PROTECTING CANADIAN CHILDREN
Here is a website for an Ontario organization called 'Protecting Canadian Children' for which the watchword is “The Children Must Come First!”
For those of you in Ontario, here is information about a Conference to be held on Friday November 5th in Hamilton at the Renaissance Banquet Centre at 2289 Barton Street East from 9:30 Am to 6:00 PM for a price of $40.00 that includes registration and lunch. It is hosted by Protecting Canadian Children and the Conference theme is “Family Protection.” A Candlelight Vigil is also scheduled for the following evening, Saturday November 6th with details to come at the PCC website link noted at the top paragraph.
The organization also has a public Facebook page to which relatively few people have subscribed.
The impetus behind the organization is a woman named Alfredine Linda Plourde (creator of the Facebook page and primary contributor to the PCC website). She informed me that I could call her Linda. Alfredine or, Linda, has a Facebook page to which only signed friends can access her profile information. But you can get informative biographical information by clicking the link. If you know Linda personally, send her a message or add her as a friend. Alfradine Linda Plourde is becoming one of my heroes.
If you have a story that you wish to share with the Protecting Our Children website you can query or send data to enquiries@protectingcanadianchildren.ca
Alfredine is French Acadian and was born in Bathurst NB and is now a resident of Ontario. She never considered herself an activist or radical but in 2004 without warning she became personally acquainted with a nightmare experienced when as she writes her grandson was placed at unnecessary risk by the Catholic Children's Aid Society. Like many others, she began to research and consult and learned that thousands of similar stories exist in Canada with which she too is convinced the majority of Canadians are unaware. She has been gathering and publishing the stories, many of them with maintained confidentiality and she has been promoting educational awareness through rallies, marches and conferences. In addition she has spearheaded movements to lobby governments to intervene and to change policy and practice. Her crusade is primarily directed at the CAS and CCAS, Children's Aid Society and the Catholic Children's Aid Society. She is aware that each province in Canada has organizations like these even if known by different names. She is one of the champions to set things right. In fact look at a video she prepared. At this page you will see two videos, hers is the one on the left. Watch that one first. You will hear her sincerity if you watch to the end. The one on the right is the late Nancy Schaeffer, US Crusader for change in Child Welfare.
If you would like to become a distributor for the book by the title 'Protecting Canadian Children', please contact Alfradine at: protectingcanadianchildren@hotmail.com
or you may purchase one for $35.00 by calling one of these book stores:
- Queenston Stationery, 35 King Street, Stoney Creek, Ontario, 905-664-3360
- Bryan Prince , Bookseller Ltd., 1060 King Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, 905-528-4508
- In Hamilton, contact Maureen at 905-387-3506
- In Brantford, contact Claudia Hudson 1-519-754-0670
- Mountain Plaza Mall - Cigars Galore, 905-387-1146
- Mountain Book Store, 560 Concession Street, Hamilton, 905-385-6082
Thank God for these dear, good, generous souls, such as Alfredine Linda Plourde, who are telling the world about the reality of child protection and the great harm it does to innocent families and children.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, dear good, generous soul, Ron, could you possibly do a countdown, or give advance warnings, of the impending court date for the Bayne family, so that regular readers are reminded to attend (if they can), and so that new readers are made aware?
I can see that Anonymous Sept 13, 5.12 PM is lying in wait and ready to bite me in the leg, so I will tread carefully.
ReplyDeleteIt is only too easy to fall into nice,pat comfortable concepts. Unfortunately, there is no "one size fits all" in human affairs. Take the sayings on apprehension. "All apprehensions are abusive" and "apprehension should be the last resort". Really? Are you sure that this applies to all cases? I can give you a dozen different circumstances that make nonsense of these sayings. Similarly it is not true to say that all separations are traumatic. For instance apprehension was not the last resort for poor little Matthew Vaudreuil. Death was the last resort. For an abandoned child, apprehension must be the first resort. The last resort is often adoption. When a parent deserts a child by leaving them with a caregiver and disappearing, the child must often be apprehended. The existing caregiver may become a foster home. There is no change for the child, except the legal status has changed.
We tend to look at things purely from the viewpoint of our own culture of nuclear families. In many cultures, children are part of a large extended family who share the caregiving. When parents go away to gather food and so on it is not traumatic for the child. In our culture we may leave the kids with grandma while we take a cruise. A two-year old who has not seen grandma for six months sees her as a stranger. Being spoilt by adoring grandparents for a couple of weeks is hardly wounding. As Dr. John Bowlby discovered in the 1950s, When kids are given substitute care that is loving and caring, they do not suffer marked emotional damage. Children come into care for many, many different reasons and at many different ages. In my day most were by parental request. It is most important to select loving, tolerant foster homes who will give the best of care and welcome contact with the natural parents, so that continuity can be maintained. Such arrangements do not cause permanent irreversible trauma. Kids have to go to hospital, sometimes for long periods. Parents cannot be there all the time. Fifty years ago hospitals discouraged parental visiting, because the kids got upset when they saw their parents. Times have changed.
Now I think that it must be obvious to anyone except an MCF director that when the Bayne children were snatched from a birthday party with armed police, that this must have been very, very frightening for them.The boys were then placed into one overcrowded foster home after another. Yes indeed, this sort of separation is traumatic. Fortunately not all separations are this bad and that is why I said I would write about the exaggerations of separation trauma.
What is more easily seen is attachment disorder. When children are moved from home to home after being in a home long enough to form bonds, they become afraid of forming attachments. They fear the pain of having all familiar people repeatedly taken out of their lives and become mistrusting. If a young child is moved from a short period in a temporary home into a more long term resource, the danger of attachment disorder is lessened. That is why pro-active planning is so important.
The ministry actions would place the Bayne children in severe danger of attachment disorder, if it were not for one thing. The only stable thing in their lives has been the love and constancy of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. They have never missed a visit in three years and they have successfully formed meaningful bonds with their children in spite of the barriers placed by mean-spirited bureaucrats. They are still protecting their children, even when under great duress. Not all parents have been able to ameliorate the damage caused by the MCF as successfully.
9:09 AM Sept 15
ReplyDeleteYour wish is my command in this case, or rather your timing was perfect. My post tomorrow begins the countdown and connects with the importance of the 21st of September.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI am at a complete loss to understand your shock and awe approach accompanied by ridiculous antiquated examples. While I usually can see the underlying point you are trying to convey, the use of semantics to make your point is beneath you. We are all aware that judging a group as a whole by the actions of a few is wrong. This is why the blanket statements about apprehension have been accepted here. The actions of the majority of the Ministry stand in stark contrast to the few who may still be trying to provide the elusive loving and caring foster home you speak of. In the 50's residential schools were thought to be the right thing to do. We all know what happened there. Reform of Child Protection as a whole is overdue. Anyone can give examples or statistics to prove their point. For every example of a case the Ministry did correctly, I can cite thousands done incorrectly. Where does this get us? Nowhere. As this blog is about the Bayne's and to some degree Child Protection as a whole, I fail to see how sniping helps any of us.
Sorry child protection exposed, but I do not use semantics. I use real life examples and they are not antiquated. You seem to have a problem in getting your head around the fact that some parents are unfit and other parents desert, or abandon their children, or just kick them out. These children are going to suffer emotionally whether they get a good social worker or a bad one.
ReplyDeleteNor are the good foster parents "illusory". I have personally known dozens of very fine people who are foster parents and made a very long term commitment to giving care to unwanted children. They are the real "mum and dad" to those kids and grandpa and grandma to their children. They often became real friends and helpers to the natural parents, who may have been struggling to get back on their feet. On my watch abuse in a foster home was rare. Needless to say they too get abused by the bureaucrats.This has become increasingly common in the last 20 years Half my advocacy work has been done with foster parents. I can assure you CPE that some of these people have provided homes to the sort of kids that you or I could not tolerate in our houses. I am afraid that you want to believe the worst of everyone. Of course I do not condone the widespread abuses that keep surfacing in the child protection system. It is a scandal,which can only be fixed if numerous influential people learn to care about it. Ms, Turpel-Lafond does her best, but she needs a lot more support from apathetic politicians and indifferent top civil servants.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteOh I'm sure there are cases (though you and I will disagree on which ones) where removal might not be as bad as some people make it out to be. But this blog is about the very real abuse that MCFD inflicts on children and families, so I don't quite get why you are attempting a sales pitch. So what if some removals are - as you would have it - not so bad. The fact remains that too many are traumatic. It is the traumatic, abusive, ones (and there are plenty of them) that we need to address. I thought this blog is not to praise the little MCFD may (and I say "may") be doing right, it is to point out what they are doing wrong, and hopefully think of ways to fix it.
I don't get it when critics of child protection feel a need to defend child protection. There are so many problems and things wrong with child protection - why do we have to act as if we just have to give them a compliment here and there or otherwise we won't look credible or whatever.
Just when I think you appear to be a staunch, pro-parental rights kind of guy, you come out with these postings that really perplex me.
I wonder why Ms. Turpel-Lafond spent so much time and energy (and money) going after the child in the home of a relative program (or whatever it is called) when there are so many more problems out there, that are more serious. Why did she go after this program? To prove how bad the care of relatives might be? To make it sound like these people were demons because they had a "criminal" record is manipulative, because it is easy to get a criminal record, and that record may have nothing to do with how you care for a child (in this regard, maybe our premier should never be allowed to care for children, as he drove when he was very drunk, which is or should be a criminal offence).
ReplyDeleteBut by focussing on the child in care of relative program, that puts the heat on relatives and makes the mostly unaware public think, Ah ha! you are right Ms. Child Protector, these relatives are criminals, and we shouldn't put children with them, we should only put them with strangers. So, I don't trust Ms. Turpel-Lafond, because what has she done for the countless families like the Baynes who must have made their concerns evident to her, yet she is focussing on something that really, in fact, probably plays into MCFD scheme anyway, and that is to get people to believe that parents, and relatives, are NOT the people to keep children with.
Too often the so-called critics of child protection are actually aiding and abetting the corruption of child protection, either knowingly or unwittingly.
I think that many parents have gone through what we went through. We went through an abuse of trust. When car 86 first came to my door, I had no idea that MCFD had pages of reports on me. I had not been living at that address for 2 years and we were only back for a visit. Yet one very strange neighbour called on my kids all the time, saying things like that we were no longer 'visible in the community', that I had been seen in the neighbourhood talking to myself and that I had been seen driving erratically (I do not drive at all, and have never been behind the wheel of a car). Every single time we visited town she called on me and not even on my husband, it was a specific hatred of me. And she called on me when we were not even there.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I could tell even more lies said about me, but it would probably reveal who I am to any MCFD person who might be reading this, so I won't.
THe power of the lurid untruths coupled with a system that does not value honesty was enough to bring a group of 4 officers who are also social workers (a unique Vancouver invention) to my door when one of my children was outside crying. By the time they came, she was inside for a long time. I saw the police through the window, and I went to the door, greeted them and brought them in. I was that naive. I knew I had never done anything wrong to my children. SO, why would they be after me? I was sure they were concerned neighbours. LIttle did I know of the obsessive hatred one of my neighbours had toward me. It was couched in terms like, "I am so concerned, I brought food for the family, then because of the mother's mental illness....."
Never once did any social worker wonder about the mental condition of someone who phones maliciously over and over again on an innocent family.
I went to court, I lost 2 of my kids, my story is huge and very strange as no one who knows me can believe it since I am a 'soccer mom', not anyone who would be thought of in all these strange terms.
Many people feel that if it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone. THe CPS system is deeply flawed and I could no longer speak to anyone who may defend it, since my emotions have been so strong.
SO, I can see that it is difficult to read any one excusing CPS and I do believe all apprehensions are wrong, almost without exception. I got this opinion by being dealt with in bad faith by MCFD, not because I am a person with radical opinions.
9:52 AM
ReplyDeleteI have no idea whether you have accurately described Ms. Turpel-Lafond's purpose and outcome with regard to her investigation and report of the CIHR, Care in the Home of the Relative program. I have not yet read her report but you may be interested to read it at this link http://www.rcybc.ca/Images/PDFs/Reports/RCY_CIHR%20FINAL%20no%20embargo.pdf
I certainly question your insinuation that her time investment here is designed to demonize extended family over the care of children. Your cynicism is understandable when your opposition to MCFD failures is clear to me from other comments you have made, yet in this instance I would opt for rational interpretation of the facts. To mistrust Turpel-Lafond because she is not directly involved in the Bayne case makes no sense. She can't be involved with a case before the court.
The 120 pages will make interesting reading to see whether you are on the right track.
9:52 AM, something more.......
ReplyDeleteWhat may have been missed in your read of the Turpel-Lafond review project was her determination to help the children and the families involved in a government funded and resourced service. The Government in fact has scuttled the CIHR and replaced it with The New Extended Family Program (EFP) which The Representative will monitor closely this improved service. EFP potentially offers some additional financial benefits and social supports to families, it appears the program has limited funding, and that appropriate alternatives are not available for those families ineligible for EFP. For
example, relatives with guardianship of children will not be eligible, no matter what their circumstances or that of the children placed. To be sure, problems existed with some aspects of CIHR, including the screening process as this audit demonstrates. However, program reform and improvement should not result in significantly fewer children served. The Representative will monitor caseload, services and budget for this new program and report regularly on findings. As well, the Representative will continue to work with government to ensure that the valuable services offered by grandparents and
other relatives are appropriately supported.
The Representative writes her Overall Outcome this way.
“Screening and assessment of all government-supported placements of children is an absolute necessity.
A corresponding commitment must also be made to provide the supports – financial and otherwise – that caregivers need.
Although no new applicants are being accepted into the CIHR program, more than 4,500 B.C. children and youth continue to live with relatives under the program. Some will do so for many years to come.
Government must commit to going back and carrying out proper screening for those children and offer better supports, where necessary, to their kin carers.
Other children will now begin to live with relatives under the new Extended Family Program. The assessment tool for this new program, which was not released with the program introduction, must be provided immediately to front-line staff to ensure consistent practice and adherence to standards.
The Representative believes these children are also entitled to the safety and stability that would be enhanced by government acting on the recommendations in this report.”
11:01 AM
ReplyDeleteBe assured that I hear your heart.
Thank you, Ron, I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong about Ms. Turpel-Lafond.
But my real point is that sometimes even those who appear to be critics of MCFD or CPS are actually working - either knowingly or unwittingly - to increase the power and corruption of MCFD or CPS. A good example of this would be those who say that problems with CPS are as a result of staff shortages and funding. CPS loves it when this is determined to be the cause of their shortcomings, because it means more support for staff increases and more funding from government, or private sources, as the case may be.
And the fact that so many uniformed people think that the problems of CPS are as a result of shortages in staff and funding cutbacks, proves that CPS / MCFD is very good at confusing the issue. An example of MCFD's awareness of the importance of propaganda is evident in who they hire. I can't remember her name, but someone who was a top person in the editorial role of a major publication was, a few years ago, hired to do PR work for MCFD. MCFD isn't stupid. They will hire the person who has the connections to the media at large, and they will plant the stories that further their cause.