From what I have learned there is a persistent error. Social workers are slow to revise their judgements. Research indicates that this error is widespread and by no means peculiar to social workers but it means that misjudgements about clients that may have been unavoidable on the limited knowledge available when they were made, continue to be accepted despite a growing body of evidence against them. That is what I have observed to have happened in the case of the workers associated with Paul and Zabeth Bayne. That's simply my opinion. When social workers pay attention to a couple of collateral call-ins but don't bother to read the hundreds of letters of support for the parents from people who know them, and when the legal counsel dismisses the collection of correspondence on technicalities, it is perceived as a determination to refuse to allow a mind change. When a dozen medical experts review a child's files containing the information that was prepared by the examining medical team and arrive at contradicting conclusions for plausible reasons and when the original diagnosis is shown to be one that can be mimicked by other causes yet this is quickly dismissed, then one tends to believe there is an unwillingness to change one's mind about the parents. When for three years there is every indication of model behaviour, clean conduct, good life habits and values, hard work, rationality, peaceableness and polite interaction, and this does nothing to dissuade social workers from a negative assessment, it is justifiable to think that a rigidity is in place which does not serve families, children or parents well. Not this family or any family in the future. If it can be broadly stated that social workers need a greater acceptance of their fallibility and a willingness to consider that their judgements and decisions are wrong, that is certainly true of those who have worked to bring these parents through three years of childlessness. To change your mind in the light of new information is a sign of good practice, a sign of strength not weakness.
I blame the social workers, but they couldn't get away with this destructive behavior if it weren't for those higher up. This corruption must be systemic, and it is, apparently, worldwide. It really makes you wonder what is going on. Such a powerful ministry or agency doing such great harm, all in the name of good, it really boggles the mind.
ReplyDeleteBut people all over the world are working hard to expose this corruption, and it is only a matter of time before the general public sees the child protection industry for what it is. Let's hope we aren't all living in totalitarian states before that time comes. It almost seems as if this is a race against that time.
The fracture to the baby's femur was of the type caused by pulling or twisting on the leg. Dr. Sergeant, witness for the director, said that the injury occurred on or about October 6th, 2007. October 6th was the date of the radiology exam in the (I think) Chilliwack hospital. The technician had quite a struggle straightening out the baby's legs to strap them down for the exam. As the baby was nine weeks and six weeks premature, her developmental age was only three weeks and the strength necessary was quite enough to cause the injury at the top of the leg bone.It was a type of injury from pulling the bone out of its connecting sheath.
ReplyDeleteLater on today, I will give you more information from my advocacy files,but right now I have other things to do.
Use of words and phrases in describing MCFD actions such as fallible, wrong decision making, unwillingness to consider incorrectly made judgments and decisions, avoidable mistakes, job complexity, persistant error, limited knowledge available, determination to refuse to allow a mind change, negative assessment, is quite a collection of observations. It is a decidedly passive aggressive approach.
ReplyDeleteI believe it would be far simplier and more direct to say that the monkeys involved stuck their hand in the cookie jar, grabbed far more than their little clenched fists would allow them safely withdraw with, and they refuse to let go.
(picture) http://dlysen.com/blog/story/how-to-catch-monkey-in-india
http://wayofselfdefense.com/Documents/Catching%20Monkeys.pdf
http://www.simonlawry.com/2010/05/how-to-catch-a-monkey/
So, MCFD refuse to relinquish their hold on the Baynes three children. What has it gotten them so far?
Finn, chief monkey, has taken three years and three days to explain why it is impossible for MCFD to withdraw. He can spin straw into gold all he wants, but his, and his clients hands are still stuck in the jar. At least for another 2-3 months, anyways.
It is a wonder that jar which represents the Bayne's family has not yet been broken!
As a member of the public viewing this case in detail, it undermines the confidence I have in the system. I am concerned that people will be more reluctant to report their neighbors when they know the family will not truly be helped.
ReplyDeleteA huge percentage of the reports that child protective services gets are found to be not substantiated. It's too easy for anyone to make a false report. We need to have harsh penalties for those who make false reports. We know this happens all the time, so why is no one being prosecuted?
ReplyDeleteI have read my huge file and it seems really difficult to get things cancelled off a file. A social worker uses all calls even ones that do nto appear valid to create a guess. In my case, the guess was way off. It is all a big snarl for them to figure out at this point. I got my kids back so I am finally on the other end of this, watching how they try to figure out what to say when they have so much untrue information that they pushed through the legal system against me.
ReplyDelete4:08 PM Anon
ReplyDeleteI am elated that you have your children back with you.
In respect to the Baynes it is indeed a tragedy
ReplyDeleteon the other end of the spectrum their case has revealed incompatence on the social workers conduct, demenstrates that the MCFD acted in bad faith and clearly not in the child's best interest! So inspite of this horrible unessisary tragedy would it be possible to say that the Baynes Case clearly without a resonable doubt says the system is broken this is what needs to be changed and hopefully it dose mabye Ron you could help explain that God works in awsome and mysterious ways. The Baynes are hard working people they have a beautiful family with a spical bond with their children which at any cost ought to be maintained! It is hard for me to put into words but at least now the government had to take notice of this broken child protection system and the Baynes case just mabye be the pillar to creating change and definately make a difference for families. There is a bsic understanding that once this legal web of justice is woven of decipetion the wheels of justice turn very slowly always keep the faith because faith keeps you, I am hoping you can explain what I am trying to say?
11:41 AM Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou hoped that I could explain what you are saying so perhaps you yourself will notice the many spelling and grammatical mistakes in your comment but since this is not a literature exercise, let me tell you that I do get the drift of your comment. I know that both the Baynes and I appreciate the moral support a comment like yours provides. And yes, there are systemic problems in our child protection agency which will have to be fixed sooner than later.
Yes, I think that the system does have a few problems. One thing is that calls are accepted and become legal fact in the manner that the calls content is accepted in court with the same weight as 'evidence'. Yet there are a few crazy people out there who will call on their neighbours even though they know they are not doing anything wrong. Sometimes it is the case that the caller does not like children and is annoyed that they live beside a family. I have a neighbour like that!!!
ReplyDeleteThe calls are recorded and acted upon even though the content is unlikely.
That is one big problem!!!
I met many parents through taking parenting courses put on by MCFD and through family court.
At first I did not know that the parents in the classes had lost their children. They seemed so nice, so normal and so caring. Then later when I lost my children, I realized that it is very easy to have your children taken. A supervision order is a percurser to taking the children for flimsy reasons. CPS calls anything at all a 'breach' and takes the kids.
It means that the parents have to have a lot of contact with the system and MCFD gets to find out if they think you are capable or not of parenting your kids.
I started out with a pretty good opinion of MCFD and I was unprepared because of that. Now, I know better. I think most people would not be able to believe how it actaully works. It is too bad and it makes people change their mind about child protection, that is for sure!!!