A small boy is collecting candied eggs and placing them in a wire basket on a table where the man is seated reading a newspaper. The man says, “Good job, keep going.” After the boy drops a second load of eggs in the basket and goes for another load the man sneaks some eggs into his own pockets which the boy sees and says,”you took my eggs.” The man says, “Egg management fee.” “What's that?” the boy asks. The man repeats, “Egg management fee.” Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to take other people's stuff. Why don't banks? 
Two small girls sit at a child's table and the man sits opposite them. He says to one, “would you like a pony? She replies, “Yes.” He pulls a cute plastic pony from his pocket and she is obviously pleased. The man says to the other little girl, “would you like a pony?” She answers “yes” thinking she will also get a cute plastic pony but he calls for a real pony to come from behind a playhouse wall and the girl is overjoyed. The first girl, confused, says, “you didn't say I could have a real one.” The man says, “Well you didn't ask.” Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to hold out on somebody. Why don't banks? 
The man gives the boy a beautiful red toy car to play with. He plays with it for a few seconds when the man takes the toy back. When the boy reacts, the man pulls a cardboard cutout from his jacket pocket and hands it to the boy. The boy says “I want the other car.” The man says “that was a limited time offer. It's right here in the fine print.” The boy looks at the cardboard vehicle and says, “this is a piece of junk.” Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to hide behind small print. Why don't banks? 
A small girl wearing a bike helmet stands beside a pretty bike that stands inside a small rectangle marked on the floor. The man asks her, “Would you like to go for a ride on that bike?” “Yes” she says. She gets on and with her first peddle she crosses one of the rectangle's lines. The man stops her and says, “It's required that you keep the bike in this predetermined space. If you want to take the bike out, I'm going to charge you a penalty.” She says, “You can't ride in this little space.” He qualifies this correctively by saying, “ you can't ride - very far.” Lesson: Even kids know an offer shouldn't come with ridiculous conditions. Why don't banks? What you are telling me is that the way MCFD operates locally and practically is comedic but that the life stories of your children affected by MCFD are anything but funny. There are more lessons than I can name here, but here are a few.
Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to take other people's children. Why doesn't MCFD?
Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to withhold information from somebody. Why doesn't MCFD?
Lesson: Even kids know it's wrong to hide behind the CFCSA. Why doesn’t MCFD?
Lesson: Even kids know their welfare shouldn't come with ridiculous terms and conditions. Why doesn't MCFD?
I will guess that you can name other lessons.
Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.
Image uploads will be disabled for two hours due to maintenance at 5:00PM PDT Wednesday, Oct. 20th.
Ron:
ReplyDeleteRe: your reply October 19, 2010 5:21 AM in Part 341
I understand why you see a fundamental weakness in citing Exodus 12:29-30. Perhaps I have not made myself clear enough and I apologize for that.
The point I tried to make is that parents are very vulnerable when their children are used as pawn. It will bend the will of the toughest mind like the mighty Pharaoh of that era.
Children are often used by those in power for political reasons. For instance,
1. "Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live." (Exodus 1:22)
2. When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. (Matthew 2:16)
Of course, we find numerous cases in the course of history, even in the short Canadian history. Residential schools and modern "child protection" are not a mere act of child welfare policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of oppressive political activity by a disguised means.
To maintain order in a society, removal of some rights when a person breaks the law is necessary. However, this must be done fairly based on a due process of law and on good evidence. The accused must be given a reasonable chance to defend himself on a timely basis without duress or their children held hostage by the accusing party. This is what our Charter of Rights and Freedom tries to accomplish.
However, CFCSA circumvents the charter right protection and allow unsubstantiated evidence be used akin to a kangaroo court. As long as the government has the power to remove children from their parents, our Charter of Rights and Freedom is meaningless.
Do you know that parents are forced to admit whatever guilt SW want to seek using custody and visitation of their children as pawn? Do you know that some MCFD paid shrinks use absurd methods like sand play and picture drawings to fabricate "evidence" to support removal? Do you know that children are being indoctrinated to hate their parents in foster homes? Do you know that some parents are blackmailed by SW to divorce their spouse if they want their children back? Do you know that SW can re-remove children without fresh evidence even when court orders a return? Do you know that child removal authority is the mother of all evils that your blog tries to uncover since its inception? Do you know that taking children to attend church services too often or obedience to parents (a kind of mental disorder in their books) is a ground for removal? If you don't believe this, please browse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL0yu2e3HjQ
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GqiAhqnMmE
I still maintain that rights are no rights if they can be removed at the discretion of another party without due process of law and without good evidence.
Forgiveness requires repentance is a fundamental doctrine in Christianity. Granting forgiveness when the offender shows no remorse and continues to transgress is improper and stupid. I trust you will find this agreeable.
1:39 AM ANON
ReplyDeleteSolid explanation!
I agree completely with your statement, "I still maintain that rights are no rights if they can be removed at the discretion of another party without due process of law and without good evidence."
In your "Do you know..." paragraph, I say, "No I don't know, but sadly most of that doesn't surprise me.
I like your blog Ron!!! I am obviously a little disturbed because of my involvement with CPS, and I dwell on it sometimes, then I read that and I laughed and laughed. I really like it and it is good since the thing I try to do is to keep my head up and my spirit strong no matter what. That is one way I fight CPS as they want to make me suffer. So, to read such a well written, hilarious and true blog as above, cheered me right up. I know it is not funny, obviously what we go through with child apprehension is not funny, but to show how plainly wrong it is, I just love it!!!
ReplyDelete7:54 AM Anon
ReplyDeleteThanks, and you are welcome. Stay cheered today. I wish for you clear direction and good success.
Ron; Mainly I want to write about foster care and adoptions today, but first a word about today's news. I read that a newborn baby was found in an apartment garbage bin in Calgary. It was only by chance that the child was found and did not perish. You can agonise all you like about the desperation of the mother. That is all speculation. The known facts are that the baby needs care today and care for the next twenty years. Hurrah for adoption!!!
ReplyDeleteI want to tell you a couple of stories. One is about a couple called Don and Elizabeth Haldorson. They live in Coquitlam. They had two daughters and they decided to adopt a third. They adopted an inter-racial child who had developmental problems.Then they adopted another child who was "hard to place" because she too was inter-racial and was believed to be a special needs child. I spoke with both these young women as adults and they told me that they had a warm and loving home and they were very close to Mum and Dad.
Rosanah was their fifth daughter and she came later. Rosanah was born from a mother with multiple addictions and she suffered many assaults while in the womb. When she was born her survival was uncertain. She too was inter-racial and she was almost blind and micro-cephalic. This means she had a very small head and would be of limited intellect. Rosanah was two and a half years old before she could leave the children's hospital and she could not walk. The Haldorsons wanted to adopt her right away, but the social workers persuaded them to take her as a foster child because she would need so many expensive services.
During the next ten years under the loving care of her foster home, Rosanah made remarkable progress and far exceeded the expectations of the doctors at the children's hospital. They had nothing but praise for the Haldorsons.Don taught her to ride a bike and she learned ice-skating. He would skate backwards and sing to her, while she followed his voice. How many dads can do that? After ten years Rosanah had a tantrum at school, because her favourite snack had not been packed in her lunch. She said she did not want to go home. She went to her older sister's for the night and the Haldorsons never saw her again.
Yes you read that right. For you sceptics, they did not do it for the money and got no special rate. The social workers gave no reason for the removal, but several months later they came up with ridiculous allegations against the parents. What they did was to put Rosanah into "counselling" with a counsellor who could guarantee to uncover sexual abuse. It was only after numerous persuasive interviews that she could squeeze some allegations out of this poor slow-witted child. Nobody bothered to ask her older sisters about anything. They wanted her out of that home because of some agenda of their own.
Anyway the director was dumb enough to believe the ridiculous allegations and report them to the RCMP. The police investigation completely cleared the parents and the constable became a strong advocate for them. He had access to all the files. The director was ignorant enough to bring in an expert to validate the statements obtained in counselling. Unfortunately, he picked one of Canada's top experts in debunking such counselling. The police told us that he repudiated the allegations.
In desperation the Haldorsons went to the media. Among other things, the police had told them that Rosanah had 15 different caregivers in the first yearof removal. Two TV stations covered the story, but soon had to move on. The director dug in and refused to budge. They can never admit that they are wrong. Twice the Haldorsons were threatened with legal action if they attempted to go near Rosanah. They once spoke to her briefly as she came out of school, but the girl was hustled away by a minder. To be continued.
Continuing the story of Rosanah Haldorson.
ReplyDeleteIt took over a year, but the Haldorsons were able to get a lot of their file under freedom of information, from the privacy commissioner. Because a number of documents were duplicates we were able to find out that some information had been deleted on some documents, but left in on others. By this means we could see what had been deleted. We got a legal opinion stating that most of the deletions were illegal. However, what the files revealed was that there was considerable internal dissension within the staff. The foster home resource worker strongly protested the cruelty to Rosanah. He was forbidden to talk to the Haldorsons, although it was in his job description to do so. Dissenting staff were warned to stay in line and all "get on the same page." Cover up became the priority. It was abundantly clear that the director knew that they had done wrong. They fought disclosure of numerous documents and successfully blocked the report of the statement vaidity analyst on the grounds that the foster parents had no right to it, because it did not actually mention their names. That old legal quibble again. Once again the welfare of the child became a matter of no importance. The foster parents had to be punished for invading the privacy of the child. TV station lawyers pointed out that the legal name of the child was never used etc.
Of course when you commit such an injustice, not everyone will keep quiet. Anonymous phone calls occasionally came in from caregivers, telling the Haldorsons how Rodanah was doing and assuring them that she had been told that her MUm and Dad loved her and wanted her back. They also said they would get into serious trouble if they were found out. Two more items on this case. Rosanah went from a foster home at regular rates to a staffed facility costing about $5,000 a month. She had numerous caregivers. We also found out from the FOI files that from time to time no fewer than 25 different bureaucrats had their fingers in the pie over the closure of one foster home. Oh yes the poor ministry is so short staffed.
I still talk with the Haldorsons from time to time and they will be invited to the party when the Bayne kids go home. They both suffered under the Fraser region. One of Elizabeth Haldorson's artworks has pride of place in my living room.
Tomorrow, I will tell you another foster care story which stretched over several years of my life.
Ron Ferris,
ReplyDeleteRe: The case of Rosanah Haldorson. Thank you very much for recounting this.
But what I can't understand is why there are so few people from or within MCFD that are speaking out like you, Ray Ferris, are.
I just can't understand it. So what if they lost their job? There are other jobs, and who wants to work in such corrupt place?
Ray, do you have any idea why so few (and as far as I know it's only been you, Ray Ferris) from MCFD speak out against MCFD?