowhere to take the baby, so it was put in another part of the hospital, where the mother was taken under escort four times a day to breastfeed her child until she was discharged four days later.
She has not seen her baby since.
Having talked at length to the mother, I found this story so shocking that I put a series of questions to the council, to get their side of the story. The response of Haringey which, since the national furore over its social workers’ failure to prevent the battering to death of Baby P, has been somewhat sensitive on such matters, was to ask the High Court to rule that I should not be allowed to write about the case at all. Although the court did not go so far, the Sunday Telegraph was reminded of the comprehensive restrictions on reporting such matters.
....(CON'T)
Con't from below:
ReplyDeleteRe: child protecton / journalism in the UK:
Sunday Telegraph:-
Christopher Booker Column 16 July 2010
"...Last week, after spending several hours with the parents, looking at their neat home, the little beds where their children used to sleep and the cot prepared for the baby, I came away more convinced than ever that something had gone very seriously amiss. I found the wife impressive in her detailed account of all that had happened, clearly a devoted mother who feels herself and her children to have been the victims of an extraordinary error - the nature of which, alas, I cannot reveal.
This week two days have been set aside for the mother at last to put her case to a judge, Despite the tragedy that has torn their family apart, the parents have never previously been given any opportunity to challenge the council’s version of the story, I only hope the court takes particular care to check out the evidence put before it’ and that in due course I can report the full story of a case which sheds instructive light on the workings of a system supposedly devised to protect the interests of the children but which too often seems to result in the very opposite..."
The UK is watching this case (MCFD and the Bayne family) because while it will not be binding, it will be persuasive. What happens here is extremely important, not only for the Bayne family, but for families all over, now, and in the future. Much is at stake here.
ReplyDeleteShortage of resources? No, too much resources have been given to the wrong hands. Give them more resources, they will remove more kids to ask for more. The only solution is to cease funding child removal & revoke child removal authority. Make no mistake on this.
ReplyDeleteAnother passage from the Forced Adoption website that is worth quoting, as it is equally applicable in BC:
ReplyDelete"What about Baby P?" I hear you cry!
Well, physically injured children like Baby P, Victoria Climbé, and others are not good adoption material. They are in any case avoided like the plague if there is a brutal and often drunken boyfriend or stepfather on the premises to intimidate the social workers. Such children are more often than not, callously left to die!
Meanwhile social workers move on to easier targets and accuse respectable and more compliant parents (especially single mothers)of posing a "risk of emotional abuse" to their children, and even to their unborn babies! That is how the "SS" work now."
-----------
And that's how they ("SS" or child protection) works in BC, as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that, all over the world, they especially love to target Christian families, perhaps because their children are well behaved, and easy to place / adopt out, but also perhaps because child protection believes that Christians will turn the other cheek and cowtow to authority. What child protection doesn't seem to get (yet) is that Christians have many more resources than child protection bullies fathom, as was evident, for example, in court when Doug Christie asked the Baynes' supporters to stand up. The room, except for 2 or 3 social workers, was full of supporters. And these supporters will only grow in numbers and strength, the longer MCFD stalls. Their stalling tactic is backfiring, as will every other tactic, eventually.
Doug Christie has no guarantee of payment for the many hours he put in on this case. He is passionate about justice. There is no way the legal aid system will hire lawyers like this.
ReplyDeleteNearly all these horror stories would not be told if there were swift access to justice;to accountablity before the law. This is the great thing that has changed over the last thirty years. Usually it was possible to challenge the child protection services within a few weeks.I know when I was last doing child protection services the court had the power to order the government to provide a lawyer and our main judge had no hesitation in so doing. If a parent were contesting, he would make sure that there was representation and an early opportunity to order access. Access was mostly unsupervised. Even the most severe cases were usually completed within a year. By that I mean that the children were returned or a continuing care order made. We just did not get this Bayne type of fiasco.
Ron, I quote you from above:
ReplyDelete"This blog and its accompanying comments archive have sounded a general note of caution about the family justice system, essentially expressing the that there is a "chronic weakness" in the system because of a shortage of resources in numerous areas."
What are the "shortage of resources" you mention; could you please elaborate?
It is fascinating to here that there is a history of better due process in bygone days.
ReplyDeleteIs there documented examples? Case histories in the law libraries one could look up? This is certainly intriguing.
I understand legal aid is hamstrung to a certain number of hours, (10 hours?) however the Ministry has no limit, and can simply drag matters out to ensure the lawyer is disabled, and has used up their time long before trial is reached.
There must be examples in other jurisdictions where there is better due process demonstrated that would serve as a basis for demanding parents equal representation without them having to worry about costs.
If you think about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" but under the umbrella of so-called "precautionary removal" all the costs of the children are completely covered and the Baynes are completely relieved of all such financial responsibilities during the incarceration of the children, one would thing that, right there, is sufficient basis to ensure parent's choice of legal representation -- and I don' mean the legal aid people who just turned lawyers and will take any business they can get.
If it costs $6,000 monthly to pay for foster care for the three "special needs" children, would it not behoove the Ministry to save such costs, pay for the Baynes lawyer, have the case moved to Vancouver where dates and times are far more easily obtained and have the matter addressed more quickly?
ReplyDeleteWhat am I missing here?
This discussion of "balance" and "shortage of resources" without giving specific examples is a rather odd discussion topic.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen that when it comes to legal costs, there is no shortage of resources. When a judge orders a 50% increase in access, there is no shortageof resources, as the Ministry simply must comply with the order to avoid contempt of court, and "make it happen" and presumably the service providers would need to hire more people.
The Baynes are not consuming "ministry services", ie. no $10,000 parental capacity assessment, no year or two "parenting course", no "anger management" course, no "shaken baby syndrome" educational. I am not aware of any such services the Ministry has provided except for 100% free full-time car for three children for the past three years.
Whatever is provided to the children now is through the Health Ministry. Perhaps the foster parent could let us know what MCFD-funded services the children now receive, that perhaps the Ministry would recommend there continuance.
I don't believe the Ministry has any sort of mandate to directly provide developmental services to parents or children. The odd "remedial" service perhaps, such as "Counselling for children who witness violence" I am only aware of investigational services. Even "parenting" courses paid for by the Ministry they get parents to sign a release of information.
MCFD then has an embedded investigator feeding any useful information obtained during counselling to the social worker so it can later be used against parents in court. Forget about advising parents of their rights that "every word they speak to any ministry representative or subcontractor can and will be used against them in a court of law" or,"you have a right to have a lawyer present."
Since we are essentially waiting for a legal decision, perhaps the "balance" discussion should relate more to the image the legal system uses to represent itself, the image of the lady blindfolded, holding scales in one hand and a sword in another.
ReplyDeleteI looked at http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=262188 to get some idea of what this image was supposed to represent.
I would imagine the lawyer for each side is welcome to use any dirty trick they can get away with. The Judge, in the final analysis, "properly" weighs the information, perhaps the tactics used, and hopefully renders a fair decision.
I am imagining the blindfold represents insulation from outside interference, special interests, media, political -- you name it. We would not want to bring the idea of justice into disrepute.
With the discussion of children's rights trumping a parents rights in suspected cases of abuse, and the two parties essentially becoming adversaries, perhaps another angle to attack is the rights of parents not getting equal representation from the lawyer than has been assigned to their children. In this case, Finn Jensen is fighting "for" them and against their parents.
What we are seeing very clearly, is a large lack of balance, in favour of the Ministry. The Ministry has made it very clear they will stop at nothing to continue to tip the balance in their favour. Claim a document has not been received in order to successfully prevent a witness from appearing (Dr. Chris Van Ee PhD, biomechanical expert).
The Baynes are concerned with the here and now. What is the next step they need to take to tip the balance back to level, or in their favour?
This matter of "dirty" records in posession by the Ministry is a good subject. Any social worker found to have falsified information or delibertely constructed an image of such information for the purposes of misleading the court and maligning a citizen should have that information locked, and be used against the worker in question for HIS life.
ReplyDeleteMy children have files on them from birth. The Ministry cherry-picks information to construct a story of their choosing, and when they produce a report to court, none of his informtion is first hand, is not dated or given any context, so the judge reading the material thinks it happened within a short period of time, thus justifying the immediate removal of children.
The information gathered is similar to medial reports. Doctors are allowed to make notes and observations that may be read as derogatory to parents, and MCFD may take that as a quote out of context and use it. A later event might render previous information invalid, but this is typically ignored or even unknown by MCFD, and it may be because MCFD doesn't investigate to obtain that more recent relevant information. The Baynes faulty and deliberately maligning risk assessment is a perfect example.
I think the only thing that perhaps could be done is to have a court order that current information be appended, in perhaps a new intake, that puts all prior intakes into the correct context.
If possible, there should be a "lock" on the file once a judge declares a final decision that renders past allegations or insinuations completely invalid. So, if a new intake arises, the social worker would need to apply to court to "unlock" past files, so the judge hearing the application would review the current intake as well as all prior intakes that requests access to old information. Better, if the judge can be seized of matters relating to the Baynes.
This would prevent "accidental" release or "unauthorized research" of information by any social worker in the Province, even if parents signed a consent form to have a child-associated agency look into their background.
If a parent is found "not guilty" and searching the internet produces many news older news stories of allegations, obviously the parents would want readers to know the most recent legal decision invalidates all prior allegations.
This is why most family cases are hidden, to protect the identity of children. What benefit to the child's future is there if a search on their names produces all this speculative and inaccurate information that could poisen their future.
To a previous commenter at 5:58am, I did a cross examination in a second presentation hearing date, I had to let go my lawyer having exhausted funds to keep him.
ReplyDeleteI was not allowed to testify on my own behalf. My child, old enough to be present, to testify, and listen to proceedings was ejected from the court room. Later, a psychologist report was produced to further ensure there was no possibility of my child speaking. Later a lawyer was assigned to "speak" for my child.
To the lady who has 2,000 pages of intake reports, in my case, this documentation, which I responed to very thouroughly, was not even referenced by social workers at the presentation hearing. Legal costs to respond to inaccuracies was wasted. MCFD simply ducked out, withdrew on the day of the trial. The thousands of pages of documents -- NONE of them were looked at.
What I discovered at the presentation hearing is that "facts" are not examined and tested at this stage, this type of hearing is not the place for such discussion. This hearing is similar to a criminal court, where the judge decides if the case has merit, not to decide accuracy of information, it is assumed to be accurate and therefore would result in a finding of protection once confirmed.
If there is a difference of evidence, if the social worker says one thing and you say "that's not true, and I have a recording to prove it", this becomes "so what" because then this demands a trial to properly process the lies.
The favour in CFCSA cases always goes to the Director, because the children in their care is a precaution. "What if they are right" is the mantra, because the parent could be lying in court. Supposedly the social worker has no reason to lie, so the assumption has be they are telling the truth, and the parent as assumed to be suspect, as they would do anything to undo the situation in their favour.
So, social workers get to "lie" all they want because the primary objective is to simply get past the presentation hearing stage so they can keep your kids for a few years. The rest is icing on the cake.
MCFD banks on the probabilities the matter will never get to trial, and they always have the option to withdraw even if they fail to convince you to sign a supervision order.
So, all that paperwork social workers generate in the past has the effect of bogging down any lawyer (ie. financial and resource drain) for the parents. It is largely useless in a full protection hearing trial, but parents are advised to be fully aware of the contents of the material, in order that they be able to cherry-pick inaccuracies in order to discredit the person recording the information.
The issue of "good adoption material" is an interesting comment.
ReplyDeleteBethany and her two brothers have had social workers tell the courts these children are "damaged goods." Online in this blog, the foster mom stated they were all "special needs" children.
In reality, all three children appear normal to me. The boys run and jump age appropriately. Both my child and Bethany were petting the bunny's at one of the boy's birthday party - obviously she is not "blind" and she was walking alongside mommy, hand in hand, without "braces" and also demonstrating strong attachment as Zabeth held her.
Potential adoptee children's "special needs" status can actually be a selling point in the adoption market, because people who adopt, can have the choice of practically normal white children with barely noticeable extra care requirements but they get that extra funding.
It is not safe to generalize, of course, this would required in-person examination of children to see this special needs designation and verification process is wanting. However, given the questionable morality and lack of accountability of MCFD that has been reported, if such breaches of human ethics can be imagined, it is likely happening, we just haven't see the proof yet.
I believe in an earlier blog, a commenter stated the Hoffmans have children the same age as Paul and Zabeth, which was one of the reasons they became friends. I heard court testimony of Elizabeth saying they adopted their children. This hints at a prior association and financial arrangment between the Hoffman's and the Ministry.
So, if a couple that wants kids doesn't want to spend $30,000 to an adoption agency for each high-value healthy white child, they have an option of a 'slightly dented' model, care of which can be subsidized by yours truly, Johnny Q. Taxpayer.
There is an article in the Vancouver Sun today about a promising young man who has been in foster care since age one. He has been offered a scholarship to study piano at a school in Washington. He is 17 and still under the control of MCFD. They will not let him go and pursue his dream.
ReplyDeleteMCFD cannot be counted out. In my mind, there is little point in "predicting" the outcome. Giving the Baynes a false sense of security might just serve only to allow them to let their guard down. As we can see, this cannot be allowed to happen even for a moment.
ReplyDeleteI think it is more important for the public to see the process, and to see each move and counter move. It is fine to predict and think out loud, as we are representative of the public at large. Legal strategists, we are not.
The Baynes are no doubt scared, and wary of false optimism. We are, after all, only armchair speculators, not trained lawyers, and are not in full possession of the facts. MCFD keeps their talent behind closed doors, quietly analyzing and planning.
A trial like this may be just "another day at the office" for MCFD and there will be many more such cases in the future, and many more in the past we do not know of that the MCFD collective can draw their experience from.
It would be more prudent to prepare the worst, to dig up similar cases where MCFD has won their CCO despite a seemingly positive circumstances in favour of the affected family, and encourage the Baynes to prepare accordingly.
It may well be the Ministry believes it has Mr. Christie on the ropes, and as such, will not stop the pressure. They definitely have time and resources on their side.
The Baynes have the advantage in being right, and justified, and they won't give up or compromise their position. In full view of the public, it will take a lot of MCFD horsepower and tact to overcome that.
Later, after all is said and done, MCFD will have to explain their approach and effort.
It`s quite repulsive how MCFD, or Finn Jensen, act as if they have extracted a confession (i.e., that Zabeth is ``guilty`` of being pregnant!) They act as though they have discovered some big secret, the knowledge of which gives them power. Unfortunately for them, it does nothing of the sort. All the power goes to Zabeth, Paul and their family, and it only increases the support that will come to this family.
ReplyDeleteWhat they fail to appreciate is, all their delays, all their malice, all their dirty tricks, all their bully tactics, all these things are only making us all that more determined to fight, not just for the Baynes, but for all victims of MCFD.
I am required to undergo a parental capacity assessment. What is it?
ReplyDeletePCA 1/2
ReplyDeleteA Parental Capacity Assessment (PCA) is done by a Psychologist, usually with PhD qualifications that is paid for by the Ministry.
If you say no to this report, courts can force you to take the report if the Ministry applies. A refusal is used by the Ministry to show you are unccoperative, and underscores a ministry position you might be difficult to work with as their efforts to "correct" your poor parenting are not working.
The PCA is a very important report that carries a lot of weight with judges and social workers, It can recommend the return of your kids, or further retention by the Ministry. If you have a "bad" report, your only defence is to hire a reply psychologist.
It should be noted that the Baynes refused to do a PCA, and the Ministry did not apply to force them to take it.
I question the ability of the Ministry to force parents into taking the report before a finding of need of protection has succeeded. This is like the Ministry forcing you to "voluntarily" take an anger management course when you know you have no such problems. A psychologist report would an example of what should be done first to first assess whether or not you should take an anger management course.
The advantage of refusing to take any courses until after a PCA "recommends" these services, is you then show cooperation, and this is also a clear clue the Ministry intends to return your children. The clock starts ticking at this point that counts down the return of your children after the "courses" are completed.
A PCA essentially replaces any risk assessments the Ministry social workers will create.
You have the opportunity to include your risk assessment in the discussion and point out to the psychologist the problems with it.
Several psychological tests are conducted, one "big" test is call MMPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory)
Tests reveal whether or not you are a "parenting psycho" such as if you have anger problems, or are a good, or bad parent. Services are often recommended. A recommendation for return may be included. Search canlii.org for how judges refer to, and weight such reports.
It is similar to a section 15 family relations act assessment both parents need to agree to take. The psychologists will see your interaction with the kids, and also see the kids in foster care. The Ministry will really butter up the kids while in care to present the best possible picture.
Such psychologiss can be considered experts, and as such, they do not have to appear in court to explain their report, the Judge will uee it as evidence.
The psychologist will interview you, and several other people that you and the Ministry propose. The Ministry will try to find people that don't like you. This is often another way of getting testimony out of adults and children into the report and in front of the eyes of the judge.
The advantage to the Ministry, and the danger to you is the voices of the children can reflect the Ministry's position, and this is the only way the judge will "hear" what the children have to say.
If you have a Ministry-assigned psychologist, ie. a "Ministry cheerleader", a negative report could be used to justify further time in care.
PCA 2/2
ReplyDeleteIn my case, I was so suspicious of the Ministry being so absolutely insistent that I use their choice of psychologist, I went to court on the matter. I was able to eventually use my choice of psychologist who had impeccable credentials and was guaranteed to produce an objective report, but I had to pay up front. (The Ministry is supposed to pay.)
To illustrate how important the Ministry considers these reports, the operatives in my case tried to "hijack" the report, offering to pay for it (even though I already paid up front for this report). They wanted specifically to remove several hundred pages of court materials I asked the psychologist to review.
Also, the ministry used several foster parents to provide glowing accounts of how wonderful their care was, and they participated in filling out test assessment forms, rating the children horribly. Fortunately the children's teachers also filled out the forms and they were not as negative, so in combination with my tests, the foster parents reports were found to be "unlikely" (a nice way to say they lied through their teeth).
The additional trick the Ministry used was, before the psychologist got started, they moved the kids to a "nice" foster home from the "bad" foster home, so the placement appeared to be a good match, this was reflected in the PCA report.
A month after the report, the kids were separated from each other and moved again. Where the kids separated at the time of the report, this would have appeared in the report as a huge negative.
The report criticized the delay of the Ministry in starting "services" and lack of focus on reunification, noting supervised-only access was not helpful to the kids.
As this psychologist was also qualified to work with the Ministry, these people still have to worry about writing anything anti-ministry because this could affect future contracts with MCFD. I could see very clearly this in the report as the psychologist struggled to not be overly critical of the Ministry.
The foster care story is an example of Ministry spin on how wonderful foster care services are.
ReplyDeleteThis is likely a clear example of how foster care should operate, and I'm sure there are many dozen, if not hundred's of such good homes we do not hear about.
I don't see anything critical of the Ministry at all as it paints a picture of "careful" considerations by social workers to determine what is best for the child.
One question might be, would foster care payments cease when the child is not physically resident with the caregivers?
In my opinion, the headline is misleading, disguised as a suspicious view of the Ministry, but then you see a poster-child photo of a smiling aboriginal youth with a full array of trophy's and medals.
Excuse my suspicion, but this story practially screams of public relations intervention.
An example of a child that could not be adopted and was placed in one foster home from age one who has never been moved? Is this the rule or the exception?
I would have thought that publishing the name of a child in care would be a breach of the young fellow's privacy.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this why the Baynes two boys were removed? That the parents harmed their children's privacy by allowing a TV station to publish their identity?
-------
B.C. ministry threatens police action to keep musician in Canada: foster mother
Frankie Bones turns 18 Friday; offered music lessons in U.S.
By Tracy Sherlock, Vancouver Sun August 17, 2010
METRO VANCOUVER - An aspiring pianist’s foster mother says the Ministry of Children and Family Development is threatening her with police involvement to keep the teen in Canada and prevent him from pursuing his dream.
Although Frankie Bones is turning 18 on Friday, he is a foster child and his social worker won’t let him leave the country to take advantage of an offer of university-level music lessons in Washington state.
On Tuesday, Bones’s foster mother Esther Cordner received two letters, both dated Aug. 13. The first is signed by Bones’s social worker and says the music lessons may still be possible; the second is from ministry lawyer Katherine Le-Reverend and is more aggressive in tone.
The ministry can enforce its “custody rights to a child in his care in court and with assistance of police if necessary,” says the letter signed by LeReverend.
“It’s a threatening letter. They’re threatening me with the police, and threatening to take Frankie from my home,” Cordner said.
As of Friday, Bones will be old enough to vote, but he won’t be old enough to move to Washington state to study music.
The ministry could not comment on the case because of privacy concerns, but spokesman Darren Harbord said a social worker must approve all out-of-country travel for foster children.
Any Canadian over 16 years old can enter the United States with either a passport or an enhanced drivers licence. They do not specifically require their parents consent. However, if a border guard is at all suspicious they can detain the young person, Tom Schreiber, chief customs and border protection officer said in an interview.
Leonard Richter, a professor at Walla Walla University, heard Bones play and immediately offered him private lessons, Cordner told The Sun.
Bones is still in high school so he would need to complete Grade 12 at a nearby school. Cordner arranged for him to stay with a host family in Walla Walla while in the U.S.
A separate letter sent to Cordner the same day from Bones’s social worker, Nalini Prasad, says although the ministry is not yet ready to grant permission, the Washington school has not been entirely ruled out.
The letter says the ministry needs to complete a screening process for the host family and look at music schools available in B.C. In the letter, Prasad says that all matters relating to Bones’s attendance at the Washington school should be made through her.
Bones has been in foster care since he was a baby, raised by Cordner, who doesn’t want him to lose out on this opportunity.
“Frankie could be your poster child, that big feather in the ministry’s cap. You and your co-workers should be falling over yourselves to serve this young man. Instead you put up road blocks and you are setting up Frankie for defeat,” Cordner wrote in a letter to Bones’s social worker.
In a year, when he turns 19, the prize-winning musician will be free to travel to the States, but Cordner doesn’t want him to waste a year.
“Yes, his gifts will remain with him, but will this golden opportunity still be available next year?” she asked.
The ministry would be generally supportive of a youth in care furthering his education or a special gift, Harbord said.
“Just like any responsible parent, we would want to ensure an appropriate plan is in place to ensure the health and well being of the youth,” Harbord said in an e-mail.
tsherlock@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
I watched Finn's lengthy lead-up to the "big question" of whether or not Zabeth was pregnant.
ReplyDeleteHe appeared to portray a picture of huge and insurmountable responsibility for Paul and Zabeth, having four children (alluding to all that would be "special needs") to care for.
This line of questioning alluded to the Ministry conceding they would not win a CCO.
The other side of the coin is if the Ministry does succeed in keeping the three children permanently, the Baynes will at least have the chance to have another child.
What will the Ministry do then, remove this child at birth on the probability or likliehood of future injury, based on their success at the judge finding the other three children in need of protection?
By the logic that exists now, the MUST remove or be considered negligent in not doing so. This, of course, would create a public relations nightmare for them. When no one is watching, MCFD does this all the time, remove babies at birth without court orders.
Public embarrassment, or safety of children, which would the Ministry choose?
Sun Foster Care story:
ReplyDeleteSo, aboriginal children in care are unlikely to be adopted and never get moved from their initial placement?
How about Harvard? How many foster care kids proceed to higher eduction on the Ministry dime?
PCA 1/2
ReplyDeleteA Parental Capacity Assessment (PCA) is done by a Psychologist, usually with PhD qualifications that is paid for by the Ministry.
If you say no to this report, courts can force you to take the report if the Ministry applies. A refusal is used by the Ministry to show you are unccoperative, and underscores a ministry position you might be difficult to work with as their efforts to "correct" your poor parenting are not working.
The PCA is a very important report that carries a lot of weight with judges and social workers, It can recommend the return of your kids, or further retention by the Ministry. If you have a "bad" report, your only defence is to hire a reply psychologist.
It should be noted that the Baynes refused to do a PCA, and the Ministry did not apply to force them to take it.
I question the ability of the Ministry to force parents into taking the report before a finding of need of protection has succeeded. This is like the Ministry forcing you to "voluntarily" take an anger management course when you know you have no such problems. A psychologist report would an example of what should be done first to first assess whether or not you should take an anger management course.
The advantage of refusing to take any courses until after a PCA "recommends" these services, is you then show cooperation, and this is also a clear clue the Ministry intends to return your children. The clock starts ticking at this point that counts down the return of your children after the "courses" are completed.
A PCA essentially replaces any risk assessments the Ministry social workers will create.
You have the opportunity to include your risk assessment in the discussion and point out to the psychologist the problems with it.
Several psychological tests are conducted, one "big" test is call MMPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory)
Tests reveal whether or not you are a "parenting psycho" such as if you have anger problems, or are a good, or bad parent. Services are often recommended. A recommendation for return may be included. Search canlii.org for how judges refer to, and weight such reports.
It is similar to a section 15 family relations act assessment both parents need to agree to take. The psychologists will see your interaction with the kids, and also see the kids in foster care. The Ministry will really butter up the kids while in care to present the best possible picture.
Such psychologiss can be considered experts, and as such, they do not have to appear in court to explain their report, the Judge will uee it as evidence.
The psychologist will interview you, and several other people that you and the Ministry propose. The Ministry will try to find people that don't like you. This is often another way of getting testimony out of adults and children into the report and in front of the eyes of the judge.
The advantage to the Ministry, and the danger to you is the voices of the children can reflect the Ministry's position, and this is the only way the judge will "hear" what the children have to say.
If you have a Ministry-assigned psychologist, ie. a "Ministry cheerleader", a negative report could be used to justify further time in care.
There is definately something fishy about the musician foster child story. The timing is suspicious as well.
ReplyDeleteMCFD, like all child protection agencies, is acutely aware of the need for constant propaganda; they know that the Bayne family could easily explode into a PR nightmare of unimaginable proportions. They aren't stupid, in that regard. The people of BC, in fact the people of the world, would be absolutely outraged if they really knew what was going on in child protection.
MCFD, and all other child protection agencies know this - they absolutely know this. And that is why they lie, all the time. Because they know that if the truth got out, they would be irrevocably doomed. Their whole reason for being is, ostensibly, to protect children. They are so successful because they have tapped into the primeval imperative, to protect the most innocent, defenceless and vulnerable members of society, children and babies.
These phony protectors know that if and when the truth gets out, they will be in a very dangerous position indeed. After all, the only thing worse than a child abuser, is a child abuser who pretends to be a child protector. And these are child abusers who have been getting paid, by you and I, to abuse children, and destroy families. Not a good position to be in, once the truth gets out.
MCFD has good reason to be nervous about the Bayne trial; they know what it could lead to, the lies and terrible deeds it could expose. There is a great deal of fear within all these child protection agencies, all the time. But right now, the fear within MCFD, at least the ones who are intelligent enough to know what the Bayne trial could lead to, is higher than it has been in a long, long time.
Now is a very good time for those who oppose MCFD to do whatever you can to expose them.
That is insightful Anon 11:29 PM. One line resonated as an explanation for MCFD operations. You said that MCFD has "tapped into the primeval imperative, to protect the most innocent, defenceless and vulnerable members of society, children and babies."
ReplyDeleteYour closing line however is what I want to see further comments address. You wrote, "Now is a very good time for those who oppose MCFD to do whatever you can to expose them." Readers, tell us what can be done to expose the failures, mistakes, negligence etc. of MCFD.
Another thing to note in the aboriginal in foster care piano story is it is not open to comments. Any story associated with the Ministry results in the public ripping into this Ministry.
ReplyDeleteI would suspect the paper and author knows very well this is a puff piece for the Ministry to extol the virtues of foster care.
Very good observations by Anon 11:29pm.
ReplyDeleteI would also be concerned that the upcoming 'sweeping changes' to the family relations act may also have some similar as-yet unseen underpinnings, as the focus is also on the "best interests of the children."
Ron 4:18,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this, is a new blog entry titled "Public Inquiry". If you are following the Pickton issue, there is extensive discussion on failings of the system to catch this guy sooner.
MCFD can be equated to Pickton very easily, as they do more damage to society than he did.
Here is a great quote in today's Province titled 'Province ignored Pickton report':
"Mike Farnworth, NDP solicitor general critic, called the refusal to accept a briefing appalling.
"I am absolutely gobsmacked at the idea they would turn down a confidential briefing, saying it was before the courts," Farnworth said. "Every time this government has something they don't want to deal with, they say it's before the courts."
Individual readers cannot, even collectively, "bring to the attention" various failings of MCFD. This must be done by a formal process that consults various representative families.
One excellent route suggested in this Pickton case is to write to the opposition and demand the Liberals conduct such a review, and cite the enourmous financial and human costs.
There is clear argument that if NDP get into power they will make a worse mess than the liberals, but this is speculation, it should not deter one from at least trying.
The obvious trigger and major justification for this would be the Baynes case. Untold hundreds of thousands, if not millions have been needlessly expended in this case. It might take a year or two just to get the specifications done up as to exactly what should be "inquired" about to best inform the public. One needs to avoid the danger of politicians getting their hands on it and re-purposing it to fit their agenda.
My case would also be informative, because the Ministry took my kids, not all of them, under-investigated, kept them for nearly two years then ducked out on the day of the trial, knowing they would lose. There was zero followup despite clearly stated concerns, and minimual services while in care, and 1/3rd the time of supervised access of the Baynes.
MCFD Reviews are currently done only on deaths in care, not badly messed up court cases like the Baynes. MCFD has an abundance of macro-level reports, most published years ago and are rarely updated, and are therefore irrelevant.
A public review process needs to be designed first, by the affected public, and demand that children in care and those out of care be interviewed without the eyes and ears of the Ministry listening in.
Intake reports need to be examined, audited, and compared with reality by talking with parents and people MCFD supposedly interviewed.
Judges and lawyers and psychologists need to be interviewed (as in, "why did you make this ruling, Mr. Judge?). Third party special interest groups also need to be heard. Experienced workers like Ray Ferris needs to be interviewed.
"Happy" social workers within the system who have been there forever need to explain whey they are still there.
The results of interviews with social workers need to be shown to parents affected by these people to permit comment.
The common problems and their costs in dollars and human terms needs to be published.
One problem is it is not just localized to this Province. Others, like Quebec and Ontario have it worse.
One fix I might suggest is to have a test region setup with proposed changes and measure the effectiveness. If it works, then roll out changes elsewhere, then expand nationally.
It has taken all my strength to fight MCFD and it has been really tiring. It is silly. I can't help but think that they are billing the government on my behalf and have a vested interest in proving I need help even though no one who knows me thinks so.
ReplyDeleteI see that MCFD questions Zabeth's strength to have four children. Of course they do. I have six children and they think that in itself is a risk factor. I have already proven I have all kinds of support, but they would not even accept that on their records. If the Baynes have the strength to go through what they have gone through so far, it will be a relief and a rest to just be parents. MCFD makes everything so much harder.
My husband and I are forced to live apart, not because they think we fight, but because they think I am incapable of raising all of my kids or want to prove I am incapable and they just put me with one of our kids.
I will see what will come. I am wondering if I will see the last of MCFD when my supervision order ends, or do they want a second helping? They must want clients and must be getting money for the level of interference. My whole file is staged. It is not a real thing. NO one reading it would even recognize me, since it is so negative, yet my kids are happy and well.
Why do they make all this up? Why are they not trying to help the people who need them? Lazy, I think. It is easier for SW to sit at their lap tops and write the same old stuff about the same families.