Thursday, January 13, 2011

TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO / Part 417 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There is a nuance to child protection and perhaps to a wider array of social services amongst us that disturbs me. I speak of the notion that MCFD must seek to make people better than they are by making them to fit standards established by others, namely MCFD or directors and social workers. Where once paternalism compelled or manipulated you to conform to something, a slight change has occurred, in that standards are being imposed upon people. Any parent whose child has been removed can tell us this. The threat is real.

This tendency among social work theorists, teachers, administrators and practitioners is born from wrong-headed thinking in behavioural sciences. Of course people everywhere act imperfectly now and again or frequently, even as a common pattern. Here then comes that paternalism about which I wrote yesterday, that has presumed that it must intervene in order to help people to be better. And if a child's lot in life can be better by removing them from an indigent parent, or the parent with few resources, so be it. Or if a parent can be better by the shock of having his or her child removed for six months, so be it. You don't think social work is done that way? Are you completely certain? How else can you explain the intrusiveness with which MCFD conducts its agenda. And what kind of trouble are we in or asking for if the very people who legislate, make policy, do the social work, practice law or make legal decisions are as imperfect as the people they are attempting to improve? That is a scenario fraught with risk of injustice. Well guess what? Injustice is here and has touched and is touching countless numbers of parents, children and family.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within six days. We are that close. Stay posted.


  1. I note the recent publishing of the internal POlicy and Procedures Manual for the Children's Aid Society:
    There is a link for the Word files, 250mb in size.

    I have not yet seen the MCFD version, it would be interesting to compare.

    By using Google Advanced Search to restrict the search to it is possible to locate items of interest.

  2. The system in place today breeds fear and contempt for all authority after dealing with CPS. To this day I trust nobody. I am afraid of doctor's, hospitals, schools, teachers. police, and yes, people. I am a loving person, but somewhere in the deepest cavern of my being something broke. I am picking up the pieces one day at a time. Forgiveness...that is another matter. They say time heals, but I am not so sure one ever gets over being falsely- accused of hurting their child.

  3. Could you post the time that Judge Crabtree will be giving his ruling next Wednesday.

    6 days to go...

    I plan to post it when we know. No word yet.

  5. Lisa K 10:13 AM NEVER GET OVER IT
    I am certain that you are right. No one recovers fully from a false accusation, although it is significantly better to know that one is innocent as opposed to knowing one was guilty but denied it. The greater damage for sure is if children were never returned to the one accused falsely.

    Thanks for the links. All such are helpful leads.

  7. Surely you jest. Standards? For parenting? MCFD?
    This implies structure of program delivery, clear timelines, verification, testing, remedial process if standards are not followed or met. None of this exists. Any feedback by children and parents given to MCFD to help them improve their service - the path for review and improvement is nonexistant. I hope someone can prove me wrong.

    Social workers will certainly make their 'clients' jump through hoops simply for the sake of establishing if parents will comply, not based on need or correction.

    The outcome is HOPED to be negative, unsatisfactory, sub-'standard' and there is no measure or point of reference. No methedologies or timelines. Anger Management - how does one measure effectivness, or even if the service was required? Parenting courses - helpful information that serves to improve anyone's parenting - one course had clear structure and handouts. Another, intensive year-long Ministry program had none of this. Children who witness abuse counselling. Play therapy.

    Where is the standard for length and frequency of visits? For receiving reports immediately after? The process of correction? I'm not talking about the complaint process.

    Foster care requires a week orientation course. I am not aware of any guidelines that state foster parents need to help kids with school, take children to activities of their choice and pay for them. A food diet. Budget. Allowance. Expense tracking. Take them to church and maintain community involvment. Playdates.

    This is the sort of thing parents and volunteers seeking to improve outcomes of children need to be involved in diffusing the hatred people involved with MCFD have.

    If there is a punitive aspect in removing parents to 'teach them a lesson' this is counter to the principles of the CFCSA. The problem is that these violations are not being addressed.

  8. I had a bit of a break over Christmas as my file is waiting for the psychologist to assess me. We had a very good Christmas and I visited with many family and relatives without needing to muster the energy to attend to the endless draining 'services'.
    I am even a little annoyed with the insinuation that my SW has been 'nice' to me. The longer I was away from them, the more I realised how stupid the whole thing is. No one can believe I am still involved. Those who supported me thought it ended when I got my kids back.
    THe problem with MCFD is the problem with the criminal justice system. It is a very poor system.
    I went to support someone going to court and I saw that at 222 Main Street, some people are in for minor possession of pot and some are in for serious gang activity, yet the judge has to treat them all the same. THey were all released for a new court date as the system is very stalled.
    In MCFD they can take your kids so they are dangerous. After seeing their wacky policies, it would seem like a very weird thing that they can do that. Yet, they can and they do. THey take kids as a first resort not a last resort.

  9. Anon 12:40 PM IT IS A POOR SYSTEM
    Many people agree with you because they too have seen and experienced what you describe. Glad your children are back with you. Please patiently endure the sessions so you look like a model citizen to MCFD, and they finally leave you alone.

  10. If only there really was a "model" to aim for the "model citizen" citation!! Therein lies the problem . . . everyone establishes a kingdom or is it a feifdom?

  11. To Anon at January 13, 2011 12:40 PM:

    I don't want to alarm you, but what is stopping their psychologist (who always of course wants more MCFD business) from writing a derogatory report on you? How can you counter what will obviously be a slanted report? MCFD has given your kids back, but they are still in your life. Are they looking for an excuse to re-apprehend your children? Have you considered moving far away, out of their reach? I know this is not a desirable option, but it's definately better than losing your kids.

    MCFD has obviously proven, time and again, that they cannot be trusted whatsoever. Giving children back to their parents doesn't mean anything with these criminals. And people who take children without good reason are criminals, there is no other word for it.

  12. Anon 8:47 AM CRIMINALS
    Even as you write a comment like you did you know that it is an overstatement. No matter how you defend your point of view, what SW’s are doing is not a crime, not technically or legally, and they are not criminals but workers in the social science field of family and children. I say that to provide some balance to your comment and in doing so I am not denigrating the suspicion you rightfully have that MCFD contracted psychologists may write reports that influence a SW to surmise risk and danger where there really is none. I am not even denying your right to suspect MCFD of sinister motivations for apprehending and re-apprehending children, but I am saying that excessive suspicion sometimes skews reality. Having said that, perhaps only those of you who have been shafted repeatedly truly know what MCFD is capable of doing.


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