This is something which perhaps in a short time will become actual in divorce settlements, and I see no reason why parents embroiled with the Ministry of Children and Family Development should not already move forward to gain this privilege as well. I think that every parent whose child has been removed should consider making this request to the judge, not only for scheduled visitation but for scheduled 'virtual visitation'.
I am using the information provided in an article written by Misty Harris of Postmedia News November 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM and published in the Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Sun and a host of other news sources.
 |
Photograph by: File photo, Postmedia News |
Ms. Harris' story calls this a “digital leap in parental rights.” She writes about it in the context of divorce settlements and video chatting may soon become the right and not merely a privilege for some Canadian parents. Six American states already include virtual visitation in their legislation and in Canada, courts are routinely ordering this plugged-in parenting option on a case-by-case basis across our country when a divorced parent lives some distance from the child's residence. It is anticipated that 'virtual visitation' will become enshrined in the language of divorce settlements so that broken families will be subject to court orders that facilitate parent-child Skype calls and instant messaging at scheduled times. It will become a fixture in custodial agreements.
As we hear so often, the compelling factor is the best interest of the child. The visual immediacy of a web-cam chat is very beneficial to a child. Clearly, if a parent has abused a child and a child is fearful, a judge is not going to order a regular web-cam visit. But where the contest is clearly between a protection agency and the parents and a child thrives by actual visits with parents, a virtual visit will be viewed as constructive for the relationship and the future of the family. Shouldn't that be what MCFD and any CPS agency is concerned to achieve?
When ones family is thrust into a nightmare of false allegations of child abuse because of a faulty diagnosis by a hospital the consequences for the family is devastating.This kind of misdiagnosis whether in err by human or machine is ACCEPTABLE once, maybe even twice, but to continue and perpetuate a junk science diagnosis to cover the the errors of incompetent doctors and a bottom line is vile. To say that I was angered by the following article would be polite. I cannot fathom how B.C. Children's Hospital would even consider Larry Gold for such a position under the circumstances. I would have to question the motives of Lynda Cranston and the PHSA in that perhaps they too will soon need a scapegoat. As a parent and a grandparent I would think twice before taking a loved one to B.C. Children's Hospital and Sunny Hill Health Centre, both of which Gold leads.
ReplyDeleteControversy shrouds new hospital chief
American Larry Gold joins B.C. Children's Hospital after resigning from previous job
Pamela Fayerman, Vancouver Sun Tuesday, June 24, 2008
VANCOUVER - The new president of B.C. Children's Hospital resigned his nine-year CEO post at a Connecticut hospital after a scathing indictment of hospital management and policies by the state government's Public Health Commissioner. Larry Gold, who succeeds the retired Sharon Toohey, was chosen by a selection panel headed by Lynda Cranston, CEO of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA), the governing authority over B.C. Children's Hospital and Sunny Hill Health Centre, both of which Gold will lead.Cranston said in an interview that Gold was honest and straightforward about the events in Connecticut and the actions he took to prevent further occurrences. Continued...
New Children's Hospital chief Larry Gold quit his U.S. job amid controversy.
ReplyDeleteIan Smith/Vancouver Sun
Gold was praised by his colleagues as a down-to-earth, energetic leader, revered for his fundraising abilities and interpersonal skills. Gold, a 55-year-old married father of two children (aged 21 and 19), is a social worker turned hospital executive who will be paid $238,000 a year. In 2005, Connecticut health commissioner Dr. Robert Galvin fined Gold's former hospital, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, (CCMC) $250,000 after multiple unannounced inspections and investigations found numerous problems. The hospital was placed on two years probation during which time it was ordered to fix problems that violated state regulations. In May of 2005, Gold signed a legal "consent agreement" to do that while not admitting to wrongdoing In an interview, Gold said he thought his former hospital met and even exceeded all standards but the findings were accepted and he resigned because, with leaders, "the buck stops here."The problems, over the course of about two years, had to do with care lapses in the hospital's radiology and emergency departments, security, and trauma services. The Vancouver Sun obtained a 100-page report detailing the procedural lapses, which may have caused the deaths of three children and jeopardized other patients' safety. Gold is not named specifically nor accused of being responsible for the problems. He resigned seven months later and has spent the last two years as a consultant. In one case cited by Galvin, a 15-year old car accident victim died after it took a radiologist in the emergency room an hour and a half to read a diagnostic exam that revealed a heart injury. The boy bled internally and died before surgery to repair his torn aorta.Another fatality was caused by a child, visiting a patient, who wandered unsupervised and unnoticed by hospital staff into another patient's room, picked up a baby, dropped it and caused its death.In another security lapse, a drug addicted mother wrongfully removed her baby in state custody from the hospital and emergency abduction protocols were not used.In a case of misdiagnosis, a child with sickle cell disease died because of gaps in emergency department diagnostic delays. The report also details numerous other lapses including medications not being stored in locked carts, an operation being done on the wrong side of the body, and fridges that weren't kept cold enough.Galvin, still the health commissioner, declined to be interviewed but had a hospital spokesman send this e-mail statement: "During Mr. Gold's time with CCMC, he was known as a strong advocate for the hospital and [Galvin] wishes Mr. Gold success in his new position."Before listing off situations in Toronto and Winnipeg where children died because of procedural flaws and negligent care, Lynda Cranston said, "We have to recognize there are no perfect hospitals out there."She was reminded that a decade ago, when she was president of B.C. Children's Hospital, she offered a tearful public apology to the parents of a seven-year-old cancer patient who died after a doctor mistakenly injected a chemotherapy drug into her spine, instead of her veins. It was not the first time a drug had been incorrectly administered but previous cases had not resulted in deaths. Continued...
At a news conference at the time, Cranston admitted the hospital was responsible.She said: "There are no words that can adequately communicate our apologies or regret to this girl's family. There is nothing that can bring their child back to them, and we are devastated by that knowledge."Cranston said she can relate to what Gold went through and hospital leaders have to accept the ultimate blame when things go wrong."That's right, I had my own experience. So I am someone who has walked through the fire and tried to make significant changes so that we came out better at the other end," she said."There are 10,000 employees at PHSA and any day of the week untoward things can happen in a highly labour intensive business because of the human factor," she added.Cranston said Gold was the best of several candidates because of his 30 years of experience at pediatric hospitals.Several months before Gold resigned, Galvin was quoted in the Hartford Courant newspaper as saying: "We see a more than reasonable amount of supervisory confusion over there. They simply have to get the place straightened out and put on a full court press to do it."Galvin said hospital leaders seemed unaware that a "bulldozer, not a shovel" was necessary to protect children. When asked if he'd take his own grandchildren to the hospital, he said no, adding "We have not seen to date the positive changes I want to see there."Apart from security concerns, Galvin said the 129-bed hospital (similar in size to B.C. Children's) needed electronic medical records, more staff in the emergency department, better security, more supervision of medical trainees, more training in advanced trauma, cardiac and life support, and more clarity of executive functions.Cranston said she's not overly concerned Gold hails from the U.S."I'm a little biased as my preference is to find a Canadian whenever possible. But after interviewing as many as 30 candidates that were brought to us by a search firm, and then whittling the list down to six or seven, Larry rose to the top," she said, referring to the selection process conducted by about 20 various PHSA managers, doctors and nurses."There are just a few dozen pediatric hospitals in North America, so someone with 30 years of experience is significant," Cranston added.In fact, there are more than 100 pediatric hospitals in North America, including about a dozen in Canada. In a recent issue of U.S. News and World Report, pediatric hospitals in the U.S. are ranked. The Connecticut hospital where Gold
ReplyDeleteworked does not place in the top 30 hospitals in the areas of general pediatrics, cancer, cardiac care and surgery, neonatal neurology and neurosurgery, or respiratory disorders. But it does place 30th in digestive disorders care.Rankings are measured on hospital reputations (according to doctors surveyed), nurse staffing levels, advanced technologies, patient volumes and re-admission rates (patients who have to go back to hospital after discharge due to complications or unresolved matters).
Sun Health Issues Reporter
pfayerman@png.canwest.com
1/2 Webcam access and MCFD
ReplyDeleteGiven my experience, while FRA and custody cases with webcam access do work, MCFD and video access presently does not work. It would be appropriate to forgive the naivety of your suggestion given you have not personally experienced the removal of your children.
While I have two current BC Supreme Court Custody orders (one is 5 years old) mandating webcam contact, I was unable to use this as a basis to convince a lower court Provincial Judge it was in the best interests of the children to have such contact.
The argument was MCFD's objective of physical separation was already in place, so webcam contact would permit the sort of "safe" access MCFD was concerned about, and maintain the bonds between child and parent.
The given reason for refusal was to protect the privacy of the foster parent. Now, WHERE might you say you have heard that before? Pointing a webcam at a wall with nothing else but the child is violating a foster parent's privacy?
This is but one example of the sort of insane logic by which MCFD operates on a daily basis.
The real reason for not allowing video access is revealed by the many stories of those in authority caught by video evidence which permits public evisceration of the subjects on tape.
There is the story just the other day of the drunk women in a jail cell 'consensually' being assaulted by an HIV-infected women, and several officers watched the video while doing nothing about it for several minutes. Now, the women is suing the officers, and the officers have been suspended. The only way social workers can be suspended is if they are members of the college, and they make a decision to suspect their membership.
MCFD KNOWS what they do on a day to day basis is morally wrong even though they have the law behind them, but they don't want bad press via videos. Their own internal guidelines are riddled with 'privacy' concerns, which is thinly disguised ass-covering.
In my case, the other parent of my children was located in another city, and in-person visits involved an expensive plane trip and hotel stay, and expensive supervised visits.
I argued for webcam access on multiple occasions before two BC Provincial Judges. On my first application, the court adjourned the matter of webcam access pending a PCA (Parental Capacity Assessment) internet availability and wishes of the foster parent. The PCA was passed with flying colors, however MCFD still refused webcam access, again citing "privacy" considerations.
By the time it was ready to address the matter again in court, I was allowed unsupervised access. At this stage, one can be relatively certain MCFD won't pursue a protection hearing and will drop its protective activities.
2/2 Webcam access and MCFD
ReplyDeleteUsing the Baynes situation as an example, IF MCFD DIDN'T oppose webcam access, the Baynes would likely be allowed 15 minutes, and not allowed to extend in-person access as a result.
The Baynes currently have 9 hours of in-person access time, 6 of which are in the home. The other 3 hours still occur in a facility.
Video footage on TV news is the ONLY reason the Baynes are being put through this hell.
Can you imagine in the future, parents going to news agencies with video access footage of their darling children begging to be returned home? Do you think for one second MCFD would not fight tooth and nail to ensure this scenario not be allowed to happen?
I got no more than 3 hours of supervised access per week in my home. I was not able to extend this unless I paid for a supervisor at a rate of $40/hr plus $40 travel charges.
I gave my daughter a webcam-equipped laptop with wireless Rogers WiMax internet access and a video-capable cell phone. Neither worked because of the distant area the foster home was located, and both devices were later confiscated. Now, we have cheap video-capable ipods and Wi-Max USB dongles and iPads with 3G wireless access, and GPS capable cell phones to pinpoint children's locations. A potential MCFD nightmare.
MCFD does not want parents collecting evidence through these devices. MCFD does not want parents knowing the location of their children, which such video access would permit through IP address searches. The children are MCFD's "evidence," so they don't want parents having unfettered unmonitored access to the children, because it would be easy for parents to advise a child to give instructions to their captors, that they wanted out of the foster-care prison and to state that their parents posed no danger to them.
The other aspect, as you've noted, is MCFD has a clear agenda to interrupt this bond and attachment to parents in order to instill the necessary level of terror and to establish the new pecking order for child and parent to abide by.
If you search court databases for webcam or video access in conjunction with child protection cases, you won't find anything.
Even in FRA matters, video access is not trouble-free if one side is adversarial. The child can be coached beforehand, or during the video. A special activity can occupy the child to deliberately distract them. A TV or loud audio can be played in the background. Video is time limited, to 15 minutes or less. The camera can be pointed at a bright window, so the video white balance changes making the subject appear very dark (discouraging web capture or enjoyable speaking experience).
Other individuals can be insinuating themselves into the picture to destroy any thoughts of having a private conversation. The child can be made aware they are being watched and will suffer retribution after the video is turned off, and the event can be turned into an unpleasant experience rather than something to look forward to. For every positive benefit, there is a means to undermine it and turn it into a weapon.
Despite all of these potential issues, a video call with a young child cannot hold a candle to telephone call.
Look at the variations of visitation restrictions MCFD can scale up and down, and impose at will:
- telephone access
- MCFD office 'visit rooms' supervised
- supervised facility visits
- supervised community visits
- supervised visits at relatives placement
- supervised at-home visits
- unsupervised, short term visits
- unsupervised, all-day visits
- unsupervised overnight visits on weekends
- unsupervised multi-day visits
MCFD is at a disadvantage of not having legal permission to tape calls or archive such data (even though they do it anyways, off the record).
To prevent parents from having video files, MCFD would more likely follow this U.K. model:
Britain To Put CCTV Cameras Inside Private Homes
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/
Ron; I had intended to give you another history from my book today, but I will postpone it after reading yesterday's posted comments.
ReplyDeleteI am very puzzled about the comments on adoption agencies and adoption rackets. Things must have changed beyond all recognition in the last twenty years. In all the years that I worked for the province adoptions were handled by the ministry social work staff. There are two sides to adoption work. There is the matter of assisting women who wish to relinquish a child. These are usually young, unmarried mothers-to-be, who think they are not ready to provide proper parenting. They may, or may not have family support. One counsels them to make sure this is what they truly want. Many will change their minds after the birth and will manage with family support. That is why it was not legal to take an adoption consent until ten days after birth. Mother would then leave her child in the hospital. With normal healthy babies, the adoption would often be straight from hospital. Baby was actually in a state of legal limbo until a legal notice of intention to adopt was filed. We sometimes had to place the baby in a temporary care until the adoption parents came to pick up the child. When the relinquishment papers were signed, great care was taken to ensure that there was no pressure. Two workers had to be involved. One took the adoption consents and the other had the mother swear an affidavit that consent was free and voluntary.
The other side of the story was doing the adoption study. Would-be adopting parents would apply to us and fill out forms with all the factual information on them. Medical exam reports would be filed and references provided and referees would be interviewed. An adoption study was completed and people were advised about the legalities of adoption processes, what information on the child and its background would be given and so on. Once an adoption study was completed, it had to be sent in to the child welfare division for approval. No adoption could be completed without approval from the head child welfare official. This was to safegaurd against inapproprate private placements and any adoption racketeering. Continued
The Lisa K comment re-publishes an online Vancouver Sun article that is over two years old.
ReplyDeleteA link would suffice:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=f245a0c8-5cc8-4de0-9150-044b23f4e20d
Perhaps the poster could clarify what prompted this post. Something to do with a more current problem at the Children's Hospital related to diagnostic coverup that has some bearing on child protection issues?
Anon 1:06 PM and Lisa K & your sequence of three comments above...
ReplyDeleteNow I have to say something. First thanks Anon. And Lisa, with respect I wrote a comment to you earlier today and retracted it, but here is something similar again. Your comment is unrelated to the subject of my blog today and at first read it seemed like an article prepared earlier and you were using my blog to post it. While the subject may be of interest to some readers, I will be more discerning another time to hold you to point 2 of the filter points in the Post a Comment opportunity, which is to engage with the blog post or a previous comment. And if you are citing someone else's article as a resource is fine but if you are merely republishing someone else's piece, I have little interest in that.
Further to my remark above...
ReplyDeleteIt appears a valid question is posed by Anon 1:06 for Lisa K because her borrowed story concerning Larry Gold while not only being two years old, went nowhere after that. There have been no continuing concerns with regard to his executive leadership that I can detect anywhere. We have far more pertinent issues with which to deal on this blog site.
Adoptions continued
ReplyDeleteOnce the home was approved, they had to wait until a suitable child became available. Some homes wanted only newborns, while others were more flexible. Once a child became available, adopting parents were usually given short notice to travel to the placement location and see the child. Usually they took the baby without further ado. They would be given some written information on family health history and so on. They were always too excited to remember anything,otherwise. There were no charges, or costs to either party. Once the child was placed, it was necessary for the parents to engage a lawyer to file legal notice of intention to adopt and at that time the parents had legal status. After the probation period they could apply to supreme court for the adoption order. Their lawyer would file the petition and with the report from the child welfare director, it was usually a matter of rubberstamping. The only costs to the adopting parents were their travel costs,court registry fees and whatever their lawyer chose to charge. often only a couple of hundred dollars. I think that many lawyers were pretty soft on adoptions and only covered their own expenses.
How adoptions were handled did vary from time to time, according to supply and demand. In the 1950s and 1960s there were usually far more children than homes available and so there was more tolerance on matters like age and natural children in the home. At first the birth control pill and later easier access to abortion reduced the supply of children and so studies became more stringent. This seemed to increase the incidence of private placement and it was not unusual to find someone who had been rejected on the grounds of age or health to find a private placement. Some of these private placements could be really problematic because the home may have been rejected on good grounds. However, one would have to find the child to be in need of protection under the definition of the controlling act in order to interfere. Adoption work can be full of surprises and sometimes women who had striven for pregnancy for years would get pregnant right after an adoption placement.
When swearing affidavits for adoption consents, I was always meticulous in going through everything very carefully with the mother. If the adoption were to be challenged, I could swear with certainty that everything was done correctly. I may not be able to remember each case, but this way I did not have to. Once and adoption worker grabbed me to come down the corridor and swear a consent and then she got realy peeved with me for going through everything so carefully. She seemed to take it as a personal criticism!!
In the usual district office, we did all the work. adoptions, fostering, financial work etc. In city offices there was enough staff for specialisation and we had adoption and fostering departments, who did studies on homes and dealt with consents. They may have a sub-speciality for unmarried mothers.
continued
The adoption process outlined by Ray Ferris seems more in line with what I would imagine what would happen with non-MCFD concerned babies or unwanted children.
ReplyDeleteIn such circumstances, what need is there for third party adoption agencies, who are authorized by MCFD for their existance?
Why is such a high cost required to facilitate the adoption such children? I mean, if an average family of say, a household $40-60,000 could not have children and there was a ready supply of unwanted children, why should they have to pay such high fees? Alternatively, why would the government offer to PAY these type of parents to care for a child even if they did suffer an ailment, long or short term?
Any parent that has children with afflictions can apply for subsidies as an extension of the Health system. Why MCFD inserts itself into this process is beyond me.
The question of MCFD involvement places them more in the position of a middleman brokering children for money.
By identifying children with afflictions that show up on the list opens up the adoption system to abuse. I social worker ticks off a check box on a form and no validation is required.
When children are waiting to be adopted, they have to be cared for under the auspices of MCFD's foster care system while they are waiting, so why hide behind third party adoption agencies?
In light of the information posted by a previous commenter, it would appears MCFD has stratically attempted to separate itself from the business end of adoption to precisely avoid any claims they were removing children because of financial incentive. The government likely gets most of the money back through taxes on the adoption agency. The adoption company pays employees who also pay taxes and spend the remaining cash on their lives and children.
One co-worker talked about the expense, planning and waiting to adopt a child China. She had Chinese heritage, and I imagine it may have been hard to "order" a Chinese infant, so perhaps this explains the motivation. There must be some sort of selection process, similar to http://photolisting.adoption.com/.
I would well imagine other countries are adopting Canadian children in the same way. I was perplexed at the motivation and willingness of the adoptive parents to go through enormous complexity and cost to obtain a child.
Why not spend the cash on the birth parent, or at least give them the options to see the supports available before they sign over their child?
All three of the Baynes children, if I am not mistaken are identified in the category of "abuse," or other transitory ailments. In this case, the adopting parents would get paid buckets of money throughout childhood years, while, potentially, the Baynes would have to pay child maintenance support to offset government costs for being "guilty" of incurring such costs in the first place.
This is quite an impact one doctor has on diagnosing SBS.
This side-topic of adoption has obviously overshadowed the current subject of the blog talking about video access. However, the subject of adoption (briefly discussed in Blog #185) is however important enough to stand alone as a topic of discussion, as it is very much relevant to the Baynes situation.
Adoption continued.
ReplyDeleteAdoption is a big subject and I am only skimming the surface. There are many types of private adoption, of which the most common is probably relative adoption. Many foster parents eventually adopt their foster children, but these are not private adoptions. As far as I know the only way the province makes money from adoption, is by saving the cost of foster care. In the last few years the adoption scene has been radically changed by the proliferation of international adoptions. Because so many children are orphaned through various disasters,there must be various agencies brokering international adoptions and it is possible that they charge substantial fees. One must safeguard against illegal child trafficking and this will not be without its price. Should internatiolnal agencies charge fees? How else do they cover costs? What cost is reasonable, the price of a big screen tv, the price of a Honda Civic or the the price of a Lexus? However, this is really a completely separate topic.
What some of the writers seem to be claiming is that by apprehending children and placing them for adoption, the MCFD is making large sums of money. I simply do not follow the argument, because as far as I know there are no fees charged for babies born in B.C. apart from those I have mentioned.
If someone in the field could write about current adoption arrangements,it would be of great help. Perhaps a regular reader could fill us in? How about it Berhay?
http://www.sunriseadoption.com/adoptive_parents/faqs
ReplyDeleteMost newborns in British Columbia are placed for adoption through one of 6 licensed agencies. The agencies are all not-for-profit but do charge fees for the services they provide. Fees are approved by the Provincial government. Sunrise Adoption is one of the agencies.
Adoption agencies also facilitate adoptions from other countries.
The cost of adopting an infant in BC starts at around $15,000. Intercountry adoptions vary widely from $18,000 to over $50,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The woman who arranged for one of Angelina Jolie's adoptions, was American broker Lauryn Galindo, who between 1997 and 2001 arranged for adoptions of Cambodian children to Americans, making an estimated $8 million in the process. Eventually she would serve 18 months in prison for falsifying names, histories, passports and birth certificates for these children.
8 Million dollars. Imagine that. And it looks like the Sunrise people are also involved in "international" adoptions. Perhaps this is where the real money is made.
I see nothing wrong with including Lisa K's comments, since she prefaces them by discussing on ongoing concern of this blog, that being the fact that this all started with a medical diagnosis in a medical institution. Her basic argument, that Children's hospitals are not what they seem, and that a bad track record of the hospital chief, Larry Gold, bodes ill for parents, is 100% relevant to this discussion. I don't understand the objection to her comments, especially since there are people who regularly make comments here that have nothing to do with that day's blog topic except in the most general manner.
ReplyDeleteRather than chastise those who take the time to point out problems with child protection - and that would include children's hospitals - we should be doing everything we can to support them, and thank them for their contribution. These are people who get paid nothing, and who are often treated with scorn and contempt, when their only goal is to educate others in the hopes that they may avoid the awful fate to which Lisa K. and others may have been subject. I feel deep sympathy for the parents who have been so victimized by this government and its corrupt Ministry. I hope they all continue to post their much valued comments on this blog, even if they don't seem directly linked to that day's topic. This is an excellent forum for these parents, and provides an invaluable service. Please, let's not censor those who most desperately need to be heard.
Anon 5:46 PM
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Lisa K appreciates your affirmation, specially in the context of her shared pain with hundreds of others who have suffered at the hands of this publicly funded oppression. Your comments are well taken.
Anon 5:37 PM
ReplyDeleteYour link to the sunrise adoption is revelatory. Thanks for providing that to us.
To: Ray Ferris (3 comments on November 17, 2010)
ReplyDeleteOf course you are puzzled of adoption agencies and adoption rackets if your understanding of the argument is “apprehending children and placing them for adoption, the MCFD is making large sums of money.” This is not what previous bloggers trying to say. Let’s revisit the issue again.
MCFD is a public body. It is not suppose to make a profit. If there is a deficit, the government will raise taxes or debts to finance it. With the ability to tax the entire population, this is usually not a problem but may carries political consequences at times if politicians are going too far or not doing it properly. Gordon Campbell’s stepping down is an example of failing to curb government expenditures and keep the tax low.
Special interests have no interest whatsoever whether MCFD is making money or at a deficit. They don’t benefit one way or the other. All they care is their own best interests, ie. their pay cheques, fat pension, job security, continuous business at their top hourly rate on taxpayer’s wagon. To protect their best interests, they must urge MCFD to engage in activities which needs their “services”. CFCSA allows SW to define child abuse and shovel their “services” down the throat of parents by way of court order, hence the demand of their pathetic service.
One by-product of state-sponsored child removal is ministry orphaned children. To special interests in the “child protection” industry, the best way to dispose them is to sell them in the lucrative adoption market which also requires similar services from the same special interests like home study, adoption study that you mentioned. Of course, legal service is always required to sever a natural parental relationship and to remake a new state-approved tie. The Post Adoption Assistance Program entails counselling, Speech/Physio/Occupational Therapy, assessments, ... Bingo, the psychotherapy industry gets their guaranteed business. They are the same shrinks who write reports on demand to support MCFD’s child removal decisions.
Despite the 6 (not 5 as one blogger incorrectly mentioned yesterday, this business must be expanding fast) adoption agencies in BC are independent legal entities, they are strongly influenced by MCFD (through licencing requirements) and run by people with similar mind set and belief. In microeconomics, this is known as vertical integration. Although adoption agencies are non profit organizations, there is no restriction to prohibit them from recovering costs of rendering their “services”. That’s how money is being syphoned and to escape public attention.
In addition, adoption is an effective cause to raise donation. Read The Province article on Nov 14, 2010
http://www.theprovince.com/Couple+wants+help+others+adopt/3826545/story.html
quote “The My Adoption Story aims to use the power of story to educate and encourage people to donate money ...” Children are often used as a tool, an excuse to raise donation. How often will one see booths in a shopping mall asking people donate to support hungry children in Africa? The good heartedness of Canadians is often targeted by various child related industries.
I just happened to be playing a video at a website about a local women who lost each of her three children to adoption (http://www.pa-pa.ca/Arlin.html) and my child, who I was able to retrieve from foster care hell, happened to walk by to watch some of it.
ReplyDeleteThis then prompted a recounting of the foster mom's accounting of her childhood. She was an adopted child who grew up, and about age 13, her parents told her she was adopted and that her mom was a drunk and didn't want her. The adoptive parents were good, caring people.
After growing up to adulthood, the former orphan decided to hire a private investigator to find her mother, paying thousands of dollars for the exercise. The investigator was successful and the daughter and mom reunited. The biological mom told her she did not want anything to do with her, and this broke her daughter's heart.
So, the former orphan decided to become a foster mom. My child thought that story was horrible, and felt sorry for the foster mom.
As an adult, and knowing the time the story was told, I understood exactly the reason the foster mom told this heart wrenching story. This was to manipulate and evoke trust through sympathy from my child so she could convince my child to stay in care permanently at that home.
Months later, after the Ministry returned all of my children, the home burned down. My child reported the breakers were constantly going off when they were living there, there was a serious rat problem, and the basement flooded because the water tank burst. The foster parents rented a new house and they continue fostering the one remaining special needs child.
In the Bayne's story, I caught the testimony of the Hoffmans, the Ministers who called in a protection concern on their former friends. They adopted MCFD kids. What a small world.
In the same hearing, we heard of one single foster parent of Bethany and several other young children, who herself was a former foster child. She relayed that she had wonderful foster parents and decided to become one herself.
The context of this discussion is not about whether or not the adopting parents are appropriate, it is about children who may have needlessly been removed from birth parents in the first place. No one argues that willing adoptions on both sides is a child protection issue to be concerned with. The question is, are ANY children being removed BECAUSE of the money is involved.
What I am witnessing in the Bayne's case is MCFD fighting tooth and nail and sparing no expense to keep these 3 three children, and potentially a 4th as-yet unborn child, then adopt them out, despite clear evidence these are good parents and the one injury to one child was a blameless accident.
The information presented here is that government costs of caring for the Bayne’s children will but significantly reduced through a successful adoption.
Opponents against removal of children by MCFD state the primary motivation for removals is to maximize the flow of taxpayer dollars, NOT the well-being of children or improvement of parenting skills. Adoption is but one cog in that system.
I for one, can no longer trust MCFD's motives with any involvement with children in any capacity.
Even when MCFD appears to get bad publicity (see excerpt from Times Colonist story below), the eventual outcome always seems to be an expansion of their power. The case referred to below could very well result in more stringent reporting requirements - that is, there may be more of an onus upon members of the general public to report what they supposedly construe as child abuse, and there may be requirements to follow up reports of child abuse. This may result in more innocent families being torn apart, rather than what the purported goal is always claimed to be, that is, to protect children.
ReplyDeleteSince MCFD and other child protection agencies around the world are not only destroying countless innocent families, but failing to protect children, why do we continue to support them?
"Watchdog issues subpoena after girl found with mother's body
By Lindsay Kines, Victoria Times Colonist November 18, 2010 VICTORIA —
British Columbia’s children’s watchdog has issued a subpoena ordering a provincial bureaucrat to answer questions under oath about the case of a 15-year-old disabled girl left alone with her mother’s rotting corpse for nine days."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Watchdog+issues+subpoena+after+girl+found+with+mother+body/3846060/story.html#ixzz15eHcTN1v
------------------------------------------
On the subject of adoption, which is integral to the subject of child protection, I have to wonder about the role of adoption agencies (including those in BC) in international adoptions, which as we have seen, are very susceptible to corrupt practices. There was a story several months ago about how children in China were being kidnapped - kidnappers would swoop into villages and just take the children, and often the authorities (being corrupt, just like in Canada) would do nothing. You have to wonder how many of these children ended up in Canada, and how many palms were greased along the way.
ReplyDelete"Non profit" does not mean frugal or operating on shoe string or that the employees, directors, service providers, etc., are not making substantial sums of money.
ReplyDelete"A non-profit corporation is a legal entity separate from its members and directors formed for purposes other than generating a profit to be distributed to its members, directors or officers. While, a non-profit corporation can earn a profit, the profit must be used to further the goals of the corporation rather than to pay dividends to its membership."
http://www.corporationcentre.ca/docen/home/faq.asp?id=incnp#q1
It's worth noting that "CCRA only grants charitable status to organizations where the (a) the applicant's purposes and activities fall within the legal concept of charity as recognized by the courts; and (b) the organization meets the other requirements of the Income Tax Act."
In this regard, it's very convenient that "protecting the welfare of children (e.g., societies for the prevention of child abuse)" falls within the "Purposes beneficial to the community" category, and therefore is a "charitable purpose."
A great benefit for charities is that they are tax-exempt and can issue tax deductible receipts to donors.
Of course there are many charities, such as the Salvation Army, that do extremely valuable work.
But any charities or non profits that somehow benefit from the destruction of good families is a corrupt organization, and should at the very least be found guilty of tax evasion, fraud and other serious violations of tax laws.
To Anon at November 17, 2010 6:47 PM:
ReplyDeleteIt would be a refreshing change to see CCRA go after these scam donation factories (e.g., the ones raising money ostensibly for children or child protection).
"When individuals or corporations are convicted of tax evasion, they have to pay the full amount of taxes owing, plus interest, and any penalties the CRA assesses. In addition, the court may, on summary conviction, fine them up to 200% of the taxes evaded and sentence them to a two-year jail term. Under the Income Tax Act, the CRA may also assess a penalty of up to 50% of the taxes evaded or the benefit improperly claimed."
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Canada-Revenue-Agency-Tax-Fraud-Results-in-Heavy-Fines-612613.htm
No matter how you slice and dice it this all started because of a faulty diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome! Clearly nobody has learned anything from the Goudge Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:46 AM Oct 18
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to Times Colonist, I have attached in Thursday's Blog Post in reference to Turpel-Lafond.
A word of appreciation to all of you are supplying links to good and informative online resource sites.
ReplyDeleteToday I met with my advocate. She told me that in her work with North Van MCFD office, it is just terrible. They are apparently very angry and hard to deal with, above many other offices.
ReplyDelete