Let's Compare the investigative practices of MCFD and RCMP
None of this affords me pleasure. I have all of my life held our
governments and their agencies and law enforcement in high esteem. I have had
little reason to question their integrity and uprightness. This past year
because of my introduction to the injustice suffered by one family I have been
exposed to the scores of other stories close to home and I have grown apprehensive
and dismayed. My research suggests that child protection has lost its way in
every province and if that was not startling enough in every civilized society.
What is equably written here in this blog is blasted out with vehement rhetoric
in newspapers, magazines, online websites and blogs all over the world. I have
developed a unpleasant case of cynicism over these months. I am unsure whether it
is a treatable condition. For the short term, I know I will have relief when
the Baynes get their children back. But what about the thousands of other
children who must stay in care away from the parents with whom they desire to
live and who love them.
 |
| RCMP Coat of Arms |
Similarities between MCFD operations and the deficiencies in RCMP investigations
A pattern of deficiencies in RCMP investigative processes have been uncovered in recent well publicized cases and we recognize some parallels in the way MCFD is processing child protection cases. These are deficiencies have been mentioned:
a. A preset mentality that someone is guilty - MCFD is similarly inclined to form an attitude that the parent(s) is guilty of some kind of abuse or neglect and so does all in their power to produce evidence however insubstantial.
b. Ignoring available evidence or actual evidence that contradicts the preset - Similarly MCFD predictably filters acquired evidence in order to promote that evidence which supports its view of the situation and it has failed to interview available and potential witnesses who would not support the preset mindset.
c. Pressing forward with the prosecution process by laying charges anyway – Similarly MCFD in the Family Court will continue their prosecution or persecution of parents involved to deny them justice and convince the Court of the charges they have against the family. I have witnessed this myself.
Factors in MCFD investigations of families:
a) MCFD says that it takes a forensic approach. This is acceptable provided that a balanced and thorough investigation is conducted in response to allegations, but often allegations have little substance.
c) Often investigators accept the views of those who support allegations while ignoring the advocacy of those who support the family.
d) Interviewing children who are considered at risk often is inferior, while parents may not be interviewed at all prior to the removal of children.
e) Many notifications of concern about children and false allegations against parents are found by MCFD investigation to require no further action.
f) Nevertheless, many investigations are pursued with a purpose to find something significantly wrong in order to justify the previous over-reactive removal of a child or to justify a subsequent removal.
g) The agenda may involve a vindictive attitude against a parent or social engineering bent designed to put the children with more suitable caregivers, (as with the removal of aboriginal children in BC and other provinces).
h) If the initial allegation of abuse proves empty, MCFD will stretch other matters in order to come up with other problematic suggestions like neglect or lack of control.
 |
| This is inevitable and healthy |
In the specific case of the RCMP having responded to a request by MCFD to press abuse charges against the Baynes; after a subsequent investigation, police found no basis on which to file charges. This may be a major point for the judge to consider in returning the Baynes children to them.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that a CCO, bearing far greater consequences than any penalty for an assault charge, should have a threashold of proof that is even more rigourous than "reasonable doubt."
In this case, this civil review should defer to the decision of the RCMP to not file charges, and the CCO application would be vacated.
Ron;once more the Baynes are in another tedious waiting period. On access, the judge said that the director and Baynes should try to sort it out between themselves and they could get back to him if they were unable to do it. Of course we know that the director will obstruct, so the judge will have to rule on it eventually.
ReplyDeleteToday I want to tell another story from my book. I was working in the busy Downtown-Blanshard office at the time and I handled all the out of town referrals
THE BLANCO FAMILY
Mr. Blanco was an immigrant from a Mediterranean country. While he was still struggling to learn the language, he met and married his first wife. It was most likely that he would not have married her had they been able to communicate better with each other, because they were completely incompatible and judging by subsequent information on the case, he must have endured a great deal before severing the relationship. Mr. Blanco was a good provider and got a job on a paving crew, which worked long hours and he often had to travel on his job. Two girls were born to the marriage, one called Maria and one called Bridget, each name representing a parental heritage. It was not really Mrs. Blanco's general slovenliness that broke up the marriage, but her infidelity while her husband was away on the paving crew. First came separation and then divorce, while Mr. Blanco contributed adequately and even generously to the maintenance of his daughters. Custody went to the mother, but there was generous access to the father and at first he saw them frequently. Later on he got a good job in Victoria, which was some distance from the city where his wife lived and access became less frequent. Mr. Blanco remarried when the girls were aged seven and nine and it was about a year later that I became involved in the case.
The case was referred to me when I received a request to serve notice of a court hearing on Mr. Blanco. His daughters had been apprehended in Xville and the social worker there had presented the case at court and had decided that the situation was serious enough to set the case down for a hearing on permanent wardship. I was able to contact Mr. Blanco without any difficulty and he came to the office to be served. He was shocked at the news and he wanted to know the circumstances of the case, because he had twice spoken to the social worker recently and he had been assured that everything was in order. I was surprised that he knew nothing, because he had had plenty of time to get his copy of the initial court report. Had they not known where to mail it, surely they would have sent it to me with the notices, in order to make sure that he got it.
The next day I telephoned the social worker at Xville. When we served notices for another office, we tried to expedite matters as much as possible by enquiring into the circumstances of the parent and finding out what their position at the court hearing was likely to be. We would often write a report which could be filed with the court. In this instance, it was impossible for Mr. Blanco to come up with an immediate position, because he had no information to go on. I advised the Xville worker that I was not in a position to send the proof of service back to her with a report because Mr. Blanco needed his copy of the court report, which he said he had not received.
I was dumbfounded when the worker became very angry with me. "Look, just send back the proof of service and don't interfere" she said. "I don't mind sending you a copy of the court report, but under no circumstances do I want Mr. Blanco reading it. It contains a lot of confidential information and he may use it just to stir up trouble." I started to protest that it was a policy requirement that court reports be provided and that would be the first thing that his lawyer would ask for anyway, but it was to no avail. She gave me a dressing down for failing to co-operate and hung up the telephone. continued
Blanco continued.
ReplyDeleteI had been taken completely off guard by this unexpected turn of events. However, I sat down, put my brain back into gear and decided to depend on the power of the written word. First of all I looked up the page reference and exact wording in the policy manual, of the directive which required court reports to be made available to parents. Then I wrote a memo to the Xville social worker in the driest possible manner, quoting the relevant directive and requesting that a copy of the court report be sent to me immediately to give to Mr. Blanco. I knew that only the most foolhardy worker would deliberately flout a written directive and that her supervisor would insist on compliance, should the matter come to light. The court report came back with due speed and no further comment and I gave two copies to Mr. Blanco; one for him and one for his lawyer.
When he read the report, Mr. Blanco was very disturbed. It described a lifestyle which was completely out of control. The house was in a mess all the time and the girls were missing a lot of school, simply because their mother did not get up in the morning. There was good reason to believe that the mother was doing quite a lot of prostitution and was certainly abusing drugs and alcohol. Not only that, the worker had accepted the word of his former wife when she made all sorts of negative comments about Mr. Blanco. The court report stated that he did not pay any maintenance and that she was forced live on welfare. It also stated that he had deserted the family and took no interest in the children. Mr. Blanco assured me that he would have no difficulty in proving his maintenance payments, as he had all the cancelled cheques as proof. He also said that he had been worried about the children and had twice tried to meet with the Xville social worker, without success. He had even offered to take time off work for the journey. Each time he had been assured that the meeting was not necessary and that all was well. The court report made it plain that he had been misled. No wonder the worker did not want him to have a copy.
I advised Mr. Blanco that he had two or three choices. He could offer to take the children himself, which would necessitate getting the custody order changed, or he could consent to a period in care if he needed more time to get organized. He could consent to a permanent order, if he did not think that he could take the girls in the foreseeable future. He said that he wanted to take the girls as soon as possible, but that he would have to discuss it with his wife first. It did not take them long to decide on matters, because they both came to see me for a short interview the next day and Mrs. Blanco wanted to assure me that she was completely behind her husband and would give him all the help she could.
The matter seemed to me to be a fairly straightforward matter. When a custodial parent is unable to provide proper care for children, but the non-custodial parent is able and willing to care for them, then the children are no longer in need of protection. Continued tomorrow
Regarding the discussion on removal of the Bayne's unborn child at birth (Ron November 10, 2010 8:31 AM), I am of the opinion that MCFD will remove their unborn child if the Baynes lose the CCO application or MCFD obtains a supervision order. These thugs are ruthless and vengeful. Moving to another province won't help. The only way to protect their unborn child is to leave Canada and move to a non-English speaking country where its government does not have the power to remove children from their families.
ReplyDeleteTo give a preview of a real child removal at birth, please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwBRfxRSz8
If you think that the Bayne's case is an isolated incident in which children are removed without good evidence, hear with other oppressed parents said about this corrupt temple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hVr9gLOLBU
This demonstrates how oppressive "child protection" could be. Be mindful that "protection" and "safety" are often used by government to conduct hideous activities, like residential schools (to destroy Native Indians as a sovereign people) and the destruction of Aboriginal people in Australia for similar reasons. The "child protection" industry is anything but child protection. It is all about making money and getting more power.
Kill CFCSA before your children fall prey.
Well, Ron, as you have been, so have we regarding our respect for gov't, police and public office. It was with great sadness that we came to the conclusion that the attitudes and corruptions of the above mentioned is so pervasive as to be overwhelmingly disgusting and shocking. Today I trust none in positions of power. Our trust of protectors has been that abused.
ReplyDeleteWe sometimes think the whole system is beyond hope but our family is raising a generation of youth interested in professions which will influence policy and law in our land. Hopefully, they will not be sucked into the cesspool of some of the university educators ideas who have trained the last generations of university students.
We see our own generation's trust as one way this system has become so perverse and even engorged with unaccountable power, pretentiousness and utter disdain for the people and the laws designed to protect the citizenry of Canada. We hope a new generation will address our error of trust where it is not warranted.
Here's a great tip for those who want to expose MCFD. Become involved with other organizations that are critical of government. For example, Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taxpayer.com/
Subscribe to their email alerts, and fill in their survey (just recently sent out) where the last question gives you the option of stating where you think they should focus their efforts. There is no more obscene waste of taxpayer money that the child protection industry. Your tax dollars are being used to destroy good families - let the Canadian Taxpayers Federation know that you will not stand for this.
Spread the word!
http://www.taxpayer.com/
Align yourself with other organizations that realize that the government is more corrupt (as a CBC interviewee put it) than organized crime.
I read that Keith Martin has resigned. It is because either government moves at a snail pace or too quickly and slams in laws that don't make sense. I can sense this in my dealings with CPS. It is true that they will try to get you where ever you go. When I was in mediation the boss took a call and came back quite excited as they had apprehended children as the parents landed in the airport in Quebec since they had B.C. CPS problems and were not allowed to go to Quebec.
ReplyDeleteQuebec is NOT a good place to go if you have a child:
ReplyDelete"From a provincial population of 7.5 million, up to 30,000 children were seized from families by youth authorities in 2006, processed in secret trials, and placed in group homes, institutions or forced adoption programs. The majority of warehoused children are cut off from parents and extended family, often physically, sexually and emotionally abused, and held until the age of 18 when they are dumped on city streets.
Years of secrecy and a total lack of accountability have created a culture of impunity and corruption among bureaucrats and the judiciary, and destroyed the lives of 100,000's of children and families. Shattered survivors, forbidden from revealing corruption and abuse under threat of contempt of court charges and jail, create succeeding generations of angry and broken families, guaranteeing repeat business for the state. The business of children in Quebec is now a growth industry, worth over one billion dollars (USD $1,000,0000,000) per year to bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists, pharmacists, institutions and contracted guardians.
No state in the western world removes, by force, as many children from parents as Quebec. Per capita, Quebec removes 2.5 times the number of children as Sweden, 6 times as many as Great Britain, and 17 times the number in Spain."
http://www.sosquebec.com/
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/unborn-babies-seized-from-unfit-perth-mothers/story-e6frg12c-1225860974940
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand and Australia are already reeling under what is titled, "Unborn babies seized from 'unfit' Perth mothers"
* By ANTHONY DECEGLIE Health Reporter
* From: The Sunday Times
* May 01, 2010 7:00PM
1.3 out of every 100 Vancouver Island children are in foster care.
ReplyDeleteWhen I got my file it made my SW very nervous too, just like in the story above about Mr. Blanco. Of course, sometimes the SWs are like little children who cheat on their homework. I could see it is easier for the ones on my file to sit at their laptops and make stuff up than to find out what is really going on. Also, some people are into the power of making false reports. I had a home maker who told me that the other MCFD home makers steal the client's garbage so they can look through it at home and give bad reports. She reported I had a maggoty diaper behind my couch. My FP worker made her retract the statement and other untrue statements. Yet it still sits on my file.
ReplyDelete