Robert Harrison, the subject of Post #306 "Robert Glen Harrison Tried for $520 Million" on September 10, 2010 has written two comments today at that post. His case application is now before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Comment #1
Comment #2
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
2 comments:
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Privacy 1/2
ReplyDeletePrivacy is a big deal in MCFD settings because of the extraordinary damage that can be done to parents when such recorded information escapes into the wild. I am surprised this has not been a separate blog topic, as I believe the Baynes have paid an extraordinary price in deciding to forgo their privacy.
Inappropriate communications of unproven allegations occurs regularly as social workers apprise psychologists of such hearsay allegations that serves to color decisions and steer report outcomes.
All collaterals mentioned by parents of interest have their names, addresses, relationships, phone numbers - you name it, added into the MCFD database ready to be searched and retrieved at will.
Ron, would you now wonder if your name appears somewhere in such a database?
I've seen my records and my children's records and was shocked to see names of friends, coaches, acquaintances, home and cell phone numbers, addresses, relationships, interests, statements, and birthdates -- you name it. As with face book, there is a high value in not only recording basic information, but associations and impressions. The brevity of some information and absence of context means the danger of misinterpreting that data by others not familiar with the subjects can be dangerously misinterpreted.
The social worker I worked with appeared to be obsessed with gathering information such as birthdates, last name, so that she could later look up this information or record it to the database.
Allegations phrased as "concerns," as if they were truths, come out during mediations with whoever parents choose to involve in such mediations. The participants also form opinions and may inadvertently communicate unproven allegations to others.
Warring spouses use derogatory intake reports and risk assessments against each other outside CFCSA proceedings, in custody battles that are also civil proceedings with few boundaries. These allegations will make their way into final court decisions which are published on the internet, ready for access by future employers and others.
Privacy 2/2
ReplyDeleteArmed with knowledge of allegations but not allowed to communicate this fact without risking libel, parenting course instructors attempt to elicit the allegations from the mouths of parents in order to try to get them to incriminate them.
As with signed police statements, these so called parenting coaching reports are also signed by parents to confirm and verify the accuracy of the contents, and are used as evidence against parents.
Unlike financial information which typically has a 5 to 7 year shelf life, MCFD recorded allegations have no expiry date. This means they can be accessed by any social worker next to a computer and used at any time against parents.
Medical reports can also contain allegations, observations by physicians who suspect abuse and report these concerns, and then MCFD takes over.
In schools, allegations are not to be recorded as part of most school district policies. This is the job of MCFD to record reports from schools, and this way school officials they keep their noses clean.
Ten, twenty, and thirty year old allegations raise their ugly heads as if the events occurred yesterday. Paul and Zabeth know this; as such information was discussed in court from their risk assessment.
Social workers are experts at stripping off context and stacking up derogatory information with the express purpose of deprecating parents. It takes quite a bit of work in court to undo this damage.
Regardless of the outcome of Mr. Harrison's case, the decision rendered will be instructive. He is most fortunate in having a sponsor to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Harrison has also observed for himself that self-represented litigants are treated differently in BC Supreme and Court of Appeal situations. It would be instructive to see the chambers transcript for these sessions, not just the final oral and/or written reasons.
The average intake report is filled with more allegations than court-tested truths, and as such any time they are retrieved by a third party, the subjects are in great danger of being prejudged and treated unfairly.
The inappropriate release of information and impressions based on unproven allegations is what happened to Mr. Harrison. Of this, there is no doubt. This is what happens to countless thousands of parents who may not even know their rights are being violated.