Occasionally a parent is unable to cope with parental responsibility and voluntarily turns a child over to the government. By law, in all jurisdictions of Canada there are child protection, sometimes called child welfare services. On this blog we tend to highlight the cases in which the government has take initiative for a child protection order. The term 'apprehension' is applied to the government intervention by which a child is removed from the natural parent(s) care, and this is affected by the extraction of all or most of the parental rights from the natural parents, through a quick confirmation by the Court.
In BC a child apprehension is followed promptly by a presentation hearing where in court the social worker discloses the facts for the apprehension and also provides a plan and the court makes an interim ruling. Much angst and criticism from parents and lawyers results from the brusque and summary process of this presentation hearing. The threshold for custody by the the Director is startlingly but predictably very low because the system is designed for the parent's challenge to be deferred until a later date, the later protection hearing. It is profoundly crushing for parents to know that their child will remain with a stranger while false suspicion or anonymous allegations of abuse are investigated.
In some cases the Director and the court may consider a supervision order which returns the child to the parents subject to the Director’s terms and conditions. Sometimes, the Director will come to agreement with the parents as to what should happen next. Other times mediation or judge-presided conferencing is scheduled. Nevertheless, for parents who have unjustifiably lost the care of their child, compromise or negotiating becomes an extremely difficult proposition, specially if admission to abuse is pressured or required from a parent who is innocent.
The protection hearing is a more substantial hearing that results when the Court has endorsed the Director's opinion that the child needs protection. This can then proceed to the Continuing Care Order and once a child is engaged in the cycle of protection hearings, the child may remain in the custody of the Director until the age of majority. Well intentioned parents may not survive and some will acquiesce to litigation fatigue or impoverishment due to legal costs. That attrition is predictable for all but the extremely hardy or well supported because the government has limitless resources and a bottomless bank account.
It is apparent by now in the posts I have written and in the unsolicited comments subsumed under them, that the office of social worker in child protection proceedings is a very challenging and thankless job. Given the demand to respond to every report concerning a child, opportunities abound for error and misjudgment. We are told by the government that in the vast majority of cases, apprehension decisions are not made lightly and are submitted to thorough and careful analysis and ruling of an interested and unbiased judge. There are many who read this blog who do not agree and refuse to see anything inherently good within the present Ministry of Children and CFCSA. Personal pain and loss when wed to helplessness against what appears to be authorized brutality does not readily result in forgiveness.
Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.
Rights are no rights if they can be removed at the discretion of another party. Since the beginning of time, children have been used as pawn to plunder their parents and/or to aggrandize money, power and fame. Even God Himself used firstborn Egyptians to beat Pharaoh into submission (Exodus 12:29-30).
ReplyDeleteThis is a very powerful weapon for authorities to oppress and destroy a people. The Native Indians in North America and the Aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand are prime victims of this oppressive regime. Modern "child protection" is nothing more than a disguised continuation of such oppressive policy extended to all ethnic groups and a scam to transfer wealth from taxpayers to special interests of the industry.
Anything inherently good within the present Ministry of Children and CFCSA should be determined by "service" recipients (who MCFD calls "clients"), not by service providers or bystanders who have never experienced ministry-created atrocity.
Given the extent of atrocity created by state-sponsored child removal, has the government or any SW expressed any remorse? Forgiveness requires repentance. Personal pain and loss have nothing to do with forgiveness.
You said, “Even God Himself used firstborn Egyptians to beat Pharaoh into submission (Exodus 12:29-30).” Although I have never heard it put quite like that before, in some peoples' minds you will have made your point that 'rights' do not really exist if they can be removed at the discretion of another party. The premise of God and the Egyptians aside, I see a fundamental weakness in the application in this sense. I wonder if you would concede that rights may still be considered rights, even when they are removed by that other party, because the rights in question were technically forfeited or put at risk by some indiscretion, misdemeanor or breakage of law. The person doesn't have the right any longer but theoretically the right is still a right for all others whose conduct is unquestioned.
ReplyDeleteWell anyway, you are absolutely correct that the threat of child removal is a very powerful weapon that has been and is used by governments and regimes. I believe you are also correct that a most informative study would be to have all 'clients' do a performance review of MCFD so we could read the comparative satisfaction and dissatisfaction ratings. Beyond that, 'clients' should be included in any serious considerations for change to policy and practice.
I believe you were saying that forgiveness is not even an option to consider when the offender does not ask for it via repentance. I believe that it is possible for forgiveness to be granted without repentance from the offending party. My point was that working through personal pain and loss to grant forgiveness is very difficult. In the context of my last paragraph, I was probably wrong to go down the forgiveness road and should have looked for something else such as “good impression.” So, the last sentence would be “Personal pain and loss when wed to helplessness against what appears to be authorized brutality does not readily result in a good impression.” Or something stronger...
Ron; I think that your correspondents are absolutely right when they describe what goes on nowadays as an atrocity. Rights are often suspended in society in various circumstances. We tolerate it because we accept that we expect them to be quickly restored once the truth is known. Suspected criminals under investigation may be held in custody. A parent may lose access in a divorce custody dispute etc. The reason why these gross injustices occur is as much due to the snail's pace of the justice system as anything else. Had the Baynes had their day in court within the 45 days stated in the act, you would not have needed to open this web page. This is the story over and over again. What causes much of the damage is the long suspension of rights before they are eventually restored.
ReplyDeleteThis dragging out of process is a fact. It is not arguable. The evidence is there in case after case and protests have been shouted to the roof tops. Everyone in power just shrugs it off. "Oh well,it is the system you know. We are all stuck with it. Nothing I can do." The familiar bleat. Systems are not inanimate, independant organisms. Systems are run by people. People with titles and powers and this is a great collective screw up, taking lots of collusion from fallible people. People who are often rigid and self serving. When are those individuals going to say. I am to blame and I must take responsibility and try to fix things. I do not see this happening any time soon. Who care? Not the NDP caucus. Not the inter party child welfare committee. Not the judges or the attorney general. If they care, show us the proof. I strongly suspect that a judge returned two kids to a dicey situation at presentation hearing recently as the lesser of two evils. Knowing the case would not be heard for months or years, he returned the children to the parents. He did what he could, for better or for worse. We need fair hearings, prompt hearings and guaranteed advocacy. Until we get that your blog will be a register of the agony of injustice.
Tomorrow I want to write some more about foster parents. For now I just want to say that foster parents only know about parents whatis told to them by the social workers. As often as not, this is a completely false picture. Social workers have to vilify parents to justify their own aggressive actions. They go into denial about the strengths of parents and pass on their distorted views.
Here is a bit of a parent / layman’s view of some items omitted from today's blog:
ReplyDeleteReport to Court
Before the Presentation Hearing, there is a 5 minute "Report to Court" hearing held within 7 days of the removal, at which the parent first sees the "Form A" listing of allegations.
Presentation Hearing can be avoided
Often, a parent will be advised by their lawyer to accept what the Director wants, with the intent of reducing the overall amount of time in care. So, if the Director is asking for 3 months, the parent hopes that within that time the Director will have plenty of time to more fully investigate and agree to a return or a 3 or 6 month supervision order. Renewals based on a parent's previous agreement are more common than returns.
Presentation Hearing
The low threshold of evidence, is assumed to be true and is not tested here, is all that is required to be met by the Director. A 'prima facia' case must be met, meaning the removal was not frivolous.
If the parent states the social worker's evidence is wrong, the judge MUST decide in favour of the Director and keep the child in care so that this difference can be examined at a protection hearing.
What you are hearing here is that there is a clear benefit for social workers to misrepresent and outright falsify information in order to ensure a win at a Presentation Hearing.
Supervision order
A Presentation Hearing is supposedly the ideal time for the parent to argue that a supervision order should have been applied for by the Director first rather than a removal, and services should have been offered first, in compliance with the CFCSA. In practice, the judge "plays it safe" and ignores the CFCSA, and 98% of the time, leaves the children in care of the director and directs supervised access at the discretion of the director.
Case Conference
A 1-hour case conference is set within a month or two after parents lose at the Presentation Hearing. This is the ideal time to introduce an application for more time, Voip webcam access, clarifying telephone access, at home vs. facility supervision etc.
Present is the social worker, lawyers on both sides, parents and advocate and a judge not seized with a case. Only at this point can the judge direct that a protection hearing trial date be set.
This is where parents gauge the willingness of social workers to negotiate. If they smile at you refuse everything, say they have 10 witnesses to testify, you know you are in for a rough ride.
This is where the cartoon above is relevant to parents. "Never give up." I would add also, "Never give in."
Protection Hearing date
Often, it takes many months just to get the judicial case manager to return a protection hearing date. There are many more months wait to determine which judge will be used and seized with the case. For me, to get to this stage took 10 months.
Preliminary applications before seized judge
Preliminary applications with this seized judge may then occur, such as requests for further disclosure not supplied at the Presentation Hearing, more supervised access time, permission to watch kids activities, doctor and school meeting attendances etc.
The meaningless 45 day time limit
As we heard from Finn Jensen, the "45 day" time quoted for a protection hearing is often misconstrued as the time in which a Presentation Hearing or the Case Conference is to occur.
Parents often understand too late that the protection hearing date has NO bearing on this 45-day period. The CFCSA is very craftily worded that renders this 45 days meaningless, which Finn explained in detail at the Baynes summer application to drop supervision.
Parents charter rights v. CFCSA civil proceedings
Since parents aren't incarcerated, and are not seen by law to be inconvenienced with the removal of their children, they don't benefit from charter rights unreasonable search and seizure of their children. Children’s charter (or U.N.) rights take precident.
Look at all the people who have been caused immense grief and have had to waste their precious time fighting the system, all because of this so-called child protection system. Who is really being helped by child protection? It doesn't seem like it's the parents or the children.
ReplyDeleteGiven Ray's comment of a return at Presentation Hearing judgments, this is one judgement I would like to read. Such oral reasons should be published.
ReplyDeleteI would submit that now that we have a new chief justice in BC, he might be convinced to put these online. These oral reasons are so typically short, the cost would be minimal.
Judges, aware their readings would be posted might be more explanatory than this example Presentation Hearing judgement.
Read the last sentence:
"This family unit needs to be restored in some fashion."
The reality was the many children involved ended up spending nearly two years in several foster homes.
[1] THE COURT: I will indicate at the outset that these types of cases are some of the most difficult that judges have to deal with. These children have been severely traumatized because of other things that have happened before they got to this point. Living in [city], then coming back, the issues that arose from that.
[2] This is a hearing that arises to determine where the children should reside while the matters that are alleged by the Director are investigated. It is a very low threshold under the statute. The Director has raised concerns about the [parent’s] actions in disciplining the children and [the parent] has offered affidavit material and a different characterization of [] discipline methods. As I look at the evidence that is before the court, it is not for the court at this stage to make findings of credibility or to make a determination as to whether the children are in need of protection or not. That happens at a later stage.
[3] I have to be satisfied, firstly, at this stage, that the removal was not arbitrary, that there was some basis for it. It is akin to a preliminary inquiry in criminal law. If there is some evidence upon which a trier of fact could find that the children are in need of protection, then that threshold has been met. It is a prima facie or balance of probabilities test, prima facie case that the Director has to present and it has to be dealt with at stage two, as to the strength of that case. If there is a conflict on the evidence at this stage, it must be resolved in favour of the Director for a more thorough investigation at a full hearing.
[4] I am satisfied that the removal was not arbitrary, that there are issues that must be investigated. In the interim the children will remain with the Director. I trust that some suitable arrangements can be made for access in the interim. I know weather conditions have not been the best but that really is not an excuse. These children are entitled to see their [parent] and likewise is entitled to see [the] children. I trust that everything possible will be done to facilitate that. The order will go interim custody to the Director.
[5] This matter should be set for hearing as quickly as possible. I am alive to the issue of the children's activities. Fortunately or unfortunately, [activity] season ends, I know, in the month of [month], the beginning of [month] but these children need some stability and need to get on with their lives. This family unit needs to be restored in some fashion.
(ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)
That is very interesting to read the above. Naturally I was very taken by surprise that 4 police officers, 'car 86' were at my door. I am sure that you all know my story as I have written before. I did not immediately lose my children. But they used the time period of the delay to gather 'findings'.
ReplyDeleteI was very surprised why there was a court case for me. It was then that I learned that I have 21 intakes. I could not see how that could be possible. But, one person called many times saying that she had seen me, 'smoking drugs in the park' ( I completely abstain from drugs, alcohol and cigarettes and always have, I am known for that ), then that I was drunk driving past her house (I do not drive and have never attempted to operate a motor vehicle, not even once), that I was see talking to myself (???? was it even me??? and if I was not with the children, how is that a protection issue?), you get the picture. Each one of these complaints was written down as a serious 'intake' meaning I am unfit to be a parent.
I was told that because of the high # of intakes, I needed more strict treatment than usual so I could 'learn my lesson'. Apparently after 10 intakes, it is an 'orange light' then after 11 intakes, it is a must go to court, then by the time a person is as far gone as I apparently am with my 21 intakes, it is usually a removal order. Yet, there is no proof for any of these 'intakes' and no chance for me to say anything about it.
I am the one who MCFD was trying to prove I am mentally ill although it is contradicted by doctors and a psychiatrist. Fortunately, my doctor likes me and has known me for 20 years and got me a psychiatrist ASAP. Usually MCFD cannot provide one, they are always alluding to 'waiting lists for services' with a sad face. (Would't it be delightful if there were enough psychiatrists to go around??) How silly. Then you are considered mentally ill by suspicion until it can be officially proven otherwise.
I have never heard of the general population needing psychiatric evaluations until I started to hang around the MCFD office waiting for my supervised visits with my children---- a very nice, happy and cheerful mom was there casually mentioning her 'psychiatrist' as easily as most people mention their 'dentist'.
The SW came storming into my home with a police officer and yelling at me to get my kids PJS as they were going with her, and she was going to use the BC Mental Health Act to 'lay me down'.
Amazing system.
The business of protecting children is so far off track at this point. What really makes me angry is that so many people know what’s happening to our children and so many people just sit back and forget about it. People should be devoting their lives, their time, their energy to making sure that these agencies can’t hurt another child. People should be banning together to work as a team to put an end to it all. Children’s lives and futures are at stake and all people do is sit around and talk about it. I’ve been saying for years that it’s time to do something more than talk about what’s happening. Everyone knows that MCFD and CAS and all the other agencies in Canada are not acting in the best interest of our children. It’s no secret that thousands of families and thousands of children have been traumatized by the actions of social workers and slow court proceedings. Children have rights and they have the right to utilize those rights. They just don’t have the voice and we – the adults – should stand up be the voice that they need. I’ve been following this blog and haven’t commented in quite sometimes because there’s so little left to say. There is so little left to learn about how MCFD operates. But there is so much to do to fix it. Not one day passes that I am not working on doing my part and I sincerely hope, for the sake of the children affected, that other people eventually join me in the work I have been doing.
ReplyDeleteYou have summed up the situation perfectly 7:34 PM. You are absolutely correct. We have Legislators, Ministers, Deputies, Directors, Supervisors, Social Workers, all of whom know what needs to be changed, and it is up to them to make those changes. There is nothing hidden any longer.
ReplyDeleteThe 21 intakes story is a prime example of a common MCFD tactic of accumulating negative intakes they know are bogus, and may not even involve children.
ReplyDeleteDevious unprincipled social worker investigators know full well asking parents about allegations would result in a logical explanation that would serve to challenge the credibility of the anonymous reporter. MCFD LOVES negative anonymous reporters and making them appear credible.
You would want to look at the "response time" for each intake to see what the investigator checked off. If it is the typical "5 day" level, then MCFD is knowingly allowing the child to exist in a state of danger by not responding within that time. That they don't respond is a strong indication they do not believe there is a true concern.
Another checkbox to look at is the response / solution -- typically "services offered" would be written as a resolution when the file closing decision is not to intervene.
After the first or second intake, one would think the children would be interviewed, then the parents interviewed to hear the allegations for social workers to record. An accumulation of 21 intakes where no action was taken during this time is child protection incompetence, pure and simple.
One observation by my lawyer in seeing intakes that are "investigated" then files subsequently closed, means the conclusion of the social workers in signing off the file is that there is no danger to the child, is identified as "safe", and "services" are not required as a remedy. This, then becomes positive history. No concerns equals no problems.
If someone is phoning in reports and children are not directly involved, this, like the Baynes case opens up that reporter to be identified so they can explain how they believe children are in danger. Child protection has no mandate to document or investigate events that do not involve children. This is what the police are for, and they will be the ones that make referrals to mental health for adults, not a child protection agency. If these officers decline to make such recommendations, this is an accumulation of positive history and becomes evidence of "no concern."
However, social workers view intakes as accumulative negatives. Enough of them will justify a removal action in their world. As can be seen in the Presentation Hearing oral results, if is "sounds" true and it "sounds" like there is a danger to children, and social workers verbally back the reliability of their evidence, the removal has to be validated by the courts.
This sounds like an ideal case to simply wait out MCFD, fire the lawyers, and prepare for the protection hearing. MCFD will back out if you refuse a supervision order and force them to trial.
The arrogance of social workers is rarely observed by others, and this needs to be captured visually for posting on internet. Audio and video recorders and becoming so small and cheap that these types of videos will become more prevalent, and relevant for inclusion as evidence in MCFD cases.
Record, record, record. Wait a suitable length of time for your own safety, then post it. Everyone knows that juicy and embarrassing information is just as valuable 10 years after the fact.
Here we go again.... (as if we need more proof):
ReplyDelete"New study shows kids in care underperforming in school
By Katie Hyslop October 19, 2010 09:14 am
...The most comprehensive report on child outcomes in the country, according to the representative, Growing Up In B.C. was released yesterday morning at the 2010 Champions for Children and Youth Summit in Vancouver....
The report.... also focused on the outcomes of children in the care of the ministry of children and family development, of which there were 10.1 per every 1,000 children in B.C. in 2007/08. Some of the statistics include:
- The gap in education performance for kids in care is equal to or even wider than the gap for Aboriginal kids.
- Aboriginal kids in care score the lowest marks on provincial achievement tests out of any group in the province.
- Kids in the Vancouver Coastal Health Region consistently perform better than kids in any other district, especially the Vancouver Island and Northern Health regions, which continue to perform poorly. Thirteen per 1,000 kids in those regions are in care.
- Only 36.1 per cent of girls and 20.4 per cent of boys in care complete high school within six years of finishing Grade 8, compared to 82.1 per cent of girls and 76.1 per cent of boys who are not in care. The rates for Aboriginal kids in care are even lower."
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2010/10/19/kid-in-care-underperforming/
THIRTEEN PER EVERY THOUSAND CHILDREN IS "IN CARE" in the Vancouver Island and Northern Health regions. Obscene!
Sometimes I come across a paragraph that encapsulates an unending ordeal such as the Baynes are experiencing. This snippet exactly captures MCFD's entire case against the Baynes:
ReplyDelete"Keith Findley, a clinical professor of law and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, who headed Audrey Edmunds legal team, said, “The system is sending people to prison based on findings of beyond a reasonable doubt when in many of the cases the only evidence is medical evidence on which many medical experts…have a substantial doubt.”
He added, “This is not about being opposed to child abuse prosecutions. No critic of SBS theory wants anyone to get away with child abuse, but when the diagnosis becomes the entire basis for the prosecution, that’s problematic.”
Faulty Science?
by Maurice Possley
Monday, June 22nd, 2009 6:28 am
http://thecrimereport.org/2009/06/22/faulty-science/
10:00 PM ANON
ReplyDeleteYour link to the Brochure is a helpful one, http://www.publiclegaled.bc.ca/snapfiles/2005_Caring_for_Children.pdf
I wonder whether they have an updated version. This was 2005. The advice given appears conventional and useful.
10:17 PM ANON
ReplyDeleteThat sums it up precisely.
9:39 PM ANON
ReplyDeleteAs you say, there is more than enough proof. Everyone can be aware of the facts.
Duhhhh!!!!!!!!
Please Fix it!