Saturday, November 27, 2010

Public Trust, Power and Corruption / Part 380 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Public Trust, Power and Corruption

A fundamental theme of democracy is the concept of the public trust which asserts that within the public there lies the true power and future of a society and therefore the trust that the public invests in its officials must be respected.

A young person was speaking with me about the seeds of cynicism that have germinated and developed into full grown pessimism. At first one surmises this is cynicism about government but closer inspection reveals it is cynicism about persons, people, humanity. So few people come to power without becoming tainted or even derailed. The reality was captured in a phrase. “Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is more to this adage which derives from a quotation by Lord Acton, who was actually John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, in fact Baron Acton (1834–1902). As an historian and moralist he summed his thought in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 with these words: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." What chance had public trust if that revelation becomes our starting point? Another ancient, William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778 is recorded as having made an equally profound and disturbing statement in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

If the Liberal caucus is comprised of many who have already compromised their respect and the opposition NDP has nothing better to show, where are we to look for leadership and guileless aid when we want something as simple as mercy or compassion?

Employees within the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development are not elected officers yet to them has been invested a responsibility that in some circumstances has not unlimited power but immense power which when employed can shroud its actions under a legislatively sewn cover of confidentiality and privacy. That without question has generated a pattern of conduct and job performance that has not been in the best interests of children and families for countless thousands of British Columbians. Public trust has been lost for all of these in their elected officials and others employed within governmental ministries. I mentioned to that young person with whom I spoke that he had articulated his eroded trust issues much sooner than I have. I have waited until my senior years to realize how awful things are. Now, I am almost overcome by the avalanche of disappointments. The few untainted MCFD employees whom I earlier mentioned must be as much or more discomfited by what they see around them each day.

Will the true champions please stand up? Will the honourable call for accountability? Will the untarnished stand out as attractive leaders?


  1. My son was kidnapped by MCFD in spring 2009, son has been abused ON EVERY LEVEL in foster care in BC, verbally, mentally, emotionally, incl. sexual molestation by a restricted foster parent who runs a Daycare in North Saanich that was shut down by a Supreme Court Order won by this woman's neighbours. This woman still runs her daycare under gov't supervision as she is licensed, so the gov't knows the verdicted [she is a danger as she has been investigated before for sexual molestation of children] yet IGNORE it as 'the gov't' would lose a client.

    I called the police when my son told me he was being sexually molested in foster care,...MCFD & police work together to cover up the abuse & my son sees his abuser regularly w/out supervision as instructed by MCFD. I also contacted the RCMP about her violation of a supreme court order, this woman lies & she got out of the trouble as ALL EVIL STICKS TOGETHER! They have too, to protect each other.

    Pretty sick hey? Not really, we are dealing with pure evil. Polak, DuToit & ALL social workers & directors are a RAGING JOKE! They do NOTHING for their paychecks & like it that way. They've all got 'theirs' so they don't care, 'cause, hey, we are the gov't so we are never held accountable'.


    The ROOT OF THE PROBLEM is the lawyers who then morf into judges, politicians, & ANIMALS as God confirms. These Satanic laws are put in place to protect EVIL, their jobs & their interests.


    PRAY PSALM 7:11, 9:3, 9:16-17, 18:47, 34:16, 35:1-8, 37:11-15, 55, 69:27-28, 82, 91, 94:23, 108:12-13, 109, 140; Jeremiah 16:18, 51:19-23, 17:18; Isaiah 10:1-3, 49:25-26; Malachi 3:5; Deut. 9:3, 29:18-20; Ezekiel 25:17; Job 4:8-10; Matthew 7:19, 12:25, 15:13-14; Luke 12:5; Prov. 13:9, 14:11, 17:13, 21:12, 21:28, 22:22-23; 1 Samuel 2:9; Exodus 15:3,6; Numbers 35:34; Rev. 2:23

    MY ALL TIME FAVORITE VERSE 1 Timothy 1:20 where I remove names 'Hymenaeus & Alexander' to insert the names of evil coming up against me & my precious child.

    GOD'S WORD IS HIS WILL! Isa 55:11; Jer 1:12

    There are ONLY TWO camps in the world, DARK & LIGHT, know who is DARK by the fruit they bare: Matt. 3:10,12, 7:19, 12:33-34 John 8:44,47 1 John 3:8,10 Luke 6:45

  2. Anon 8:07 AM
    You have certainly a studied long list of Bible references. I am sure you appreciate that the readers of this blog represent a wider range of faith convictions than those who are devoutly Christian as you appear to be. I believe that your call to intercession is a worthwhile invitation. I want to express to you my sympathy for the agony you are experiencing for the sake of your child whose life and mind has been invaded and violated. Be strong and encouraged today.

  3. To Alison 4th year social work student who wrote on November 22nd.
    The risk assessment device used by the MCF at present is completely useless and should be banned from use. I am trying to get some of you profs interested in calling for stopping its use. If you go in for child protection, you will be required to use it. I will repeat what I have said before on the blog and what Doug Christie said in his summary of the defence in the Bayne case. The risk assessment device used by the ministry is simply a checklist of the social workers opinions in various areas. There is no requirement for any rigour, discipline or facts in the way they are presented.
    The Bayne case alone is sufficient evidence for calling for the abolition of this form. The document filled in by Humeny had no facts and was full of rumour, hearsay, opinion and smear. No worker should be allowed to get away with that. He totally ignored the many strengths and achievements of the Bayne family. Not only that, this piece garbage was condoned by his supervisor, the director and probably also the deputy minister. So they were all complicit in this piece of hostile muckraking. If you are to become a registered social worker and use this device, I would advise your client to lay an ethics complaint against you.
    As Doug Christie told Judge Crabtree. "If there is strong factual evidence of harm to a child, the risk is proved in the evidence and it is not necessary to have an artificially contrived risk assessment" The advice I give in my book is to just do an assessment. A fact based history, without colour and opinion. Do it on the Baynes and it will tell you all you need to know. They have profile which is completely contradictory to the likelihood of abuse.

  4. I want to point readers to the Blog Post I published some time ago that was Ray Ferris' own assessment of the Risk Assessment Form and of the job done on the Baynes. It is here...

  5. The problem is that government is too big, so there is no chance, or little chance, that they will be accountable, especially since the press is pathetic. If we all voted to cut government drastically - and the only way to do this is to vote Libertarian - we might have a chance.

    I agree that lawyers are a big part of the problem. Most of them are drawn to law school for the wrong reasons, and what they learn in law school is that they can manipulate the truth with words. They then go on to become colleagues with people who will, like too many expert witnesses, do anything for money. There are still great men out there, though; not all are corrupt. Doug Christie is living proof.

    All the people who were self-righteously protesting the Vietnam war are now self-righteously condemning such relatively harmless practices as polygamy. Even after a year or 2 year investigation that found ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN OF CHILD ABUSE, the government is still intent upon wasting our money; this witch hunt is intended to set a precedent - a horrifically dangerous precedent - that is, that the government gets to be the one to decide, in very general terms, based on lifestyle, what is a good or bad environment in which to raise children. Then they can do en masse child apprehensions, just like they did in El Paso, Texas, where the FLDS children suffered horrible trauma at the hands of Child Protective Services.

    Reports from Mental Health workers regarding Child Protective Services being "high-handed, rude, or uncaring," as well as Praise for the FLDS Mothers:

    If you look around, you will see so much evil (such as the polygamy trial and the FLDS raid) being done in the name of child protection.

    The writer above - who may appear to be a the dreaded "religious fanatic" but actually knows what he / she is talking about - is dead right regarding the evil forces on this earth. The fact that these evil forces are using the most innocent, defenceless, vulnerable victims to further their power and evil is what makes them so effective (few people will believe or be "cynical" enough to believe that such evil could be masquerading as such good).

    The only way to cure this problem is to cut government down to size. In order to do this, we have to quit looking to government to cure all our problems. We have to take back our power, instead of giving it away to corrupt lawyers turned politicians.

  6. "It is interesting to note that the basic principle of Libertarianism - the right of the individual to pursue his own goals without coercion from others has already been accepted by most men. The single exception occurs where government is concerned. Most people still accept government's prerogative to restrict our freedom as long as it is proclaimed that somehow it is for the "greater good." What Libertarians seek is to apply the same common sense rules that now prevent one individual from interfering with another to government.

    Libertarians believe that the ever-growing power of the state in Canada is stifling us all. But the villain is not government itself, but instead the belief that all problems can be solved by government. To counter this doctrine, Libertarians are promoting an idea, the idea of personal liberty. Our battle is an educational one and our success is not guaranteed."

    from What is Libertarianism?
    By Marilee Haylock

  7. Hi Ray Ferris
    Risk Assessment is already on its way out. Du Toit is in the process of implementing a new model, however, it is unclear what it will be, and whether it will be an improvement.

    You write "The advice I give in my book is to just do an assessment."

    I am curious about your book. I googled it, but was only able to come up with one hit, an article from the Valley Voice from Feb 13, 2010, which mentions the title of your book, "The Art of Child Protection".

    Is it available anywhere?

  8. Alison,

    I note with interest that you plan to work for the government, as a child protection worker. I also note that you are home schooling, or planning to home school. Are you aware that that fact alone could, in the past, make you more vulnerable to child protection reports and removal, and that is why the home schoolers now have legal assistance available to them, specifically for this purpose?

    I am curious why you chose a career in child protection. If you could enlighten us, that would be most appreciated. If you could also tell us what you think of the current situation with MCFD, and, specifically, with the Baynes, that would be helpful as well. Thank you.

  9. Alison, I just read your Nov. 22, 2010 post, so I have a little better idea now.

    One thing that still troubles me about MCFD workers - why don't more of them - or even any of them, go public with their concerns. And there must be concerns, as we have seen from the comments of so many parents. To say that they are afraid of losing their jobs is not good enough. After all, if they became child protection workers because they wanted to protect children, but now see that they are not protected (in fact, the opposite), and they do nothing, what does that say about their ethics.

    Please, someone tell me, why no one from MCFD has spoken out against the atrocities committed by MCFD. And I don't mean someone who is essentially going to further the goal of the child protection industry (that is, someone who is claiming more funding and workers will solve the problem). I mean a real, honest to goodness, Whistle Blower. Where are you? Please speak out, you will have so much support, and you truly be accomplishing your stated goal: Protecting Children.

    Please speak out. Even if only anonymously, on this blog. Someone has to begin. Let it be you.

  10. Marilee 10:23, I confess I must learn more about the personal liberty principle about which you speak. It is of course technically written into our charter of rights and freedoms and is assumed by us all until individuals become caught in a situation in which representatives of government appear to have greater power to interfere with personal freedom.

  11. Parents should take heart: inaccurate CRA (Comprehensive Risk Assessments) can be used against the author in court. WHEN they were created can also be used against MCFD. Consider that the Baynes CRA was not produced until months after the removal, instead of before.

    It would be beneficial for parents to ask for the practice standard and guidelines on how these documents are to be filled out.

    Since mediations are useless but you wish to appear to be cooperative regardless, you could use this time to derive some benefits from the otherwise wasted time by bringing in a blank CRA and fill it in during these sessions. After all, this is what Mediation is supposed to be all about, identifying and addressing the risks.

    The information contained in a CRA is deliberately designed to be inflammatory and to get the judge onboard at a Presentation Hearing.

    The only way to defend against a slanderous CRA is to treat the document as if it were a sworn affidavit, and respond with your own correctly filled out CRA and attach it as an exhibit to a sworn affidavit.

    Usually, by the time the protection hearing rolls around years later, if at all, the information in a CRA has been long forgotten. If it is mentioned in a Presentation Hearing, few parents think of ordering the transcripts for those hearings.

    Mr. Christie certainly made the author of the Bayne's CRA squirm.
    This is why Finn made no reference to the CRA in his closing argument, it is a huge liability to their case.

    Since the document has no legal value, parents should simply fill it in themselves, at multiple stages during the ordeal, and give it to social worker formally and force them to store it with their files. Use their process against them and quote any nice things the parenting counsellor says to you (while they are buttering you up trying to elicit a confession.)

    My twenty-something social worker, with her vast 2 years of experience, said that in order to "close" my file, it would take seven hours to write the risk assessment. She assured me, she did not need my input, that her files contained all the information she needed. She also stated, that typically after MCFD closes the file, 2 months is "normal" to have the client and children's files closed. It is always important to record these pearls of wisdom.

    So personally, I think CRA's are of great benefit to parents. This is like being handed the rope with which to hang your tormenters.

  12. Government wishes us to trust that they are doing the 'right thing' and us unwashed masses should not concern ourselves with the complexities of their administration.

    My parenting counsellor went on an on about "trust," as in, I was supposed to trust her and "open up," otherwise Ministry concerns could not be addressed.

    My response was why worry about trust when recourse in the form of lawsuits existed. I further explained to this lady that if the Ministry communicated unsubstantiated allegations to third parties, (her, for example) and these allegations were later proven false, I would have a case for libel. I'm not a lawyer, but that seemed to shut her up.

    So, the "risk" that this counsellor was hired to address, is technically not allowed to hear of the allegations before a protection hearing occurs. I found it odd that the reasons for the Ministry's unconditional withdrawal was that the concerns were addressed exclusively by this so-called parenting course.

    I think input from a lawyer would benefit this blog that would be able to address in detail various concerns posted by parents as they deal with MCFD.

  13. Anon 9:01 PM
    I believe your suggestion of a lawyer's input on this blog would be very helpful. I wish I had a resident one now. I will give this some thought. Of course if a blog reader is a lawyer you are welcome to speak up.

  14. Anon 10:31
    You stated that the first commenter today "may appear to be a the dreaded "religious fanatic" but actually knows what he / she is talking about - is dead right regarding the evil forces on this earth."

    I would say -- probably not a religious fanatic, just passionate. If the person is a fanatic it may be in the same sense as you are, fanatical about the root of the problem, i.e. the evil forces, which you have identified as "the lawyers who then morf into judges, politicians, & ANIMALS as God confirms. These Satanic laws are put in place to protect EVIL, their jobs & their interests." Equally passionate wouldn't you say?

    It is true and real. Those of you who have been negatively affected by MCFD can hardly find words adequate to describe how you feel. Right?

  15. "Religious fanatic" is a often a term used to denigrate and create prejudice against those who are passionate, and have a belief in God. We seem to live in a time when just the fact that someone believes in God makes them susceptible to prejudice.

    There is a strong movement, worldwide, to embrace atheism. This movement pretends to be enlightening and liberating, but in fact is dangerous, as it essentially leads to a "do as thou wilt" kind of philosophy. If there is no God, who gets to decide what is right or wrong? The answer: whoever has the power. And as we see with the bullies at MCFD who love to throw their weight around, this will not be desirable.

    In other words, I was being facetious when I said "dreaded religious fanatic." Atheists, and many supporters of child protective services, would like us to view anyone who mentions or alludes to religion, as a "fanatic" and therefore someone to be dismissed, or even treated with contempt. While these atheists pretend to stand for freedom of thought, there are often undertones of tyranny to their discourse.

  16. I had risk assessment done on me and it was just a repeat of mistaken information with no real interview by the social worker of me or my kids. A useless thing.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise