10:21 PM August 26 a Commenter called Child Protection Exposed wrote, “
The question, I believe, has always been and still remains, "How do we correct this corruption of the Public's trust?" Obviously, transparency, or more correctly oversight with authority is one of the more promising solutions. Will this stop wrongful removals? Not likely. Until we return to very simple laws dedicated to helping children truly in need, travesties of Justice will continue all in the name of Child Protection. JJ Kelso must be turning over in his grave.”
I am inviting your brief interactions with this primary question. Perhaps you can limit your response to one concise point or a brief remark.
HOW CAN PUBLIC TRUST BE CORRECTED FOR MCFD? What do you believe can or must be done? Tomorrow we will comprise
a top ten list of things that Mary Polak and Leslie du Toit can do to regain the lost trust.
Mary and Leslie should explain how they made a mistake and apologise profusely. They need to correct the mistake (return the kids to the Baynes) and let the public know what they are doing to ensure that such huge errors don't happen in the future. They need to assure us that certain processes have been put in place so that children can not be torn from the home before finding out facts (rather than just allegations).
ReplyDeleteBecause of the depth and breadth of corruption, I'm not sure that anything short of a massive grassroots movement will change anything. And that grassroots movement perhaps will only come about when more children have been stolen or "removed," and perhaps if only removed from middle class, or what would have formerly been, middle class homes.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see from the US economy, times are only going to get tougher. We will not escape in Canada, despite what politicians and those with a vested interest in delusional thinking would have you believe. Billions have been wasted on projects for which their is no return (except for a few). We, the people, will pay the price. The government has found a way to make money. Our children. So it will probably only get worse. The only hope as I see is for Canadians to no longer be what they are notorious for being: complacent. However, there is hope, and evidence, that Canadians are waking up. The massive, and highly annoying (to certain politicians) protest against HST is proof of how we can exercise our power when we believe we have been wronged.
Apprehension should be limited to cases where there is drug or crime or physical abuse of the child. In my case, it was because of 'potential neglect', not a good enough reason, then lots of $ was spent to justify it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, make time limits on the courts. My case dragged on forever!!!! Or else let the parents know they have a right to ask for interm custody. Don't keep the kids in limbo while the courts take their time (years sometimes). It is bad for the kids.
MCFD must tell the truth. No more making stuff up. Risk assessments must involve current interviews with the children, not some recycled stuff from 8 years ago, told again and again on paper. Crazy!!! All from trying to cut corners.
Files on children must be sealed when they become adults. Why should they suffer a bad reputation from something they were supposed to be protected from as children???
No more trying to mine a person's past for ideas that they may have been neglected of abused as a child. Try to bring it more into the present.
Do not spend so much time on the same families!!!! It is easier for the SWs, but if it is just a big, messy family with normal problems, leave them alone. Just because a family is on welfare does not mean all these bad things about them. A man who was very rich killed his entire family in Victoria, the Park family from Korea, I believe. MCFD wastes so much time on welfare families, and misses real risk for richer families.
Be willing to 'let go', I saw at family court that the same first nations people were there every time. MCFD takes away there kids and gives them back like a revolving door. Since they have had lots of involvement with me in giving me free services, they want to keep connected with me, even though after all the 'watching', they know I have never even yelled at my kids and they are all smart. Let go already!!!! Stop wasting money on families that are just poor and under housed, they do not need to go to court for that!!!
Stop all the ridiculous 'hypothesis' about what is 'really going on'. I had it stated that my son was working at McDonald's to support his family at age 13. Obviously not!!!
Every different social worker who wrote on my file had a different theory and they tried to find supporters for their unique theory. SO, there is ego involved, rather have an open mind to the truth and accept that the family is growing and changing all the time, you cannot stitch together files from 13 years ago to the present and have it make sense. Lose that old information!!!!
Don't bother MCFD involved kids at their high schools so often. It really embarrasses them. Listen to the rights of kids in foster care.
Why are there so many restrictions about complaints that can be laid in terms of MCFD? And why is it written negatively on a person's file if they complain??? The structure cannot change until MCFD is willing to hear from the most patronized group, us, the clients.
MCFD is very confused as to whether they are service providers or a criminal justice agency. They need to figure it out.
1.) Establish a process to appeal removals immediately. This includes second opinions on all findings and applies to all existing cases.
ReplyDelete2.) MCFD must publicly admit that they have made a mistake instead of finding ways again and again to circumvent the judicial system.
3.) The provincial government should have a judge do an inquiry into this and the entire system. I once heard a social worker say in regards to returning a child to her parent, "It doesn't matter what the judge says, we can drag this out for another 2 years".
Giving MCFD my trust would appear to be a tall order. I would go for accountability first, then wait for MCFD to earn my trust.
ReplyDeleteTrust goes hand in hand with precaution, respect, integrity, common sense, safety, accountability, doing what you say you will, and behaving as you want others to, and treating others as you would have them treat you.
The wikipedia definition of trust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)
- the willingness of one party (trustor) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (trustee);
- reasonable expectation (confidence) of the trustor that the trustee will behave in a way beneficial to the trustor;
- risk of harm to the trustor if the trustee will not behave accordingly; and
- the absence of trustor's enforcement or control over actions performed by the trustee.
MCFD's first and eleventh mission (or value statements) are:
1. To establish a value/principle-centred ministry that is respected and trusted
11. To sustain partnerships of trust and respect.
When we get on an airplane, we trust that it will not crash. The last thing I want to hear from a stewardess or captain of the airplane is "trust us, we won't crash, don't worry." Trust is implied if they want our business. MCFD we are forced to deal with.
I will trust a babysitter not to shake my children even though I may never have witnessed said childcare skills. Referrals are important. The first sitting might be short, the next, longer. Trust building is a process.
MCFD does not trust that Paul and Zabeth are telling the truth. MCFD does not trust that Paul and Zabeth will not hurt their children even in the company of others, hence the expensive supervision - for three years.
If it is not possible to earn MCFD's trust under these conditions, it stands to reason MCFD should not expect parents to trust them.
As one commenter suggests, unless "oversight with authority" exists, trust cannot be regained.
As one starting point, if social workers are registered with the college, and we see there are no complaints from the public, that would be starting point at which we can begin to trust and respect MCFD.
A Project Parent counselor was big on getting me to "trust" her. This was a common theme of several meetings. Her fear of the sessions being audio recorded was apparent.
The company she worked for, the social worker, the team leader, the community services manager, the lawyer, and the judge appeared to be quite happy to forgo any concern for their alleged concerns for my children's safety, AS LONG AS THEY WERE NOT RECORDED.
So, MCFD withdrew with no follow-up. Their safety concerns were magically alleviated when I said I would encourage all follow-up actions, as long as they were all recorded.
Aside from supervision personnel, this was the only individual that saw me with my children. She repeatedly exclaimed there was clearly no parenting issues she could see, however, none over her observations made it into her official reports.
Had the Ministry not withdrawn, the reports were intended to be used as evidence against me in court. The intent was to not have her testify and be subject to cross examination, but to have the reports stand on their own so they could be used to deprecate me.
If there isn't a clear path of consequence or recourse for the person or agency you are expected to trust, individuals have to take their own precautions.
Recording meetings, telephone conversations, etc., seems to be a great way to make MCFD accountable, and, sometimes, to make them back off. All those affected by MCFD, or all those who may be affected by MCFD, should learn how to make recordings. And when an MCFD employee tells you something is not allowed (e.g., tape recording), don't believe them; they are often lying.
ReplyDeleteIf they know you are going to record them, they will take your tape away. Happened to me and it caused the director to have such a grudge against me that later when I was in a vulnerable position, he authorized my child to be removed. It is written on my file that I am a trouble maker since I tried to tape an interview when I was trying to change SWS
ReplyDelete