It's the 18th. Then three more days until the last court day of the Bayne case.
A 6 year old boy has been injured many times before. The most recent occasion on September 8th was severe enough that he went to neighbours asking for help. They did the right thing, notified police and child and family services. The boy had a cut on his chin and a broken arm. Further examination has shown numerous other old injuries sustained by this boy, fractures to his ribs, both arms, a foot and the skull. There is speculation that he was beaten with a mop or broom handle. He ran away from home three times in August.
He finally told authorities what was happening to him at home. CFS has since removed the boy from the couple’s care, as well as his 18-month-old half-sister, who did not have any physical injuries. The girl is the daughter of the boy's 24 year old mother and her 32 year old common-law husband. The couple was arrested September 14th. She faces charges of assault causing bodily harm, two counts of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and assault for earlier incidents between December 2009 and Sept. 8. He is charged with aggravated assault, uttering threats, assault with a weapon, assault and a probation breach for the same period. Each also faces a charge of failing to provide the necessities of life for allegedly not getting the boy medical help.
Now that is why we need both of these agencies, police and child protection in our communities. So as much as we want to and should complain about the abuses resident within systems that have such sweeping powers, let's be real and acknowledge that not all moms and dads or caregivers are responsible or trustworthy.
I don't want to see this mother on my blog site complaining about child services taking her children. Ever!Video and News Links:
CBC video news report:
Winnipeg Free Press article
Sept 18 Free Press Update
If this is not a poster story for a "thank god that a child protection agency exists."
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine a better story that illustrates this.
However, given the information in the story and the lack of the ability of CPS to intervene sooner, I question the agency's relevance other than to serve as transport agents to deliver the children to a foster home.
The information in the print story regarding the fact the boy was otherwise appropriately bathed and cared for and the infant was ok would appear to indicate the parents have some redeeming virtues worthy of corrective services.
I would really like to see the police reports and intakes on these three prior calls to find out how these two agencies could be fooled by parents three times in a row.
The story as it is present would seem to surely convict the parents in advance. Publicizing the story would also seem to ensure they never care for their children or be allowed to have other children again. This concerns me.
Until I personally see and hear both parents and their child defend themselves personally, knowing what I know of the combination of police, child protection, the press, the medical establishment all speaking in unison, I would insist even more that due process be followed.
Compare information from both the Baynes case and this, and imagine how information can be presented to convict parents in advance as LONG as the parents remain SILENT:
- Both parents deny abusing their children
- Historical damage, previous broken bones; indisputable medical information
- Parents able to convince police and child protection on multiple occasions, no concerns.
- One parent has "history" (refer to Paul's risk assessment report referencing events before his birth)
- Neighbor / family friend reports "concerns"
Ron, if you examine your own method of lending your weight of opinion to the story, despite having no personal knowledge, by arranging facts, and including speculation, you can appreciate that the parents in this case have a monumental task ahead of them to extract themselves from this situation.
What I would wonder now, given the publicity and apparent certainty of the guilt of these parents would these parents receive speedy trial, conviction, serve pennance, and eventually have their children returned? During this, do the parents get to see their children for the same 6 or 9 hours weekly as the Baynes?
Would it be conceivable this time be LESS than the time the Baynes have been separated from their children?
Points taken 10:33 PM
ReplyDeleteDon't forget, innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteWe have already seen how child protection manipulates the truth, and manipulates the media, as well as the police force.
These parents may be guilty, but given the deep and pervasive corruption, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
I still believe that the harm that child protection does far outweighs any good. They are deeply damaging to democratic ideals, and they are deeply damaging to families and children. So the fact that they might save a child here and there really does not redeem them in my eyes. Other means could be used that would not cause such damage to society as a whole, and to families and children individually.
I also have to wonder about the fact that, time and again, even though child protection agencies are so quick to take children away for such ridiculous reasons as the "possibility of future harm," they so often will somehow ignore what is obviously a real case of abuse. Why do they do this? Are they afraid to intervene in cases of real abuse? Or do they just not care at all - and just pretend to care?
One thing is sure: the effect of not removing a child, who is subsequently killed or seriously harmed always, always works in child protection's favour, because the public always, always wants parents as a whole to be punished (there are always spikes in child abuse reports after a reported incident of abuse), and the public always holds parents at an even higher level of higher suspicion, and the public always gets duped into believing that child protection deserves or needs more staff and more money and more power and more laws. You will see this happening time and again. In fact, the phenomena of a spike in child protection reports (after a reported incident of abuse) even has a name for it - the Baby P Effect.
Don't put it past an organization, that is cruel and unjust enough to do what they have done to the Baynes (and countless others), to ignore or somehow fail to catch real abuse, and then capitalize on the fallout.
Ron, your comment in yellow presumes this woman is guilty. I wouldn't jump to conclusions, given child protection's penchant for deceptive practices. She could be yet another victim of them, just as the Baynes are. If we took everything child protection said as gospel, this blog would not even exist. Please reconsider.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:44 PM
ReplyDeleteMy point was simple enough – to report a news story, stating the only information available to the public at this time. I was certainly not providing a sweeping defence for CPS based upon one response to one child. You say you wouldn't jump to conclusions... so may I ask you whether in your mind the police and the child protection people can ever be correct? It strikes me as a jumped conclusion to surmise that a broken arm and evidence of past injuries to a 6 year old who has not been taken to medical facilities for treatment by caregivers could be anything but indicative of a pretty large problem at home. Can a child lie? Sure. If this child said that he is being beaten at home by mom and/or dad, do I believe in the probability that he is telling the truth? Yes. Would I convict these two adults based on what I personally know now? NO. So I suppose that will be up to Winnipeg authorities. Having heard you, I stand by my last statement, “...let's be real and acknowledge that not all moms and dads or caregivers are responsible or trustworthy.”
Here is a happy social worker who likes her job:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE35dbib8Is
Ron, we don't know what the child actually said; we only have the child protection authority's word for it, and we know that they are not exactly scrupulously honest.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if the child did actually, eventually, tell authorities that he was abused, there have been cases where the child will indeed lie, because they are told that that is the way to get back home with their parents.
If you check out the McMartin scandal (where children were brainwashed to say they had been abused), you will see that it is indeed possible to get children to lie. So, yes, children will absolutely lie, especially if they believe that that is the only way they are going to be re-united with those whom they love.
Believing that children never lie and that their version of the truth can always be trusted is another reason we are in this child protection mess.
The McMartin case was most expensive criminal trial in U.S. history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
False Allegations When Interviewing Children:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria#False_allegations_when_interviewing_children
And as far as a broken arm and "past injuries" go, I do believe it is possible (having been a child myself, and having seen some of the injuries child get) that a child could have a broken arm and "past injuries" and that it might not be child abuse.
The police and child protection are no doubt sometimes correct when they determine that there is child abuse. By my point is that, too often, they are wrong, and the methods and the means they use to deal with child abuse are in fact abusive to society and parents and children. In an effort to try to cure all child abuse, we've created a monster, which is only getting bigger and more powerful. If we don't stop it now, it is not inconceivable that children could, at some point in the future, be taken from every parent, at birth. That may seem impossible, but then so does what is happening right now.
Regardless of whether this abuse really happened in this instance, I can almost guarantee that - even though a few heads at the lower level may role - the effect will be to increase child abuse reports (thereby garnering more children for the system), and increase support for the idea that child protection is a good thing. More laws, more staff, more funding, that is usually what happens - and exactly what child protection wants to happen - in these cases.
ReplyDeleteIf the child really was being abused, and really was at risk, you have to wonder why such a powerful, unaccountable agency as CAS would feel any need to re-unite the child with the parents (who apparently were so abusive). Why would they not - when they so blithely rip children from all parents - not keep the allegedly abused boy with his grandmother? You really have to wonder. And you can pretty much guarantee that they did not give the child back to the parents because they believe in parental rights. CAS is notorious for the injustice against parents, foster children, and about-to-be foster children.
Anyone who doubts this should just do a google search.
http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/CAS%20Files/001-ChildrensAid.htm
Fix CAS:
http://www.fixcas.com/
Anon 4 PM
ReplyDeleteWell she certainly is a poster SW.
In case anyone who watches the social worker career video promo above is unaware of what an "honourary Masters" or "honourary Bachelors" degree in social work, (or any other honourary degree) is....
ReplyDelete"An honorary degree[1] or a degree honoris causa (Latin: 'for the sake of the honour') is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements (such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations). The degree itself is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master's degree, and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the academic institution.
Usually the degree is conferred as a way of honoring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field, or to society in general. The university often derives benefits by association with the person in question...
Some universities and colleges have been accused of granting honorary degrees in exchange for large donations. Honorary degree recipients, particularly those who have no prior academic qualifications, have sometimes been criticized if they insist on being called "Doctor" as a result of their award, as the honorific may mislead the general public about their qualifications."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degree
Well Now Anons 4:00 and 6:13 PM
ReplyDeleteYou do have my interest. First one of you provides the link to the video of a MCFD child protection investigator which serves as a recruitment or Promotional piece, and then the other follows it up with an explanation of the degree that the SW dropped on us. Given your definition of this so-called honourary bachelor's degree granted gratuitously for some undisclosed reason, I would like to know the name of the institution that bestowed these letters without substance or content. I am clearly unimpressed by an child protection investigator with credentials that do not convey formal study and training.
Anon 12:47 PM, I am considering.
ReplyDeleteIf I've learned anything in my life it's the fact that there is the good, the bad and the ugly in in any profession and this may be the reason there is no perfection. In a perfect world this wouldn't be a question but I'm afraid perfection is impossible. But through due process we can improve.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:47 PM, I am considering.
ReplyDeleteIn my blog post I said, "I don't want to see this mother on my blog site complaining about child services taking her children. Ever!"
Yes I admit I have assumed culpability based on journalistic report before evidence.
I suppose my statement was a poor attempt at saying don't bother complaining if you brought this mess on yourself.
I am the person who provided the link re: honourary degrees. Having gone through considerable time, effort and sacrifice to obtain my education, I'm NOT impressed with the whole concept of honourary degrees, though there may be times when they are warranted (I can't think of any right now). I am especially suspicious of honourary degrees in a social work setting.
ReplyDeleteRon, I see what you mean in a way. That is, generally speaking, you are saying that if a parent has abused their child, don't come here and complain. However, we are talking about a specific example here, and though the temptation to rush to condemnation is great when a vulnerable, innocent child is involved, I think that it's still a good idea to respect the democractic ideal of innocent until proven guilty. This is a real family we are speaking of here.
ReplyDeleteIt may be enlightening for readers to review the McMartin case (at least as it is outlined on Wikipedia), or at least read about how children were co-erced into telling lies, lies which caused such pain and suffering for the people who were involved, and who eventually - after the most expensive trial in US history - were deemed innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
FALSE ALLEGATIONS WHEN INTERVIEWING CHILDREN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria#False_allegations_when_interviewing_children
As far as the allegations above go, regarding the six year old boy, I don't know if they are true or not. What I do know is that child protective services, as well as the police (unfortunately) cannot always be trusted to tell the truth. And that's an understatement. This is not to say there aren't really good, honest police out there, doing a very tough job and protecting the public - I have a lot of respect for those people, but unfortunately, there are some who don't always tell the truth.
I note a follow-up Sep18/10 1:00AM:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/cfs-under-scope-in-beating-horror-103195134.html
CPS is under criticism for not acting sooner given the fact there were 3 previous intakes.
It should be made clear to readers it is important to divorce oneself from the "ugh" and shock factor that only serves to distract us from underlying issues we now know exists with child protection generally. NOTHING to do with child protection is ever as black and white as this story is attempting to portray.
Innocent or guilty, the focus needs to be on examining the correctness of child protective service actions before, during and after.
Child protection usually smells a removal and CCO opportunity far in advance. I don't believe the family was smarter than police and social workers combined, explaining away their runaway boy and past injuries.
In this case there was an 18-month old baby ripe for the plucking, but, perhaps not strong enough risk factors were yet available to expect success with a CCO.
If the risk factors were as clear as this current story suggests, I would estimate that rather than risk having to be satisfied with just a supervision order with an early intervention, social workers chose to wait until there were "enough" intakes. The lifetime value of a single CCO is, I believe, worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars of budgetary allocation.
Removal is ALWAYS a primary goal of ALL child protection services in order to get budget allocation. A measly supervision order and remedial work and return is the LAST thing child protection wants.
Child protection wants ongoing business so they do not have to encroach upon parents who have more fight and financial resources to properly resist.
I note that Winnipeg was previously mentioned in this blog as the Province of the recent scandal of the female judge whose husband propositioned a client. There is also a mention of a Winnipeg professor who criticized the powers of social workers.
"They have the broadest intervention powers in the Western world Libin quotes Brad McKenzie, social work professor from U. of Manitoba. Then Libin writes, “Caseworkers come armed with vaster powers than any police officer investigating crime. It is an immense authority easily abused, without vigilant restraint. It is time, critics say, they were reined in."
It is interesting to note the use of video of the boy's interview, and again, the descriptor included is how "horrific" it is.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall an analysis that recommended against audio and video in favour of note taking for more than a few reasons:
- video evidence can be used against child protection if a questionable segment can be located that can serve to question the abilities of the investigator.
- Secondly, there is data archival issues, because in theory, if you demonstrate the desire to video one case, you have to do it for everyone. This then demands the development of a policy, how the tapes are secured, backed up, and what the storage issues are and risk if such data is "accidently" lost or destroyed. Privacy issues and freedom of information issues crop up.
- videos can be tailored, in the sense that a practice interview is done first to ensure the answers the subject gives is predictable.
A Provincial agency does NOT simply pick up a video or audio recorder and start recording their subjects because this affects ALL levels of government operations on what is done with this data.
This sounds to me like a backwater city that has gotten real excited about a bonifide abuse case, and various parties want to milk this for all it's worth.
Get real. Kids are injured daily. Depending on what figures you believe in, 1% or 10% of all emergency hospital visits are as a result of abuse. Why are ALL these stories not reported? No links to similar stories, not allowing comments sounds a bit odd to me.
Winnipeg is featured in a Supreme Court of Canada decision:
ReplyDeletehttp://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc48/2000scc48.html
Issues covered are removal of child at birth, and delays in hearing the case, and does the act violate s.7 and s.24 of the charter (all no.) It is quite a long read.
Citation:Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519
Date:October 13, 2000
Docket: 26779
Here is an old link on the unconstitutionality of the CFCSA:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freeforum101.com/canadacourtwatc/viewtopic.php?t=563&sid=68d273ca939a542fab5e97089768386c&mforum=canadacourtwatc
An excerpt from the forum page reads:
She explains that, in her opinion, the Manitoba CFSA, as it is written, is unconstitutional, since it is allows the CAS/CPS/CFS to be "investigator" and "adjudicator". Essentially, the CAS agencies make the rules and they also give themselves, solely, the role of being the only people able to judge whether their decisions are correct.
By the way, that decision was in 2000. The Manitoba CFSA has NOT been changed.
Another interesting link from the BCCLA who wrote a position paper on the damages due to separation:
http://www.bccla.org/positions/children/08Child_Apprehensions.pdf
Googe search term used child apprehension s.7 charter
9:09 PM
ReplyDeleteDitto on the labour involved in obtaining a degree, whatever the letters. I remember best my doctoral prep years. I don't know enough about honourary degrees to comment wisely. I know they are bestowed in recognition of prior significant achievement and I am OK with that. I would probably accept one myself. I have never before heard of an honorary bachelor's degree until watching the video, yet I suppose for accomplishment in a related area, that too is plausible.
for 9:18 PM
ReplyDeleteYes, you understand me and you do remind me of the importance of fairness.
Good links you are supplying, all of you, very educational.
ReplyDelete11:43 PM
ReplyDeleteThank you for the Supreme Court/winnipeg child services link - Great information for me.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc48/2000scc48.html
10:59
ReplyDeletethanks for the update link to the abused boy story. it is now cite in the blog post itself.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/cfs-under-scope-in-beating-horror-103195134.html
This story just reaffirms something I have said for years. Child Protection is so busy chasing after people they have no business chasing that true abuse cases are overlooked. This of course assumes that this is indeed a true child abuse case. A comment found in the follow up story indicates that "all cases where bruises are found on a child are 'extensively' investigated."
ReplyDeleteReally? Then the system is clearly broken. Why do they exist? Seriously. As the story also indicates, the Police Child Abuse Team investigated. Did they arrive at the proper conclusion? Who knows? Duplication of service? Obviously.
Finally, diversion tactics are being used in full force here. At the first mention of any social worker failing to protect this child the subject is dismissed and quickly changed. A double standard, as this same dismissive behaviour would be seem as evidence of culpability on the part of parents if they tried the same thing.