 |
| CBC's photo was public info but not her name |
A neighbour found the 15 year old Down's Syndrome female surviving in the Cultus Lake mobile home of her mother who had died days before. That neighbour, Lawrence Jewett, Trailer Park Manager, was quoted by the Canadian Press writer as saying, “I'm just glad we found her when we did because it could have been one hell of a lot of worse.” He and another neighbour broke into the trailer to find the girl emaciated and filthy. This was back in September.
Well yes it could have been worse and then what might the Ministry of Children and Family Development said in defence of its conduct in this matter. As it is, what does the MCFD have to say? That's actually what Children's Advocate Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wants to know. At the end of yesterday's work day she addressed the media with some consternation. In speaking to the CBC she said, "The ministry hadn't reported it to me....Any time a child has been left alone, with a parent who has died, for a number of days, I consider that to be an injury to the child, especially when the child has special needs." The injudicious action to which she made reference was the failure of MCFD to notify her of this incident before she learned it like everyone else through the media. That's right. The perception is that this is another instance of the Ministry failing to take Ms. Turpel-Lafond's role and authority seriously enough to inform her. Was that intentional? The public is left to surmise. Whatever MCFD was thinking, the decision comes down now with double the weight. Turpel-Lafond will conduct an independent investigation and we will hear about this once more.
The fifteen year old girl was dehydrated and hungry after being alone for nine days, nine days with her mother's body on the floor, and she was compelled to fend for herself. Yet she is entirely dependent upon adult care. The girl's brother learned that paramedics deduced that his sister would also have been dead within two days.
Oh but that is only the tip of the proverbial berg. We are told that multiple complaints about the child's care are on file with MCFD, Fraser Valley Region. Have you heard of their involvement in other cases? Yes, neighbours and family members, specifically the girl's older brother had expressed concerns about the mother's deteriorating state, her depression, her addictions to alcoholism and drugs and her inability to properly care for the girl. Ms. Turpel-Lafond mentioned this in her remarks yesterday. This maternal caregiver was unable to manage any longer. It might be argued that MCFD should have intervened here but the mother threatened a lawsuit for kidnapping. The CBC online story said that government welfare funding for the family care had been cut off, and asked how this woman was going to get by? We are never satisfied with what seems the predictable response of the Ministry. Children's Minister Mary Polak while acknowledging the tragic nature of this event, said that a full review has been done and she points out that we do not have all the facts so we should not jump to conclusions and she was prevented from speaking further to the public about this case because of privacy laws. And I say that those privacy restraints were not the reason why her Ministry failed to divulge this information to the Child Advocate. Apparently here again is a point of contention between these two departments. No, no, that was merely an oversight by Ms. Polak's department, a lapse of judgement. Please! When will Victoria start leaning on the regional leadership? We would not tend to jump to conclusions if at least the Children's Advocate had been better informed. Because listen to this...
Ms. Turpel-Lafond said that MCFD supervisory staff had instructed social workers not to intervene in this case because they had enough cases already and enough children in expensive care. Oh really? Then how does one account for the aggressive behaviour of a region to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth Bayne, parents who are more than capable of caring effectively for their children. Behaviour that forced the parents into court after waiting for three years with those children in foster care? The erosion of public confidence in the decision making of the area MCFD continues because of what appears a breakdown of timely information and accountability.
Kurt Petrovich CBC Video Story, interview with the girl's brother
CBC Video Story interview of the Jewetts who made the discovery
I have taken the liberty of pasting a Comment by an Anonymous to me this morning, which was directed to yesterday's Post but is relevant for today's. 8:19 AM (1 hour ago)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "GLORIOUS AND FREE/ Part 365 / For Love and For Jus...":
Here is a comment by a 15-year social worker who posted on the child left alone with her dead mother for 9 days.
The comment is very interesting that I had not thought about, stating the organization is female-centric and biased towards women, against men. The implication is children are being left at risk so the female parent can continued to receive government subsidies through possession of the child.
I personally have not encountered this through the various parents I have talked to.
------
I worked the child social work services for 15 years,
I'll tell you exactly why this happened.
Modern Child Protection Agencies are internally very feminist organizations. All of their staff, and directorships come from Social Work faculties of Universities. Those Social Work faculties are very closely tied to Women's Studies Programs. They are "sister" faculties.
Regardless what the Mission Statement, the Directors, and the politicians say ........ the REAL client of the system is the adult WOMAN in the case file not the child. The child seen in that agency world view as literally an appendage of the woman.
When the woman, no matter how damaged goods she is ..... depends on income brought in by the child's presence (child support, disability payments, child tax credit etc.) the Child Protection Worker will most often side with the woman.
They'll brush away complaints as "unfounded", try to find a male to pin them on, or use them to get the mom more "support services".
Empowering the parent woman in the case is JOB ONE. Right up until the point where the case threatens to go public.
Then, the agency circles the wagons, and reads their mission statement to the press over and over ......... "the child is always our first concern"
Which is pure prairie fertilizer.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/12/bc-girl-corpse-turpel-lafond.html#socialcomments#ixzz15BCizBL6
I agree that these child protection agencies are feminism at its worst. But I don't agree that they always side with the woman. There are many single mothers out there who have lost their children to child protection agencies.
ReplyDeleteWhat the child protectiona agencies around the world seem to want to do is create as much conflict and hatred between the sexes. They are definately influenced by politics, such as gay politics (and that's why they give much support to gay adoption).
Dividing and conquering is what child protection agencies do best. And there is nothing they like better than dividing men and women. They know that once they do that, they've won.
As far as this latest story goes, it's a win / win situation for MCFD, because no matter what happens, they'll be getting more reports from the public, and this time people won't take no for an answer. If MCFD does say no, they won't investigate, and something bad happens, it just makes everyone think how very valuable child protection is. They can't lose, not until the public realizes what their game is. And it sure isn't child protection.
How many times do we have to see MCFD going after good families like the Baynes, and ignoring those children that really do need help before we finally clue in? MCFD DOESN'T CARE!!!! They are NOT there to protect children! They need to be abolished. Now.
I would not be surprised to hear that the same Hope/Chilliwack office that is involved with the Baynes is also involved with this tragedy. Publish those names.
ReplyDelete"Privacy concerns" generally means the names of the social workers involved are hidden from public view. This doesn't make sense, because if publicly paid workers can have their names listed in central registries, whether it be a the college of social workers, office contact listings, or salary databases, the public should also be advised as to what work these people do for their salary.
If the brothers actually removed the child once, and the mom responded with a threat to file abduction charges, it would appear there is little love lost between family members.
ReplyDeleteThe money angle would be worth following up on. The mom would certainly be well aware that by removing the child, her source of funding would dry up. An examination of the motive of the family members would also need a close look to ensure their interest in the child's welfare and attachment to her is genuine. I mean, really, 9 days goes by and no family contact?
The story says the mom didn't have transportation to get to her work. Clearly, if no one noticed she was absent, work, school, welfare, MCFD, family, neighbors, someone needs to evaluate the 'risk' model used by MCFD to evaluate this case and upgrade policies to fill in these cracks without the universal answer "it costs more money" to implement.
There is are a few stories that have appeared this week that are related by budget cuts, involving children and dysfunctional adults in government care.
ReplyDeleteGroup Home Closures
http://www.theprovince.com/health/agency+tight+lipped+over+group+home+closures/3824632/story.html
Adopting Children
http://www.theprovince.com/Stories+foundation+make+adopting+child+easier+more+affordable/3824742/story.html
It would be unimaginable MCFD social workers would have an implied or implicit directive that tempers removals, or delivery of services based on budgetary considerations.
What I'm wondering is if social workers had other reasons for not supplying services to the family, or at least have the case open for monitoring, if in fact they WERE expecting deteriorating circumstances.
I would hope RCY would examine budget concerns by MCFD as motive for NOT removing a child. If multiple intakes existed, this suggests services should have been discussed and put into place.
Consider the budget for removing a special needs teenage child. This situation would demand the parent receive rehabilitation services. If not, the child would have to stay in the system for life, not just until age 19.
Imagine, a $100,000 yearly cost for a removed child for the rest of their adult life. This is 10 or 15 tax paying citizens each year paying just to keep one person in care for the rest of their life.
If there is discrimination in the system, it is against First Nations people first, and any other category second.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, an examination of what makes up the MCFD membership male/female, even how many First Nations workers in the system would be interesting.
I agree with you. I read an article from last year's Monday magazine in which Mary Polak is trying to get a separate MCFD for First Nations. I think that is to keep it more hidden how they are treated.
ReplyDeleteIn family court I saw how badly they are treated!!!
I was under the impression that MCFD is against women, actually. I am a woman and I lost my kids and I lost them because of the men in the office as well as the women.
I do not know what type of organization MCFD is. It is very difficult to understand it.
I think they are running a machine that takes all kinds of kids from all kinds of people. One bias they have, is to take babies and young children. They do not seem to want teenagers or special needs children. It is possible that they want children that are cute and easy to take care of.
My kids call them Rumpelstiltskin. He kept bothering the servant girl to spin straw into gold and threatened to take her newborn baby if she could not make all the straw turn into gold by daybreak.
As I am given 'straw' which is endless appointments to attend with 'workers' and I must make a dignified, proper impression over and over again, I am continually spinning straw into gold so Rumpelstiltskin won't take my baby!!!!
As a person who has been written up badly myself by MCFD, I question this story. It appears that the older boys do not have respect for their mother. Anyone who calls CPS on their own mother is questionable. I also read that she kept her boys involved in sports and she ran a daycare successfully for many years. I think it is part of a campaign on right now to convince people of the difficult families that MCFD is connected with. Then, it is used to justify MCFD's existence.
ReplyDeleteAnother series of stories right now is about how ill prepared children are to enter Kindergarten. I am MCFD involved, yet my 5 year old who is in my care knows all her letters, dresses for the weather and is very friendly. I think there is a real effort to discredit parents so that it can be considered that MCFD should be involved.
I wonder why there were not more helping hands around this mom with the Down's daughter. It is a test if we believe the community can take care of it's own, or do we need MCFD after all?