Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Your Comments about Prioritizing the Return of Children / Part 431 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

On Wednesday, January 5, 2011 I wrote Part 409 on the subject “PRIORITY: RETURN THE CHILDREN” and I began with this. “If the Ministry of Children and Family Development devoted as much time locally to develop plans to return children to their parents, as it does to justifying child removals and CCO's, fewer children would become traumatized and embittered, fewer children would be adopted, fewer families would be destroyed, fewer parents would be viewed as arch-rivals.”

Some of you wrote the following:
My children were removed and returned. Our family has had 4 years of visibility with MCFD. I cannot begin to describe the negative imposing attitude and self-serving nature of the organization and uselessness of the individual people involved.
The point is people generally do not know how pervasive the problem is, and that children are not protected, they are simply transported into the system temporarily and spat out, and there is no measurement of benefit or even a simple parent/child feedback that would permit anyone to know what changed.
Here's a U.S. Parody on child protection services. The cartoon characters look like Sarah Palin and Larry King.
When we were involved with MCFD they came into my son's high school and they tried to pull so many strings against him. MCFD here in B.C. has a very stereotyped attitude against the children in care. They are considered in need, intellectually deficient, needing to shape up, at risk of becoming involved in crime, etc.
I have seen a lot of parenting that would be written up very badly if it were my file because I have had simple things written up like they are high risk.
But if the parents are not involved, it doesn't even rate a second glance. The system is that if a parent is involved, they try to build on it as much as possible as it is easier than getting a new family to work with.
The director has spared no expense in pursuing a continuing care order on the Bayne children for the last three years. Can there be any doubt that this is a very adversarial position for him? Do you think for one minute that the judge does not already know it?
… every time-guideline in the act has been trampled on. No temporary order for more than one year? Cases on young children must be timely? Is there any one of you who thinks that three years before court is timely?
I read an editorial in The Globe and Mail that suggests that the aboriginal children in care in Alberta should be adopted by white families. It blames over political correctness for keeping these children in limbo of foster care while waiting for Aboriginal placements.
However, it is likely that an Aboriginal person has MCFD involvement their entire life. I noticed the weight of historic invovlement in taking children. So, these parents who are Aboriginal are already at risk of heving their children apprehended as they are already on file. It takes courage to have a fresh opinion that the children should be returned home to their real families.

NOTE: The comment option has been shut off until February 20th. I regret this interruption and I look forward to continuing our coverage of the Bayne case as soon as something further develops.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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