Periodic public inquiries into child abuse tragedies in British Columbia have demonstrated a level of public concern about the services that are designed by our Legislature to protect children. These inquiries have identified faults in the practice by professionals but the findings of such inquiries although spaced years apart from one another reveal similarities which is indicative of recommendations having had little impact upon improving practice. Quite possibly the most effective systemic transformation will come from self-improvement by social workers themselves.
This is but one example of a problem area. Professionals typically base assessments of risk on a narrow range of evidence. What has become apparent is that such assessments are biased toward the information that is readily available. Workers consistently overlook or ignore important data that is known to other professionals. The range of evidence relied upon is also biased towards more memorable data, expressly the evidence that may be graphic, concrete and that which arouses emotion. Moreover, it will be evidence that is either the first or last information that was received. Much of the evidence is often inaccurate, primarily because it is derives from biased or dishonest reporting or from errors during communication.
Of great concern is the observation of a pattern that new evidence is accepted if it is supportive of the existing MCFD view of the family. It is a significant issue that professionals are reticent to revise their opinions even in the face of a growing body of evidence pitted against the existing view.
It is unfortunate and absolutely dangerous to families that the errors in professional reasoning in the course of child protection work are not rare and random but predictable because people intuitively try to simplify reasoning processes when making complex judgments. Granted, such errors can be reduced and avoided entirely when social workers are aware of them and endeavor consciously to confront them. There is a great need for a balanced relationship between intuition and formal analytic thinking in decision-making and practice. Effective child protection practice requires both.
(Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteTo: CW (November 15, 2010 5:36 PM, November 15, 2010 10:28 PM in Part 368 November 15, 2010)
I am the Anon at November 15, 2010 1:21 AM who first raised the issue of MCFD induced adoption, but I am not the Anon at November 15, 2010 8:25 PM who called children in waiting slightly damaged goods.
Bravo, I am sure that such controversial issue will attract a response from special interests.
I am well aware of those links you provided at 5:36 PM before I wrote my comments and before you raised them. You provided seemingly convincing information to falsify the belief that adoption costs of removed children are trivial and therefore adoption activities are not monetary driven. Let’s examine this unexplored industry.
The costs of adoption (between $15,000 and $40,000) are clearly stated in the 7th paragraph of the Nov 14, 2010 Province article at
http://www.theprovince.com/Couple+wants+help+others+adopt/3826545/story.html
This information is provided by a reputable newspaper supported by the experience of those who have adopted in B.C. before. I personally know several persons who adopted and paid $70,000 per kid. This contradicts information in the MCFD link you provided:
http://www.bcadoption.com/site_page.asp?pageid=16#Cost
which stated that costs to prospective adoptive parents are minimal to adopt child with special placement needs through the Ministry (MCFD).
Does one of them lie? No. Pay attention to the fine print. The costs are minimal only to adopt children with “special placement needs” which are defined in
http://www.bcadoption.com/afabc_glossary.asp?pageid=34#V
That means only damaged/disfective goods (something CW finds disrespectful and I will address this later) are free.
How about healthy normal kids? Where does the fee income go? You can’t find it in MCFD’s financial statements, why? What is missing here? To adopt, one must go through the five adoption agencies approved by MCFD. The costs are stated at one of their web sites:
http://www.bcadopt.com/
For the ease of reference, I copied the relevant point below:
“Depending on the type of adoption, costs range from negligible to $30,000 (although costs can sometimes exceed this)... “
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteTo support an excessively large, non-productive bureaucracy and special interests who prey on tax dollars, government is shrewd and devious in raising revenue. Generating income through taxation requires legislative approval, which will inevitably attract scrutiny and may carry political consequences (look at the HST for example). To circumvent check and balance and the attention of watchdogs, crown corporations with power to levy are created. CEO of these corporations (usually those in good relationship with elected officials) are appointed (not elected) and therefore have the free hand to rip off taxpayers at will. Transit Link and the GVRD are products of this nature. Don’t believe this is happening in the best place to live on earth. Check you hydro bill, there is an item called regional transit levy, a tax isn’t it?
Similarly, the hideous activity of selling removed children under the pretext of “child protection” in the adoption market must be well concealed. All financial benefits must be untraceable to avoid public outcry and opposition. Adoption agencies, licenced by MCFD, are hence created. Even if an audit is conducted on MCFD’s books, no adoption fee income can be found because they are not paid to MCFD. How are the directors of these adoption agencies related to MCFD bureaucrats, appointed government officials and politicians? God knows. This qualifies my remarks that corruption in the “child protection” industry is not only structural but well concealed, advanced and sophisticated.
CW also indicated that MCFD pays qualified adoptive persons under the Post Adoption Assistance Program:
http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/adoption/paa.htm
On the surface, it leads people to think that if MCFD is paying some people (note some, not all) to adopt, therefore adoption is not money driven. Think deeper. This program is using tax dollars as incentives to induce adoption. When CPS (MCFD counterpart in the U.S.) was accused of adopting removed children to earn federal subsidies, CPS top dogs counterattacked by alleging that they have to spend $9 to earn $1 of federal subsidies and therefore make no net profit. Don’t lose sight that they are always spending tax dollars. The primary objective of special interests in the industry is to raise such spending to the maximum that taxpayers could bear. This is their bread and butter.
Likewise, it serves special interests in B.C. best by paying some adoptive parents. Not only will this generate an illusion that adoption is not for profit but will induce more people to consider adopting because of incentives. Killing two birds in one stone. How smart.
Returning to CW’s noble remark that calling children in waiting slightly damaged products is disrespectful and demands an apology. Who turned them into children in waiting? “Child protection” social workers. Who substantially reduced the adoption costs if they have “special needs”? MCFD.
To most parents, God gives them children so that they can have roses in December. To special interests in the “child protection” industry, God gives people children so that they can have a job and a business. This amounts to abduction and human trafficking. Of course, CFCSA renders such infamous activities completely legal.
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:9). Traditionally, this Bible verse is used to discourage separation and divorce. While it is disputable to say that it is God’s will to put two incompatible persons under the same roof, God has joined parents with their own biological children is an irrefutable fact. CFCSA authorizes SW to change this as they see fit and produce removed children to feed the adoption market governed by the Adoption Act, which is also a MCFD mandate.
CW mentioned that “I've been wrong before though...” although I am unsure what this refers to. This is a big progress. Special interests in this industry never admit that they are wrong.
Ron;I have been over in Vancouver for a few days celebrating birthdays in my family. These birthdays come like a meteor shower every November under the sign of Scorpio. While in the Vancouver area I had the pleasure of a visit with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and they were able to share all the joys of their six hour access visit on the previous day. The joys and of course also the sorrows.
ReplyDeleteYesterday, my wife and I had the pleasure of meeting KJohn Cheung and his charming wife Linda for lunch at the Great Wall restaurant. They have been tireless workers for the Baynes and it was a bit liike a team meeting. KJonn is a lawyer and I was pleased to get his opinion that the director has fallen far short in providing any proof that would swing the balance of probabilities in his direction.
I am going to give you another case from my advocacy files, but before that I want to pick up one or two issues that have recurred on your blog. First regarding assessment. Assessment is simple when you know how. just do a careful unbiased personal history, starting with family structure in childhood, educational, training and work history. Already you will have most of what you need to know. Is there evidence of lifeskills, family strengths and normal milestone achievements. The seriously dysfunctonal life histories will already be apparent. If the background (as with the Baynes) seems quite normal and there is plenty of evidence of positive characteristics, then you do not need an artificial and subjective device to provide guidance. Basically we can be much more reliably assessed by our actual behaviour. We are what we do and not what we say. ( Try that on politicians!) You can get a psychologist like Henry Maas who wrote an oft-quoted book on personality profiles of abusers. Such psychological assessments are far too subjective to be reliable. If there is no observed behaviour to indicate risk, then use that for the assessment. You can drag in psychologists who can be guaranteed to tell you what you want to hear. just like they got in Randal Alexander because he could be guaranteed to suppport SBS theory.That is why factual evidence is so much more reliable than opinion and assumption.
Another thing that comes up is having degreed social workers and registered social workers. Social work schools do not teach child protection, as stated in the Gove report. Fortunately, most masters graduates do not lay claim to any expertise in that field and they are willing to learn the basics. Remember that I recently received reliable information that hardly any child protection social workers are registered and neither do they join the B.C. Association of social workers. So it is little use looking to the social work schools, the college of social workers or their professional association for help in trying to fix the protection mess.
Here is a case from my advocacy files.
ReplyDeleteMrs. D. had her own young child assaulted by her teenage foster daughter. She had not been told that the girl had a history of assaulting younger children. She decided to have a child psychologist see her daughter for several sessions and asked for the Ministry to help her with the cost of $12,000. When they refused, she successfully sued them for $60,000, which was the original sum plus her legal costs. The Ministry successfully appealed the case and had the judgement overturned. The appeal court judge agreed with the lower court judge that there had been negligence and a failure of duty of care, but disagreed that bad faith had been adequately proven. Mrs. D's lawyer estimated that it would probably have cost the public about one million dollars in order to save spending the requested twelve thousand. Not only does this case illustrate the needless wasteful litigation, but it also shows that the law protects incompetence as long as it is well-intentioned. This needs to be changed.
Footnote. The above case reminds us that one has to prove malice in order to win a case against the ministry. The staff can be totally incompetent and it does not matter as long as they mean well. Imagine what it would be like of we applied such a standard to the medical professions. Life expectancy would plummet in this province! Proving malice is very difficult and basically it can only be done by attacking the workers at the bottom of the hierarchy. The senior administration can hide behind the social workers and are in no danger. In the successful suite in the "Baby Molly" case, the social workers were put under abominable stress and they were only following instructions. They were hung out to dry by their superiors, who walked away unscathed.
I'm curious to know what would serve as motivation for social workers to improve their service level and ethics.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I would do is have experienced parents who have encountered the worst of MCFD be embedded at a few test offices to take notes. (Embedding in the same sense that Journalists were allowed to be present in the Iraq war in order to report.)
To Anon at November 16, 2010 11:02 AM, re: your posting and your comments to "CW" (who I note is posting again, despite swearing off this blog).
ReplyDeleteWonderfully well said!
I would just like to add for anyone who thinks that adoption isn't rife with corruption, they should read The Baby Thief, which is actually written by an adoptive mom who traces the history of adoption right back to the woman who popularized adoption in America - Georgia Tann.
Tann was a greedy, corrupt, child abusing monster, who had an evil, corrupt judge working with her to steal children from the parents (usually single moms) who loved them. Tann was a lesbian, and her girlfriend was, of all things, the secretary for some national children's club, the name of which escapes me.
Tann also pretended, like so many in the child protection racket, to be a savior of children.
The author of the book, The Baby Thief, points out that adoption is still a corrupt business, citing the example of the woman who arranged Angelina Jolie's adoption, as a corrupt criminal who has made millions in the racket. If anything, the woman who wrote the book is biased in favour of adoption, as she is an adoptive mother herself.
Here's a video on Georgia Tann for anyone who interested in seeing what a true blue child protector looks like:
http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-georgia-tann-the-baby-thief-%5BbSI6OcxNllQ%5D.cfm
I can relate to trying to get the psychologist fee refunded by the Ministry. In the end, the Ministry paid the bill and avoided a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteThis took a year and a half, mind you. One must be patient with MCFD.
The route I chose was to gradually escalate the matter past the CSM (community service manager), whose manager then told the underlings to "deal with it." Still, the social workers did not respond, it took one more letter to point out the underlings were ignoring their bosses, and that seemed to do the trick.
If you understand that MCFD social workers and their fearless leaders hate paperwork. The trick is to stratigically bombard them with paperwork. All this paperwork hey are forced to keep on file indefinitely. Then, as you escalate matters, attached unanswered letters to make the bundle bigger and bigger as time goes on.
I agree that parents should bombard the court record with proof of their innocence and the sacredness of their family life.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, perhaps parents could also swear affidavits exhibiting photos and / or videos of themselves and their children, at playgrounds, the dinner table, family functions, holidays, weddings, etc., etc., etc. A picture tells a thousand stories.
The affidavit and affidavit exhibits then become a court record, showing the children's faces, happy and content to be with their real family. The judge would have to think twice, especially if he or she was to compare these photos with the "after" pictures; that is, the sad faces of children "in care."
I heard on the radio this morning that the Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has subpoenaed MCFD employees - can't find anything on the Internet about this. I believe it was on CBC radio this morning.
ReplyDeleteThere is an article from Nov. 15, 2010, in the Toronto Star (online), quoting Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond :
"“Given the extreme concern about the ministry’s conduct in this matter, I request an urgent meeting with you and your senior bureaucratic staff to review what occurred,” she wrote in the two-page letter."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/891313--b-c-watchdog-demands-talks-with-bureaucrats-over-disabled-girl
This tragedy will probably turn into a Baby P type scenario where there is a spike in reports to MCFD (which is great for business of course), and the public, once again, gets duped into believing that all MCFD needs is more money and more staff.
I looked up CPS on the youtube and there is a Texas family who has had 3 babies taken. They are crying as Texas CPS takes their newborn who was just breastfeeding peacefully moments before. The father is crying and saying that the previous problem had been that they did not have stable housing but now they do, can they not please have their baby?
ReplyDeleteIt is a heart breaking haunting video clip and it is a true story.
Then after searching up the rules for the Southern states in particular it is true that the books are balanced by fees paid for adoptions. Many parents in the Ozarks where there is so much poverty are losing their babies and other wealthier couples are paying to adopt them. It has become standard procedure, not a secret at all. Very sad.
Jenny 4:02 PM
ReplyDeleteI know why you were browsing thru Youtube videos of this kind. Was it not to see whether other people shared the horrific experience that you have yourself experienced? Was your child returned?
Beyond that, can you find and provide here, the online address for that video?