A Grandmother and a grandfather sat helplessly. Yesterday I described the small court room in which Mr. Jensen delivered the final hours of his Summation. The judge's bench and the clerk's desk and the table and chairs of the legal staff and defendants comprised most of the space. Of the nine remaining chairs, two were occupied by these grandparents. Zabeth's parents they are. I paid attention to them because I too am a grandparent, proud of it, loving the relationships with little people that it provides to me. I am special because those grandchildren are extraordinary. I, however, have unfettered access to my grandchildren. These two people do not.
So I watched them as the Jensen words cut them deeply. They sat motionless, staring ahead, no longer shocked by what they were hearing because they have grown accustomed to their savage sound. They were grieving I thought, hardly bearing the insinuations against their daughter or her husband, perhaps imagining the worst possible outcome of this hearing.
Jensen pointedly directed Judge Crabtree that (1) his honour must find that there is need for protection, and that (2) he must therefore order the Continuing Care of the children. With such intense statement of objective, I found it interesting that Jensen then mentioned that contrary to what some people were saying, there are more than two possible rulings from which Judge Crabtree may select his verdict. In fact he said there is a host of alternative rulings beside either a CCO or giving the children back to the parents. Among these he suggested that Judge Crabtree might issue a Temporary Care Order, or a Period of Supervision, or place them in temporary care while the parents take further steps to satisfy the Ministry that they are indeed risk-free as it were. These were proffered to the Judge it appeared, as considerations should the judge come to the conclusion that the risk is still there but that the CCO is too final for this particular case. Who knows the precise motivation other than Jensen? But he did underscore that there should be no misunderstanding, that the Director's desired and appropriate ruling is a CCO. Yet Jensen implied that these other options might be considered. The Judge asked for some guidance on a Last Chance Order and that definition was discussed for a few moments.
Now all of this was at the conclusion of the first couple of hours during which Jensen reestablished Dr. Jane Gardner's paediatric ophthalmology qualifications and revisited her testimony concerning how she arrived at her diagnosis of the injuries, her opinion about extent of force needed to produce these injuries, her reactions to the hypotheses of the Baynes' experts. Then he focused upon Dr. Alexander's credentials and testimony, the foundation for his opinions being clinical records rather than information from Dr. Colbourne Jensen said. Alexander had disagreed with any theories that a short fall and particular that of a toddler upon the reclining infant could produce the extent of injuries Baby B sustained. Those injuries included subdural hemorrhages on both sides of the brain, retinal bleeding, a skull fracture and a chip off the long bone of the left femur. His testimony was that this was only due to a blunt force impact together with acceleration and deceleration. He even said that this force was the equivalent of that experienced in a car crash or a large fall from a great height, or child abuse. Well that's mighty frightening if it is to be believed. But that is precisely the obstacle. It does not have to be believed because it is still one man's theory against how many was it? Ten experts. Whose expertise Jensen discounted for numerous reasons stated in court. And that is his job. And the Judge's responsibility will be to conclude what and who is believable. What can be viewed as definitive?
Oh, I know, I know, Jensen would quickly respond to that. I will share again more of the Jensen summation tomorrow although I feel I have given him far too much air time or blog space. The transcript of these several days of Jensen are being prepared now.
If you think that the Bayne's case is an isolated incident, watch the following 3-part news in Houston:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/100301-cps-accuses-2-moms
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/100330-cps-does-about-face-accuses-parents-of-abuse
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/investigates/100414-cps-makes-more-disturbing-allegations-against-parents
See any similarities? These atrocities all come from a standard model.
i am just disgusted by all of this, when do people the Ministry take the time to think about what all of this is doing to the children. 10 experts and STILL questions. What does it take? What do they need? It is outrageous, and soo wrong..
ReplyDeleteThank you for this posting, Ron.
ReplyDeleteCan you tell us what a "Last Chance Order" is?
This is something I found in that respect (not sure how up-to-date this info is):
"... In certain cases, the Director can seek a last chance order of up to six months (s. 49(7)).
Parents can apply to set aside both temporary and continuing (permanent) orders under s. 54. They are also entitled to full disclosure under s. 64. For more information, see British Columbia (Director of Family and Child Services) v. K.(T.L.), [1996] B.C.J. No. 2554 (Prov. Ct. FD) (Q.L.)..."
http://www.lslap.bc.ca/UserFiles/05_Children10.pdf
This morning I was cleaning up my papers, which is good since I found some writing I did from my own perspective while I was still so bewildered that they took my kids. I had no idea why they took them. Then with all the files and the way they treat me, I almost start to get brainwashed into their point of view. It is ridiculous, just keep repeating the same untruths until it breaks a person's mind, like in a brainwashing camp. I have had to be really strong mentally to go through this, and I have only been fighting for a year (eight court dates in one year!!). I am giving good thoughts and prayers to the Bayne's and I am really touched by their struggle and I am really pleased that you run this blog.
ReplyDeleteAs I was cleaning, I found a writing in a free paper that horrifed me and that was before I had even lost my kids!! I thought I would share.
The first letter was from a person who had seen some parents at the ferry terminal and they felt that they were dressed warmly but that their baby was cold as they were loading the van and left the baby until after they loaded their bags before putting her in the van.
Interestingly, rather than talk directly to the parents, they did not do that, and instead wrote a big complaint letter into the free paper of the community (it is a small community).
This is from one of the Gulf Islands where it is typically a place where people know their neighbour and help out (the opposite of what MCFD wants which is that everyone spy on each other). However, lately a lot of retired CPS workers have gone to the Gulf Islands and they have still a wish to be at their jobs. So, this letter was then written in as a response to the first one:
'While it might feel good to give this woman a rip by writing to a local magazine, chances are she will never see it and that child will not get the protection it deserves.
Any individual MUST report what you think could be a child at risk (a child being abused). Take note of any identifying a license plate number, date, time and location of incident. If any on else is present get their info so that they can be a witness. All of these components will help identify the person. Abuse can be reported to police, a nurse, any professional, they are required by law to follow through and you can remain anonymous. YOu can report abuse by calling:#-###-###-####.'
There are four major areas of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse/ emotional harm and sexual abuse.'
I know what it is like to be struggling in public and I am thankful that people were nice to me. It is a much better thing to do to offer help to a parent if they are struggling, rather than to coldly keep notes on them and then call on the cel phone from your warm car. I think that it is true that some children are neglected.
When we were children we lived in a big old house with no insulation. My parents were quite troubled and they did not pay much attention to us. But I am so glad that we had a nice community who reached out to our family and did not call CPS. And no matter what CPS would have helped with, it would have been awful to go through the whole MCFD thing with social workers traumatizing us. There are many cases that can be helped by having a closer community and a compassionate approach to the family, not a government organization who wants to justify so much expense. I know from how my family is being treated, it is not the right answer to call CPS. If you see a cold baby, offer a blanket!
I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that A LAST CHANCE ORDER is the same as a Temporary Custody Order for a six month period prior to a Continuing Custody Order being enforced. What the terms or conditions of that are I am unsure at the moment
ReplyDeleteThe notion that Dr. Alexander has credentials wasn't meant to be a joke, and yet... It's sickening that this shame of a trial is allowed to continue ad nauseum. It's disgusting to me that an innocent family has been forced apart on what appears to be a whim, which was proven INCORRECT in criminal courts and yet persists in this one.
ReplyDeleteTonya, even as an advocate I concede that the MCFD acted appropriately at the time of the call from Children's Hospital. There was a suspected abuse and a need to protect children because of a perceived risk. I am also convinced that there were many opportunities between that time and today, three years later, for MCFD to negotiate a resolution and a restoration of this family if there had been a will to do so. That is what should concern us all - the philosophy behind the decisions and the actions that maintain that government care is the safest and best place for children who have required temporary care.
ReplyDelete1/2
ReplyDeleteI would take greate issue with anyone agreeing that removal was the correct course of action.
If you concede this, there is absolutely no other choice but to declare a finding of need of protection, because what we are discussing is that particular moment in time, not the past three years that have elapsed.
The insinuation is the parents will immediately resume the pattern of abuse the moment the children are returned, MCFD will return and say "I told you so" and the judge would have egg on his face for not making the appropriate precautionary ruling. It is all about instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt. This is Finn's job.
I am also concerned to read the judge actually inquiring as to a last chance order. This would let him off the hook that Finn is making it seem he is on. Is this judge looking for such an angle in order to be let off the hook?
Can he restrict himself to just one child as opposed to including the two boys as well? I hear from Finn this is an all or nothing decision for all three children, not just one child.
The core issue at stake here is, do doctors have the power to decide guilt and innocence in advance. MCFD has deferred completely, without qualification to the doctor's opinion. The judge very clearly said, doctors cannot decide guilt or innocence, this is his job.
Doctors can certainly state an opinion, MCFD would follow up to see if a pattern existed, and RCMP would be contacted to further investigate. This chain should logically collapse when RCMP says charges will not succeed. This is like being tried again for the same crime by far less qualified public servants, who also happen to have an agenda and who's funding and employment is dependant on a finding of guilt.
Remember, MCFD did absolutely nothing in terms of investigation, they simply acccepted the doctor's say-so at face value, and removed Bethany based on that explanation only, saying they had no choice but to respond to the doctor assessment. They have a vested interest in doing so.
Some doctors, having no skills of investigation outside their field, discarded the Baynes explanation, period. Other doctors, having no vested interest disagreed. Remember, RCMP did not yet have this benefit of opposing opinions of other doctors. MCFD, who DO have the skills of investigation, chose not to use them, and deferred to the doctor's opinion, and overrode the RCMP's opinion. (What, exactly was the RCMP opinion, by the way?)
RCMP, who should outrank both doctors and MCFD did not defer to the doctor's opinion, and MCFD did not bring anything useful to the table, except perhaps advise the Hoffman's to utter "Munchausen's by Proxy" (another thing Finn seems to be staying away from, as they deliberately omitted all reference to this.)
2/2
ReplyDeleteWhat Finn DOES NOT SAY is the most important thing to watch for in his final argument. Scouring through the complete transcript will be of the utmost importance for Mr. Christie and the Baynes family.
In this case, the doctor's declaration non-accidental abuse occurred is essentially being used override RCMP determination there was no substance to MCFD's claim of abuse.
If we imagine the chain of events that SHOULD happen: the judge declares a finding that protection was needed at the time of removal, therefore abuse did occur, therefore charges should be laid in association with that finding. At this point, the Bayne's charter rights are restored.
How can there be this no-man's land middle ground exist and persist, where 3 years would be double the reasonable time for justice? The CFCSA is fundamentally unconstitutional because there is this assumption the state is the better place for children than their parents before proof has been obtained this is true.
Police were called far too late after the removal. They should have been the first course of action, especially given that it only takes a few hours for them to do their investigation.
Reading that Finn was willing to accept less than a CCO is interesting. He wants an "out" for MCFD to avoid a lawsuit, and this also gives them a second crack at the Baynes extend their involvment to find more examples of abuse. The family would be under a cloud of suspicion for many years more.
What Finn appears to be saying is "if you give us temporary custody, then we can FORCE the parents to take remedial parenting courses and this will address our concerns". This, then, lets the Director off the hook for a wrongful removal, without troublesome criminal charges and all those messy charter rights to worry about.
The question I would have is, why the Director simply did not apply to force the Baynes to undergo a parenting capacity assessment? These MCFD driven studies usually recommend parenting courses. Courts are usually very safe in abiding by such recommendations regardless of guilt of innocence.
Imagine too, losing one's child to a CCO, but the child still gets rights to the estate. If visitation was allowed, as I see in other CCO cases, the parents can then be forced to contribute financially to the child's care.
The more I think about it, the more it would seem that a finding that no protection in this case would have far reaching effects for the child protection industry as a whole. An Appeal on a finding of protection would be the only way to achieve this “far reaching effect.”
Bethany was in need of immediate care, period. Labeling the reason for this care "protection," as if to say the parents were preventing the hospital from providing this care, or as Munchausen’s by proxy suggests, they were using the hospital to inflict injury, is ludicrous.
Ron, you need to examine very carefully the statement that you agree the removal was warranted at the time based on the available evidence at hand. That moment, the point of removal three years ago, is ALL that this trial (or “inquiry”) is concerned about right now.
10:46 and 10:48 Anon Parts 1 and 2
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I have followed your argument in part 2 that led to your conclusion but I will read again.
As for Part one, Look, you can take issue if you like. What I ask is that when you take it with me that you read with understanding what I wrote. And I said in response to Tonya, “Tonya, even as an advocate I concede that the MCFD acted appropriately at the time of the call from Children's Hospital. There was a suspected abuse and a need to protect children because of a perceived risk.” The MCFD had a responsibility to respond. Do you grant that? During the time it would take to investigate this suspected abuse, they were required to protect the children. Would you agree with that? Until they know more about the couple and the kin relatives, foster care is the logical step. Do you agree?
Now I am not saying that the care initiative should have been continued. I am not saying that Provincial/foster care and custody should be sustained for long. You surely cannot think that if the Hospital protection unit reports a suspected abuse case, MCFD should say “let's leave the children with the parents until we sort this out.”
As for all of your other concerns and opinions, I agree wholeheartedly! Yes, the doctors are only expressing opinions, medical, experience-based, sometimes theory-biased opinions. And no that should never determine guilt or innocence, and it doesn't here. But, MCFD can conveniently argue for child's best interests, for which guilt is inconsequential. All that is needed is reasonable suspicion of risk. Great right! And that is the base camp from which MCFD has operated throughout this case. You are right.
Alright Parts 1&2, I read Part 2 and before I engage further, give me your responses to the questions I put to you in my reply to Part 1
ReplyDeleteMCFD picks and chooses when it wants to defer to doctor's opinion. For starters, which doctor's opinion? My son started off in a hospital that liked how I cared for my baby but did not like how I cared for my son. They were blaming me for an illness he has that was since clarified to have nothing to do with child protection ie, it was not caused by neglect. It does not help that it is an illness that will take 5 years or more to be medically understood. SO, there are rare illnesses and symptoms not caused by abuse or neglect that are written down as if they are. MCFD are not doctors. They claim to be just following doctor's orders. But after a very bad doctor, my son got transferred to another hospital with a better doctor. That doctor stated that we are a very good family and he wished that half the kids who come there had such a nice family as us and he stated again and again that my son's illness was not caused by all these factors that MCFD considers findings. I have 5 other healthy children and it is not how I am raising my kids. Illness comes to all families. Yet, MCFD was always trying to contradict the doctor, like a dripping tap. They do try to confuse medical information and do not necessarily defer to the doctor, only when it suits them. Been there!!!
ReplyDeleteRon; I think that using the term "last chance order" has really muddied the waters. I am surprised that Judge Crabtree would ask the question, because he has lots of options without it. Last chance orders are not included in the act and the term has been used in legal precedent, so I suppose it is in case law now.
ReplyDeleteWhat has made this case so ludicrous is that the trial/hearing has gone on far longer than could have been imagined by the people who wrote the act. The act requires hearings to commence within 45 days of a presentation hearing. I can almost hear the guffaws as you folk read this. Until that hearing is concluded the kids stay in care on an interim custody order. After the hearing is concluded, various orders may be made by the judge. There is no time limit on adjournments, quibbling and etc. In theory a hearing can take one year, three years as in this case, or even ten years is legally possible. This is possible because of the atrophied, mind lock of those that work in the legal system. Judge Crabtree, Jensen and the director all know that it is just plain wrong to keep children in care for 30 months without any evidence being tested. This is criminal court menatality and totally inappropriate for a family court.
The legal facts now are that the judge has all the options open to him as if the kids had only been in care for 45 days. He can make temporary orders, supervision orders, a continuing care order, or he can vary the interim custody order. Further variations in the interim custody order was not an option that was mentioned by Finn Jensen. Now the judge has to consider what would be just as well as legal. His only steady guideline is the best interests of the children and other guidelines in section 4 of the act. Should he make a temporary custody order? He can do this for up to three months at a time, because the youngest child is under 5 years. Extensions may go up to a limit of one year. The director has already had de facto interim custody for three years. This far exceeds the limit on temporary care. Such a choice would be bizarre.
One could call a last chance type of order, anything which is an unusual option for the judge. For instance extending a temporary order over one year due to unusual circumstances, or making a temporary order under section 49. Section 49 is not an option for the judge, so all his options are under section 41 or in varying the interim custody order. He has established a precedent here already and he still has about three months to choose this option. No need to choose a last chance order judge, all options are open to you. If there is no clear and compelling evidence to support a CCO, then do the obvious.
What MCFD wants is to believe the worst case scenario.
ReplyDeleteOne doctor thought there was no reason to take my daughter, but thought that MCFD could be useful in the case of my son. They were ordering some dangerous tests and I was questioning them and they got annoyed and were trying to prove I did something wrong or was denying medical care. The director had a grudge against me because I had complained about my social worker and tried to get another one and tried to tape the meeting. He used the call from the hospital to order my daughter removed and my son. The doctor then apologised to me and told me they never intended for that to happen (I lost my little girl).
MCFD cobbled together the worst report, ignoring the doctor who feels we are a good family and ignoring the doctor who felt I should not have lost my daughter. So, they want to arrive at the most damaging conclusion to the parents and use medical people to further that cause.
What, specifically, could be the motivation behind MCFD in the handling of so many families in BC?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, people's protected charter rights are overruled. Then, they are required to go to court and fight for their children without having any charges laid against them.
Bursting into someone's home, as though they were practising criminal behaviours, snatching their children from an agreed upon care situation, should warrant proofs of wrongdoing and then, be followed by serious criminal charges, at the very least. Such things as experienced by the Baynes smell remarkably like war tactics or oppressive political dictatorships in some foreign country. Canadian idea of due process... really? I don't think so!!! We do have laws and a Charter of Rights. It is most shocking that directors of MCFD regional offices have powers exceeding the powers of police.
School boards, senior care facilities,group homes, hospitals, universities and all manner of gov't funded institutions and ministries have funding formulas. We know that gov't approved home caregivers can afford to hire nannys and other help with MCFD apprehended children. There are formulas from which payment is given. What, then, is the funding formula and transfer payment to a director's regional MCFD office when a child is apprehended?
There must be an amount for the administration of apprehended children that is in addition to the amount that a MCFD caregiver receives. Money funds the office, the workers, meetings, meals out, car expenses, transportation for children to their visitations, and court costs (including SWs wages while they sit for days watching court proceedings) and lawyer retainer fees. The answer to this question, undoubtedly, reveals the answer to many other puzzling questions.
The context of the "last chance" order reads:
ReplyDelete[6] Pursuant to section 49(7) of the CFCSA, if the court does not make a continuing custody order, it must make a "last chance order" OR return the child to the custody of the parent apparently entitled to custody.
Finn has been utterly clear the Baynes are beyond redemption and non-cooperative, and that would preclude any "last chance" ruling.
There needs to be clear basis of fact in which the Baynes have shown prior cooperation with MCFD and would therefore be viewed as redeemable within the maximum 6 short months of custody extention.
Such a ruling would be a finding of need of protection, but without an IMMEDIATE CCO as a consequence. During this 6-month period, MCFD would be given free reign to keep the children in foster care.
MCFD could force the parents to take a parenting course, and even force them to undergo a psychological testing as well, saving MCFD the bother of applying to force such an assessment.
If the Baynes refuse at this point, MCFD gets to go back to Judge Crabtree, who has to be seized with the case, and has to award a CCO based on non-cooperation. It essentially a beat-down process of the parent to get them to submit.
Some of the things Judge Crabtree would have to first find in order to grant a 6-month last chance ruling:
1. That the doctor declaration of a non-accidental versus an accident injury is correct,
2. That one or both of the Baynes is to blame for the injuries as both MCFD and doctors say,
3. The RCMP was wrong in not filing charges, there WAS sufficient information in point 1 and 2 to be successful at winning a criminal abuse case,
4. MCFD was wrong in agreeing to, and allowing the parents full access to the boys by allowing them to move into the boys grandparents home, putting the children at risk,
5. MCFD was wrong in not continuing to investigate, by forcing the Baynes to undergo psychological testing to see if “Munchausen by proxy” is a valid psychological concern. Waiting 3 years for resolution is a source of fiscal irresponsibility. A quick CCO and ongoing visitations would allow MCFD to force the family to pay maintenance to offset the state's care of thier children.
6. The Baynes are being tried twice because the matter is civil, not criminal in nature. Once by the RCMP who rejected the matter based insufficient evidence. A trial a second time by a judge who must find the RCMP in error, who did not even have the opposing medical reports, and must agree with less qualified MCFD investigators the exact same medical evidence the RCMP reviewed is sufficient to permanently remove three children from the care of the parents,
7. That circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient cause to remove children to be permanently removed from their parents, "just in case".
Several Canlii.org judgments searching with "last chance" and "cfcsa" reveal a significant basis must be present for such a ruling that does not apply in the Baynes case.
Neither Finn or the judge should be using this "last chance" as a mechanism to soften the effects of a finding of protection, because what they are doing really, is inappropriately showing compassion because the Baynes have put up such a good fight, and they should take pity on them. CFCSA and MCFD is not about compassion or child protection, it is about getting away with you can for as long as you can without getting caught.
This is a civil matter, not criminal, in which the latter charter rights protect citizens form just such atrocities of the state relieving parents of their children for so long.
My submission is the judge has two simple options, to award MCFD with a CCO, or return the children.
The evidence supports a find that not now, or ever, were any of the three Baynes children in need of protection. One child was in need of immediate CARE at the time of removal, not in need of PROTECTION from the parents.
I searched munchausen by proxy and cfcsa phrase in Canlii.org and in the second of four resulting links, the judge granted a “last chance” order.
ReplyDeleteYou will see the reasons for granting this do not apply to the Baynes. Mr. Finn has been exceptionally clear the Baynes have been uncooperative, and without redemption, so another 6 months to "fix" or "force" them to improve their parenting them won't work. The quality of their parenting abilities has never been questioned. It is the "possibility" they might cause injury to their children is Mr. Finn Jensen's solitary focus. I suppose 3 years of hell without one's children is not sufficient deterrent. (If that is not a change in circumstance that qualifies MCFD to withdraw, I don't know what would.)
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=munchausen+by+proxy+CFCSA&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2000/2000bcpc174/2000bcpc174.html
The other point is munchausen by proxy is a psychological diagnosis that only doctors and registered psychologists may be able to determine, not some MCFD witness who was coached by child protection hacks to repeat such a phrase to police.
Well written Anon 1:28 PM so thanks to you and to Ray for the Last Chance info.
ReplyDeleteI promised to elucidate further about strategies which were requested by a poster some days ago. Unfortunately I am travelling and do not have enough time between flights to adequately convey the ideas. I will try to put them in my next post. To the anonymous poster who challenged me on Sun Tze. I am chagrined to admit that I was led astray by a usually reliable source. I do like your quote though. Ray, I do not currently have access to the statistics as I have them offline. I had let your assertion that children are brought into care in some cases due to the lower intellect of their parents. Correct me if I have somehow paraphrased incorrectly. My question for you Ray is, where did you get these statistics? I have decided to dispense with any further quotations as these too are like statistics.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to a comment made by another poster recently. MCFD is in the habit responding that it is the failings of the parents that have caused their problems and not the Ministry. It is interesting that I struggle to find any articles anywhere that contain even a vague reference to Child Protection admitting an error.
Sorry anon 1.07 pm but I think you are in error on the application. It is true that you quote 49 (7) correctly,although it is not called a last chance order. This order is not available to the judge because section 49 is not available to him. Section 49 only applies at the expiry of a temporary order and there has been no temporary order in this case. In theory the judge can only make a three month temp order and he can extend it three months at a time. He can also make a CCO or return under supervision. Until he makes his final ruling about January 8th 2011, he can do what he likes with interim custody. He has so many options that the last chance is just a red herring.
ReplyDeleteForget last chance and forget Muenschausens by proxy. The only real issue in this case is whether he grants or denies the director's quest for a CCO. This means does he have clear and compelling evidence that the BAynes are beyond redemption and their children will always be at risk. There is absolutely no way that the judge has heard clear and compelling evidence. The judge is a trier of fact and not a trier of opinion, rumour and hearsay. The judge has not heard one significant fact that I have been able to detect. Unless you count facts like, it is a fact that the doctor had an opinion, or it is a fact that the children were taken into care. It is a fact that they only offered opinion evidence and a fact that the Baynes have never wavered in visitation or the quest to get back the kids at all costs.
Bernice, the motivation of the MCFD, it's simply about POWER AND MONEY!
ReplyDeleteMCFD is a BUSINESS, their "clients" for the most part are at risk parents who do need help parenting or even give their children up to MCFD because they feel the MCFD's care would be better than theirs.
As long as these "clients" seek out the help prescribed by MCFD their kids are returned with in days or weeks (seen it happen).
Yes, I know that there are some of these "clients" who have their kids removed or voluntarily give them up are not fit parents. Rightfully so the kids are safer.
The "client" may be a much poorer parent than the above "Baynes" but amazingly; they follow the MCFD rules and are a "Well Behaved" "client" not causing any unneccessary work or grief for those poor over-worked SWs! Good heavens they may even take a parenting course which certainly must cure years of disfunction in their life.
They are then rewarded with the return of their children after a short stint away. ah.. but they are still a "client" providing someone a income.
The "client" provides a good living for the SWs, directors, special important doctors and even lawyers like Finn.
I find it amazing how Finn could take 10 minutes of information and turn it into a weeks pay, hmm... is he paid by the hour?
So, once in a while a case comes along that the the MCFD doesn't quite get right. Things don't go the way they want. The "Client" is not a cooperative client.(in their words)
"If I am accused of shaking a baby and I didn't do it, why would I admit blame?"
I mean, seriously, are the MCFD human? Do they ever make a mistake? Have they ever admitted to making a mistake?
The RCMP, who are a fairly respected gov. agency, quite often are raked over the coals for errors they make. They apologize mend their policies and over some time become a better agency.
Why not MCFD? Surely they make mistakes. We know it, they know it and hide behind "err on the side of caution" policy.
They have the POWER and MONEY to protect themselves.
In the "Baynes" case, the MCFD shows it protects itself and its incompetant behaviour better than the children they are here to serve.
Should this power continue?
No one should have that much Power available to them to abuse! There must be balance.
How can a family endure 3 years of accusation without justice? Without a defence?
This is the question Judge Crabtree will have to decide.
My prayer is that he will see through the smoke screen the MCFD has painted this family out to be and see them for who they are.
MCFD do the right thing, reunite this family back together.
As Ron pointed out above, the judge very clearly said, doctors cannot decide guilt or innocence, this is his job.
ReplyDeleteRAY FERRIS at October 8, 2010 5:33 PM;
ReplyDeletePerfectly put!!!! This judge has NO CHOICE but to give the children back.
Ray, what makes you think the judgement will be rendered around Jan. 8?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question there is some offset of costs. Child tax credits, daycare subsidies and other benefits are instantly terminated by the removing MCFD office. MCFD is very very slow in restoring these benefits as meager as they might be (8 months and I'm still waiting).
ReplyDeleteOne view MCFD might take is that parents are being relieved entirely of child care costs during litigation, which can be higher that foster care payments for some of the more well off parents. However, legal costs parents pay far outweigh any savings. Some realy poor stressed out parents might think the lightened financial burden, courtesy MCFD might be the silver lining in losing their children.
Adding up costs, combine child tax credits, with welfare for some parents, daycare and housing subsidies, this would indeed combine to make a significant offset of keeping children in foster care. The net cost would certainly shrink the poorer the parents are.
It is indeed a form of wealth redistribution, from poor to middle class foster families.
A more evolved system is referred to by former Georgian Senator Nancy Schaefer at http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/nancy-schaefer-the-unlimited-power-of-child-protective-services-update-nancy-schaefer-found-murdered/
Another financial question could be raised on what doesn't happen when children are returned to their parents. According to the Family Relations Act (FRA), children that live with well off caregivers are entitled to the continuance of this higher standard of living when they return to lower paid parents. I don't believe the Baynes would receive any such benefits when their children are returned.
An additional point to the 10:03 AM argument of MCFD cost recover, is that one would think MCFD would enforce parents paying child maintenance once the courts give the government custody due to CCO or interim care extension orders, but this does not seem to happen much in Canada -- yet. There was a recent story of a Canadian whose child was held by the U.S. foster system and they were trying to bill her for care. Senator Scheafer declared in 2002, 40-billion in such transfer payments to custodial parents from other parents were controlled by judges.
If the children are given to one parent over another, I have seen MCFD appear in court to enforce payment from that parent to the other.
Finances are rarely discussed in MCFD cases. I've brought this up several times in my discussions with social workers, their overexuberant denials that such motives exist tells me I am hitting some nerves.
Social workers should not have unilateral removal power generally speaking, because of how useless the current report to court process is (within 7 days) and presentation hearing process (within 45 days).
ReplyDeleteIf we use the Baynes case as an example, the RCMP report would have been used at the first hearing to have the three children returned. End of story.
If this process could be demonstrated as working, I would be less vocal an opponent.
The Winnipeg case of the little boy with multiple bone breaks had the police, MCFD, Hospital and newspaper in support of the removal.
The Baynes case, the police and public and newspaper were not in agreement. The court process has been irrelevant before the protection hearing started
At this report to court stage, a supervision order (leaving the children at home) would fulfill the protection aspect, as random and frequent inspections would occur and serve as a significant deterrent.
At the same time, an MCFD investigation, more thorough than the RCMP conducted on the Baynes should be occurring.
This time also affords plenty of time for the parents to respond to MCFD's allegations.
These two important preliminary hearings are modeled after the criminal court process to give the appearance that a check and balance is in place. Former MCFD Minister Tom Christensen alluded to this in the news story posted by a commenter above. He just doesn't know the reality of how disfunctional this process really is. This is hidden from Ministers.
Disputing an MCFD application at a Report to Court hearing is supposed to allow the parent to point out the errors in the Director's application, or to point out the failing they didn't follow the CFCSA's "all avenue's explored prior to removal."
Neither hearing can legally succeed because errors or (dispute of facts) simply fall in favour of the Director, the reverse of criminal law. By law, every contested application then has to wait for a distant protection hearing.
In the meantime, MCFD has the luxury of treating parents like dirt, using parenting programs as an avenue of interrogation to obtain written confessions for later use in court.
=====
First off, the biggest hole in this so-called child protection system is the first hearing, called the report to court, held within 7 days of removal.
Just a few minutes before hearing, parents receive this "Form A", which contain only hearsay allegations. This last minute production of this information is deliberately designed to disadvantage the parent.
The presumption is MCFD has non-hearsay facts available to back up each allegation listed in the report to court.
The only point of this hearing is to find out if the parent is contesting the removal.
Which follows in the next 3 messages is a hearing transcript for a typical report to court.
Readers can see for themselves how pointless this step is, and will likely recognize their own experience as being very similar.
1/3 Report to Court example
ReplyDeleteWhere:
RTC SW = Report to Court Social Worker
THE COURT = the judge
THE CLERK = secretary that sits near the judge
MCFD = Lawyer representing the Director
PARENT LAWYER = self explanatory
THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour, calling the matter of The Parent and RTC SW.
THE COURT: And could you page parties on the matter of The Parent and RTC SW. You're appearing on the The Parent and RTC SW matter, are you?
MCFD: Yes, Your Honour, for the record, MCFD Lawyer. I'm appearing for the Director and the social worker, RTC SW is present on behalf of the Director.
THE COURT: So the social worker's name is --
MCFD: RTC SW.
THE COURT: RTC SW?
MCFD: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Okay.
MCFD: I did speak with the Parent's counsel. He was just reviewing the Report to Court with the Parent. I know he told me that it was --
THE COURT: Well, I've got a -- let me tell you what my day is. I have a review on a youth matter. The reports aren't -- haven't been distributed. That's being done. That will be reasonably brief. I have what's set to be an all-day matter on another case. Once that gets going, I will not want to interrupt it. This afternoon, I have an all-afternoon sentencing. I also have bail hearings and a sentencing on another matter and another trial in criminal court.
MCFD: I understand from counsel that
THE COURT: So I have about three days work to do in one.
MCFD: I understand that he is contesting the Director's application for an interim custody order so perhaps if we can just file the application and adjourn it to the --
THE COURT: Yeah, we'll just call it. Well let's get them in here. Well, no, we've got to get them in here. So who's counsel?
MCFD: He gave me his card, but it doesn't have his name on it.
THE CLERK: PARENT LAWYER.
MCFD: It's (Parent Lawyer First Name) is it --
THE COURT: Parent Lawyer ?
THE CLERK: Parent Lawyer .
THE COURT: Okay. Let's page him and I want him in now. These are copies of the reports for thanks. Is that two, or one? All right. Do you know where he is?
MCFD: No.
THE COURT: I'll stand this down, but I can't tell you when I'm getting back to it. I mean, sitting here doing nothing is not making me happy. You have a Report to Court to file?
MCFD: Yes.
THE COURT: Can I get it, please, and then I'll look at it while we're waiting.
MCFD: Sure.
THE COURT: Thank you. This is the matter of the The Parent children?
PARENT LAWYER: Yes, Your Honour, for the record, Parent Lawyer , (spelling the name), initial x.
THE COURT: Sorry, x-b or x-c?
PARENT LAWYER: (spells parent lawyer name again)., counsel for the Parent, who's here with me.
THE COURT: Okay. Come forward, sir. All right. MCFD Lawyer, you've just filed the Report to Court, Form A, and the presentation form, Form 1?
MCFD: Yes. And the Director's seeking an interim custody order which I understand is opposed by the Parent.
THE COURT: All right. The children were removed the xth of the Month, so five days ago?
MCFD: Yes.
THE COURT: And counsel?
PARENT LAWYER: We strenuously object to the removal. We submit that the grounds are not justified.
THE COURT: All right. So we need to set this down for a contested presentation hearing?
PARENT LAWYER: But the circumstances of this case is that you have three children who have lost both mothers. The only parent they now have is their Parent and there's a serious concern about the psychological impact on these kids from losing the only home, the only parent they know now.
THE COURT: Yeah, I'm not doing a hearing this morning on this, PARENT LAWYER.
2/3 Report to Court example
ReplyDeletePARENT LAWYER: But what we're asking for is that the hearing not be in the usual course of the commencement two or three weeks from now, and –then another half day set months later. In all the years I've practiced, this --
THE COURT: How much time is needed for the contested presentation hearing?
PARENT LAWYER: We've got an affidavit that we can file that will shorten, and I would ask at least an hour.
THE COURT: Not today.
PARENT LAWYER: Any court.
THE COURT: You can speak to the JCM, but there is not a possibility. This court is about -- has about three days work booked into it today.
PARENT LAWYER: I understand.
THE COURT: There is not half an hour or an hour here today.
PARENT LAWYER: But we're talking about three children, which I submit is --
THE COURT: I'm also reading the Report to Court that suggests that not having them in that home is absolutely the right thing to do, but that's on the face of it and I appreciate you will have a different perspective from it, but at least it does provide grounds for why the children were removed and that seemed to be appropriate.
PARENT LAWYER: Maybe--
THE COURT: But that will be determined at a hearing, of course.
PARENT LAWYER: Yes. But we have in the materials the benefit of a Section 15 Report made to the Supreme Court and we have two decisions of the Supreme Court dismissing allegations like these and returning the children to the Parent in FRA proceedings.
THE COURT: How much -- I'm not giving you an hour today. There isn't a possibility of finding time for that in this courtroom. I'm not so sure there's room we've got in any other court either. I think it's unlikely. These don't come on for hearing on the first appearance.
PARENT LAWYER: Normally, you're quite right.
THE COURT: And this will not come on for hearing at this moment. However, I -- if you can give me a reasonable time estimate, I will direct you to the JCM to arrange a date for a contested presentation hearing.
PARENT LAWYER: Since we will have a detailed affidavit, I would ask for an hour for
THE COURT: MCFD, from your perspective, how long will a contested presentation hearing take?
MCFD: I haven't seen the affidavit material so I would -- generally, a half day is what we set for presentation hearings.
THE COURT: All right. I'll adjourn you to the judicial case manager. You can see if they think they've got -- I mean, MCFD hasn't seen the affidavit or read it, she can't respond and deal with that today. That's not reasonable.
PARENT LAWYER: But this week.
THE COURT: I don't know when there will be time, but a half day would be the usual time and if you haven't even given her a copy of the affidavit, how can she possibly estimate the time?
PARENT LAWYER: I understand, but like parents have to endure, often these things proceed on the Report to Court, which the Parent doesn't even get till this morning so --
THE COURT: Ordinarily, the Report to Court, at a hearing, we'll then have the social worker go through and describe the details. That's my experience in these hearings. And you know, setting out the information and the sources of the information. It may be almost a recital of what's there. It's usually expanded on somewhat.
PARENT LAWYER: I'm very concerned from what I have read from third parties that the Ministry has acted without considering alternative solutions. As I say, there have been Supreme Court decisions there's been a Section 15 Report.
THE COURT: All right. Just hang on. MCFD, do you have the Supreme Court --
PARENT LAWYER: No, she --
THE COURT: -- files with respect to the Supreme Court matter?
PARENT LAWYER (sic), are you aware of that?
MCFD: No, RTC SW?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, RTC SW.
RTC SW: I'm aware that there are matters before the Supreme Court.
3/3 Report to Court example
ReplyDeleteTHE COURT: Have you seen affidavits or court orders from the Supreme Court?
RTC SW: I've seen some court orders.
THE COURT: Okay. But MCFD hasn't seen those yet?
MCFD: No.
THE COURT: All right. There -- I mean, what you're convincing me is that more than ever, this is a matter that takes -- that's going to take some significant preparation to determine what's going to happen. It cannot be done overnight. On the basis of the information contained in the Report to Court, it -- if there is any basis on which a court can find that they -- this may be true, then, frankly, the Ministry would be remiss in not apprehending these children. Now, it may be that these are children with a history of lying and telling tall stories, tall tales, who knows, but on the basis of what's being said here, these are children that, on the face of it, appear to be in need of protection. And I'm emphasizing "on the face of it," because I appreciate I've only seen one side.
PARENT LAWYER: And--
THE COURT: And I'm not -- this isn't in any sense prejudging it. On the basis of what's written out here, they've acted as they're supposed to do. The process, then, that applies at that point is the presentation hearing. If it's being contested and if it can be -- it sounds as though the materials alone, for the judge to read, are going to take a significant period of time from your perspective, and a half a day does sound like a reasonable estimate. I can't imagine that a judge could get through all that in one hour, not in terms of just reading, but in terms of listening to submissions on it in court, if it is dealt with as a paper case.
PARENT LAWYER: I hear Your Honour and the years I've practised this, I understand what you're saying and as Your Honour probably knows better than I, 99 times out of 100, there is nothing that would change the Ministry's application.
THE COURT: Mm-hmm.
PARENT LAWYER: On the materials, the third party materials I've read, this is one of those cases out of 100. And the default, unfortunately, because there's a lack of court time, the default is these children are in care for weeks, if not months, until the presentation hearing.
THE COURT: Well, the presentation hearing has to be within 45 days, I think it is, but I --
MCFD: No, it -- it's as soon as the --
THE COURT: Okay. But no, that -- I'm quite prepared to direct that it be set at the earliest opportunity, but I can't tell you what that is. As you well know, the courts, in fact, are booked for months --
PARENT LAWYER: And that's --
THE COURT: -- so it's a matter of finding time, but they will find it quickly because we have remarkable JCMs who do wonderful work that way, but there's no point in I discussing it here because I'm not hearing it today, I am adjourning it to the JCM for the purpose -- and given the amount of material and the fact that MCFD hasn't seen it or been shown any of it, she couldn't proceed for a one-hour hearing today even if all of my list had collapsed and I had time because there's simply too much material to go through, from your own comments. So--
PARENT LAWYER: No, I understand Your Honour. It's my worry about it being weeks and weeks.
THE COURT: It will be as soon as it can reasonably be put on, but I am going to also set it for a half day. So I'm going to adjourn you to the JCM for the purpose of arranging a half-day contested presentation hearing of this matter.
PARENT LAWYER: Thank you.
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JUDICIAL CASE MANAGER)
Well Anon parts 1, 2 and 3 this is intriguing and not at all unfamiliar to many who are reading these blog comments. Is this one ancient history or current? You have described the frustrations and the delays aptly, thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant above was that this kind of dialogue is familiar not the specific case you were narrating.
ReplyDeleteThis is now ancient history.
ReplyDeleteSomeone bothering to get transcripts of these virtually meaningless court appearances is apparently very rare, and I would imagine likely pointless on a per-case basis. However, it is interesting reading for people unfamiliar with what really goes on.
Someone out there who has just had their child removed might find a use for this transcript.
The apathy and poor attitude of the judge should be noted. The lawyer tried to do something to help, but was clearly ignored by the judge. In hindsight, I might recommend the presentation hearing be adjourned so parents can respond properly to the report to court, and also permit the MCFD lawyer to have time to read an affidavit response.
As the removal is contested, it should be noted that the lawyer obtained on that very day, which is very quick, a date for an initial Presentation Hearing, about two weeks after the report to court.
The problem was, that afternoon presentation hearing went overtime, so it had to be resceduled for another 2 hours. This seizes the judge, so the next available date was 6 weeks later. Parents should note to make sure a MORNING date is obtained to allow the afternoon to be used. Judges would rather get it over with rather than be seized.
Hello parts 1,2,3 kind of you to respond in answer to my question. I believe that you are correct. Your 2 entries instruct the uninitiated to the recorded interaction within a court setting about matters that affect lives forever and how easily decisions are made that translate into months of separation for families.
ReplyDeleteANONA at October 11, 2010 12:44 AM noted:
ReplyDelete"The apathy and poor attitude of the judge should be noted. The lawyer tried to do something to help, but was clearly ignored by the judge."
So, so true. The judges need to be held accountable in all of these child protection horror stories, as they are the ones who have the ability to at least ensure that justice is done, and that a child's life takes precedence over the lazy excuse of doing what is "in the child's best interest" by making everything go in MCFD's favour by default.
Too many judges seem to just not care at all. They could make a difference, but they do not. That is not to say they are all bad, but there are too many that are affecting children's lives in a very negative manner.
Interested parents and others can ascertain which judges render what kind of judgments by searching Reasons for Judgment on the BC courts website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx
Case law can be found on CanLII.org as well. But please note that CanLII.org can be very sensitive with respect to search terms, so if you put something in upper case letters, and it is not meant to be in upper case, then it may not bring up the case.
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php
Here are the judgments which come up when you put the search terms "child," "social worker" and "Director" into the entire judgment database (for Provincial Court):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgmentdatabase/jdbresults.asp?target=child+social+worker+Director&CiScope=%2FJudgments%2F&RecordsPerPage=10&Order=Rank
2719 Judgments come up. Parents can learn a lot about the court system, and judges (and individual judges) by reading these judgments.
There is good reason to believe that MCFD will do whatever they can to get in front of a judge who will be especially sympathetic to them, and to avoid the ones whose judges they don't like. If they appear to be trying to change court dates for no real reason, this could be one reason why.
If you know you are going to be in front of a particular judge, do your best to research all the judgments they have made - you can tell by reading enough judgments which judges are especially pro-MCFD. If it's a bad judge, do whatever you can to get another judge.
You have to realize that you are not dealing with normal people here - they will pull every sneaky trick in the book. Be prepared. Go into court and watch what happens (before you yourself have to go to court). Don't let your lawyer be a pushover - get someone who isn't afraid to stand up to the judge.
Judges are sometimes surprisingly easy to manipulate, if a lawyer knows what they are doing. Never assume that they are god-like individuals who only are concerned with carrying out justice blindly. Some of them are great people, deserving of the highest praise; some of them are not.