On Thursday evening a Commenter from the USA left a request for me to publicize a worthwhile cinematic production called “THE CHILD.” It is being completed as we speak with scrupulous editing and with integration of music and narration. The sponsor of this project is an American based organization called ParentalRights.org about which I have written favorably in the past. The comment contact wrote, “Ron, could you please let your readers know more info regarding the ParentalRights.org upcoming film on parental rights.” So here for the American blog readers is this message: “You can help us premiere “The Child” all across the U.S. on November 20, 2010 by hosting a public screening in your area! If you can arrange a public venue for the screening and commit to attending it yourself, we will supply the advertising and educational materials, as well as an advance DVD copy of “The Child,” free of charge. To request all the details, email WatchmanCinema@gmail.com". My PS to Canadian readers today, it may be worth your while to write this address and ask whether you can have a copy. See the promo http://thechilddocumentary.wordpress.com/
A well designed and easily accessible, highly informative website greets you when you double click http://www.parentalrights.org/ . I truly wish that there was something comparable in Canada. I wish there was an identifiable national organization comprised of Canadians such as the thousands who now read this GPS blog who would care enough to administer, sponsor, promote and champion the cause of asserting the rights of parents in Canada, the true best interests of children, and a citizen friendly Ministry of Children.
Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.
The petition on preventing the U.N. Treaty is significant. I signed the petition Within moments of reading the justification against it. As an international agreement, it supercede state laws and has a huge potential of making child protection issues even worse for parents.
ReplyDeleteRon; I was very pleased to read the contribution by anon at 1.37 PM yesterday. Her story illustrated so eloquently many of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last few weeks. First, child welfare problems can be complex and there are no simplistic solutions. Good judgement is required. A child born addicted from an addicted mother, who is in and out of rehab. She does well for a while and then relapses. At what point does the social worker say "enough is enough, we must give priority to making sure the child has a future"? If they move too quickly half the armchair critics will be screaming abuse. If they leave it too long the other half will be giving voice. It seems that the social workers were helpful and tried their best. They changed their plan as more evidence emerged. There is no "one size fits all" in social work. There is one thing that is reliable though. If staff have intelligence, integrity, compassion and courage, they will find the best course available. No it may not be an ideal course, but just the best.
ReplyDeleteMost human organisations have some flaws and adoption services are no exception. Of course not all adoptions work out happily, any more than all natural families work out happily. Do we abolish marriage because of the high failure rate? Do we disband police forces, because they sometimes use excessive force? Do we abandon adoption services because some adoptions fail and somebody in the USA found a way to make money out of it? If a service works much more often than it fails, we try to correct its flaws. I would say that adoption services do a great deal of good for children.
I can well understand that with so many terrible experiences like the Baynes experience, many people might think that the MCFD should be scrapped altogether. Then we look at cases like anon 1.37 where the system seemed to work. What would have happened to that baby without the good social work help? There are no simplistic solutions. As I see it the big problem is in getting the people with power to care enough to do something to make real changes. Not just the cosmetic changes of the Gove and Hughes inquiries, but the real and substantial changes that can only come from finding people of high calibre. Start by tossing out the pathetic bunch of bureaucrats that presently run the ministry.
The ministry and its services are in the same dreadful state as child protection services in every province. Obviously something drastic needs to be done, but I do not believe in scrapping child protection altogether.
One footnote about the story of anon 1.37. One social worker made a common error when he/she withdrew from the case when the writer took action for custody under the FRA. This was done because it might cause a conflict of interest. What conflict of interest? The workers clear duty is to support the best interests of the child at all times. If the writer's action is in the best interests of the child, then the social worker should join the case and support the relative. In the same way when there is a custody dispute between an unfit parent and a fit parent, the social worker should actively assist the fit parent. This is not taking sides between parents, but staying on the side of the child. This is actually sanctioned in the CF&CSA. See if any of you can tell me which section.
PS ANON 8:23 AM
ReplyDeleteI want to clear up what might be interpreted as a contradiction. You signed the amendment proposing that the USA shall not agree to the UN Treaty. Then in the closing sentence what you mean is that the UN Treaty not the Amendment would supercede state law and create great protection issues. I think I read you correctly.
Another note for Canadians: Canada has signed this treaty years ago and USA and Somalia I think are the only two have not signed.